Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics best scope?

if you want to buy one best big game rifle scope for 300rum. who makes the best scope ?

Everybody's "best" is different.
<br>
<br>My "best" for a cartridge like that,for BIG country,would be the Leupold 4.5-14X LR with mil-dots and turrets. Should weight be a concern or shots not be that long,the 3.5-10X by the same maker,with 40mm objective would get the nod as long as it had an elevation turret.
<br>
<br>Your mileage may vary..............

My "best" would be a Swarovski Pro-Hunter 3-12x50 with the TDS reticle.
<br>
<br>I think any quality scope in the 3-12 or 4-16 range would be perfect for a big game scope, if you want to use one gun for just about everything.

The best information I have is that it is made by Leupold. Only Zeiss has better optical quality, by 0-3%, depending on model, and conditions of use.
<br> Leupold has the best reputation for durability-period.
<br> A couple of suggestions. The 50 mm scopes, according to the guys I know who have used them, are really only useful in full darkness.
<br> Usually, in low light situations, the reticle gets lost (you can't see it) before you can't see the critter in the scope.
<br> The Mil-Dot system is very useful. It allows quick ranging, provides alternate aiming points for holdover, and hold off for windage. However, I find it doesn't hold up well in poor light. The standard duplex is better.
<br> For serious low llight use, a european style reticle is much better. I favor the 4a.
<br> You might query the Long Range board for suggestion if your into that type of shooting.
<br> For that rifle, I would go for the Leupold VarXIII Long Range M1 30 mm scope.
<br> If you want something special in the way of reticles, try Premier Reticules, www.premierreticles.com. E
<br>

Make mine a Zeiss VM/V 3x12x50 with a mil-dot reticle.
<br>
<br>Rick

Eremicus,
<br>
<br>If I read you post correctly. You are saying that only a Zeiss is better than a Leupold and just barely at 0-3% and depending on conditions.
<br>
<br>First what is it 0% or 3%. What conditions would alter the results. And where did you get these numbers?
<br>
<br>You really think Leupold is better than Swarovski, Schmidt & Bender, Kahles, etc.?
<br>
<br>By Leupold's own admission the VariX-III is 5% brighter than the new VX-II solely because the VX-II is not fully-multi coated. And you would have us believe that nothing is better than a Leupold except maybe a Zeiss but that depends on model and conditions and if we get the right model and conditions then its only 0-3% better.
<br>
<br>Second point you make that I also strongly disagree with is your second hand information regarding 50mm scopes. "Only useful in full darkness". The only thing that is useful in full darkness is night vision or a flash light. First you have to understand exit pupil and lens coatings before you can understand why a 50mm scope is no brighter than a 20mm scope. A 1.5-5x20 will be just as bright as a 3-12x56 as long as you put the 1.5-5 on 3x and the 3-12x56 on 8x. This way they will both have a 7mm exit pupil. The only advantage to a larger objective lens is the ability to use a higher power in low light conditions. I like to shoot on about 7x so I like a 50mm lens. It has yet to enable me to shoot in "full darkness".
<br>
<br>I'm with ya on the 4a, but don't understand how the mil-dot does not hold up well in low light. Please explain.
<br>
<br>Thanks for your time E,
<br>Chris Farris
<br>

Rick,
<br>
<br>That scope does not exist. We did have Zeiss make a special run of 3-12x56 VMV Illuminated Mil-Dots and they are awesome. Zeiss does not make a 3-12x50. They should because a 3-12x50 mil dot VMV would be a hit.
<br>
<br>

Chris:
<br>
<br>Ah yes, you are right. The 50mm comes in the VM/V 2.5-10, not the 3-12. Bummer. 56 is too big for my taste.
<br>
<br>In that case, for that 300 RUM, make mine a 5-15x42 T*
<br>
<br>Course, that whole rig would be heavy (I'm assuming a 26" tube) ... too heavy for my taste in a .30 caliber. I prefer my upcoming .30-06 Ack Charlie Sisk is building with my Zeiss Diavari Z 3x9x36. Just a bit handier, anyway.
<br>
<br>Chris, how does the Conquest compare to the Diavari C series? Would I notice a quality difference if I were to pick up a Conquest for my .300 Winchester?
<br>
<br>Rick

mun,Lots of good advise here.Id have to stick with SWFA on the 3-12x50 Swarovski or one of the new Ziess VMs.Leupold generally does ok but there quality can be very spottie.Ive been known to pick on Leupold from time to time but all in all there really over priced for all the better there optics are.MHO on this is not based on something I read in a book but by 15 years of Benchrest Shooting and over 31 years of big game hunting.Ive done alot of comparing myself as Ive had as many as 22 Leupolds and about 10 Euro rifle scopes over the years.The euro scopes Ziess, Swarovski and Schmidt & Bender are much better for seeing your game as it starts to get dark out.No question about it.the Euros win flat out everytime.You could always call up Jim Borden and ask him why he recommends, and test all his rifles for accuracy with a Swarovski.You did say you wanted the best.You will pay for it.
<br>dave
<br>

THANKS YOU ALL FOR YOUR OPINIONS,
<br>
<br>CHRIS,,, WHAT HAPPEN TO MY SCOPE AT YOUR
<br>THE SAMPLE LIST. SWAROVSKI 4-12X50 AL ?
<br>I WAIT TOO LONG FOR IT. !!!!!!
<br>THANKS FOR ALL YOUR HELP..

Hi Chris. I got the 0-3% figure from the DEVA tests reported in John Barsness's book "Optics for the Hunter". This was the best information available in 1999. He also had sevaeral human testers test The Swaro 3-10X42, the Zeiss 3-9X36 MC, and the Leo. 3.5-10X40 VariXIII. All reported these scopes to be equal in optical quality at dusk. The tests were done over several days by several people.
<br> The DEVA tests tested the Swaro 1.5-4.5X20, the Leo. 1.5-5X20, and the Zeiss 1.25-4X25, as well as the Swaro 3-12X56, the Leo. 3.5X50 variXIII, and the Zeiss 2.5-10X48. The tests were done using a spektral photo meter under lab conditions. They were tested under full daylight and twilight conditions.
<br> The Zeiss small scopes were 1.5-3% brighter than the small Leo. The small Swaros were .6-3.6% less bright than the small Leos. In the big Zeiss, the Leos were equal. The Swaros were 3-5% less bright.
<br> On this board we have two well known, knowledgable posters, JJ and Matt in Virginia, who have tried the various S&B, and Swaro scopes. They reported they are no better than the better Leos. Matt, who really believed he would find them better, was particularly disappointed. He told me, via e-mail, that he spent alot of his own money, and time, just to discover they were no better.
<br> Based on all these sources I do believe they are, for all practical purposes, as good as any in the world. Afterall, a few percentage points is very hard to see for most people.
<br> My comments about using 50 mm scopes, and their usefulness only full darkness does require a little clarification.
<br> I do understand lense coatings and exit pupil. I also understand the term relative brightness and how it is calculated and why it is relative.
<br> I have this opinion based on my own experience, and that of others.
<br> My night vision is excellent. My distance vision is better than 20/20. Full darkness was not well defined in my post. I do understand that in the field "darkness" can mean anything from a clear night, no clouds, open ground, and a full moon, to deep forrest, and 100% overcast, and no moon. The only light would be the starlight that would penetrate the cloud cover.
<br> I have owned and used a 6.5-20X40 Leo. VarXIII with a standard duplex. On a clear, cloudless night, with no moon, I could see well enough to see legal antlers, and see the reticule well enough to shoot some 15 mins after legal shooting time. However, with my 3.5-10X40 Leo. VarXIII with the Mil-Dot reticule, I couldn't see the reticule under the same conditions before legal shooting time was up. I have also found that moonlight makes a big difference. On a clear night, with a full moon, on open ground, even my old 4X28 Leo. with it's standard Duplex will work.
<br> One can argue that under the worst low light conditions, a 50 MM scope would be useful. However, JJ has told me that almost any scope can see well enough at night to see a target. What is lost is the reticule. He has, for instance, killed a Mtn. Lion over a kill at 3, or 4:00 AM using the 2.5-8X36 VarXIII and a 4a reticule on his 30'06.
<br> Hence, on basically the above information, I made the general statement that the 50 mm are really only useful in full darkness.
<br> I am well aware of the fact that individual eyes vary alot as well. But, I have heard these opinions voiced by several others will varying capabilities, so I believe it is valid as a general rule.
<br> I would be very interested in your experiences, any lab tests you know of, and any other information you might have on these subjects. E
<br>
<br>
<br>

<br>E,
<br>
<br>Swaro doesn't make a 3x12x56 scope. Could it be a Zeiss scope that your Devo test mentioned?

They did make one years ago under the Habicht Nova series prior to the Professional Hunter series.

Cheaha. That was the description in the book. 3-12X56 Swaro. The tests were done in 1993.
<br> Barsness, on pg. 22, says that "Also, manufactures are constantly fiddling with their product, and many scope makers don't produce their own lenses. Instead they order them from a subcontractor or, sometimes, several subcontractors. A scope made in 1996 may be slightly brighter or dimmer than one made in 1997, and a scope made in 1987 or 1997 will probably not be as bright as one made today, even if the model and overall mechanics remain the same. "
<br> Like I said, lots of good stuff, food for thought, in this book. Also, the information isn't the last word. But, in general, I feel it is a pretty good guide to where the major players are. E

<br>The whole idea of what the "Best" scope is,has everything to do with what you have in mind.
<br>
<br>The best low light scope I have ever bought and used is the Swarovski PH 3x12x50 with the 4NK reticle. It is simply outstanding but at a price tag of around $1500.00 retail,it's not something I can afford to put on all my rifles.
<br>
<br>I recently traded both of my Swarovski scopes to Chris @SWFA and got a box full of Leupold Tactical VariXIII 4.5x14x40 scopes with Target Turrets and the Mil-Dot Reticle. The resolution of these scopes appears to be equal to the Swar's but eye placement is slightly more critical to get a full view. I haven't put them to the test for low light use but they should be very close at 1x lower power. (7x for the Swar vs 6x for the Luppie)
<br>
<br>I think the best all around Big Game/Varmint scope for $600 or less has to be to Luppie model that suits you. If you have deep pockets then get a case of Swars and go to mounting....James

mun,
<br>
<br>I would stick with either Swarovski or Schmidt & Bender. The Schmidt & Bender would get the nod (from me) if I were to use the rifle/scope combo in rough conditions. I doubt you will ever find a scope that can take more punishment then a Schmidt & Bender. They are built like tanks. If lighter weight is a concern then I would go with the Swarovski but a few ounces never bothered me much. The Schmidt & Bender will be somewhat less money then a comparable Swarovski. I doubt there is a better "value" out there then a Schmidt & Bender - quality and price.
<br>
<br>I base my "opinion" on the fact that I own and use 2 Schmidt & Bender scopes and 2 Swarovski scopes. I formed my opinion based on 36 years of big game hunting not on some book whereby these so called tests were done 9 years ago. I guess some people go by what they read versus actual experience.
<br>
<br>Don't be swayed by "Suggested Retail Prices" that some people like to toss around. As we all know scopes sell for a lot less then the "suggested retail price".
<br>
<br>Have a good one,
<br>
<br>Don

more eye relief .s&b or swarovski ph
<br>I like long eye relief on my 300 rum.

Not to get embroiled in the controversy of who makes the best scope but I think it depends on who is doing the looking...I liked one of the previous posts where the writer said he had excellent night vison and better than 20/20 distance vision but that doesn't describe me. I'm 59 and have glaucoma, very poor night vision and with glasses don't quite make it to 20/20 so I need everything I can get from a scope and after years of using Leupolds for hunting I've switched to the ProHunter series of Swarovski...specifically the 1.5x6.42mm with the "batue" reticle. I like the quick and easy focus and to my eyes they are so much better than Leupolds it's scary....my two sons who are in their 30's and have good eyesight can't see the difference. Who's right?

What Bill said.
<br>
<br>Rick

Good point, DB Bill. That's why I try to qualify my responses as much as I can.
<br> Another good point has been made. Some features are far more valuable than others to the user in question.
<br> I would also like to point out that a heavy scope does not make a tough scope. Usually it's the "G" forces that break them down. All things being equal, the heavier the scope, the faster the "G" forces from recoil, or impacts, will tear it apart.
<br> I was surprised to learn that some of the european scopes are not made with seals under their adjustment knobs. If your into long range shooting, and like resetting your rifle's zero in the field, like the military snipers do, this could be a factor.
<br> I have noted that Zeiss, in their Conquest line, makes a point of advertising that those scopes do have these seals. E