The Rifle ,
Is a JC higgins model 50. (FN). I just went over to MPI stocks and gave hime some cash for the stock, he is almost done with. It looks good to. Painted it yesterday, he just has to clean up my action after the bedding and put it together. Green with black webbing.
It will be a varey light general purpose big game rifle.
Trying to pick a scope for it.
I have a VX3 2.5X8 with B&C reticle on a 6.5X57, that I think would be just dandy on the 06.
But Then I need a new scope for the 6.5.
Like to hear what you guys think.
One of those 2.5X8 Zeiss conquest would probably be fine.
Do you think its better than the leupold ?
I also saw camara world has the Bushnell elite 4200 3X9 for 250.00. Now guys , that is a hell of a buy and I could drop that right on my 6.5X57.
If I was buying today that is what i would do but I have a few days to think about it. Like to hear your recomendations....tj3006

6x36 Leo with LR dotz in it........scoop of vanilla scope of rum raisen don't waste my time..........<g>

Seriously and all joking aside I'd go with the lil 6x36.

Dober

I have been told to hold my tongue about people ruining nice rifles like yours with glass.

Wayne

If you like the VXIII you already have I'd buy one just like it, personally.

I'm a creature of habit so I like to stick with what works.

Mark- may I ask why the 6x36? Over, say, the 6x42?

Just curios.... I have one of each, but neither with dots, and was thinking about sending one back to Momma Leupold for dots to mount in my 260 Ti.

Sorry if I am hijacking some else's thread...

Kaiser Norton

No a bigga deal, Brad and I have done some sxs testing of the two and find favor with the smaller/a bit lighter 6x36, for our eyes its a better deal.

Your eyes may well vary.

Dober

Yepper... 30-06 and 6x36 LR:

I had a 4x on my 30-06 JC Higgins for a few years and never needed more. Now it's wearing an older VX11 Leupold 3x9. That 2.5x8 sounds like a perfect match to me. I'm going to put one on my new CZ 550 30-06 from American Hunting Rifles.

a nice looking set up there brad !
But I will certainly go with a varible. Nothing wrong with a fixed, but almost allways carry a rifle with the scope set at areal low power.
I certainly could get another 2.5X8 VX3 Like them alot.worth consideration.
But The 6.5X57 has a 26 inch tube and is set up more for open counry. The 2.5X8 really suits the 06 better. I think that is what I willdo, so now I guess I should start a new thread, scope for a 6.5X57. That 250.00 elite 4200 is quite a bargain.
The monarch 2.5X10 is a great scope too and would be great on the 6.5. ...tj3006

I just got a VX-II 3-9X40 with LR and really like it.

I think that a Zeiss conqest 2.5-8X32 or 3-9X40 would be a great option. I have a couple of each and they are really nice scopes.

I have 3 of the 4200 3-9X40's and ya can't go wrong with them.

The only reason I went with the VX-II was weight and reticle option and I am impressed with it for the money, I can't tell any difference in it from the VX-III 2.5-8 optically. You can find these on here now and then for around $250 give or take. Any scope I order that is a Luepold will have the LR reticle in it, I prefer it to the overpriced B&C and wish it was available in the VX-III's

I have a pre 64 Win. w/McMillan stock that has a Leupold 6X42 w/Premier Ret. Since I have many LR rifles this is all the scope I have needed so far. If I upgraded(?) it probably would be a Conquest 4X.

C'mon boys- he is leading with his chin.

tj - you mention that the 4200 Elite twice. You have our blessing to buy that bargain. Tons of folks 'round here would rather have it than just about anything so its all splitting hairs. Doubt you would just hate any of those you mention. Fine choices. Please post pics of your rig when ready.

Lots of really good suggestions here so far. I really like the 4200's as well and for $250 you cannot go wrong. They are extremely durable scopes with excellent optics. Optically, they are very close to a Conquest 3-9x40.

Roy

I've had and compared the 6x42 and the 6x36; the difference between them came at the last scintilla of light and actually past legal shooting time, so I swing with Dober and Brad on the 6x36,because it's a hair smaller,and I don't like big scopes.Plus you can get the 2 dots on the 6x36 w/ matte finish,etc; just a neat, no-nonsense scope.

That said, I slapped a 2.5-8 with B&C reticle on a pre64 standard grade 30/06,and had no trouble banging the 9 and 10 rings at 600 yards with the scope, and the 165 Sierra SPBT at over 2900. And the scope was set on....6X.

I vote 2.5x8 with the B&C. I've got a couple of them and they just plain work great.

Lot's of other good options out there, no doubt, but the above has a LOT going for it IMHO. Great eye relief and (dare I say it?) eye box at low magnification settings, and that B&C really does work. "Only" out to 500 yards for me though. (How did you get 600 yards out of it, Bob? That crazy 300-yard zero you do or something <G>?)

-jeff

I've got an MPI Kevlar stocked M70 Fwt. in .308. Currently it wears an older Leupold 4X. A more reliable, light scope, I can not discover.
I am seriously considering a few modifications to the rifle. Either a new, fully multicoated 4X, or the 6X36 Leupold are on my list.
The only significate difference between the Bushnell Elites and the Leupolds are their heavier weight, and shorter eye relif/eye box of the Elites. Weight savings are prefered for those that walk and climb alot. A larger eye box is prefered by those of us that have to make a running shot at times. On the other hand, the shorter eye relief of the elites will make the scope's image a bit brighter.
The Conquest series has the advantage of a somewhat brighter appearing image for a couple of reasons, depending on the model. E

Eremicus, I recently compared a Leupold 2.5-8 to one of my Elites and with my eye being roughly the same distance from the ocular on both scoped rifles the Elite was brighter. Yes, eye relief does come into play in some instances, but, the Elite simply is a brighter and clearer scope. Your theory should be only that, a theory.

Roy

Better glass being one . . .

You should put a fixed 4x Conquest on that Winny of yours and then you'd really rave about the scope.

RD, just what is this nonsense ? The Leupold you used has an eye relief of 4.7-3.7 inches. It's a 2.5-8X36. What Elite 4200 ? The only ones I see for sale have eye reliefs of 3-3.3 inches and are 2.5-10X40's or 3-9X40's. Any larger scope will look brighter than a smaller, similar scope.
You say you placed your eye rougly the same distance from the ocular on both ? Don't make me laugh. Can't be done on scopes with such different eye reliefs.
BTW, this bussiness of "my theory" about ocular size and eye relief affecting apparent brightness is something Barsness has discovered, not me. If you wish to debate it's validity, take it up with him. E

There is nothing to debate. Bushnell states minimum eye relief. Accept the facts and move on.

Roy

The Business about ocular size was something JB pointed out to you a few weeks ago - basically him correcting you that another variable comes into play and causes a scope to be brighter. Now the reason he pointed this out was to correct you.

Go test scopes and come back to us, until then your opinion continues to be worthless.

The Elite in question here weighs 13 oz's.
The Leupold 6x42 weighs 15 oz's
The Leupold 4x33 weighs approx.10 oz's.

If 3 ounces weighs you down you need to do a little more exercise.

Regards,
Roy

I would be partial to the Zeiss, I like mine it is EXCEPTIONAL..

Just saw one at Gun Broker Clackamas yesterday. I need to carry more money around!

bcp

VX-III 2.5-8 or VX-II 2-7. No real difference optically that I can tell. The III has a longer tube, the II might require rev f & R, but is a great scope for the $$$.

Brad what kind of bottom metal is that???