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

I have both. No, in fact you can't.

AGREED

Thats why I asked the question? I have always used variable scopes and know absolutely nothing about fixed scopes. Thanks for the info. I was just shocked to hear you would mention leupold under these circumstances. really the last scope I would have thought of. However if I would have given a $500 limit you might make the argument, but then again the conquest may be hard to beat given the recent price reduction! I have seen the leupold argument come up in other post, and for some reason my computer underlines the word each time it is used. If I didn't know better I would think that leupold sponsors the sight! I could've sworn it was Doug and the guys at Camerland. I could be wrong...and that wouldn't be the first time!

For $2500, buy two of the Diavari 2.5-10x42, slap one on the rifle and send one to "E" so he can finally look through a Zeiss and put all his Leupy banter to rest.(nothin 'gainst Leupy, they just dont compare here)
Dont worry, he'll send it back 'cause the "eyebox" will be too small and the FOV will be too much for him.

There now, you feel better? Leupold will never win the I ve got better optics than you game with Euro scopes, but then, factor in durability and take that for a ride while you are out there on your million dollar hunt.

I hear the CZ and Tikka supporters love Euro optics.............

The reason the word Leupold shows up underlined in red is because us Leupold users are so brainy for buying Leupold scopes everytime the word Leupold shows up our vote counts twice on these threads

Casey

Yup.I have owned a lot of the highly touted top-end scopes and my last experience with the foolish things was the final straw;a Swarovski AV 3-9 that shifted POI between power changes, and would not hold its' adjustments.I could not understand what was going on because the rifle was an accurate and reliable 7 mag.After the scope botched on an Alberta deer hunt, I replaced it with a 6X Leupold and all the problems dissapeared. This is by no means my only bad experience with the high-end Euro's and I have decided that the damn things are simply not worth the money. Oh, you get better glass in the top-end Euro's, but I am not convinced that you get a higher level of mechanical reliability and ruggedness,which is WAY more important to me than than tiny improvements in optical quality.On a big game rifle, I do not use a scope to peer at bullet holes 300 yards away, or tell the difference between a doe and a "legal" spike buck; I use it to kill big game animals. I have traveled all over the continent for 30 years with Leupold scopes without a problem. I CANNOT say that about Zeiss and Swarovski. Not worth the money. If I want ,or need, something TRULY better than the Leupold, I'd buy a Nightforce , which IS tougher. So far, I have not needed anything better than Leupold. A lot of this scope stuff is nonsense; I do not beleive you really get more from those high-end scopes.

As to the 4X, what do you shoot with a 325? Bears, moose, elk?They are the size of little cars!You don't need any more than that to hit them properly out to about 400 yards, which is farther than most guys should be shooting anyway, although there seems to be a lot of people on this site who shoot enough to be able to hit farther and could use more magnification.If it makes you think that you have the best by spending a lot of money on some top-end Euro, then go for it. I've been down that road too many times, taken game from up-close to too far with Leupolds, under conditions where I was not supposed to make the shot without "superior light-gathering",or some other nonsensical, tiny advantage which meant nothing under hunting conditions. I'll just stick with Leupolds.They work, and don't let you down; at least for me.

I completely agree with Eremicus on this issue. The notion that a variable is as durable as a fixed is a myth; I've lost count of the number of variables I've broken as a result of shooting. When someone tells me he has NEVER had a variable break, then I know he either spreads his shooting out over a lot of different rifles and scopes, or he has not shot a LOT with one.If you shoot a LOT, you will break one.

I also agree with Eremicus that spending on the high end Euro's gives you no PRACTICAL advantage over a Leupold.Yes, you get a slight optical improvement, but you don't get the ruggedness.Talk to D'Arcy Echols about tough scopes, or Barsness, or the boys at Mark Bansner's shop.Go ahead, spend the big money, eventually you'll be back to a Leupold.

A everday hunting scope I'd go 3-9 first straight 4 power number 2.All Leupold's

I did'nt mention Leupold. Many did but when a guy sets a $2500 limit, it's obvious to me he does not have Leupold in mind. I was down for the Z6 in the 1.7x10x42 format.

I have a couple 50mm objectives but that would not be my preference on a 325 that would spend time in and out of the woods. Unless you are going to hunt substantially past legal hours the larger lens would not accomplish anything except to add weight and catch more brush with the kind of glass Swaro uses. A straigth 8X would make jump shots and many others hard to impossible to accomplish quickly. I had a 7.5 Leuppy on my first high power, a 7 mm Klienguenter. It got traded off for a 3.5x10 soon after my first hunt with it.

Those 50mm's sure are BIG! I don't know what else....(?)

I've broken 3 variables. One was an ancient Weaver about 40 years old the 2 were Leupolds.....................DJ

There are a lot of possible ways to go here but whatever I bought I think it would have "Leupold" on it.

DJ, you gotta be rough on scopes.........maybe it's bad Leupy Karma

I've owned somewhere around 15-16 Leupys. One is 30 years old, and it's been carried and packed a lot--no problems with any of them.

Casey

Hey Aggiedog....my Tikka Whitetail has worn a Swaro A-line for the past 6 years. How did you know? By the way, I sighted it in 6 years ago, lugged it on over 30 hunts, it still shoots 1/2" groups in the exact spot it did 6 years ago. Is it the gun or the scope?

jprice,

I have been following along in this thread, and I have a couple of comments.

First the new products nominated are for me in the "view graph engineering" stage of development. I look forward to having them in the market place, and also a chance to actually try them. There is a difference between theory and practice, sometimes the difference is great. On occasion a product will not live up to (or down) to the record of previous models.

Second I like to go for balance between the rifle and the scope. So far I have read that the rifle is a .325 WSM, but what else is it? Purpose, length, weight, action, etc.?

Best is also a slippery concept, as is all-around. If your limit it to North America, you will get a different answer than if night hunting in Europe is part of the program for example.

thanks...jim

RickyD, I use an 8x56 in America (GA of all places) with excellent results. My paw in law has use his 8x56 for the last ten years and has killed a truck load of deer with it on top of his 25-06. Yes, they work well, in America too!

Bob, I'm sure they are great scopes. Just not sure if they are the best scopes for a 325 and the larger than deer animals he said it was for. I asked for more details about the kinds of hunting and purposes he wanted it for and have not heard much more than larger game than deer. Would you use, or rather recommend, a straight 8X for walking deer out of thick stuff where the shots might be very close? Maybe you would, but I prefer a lower powered varible for that kind of stuff. Game is easier and faster for me to find in the scope with a larger field of view that a lower power gives.

Last time I looked, you can get a Zeiss 3-9X40 Conquest for under $500. Nobody makes one that tests brighter. You can also get a Leupold VXIII that's so close to the Zeiss, the difference is very difficult to see.
You must, of course, do comparisions w/o biasing the test by comparing old scopes, by setting their actual magnification at the same magnification etc, and you can't expect a scope with a larger objective to be as bright as a smaller scope. By making these errors, many have come to conclusion that some more expensive scopes are brighter and sharper, etc. than other, cheaper scopes.
Where did I get all this ? From a guy named John Barsness, who posts here under the handle of Mule Deer. He tests about 20 scopes a year. He dunks them in warm water to check for leaks. He checks them for changes in impact when the magnification is changed. He checks them for accuracy of their adjustments. Then he puts them on some real heavy kickers and shoots until they give up or he thinks they might. He's done lots of brightness comparisions as well.
In his article "Tough Scopes" printed in Rifle magazine's July 2004 issue, he makes an excellent point. Good tough scopes aren't necessarily the expensive scopes. HE also makes it very clear that fixed magnification scopes hold up much better under recoil than variables. Small, light variables hold up much better than heavy, large scopes. No matter who makes them.
He went on to say that even cheap variables like the Burris FFII's and the Nikon ProStaff have done very well in his testing. On the other hand, no where in his article did he mention the expensive euros as particularly tough. He mentions Leupolds. He mentions the Bushnell Elite 4000-4200's.
Barsness also interviewed several custom gun makers in that article. None of them have found any of the more expensive scopes better when it came to with standing recoil. Hard kickers being defined as a sporter weight .338 Magnum. I do believe that the .325 WSM does meet that level of recoil, particularly in a light rifle. E

leupold vari-X III 3.5-10X50
hands down for the money