offered today (under 10x) if price is not a factor? Thanks...

S&B is my choice.

U.S.Optics certainly deserves mention. I was absolutely impressed with their products... Top notch.

http://www.usoptics.com/optics.html

Custom made for you, right here in the USA.

Hunting or tactical ?

Price is rarely not a factor.
Regardless of income...price matters.
But the answer is, most men above 35 won't be able to appreciate the optical benefits of a S&B for more than 5 years.

Leupold FX3 6x42 with an M1 turret.

Agreed.

David

IMO, it really depends on the ultimate use for the scope. For instance weather you are hunting whitetail at last light from a tree stand or your chasing DG in the bush where the weigtn and balance are more critical. If I was to pick one It would be a Trijicon 3x9.

schmidt bender

Leupold 6x36 or 6x42. I haven't decided which I prefer yet.

Leica Magnus, but not available yet in USA.

Where the hell do you get this dipshidt stuff??? I have had a Schmidt and Bender for more than five years and I still appreciate the benefits of it.

For my money, any of the high end Euros in a 1.5-6x42 formula is awful close to as good as it gets for glass. and as perfect as I have seen for Minnesota deer hunting. They can be a little on the heavy side, they are pricey, and if they ever do need service, they might have to go back to Europe. But... they all come with an unlimited transferable warranty, they are bright, they are rugged, they are clear and sharp, they have excellent eye relief and I have yet to see one that didn't track perfectly. I prefer them to the 2.5-10s.

Better hang on this may be a bumpy ride

For a hunting scope, take a look at the Trijicon hunting scopes with the illuminated green center. Last August I killed a huge Cape Buffalo at (they said) 10 yards and all I really remember is putting the green center on his chest and the gun went off.

Always is...love reading this stuff.

The vast majority of males over the age of 40 suffer diminished response to light. As we age our eyes ability to pull in light reduces.
Therefore a scope allowing lots of light transmission is wasted.

Trijicon 3x9 40 duplex green dot

This is the classic example of you not understanding what the hell you read. A brighter scope is a brighter scope. Period end discussion. If your eye doesn't dilate enough to take advantage of a larger exit pupil doesn't make a brighter scope dimmer. That's something that very much follows the pattern of taking in information and getting lost in it to where you lose track of the simple part. A 1.5-6x42 S&B is still going to be brighter than a 1.5-6x42 Bushnell regardless of how old your eyes are. At least until Bushnell starts to put a similar amount of time and money into glass, coatings and construction. Bushnell could forego the quality improvements were this not true and their $150 scope would be every bit as good as the $1500 Zeiss/Swaro/S&B/Meopta but for the unlimited lifetime warranty. Bushnell could simply offer the same warranty and chances are they'd come out well ahead dollar wise just sending out a new scope every year or so and selling their Cheapo for $1500 too. Most people aren't going to put very many rounds through a rifle/scope combo that they'd break the scope quickly and most of those rounds wouldn't be heavy recoilers.

A brighter scope will always be just that when you compare them apples to apples, lens size to lens size. Otherwise everyone who wanted a brighter scope would just have to buy a bigger objective lens and a little more magnification. It doesn't work as simply as you think. My Nikon Monarch gold 2.5-10x50 has less useful brightness bright as any of my 1.5-6x42 Euros at it's brightest, and it's that way for everyone who has looked through both. And, that is irrelevant to how they have the exit pupil set.

If your eyes go dim like your brain, you can compensate to some extent by going to a brighter scope while maintaining all else equal. YOUR brain on the other hand does not seem capable of accepting more input and making sense of it.

Quite to the contrary. Our eyes never "pull in" light. And, if anything, aging eyes will benefit even more from more light (but it's true, they'll never be as good as they were when they were better.)

Actually there is some truth so what he said but only from a standpoint of how well each age group will see through a high end and a mid grade scope. The younger group will be able to see better than the older group, but it is the difference between the two age groups that will not change. Younger group can see, lets say a 20% difference between the two scopes and so will the older group.

This is what my old eyes are telling me. Good glass helps a lot more now than it used to.

Its your money....go nuts.

Had a small ship come in in 1998 and applied the money to a Schmidt and Bender Klassic w/#4 reticle. I feel it to be the best hunting scope ever made. Been enjoying now going on 20years and ain't dead yet. powdr

My favorite hunting scope and the last one I would sell is my Zeiss Diavari Victory 2.5-10x42. WHY they stopped making this one is beyond me; if you see one under $1k, BUY IT.

But to further the chatter about the viability of "low light " scopes; my very "mature" eyes can clearly see the difference at last light between any of my other "Alpha" glass products and my Swarovski PH8x56. I can't "splain" it; I just know what I see.

The quality of a scope is not just about quality of the glass, but I'd say SB wins both.

Folks have a lot of opinions about optics, but I would bet that if you talked to anyone that owns a SB, they would regard any other scope choice as a step down.

Kahles

S&B

Under 10x, I'll cast a vote for the S&B Zenith.
I've not had the pleasure of handling or using the new S&B Stratos. And, at $2800, I likely won't.

This beauty right here!!!!! LOL

BSA STS 6-24x44IR Side Big Wheel Focus Multi-purpose Twist-Cap Riflescope

I wouldn't be surprised to see S&B and Nightforce top most lists.

For me, hunting in BC, weight is always a concern; after maybe 75 scopes over 50+ years, I am now favouring Swaro Z3-3x9s on my hunting rifles.

I have both (as well as most of those listed), and no, I do not believe that the S&B is tops (though they are very good). Mechanical function means more than anything and one is clearly at the top in that regard.





Bob,

As usual you are spot on.

Prolly wouldn't see a whole bunch of NF scopes on top of Echols Classics though............ The S&B would most likely be a common sighting though Bob (along with a few guys that ran out of money and put a Leupold on board).......

Why am I not shocked by that. I thought you were growing fond of the Bushnell LRHS ? How does that compare mechanically to a S&B PM ?

RD I might be one of those guys who ran out of money.

But judging from some of the gear I see pictures of on here, some of us could scrape the barrel bottom and come up with the chedda for a S&B, I bet....at least ONE!

March

Hey, I was counting on you to procure the Stratos, then sell to me later at a greatly reduced rate.

How do you like the March scopes and what models do
they compare with ?

Scott hate to blow holes in your plans but ......we are both SOL!

Why are we still discussing this when Steelhead already got it right?

Forgive me Bob, but somehow I'm having difficulty swallowing that one.

2nd on the March

I have the 8 X80 model and it is like having a Hubble telescope on my rifle.

I bench rest with this rife

I compared it with a Nightforce that was the same price and set at the same power the March was cleaner. 6 other people looked threw both scopes ands said the same thing. 1 other guy liked the Nightforce better.

I also have a Swaro PV and the March has better glass

The only thing I don't like about them is the price. They have a 10X zoom range, incomparable glass and seem to be plenty durable. Time will tell how they hold up in the field but they track well and see best.

The 6x42(and 6x36) are both good scopes...lightweight, mechanically rugged,reliable, decent optics,mount easy, suited to a lot of hunting ,and affordable. I've killed more game with fixed power Leupolds than anything else.Still use them.

But...the "best"? I don't think so. Things are what they are.

So I guess we're talking about hunting style scopes and not heavy duty tactical type scopes Bob ?

I'm sorry, but until I see a science based, factual and valid comparison of all the scopes mentioned, coupled with VALID measures of effectiveness as to what constitutes "best", personal favorites will remain that. And here's another tip: most expensive doesn't mean best. Carry on..

March or S&B would be my choice.

Define 'BEST'

S&B..

dave

You do it. I'm tired.

Whatever I say, you're not going to agree with it anyway.

I own:
Zeiss
Kahles
Simmons
Leupold
Bushnell
Nikon
Swarovski
S&B

Each serve their purpose in my arsenal, however there is nothing that comes close to S&B for low light hunting conditions. Heavy or not, the S&B sits at the top of the scope empire in all around class.

once you go Barska you will never go back...

Since the main criteria for most people nowadays, when mentioning hunting scopes, is glass quality at a level at which you can see mites on a sparrow's asss, (not mine however), I will submit a ferocious combo of glass quality, mechanical reliability, customer service, warranty, easy mounting options, and a reticle that's actually usable.......that being a 2.5-10x42 R2 Meopta Meostar with illuminated 4c reticle.

For usability with killer glass, and an eye box
that Mr Magoo can love.....a 2-12x VX6 has no peer IMHO.

^ THIS. And I challenge any S&B owners to objectively look at both scopes from all the aspects mentioned, including low-light performance..

BTDT with S&B Zenith vs. Z6i, VM/V Diavari, Kahles CSX and VX-6. Optically, the S&B is tops, and easily discernible to my old decrepit eyes. Low-light situations, the Zeiss was even with the S&B to my eyes.

For twisting turrets, the S&B again gets my nod compared to the above competition.

Not going to happen especially with the price difference between the 2.

When it fails, you can always ride it back to camp.

that is a fine piece of optical engineering

JG and I are a lot alike on opinions of hunting equipment. I do not have a VX6 but if it's even remotely close to the Klassic...its a good scope. powdr

Serious question. What is your definition of 'finest'

Either you can answer it or you can't. If you can't then let the men talk.

I can't really consider anything coming from you as "serious".

Go away.Pest.

My gawd your reading comprehension is terrible. I'm not engaging in any kind of discussion with you.Not worth it.

The real question is "finest riflescope" for " All around BG hunting " ? Westerners will answer differently than Easterners. Finest configuration or the finest materials used to make the scope that will ensure years of trouble free use and abuse (tracking, zero retention and return to zero) ie practically bomb proof ? Nobody will probably ever agree on that answer.

This is a "hunting" optics subforum.

The March scopes have been mentioned, they are mostly long
range and tactical, big and heavy and not made for hunting.

Not so much big and heavy

my 8 X 80 is smaller and lighter than the 24 power Nightforce that we compared with each other

I was surprised with how small an light it was with such a powerful scope.

I have not seen any of there hunting scopes for that matter I have not seen another March scope.

BINGO!!!!! We have a winner...

So, what difference does it make to someone with cataracts? I'm fine with a $300 scope.

Get them fixed and you won't be.

Then again, maybe you still will be. What is fine for one isn't always for another.

getting cataracts removed will make your 300.00 scope look like a 1000.00 scope. Been there, done that!

You guys are just jealous!

I'm sure you're correct about the envy of some of these green eyed monsters that post here. That scope appears to be a collective assembly of technological advancements.

I've owned everything mentioned (except the Barska and the Big Wheel) and my eyes like the Swarovski Z6. Very personal thing though - others eyes are different. That being said, I'll admit I might fail a test in which I had to look through the Swaro and the S&B and tell you which is which without seeing the brand printed on the scope.

Most high end scopes are fairly comparable to each other and differences between them are fairly small.

As far as general purpose hunting scopes go, for 1" tube designs I like Kahles KXi 3.5-10x50.

For 30mm tube designs, Leica agrees with my eyes best, so it would have to be ERi 2.5-10x42 or ERi 3-12x50.

That having been said, I have not yet tested the new Kahles Helia 5, so we'll see how that goes.

With all that having been said, it is hard to go wrong with Swaro Z6 or Zeiss Victory HT either.

S&Bs are very good, but their recent designs seem to have different eyepieces that are more critical of eye position than I like. However, I have not tested the new Polar scopes.

ILya

Koshkin, what is your criteria for a good hunting scope?

i like the new NF 2.5-10x42

It is hard to go wrong with the new Nightforce designs. Their mechanical quality has always been excellent in the last 2-3 years the optical quality has gotten significantly better as well. I am testing their 4-16x42 F1 right now and I am pretty impressed.

ILya

Of the scopes I've used the finest would be my Z6 followed very closely by a Zeiss Diavari. An argument could be made for the Swaro Z3 if light and compact are necessities. For bench work I can't imagine much I'd like better than my Nightforce NSX's.

The vast majority of males over the age of 40 suffer diminished response to light. As we age our eyes ability to pull in light reduces.
Therefore a scope allowing lots of light transmission is wasted.


Everyone over 40 should be happy with a Tasco.

Since most of this is blatantly incorrect, I will go ahead and assume your a joking.

ILya

Here is the whole quote.You will have to ask Ringworm if he is joking!!!
uote=ringworm]
The vast majority of males over the age of 40 suffer diminished response to light. As we age our eyes ability to pull in light reduces.
Therefore a scope allowing lots of light transmission is wasted.

[/quote]
uote=ringworm]
The vast majority of males over the age of 40 suffer diminished response to light. As we age our eyes ability to pull in light reduces.
Therefore a scope allowing lots of light transmission is wasted.

[/quote]

I see. I will go ahead and assume that ringworm is joking.

ILya

I find it fascinating that guys like Mule Deer and Bob use alot of 6X Leupolds for their hunting.
To my mind, if a particular rifle scope does everyhting you need it to do, and does it with complete satisfaction, then anything that might be better for more money is simply a waste of one's money.
I, for one, am also a fan of the the 6X Leupold, as well as their 4X scopes. They have always done what I neeeded them to do and have amazed me how well they put up with abuse w/o losing zero in the field. You migh say they exceeded my expectations.
Others, like Scenarshooter, odviously have needs that are quite unlike my own. He has reported he has made running shots on coyotes that are some 40 yds. out. He also shoots stuff at ranges I wouldn't even consider. The guy odviously shoots alot to maintain this skill level. I'm not even remotely in the same class he is.
For him an S&B 10X is the answer. Or something like it. But not somebody like me. E

What you should find fascinating is to keep reading posts from guys like you've mentioned to try and gain knowledge on about improving your hunting skills. I know I'm learning a lot from their actual field experience and they might just change my thoughts on what is best for me even.