Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Best 4X scope on the market???

I can't say on the optics themselves. It seems that most agree S&B have it there and I can't argue that one way or another. I will argue that it is unlikely to be of much use in many of the conditions my scopes see their use under. Looking through a quickly thumb-printed "clear" spot for instance.

Most rugged? Who knows? One would hope that a scope of twice the weight and one-third again the length would at least equal a Leupold, a scope which has been known to pry the highly touted Ruger-strong scope mounting system apart without damage to the Leupold scope. But who knows? Does one need more "rugged"?

And "user-friendly" seems to be a trait around which Leupold scopes were designed. I don't doubt that many find S&Bs quite friendly, but I think it would be hard to argue that an extra half pound makes them friendlier. Perhaps being kissed isn't enough. Frankly - and I know this varies from person to person- but the kiss of my 340 or other bullet vehicle is all the intimacy I want from a rifle.

That said, I'm certain the S&B would be a better choice in some circumstances and for some people (and I'd love to own one even if it didn't get mounted on a usual hunting rifle.)

I suggest the 12x Spit and Bendher that is for sale in the classifieds, it must be at least 18 times the scope of a 4x Leupold.

Absolutely..

It's all in the name..

Most of my Leupolds have German #4A that Premier Reticles used to put in them.

The reason I like this reticle is it draws your eye like a #4 but has a precise crosshair in the center, which is better for precise shooting. Kinda the best of both worlds to me. I think some companies call this a "turkey reticle" and put it in shotguns scopes. Works great on African Plains game

I have to respectfully disagree with you here. I had a 4X S&B on a 338 Win shooting 225 Grain Triple Shocks on 2 trips to Africa and shot 11 animals with it and never had a problem with eye relief, scope eye, or getting hit by the scope. The 338 recoiled a little .

I agree with you about excess weight, and it is as big (if not bigger) than a 3-10 Leupold (a fine scope). But, I never felt it was too bulky. The added weight of the steel tube wasn't a hindrance on a 338. In fact, the added weight was welcomed. I have never had a problem with reliability on any fixed power scope of any brand.

I have more Leupolds than any other brand. But my S&B, Leica, B&L, and Trijicons are all good scopes.

I have a 4X Leupold rimfire Vari-XI on my Winchester 61. Its a fine 1" scope that replaced a 4X Browning scope that was on this rifle for 40 years (used to be my grandfather's rifle). I'm not sure what size the Browning scope was (3/4"?) but the objective was very tiny - and it ran out of light fast. I figure the Leupold will last another 40 years.

The only reason I replaced the Browning is a couple of years ago, there was a big fire in San Diego, and we had to evacuate our house. I had lots more rifles than gun cases, and this one got banged, and the scope mount (which was originally an epoxied one piece) got broken and couldn't be repaired. After looking thru the Leupold I should have replaced it years ago. Talley even makes 1" rings for them.

FYI:

I posted my little comparision here.

Thanks.

I know JWP,speak with him a great deal) and Magnumdood (maybe not as well but I've been reading his stuff on here for 3 years now). These guys are a long way from being "idiots". They may be fussy about their optics but I suspect that comes from thier experiences with a lot of different optics over the years;both are well worth listening to, even if we do not all, always, agree with exact types of scopes, etc....JWP's math may be a bit off but I suspect he was simply trying to make a point....

I have never owned a S&B 4X scope;other than look through them a bit so I really cannot comment.I have however owned 4X scopes by Leupold(old and new and too many to count),and have used them since the 70's pretty continuously.I have also owned,shot with,and hunted with Lyman Alaskans and All-Americans,Weavers, Zeiss (from the 80's and the current Conquest),Swarovski,B&L,etc etc.There may be others I don't recall.

Currently, I like and use the 4X Leupolds and the 4X Conquest (steelhead is right, it has some mounting issues on some rifles,but so does the current Leupold due to short tube length).The extra weight of the 4X Conquest means nothing to me because I can still, at 60, put one foot in front of the other at 8000 feet.

I mounted one on a 30/06 recently and used Tally LW rings so the rifle changed weight "not at all".

The Conquest sports great optics, easy, sharp focus,very good eye relief,and (for my eyes) better contrast and resolution than the Leupold.This is not new;friends and I who had the old Swaro fixed 4X back in the 80's(along with the Zeiss and Kahles fixed and variables;yes the Euro's were available way back then;nothing much is new)noticed the superior optics of the European scopes immediately....this is simply not rocket science.......(Oh and BTW what I have been told is that all the parts for the Zeiss Conquest are made by MEOPTA....I could be wrong on this but if anyone knows the truth,please post it up)

I shot an old M8 4X against a Zeiss Conquest at 300 yards a couple weeks back(I do this 3-4 times a week) in early evening light; there is a difference all right,and I would expect there will be a difference between these and a S&B as well......but maybe not.I dunno..

It simply makes sense that you cannot have the same quality optical instrument for $250 bucks as you can for $1000+....the world just does not work that way IME and is the reason we have Timex watches and Rolex...they both tell time,but would anyone seriously argue which one is better made...?

Timex takes a licking and keeps on ticking,has a life time warranty as well as being several thousand dollars cheaper....Status comes with a price tag,getting the job done or telling accurate time doesn't have to

That is true to a point, working around divers in the Gulf of Mexico and oversea's. The over whelming choice of watch's that their life may depend on was "Rolex" not "Timex"
If one takes the time to look the tougher better built watch is with out a dought the "Rolex"

Swarovski watches are tougher.

Leupold watches tell brighter time.

But their users are apparently dimmer.

To change a band link on a Rolex watch. one must remove a machine screw, does a Leupy watch have a machine screw? Maybe a Swarovski watch

No, but it has better eye relief and the C/S dept is amazing!

People just don't know how to focus a Timex!

Bob you points are well taken.



However my argument is not about the fact of build differences, but about the effects of these in practice in the hunting fields.

I contend myself with tests like the one posted and have yet to find the need to update to high end optics for my purposes.

Finding this approach recognized for a well weighted opinion and not short circuited

- he does not use high end gear so he knows not what he is talking about -

would be icing on the cake.

cmg: Of course! Speulating on the toughness of optics is difficult till you use them....so of course is speculating on quality of an optical instrument until you have used it a great deal.JMHO

A Leupold 4x is a very nice 4x scope. Let me remind you that it is made of 6061 alloy , the Ruger rings are made of 4340 CM or 416 SS alloy. Now logically which one do you really think would give first if you were to put say a pry bar under the scope ???

In answer to the original poster the best 4 x is a combination of value,reliability and optics and features . A german #4 reticle that is etched will definitely show up better in lowlight then will a weaker reticle. I have never even heard of a Schmidt and Bender scope ever going back for repairs but I have sent a few Leupolds,50% of the Burris scopes I have bought new (6 total) and 1 Swaro that couldn't keep zero. They are pricey but Europeans are restricted to a few firearms and so they can afford to put high end optics on a few rifles if that.

When I was looking fora x4 scope for my 9.3x62mm, I considered the Leupold 4x32 but at that time the model offered lacked multicoated optics and click adjustments, so I never pursued it any further.

I eventually went with the a 4x32mm Meopta, then a 4x36mm S&B and then back to the Meopta. On paper at least, the eye relief on both is fairly mediocre, but in reality it was never an issue.

I also ran an 8x56mm S&B on that rifle for a while and again never had an issue with its eye relief.

I suspect stock fit and shooting style are as important as eye relief when it comes to avoiding scope-eye.

Just after I bought the S&B, the newer version of the x4 Leupold (with MC4 coatings and click adjustments) became available here in the UK, and if I were buying a x4 again, I'd certainly consider one of those...I understand that a x4 from one of the better Euro Optics might be a touch brighter than a Leupold, but if low light performance was a big issue for this particular rifle, I wouldn't be buying a 32mm scope any way, regardless of the make...

I'm not sure why scope choice seems to galvanise peoples opinions so much..Every body has their own priorities with regards the features they want, so exercising a little common sense should make a scope purchase a fairly straight forward affair.