6-24X50 30mm scope - which one?


Dec 12, 2003
Seasons greetings everyone, new to this board. I am looking to purchase a 6-24X50 scope (30mm) to mount on top my Weatherby Super Varmint 223 for general range and varmint shooting less than 500 yards. Have narrowed the choices to these 3 (all within about $100 of each other):

1. Burris Black diamond 6-24X50 ($700)
2. IOR Tactical 6-24X50 ($860)
3. Leupold Long Range 6.5-20X50 ($750)

All have side focus, 30mm tube, 50 Obj. Mil-dot reticle.

Please help me decide?
Morning Mark, I'll take the Burris, Got a 6-24xSig. on my 223 and it's great!
Feiffer, Just wondering what you want a 30mm tube for, you could save yourself alot of money by going with the Burris 6-24Sig. with Bal. mil-dot for $519, got one laying around that used to be on my son's 22-250, doesn't have side focus, but that's no big deal, excellent scope, clarity and all that. Jay

[ 12-12-2003: Message edited by: Jay Gorski ]

[ 12-12-2003: Message edited by: Jay Gorski ]
Leupold---Now that you have an answer from all three choices, which one you gonna pick???
feiffer, Just looked on Midway's website, They have a refurbished 6-24 BD with Bal. mil-dot for 562. and change,(not side focus model though) only one(1) left, scoop that baby up! Jay

[ 12-12-2003: Message edited by: Jay Gorski ]
I would go for the 8 1/2X to 25X 50mm leupold LR 30MM tube with the side wheel focus for the same price as you have down for the 6 1/2X to 20X in the same series scope.

Great warrenty on Leupolds.

Thanks for the input everyone. I wanted a 30mm tube because I can use a Medium weaver style rings instead of high rings. It's too bad we don't get any objective evaluations of side-by-side comparisons. I picked up my PC magazine and they do this all the time with different computers including benchmarks. Too bad I don't see any articles like that. Is it possible that anyone has all 3 and can give reasons for one over the other? Optics clarity, duarability, precision of adjustments, ...etc.

Jay, I wanted the side-focus. I prefer not turning the front AO ring. Also on the old Burris, the whole OBJ rotates, making it difficult to put the flip-up cover.

BTW, the Burris is a hugh scope. It's 16.9" long (as compares to 14.3" for Leupold and 16" for the IOR). Still undecided, will read more articles on the forum.

[ 12-12-2003: Message edited by: feiffer ]
feiffer, not to muddy the waters, but how about a Zeiss Conquest in 6.5-20x50? It's a one-inch model, the only way it comes.

New in box. Mildot reticle, side parallax adjustment knob, target turrets with 1/4 MOA clicks.

$699 shipped or pick it up in SF East bay area for $679.

Need the funds to pay a supplemental property tax bill, not a happy surprise. I've had the scope for just 3 days!
It would be hard to make a bad choice with these three!!All will get the job done.
The leupold has good glass,great warrenty but will cost you more by the time you send it to Premeir to have rangeing dot put into it.I see they are comeing out with a gold series that have a makeshift rangeing reticle?
The Burris is tuff and again has a good warrenty.They can be had with the Bullistic plex but not sure how they would work with at 223 velosities.The glass would be iffiest of the three.
My choice would be and has ben the IOR.Best glass of the three HANDS DOWN.The NP8 reticle would allow you to shoot past 500yards on a calm day with minimal dialing.Pick you supplier well(they are tuff and trouble free though).
If you like turning the terrents to dial range any of the three would work with the IOR haveing the the best glass.
None of my business but I just don't see the need for more than 12-15 power on a .223, the little rascals can only shoot so far accurately and mirage gets ugly when you crank up to higher powers.

I would look at 2.5/3.5-10 Leupold or Nikon Tacticals or the 4-16's from those same companies. About the same money I believe. The 4-16 Nikon is an amazingly bright and sharp scope.

Most big range scopes get very dark when you crank up the power, plus you usually lose about 1/3 or more of your eye relief and a hell of a lot of field of view.

The .223 can be pushed out to 500 on prairie dog type targets but scope power is not a factor in hitting at that distance. The ultra-long range and benchrest guys need big power factors but for hunting, field of view and eye relief are very significant. I have not used IOR but have some time on Leupies and Burris high range scopes - optically they are very close, comes down to the turrets for me and Leupy wins.

Quantifying image quality could be done but the rifle scope industry seems to ignore the fact that the camera lens people do it all the time.
Ian, since the 6-24x50 covers the 4-16x50 range pretty well and has a better top end, what will be the disadvantage to get the 6-24 and just turn down the zoom ratio?
Ian M has a good point.I have 12x Leupold(1") and 16X IORs on my 223 prairie dog guns....They work great.The biggest advantages are rangeing and the POI does not change when I change the power(fixed).
About the only thing they have trouble with is close moveing targets.
If you are thinking IOR you might want to check out the 16X with NP8 reticle.It has a big field of view for a 16x scope.
Warning! This thread is more than 21 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.