Anyone compare these? Seemed like Swaro years back made a 4x32 but discontinued it.

I have a S&B fixed 4x36 on my slug gun - its an awesome little scope. Never checked out the other brands you mentioned.

I have a Zeiss 4X32 on one of my Encore barrels. It is a bit larger than some others. Its clarity and eye relier are exceptional for near-sighted wearers with glasses like me. I will probably buy another.

Its been a while since I had a Leupold 4X and I can't comment on the FX-II. I have no experience with Schmidt & Bender.

Cheers,

GrimJim

I've only got the older and the newest Leupolds. The new FXII, 4X is really impressive, especially if you need to shoot quickly from an awkward position. The eye box, i.e. the fore and aft leeway it allows you is very large.
It's very bright and can be customized with all sort of things.
Ray Atkinson claims it, along with the older 3X and 4X Leupolds, and their 1.5-5X20 VXIII hold zero after being impacted better than anything else he has tested. I can tell you mine has been literally slammed to the hard, rocky ground more than once and held zero perfectly. E

I think the Zeiss and S&B most likely have better glass, but I've shot so much stuff with Leupold 4X's,I really don't care...

I find the Zeiss 4X to be brighter and sharper than Leupold scopes. In particular the Leupold 4X has never impressed me.

I have a couple of Zeiss Diatal-C 4x32's 4X's but to be frank I would rather get a Ziess Conquest so I did!

I've not used the S&B or Zeiss, but I've been using the FXII 4x for several years. An 8 point and a doe were the latest victims this morning.....

I don't think it has the best glass. It's not bad, but I feel like the glass in the Nikon Monarch 4x40 is a good bit better, and would imagine the big 2 mentioned would smoke it pretty well if only the glass quality was considered. That being said, the FXII is a very usable scope, easy to align, great eye relief, very light, and a compact size. When every thing is considered I think it's a great scope that especially shines if your looking to save weight. If you just want the "best glass" I think you can do better.

JCM

What attracts me to the 4X Leup is not the optics; I know there are others better.It's the fact that I have fired 10's of thousands of rounds under them in everything from 257 to 375,hunted with and abused them,and only one has ever quit;but it had thousands of 300 mag and 338 mag under it and was beat to hell.I have gone through and busted several variables in the same time frame.

They are just tough scopes.

Optically, the Schmidt and Bender 4x36 trumps the Leupy 4x by a wide margin. Just bought a Zeiss Conquest 4x and it is excellent too, with awesome eye relief. Haven't compared the Zeiss to any others, but it sure looks good to me optically. As Sav 99 said, it is no doubt better than the Leupy 4x, I just haven't compared the two.

I can't help but wonder about this so called better glass in the competition.
I've got an older Leupold 4X which single coatings. I've got a new one that is shorter, has a larger objective and is fully multicoated. When I got it, I was surprised to learn that it could not resolve an image much better than the older, much used one.
I've also got an even older, fully multicoated B&L 4X. It can resolve an image noticably better than either of the Leupolds. But it's eye box is from 1/4-1/3 as large.
Frankly, if that's the difference, I'll take the much larger eye box of the Leupold. The difference between the two 4X's in image quality simply isn't practical. I can picked up .30 bullet holes at 100 yds. with both Leupolds. But with the old B&L, I can pick up 7mm bullet holes and even a few .25 caliber bullet holes @ 100 yds.
On the other hand, having that larger eye box, makes getting on that throphy much easier. Something that I've found is very practical and desirable. E

Oh schit, here we go again............................

Yep, everyone is wanting to mount spotting scopes on their rifles again instead of being satisfied with what a scope is intended to do.

Good info, I have a B&L also, always thought the glass was outstanding, and my latest 4x33 looked I thought wonderful, but I wanted to get one with a #4 or #1 Reticle. I think Zeiss no. 2 reticle WAS offered in the Conquest 4x and it IIRC was/is like a Leupold G #1. I see on the website the Zeiss no. 4, looks same as a Leupy G4.

Considering custom shop charges, a Conquest 4x32 w/reticle of choice may be better than having a Leupy modified. I was unsure of the eye relief as many users claim some of the Euro scopes have marginal eye reliefs vs. Leupy. The 4200s are somewhat that way and I had a 6x36 Swaro that was not as generous as the Leupy, though resolution and color rendition were outstanding.

All a trade off I realize. Just looking for a no frills scope, top optics to be used mainly on deer, in woods, likely from a climber and in thicker stuff where they live. I have a 6x42 that's not going anywhere and the G4 is great, would not trade if for another reticle.

It seems back in the 80's or so there was a Hunting Digest Annual or similar book, perhaps a Gun Digest or Shooters Digest, anyway, this article was about a guys favorite woods set up. It was a Lever 35 Rem, possibly 30/30, AND the hunters choice IIRC was a Zeiss 4x, COULD have been a variable like 3-9x but it seems it was a K.I.S.S. set up, that the author remarked the scope then was more than the rifle but well worth it.

I took a running whitetail around 115yds with my B&L once on a public area, worked well, but reticle is too fine for max speed acquisition.

Also, popped another deer with a Nikon Pro-Staff, same thing and the FOV was not what say Leupy and others seems to be.....

SO, I am on a quest, 'no pun to Zeiss' to get a great set up. My first thoughts have been a 4x33 w/Reticle mod to G4, if not a G1.

Had a 2.5 Leupy on my 357 Lever but it would not resolve as well as if I had more scope, and the wide duplex was not as prominent as I would have liked. Case in point, dropped a deer few weeks back at dusk (yes worked well then) but right after, a Raccoon came back to rob the corn my buddy throws out near the stand, at 75 paces, near dusk, the coon blended in the background and looked like a mere shadow thru the 2.5x. That situation made me rethink. In good daylight it would have been no problem.

A 6x would be perhaps more than I'd want esp. in thickets I plan to hunt on that part of the property we hunt.

So, I may just try a Conquest hearing it has good eye relief, if I can find a No.2 or No. 4 reticle as I am sure one or both have been mfg.

Thanks for the feedback.

Oh well... I've looked through and used Swarovski and Zeiss, but I buy Leupy.

Glass is clearly better in the former, but I've hunted Leupys hard and IMHO, ruggedness, performance-for-price and customer service make Leupy my pick for hunting / plinking / general shooting.

Again?

The pendulum swings, I have used a few high powered scopes for specialized rifles, namely those I might use for informal paper competition, or varmint hunting. 98% of everything I have shot, or considered shooting, in as deer sized game, has/could have been taken with a simple fixed scope, and I think focusing on aquiring sight pic quickly and then a good follow thru on squeeze is critical in a hunting rifle and fumbling with indecision on what power can slow one down enough to miss the opportunity to shoot, OR simply distract what needs to be done, causing a rushed shot once you think you have your equipment settings ideal for the situation.

My fastest shot I believe was on a hog, 240 yds, 6x Swaro, hog came out of brush in view, I had the rifle on it and squeezed a good shot off in a very few seconds, I do recall taking less than 1-2 seconds hold on animal before dropping the hammer, long enough to confirm my then 9 year old was watching thru binos.

It was 'reactive snap shooting' and a DRT kill. Fumbling with a vari would have slowed me way down, not necessarily blowing the shot, but nothing to have been gained either.

I distinctly recall a well known deer expert telling my father years back he shoots very fast, acquires sight pic, reticle on deer and squeezes off shot, not thinking much about it. Now I realize shooting very long distance requires more thought in drop and sometimes kentucky windage, but a bulk of shots do not necessitate taking a benchrest steady aiming process to make the shot.

So I do appreciate the 'less is more' concept for hunting scopes in a majority of applications.

And realize scopes are aiming devices, using my binos for scanning and viewing where needed.

Now speaking of Binos, I wonder how many Leupy SCOPE fans use Leupy binos, or actually choose Euro brands over them. Curious since application is different. My Pentax 8x32s have served well for most of my hunting needs, be happy to hear what you all use.

I'm quite happy with my recently acquired Meopta Meostar 8x42 binocular. Unlike the scopes, the eye relief and weight of the Meopta bino suit me fine.

What scope mounts are those???

Weaver Quad Lock rings.

http://www.weaver-mounts.com/products/quadLockSteel.aspx

I understand the Zeiss 4X does test at four inches of eye relief. But has no where near the forgiving nature of Leupold's 4X.
Some have also reported that they have had trouble with the very fast focusing ocular moving when carried close to the body. I've had that trouble with my locked ocular Leupolds. While none of my Leupolds have ever done enough to spoil the image focus when I need it in a hurry, I can see where this could be a problem if I hunted with something that has the super fast euro stlye focusing system. E

fwiw,
May I suggest THE PARADOX OF CHOICE by Barry Schwartz to those who are happy with their 4x Leupold, Zeiss, or Schmidt Benders. It may bad for business, however, peace of mind has always been preferable...

Regards, Matt Garrett
Chesapeake, Virginia

Hmmm, interesting E, my Swaro 6 was fairly 'tight' so maybe Zeiss oculars are easier turning???

Have any owners posted negative comments about the 4x Conquest's eye relief? I'd like to read what they have to say.

I use Leupold FX-III 6X42's and bought this year a 4X Conquest and a 2.5-8X Conquest. For this near-sighted glasses wearer, eye relief on all three is just fine. I still like the 6X42, but the Conquests fit a particular application a little better. I have not seen any tendency for the focus adjustment ring to move very easily in my two Conquests.

Grim Jim

That's because they don't.

Can you prove that the eyebox of the Leupold is better than the Zeiss?

I just handled a number of rifles with both Leupold and Zeiss scopes and I can use them both easily. I see no difference in their "eye box".

Over the years I have had examples of each, including the Swaro 4X. I decided to replace them with variables because the factories were putting their R&D into their variable products and many were canceling their fixed power scopes. I think the only fixed power scopes around here now are a couple of low-power scout scopes.

One way to evaluate the products from different makers is to compare weight, size and reliability f their top of the line. I usually like to use the smaller, lighter scope that fits the application. I also compare likely turn-around times when the scope breaks or factory service is needed. Pretty hard not to go with Leup.

jim

I'm not surprised. You don't report any significant differences in eye box of the respective variables of each company either.
The size and usefullness, or desirability, of a scope's eye box apparently depends on what and how you shoot.
Leupold has long insisted on maintaining this quality. Almost everybody else has sacrificed it in the name of brighter and sharper images. E

And for the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th time, one thing has nothing to do with the other. The only thing "sacrificed" with better glass is the profit margin, eyebox size has nothing to do with it.

SCHMIDT&BENDER - case closed!!!

I have a Swarovski PF 6x42 that has pretty awesome glass. The image is stunning.
Have you compared the Schmidt and Bender 6x42 to the Swaro PF? I have not had the opportunity to do so.

I have a 4x Conquest, and the eye relief is magnificent... It's a pleasure to use, with very good glass too.

Thanks Don, that's pretty much what I expected. To be explicit the eye relief is noncritical as well as plenty long, right?

Jon, if what you say is true, then my fully multicoated Leupold 4X should should resolve it's image much better than my older, single coated model. It doesn't. E

Does your old Bausch & Lomb resolve better than your 4x Leupold?

Yes. Better than either of my 4X Leupolds. E

So, eyebox aside, there are differences in riflescopes that you have seen. Now, imagine for a second that you were to look at some newer scopes.

Here is my take pretty much on all optics. This is my opinion and if some don't agree with me, that is ok - we are all different!!

More money = more quality!!!! To me there is no better quality of scope than a Schmidt & Bender.

This is coming from a PA farm boy with a decent job. Not a high paid, expert celebrity, sponsored funded big shot like we all see on TV.

I have owned Leupold, Nikon, Bushnell, Swarovski and Zeiss. They have been sold or traded - now I have nothing but S&B on all my rifles. I hear all this talk about fart boxes, eye boxes, resolution around the edges, resolution around the rim, prismatic rainbows, and all the other BS.

To a hunting SOB like me, here's what it comes down to: Having a scope that helps me see the best while hunting and can take a serious beating from hunting!!! S&B fits that bill for me.


PS: Just ordered a US Optics scope yesterday- the curiosity finally got to me. Looking forward to a hands on exam and putting it up against my S&B's !!!

My FXII, 4X Leupold is new. I just acquired a Burris FFII and I look through/use scopes that belong to others all the time. So your point is what ? E

You have been saying for years that all scopes are created equal or so close as to not matter, yet you have a old Bushnell (Bausch & Lomb) that can perform better than a new Leupold, just from an optical standpoint. Does that old B&L even have any coatings left on it? I think if you were to compare (and I know you won't) some of the scopes people have been mentioning over the years you would see that they are not pulling your leg.

My point is:

Your "likes" may be my "dislikes" and that is ok. Use what you like and don't look back!!

I have to imagine, I keep reading raves on the Conquest, by users, that they are fine. May give them a try, as to the FX-II resolving no better, well, I do know the Old 6-24 4000/4200 series that were VERY long tubes were some of the highest resolution scopes I and my buddies have used, the long tubes I hear helps produce outstanding clarity/resolution from an optical 'science' point of view...maybe easier to get perfect focus I don't know, no engineer, but I did notice the same thing with an old longer tube M8 12x, one with a tapered CPC CH that was clear as a bell, the guy who sold it to me gave me this story it was retro-fitted with reticle/target knobs by premier reticle and the used a purer Nitrogen. Doubt any of the holds water, but it was crystal clear.

The last Fx-II I would bet is BRIGHTER (esp. in very low light, although the older M8 may very well RESOLVE better in good light, E's comments speaks to how simple older gen fixed scopes/lacking multicoated lens transmits light fairly well with decent exit pupil. MY Balfor 4x was good enough when I had a Sako AII 243 to put IIRC 5 of 7 rounds (Fed. red/white box 100 gr) into 1.3" at 200yds....may have been all 7, but either way it was sharp. Also accounted for one of the smallest groups I shot with a former PF M70 7/08 Fwt. Cannot recall how small it was, but it did great on a 3x5 sticky at 100 yds for a target.

I DO believe, Spend more $$$, better scope, but I DO have a hard time buying Swaro, S&B, and NF, etc. etc to gain perhaps a 3-5% advantage for a $$$ increase of 2-3 fold. Service w/Leupy is top notch, no argument, and we DO have to consider USA jobs....in today's time.

I distinctly recall being in a gunshow in Dallas area years back, a gent/dealer who had no bias saying, B&L/Elites had optics that rival Swaro, at a much better price. I DO admit looking thru many nice Elite scopes-having owned several over time......and not long ago, for the nth time, contacted Bushy telling them they should come out with a 4x32 and 6x42 fixed powers.....told the market is not there, but I think the mfg. and gunwriters are as responsible for the shift, 'bigger is better' but the pendulum swings, and to seem many hunters come full circle to milder non belted non-magnum rounds, i.e. 260, 7/08, 308, 338 Fed, etc. etc I think many hunters are coming to realize the fixed X scopes are VERY capable, often all ever needed, and perhaps certain virtues desirable, ie. less weight/bulk, and simple rugged construct.

I love my little 4x32 B&L on my boys 22, but if Bushy re-intro'd the scope, I'd want it in Matte, a #4 style reticle, and add the Rainguard just in case. Until then, I'll start at Leupy and Conquest for new purchases, and perhaps dream about the S&B....just because.

FWIW, still kicking myself for not bidding on a Swaro 4x32 at a DU banquet years back, not many put much interest or value in it, inc. me, as I'd rather a 6x then, but now, I'd be looking at it in a different light as it's funny my first rifle 21 years ago was a 7mag w/K-4, and now I have gone UP and now back down the spectrum of powers. I remember BARELY seeing the plain fine crosshair on the 8pt I shot, my first deer, at dusk about 30 yds in the woods.....but I did get that deer (always saying the scope was not very bright in dim light, did hold a zero!) Bought a Leupold 3-9x because everyone else used them, and was not thrilled, seemed to be too much scope, showing wobbles, etc. so I later replaced it with an M8 6x when I sold it and got a 243, realized cartridge and scope 7mag/3-9 were perhaps 'overkill' for what I was trying to accomplish and enjoyed shooting the 243/6x combo much more.

I am sure I will use more of many brand scopes, nice to hear various experiences by all. Thanks for the feedback. Nice to know enough of us buy fixed powers to keep those still mfg. coming out the plants.

Right. It's very easy to use, with no eye relief problem.

I have two S&B 6x scopes and they are very nice but I can not say they are worth 3 or 4 x the price of the leupold. for 4x, you dont exactly need cutting edge optics anyway. I would go with a leupold but I would compare it to a nikon as well. for me, leupold is always the model to compare all others to, at any given price point. the leupold fxII 6x42 scopes are very nice for the money and I think they are hard to beat. I could consider the 6x option. if 6 is too much, then a variable may be a better choice.

Thanks for humoring me Don, I hope I didn't seem obtuse.

mathman

The last scope I tried out and compared to one of my Leupolds was a new S&B PMII that a shooting buddy brought to the range. Refocusing both it and my older 6X42 Leupold did not show either us any more detail at 6X with either.
One of the guys here bought another new S&B. At 25X, he was delighted to see his .30 bullet holes at 760 yds on an unusually clear day. While very impressive, my VariXIII, made in the mid 90's, can do the same thing at 40% the range when set at 40% of the magnification. So just where is this so called "optical superiority ?"
If the coatings were gone, or significantly damged, on the older 4X B&L, it would have lots of flare and other odvious characteristics. It doesn't. What it does have is a drastically smaller eye box. E

E, I vouch for the comment on the B&L, but in real use, I never had a problem, dropping a running deer on a snapshot around 115 yds, as to coatings, I think the main difference IMHO, and I stand corrected if wrong, is Euro optics may sometimes be brighter and have better color rendition, HOWEVER, it's NOT to say many Leupold models are poor or bad, nor lack resolution, NOR are not bright enough for use during most any legal shooting time, 1/2 hour before sun up, to 1/2 hour after sundown, where I live.

257, I had a Nikon Prostaff that worked VERY well, popped a deer last year on the run with it around 200 yds, but the field of view IIRC was less than a FX-II and using a 4x is in a good part due to higher FOV, as well as being compact, and very light weight. I have a 6x42 now, and its superb, truly cannot imagine having any better view than what I get, and mine has my preferred #4 reticle, fast and bold and w/ a .7" center, still usable for as far as I need to use a 6x. That scope put 3 shots into 1.1" at 200yds if not mistaken, with my 6.5x55 Ruger #1, so I am a happy camper w/rifle/scope combo.

The old M8 series were VERY good scopes, and I had one 8x36 that would surprise you, IIRC, the scope resolved better than my 6x's simply due to more x's. It was bright, even w/o multi coat, I guess fixed scopes have less lens to lose light to begin with...

If Leupold made a 8x again, FX-II w/target turret/M1 and perhaps a mil-dot reticle, I could seriously do a LOT of field shooting on deer and coyotes, but I'll have to settle for a 6x and it will get it done for most shooting when not using a specialized higher powered set up...more for paper and crows at long range.

E, I have no disagreement with anything you have said, or your experience but I just wonder it seems you are extremely brand loyal, and that is ok, I just wonder if there is any reason other than actual feautures/benefits, etc. that you seem very closed to saying or admitting positives on anything other than, your brand of choice?

Let's face it, competition is fierce and if the optics costing 2-3x a Leupold had Nothing to offer, is there any reason they stay in business at those price points, other than snob appeal? Surely there are some benefits, some real, some perceived, as to users choosing them over a Leupold. Again, for ME, MOST of my needs can/will be met by Leupolds and some others, inc. Burris, Bushnell Elites, etc. etc. but I do recognize higher end scopes SURELY must have a level of quality to justify their continued sales. Zeiss, Swaro, S&B, and NF are just not bad scopes, maybe no better on certain criteria than Leupolds, but in others, their must be some difference, however slight. Buyers must determine how deep they want to dig into their wallet.

It's nice to get a balance of viewpoints, from those with varying levels of experience with different brands, and then objectively communicate their experiences with others who ask.

What would REALLY tell all I think over time, is if ALL scopes were PRICED equal. Not ever going to happen, but THEN if it DID, price aside, the masses would chose quality MOST of the time I really believe, and the trend of those sales, would surely be STRONG indicators as to what are the very best, of already high quality optics by many brands.

As always nice to hear everyones viewpoint....pun not intended.

65

Many mistakenly feel that there may be other scopes that have (some) optical qualities superior to Leupold.

Thankfully we have E to straighten them out - most of them are not competent to focus a scope or simply don't know what they are actually seeing is different from what they think they see

Regards

E,

So your 6x Leuplold and your VariXIII are better than a S&B PM II?? Take your thoughts over to Snipershide.com and see what those boys have to say about this.

You are unbelievable!! You know what, I bet your Leupold VariXIII is better the the Hubble Telescope too, right???

I want to hear no more..............PLEASE!!

This is like a psychological experiment. How long will the subject stick to his made-up contention, even when it's so easily disprovable and even Leupold themselves disagree? How long will he keep repeating the a bit of anecdotal evidence that coincidentally agrees but ignore all presented before (all the scopes with a crappy eyebox as well as a crappy image, all the scopes with a nice eyebox as well as a nice image--the conversation has been done a million times) him that disagrees?

Leupold themselves say they are going to improve the image quality of the VX-III's. You say the only way this is possible is by reducing their eyeboxes. Leupold says they'll use better glass and coatings.

Are they wrong, E? Are they lying, E? Really, please answer this question, hearing the same story about your Balvar again for the millionth time won't answer this question.

300, you are mistaken on a couple of things. First of all, I compared the images of the PMII set on 6X to a 6X42 Leupold.
Second, I've never said the Leupold was better. What I said was that they looked the same to both me and the guy that owned the scope. E

Even Leupold disagrees ? Just where is this conversation Jon ? Don't tell me about it. Show me where you found it so I can read all of it for myself if you want me to comment about it.
What I said was the significant differences in image quality were between the scope with a much smaller eye box vs. one with a larger eye box. When it came to comparing my old single coated 4X to my new, fully multicoated 4X, they appeared to have identical ability to show me fine details.
That doesn't mean there is no difference, just that any actual difference was too close for me to be sure of. I even gave examples of the differences that I noticed. But, as we all know, the hunman eye can only see so much.
Many here have compared the Leupold VXII to the "better" VXIII. I know of no one that has seen any differences. I'm not surprised. I'll bet there is a difference, but it is simply too small for most of us to see.
What happens, I've noticed, when many make rifle scope comparisions is that they don't understand how these things differ in constuction and how they need to be adjusted to do realistic comparisions. Adjusting for actual magnification is one example and getting the scope focused fully is often another. E

Leupold disagrees.

Live with it.

Or not.

I'm sorry E, I guess maybe you hadn't heard the news. Leupold is upgrading the glass and coatings in their VX-III line (among other improvements) and re-naming it VX-3. READ HERE.



They're doing exactly what I've said they could do in these arguments a thousand times--improving image quality by upgrading glass and coatings. It has nothing to do with the eyebox. Why on earth would it? The relationship between the two is a fabrication of your imagination.

Jon, you say "better optics" and appear to mean better resolution. Leupold says superior optics and goes on to describe an improvement in low light performance. Neither of you give any examples of what you mean in improvements. But apparently you are talking about image resolution, which of course means you have to focus the scope fully first, while Leupold is talking about low light performance. Related to each other, but not the same.
Leupold's VX-7 scopes already use that "Xtended Twilight Lens System." Basically what they did was enhance the transmition of the blue range light over that of the green range light for a very slightly brighter image under low light conditions. To give you an example, way back in 1993, when DEVA tested Leupolds then new fully multicoated, larger rifle scopes, they found that they transmitted 94% in daylight and 92% in twilight. The same as Zeiss at that time. The very best performance of any rifle scopes of that time.
When the VX-7 came out, somebody over there retested the best from Zeiss and the VX-7 Leupold. They both tested better than 95%, something like 95.4 vs. 95.6 %. An improvement yes. But something practical, something that most of us can see as a difference ? I seriously doubt it.
The new VX-3 uses the same lense system according to what you've posted. Wonderfull, we've all got something to argue about. Where are the resolution tests ? Afterall, that's what you are talking about. That is what I'm talking about.
We have never had any resolution tests around here that I trust. Not when some still insist that "you just focus the reticle, then you use the side focus to focus the image."
Some even say that "when you increase the magnification of the scope, that's where the euros leave Leupolds behind. At the higher magnifications, the euros, due to better glass and coatings, resolve, or show you, much more details."
Not no way. Their glass and coatings are as good as anybody's. What's different are some small tradeoffs in the details like eye box size, and how well they are adjusted. E

What exactly do you think they mean by "sharpness?" And yes, the differences in resolution between good glass and mediocre glass become more obvious to most eyes in low light. Pretty lousy glass (especially low powered) can look good on a bright, sunny day (of which they have many in the desert).


Those "some" are very correct. Maybe they say that from experience?

But how would you know? You did look through a S&B on 6X. Had you brought a 14X or 20X Leupold to compare, maybe the difference would have been blatant enough that not even you could deny it? Then again, probably not.

I really hope the glass in the VX-3's will be good. Conquest-ish quality glass with the other Leupold features many like will make an outstanding product (if they keep the price down).

But the real treat will be you telling people they must not be able to focus their VX-III's if they think the VX-3's give a better image even with the same focusing system...or that their eyeboxes must have gone AWAL unbeknownst to them....

Comedy.

I trust them - they were done by competent people. People without a luppie axe to grind.




I checked every owners manual I have, some from luppie, some from S&B, some from Zeiss, some from IOR; they ALL say you use the eye piece to focus the reticle...PERIOD.

You really should call all those companies up E and tell the engineers who designed the scopes that they're putting out faulty owner's manuals. But, please record the calls and share them with us. A good laugh is very healthy.



No fuggin' way.

I swear, E is a laugh a minute.

Well, today I thought I would do something fun, so I went out into the real world and compared a friend's S&B PMII set at 10x with my Leupold Vari-X III set at 10x.

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who thinks that they are in the same league is really, really delusional or needs his/her eyes checked ASAP. The S&B kicked the Leupold's ass in a ridiculous manner.

That said, my 3.5-10 Vari-X III is a great scope and I love it. It just isn't nearly as great at the S&B was.

I did the same thing with a Leupy Vari-X variable and a Swarovski variable, with both set on 10X. It was out in front of a sporting goods store, and both scopes were aimed at a brick chimney 300 yards away. Both scopes firmly mounted on tripods so there would be no scope movement during this very scientific test.. With both scopes you could tell that the chimney was made from bricks. However, with the Swaro you could actually see the mortar detail in the bricks, and with the Leupy you could not read that fine print, so to speak.
Had I not been able to make that comparison test, and having owned the Leupy, I would have said the Leupy was outstanding in every respect. You get the drift.

Anyone that can't find the shoulder of a critter with either has serious problems. Bino's is where GREAT glass matters. YMOV's

Yep.

Yeah,but those high end euro's sure are fun to peep through

I've looked through a few and they were indeed pretty nice. If they fit a hunter's budget and needs then he should go for one. There are a couple of them that combine that outstanding view with reasonable size, weight and pretty good eye relief and so they tempt even me to break the piggy bank.

What gets old is the drone about wasting your time unless you're using Austrian or German Wunderkristall.

Waiting on that 2.5-10 S&B SFP.Old habits die hard

Pretty much also agree. Don't own one of the Europeans, altho I may pick one up , largely for curiosity.

Have all Leupold, Burris and weaver myself.

What I find equally old is the old spiel that any one that chooses other than L is a moron and that there is no difference.

Can't understand why anyone has to run down someone else's choice - if it was need my (dad's) old Savage 99, in 300 with open sights would provide all the 'need' I have , if I hunted as hard/often as I would like.

Your mileage might be different

I'm mainly a Leupold user and I can agree with that too. I get along quite well with certain Nikons and Zeiss Conquests.

You are quite right in that the manuels I've seen mention only focusing the reticle. That's fine. Many are satisfied with only that.
What none of you seem to understand is that the typical euro focusing system is far faster than the designs used by Leupold and that can lead to the idea that their "glass and coatings are better". Never mind that they all test very, very close to each other. That little bit of inconvenient data is routinely dismissed. If they have "better glass and coating," they must better in all other ways too. Another assumption that simply isn't true.
To give some conmparisions, the Leupold "fast" design has a range of about 3/4 of a turn where the reticle is at it's sharpest. But the typical euro system has only 1/4 to perhaps 1/3 of a turn. With the older Leupold system, the ocular can be rotated any where from 3-4 full turns while keeping the reticle in sharp focus.
What all of this means is that when you turn the ocular to focus the the reticle with a euro system you are already very close to focusing the image. In fact, both appear come into focus together.
That doesn't happen with a Leupold. You must go further for the best image focus. It isn't all that hard to do. I like to simply focus the reticle going in one direction, then counting the turns, keep going until I go all the way to the other end of the focus range. Then I simply backup half way. That puts you very close to the best image focus. From there, it is simple and quick. Has the virtue of not being easy pushed out of focus accidently to off set this additional adjustemnt effort.
You guys are really funny. Too bad. You are denying yourselves of the full performance of your Leupolds.
This is something I learned from Barsness. It made a big difference in the performance of my Leupolds. Using this method, I refocused lots of Leupolds belonging to others. Everyone of them really like the improvement. No exceptions.
Now, if it doesn't matter to you, that's fine. It's your scope. But if you don't do this, you get problems with reticles fading in bad light, not being able to see the target as well in bad light, losing image clarity as you increase the magnification of your scope, all sorts of things.
Just about the only thing poster Roe Deer, who is known far and wide as a huge fan of the "superior" euros, and I agree on is that the scope's ocular, any scope's ocular, can be used to focus both the reticle and the image. E

Oh so true. I agree 100%, and personally am quite happy with my fixed 4x Nikon Monarchs, 4.5x Weaver Grand Slam's or fixed 6x Leupold scopes on the rifles I hunt with the most. They allow me to put the bullet where it needs to go to get clean, humane kills.

That said, the S&B was truly head and shoulders above the Leupold (that I love to death) in terms of clarity and brightness when set at the same power, and I stand by my assertion that you would have to be delusional to not see the difference.

It would be about the same as looking through some high-end Leica binos and saying your Leupold Wind Rivers were "just as good."

They're not......

I find the assertion you constantly seem to make, that nobody but yourself actually knows how to focus a freaking scope, rather condescending and, to be honest, intellectually sophmoric as well.

This might surprise you, but there actually are other people out there who know how to use the optics that they buy. Some of them might actually be on the campfire, and **gasp** some of them might actually reply to your posts.....

Eremicus, I have a question for you. At what distance are you performing these focusing exercises.

Roy

Yep. I spend so little time looking through a scope - other than when shooting targets- that, on hunting rifles anyway, I consider other things as more important than exactly what the glass does or doesn't do. I "enjoy" the better view when comparing glass in the store, but arguing about the differences in the field seem ludicrous for what I do - and I've made some pretty fast, effective, "nearly" dark shots with the plain old Leupold 4Xs several rifles wear.

To find what I call the "reticle sharp range mid point," I often point the thing at the sky. When I focus for range, I use a target at that range.
The ranges I've used have been 100-300 yds. Frankly, I have a really tough time seeing any difference between 200 and 300 yds. with my 4X and 6X scopes. Now, with my VariXIII set on 10X, there is a tad of difference. It will also vary a very small amount as to the day. That is either my eyes for that day or the atmospheric conditions.
At all ranges, whichever I use, the reticle is always razor sharp. E

Thanks E. I was asking because Leupold's are parallax set for 150 yrds typically and I was wondering if this could be the reason why the image was not sharp at distances other that 150. If you think about it, scopes with adjustable parallax settings allow the user to make those adjustments for different ranges other than 150. I believe alot of other scope manufactures set their parallax for 100 which technically should give you the sharpest image if your are doing your scope adjustments at a 100 yard range. Just a thought.

I've got and used both types of scopes. From what I've seen, too many think in terms of their AO or their side focus/parallax adjustment doing their focusing for them. Frankly, it doesn't work nearly as well. Particularly with the Leupold focusing system.
Adjusting the parallax will affect the scope's focus. But the focusing needs to be done with the ocular. Works much better.
Maybe some day I'll fool with my hunting scopes at the shorter ranges, say 50-75 yds and see how that works. I suspect it won't work well. I've also got an older Leupold 7.5X AO scope. That may well end up on a new .22 RF. If it does, all the more fun playing the focusing game. E

Depending on the application..For hunting I am perfectly satisfied with a 4X Leupold or a for that matter a 3X..I also like and use the 1x4 and 1.5x5 for hunting..I have one 300 H&H with a 2x7 Leupold..I like Leupold scopes..

For years I was an avid golfer and I bought new clubs all the time and alway had to have the best available, then one day and old and I mean old dude asked my group if he could play through us and we said "sure". His golf clubs were an array of junk..His driver was wood laminate that was so old the laminate was seperating. He drove the green, putted one time and disapeared into the sunset...

My point being why do I need an expensive, heavy, bulky, European scope when I have shot everything in the world with a Leupold, and not one instance has occurred so far that would have worked out any different with one of the expensive scopes form Europe...

The only difference in men and boys, is the cost of the mens toys!

Data needs to exist before it can be dismissed. Do you have some resolution test data you'd like to share with us? If you do, I promise we won't dismiss it.

I'm happy to entertain.

Now that's what's funny. It was so dull around here for a month or so. Not to worry, focusing school is back!

You are mistaking the argument for one of need. Now, unlike some of you guys, I am not nor will ever be a world-class shot with a rifle. I do, however, play goalie rather well. I could put on the pads I had back in the 1970's and 80's and still be better than most of the guys I play against. That doesn't have anything to do with a discussion of whether or not the new pads and gear are BETTER today than they were back then.

Or, to put it another way, I don't NEED better pads to play hockey well. You might not NEED a better scope to kill things, lord knows I don't, but that is irrelevant to a discussion of which scope actually IS better.

Well put. There are people who have shot everything on the planet with rifles that weren't very accurate. And done all that hunting with binoculars that are pretty crappy by today's standards. Does that mean we should strive for those things as well? How will they help?

Need, or even want was not the debate. IS was the debate. The standard Leupold glass and coatings ARE just as good as any brand on the planet. That is what was said. Saying better optics are not needed does not make that a true statement.

It's called circular logic.

Just saying standard Leupold glass and coatings ARE just as good as any brand on the planet hardly makes standard Leupold glass and coatings just as good as any brand on the planet.

You both said the same thing, just in different ways.

Any way you slice it and dice it, there IS a tangible difference in glass QUALITY, whether we need the "best" or not to be effective hunters doesn't change that fact.

The reason why quality glass and coatings are used in quality optics is to allow that optic to transmit as much light coming from the subject as possible w/o distorting and scattering that light. If the light passing through an optic is scattered or distorted, it bounces around inside that optic and degrades the image quality.
While their are tests using fine optical test equipment that do test for differences in image clarity, the standard that is used by rifle scopes is a simple test to see how much light passes through that rifle scope. Both daylight and twilight light is usually tested.
In tests like this, Leupolds have, for many years now, tested right with the best out there. But those who do their own comparisions sometimes see significant differences. So the question comes down to why.
As far as I am concerned, if you want to claim that a Zeiss or an S&B is a better rifle scope because you can see say .25 caliber bullet holes at 100 yds. where all I can see are .30 caliber and perhaps a few 7mm bullet holes, that's your call. I say the Leupold is better simply because of their first class rep for holding zero and their huge eye boxes. Both of which are far more practical aspects of rifle scope performance than some tiny bit of resolution ability. E

So after saying resolution was the same and we were "inconveniently dismissing" tests that showed this, you say there are no tests and resolution doesn't matter anyway?

Thanks, E.

My question would be,why bother with loopie at all.From a non north slope cowboy Alaskan that actually shoots and hunts with his rifles.


Im looking forward to seeing how many years behind the euros loopie is, after they bring out there "next" over priced rifle scope.
dave

I just wish that the tubes were not so short today so you don't have to go thru all kinds of problems to mount on a rifle. Leupold had had and continue to have a very good rep. Its become a very compeative business. Would I like to see the old M-8's with the modern coatings. you bet I would. Would I like to see the return of the fixed 3x that I can go buy and get a German # 1 in it, which one of my nuts would you take for it. Sure that fixed 4x S+B would do the trick for me, and If I was willing to wait 30 weeks they would even get me one with a German # 1, something I would like very much to put on a Sako 6.5 x 55. All it takes is money. My car needs work so that get taken care of first. Maybe buy April I can put an order in for one of those jewels. There is no shame in buying the best you can afford, you only have to buy it once. On of the things I found interesting was spending some time on a Rifle range in Anchorage Alaska, Some of those fellows had rifles and scopes you would give and arm and a leg for, yet they looked like they had problems eating regular. And Cars and trucks that seen better days, yet they shot and hunted with the very best rifles and scope one could get. Some people will put the right things first.

So, just to be clear, if, say, the S&B scope had the ability to track and hold zero as well as the Leupold, and the S&B had an eye box just as huge and forgiving as the Leupold, then, since, as you admit, it also has better resolution, one could objectively say that the S&B was better, right?

It would also be nice if the S&B didn't add an extra half to three quarters of a pound to the rig.

Yep,just like the new VX-7 does.
dave

I'm not thrilled with their weight either. I don't do koolaid, excess baggage is just that regardless of brand.

True. Very true.

(but also not the argument E was presenting......)

Never figured you fer a koolaid kinda guy.
dave

Goalie,

I was just giggin you a bit.

mathman

I didn't really think so, bit I'm still in the woods before daylight even when I'm carrying a Vari-X II.

Oh, I didn't take it personally. Heck, I pretty much am of the opinion that one should just get a tough, reliable scope, and spend the BIG money on binoculars. Well, other than the glass for my .50BMG, but that is a little different.

I have a 4.75x Weaver Grand Slam and 4x Leupolds and Nikons on my hunting rifles. I don't NEED better glass to kill animals, but I can appreciate better glass when I look through it.

My bino cost more than any of my scopes too.

After having owned many, I kept the S&B's and let the rest go. They are the best for ME. I find them brighter and the image clearer. I personally think most people substitute power for clarity. I would rather own a very clear 4X than an average 6X any day of the week as I find them much more useful. I've owned three S&B 4X's and never broke one so I have confidence in them. The eye box works for me as I build most of my own stocks so I don't need optics that compensate for ill fitting rifles.

Trust me, you aren't going to learn anything here. Go look for yourself.

Terry

Smart guy. E

So, are you going to answer the question?



I am sincerely interested in your answer, and hope you don't just ignore the question. Thanks

Since you insist. I've learned that there are folks who post here that either don't understnd, or aren't aware of, eye box differences or their worth to a hunter. So any eye box testing of an S&B vs. a Leupold would have to be done by me.
The ability to track is only of value to those that shoot tactical style rifles. Hunting scopes, as discussed here, are zeroed and must only be able to be zeroed and to hold their zero. This bussiness of testing a rifle scope by "shooting the box" as it is called is of no value in 4X scopes w/o target or tactical adjustments on them.
I've never tried out a 4X S&B. It may or may not resolve as well or better than a Leupold. I have compared a 6X Leupold with a 42mm objectice to an S&B PMII, 50mm variable. When set on 6X, neither I, nor it's owner, could adjust either to see any difference in resolution. What I said, or infered, was that since S&B's like the other euros I've played with all seem to have small, or much smaller eye boxes, I presume it would resove a hair or two better because of that in the 4X models.
Any difference in resolution ability if it favored the S&B would be so small that it wouldn't be practical to spend the extra money on. If it did involve a difference in eye box size, it would not be a desirable trade off.
There is also the consideration of how well it holds zero when impacted. The only testing of this sort I know of has been conducted by Ray Atkinson. He says the older 3X, the 4X and the 1.5-5X20 VXIII, Leupolds do this best. I don't know if he has tested the 4X S&B in this way. I know he has tested the smaller S&B for recoil resistance however. So he is familar with them.
Last of all, the euro focusing system offers nothing to me. Since I have had my locked Leupold oculars move due to the way I carry them, I assume the euro system would too. Again, not a potential problem I want to gamble on. E

I have said it, and JB and others have as well, but sometimes guys try to get an optic with ALL the bells and whistles only to find it may have been COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

Matching the optic to the application is key IMHO. Case in point.

My bro was in KS this year, watching bucks running does all day. NICE buck presents, running, estimates...GUESTIMATES range at 300 yds, has a 2-8x36 MR/T w/M2 knobs, zeroed at 100, so knowing what the charts say the clicks should be, clicks up and takes a snap shot, did not hit well enough to recover the deer.

Nothing wrong with his scope, but he was 'OVER-ENGINEERED' for that specialty scope and had he simply had a plain 4x, no knobs, etc. etc., he likely would have just put the reticle high on the back, and had his deer. Just what I did at 250ish this year w/my 6x42 German #4, saw opportunity, got a decent rest and sight pic, and squeezed. Fixed scopes PREVENT me second guessing if I THINK I need to mess with something, in the critically short window of time we often get on game.

I did see an interesting photo in a hunting mag with a guy toting a Ruger 308, MkII, had what appeared to be a Leupy 4x33 with M1 knob(s) added. Custom bolt knob also.

I thought, for that deer hunter, picked a proven reliable rifle, solid shooters with a scope ring-integral system strong as nails, no frill get it done round ammo easy to find at Wal-Mart, and seeing the custom bolt knob, and custom shop modified Fx-II, I realized this guy just MIGHT have some wisdom/experience. He figured EVEN on long shots, he can get it done with 4x for his intended game, and knobs in the even of a longish shot,,,,,though I'd place a set up like that good to around 400 yds maybe a little further for many reasons.

Point is, my bro simply OVER THUNK this whole thing about complicating things, and it's a shame he spent 2-3x what he could have and have had a scope that likely would have modified his thought process during the shot cycle/opportunity.

I am going to have a talk with him, as first off, had he zeroed and shot his rifle in at 200 yds, he'd been good to go w/o worry, but he thought the little feature of M2 knobs was an answer to a problem that was not likely to happen in the field under MOST days out after deer.

Now if you were an urban sniper and wanted a rifle capable of shooting a precise shot at a smallish (let's say Grapefruit size) target, out to ranges further than most deer are taken, THEN he might have had the RIGHT scope on. A good scope perhaps, but wrong application.

Sure bet he bragged on it to his buddies how his decked out sniper scope was the cat's meow, ....until he had to admit to losing a nice buck.

Too many folks I strongly feel try solving problems that are not there, but as above, it's nice to buy the best, and be done, but one has to OBJECTIVELY determine what they NEED vs. what might be just 'cool looking' to carry into camp.

If I were a guide, as Atkinson, I'd be much happier to see someone show up in camp with a nicely used rifle in 30-06 w/4x or 6x Leupold, than a brand new WHIZZBANG mag with laser range finder built in scope, ready to shoot at half a mile!

The guys one here that USE and recommend K.I.S.S. for hunting scopes I have to respect, as they make good logical decisions on scope choices based on experience.

If money were no object, and weight of package, S&B and others might have more users, and I'll admit carrying an 8lb PRE-scoped 338/06 around the mountains years back, with a 1.5-6x42 4200 that had NICE optics, but the scope was heavy, looking back, that rifle should have had a mag sporter contour at best, and a simple 4x would have never been found wanting for my mulie/elk pursuit. That weight can/does add up if one is toting a rifle all day. I don't like flyweights, but no excess weight baggage desired on a carry rifle. Agreed there.

I wonder, why would a 'new' mfg. 4x be any less rugged than the M8s? Seems odd to me. What 'test controls' were used? Test results must be looked at, in how the 'study design' was done to determine validity. Sample size, etc. etc. as one must be careful to compare results of a small sample size.

A call to Leupold customer service would likely yield good info as they have a huge database to pool stats from and I am sure there are trends in some models perhaps holding up better.

Since my neighbor's car is white, and mine is grey, I presume his gets better mileage because of that. Because I am an idiot.

NO relationship, E. None. Try reading the above. Do you actually read anything posted here? The only relationship that exists is your imagination. You made it up just like I did the color of paint affecting mileage.

In the end, that's our problem here. It always is. You assume the fast focus will be a problem. You assume scopes you've never looked through won't give a sharper image. You assume the eyebox on scopes you've never looked through will be problematic. In fact, the one and only S&B you looked through, the PMII 4-16 on 6X, you DESCRIBED the eyebox as:

The high powered tactical scope was "Not Bad," and yet you assume their low powered hunting scope might be won't be good enough?

Try looking, E. Then commenting. Reports even viewed through your gold-ring framed/colored glasses of things you've actually looked at will be accepted here much more favorably than reports you write based upon what your imagination tells you.

Nahhhh....

He's fabricated so many things I'll never trust anything he says unless he's backed up by a credible source.

65BR: I suspect if your brother had been zeroed to kill the deer,instead of zeroed at 100 in accordance with conremporary "wisdom",the 300 yard buck would have presented no problem.The buck would likely be dead.Animals do not wait around for you to use clicks;rutting whitetails are in constant motion.

With a flat-shooting rifle, there should be no trajectory concerns at 300 yards.

I completely agree your brother was over-engineered for the task at hand.In hunting, the "KISS" principle prevails;frequently, the method that allows you to get into action QUICKLY is the one that will prove most successful.

Amen Brother Bob!!!!

Good point Bob.....could't agree more.

I know a guy who guides in Montana who this past fall had two guys show up for a mule deer hunt in the eastern part of the state. These guys were from Pennsylvania and had two tricked-out rifles in some .300 magnum wildcat, with the big knobbed scopes, laser rangfinders, tripods that fit on the sling swivel stud, AND a portable shooting bench that rode around in the pickup bed, waiting to be attached to a trailer hitch ball. They claimed to have killed deer out to 900 yards in hayfields in Pennsylvania with this gear, and the guide (who is also a gunsmith for a very well-known company) had no doubts they had done all they said.

The deer were in steep breaks, and the wind blew hard the whole time. Shots were quick and always under 250 yards, in the wind.
The clients were slow and had never shot in that much wind before. By the time they had learned that big mule deer bucks refuse to stand around (especially in wind) for range-finding, deploying tripods, and turret-twisting (much less attaching a bench to a hitch ball) they had shot up all 60 rounds of super-duper ammo they'd brought. Luckily, they hadn't hit anything.

They ended up getting their bucks with the guide's spare rifle, a Remington 721 .270 with a steel-tube K4 Weaver. They said they'd learned a lot and would be back next year with .270's--though they would mount bigger scopes, maybe even 3-9x's.

Interesting, JB.
I always enjoy reading this forum-there is much to learn in this sport of ours.

i've thought about a ruger 77 in 280 reington just to put a 4x leupold on it.

Bobin,

I failed to mention my Bro's gun is a Tikka 308 and he was using IIRC 168 amax this hunt....plenty gun, fairly flat, plenty flat rather for the 'guestimated' 300 yds, but found out after the shot, under 300 yds, but yes, you put it succinctly.

Thanks.

JB, as you know there is good reason hunters have kept those old K-4's on for all these years since mounted/mfg. They work. Granted newer ones have brighter optics, perhaps bolder reticles, esp. vs. the plain CH on some K4s, and you might worry about seals being good, yet they continue bringing home the venison.

I do have to say, many lesser experienced hunters have perhaps bought into either the Marketing by mfg. and/or the infomercials you read in articles raving about the 'theoretical' features and benefits of 'Hubble Scopes' and I am sure some writers feel compelled to write what the industry is promoting. Obviously higher mag variables are more expensive, they DO fill a need for certain situations, but when my bro told me about the story about what happened I can only imagine had he used a simple 4x or 6x zeroed at 200, he simply could have held high and had a better outcome on that buck he lost....shame as I hate seeing ANY animal, esp. a big game animal like a deer get away, much less run aways.

It WILL happen whether bullet 'failure' or shot placement issues (usually the problem) but I like to get DRTs when possible, knowing it's not always going to happen, but icing on the cake.

The day I dropped a hog around 240 yds, using a 6x on a #1 Ruger 243, RSI carbine, I believe it was my fastest shot cycle..SPOT game, aim rifle, and squeeze. Happened in seconds and the Barnes 85x did a DRT and that day taught me more about the value of K.I.S.S. and no wasted time to conclude shot cycle, once you get a good sight pic, which is not predicated upon how much the animal is 'zoomed' in. Once the sight pic is obtained w/a steady hold, one merely needs to break the trigger w/o pulling the shot, not worrying about minimizing increased wobbles in a high powered scope as if shooting a 1/2moa group at the range off a benchrest. That is not needed to hit vitals usually in my experience.

Sometimes the longer you hold and 'over think' what you are doing during the shot, the more the wobbles increase (often making shooters panic jerking the trigger at what looks good-and pulling the gun off the vital zone or entire animal before the bullet leaves the muzzle) and more chance the game will move or the opportunity will be lost entirely.

I am sorry to admit, this happened to me using a muzzle light model 7 260 on a Texas hunt at a walking buck around 150-200 yuds. HIGH winds throwing my gun around and having my scope on 14x (using a 4-14 that day). Broadside unalerted buck, but I was sitting in front of a Mesquite tree in camo in a chair and had NO rest, guess I could have tried getting behind the chair and using the top/back for a rest, but NEVER thought about it then. Missed the first shot clean as the wind was at least 20-30mph gusting sideways, and after that my buddy said it sounded like I was shooting an auto (once deer was on run-never touched it...first shot ALWAYS one's best opportunity IMHO), and I was catching my brass in my hand!!!! Go Figure, re-barreled later to a heavier contour bbl and lower powered scope, increased my hit ration dramatically. Used that in 7mmBR last year to drop a running deer at 200 yds,,,,scope-4x32 Nikon ProStaff. Worked fine. Had I had a variable cranked to max (the common temptation when you have time to crank)...i.e. that 14x I doubt that deer would have fallen.

So I have learned first hand how a high mag scope CAN be couterproductive in certain situations, when 95% of the shots I have had offered could have been taken/WERE taken using 4x and 6x's as a good 2/3 or 3/4 of deer I have shot were using said fixed scopes, if not more.

BOGC2, you could do ALOT worse than that combo. For deer, being a handloader, I'd prefer a 6.5x55, 260 or 7/08 really liking the short actions but the Rugers handle fast and are not overly heavy, and the 280 will run right with the best of them, and have factory ammo, if that is important.

A trigger job and perhaps floating the bbl if range test indicate would be the only things you might consider. If an FX-II, shorter tube, you may want a reverse ring, but not sure if needed, depends on gun fit, but the scopes have lots of eye relief so odds are you will be fine w/o.

No offense intended to your brother, but it had nothing to do with being 'OVER-ENGINEERED' for the opportunity. What you described was a very simple case of not being proficient or experienced with his equipment. I'm not a fan of blaming equipment as an excuse for incompetence.

Just because the scope has a turret and it's zeroed for 100 doesn't mean you walk around hunting with it dialed to 100. Why on earth would anybody do that? You dial it up to 250 or 300, etc (depending upon how flat shooting the round is I used 300 this year) exactly for situations like you described--point and shoot. Use the time available in a "snap shot" situation like that to concentrate on the shot. There should have been absolutely no difference no matter what scope he had.

A turret being on the scope was not the problem. Your brother not knowing how to hunt with one was.

JonA, I agree 100%. It was the ill-fated attempt by a lesser experienced person to set their expectations overly high that when zeroed dead on, one simply needed to look at a chart of where the scope needs to be clicked to get them on.....with that model out to 800 yds in his words. Flawed thinking no doubt.

I do not take your comments personally, but I do stand, yes for that shot and many, as cool as that 2-8x36 Mr/T looks and can work well for it's application, mid range tactical, I think his having a scope with those knobs altered his actions and likely cost him a simply, faster, cleaner shot on that deer. Time spent clicking the knob was lost time he could have had gaining a better sight pic/hold/squeeze IMHO. One will never know

You are correct, a COMPETENT shooter, KNOWING their equipment would have been fine as to not having the scope features be the blame of the outcome.

Your points are mostly all spot on, but the one thing I disagree with is, THAT scope was not the right scope for HIM IMHO, as it slowed him down and his flawed thinking having a set zero at 100, vs a point shoot zero of 200/250 or whatever, was what cost him.

Had he used a simpler scope, his shot cycle would have been simpler, and likely more odds his aim was on the mark.

Yes, the scope was not the problem, his thinking another guy's choice was cool who had one, resulting in him buying one too, overcomplicated his thought process in that critical short window of time.

If we all had a GAME COURSE set up on our ranges, say deer size metal silhouettes that would fall or swing when hit at all various ranges 100-400 yds, or just ring when hit, then had a timer set for say 3-5 seconds to raise gun, aim, fire and record hit ratio, one might learn alot about what works and does not re: weight and fit of rifle, scope used, and even how the chambering/recoil affects their ability to squeeze w/o flinching.

More range time would have better prepared my bro, correct no equipment failure, not a slam on the nice scope, but for HIM, and his CURRENT level of experience, he learned all the gadgetry in the world will not replace range time getting familiar with his equipment. Those knobs COULD have zeroed him on, but he did not even have/use a range finder, nor did he need one for that distance and his rifle/load combo, had he had whatever scope on his gun zeroed further out, ELIMINATING his desire to waste valuable time twisting the knob. To my mind, not as much as time lost, but it is a big distraction, which in MY mind, causes a shooter in that type of situation to panic fearing time is running out, and they rush the shot worrying it might be lost. In doing so, the hold is often not as stable, and sight pic may not be as good in vitals, let alone a good squeeze w/o pulling the bbl off mark.

You might agree on this statement JonA..."Beware of the man with one gun, he probably knows how to use it" but you do bring up points that I agree on mostly, wholeheartedly. Thanks for your post.

It reminds me the time I lost the biggest chance I ever had in killing a HUGE buck, walking broadside in a field, 150-200 yds, using a M8 6x36 duplex, on a Ruger 1B 270. I had a rest, 150 ballistic tip handloads shooting fine, but in a last minute 'brain fart' back shortly after college (as in wet behind my ears) my last sight in session I made the fatal mistake of raising my POI from 1.5/2" at 100yds, to 3-3.5". That deer was walking in grass, and all I seen was the head/neck and I GUESTIMATED where the body was, and was wrong, it was lower and I doubt it was so much bullet deflection as it was incorrect 'visualization' thinking where my lung shot SHOULD have been on that huge WT buck.

In doing so, I missed my first shot, in a panic worrying time was quickly running out, I quickly reloaded another round and repeated my mistake. This went on for either four if not I believe 5 shots! Buck never ran, anything, just kept walking and I kept missing! I was rushing my reloading of that single shot to maximize time for each shot, and WISH I had never raised the POI for one thing.

At the end of the day, had I fired ALL five shots, at that bucks neck that I COULD see, I am confident ONE of them, if not the first or second would have killed that buck. It was nice, a VERY big spread, but it was a lesson learned I will never forget.

Do not aim at what you cannot see, and DO stay calm and make the first shot count and if it does not don't go insane trying to keep doing the same thing, and expecting different results! LOL.

So, yes, I have learned the hard way, OVER ANALYZING what I was doing, and it started with an improperly zeroed rifle which did not help on that day. The reason I did that? Thinking as many do, WHAT IF? What IF I get that shot at 400-500 yds....

Nearly 20 years have gone by since then, and I have only fired at one deer over 400 yds, and it was w/o a rangefinder in strange terrain in CO mountains, could have been 400/450 or even 600 yds I don't know, but Point is, all other deer were at 250 and under except 2. One was that same CO trip, around 275 paces, and another at 400 yds. FAR more likely in MY experience to have opportunties at ranges knobs are not needed, and MAY cost you a shot fooling with them. Currently I zero POI at 200, but have thought about 250 due to others experienc, but I have yet to miss using the 200 zero...due to the fault of the POI where I hunt. It was the Indian that missed, not the bow as has been said.

After 400 yds, a LRF and KNOBS can become invaluable, if a hunter elects to take a shot IMHO, but that is not how I hunt deer and big game.

That very much reminds me of a fella we picked up at the airport about 5 years ago. He was coming in to W TX to hunt sandhills mule deer, and showed up with a Weatherby 30-378 wearing a Leupy 6-24 varmint type scope with all the bells and whistles. From the moment we met him he bragged about his rig, and shooting abilities. To make a long story short, he shot 26 times in 4 days, all clean misses from 75-350 yards. To say he "flinched" would be an understatement. I'd almost call it a seizure while pulling the trigger. He didn't get shots off quick enough at least 7-8 times because he was screwin' around with those turrets, or having his scope turned to 24x trying to shoot at a deer 75 yards away. We finally told him he was done, never mind he didn't kill a buck, and told him to not bother to come back.

How much did he pay for your services?

Again, you have no idea who I am or what I have done with a rifle and scope. Assuming that everyone other than yourself is an idiot in regards to optics might be why you are actually the one ill-informed. I would imagine that you would refuse information provided to you, regardless of the source, if said information did not agree with your preconceived notions about how optics work.

Just something for you to think about.

I don�t care what they claim, nobody going through 26 rounds or 60 rounds between two to fill a tag are competent with any rifle in any circumstance by any stretch of the definition. Stories about them sure do make for good anecdotes though--especially when they happen to be using gear for which one doesn�t approve.

Stories about the �One box a year� guys who use that entire box every year to fill a single tag with Grandpa�s �06 and whatever scope happened to be the cheapest in the Sears and Robuck catelog 40 years ago (even if it is a *GASP* fixed 4X or 6X) just aren�t nearly as entertaining. I guess maybe there are no people like that where you guys hunt. Maybe every slob hunter where you guys hunt has a $800 or $1000+ scope on his rifle?

If we could only be so lucky. That would eliminate about 95% of them in my neck of the woods.

And there's not a a thing wrong with that. Hunting the way you like to hunt is what it�s all about.

Personally, I like to do it many different ways. When I got my mule deer this year on the wide open prairies at about 415 yds away, it was only about an hour earlier I had a whitetail buck in the crosshairs at under 20 and a couple more under 50. Had any of them had big enough headgear, the fancy turret nor the complicated zooming mechanism on the hubble would have kept me from putting any of them on the ground. However I�m sure if I kept the pricetag of the scope attached they all would have been safe because I can only carry so much ammo for this big magnum before my back seizes up.

This is also absolutely correct IMO....the point is to know the equipment and be zeroed for "the longest distance that will not cause mid range misses",to paraphrase a fairly well-known gunwriter who is now deceased.... The problem some guys have is that they may not react properly under the stress of the moment,and make the "wrong" decision in the use of the equipment.If you need the technology, it is there,but if you DON't ignore it, as Jon and JB both imply...

Since I am simple by nature,and easily confused by technical "things", I long ago tried to make hitting as easy as I possibly could,so took Jack O'Connors advice and followed the "kiss" principle as to both my methods of zero,and my choice of scope.Many of my habits are now so ingrained,that I could not make the transition to more complex gear if I tried.....

This does not mean that others cannot use the new technology,but there are times to use it,and there are times to JUST SHOOT! Cause he's gonna get away if you don't!!!!!!!!!

I like the little Zeiss conquest 4X great scope that will cover about 90% of hunting, and for 300to 350 dollars. One heck of a value!

Ed

Bob, you could...just 3000 - 5000 repetitions will ingrain the new "ranging, knob-turning high-tech" hunting methods!

magnumdood: I thought when I hit my 50's, I'd have more time....these days I have LESS I'm not sure I have 3000-5000 repetitions of ANYTHING left in me. But I understand your point and it's well taken.

Arrogant, sanctimonious, pompous jerk; I wouldn�t trust you to test how many of my turds floated in a given week.




Never stopped him before; he doesn�t care. He thinks he knows more about rifles and scopes than anyone.



Everyone he argues with tells him the same thing.



You know all you need to know about him.

$3000

I don't really care what they show up with, as long as they are proficient with it. That was my point. My son hunted the same ranch with my old Marlin 336 30-30 once, and again with a 7-08. My nephew took 6 shots over 2 days to kill one. 26 shots in 4 days don't cut it.

The flip side to the mule deer hunt was some fellas from Pennsylvania who came out here hunting free-range aoudad. They were machinists by trade, and had thumbhole stocked 300WSM's with turrets they had made themselves (by the way they were competition shooters too). We eventually approached a big ram with one of the hunters while trying to figure how to get closer, ranged it, and told the guy it was 570 yards. His reply was "this is fine right here". We looked at him like he was crazy of course, as big aoudad rams weigh 300lbs or so. With little wind, we agreed to let him shoot. He dropped the ram with one shot. We stood there amazed.

Most of the Williansport boys hunt with there 1000 yard rifles.
We practice with our 300 WMs and S&Bs every year out to 700.
Pa is a big rifle state.Lots of guys stretch it out here.
dave

These Pa guys knew what they were doing for sure.

Like Bob, I seem to be (happily) stuck in the past. My first rifle was a Rem 660 in .308 which I fitted with a Weaver 3x scope. I'm not ashamed to admit that I still have that combination. The scope is anything but bright, and of course has no turrets, but it has never prevented me (or my youngest son, who now uses it) from taking all kinds of BC game. I know that almost any mid- to higher-end scope would give me a better sight picture, but I just can't bring myself to change the original set-up, and as I said, I don't think that it's ever hindered me.

I sight in as per JOC, for the longest distance without causing mid-range misses, and I've/we've taken game at ranges up to 300 yards, which under ordinary field conditions,is the limit of my ability.

They practice every year out to 700 and 1000 yds., so they know what they are doing ?
Not what I've seen. Big difference between making a 20-40 yd. shot in heavy cover on a running animal and making one at 500 yds. plus. Big difference between carrying a rifle that goes 6.5-7.5 lbs. all up and one that is very muzzle heavy and weighs 10.5-14 lbs. Particularly if you need to hike a few miles and climb a few 1000 ft.
I've done enough hunting and shooting to know that those that prepare for one, but not the other, are making a mistake. The bucks/bulls or whatever never seem to read my game plan.
I'm convinced that the trick is to know what to expect where you hunt and practice for that. Usually that means a mixture of both close and longer shots. I don't know about others, but the toughest shots I get are those which are up close, and in a hurry on a running animal. For that, a good 4X has it all. I can and have made shots well over 400 yds with one. Frankly, I find those much easier to make than the close range quick shots. That's why my rifles are designed to better handle those kinds of shots rather than the longer ones.
One more thing. Practice is fine. But trying to find ways to practice under pressure, say against stop watch, is much more realistic when it comes to real world hunting. That's where you learn that no matter how much you practice with the complicated stuff, the same effort put into the simplier setups pays off better.
The only exception I'm aware of would be things like really long shots. If you really need the capability to make 500-800 yd shots, then you probably should pack the extra gear. I, for one, have decided that only under the rarest circumstances would I consider anything over 400 yds for big game. Why ? I have yet to find anyone who can judge the tricky winds that blow in the mountains. Those that hunt things like Pronghorn or deer on flat land don't have that problem. While I've hunted in such places, I don't do it regularly so my choice are geared towards the simple and very flexible gear. E

I'm not one to normally say, "Have you been here or done that", but I doubt that you have ever been to Willimsport to watch what those guys/girls do at long range. It is a local obsession with the shooting crowd. There are a lot more than a few that will place 10 shots in a 5-7in circle at 1000 on a regular basis. I think the record is currently around 2.5in.

It's a big world out there and it obviously extends way beyond your little location and what you have seen.

Deleted

JG,

You really told someone who paid you $3000.00 to leave and not come back? My understanding of the guide business (A limited understanding I readily admit) is that a lot of your customer base is generated by word-of-mouth. Do you think that guy is going to recommend you to anyone else?

Really? I guess they should NOT practice?!?!?! Anyhow, your statement: "not what I've seen" is a logical fallacy.





Wow, that is some amazing wisdom. Of course, you jumped in and replied to a posting about someone taking LONG shots. I love herring. Red is my favorite.....




The herring is tasting better and better......





I'll even tell you the name of the logical fallacy you are using here: false dichotomy. You are very welcome. Oh, and feel free to do what a SMART hunter would do: prepare for BOTH.




Actually, at really close running game, lower power than 4x would be ideal. That might be why some guys hunting stuff that will eat you put things like the Nightforce 1-4x24 or the Leupold 1.5-5x20 or the S&B 1.1-4x24 on their rifles......





I like how you assume other people don't create stress while practicing.

FWIW, when I was in the corps, we had fixed 10x Leupold scopes. I guess they didn't hear from you, because they now have variable S&B scopes, so they are wasting their "simple" practice time on that "complicated stuff."

I was amazed by that as well. ERRORcus is actually arrogant enough to believe he invented stress training while performing all levels of firearm use, from loading, to malfunction clearance to actual shooting - accurately.

That's funny. I understood that the USMC used Unertl (Sp ?) 10X scopes. The Army uses the Leupold Mk.4 10X.
I'm not trying to say that the good folks back east don't know how to make long shots. I was saying, in so many words, that they assumed that they would doing that out here in the far west when they come out to hunt. The best rifle for use out here would be a heavy tactical rifle, wearing a fancy scope. One that they can not only rapidly adjust the focus, but the parallax, the magnification, the elevation and the windage etc.
With some conditioning, they will be able to carry it over ridges, down and up the other side of canyons, etc. When it comes time to make that all important shot, they will deploy the bipod on their 13 lb. wonder and amazed the local yokels who have only been doing this all of their lives with basic sporters and 4X scopes.
If they happen to hunt in a very few, wide open flat areas, for either deer or Pronghorn, they might pull it off. But for the bulk of western hunting, they aren't well equipped. As for conditioning, most of us learn that the more you insist on carrying, the less you will walk and the less you will be able to deal with whatever oportunities you get. E

I have literally known at least 50 Eastern individuals who have gone on Western hunts of all types. NONE have fit your stereotype
of carrying or wanting to carry a "13lb wonder." Now I'm sure it has happened, but I'm also sure it is the exception and not the norm. I think the only one assuming-or is it fabricating-anything is you.

He's fabricating, or in more common language, he's lying.

Oh! You're a conditioning expert too!? Please, tell us about your off-season conditioning program.

All I know is what we had. Fixed 10x. Now they use a variable S&B. Again, they must not have asked YOU how to train, because they are wasting their time with that complicated stuff when, according to you, they should ditch the variable and stick to training simple.....




Well, you might be quite the stud, but, considering that I did OK in the Madison, WI Ironman triathlon this year, I doubt if you should be giving me conditioning advice. I would put a lot of money on me being able to hump your ass into the grave in the mountains bub. A LOT of money. But, you don't know me from Adam, and I don't know you, so I won't be surprised when you act like nobody but you knows anything about conditioning either....

http://www.nasports.com/results/results.php

He might not, but I will. I commute by bike from Minnetonka in to Minneapolis 4-5 days a week all year. I biked over 4k miles last year, ran over 800 miles, completed several triathlons, including an Ironman (2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, and a marathon) and do light weights 3 times weekly. I also play hockey twice a week in the winter and once a week in the summer. I play in the Minnesota NHL alumni charity games as one of their goalies.

He's 60+ years old and probably does fine...for a 60 year old.

With regard to your level of conditioning, I doubt he's ever, in his entire life, been as fit as you!

My guess is you could piggyback him and his gear farther than he could hike on his own.

Hey, I hope I'm out hunting hard when I'm sixty-plus years old.

I also hope I still know when to just STFU and don't find myself on the internet arguing with people I don't know about subjects I know something, but not a lot, about.....

As for piggybacking him, I don't know how big he is. I could easily hump 150 pounds 20+ miles in the mountains in one day though, as long as I have some advil and a beer when I get to camp.

I wasn't trying to raise any sympathy for him. He talks out of his ass constantly. You're getting a pretty good dose of it now. Just wait; in two weeks, you can come back and have the exact same conversation with him even though you've handed him his ass in his hat on this one. Do that three or four times (some of us are in the dozens of such conversations) with him and any semblance of pity for the elderly flies out the window.

E, those Pa boys knew what they were doing. I forgot you were on that trip too to witness what we did (NOT). Just another example of arrogance, and a plain ol' dumb-ass response. Not surprised.

We certainly did. We felt he was unsafe and, more importantly, after four days of the fiasco the landowner himself offered up the suggestion, therefore it didn't really matter what we thought at that point. By the way, we have little trouble filling slots for free range aoudad, antelope, and BIG mulies. The record speaks for itself on our ranches.

It seems that more and more people are finally seeing E for what he is.Not only is he one of only two people in the entire world that can focus a scope properly,a person that can tell you what your eyes are seeing better than you can,a person that can diagnose your vision without even examining your eyes,a person that knows how each and every scope manufacturer tests each and every scope model,he can also tell you just what type of hunter a person is just by where that person currently lives.

He's peeing up a rope and it dripping on the home team. Mistake.

Where are your ranches located?

I think every machinist in PA doubles as his own gunsmith - and they're ALL good shots. If somebody from PA tells me he can shoot I believe it unless he proves himself wrong.

West Texas and Eastern New Mexico primarily. There have been 6 B&C antelope taken the past 3 years, numerous 30" aoudad, and mulies up to 191" gross.