Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Which scope should I choose out of these 4?

Bushnell 4200 4x16x40
Sightron SII big sky 4x16x42
Nikon monarh 4x16x42
Zeiss conquest 4.5x14x44
I think I have all the the scopes I want to pick from with 1 inch tubes. I will put it on a win mod70 custom featherweight 280 Ackley.
Thanks
Elmer

I've got the Monarch 4x16x42 w/sf on my heavy barreled AR - works good for me. I'm not sure this thing belongs on a featherweight however as it's pretty heavy and it has a huge rear ocular which may interfere with the bolt handle.

Of the others I'd be inclined to roll with the Sightron.

1.Conquest 2.Bushnell 4200

zeiss or sightron, I like the zeiss reticles better, sightron glass is near the same and has a better price by about $300. If you have plenty of dough and want the best go with the $800 zeiss, if you are value oriented get the $500 sightron.

I'd go with the Zeiss first, then Nikon.

Why so high power of scope for trim rifle. I think a 2x7 or 2.5x8 or so would be cool on that set up.

Ed

take a good look at the sightron. they have come a long way.

a gree with 505ed for a featherweight those are some big heavy scopes.i like the 2.5-8 and you could never go wrong with a 3-9

I'd pass on all four-
For the caliber of rifle you have, and in a lightweight, I would opt for a Leupold VXIII, 2.5x8 power, in Talley Liteweight mounts.

I've had a number of Bushnell / Bosch & Lombs in Elite 3200s. Never had a problem with them, and worked quite well.

I'd take a hard look at the new 6500 Elite. Pretty impressive...although a tad pricey over the 4200s.

That's be my choice as well..

I think there's one thing you need to check out with all four of these scopes before buying one of them, and that is eye relief.
The last thing you need on a rifle like yours is a scope that has very short eye relief.

I have a 3x9 Bushnell 4200 on my 300wsm Kimber Montana. 3.3 in. eye relief. Many of us don't hold rifles properly or know how to adjust scopes. I have way more long eye relief scopes than short. I used to drink the koolaid. I have lots of leupolds a couple of Swaro's, Zeiss's and 4200's. Let it fit the rifle and the application and be damned about the brand. That being said my favorite hunting scope is a 2.5x8 Leupold. My best resolution scope is a 2.5x10 Swaro PH. Big deal.

Yes...

If pressed to choose from your list, I would go with the zeiss. From the comparisons I've done, let me also add that I'd choose that over the 4.5x14 Leupold, too, just so I don't get accused of being a Leupold slut <g>.

Sightron II. The 4-16X is the magnification I would buy from any of those companies.

You don't describe what type of hunting/shooting you'll be doing, but if you're considering the 4200 I'll throw another vote for the Elite 6500. The 2.5-16 power model should cover just about any type of hunting you can find.

Build a nice "FEATHERWEIGHT" rifle and put a huge ugly and unnecessarily powerful scope on it, IMO that just defeats the purpose of a FWT rifle. A 2x7x33 would be a better choice IMO..and personally I would put a 1x4 Leupold or a straight 3X on a FWT..

My fwt 280AI wears a 6X42, and I think it's perfect.

Even a 3.5-10X40 looks large on this rifle, no way would "I" go larger than that.

But to answer your question, Zeiss. Although the Conquests are large, heavy scopes. Beautiful optics however.

+1

Goes to show how we all differ I consider a 2.5-8 a "large" scope; I put a 3.5-10 on my 7mm Dakota,only because a 2.5-8 did not span the rings well.I about fainted at the size of the thing......

4X16 is way to-much scope for a deer rifle like yours. I like 2X or 3X for the bottom end of variable scope for deer hunting. 12X and under for the high end. 4X16 would be the largest variable I would put on a heavy varmit rifle. I learned the value of 2X and 3X scopes for quick target acquisision a long time ago plus the handling and balanced of a well fitted rifle. Save the high powered scopes for paper punching.