Best Scope For Big Game Rifle

Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by dimecovers3, Dec 22, 2004.

  1. dimecovers3

    dimecovers3 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    82
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    I would like to hear from guys who have owned scopes I have only read about. I have a .270 with a 2.5 x 8 Leupold that sits in a Redfield one piece base and rings. I have never lost zero with it in all most 20 years and the scope has been used hard and never babied. I want to build a new rifle (maybe a .280 or 7mm/ 08 ) on a 700 Titanium action and while I shoot often at 40 yards, I also have a gas line and a powerline on my lease and I set up frequently to shoot up to 400 yards. I enjoy the long shot. My question is this next rifle will wear a new scope. I have thought about 2-10 Nikon, the new Leopolds but maybe higher , say up to 12 or 14 magnification, but nothing above 44mm, one inch tube maybe an A.O.. I want it to sit low. Are the new Leopolds a big improvement? How about lighted recticles?-----I shoot alot right before dark, dark. Are they a plus or minus for the other 90% of the time? I have also wondered about that scope test doen in Europe on here in a recent posting and thought of Zeiss. If you could only own one scope for a very accurate .280 A.I. for ever and would be hunting deer in brush/woods and fields, what would it be? And while your at it, what about bases and rings for the model 700? Two piece bases with no adjustment screw and leopold rings? Talley ? I would like to save weith , not money and never have them need to be retighted. Looks are somewhat important and having them just barely clear the barell is key. Please let me know what you know,
    Thanks
     
  2. ewallace

    ewallace Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    991
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    I would go with a Swarovski Pro-Hunter 1.5-6x42 or a Swarovski Pro-Hunter 2.5-10x42 these are 30 mm toob and would be better in low light then 1" if you are hunting in low light. I have been hunting with one of Swarovski 1.5x6x42 for some time on a 7mm Rem Mag and have maid shots with this combo on Elk at 650 yards.
    Crow Mag
     
  3. sakofan

    sakofan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    528
    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2003
    [ QUOTE ]
    I would go with a Swarovski Pro-Hunter 1.5-6x42 or a Swarovski Pro-Hunter 2.5-10x42 these are 30 mm toob and would be better in low light then 1" if you are hunting in low light. I have been hunting with one of Swarovski 1.5x6x42 for some time on a 7mm Rem Mag and have maid shots with this combo on Elk at 650 yards.
    Crow Mag

    [/ QUOTE ]

    While I concede that the Swaro PH is a great hunting scope, the 30mm tube increasing low light performance is not accurate.
    A 30mm tube allows for more windage and elevation adjustments than a 1" tube. Increased light transmission is not a factor that the human eye can detect between the 30mm tube and the 1".
    Supposedly a tougher, stronger design as well. I'm a fan of 30mm tubes too.

    Do you have certain budget in mind??...sakofan...
     
  4. COBrad

    COBrad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    947
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    I'll throw my $.02 in. I am a long time IOR fan, I currently have a couple of them. On my elk rifle, a .300 Jarrett, I have used an IOR 2.5-10 with their MP8 reticle for 8 years. Very good scope IMO. That said, I recently purchased a Kimber in .300WSM, and put a 3.5-10 Zeiss Conquest on it. I think the Zeiss is brighter, equally sharp, and seems to have a larger field of view. I really like IOR's MP8 reticle and their turrets. Both scopes are mounted in Talley mounts, as is a 6-24 IOR that rides on a very accurate Cooper 22-250. I have a set of Burris Signature rings on a .243 Kimber, also carrying a Zeiss Conquest. The Signature rings work fine, but they are no where near the quality ring that the Talley's are. In time, they will be replaced with a set of Talleys.
     
  5. Jon Bischof

    Jon Bischof Active Member

    Messages:
    29
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Dimecovers3: I have a Leupold VXIII Mildot scope that I like very much, but I have closely compared this scope on far away objects with the Burris Black Diamond and I have to admit, my test showed that you could see details and slightly better resolution on these objects with the Burris Black Diamond. It takes Superb optics to clearly beat Leupold Vari-X III.

    I also like the new side-focus Burris Black Diamond with the Ballistic Mildot reticle. It is a quicker way of making 300 and 400 yard shots without having to crank scope turrets. You do have to sight it in to your load and practice with it--but it can be very accurate for shots under 500 yards and much quicker than cranking turrets or figuring holdover on a traditional mildot reticle.

    If you are thinking of shooting over 500 yards, you will need a very accurate barrel (perhaps heavier than you would want to carry very far) and a scope that you can crank MOA corrections on the turrets.

    But for your kind of hunting (under 500 yards) I highly recommend the Burris Black Diamond 4-16X. You will like the side-focus PA and you will love the clear optics and the Ballistic Mildot reticle. Making a 300 yard shot with this requires only a steady rest and a deer that will hold still for about 4 or 5 seconds. I know, I practice with it at 200 and 300 and am absolutely confident of being able to kill deer with it at those distances. If you could set up a two-point rest in your deerstand or box or whatever you use--you could make those 300 yard shots consistently (given that you execute the basic breathing and marksmanship techniques well).

    I use a .270 WSM Model 70 Winchester, but the gun you are building sounds like it will be a great gun for what you want it to do.
     
  6. dimecovers3

    dimecovers3 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    82
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Budget? Well, I am not going to go crazy on this, but good optics cost good money. I just want the best to a point..Say maybe $1000.00 is absolute. I am ahving trouble with all the confusion over 30mm tube verses 1 inch. So many of the Euro-scopes are now in American one inch....Why? Does 30 mm present mounting problems? The Zeiss and Swaraski in a 2to4 by 9to12 and under 44 mm are about it, but I would really like to buy s Leupold but wonder if these new models are a ploy to save money or are they really a big improvment? Thanks for all thE INPUT!
     
  7. wapiti13

    wapiti13 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    521
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    Since you are looking at 400-500 yd zone, I would take a real hard look at Swarovski 3X9X32 with a TDS reticle in the AV (1") series. This scope won't be available until mid-year since it is being announced at the Shot Show. I've been yelling at Swarovski for years to put the TDS in the 3X9. Scope will mount low & is only slightly bigger that your 2.5X8 Leupold. If you want slightly bigger, go to the Swarovski 3X10X42 AV series. Either scope will do the job in low light. A 30mm tube is stronger, slightly brighter?, and heavier. For 99% of hunting within your range, the 1" series will do great. I've hunted with the 3X9 for years. My only complaint was the standard reticles. Now with the TDS coming out, you can "adjust" your MPOA so the stadia in the TDS will work out to 600 yds with the 280AI caliber. I shoot a custom 284, and can go 600 yds with mildots, and the TDS is even easier to use. Also, you have a 10 mph wind correction built into the reticle! Great scopes. For mounts, I also vote for the Talley system.:)
     
  8. dimecovers3

    dimecovers3 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    82
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    This sounds like I need to check into one. There is a gunshop in town that sells this brand and I'll go and see a model that is available now with the system you were after them to put into the 3x9 to see what has got you so big on it for and if I like it half as much as you do, I could order one/ Mid summer would be long, but worth the wait. Any idea the street price for each model you spoke of? Do they have A.O. ? Do I want an A.O. scope also? Thanks,
    Steve
     
  9. sakofan

    sakofan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    528
    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2003
    I have to say that $1000 buys a lot of scope!!

    Wapiti13's recommendation of the Swaro A-Line sounds good to me. I don't own one, but have drooled, or I mean admired them at stores and ranges for some time now. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

    Under a grand to boot! A great scope for a fraction of the price of a Swaro PH, Zeiss Diavari, S&B, etc.

    I prefer 30mm tubes. But, I have owned many 1" tubed scopes and have loved them as well...sakofan..Good luck and Merry Christmas to all!!

    dime, where do you live in NC?? I live in Dallas.
     
  10. dimecovers3

    dimecovers3 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    82
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Totally off the subject, but how do you like the.284? Is it a stock .284 in a custom gun or is the .284 a modification for you? I am really thinking I want to shoot a 140 grain 7 mm bullet at about 3000 fps and a 7mm / 08 almost makes it and a .280 AI does, but I would prefer a short action. The titanium 700 does not come in .280, only .270 and I have been told that can not be fixed by a barell change. They do make it in the 7 MM /08
     
  11. rost495

    rost495 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    222
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2003
    There is no reason you can't rebarrel the titanium for any cartridge that will work in a long action. Whoever told you that 280 won't work is BSin'g you.

    But I don't think there is enough weight savings vs a normal action to be worth that amount of money. The weight savings Rem lists, is due to the stock and barrel contour.

    Jeff
     
  12. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I'll tell you. I own a few Leupolds and just recently bought a couple of nikon Monarchs. I think the Nikons have better resolution.
     
  13. dimecovers3

    dimecovers3 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    82
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    What they told me was that a .270 can not be used to make a .280 (and I a very vague on this) chamber action becuace there is one particular dimension that was put in to keep people from accidently loading .270 in their .280 gun and blowing themselves up. Seems this is one of the few cases this is a situation from a simple rechambering that does not work, but I hope you are right. A very respected gunsmith that does tactical and hunting rifles told me.
     
  14. wapiti13

    wapiti13 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    521
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    My 284 is a custom rifle built on the short 700 Titanium. 22.3" Douglas barrel with a Lone Wolf stock. Custom benchrest chamber with slightly more clearance in the neck area. I can get 3000 fps with the 140 Barnes X bullet with 3/4" accuracy.
    The 1" Swarovski does not come with an AO until you get into the 6X18X50 version (too big for my hunting rifle). But the parallax is not a real problem with the constant 3.5" eye relief and mounting the stock consistently. Being a European scope, parallax is corrected at 100 meters. I usually send the scope in to the factory to have parallax set out to 150 meters. Have not seen a real problem making hits at 400-600 yd range. Your dealer should have a 3X10 or some other size with the TDS reticle. You can adjust your MPBR to have the TDS work for any load in the velocity you're talking about. You can go on the Swarovski website to read about the TDS reticle system. Website is out of date, so don't believe everything you see about reticles. Clarity and brightness of the Swarovski scopes are well worth the cost (around $800.00 discounted thru Cabela, etc.).