Long range hunting scope

[4xforfun]

5-20 nightforce shv are pretty awesome for the price.

Agreed.

But...with up to a 2 K budget, I would step up to the 5.5-22 NSX. 50 or 56mm...pick your poison.

Tod

 

[5RWill]

I wouldn't pay the price for an NSX truthfully, less one was on sale. With a 2K budget i'd look to an ATACR, Zeiss V6 conquest are nice for the money as well. Might could find a used USO in that price range also.

Depends on what you're looking for though, I'd honestly go with a 4-16 ATACR for a little more or if you can find a deal on one.

For the money and features the LRHS is a great scope if you like FFP i personally do. Glass is well above it's price range.

Last leupold i had was a mark 6 that didn't track worth a ****. Since i've been skeptical of leupold, i also am strictly Mil/Mil and there aren't many hunting scopes in that category

 

[trumperman]

Whatever you do consider the Schmidt Bender PMII 5-25×56

 

[Rich Coyle]

Which brands? Bushnell and leupold?

Those were the two mentioned.

 

[Buffalobob]

The question is what are you planning on shooting at and how far do you plan to shoot. You don't need to spend $2K to shoot deer sized animals at 500 yards but if you are planning on shooting small creatures at 500 yards then perhaps glass quality and adjustment quality become important if it is important to you to hit them consistently. For deer sized animals at 1K I like at least 20X mag and 50mm objective with a 30 mm tube for vertical adjustment.
I have a 10 year old Vx3 LR that is easily adequate to 1K for deer sized animals.

So much depends on what you want to do with the scope.

 

[Canhunter35]

Those were the two mentioned.

I don't really have enough experience behind a bushnell, but when I bought my lrp I compared it against the dmr2, to my eyes the lrp had better brighter colour. But that's pretty subjective. I liked the dmr2 but not as much

 

[Shane Lindsey]

I've got a 3.5-15 NSX on a sporter weight 30-06. It makes it "akward" to carry. Almost unbalanced. It is bombproof and that is what sold me, but if I was to do it over I would look to a lighter weight scope for this carry rifle. You say weight doesn't matter, but consider how the rifle "carries".

Consider what you are doing with it?
Is it hike up the mountain and pull it out of a pack or are you going to spot amd stalk also?
Do you primarily drive to the top of the mountain and pull it out?

 

[Luke.Nukem]

Thanks for the replies. I am currently leaning toward either a bushnell lrts 4-18x44 or a nightforce atacr 4-16x42.

For those who asked, my intended purpose is deer sized game out to 600-700 yards.

 

[Canhunter35]

Thanks for the replies. I am currently leaning toward either a bushnell lrts 4-18x44 or a nightforce atacr 4-16x42.

For those who asked, my intended purpose is deer sized game out to 600-700 yards.

A friend has two atacr, great scopes but he's complained about really needing a 2lb scope on his rifles? They are great scopes though

 

[Luke.Nukem]

The bushnell is 28oz, the nightforce is 30oz. 2 oz doesn't concern me.

 

[Canhunter35]

The bushnell is 28oz, the nightforce is 30oz. 2 oz doesn't concern me.

So they're both heavy

A Zeiss conquest v6 3-18x 50 weighs 22 ounces
Food for thought

 

[timmymic]

I'd recommend the Leupold VX5HD or VX6HD - Both have locking turrets, zero stops, options for illuminated reticles, and are pretty lightweight.

What about the new Mark 5? Just $100 more than the VX6 but it think may be better for low light with the short 35 mm main tube? 44mm objective to keep it low to the rifle. Locking turrets for windage and elevation. Looks like a pretty good scope and in that budget.

 

[Rich Coyle]

What about the new Mark 5? Just $100 more than the VX6 but it think may be better for low light with the short 35 mm main tube? 44mm objective to keep it low to the rifle. Locking turrets for windage and elevation. Looks like a pretty good scope and in that budget.

What does the 35mm tube have to do with "low light"? My experience show a larger objective is better than a 44 if both have the same quality of glass.

 

[timmymic]

What does the 35mm tube have to do with "low light"? My experience show a larger objective is better than a 44 if both have the same quality of glass.

From what I was reading the short large tube allowed for better light transmission than a larger objective with a smaller Long Main tube.