I'm running an accurate 50 cal inline -- CVA something. I've had it for several years and it's always done the job. It's time to upgrade the fixed 4X to something a little more powerful. I'm looking around at the 3-9X40's. What would you guys suggest, or what has worked in the way of optics for you?

Just went and looked. The MZ is a Winchester X 150. Like I said, it's been great and killed several deer. Typically it shoots around the 1-1.5" mark at 100 yards. I don't think I could ask for much more.

excellent rifle indeed.

I just lucked into it. I had no idea what I was buying as it was probably 10 years ago. All I knew is it was on sale and looked cool. A blind hog finds one every once in a while.

Hard to beat a good 3-9. I like the Burris FF II, Bushnell Elite 3200, and the new model Nikon Prostaff. Leupold VX1 and Redfield are great values too.

What is your farthest shot? 4x is fine to 250yds.

+1, Thumbs Up on the Burris FullField II. I've got a couple of em and they've been good scopes.

Somebody else posted this a while back, but Beretta USA has a sale going on the [b][color:#3333FF]Burris FF2 2-7x35 scope[/color][/b] on sale for $139. That's a pretty good deal on a good scope.

Do a search on the campfire, I saw where people had taken delivery of that scope and were happy.

250 yards is probably farther than I would shoot with my muzzleloader. I would just like the ability to take a more precise shot around the 200 yard mark.

I've run a Burris before and liked it well enough. I'll also check out the Redfield. Anybody had any luck with the special muzzleloader type recitals?

Well thier all good .But I put a 2x7 Burris on 1 an a nikon 2x7 on anotherThis is my choise

Leupold 2.5-8x36 w/B/C

Leupold new VX-2 3-9X40 is an excellent value. If that's too much money, the Nikon Prostaff 3-9X40 would be my next choice.

The straight 4X I'm running now is a Prostaff and it's held up really well.

Fixed scopes seem to hold up better. Less parts to go wrong.

It could be my imagination, but they seem to be clearer too. Less lenses to look through??

That might have been the case many years ago. It no longer is.

Same number of lenses.

You base that opinion on what?

Sounds like the Nikon has been good to you, no reason not to look at a Prostaff variable. I prefer the Burris 3-9X40, never seen enough benefit to the 2-7X32 to go that route.

Something in the 3x9 category but I think your really going to be stretching the performance of your "50 cal inline -- CVA something" out there at 200yds.

I've a Nikon 3-9 Inline that has been very good. Beside good optics it has gobs of eye relief.

I'd disagree about stretching the limits to 200 yards. I do t look for that shot, but it can be made easily with practice.

Killing a target at 200yds is easy, I said "stretching the performance".

With proper practice, placement, and equipment deer aren't that difficult to put down. A person just has to know their limits.

I have a Nikon 3X9X50 on my TC Encore, works great and the extra opening sure helps my older eyes early and late.

A 3x9 will work for you. I like a little more on my long distance shooters like a 4.5x14 and for the rifles I use inside the woods I have 1.5x5's and 2x7's.
Happy Hunting!

I can agree with that. I don't really consider 200-250 long range so I'm hoping that the 3-9 will work fine. I don't think I should have any trouble since I've been using the 4X. I would really be nice to see more of the target with more magnification.

The only MZ scope I have used and didn't like was a Leupold VX II 2-7 with a heavy duplex reticle. It covered up a lot of deer at 100 yards. I much prefer the standard reticle and something more along the lines of a 10x up to 200 yards. One year I carried a VXIII 14x on my MZ but I confess it was far more scope than needed for this line of work.

I really like the Leupold Ultimate slam. Vortex viper lines are damn nice also.