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

I understand the differences and I wouldn't have thunk it, but the Ruger claw peeled away when several hundred ponds of driftwood shifted and fell against the rifle I had in my boat. And yes, I figured the scope (and/or the rifle) had bought it; it got not a mark. That's one of many abuses my scopes, mostly Leupold, have suffered in less than gentle use. I expect one could build a scope even tougher for 18 ounces vs 9, but I'm not so sure that it would matter, just as I couldn't tell any optical advantage under many of the actual conditions I hunt in. (Neither will have any discernable advantage when the lenses at either end have gotten a quick swipe with a sleeve or collar; I'll concede the advantage to other than Leupold at the sales counter however.)

The Timex/Rolex is a good analogy here. If the original question was who makes the best valued 4x scope the answer would have been fairly clear to most.

This from JB





How is better resolution ever a negative?

After reading through this thread, it appears that the only ones who have a problem with "better resolution" are the guys who own scopes that don't have it.

+1

dave

I'll take "better resolution" every time...IF...the weight, FOV, eye relief, reticle, toughness, etc...etc...etc...are equal. Nothing wrong with "better resolution", I'm all for it, but there's a lot of other factors as well.

JCM

Prezactly

Why would a gut limit himself to a 4x? Just a thunk.....

I don't know...but I sold my 2.5-8 Conquest, as I just liked my 4x Zeiss more....Crazy huh? They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and perception of desirable optic quality is subjective.

Some people believe 'Less is more.' Not an absolute (or always) mind you, but when one keeps an open mind w/equipment in hand during the moment of truth, sometimes it can amaze you what 'outdated' technology can achieve.....when the user knows what they are doing and focuses on the task at hand, and using their gear w/o worrying about what they MIGHT could have i.e. a 8x32 variable powered Hubble scope I am talking deer and larger game specifically.

I think REALITY is a quality fixed scope i.e. a 4x or 6x can "Get R Done' in the field, when that is what is in your hands, more often than the emotional FEAR that 'OMG, I only have a fixed and JUST WHAT IF' happens.

No doubt variable scope quality has advanced to leave little to be questioned, in POI shift, etc. BUT, how much of WHY the market has shifted to them, vs. real need can be questioned.

Think about it, in the USA, MORE is BETTER, become the American way, Larger houses, cars, engines in those cars, etc.

So the philosophy goes.....and industry pushes a newer way with higher profit margin products. There is a place for variables and higher powered at that, but I think its WAY over rated and exaggerated personally.

I see a huge irony in that for decades, MOST quality Bino's are FIXED power, and no one complains, yet in scopes, guys think they MUST have high powered variables. Perhaps because when shooting paper, a said scope gives the edge in smaller groups and less eye strain. Now that is not what you are doing shooting game, not putting groups on deer, etc. not multiple rounds/shots which will cause eye fatigue over time.

Let's think about the evolution of modern optics. Once there was a time when a 3-9x40 Leupold was THE scope for MANY a deer hunter in my area, considered the 'Shizzle.' Yet during the progress of optics in the USA, how many fixed power scopes were keeping pace in resolution and glass coatings to maximize light transmission? Few I would venture to say.

I think perhaps there was a lack of NEW developments or a LAG in fixed power technology by many mfg. vs. the progress made in variables.

The only way to truly TEST what's best is either in controlled scientific experiments, and/or ALOT of field experience.

If you lined up 100 average shooters, and put up life sized deer targets at ranges up to 400 yds, and had them sight in at 200 zero, knowing they need to hold a 'on the back at 300, and a foot over backline at 400' and do some test from FIELD positions, and limit their shot presentation time it would be interesting in vital hits. Let's face it though, MOST game more often than not is killed far this side of 400 yds, esp. deer and larger game. I seriously doubt many of the hunting population has even TRIED a moderate fixed power at the range on gongs, deer sized targets, etc. to really discover the potential hitting percentage they can achieve with one. Consider, military SNIPERS often use a 10x to 1,000 yds on a human target! ONE power per 100 yds! With good effect I might add, as they TRAIN, one rifle, one load, one optic, and A LOT of that ONE ammo. THEY LEARN their gear, and put it to great effect during the call of duty.

If we conducted the above proposed test, I'd venture that a good many shots would be missed when a guy has a high powered scope, cranked too high (as let's be honest, I think a Majority of average hunters crank to top power if they have the time). When you magnify the wobbles, then you start having to over correct to 'fix' the sight pic, and then you get overly confident and snatch the trigger when at that instant all looks well, yet you either pull the shot yanking a trigger in haste, or your rifle moves off target during the 'locktime/shot cycle, bullet leaves the bore lag time.'

That's my theory......may the testing begin

Now, I have no beef if one chooses to use a quality variable and if/when they really need it they utilize it's upper power, great. I simply feel that MOST shots it's not needed and a simple, high quality, light weight, fixed 4 or 6x, having a great ER, FOV, great resolution, well contrasting reticle, and light trasmission, will do a fine job afield. That's based on MY experience having killed MOST of my game under 200 yds and mostly using 4x and 6x scopes. Other hunters in other conditions/geography may feel completely sure they NEED a variable.

About that Hi Rez thing....well my Zeiss 4x32 makes me think I have a 6x42.....just looking thru it I contend, high zoom alone does not a riflescope make......but if one uses a quality variable with good qualities in all optical dimensions, they will do just fine, assuming they don't waste shot opportunity time fiddling with power and lose the opportunity to take the minimum time needed to gain a solid sight pic and proper follow thru while executing the trigger squeeze.

I have on lesser occasion used variable scoped rifles, and at times in the future will do so again. I might add, I had a 6-24x on a 6BR for paper punching, yet utilizing high BC 105gr bullets in its fast twist, used it on deer. Some killed at 40 yds, head shot, using it on 6x, and one killed at 400, chest shot and yes it was on 24x as I was trying to ensure it was no button buck, but had I only a 6x fixed I am sure I could have made the shot w/o a doubt.

I may be the oddball out there using lowly fixed scopes, but they need not take a backseat as in reality, they simply WORK.

For paper, that above 6BR shot it�s smallest group using a 4-16, as that was on it that day, and I shot very well, under � inch group, at 330 yds, yes 3.3 football fields. So if a 4x would shoot a group FOUR times larger, is not a 2� group - precision enough on game like deer? Nuff said.

When developing loads, or using a rifle for LONG range precision work, and/or varminting, then a quality variable will be utilized where needed, but I will often on a big game rifle end up w/a simple fixed 4 or 6x and never fret. They have stood the test of time in my experience. I like lesser bulk and often lower mounting, let alone the generous FOV/ER, and zero temptation to lose valuable sighting time when aiming at game because I second guess, or over think what power it's set on. YMMV

Guys, whatever scope YOU like, and works for you, and gives you confidence, use it. That's what is best for you and YOUR style of hunting!

65BR: Good post;well stated!

Friends and I have also noticed the Zeiss 4X Conquest seems like "more scope".

I guess I think so, too. I just ordered 2 more. I had to get 'em while the gettin's good. Of course, now I'll probably have to go buy rifles to put 'em on...

FC

The Conquest 4x appears the same to me. I can't put my finger on exactly why it appears as such...I even did side by side comparisons with it and a few other scopes and any magnification difference between it and other 4x's wasn't noticable, it was very apparent that 6x's had more...go figure. However, it still seems "more" if I pick that rifle up and look through the scope than other 4x's. May be that it's the resolution. I'm not sure. ....all that being said, I don't think I've NOT killed any game while hunting with other 4x's I would have killed with it. The Conquest 4x is a good package...if I could make it a 1/4 lb lighter and slimmer it might be "the" package for my hunting.

I like great glass, but in a scope there's a lot of factors that trade off one way or another. If you want to find the "best" 4x, you need to determine what factors are most important to you and use that in the final determination.

JCM

Eye relief, size, weight, adjustability, holding zero, ruggedness, field of view, optical clarity, price and how the scope will be hunted (ie. stalking, possible running shots vs. sitting in a stand with a prop and taking pokes at game) are all points of consideration when I buy a scope.

If all this is taken into account when comparing quality American optics with European scopes, both will have their advantages.

For me a generous eye box and non critical eye relief are more important than a scope that may offer a slight optical advantage, but is a little tougher to put on target quickly.

I guess it all boils down to how you plan to hunt that particular rifle as to what will determine your top considerations (needs) when buying.

JM

The Zeiss site shows the 4X Conquest and 2.5-8 Conquest to have the same weight and length!

I have a couple of 2.5-8 Conquests and other Conquest variables.

Conquest specs.

JM, agreed. I had a Swaro 6x36, ER shorter than a Leupy, but I never had any problems as it was mounted to where I threw up, it was 'there' and I had my fastest, 'put gun up, animal DRT' than ever w/that Swaro atop my RSI #1 on a wild hog. The shot cycle time was quick, at 240 yds. No looking for the view, just mount, acqire target, and squeeze. No doubt on a DGR, or on certain rifles, a scope w/really tight ER has a play on speed.

That Zeiss sure does work very well, but no doubt, so has Leupolds. I think the colors one sees is sometimes enhanced in Euro optics IME, and the resolution by the top makers is w/o question.

I do have to say yes I have looked thru some S&Bs, they were a tad heavier (were not mounted), but the view has to be seen to understand, I was impressed. No doubt, as well stated, many factors make up the 'optic package' and many out there work, some better than others.

TO my eyes, I have been more impressed w/quality lowered powered scopes i.e. 4x/6x and 1.5-6x42, they simply 'look right' when viewing thru, when you do so considering them as a sighting device on a big game rifle and what you need in them.

I contend for a hunting scope, most hunters looking at variables could do far worse than choose a quality scope as a 1.5-6x42...as coming from a fixed power fan, the 'top 3' really got my attention w/their models.

+1...

I hunt on the ground probably 90% of the time.

Being that my hearing is kinda bad from shooting with cheap ear plugs and the fact that I wear glasses now, generous eye relief is important to me.

The reason I mentioned my hearing as a factor is that deer have had a tendancy to sneak up on me the last few seasons, especially when it's wet.

When one crawls in your lap before you see him, your movement is very limited, sometimes, you'll have to take the shot from a very awkward position.

I need a scope that will allow me to do this and not knock my glasses off in the process (which I just got and hate).

I have only looked thru a few S&B's and the eye relief was less forgiving than alot of American brands. I'm not saying they won't work for me, I just would hate to drop that kind of dough on one to find out that it was a little more difficult to use for my particular situation.

All I can speak for is me, but the Leupy's have served me well in this regard, I'm sure a conquest would do a good job as well.


JM

Were the S&B mounted on rifles?

Are equal to what?

The one same factors on the scope that doesn't have the "better resolution".