I was (am) a confirmed believer in getting a decent, servicable scope for the rifle de jour, but not a person willing to spend the same amount of $$ for scope as the latest rifle.

And I've never had a problem with inexpensive scopes if they work for my purposes. Example I bought a Winchester 70 Classic 300 Win Mag back back in 1995 just as soon as they came out with the stainless/synthetic BOSS model and then stuck a Tasco World Class 2.5-10x44 on it and have never been disappointed since.

In 1998 I 'needed' an 8 Mag Remington 700 Classic and, since Tasco didn't have the same scope available, put a then-current 3-9Xx4 'World Class Plus' on it and shot it on and off since with no problems.

A recent hunt with other rifles made me think I really needed that 8 Mag, and maybe with a scope with both more magnification and somewhat better optics.

After a bad experience with the price point Tasco's about 10 years ago I've gone to Nikon ProStaff's, a couple of higher end Simmon's,and 1 Redfield Revolution and 1 Nitrex, all of which have been fine.

Long prelude to my question: Go with a Nikon ProStaff 4-12x40 for the 8 Mag (220 gr bullets @~3000 fps and pretty sharp recoil) or just suck it up and get a Monarch 3-12x42 or Nikon VX-II?

I contacted Nikon CS via email about recoil tolerance and their responses were just ignorant ('all of our scopes are designed for magnum or muzzle loader recoil' and, after asking if recoild tolerance differed between thir various product lines, as opposed to optics and features, 'check the specs at Nikonsportoptics.com'). Helpful.

So, go inexpensive or step up? Anyone with experience, positive or negative, with any of these scopes on similar rifles, e.g., 340 Weatherby, 300 & 338 Rem. Ultra Mag, etc., please chime in.

Thanks. -WSJ

I've had reasonably inexpensive Leupolds on hard kickers for years without trouble. I favor smaller scopes than you mentioned though. They seem to hold up to recoil just fine.

+1 on Leupold--If it does give problem--it's a Leupold problem, not yours--they stand behind them.

quote:

Originally posted by wsj:
I was (am) a confirmed believer in getting a decent, servicable scope for the rifle de jour, but not a person willing to spend the same amount of $$ for scope as the latest rifle.

It is wiser to take a 3000 € scope on a 500 € gun then vice versa !

But I guess most folks must find out this alone...

Klaus

quote:

It is wiser to take a 3000 € scope on a 500 € gun then vice versa !

But I guess most folks must find out this alone...

So I've heard for years, and it may be true.

But it's not the scopes I'm in love with. I've never spent months thinking about just what scope I should buy next, and worry afterward about which rifle/cartridge it should have under it.

Can't say the say about the guns. -WSJ

Well I ebay-ed a solution to my own query last night: a good price on a Monarch 3-12x42, Nikoplex reticle.

Looked long and hard at a VX-2 (and VX-II, but couldn't see not going for the newer model if I got a Leupold) but finally went with the Monarch for the magnification range, eye relief, and positive comments about optics. And the fact that it's almost half a pound heavier than a VX-2 was a positive for this rifle.

So I guess that makes it a $400 scope on a $600 rifle (and the most expensive scope I've ever bought!). -WSJ

quote:

Originally posted by scubapro:

It is wiser to take a 3000 € scope on a 500 € gun then vice versa !

But I guess most folks must find out this alone...

I'm with scubapro on this one. Even my first centrefire rifle, bought when poor (an FN Mauser .30/06 that I sporterised) got a Pecar 3-7.

I've had a Khales Helia 27 on my .338 mag for 32 years and retain even more affection for the scope than the rifle. There is, I believe, an optical integrity in these old reticle-movement scopes that is worth delving into.

That said, as long as you're not using the 8mm for dangerous game, I think a Leupold would be fine - but I wouldn't go any cheaper.