Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Best 4X scope on the market???

It's not sold today but based on my experience I agree with the posters that like the old M8 4x Leupold. There's plenty of used ones out there, still under warranty, that meet most of your criteria for probably less than $150.00.

The glass might not be as bright as the newer or high end scopes but to me it's always been plenty adequate for a big game rifle. They're tough, light, mount on about anything with standard mounts, have good eye relief with fast target acquisition and hold zero. I've got one that since 1990 has been on three different long action Model 70s. Using this scope they've made one shot kills on deer, antelope and pigs from 35 paces to a little over 300; middle of the day, early and late. I've missed a few too but it's never been the scopes fault.

Always a pissing match in the Optics Forum!

Via first hand experience based on the OP's criteria, the S&B is hands down THE best fixed 4x scope IMHO/IME.

Now,.... if one expands onto the criteria with light weight, aesthetics, price (affordability), and most ER, the FX-II wins out IMHO.

I prefer 4x scopes. Even my variables are typically left on 4x and rarely dialed up, except at the rifle range.

I've owned and used a handful of the fixed 4x scopes. In order of best optics:

1. S&B
2. Kahles Helia C
3. Zeiss Conquest
4. Leupold FX-II

S&B IMHO was heavier than I liked on a light weight rifle, and the ER is shorter than I prefer.

I simply don't like the over all aesthetics and ergonomics of the Conquest.

The Kahles and FX-II are what I have remaining on my rifles.

By asking three different questions as one, and including a request for both fact and opinion, you really loaded it.

I don't see where anyone has reason to be arguing anything here. While I've never run a S&B scope, I don't doubt that they would be fantastic for target shooting; I do understand how resolution affects function. But I can't imagine how one would readily improve upon the basic Leu 4X for the hunting I do. In fact, I can't imagine that one would be able to see an optical superiority in one over the other in many of the conditions I hunt with. That said, I have no problem with the guy next to me using Partitions for hunting gophers if it makes him believe they kill better. I just wouldn't make that recommendation.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much (which means you are a typical mouthy bitch)

Course you aren't familiar with JW and I sharing barbs at time, nor me poking him in the ribs at times either. I've nothing but respect for what he has done and I'm sure you've spoke to him on the phone also?

For my purposes, the Zeiss Conquest and Leupold FX II are my choice. While I have no doubt that some of uber scopes from Europe have superior optics, your laying down twice(or more) the money for what? I've been using scopes of this class for about 30 years, and can't recall a single case where I had to pass on an animal, or missed a shot, because my scope was lacking. Hey, if spending a grand on a fixed 4x blows your skirt up, have at it. Personally, I'd rather spend up to $400 on perfectly adequate, and reliable glass, and put the other $600 towards other things, like practice ammo, and become totally familiar with my rifle, or perhaps upgrading glass where top quality is a higher priority; such as bino's and spotter. Way to subjective a subject to be definitive on, as most of these optics discussions are.

Jeff

Best means best - not best enough.

I value reliability above all else. I do not turn turrets, so tracking is irrelevant. If a scope holds zero, it is fine. If not it is junk. 0/1 - type thing.

I do not watch or monitor through a scope, just aim. Optical performance ( and shades of gray ) are irrelevant to me.

If I can see - the scope is fine; if not - its too dark out.

If I am worried about this - I do not discuss one 4x scope above the other; I would go to a 8x56 by a top maker, period.

So - I am not an optics nut, just a user.

Above defines 'best enough' for me - and that pretty much spells Leupold.

But OP requested 'best'. And that would mean also image and mechanics maxed out.

So, I would second S&B.

Basis for chiming up -

I have access to top optics at the faculty - nice, but not needed enough for me to spring the extra dough.

Eye relief seals the deal for me on never using the 4x SB again.

See - there you see, how little of an optics nerd I am.

Completly forgot eye relief. I place much ephasis on ER in selection of my scopes.

Steel,

sounds like a S&B and you butted heads at one time...

This statement is incorrect.


dave

Ask yourself if wanta hunt or stargaze. If hunting then get a leupold or anything on down. I ain't killed anything with any damn scope. If looking at the stars then something other then whats been mentioned.

Inferior optics,non tracking and point of impact shifting Leupolds are not for me.
Sorry.

dave

Why would I want cellophane between my eyes and my target?

JWP,

nobody is talking about NCStar - type optics here and you know that.

This is a 160 $ scope:



Weaver 4,75x40 Grand Slam

Other than in extreme lighting conditions, optical quality simply does not matter in a hunting scope to me.

There seem to be some people in agreement...

I'm gonna have to try that. Does it help?

After looking thru cellophane, I bet a 40.00 scope would look terrific.

CMG,

I hope you didn't shoot that poor critter while it was taking a poop.

JM

I agree with you in the lighting conditions and white background in the picture you posted.

Let the lighting get low and have an animal in the trees deep in the shadows and it's a totaly different ballgame. That is important to me, maybe not for you

I'm in the process of getting glasses. The shadows and dark timber kill me at dusk, even with a scope, I have found myself fighting not so much to identify antlers, but gauge the rack in order to determine if it is a shootable buck according to our rules.

I shoot decent scopes, higher end Leupy's and Nikons, but I guess nothing can make up for failing eyesight better than glasses, but I'm thinking of trying one of these premuim scopes in the hopes of avoiding the frustration that comes with the type of situation mentioned above.

It's really not the fact that I may have to let a shootable buck go, it's more the realization that things don't work as well as they used to that kinda makes you a little sad.


JM

John Moses,

that fox got shot.

JWP,

that pic was NOT posted to illustrate a point about lighting conditions but image clarity and your cellophane pun.

Life is about choices.

Pray, do not tell me an animal is getting away at the last 4 minutes of light because of shadows and some such if I only sport a Leupy or above Weaver instead of a S&B 4x.

Thats hogwash. I have tried it.

An idea to clarify my drift.

I speak solely of aiming the shot; the purpose of the scope. For identification, there is binos, IMHO.

I've tried it also and it's not BS

I don't think the animal will get away if you have made up your mind to take him CMG, regardless of scope make.

But if there are antler restrictions where you hunt, and it's dusk dark and the buck is standing in the timber, might a premuim scope with more clarity help you determine if that animals antlers meets the criteria under which you hunt?

I'm guessing here, but I hope that an extra grand spent on a scope will buy you something.

JM