Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Best all around hunting rifle scope

for $2500, my money would go to schmidt & bender!

DJ,
I liked the 3-10x42 AH TDS scope. Unfortunatley it was more than I was willing to spend on a scope. The scope that I got was the Burris 3-10x40 Signature Select with the Ballistic Plex reticle. I also used Talley rings and bases.

I was considering the swarovski PF 8X50. Any experience with a fixed scope?

To my way of thinking that would be a very niche scope, what exactly are you gonna be using the gun for and under what conditions?

Thx

Mark D

The best all-around scope has plenty of eye-relief and is rugged, compact, low on the rifle, and very simple.

Of the variables, Leupold's VX-III 2.5-8x, 3.5-10x, 1.5-5x, and 1.75-6x are excellent, and of the fix powers, Leupold's 6x and 4x are very tough to beat.

Save the complicated, big scopes for varmints, targets, long-range plinking, and deer in soybean fields..........

AD

Exactly.
t

Yepper what AD said.

Personally I'd buy a good Leupold either a 3-9 VX2 with the LR reticle in it, make sure I had a Leica LRF and I'd take the rest of the moolah and put it in the hunt fund.

Mark D

Since you are going to mount it on a .325 WSM I am assuming it will be a carry rifle, and possibly a scabbard rifle for horse back hunts. If this is the purpose I personally would eliminate all of the big scopes and the ones with big adjustments that can bind in a scabbard. It would be hard to beat a Leupold VXIII 2.5-8x36 or 3.5-10x40.

You can get all the performance any of the others can get with their expensive euro scopes in something for $500 or less.
All around scopes, in my book, are those which do many jobs well. The basic 4X and 6X scopes do far better than most give them credit for. I've used and hunted with everything from the 2.5X scopes throught the 7.5X models. I've used everything in variables from the simple, rugged 2.5-4X B&L's of the 50's up to the fancy 6.5-20X40's put out by Leupold.
For big game, and the larger varmits, I have discovered that the 6X42 Leupold works far better than you'd ever think.
For a 325 WSM, I'd want something that would hold up. I wouldn't be way out there on some long dreamed of hunt and discover my big, expensive scope suddenly decided to start shifting it's zero and making strange groups. A fixed magnification scope is far more reliable than any variable.
If I were to insist on a variable, it would be a small one with plenty of eye relief and a large eye box. Much easier to acquire the image with a scope that features a large eye box. Much easier to use a scope with a large eye box when I shoot from different positions or wear various layers of clothing. E

I have a swarovski pf 8x56 on a win 70 in 240 weatherby mag. I use it mainly when hunting from a box blind or similar and I like it much. I bought it 'cause
1) I wanted a swarovski ph and the fixed x was $300 less than a variable
2) the 56mm was only slightly more expensive than the 50mm.
3) all things equal, a fixed x is brighter than a variable 'cause the are fewer lens
4) when hunting from a fixed position, I typically find my scope set on 6-7x so the thought was that 8x was not too high.
5)my paw in law has a 8x56 ph and it is all he has used for ten years and loves it.

If I had the decision to make again, I would do the same and buy the 8x56.

Also, I have six fixed x scopes and for a rugged, do it all rifle, the leupold 6x42 would get the nod. bright, durable and low profile. what not to like? fewer moving parts, fewer things to break!

6x Leupold, 2.5-8x36 Leupold, or 3.5-10x40 Leupold. In that order. If it was me I would go with the 2.5-8x36 and not look back.

$2500 on a scope sounds ridiculous to me but, different strokes for different folks.

I guess the reason I personally feel it's ridiculous is that I shoot with all different price range scopes all of the time and honestly when you get above the grade of say Zeiss Conquest, Diavari, LPS, Kahles, etc, etc. the extra money just buys you the name. There are only miniscule differences in some of the ridiculously priced scopes.

Is this a custom rig or a factory rifle?

The majority of all scopes priced over 2-300 bucks are very durable so the key differences are going to be clarity, light transmission, weight, and available reticles.

I personally don't feel there is a "Best," it all depends on your personal preferance. Go to the gun shop and look at a few, study the specs of each and buy what fits your needs the best.

These debates about my 2300 dollar scope is better than your 1800 dollar scope are so ridiculously childish.

Good Luck

Reloader7RM

I think CFRAN, ALPINECRICK,and MATHMAN should hire out as a stand-up comedy routine....too funny!

J.Price: Just get a 4XLeupold, shoot everything.

I couldn't agree with you more. I just wanted to put everything on a level playing field. I wanted to get the best scope for my application and didn't want money to factor into what that scope is. I understand that for the money leupold is a good scope, but I am not looking for a good scope. I am looking for a great scope. I also realize that their is small diferences between leupold and say swarovski or zeiss, but it is those small diferences that I am looking for. eye relief,clarity,brightness,low light transmission, weight, durability, and warranty. A small difference in each category will add up to a much more superior scope overall.

Are you serious, with money not an object you would put a leupold on a 325 wsm

Completely untrue. You do get what you pay for in scopes. Most of the more expensive scopes are better than the $500 and under scopes. The question is whether or not the small increases in performance are worth the large increases in price.



This is a myth propagated by those who are thinking about scopes made 30 years ago. 30-40 years ago fixed scopes were appreciably more reliable. Today's modern variables will hold up under extreme conditions. A 325 WSM is not an extreme condition and any number of quality modern variables will hold up just fine........................DJ

I just picked up the new Z6 1.7-10 x 42, very impressive, and I'm a Zeiss guy. It is as clear and bright as the VM/V 3-9 x 42mm. I have not looked through the new Zeiss VM/V 3-10 x 42T though (I had one sent to one of my gunbuilders for his custom scope mounts). I'll let you know when I get the rifle.

For the money, the Swaro AV 3-10 x42 and the Zeiss VM/V 3-9 x 42 can't be beat- you could get them at a discount now I bet as they both have "new" models.. (But I'd spend the extra bucks on the Z6).

my .02c

Are you serious you would put a 8x50 on one? I guess that would be great if you were going to be stand hunting in Austria, but that's about the extent of that scope's purpose.

For American or Canadian hunting in woods and out, I want a varible that will go down to 1.5-3 in the thick stuff and up to 6-10 in clear cuts or off the bench developing loads. My Swarovski is the 1.5x6x42. It works for everything well with the 4a reticle and the ultra sharp resolution. I had a 3x12x56 but it was just too big and heavy. I sold it and bought an IOR and gained in glass quality. But the 3x12x56 was an older model that did not benefit from the latest coatings. I know the PH series and up are top notch stuff.