Printable View
I'm think of upgrading one of my scopes (they're all cheapies).
I was thinking about a Leupold VX1, but wondered if there are better value for money scopes around.
Currently using a Bushnell 3-9*40, but may look for a less powerful one as Most shooting is less than 100 yards.
I understand the concept of upgrading scopes but if you are shooting less than 100m and the scope you have is still working, then I see little point in changing.
You would be spending money just for the sake of it.
My thoughts anyway.
I have to agree with Jim. If it works don't change it and while the vx1 might be a little clearer at under 100m are you really going to notice it?
How much less powerful would you like? 3x power would suit most conditions?
Also IMO just like a rifle you need to try and see what suits you for eye relief etc. I personally would love to own a Trijicon, i love the damn things but the bank balance says....ehhhh nah!
figure out reticle etc and see but if i was you save the cash.
good luck and if you have money to play around with, your a lucky bugger.:thumbsup:
Quite right. The main enefit you could get would be a bettr reticle. If under 100m you probably need a nice thick one to see in low light. Leupold standard duplex was too fine for me.
If its holding zero, not fogged and not too dim in the bush then maybe not much need to upgrade. If you actually want to shoot 200m then vx1 would be a good start maybe in 2-7x which is what i had. Others could advise better whether redfield bushnell burris weaver could be ok too. Do look through one, not buy sight unseen by net. Maybe upgrade your mounts at the same time ?.
The more you can save to spend on glass the better, for near or far it makes no difference.
Saying he shoots less than 100m so doesn't need good glass is bs.
Good glass wins every time particularly
at dusk or dawn in the bush.
I'm not saying you need a S&B but a vx1 or if you can save for a vx3 or similar will put more meat on the table.
Good advice, there's not much wrong with current scopes, probably better than my shooting. Other than the odd person laughing at my Tasco there isn't really a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim160
No Brads it'snot bs....yes we all know good glass helps but it's not like he has a $50.00 imported piece of shit on it now is it?
Yes your right he has a bushnellQuote:
Originally Posted by Willie
Im with brads. I used to think cheap was alright then I actually got to look through some decent glass while hunting with this .243 loving queer once and its awesome.
Thats where you notice the difference. While hunting not in the shop as a no brand chinese scope put together by a 5yr old would look ok in a shop. Last light though is a whole new story. My zeiss and leica shit all over any nikko sterling and tasco compared side by side one evening
Not saying go pay $4000 scope but saving for something decent is a good idea. HD5 is my next scope
Hey i'm all for great glass not an issue there but bushnell isn't a pile of dog poo. As i said i love Trijicon for low light, the reticle for my eye is great, about the only time i see clearly, however at 100m I would say right now a Bushnell would be just fine. I changed my last scope fro 2 reasons: 1 It didn't have enough variable power for my eye and 2 the reticle I have now is far nicer for my eye.
Curious Grotto, what's your wallet allowing you to throw at a new scope?
Better to spend your money on a new pair of glasses!:thumbsup:
Under 100m Im guessing bush. Bush gets dark before open land so decent glass will make the difference between placing a shot and having to let it walk off
at the $700 -$1000 range i would rate Vortex Viper and Nikon Monarch scopes haven't need to compare with anything else.
What model Bushnell is it? Might be better than a VX1 anyway.
a bushnell elite 3200 is at worst the same as a vx1... by my eyes its a bit better and the rainguard works
I think it's a banner dusk-dawn, and the Tasco is a World Class. Also have an antique Weaver 2.5 custom on my 22 which is surprisingly good.Quote:
Originally Posted by GravelBen
Don't want to spend more than $400.
Maybe it's better to use what I have and save a bit more.
Most of my shooting was when I was young, and none of us had scopes. Still seemed to hit plenty, but didn't have glasses back then.
Leopold 2-7x33 would be my first pick. Fits your budget, the lower 2x power is awesome, as to is the fov and extra long eye relief that Leopold have. Plus a bullet proof design that is 100% backed up by Leopold.
I have three of these, one is 13 years old and was used daily for about 10 years goat hunting...
Kj
Nah after a few hundred and a little gst at the eye quack and telling me there is nothing they can do I prefer to spend the rest on scopes lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Maca49
+2 on a leupold vx2 or vx1 in 2-7x33.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Burris Fullfield 2s are good scopes for a reasonable price. They will be a million times better than your Tasco.
If you don't shoot more than 100 yards, I would probably go for a lower magnification on the bottom end, would help greatly for fast close shots.
I rate them as well , I've compared Burris full field to my vortex diamond back, in low light the Burris won hands down with out a doubt !Quote:
Originally Posted by Beetroot
A vx3 or similar as quoted above wont put more meat on the table it doesnt matter what scope you have its more about the nut behind the but! but thats beside the point. Obviously within reason if you spend a bit more than 2-300$ that will get you something reasonable for sure as well a good set of mounts
a vx1 wouldnt be an improvement over the bushnell you have unless you buy an elite with rainguard
I have a redfield 2-7x32 for sale if anyones interested, just upgraded to another bushnell
Burris fullfields are nice scopes although common are good value they do a 2-7 version I believe also
That would do the job nicely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
As far as I can gather any decentish scope on low power will gather much more light than the eye can use and hence make the +/- 10% light transmission of a very good scope vs an ok scope negligable(exit pupil theory). Top end of the mag range is where this makes a big difference. I have noticed than in low light conditions my cheapo Nikon wound down to 3x will appear brighter than viewing through the naked eye. Such is the theory anyway.
Havnt looked through high quality scopes at low power, but the good scopes I have looked through were miles better wound up over 6-7x
Bushnell Legend Ultra HD - 4.5-14X44.
I have one in my CZ .22lr, I have shot both of my rifles with one after the other and this scope REALLY impressed me. Maybe shame to say but a bit better than my Vortex's in some low light conditions.
Mac