Thread: Best 3-9x40 scope under $800?

Originally Posted by Ground Control

Ive spent in the hundreds of dollars on rings / mounts etc on some rifles to get the scope ( 42mm diameter) 3-4 mm lower and get it so that the scope just clears the bolt and barrel .
I have a real OCD when it comes to scopes mounted way higher than they should be and a 56mm diameter scope would just about do my head in .

I agree, I thought the idea was to mount a scope to the rifle, not mount the rifle to the scope. Then trying to get a decent check weld.......

@Sarvo....had brain flash today about this....there is a formular out there that says your human eye can ONLY use a 7mm exit pupil ...so a 4x32mm scope has more light than your eye can use...a 6x40 has nearly all and a 6x42 is perfect..... look back to what are considered great scops or binos and you will find they pretty close to this equation.....which tells me my 3x9x50mm will be best on 7 power....balance act between most magnification and enough light.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

@Sarvo....had brain flash today about this....there is a formular out there that says your human eye can ONLY use a 7mm exit pupil ...so a 4x32mm scope has more light than your eye can use...a 6x40 has nearly all and a 6x42 is perfect..... look back to what are considered great scops or binos and you will find they pretty close to this equation.....which tells me my 3x9x50mm will be best on 7 power....balance act between most magnification and enough light.

Moa Hunter the boy to explain that better

That is why the old favourite 4*32 were so clear. 32 divided by 4 = 8, which provides more light than a young eye needs or can use. Aged eyes have a decreasing factor, say 5 or 6. Anyway, if eye is healthy a 42 m objective provides optimum useable light at 6*, no more. A 56mm objective will optimise at only 8*. In most cases invery dull light you are best to wind down a varipower to 3* or so in order to best see the target. The formula assumes good glass / lenses and coatings. Mediocre lenses reduce the effective efficient light "gathering" even more. So, ideal choices are 4*28/32, 6*42. 8*56 in minimal dull conditions.

[QUOTE=Sarvo;1058456]

Originally Posted by RyanH

What does everyone recommend in the above price range(and why please)? Not looking to go much bigger or smaller on scope size. Ideally looking for an all rounder as i'm not sure what kind of hunting I'll be doing yet (it's for my first rifle) hence me thinking a 3-9x40 should do the trick.[/QUOT


Why is NZ so behind Europe etc
40 mm is gone/over unless on a .22
All of Europe are now 56mm

Kiwi's are slow - not only to fly but to move forward
40mm ????
So yesterday mate

As from someone in Europe (well not anymore technically...) I would strongly disagree.

We are going backwards here with a figures war, First focal plane fancy competition Christmas tree illuminated reticles, objectives over 50mm, 34 36 or even 40mm housing tubes, zoom over 20x, multi-turn elevation turrets, none of this is needed on a proper hunting/stalking rifle, people are being sold target scopes for big bucks and they never come with 10% of what the scope is capable of. Few notice or care about the silly weight increase as they spend time warming a high seat or getting a poor sod (used to be me!) to carry their rifle.

Some people in the UK buy a rangefinding scope like the Swaro DS and never shoot over 200 meters, maybe the rifle is out the safe a few times a year at best.

If anything the NZ hunting crowd seems a lot more sensible, see that LPVO's (low power variable optics) have been used on bolt actions to great effect by you guys.

Don't think Leupold scopes have the glass quality of the big euro names but at least they make sensible scopes with relevant features, if their price was not artificially inflated by import duties (they come out in the ballpark price range of the big names without the same glass level) they would be a lot more popular in Europe.

Eye relief is so crucial yet this is happily given up for a better field of view, few seem to realise that you spend more time glassing with bino's or spotter than looking through a riflescope.

If the top tier glass was put into scopes with sensible features (1inch or 30mm tube, capped windage, 40-44mm objective, single turn locking elevation and maybe side focus with a 4x zoom range you would have a winner). Swaro and Leica did this for a while (special order through S&B) but the lack of demand killed these scopes, now 50mm objective is seen as minimum for marketing purposes.

Used to do work for an optics supplier and the opinion always was a quality 30-40mm objective will get you within 70-80% of the larger objectives at sensible magnification (around 8-12x). If you really need that last bit of light you have to ask if you are coming close to the limit of the law on shooting from dawn to dusk.

Companies like Vortex, Element etc have found that Chinese or Japanese factories can pump out whatever you want to be sold at a good markup (so good that they can give forever warranties), personally don't like this business model at all.

I’m tight but like quality, look out for a second hand Z3 3-9x or 3.5-10x, same for a zeiss conquest but probably avoid the z terra. Too many horror stories but no personal exp with them. Fallback position is the vx3i.

Bushnell Elite. Rainguard make a huge difference if you are hunting in drizzle or wet bush.
Nothing worse than not being able to see an animal through the scope when the lens is wet.
Had that happen with my old vx1. Never had a problem with my bushnell.

Bushnell Elite. Rainguard make a huge difference if you are hunting in drizzle or wet bush.
Nothing worse than not being able to see an animal through the scope when the lens is wet.
Had that happen with my old vx1. Never had a problem with my bushnell.

Originally Posted by Chur Bay

Bushnell Elite. Rainguard make a huge difference if you are hunting in drizzle or wet bush.
Nothing worse than not being able to see an animal through the scope when the lens is wet.
Had that happen with my old vx1. Never had a problem with my bushnell.

Agreed, the Bushnell elites were a great scope, really stood out on a wet day in the bush. Regretted selling my 4200

Graham Henry wrote great article years back spouting the virtues of a basic fixed power scope of low magnification......less to go wrong..smaller...lighter

yip still agree 100% with that.

But he ended up with a low power variable 1.5-6x swaro 30 mm tube on his open country rifle.

Originally Posted by Dicko

But he ended up with a low power variable 1.5-6x swaro 30 mm tube on his open country rifle.

He was a big fan of the 3x Leupold too.