so i need a scope thats going to handle the recoil, now i have people stronly recommending the leupold to me, but the way im looking at it. should i get the high end Bushnell elite, or the low end leupold?. which would be better lol. the rifle is going to be used for a lot of 500ish yard target shooting. thats my goal anyways.
im leaning towards the bushnell or the leupold, the bushnell is huge, but i kinda like it, but i think the leupold might be better.
these are the ones i was looking at in my price range, i cant for the life of me make up my mind.
Let me know, which would be best and why, thanks. im very new to long range shooting.
Thanks for your help.
This is what I bought:
Estimated price on website:
SN 3 3.2-17
# ERGO - Standard - Standard Option
# 44mm Low Profile - Standard Option
# 30mm - Standard Option
# Matte Black - Std - Standard Option
# US#3 Metric elevation and windage
# Mil-Scale MPR
# 11 Pos Rheostat (Red)
# Standard Housing - Standard Option
# Rapid Focus - Standard Option
thankyou for voting, but can anyone elaborate on their choices? i am very new to this and totally clueless.
The higher the power the higher qiuality the optics you need. The lower quality gear has average manufacturing tolerances on glass lenses and this is important when above 10X. US/German gear is built rugged. If you are shooting in the hills versus shooting at the range even more important that optics are quality and robust to handle the knocks. I've use Leupold, Kharls, Burris and mate has Swaroshki.
Liked the 30mm Burris euro diamond had as good a night view as the Kharls scope and better than the Leupold vari 111.
Same rule applies to binnoculars el cheapo are hopeless at longer range and in poor light don't believe the blurb sheets.
Sell the wife and spend a dollar on good optics you will never regret that decision.
I tested 4 scopes side by side a while ago. They were the leupold Mk4 3.5-10x40sf, Mk4 4.5-14x50sf, Nikon monarch gold 2.5-10x44sf, bushnell elite 3200 5-15x40 tactical AO.
I was testing the clarity and light gathering of each, not recoil performance, but I'll share what I found.
Testing was conducted at 125 yards using a near by tree line as my target. I wanted to see what difference these scopes would have in the image color quality and difinition/resolution at different levels of daylight.
I tested at 5x and 10x.
All the scopes proformed equally well, giving proper colors of the leaves (this was durring the fall, so I had several different colors to choose from). Durring the last 10 minutes of the testing (as daylight was diminishing) the bushnell could no longer give good detail/difinition on the leaves and twigs, only the nikon and leupold with the 50mm odjective continued to preform well. At the end it was a toss up between which was better the Leupold Mk4 4.5-14x50sf or Nikon gold monarch 2.5-10x44sf.
All of these have proven to me to track well at the range durring box testing. I like the nikons adjustments the best, they just seem to "click and feel" better than the others. If only I could swap out the turrets and covers with a exposed turret like my other tacticals have.....
For the money I think Nikon is the way to go. But if you are not shooting in low light conditions the bushnell is just as good. But thats just my 2 cents...