I know I will either buy a Zeiss conquest or a Sawrovsli A line scope, but can't decide on the power. I'll be hunting deer. 20% of my hunting will be in woods, 30% in food plots 100yd shots or less, and 50% in open fields 400yds shots. The 4-14 range seems logical, but for about $100 more I can get in the 6-18 range, but not sure the extra power is needed. For years I've hunted with a 3X9 and I think the scope has been on 4x for every shot I made, but this will be my first year to hunt open fields. What do you guys think? 3x9, 4x14, 6x18

Get the Swaro 3-12x50 with the TDS.

DON'T compromise on low end power! Had a friend last year using a scope with a bottom end of 6x that cost him an upclose shot. Looks like Brian's in the ballpark.

til later

quote:

Originally posted by Claret_Dabbler:
Get the Swaro 3-12x50 with the TDS.

Better hurry, I just read (admittedly in a gun rag so the source may be suspect)that Swaro has dropped the TDS. Whether they're going to replace it with another BDC type reticle is unknown to me.

You won't be handicapped by 9x on the high end, but you will be handicapped by too much magnification on the low end. The 3-9 is a hunter's scope. The higher powered scopes are for something else. Also, you'll find the inconvenience and high mounting position of the 50mm objective to outweigh whatever marginal low-light advantage it may offer over a 40mm objective.

3-9X42 or 2.5-10x50

I got one of the last TDS reticle 4x16's from Opticspot for my 300 Jarrett that is being built.

The designer and patent holder of the TDS reticle had a falling out with Swarofski and they no longer offer this reticle on their scopes. According to Chris from Opticspot, He bought the remaining TDS reticle scopes from Swarofski when he heard they were discontinuing the TDS reticle and has some remaining in his inventory.

wrightboy,

I hunt in fields and have many scopes including Zeiss Conquests in 2.5-8, 3-9 and 4.5-14. The 3-9 is excellent. The 4.5-14 is quite a large scope and has a side parallax adjustment. Some would consider it a field scope and it is for varmints on the 243 but I would go with the 3-9.

9X is plenty big enough for anything you can hold with your shoulder. I would get a good quality 3x9 and don't look back. Hope this helps
31 bertram

Like others have mentioned, 9x on the high end is ample for virtually any deer hunting. ANd 3x on the low end affords you plenty of leeway in the event of an up-close and personal encounter.

Far too many folks try and over-analyze scope selection, but that's not necessary as it's really pretty simple.

As someone above has said, don't compromise on the low end power. That is FAR more important than the high end power.
I have the Swaro 4-12x50, and the Swaro 3-9 mentioned above also. Both are excellent scopes.
Today, for the scenario you describe, I personally would go with the 3-9x. The field of view, and resulting ease of target acquisition, goes to the 3-9, not the 4-12. But, the 4-12 ain't nothing to sneeze at. Set at 4x for close in hunting, the 4x will serve you well.

Don

I have a hard time choosing between the Swaro 3-10 and 4-12 as to which is my favorite hunting scope. The 4-12 has a larger objective and might be slightly brighter in the evening but probably not enough to notice. It's actually quite light for a 50mm objective scope. I tend to use it on the longer ranged short mags and the like.
The 3-10AV is a great lightweight scope for lighter rifles and ones where you can mount the scope really low.
I have 1 6-18 and don't really care for it that much. It's too large for a general hunting rifle and I like even more magnification in a Varmint scope so it rarely gets used.
I also like the Zeiss 4.5-14 Conquest. It's a little less expensive and has an excellent side focus. I'm not sure is an objustable objective is the thing you want to be messing with on a big game hunt it can be handy Varmint hunting. The 4-12 Swaro is about the most powerful scope that doesn't have to have an adjustable Objective..................................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
You won't be handicapped by 9x on the high end, but you will be handicapped by too much magnification on the low end. The 3-9 is a hunter's scope. The higher powered scopes are for something else. Also, you'll find the inconvenience and high mounting position of the 50mm objective to outweigh whatever marginal low-light advantage it may offer over a 40mm objective.

Can't help but agree.
Many guys are "over-scoped".

You may be interested to know that Leupold staff apparently rate the VX-III 2.5-8x36 as their favourite deer scope.

I talked my brother into one and he's -extremely- impressed. 8X is def good enough on a 400yd deer. A p-dog or rabbit at the same range is a different story..

Chris-NZ

I agree that 3-9x is enough for your purposes. More is just about too much. I also must say, having gotten a 2-8x Burris last year, I think that is an even better choice than the 3-9x. So the 2.5-8x or 3-9x or some variation in that range is a good all around scope power. The 2-8x is the better direction than the 2.5-10x though.

That 2.5-8x Zeiss in 32mm might be just about right and handier on the rifle than the 3-9x 40mm Zeiss.

I'm another fan of low power first, zoom second. All I use the high end for is punching holes in paper.

I have also shied away from any type of adjustable parallax feature on a big game rifle. On a long-range rig or varminter, no problemo but not on my rifles that I carry for big game.

I hunted deer with a 2x7 last year.

Fast shots at running deer at 50 yards were at 2X.

Prone shots at standing deer at 400 yards were at 2X.

I only need 12X for ground squirrels at 250 yards.

I only need 20X for targets at 100 yards. [When I build a rifle, I want my buddies in awe. A 1" group does not impress. A .4" group means I am a great rifle builder.]

quote:

Originally posted by Esldude:
I agree that 3-9x is enough for your purposes. More is just about too much. I also must say, having gotten a 2-8x Burris last year, I think that is an even better choice than the 3-9x. So the 2.5-8x or 3-9x or some variation in that range is a good all around scope power. The 2-8x is the better direction than the 2.5-10x though.

That 2.5-8x Zeiss in 32mm might be just about right and handier on the rifle than the 3-9x 40mm Zeiss.

2x or 2.5x on the low end is even mo better...

Don

Anything from 2-2.5 power on the short end and 8-10 power on the long end. Lou

You all must be able to see alot better than me. I use a burris 8-32 black diamond on my 300 RUM Sendero. I use 8x on shots under 100 and 32x on everything else. I try to fill the sight picture with deer to insure proper shot placement. At 2x 100 yards will seem like you are shooting open sights at 50 yards, while I could hit a deer like that, its alot easier if the deer seems to be closer. I would not use this scope for a moving shot, but nor would I use this rifle as if has a heavy barrel and laminated stock. Of course my eyesight is 20/80 so I maybe in the minority. I do NOT wear corrective lenses while hunting.

Sounds to me like you've already figured it out.

Sure, 9x is enough but if you encounter some fading light & twilight conditions in the "Woods", at "Food Plots" & "Open Fields" you can easily use the larger objective of the Conquest 4-14x. It'll have some resevere for your potential longish shots in the open field situation and enough low end at the same time.

Just my $0.02

3.5X10x44 Conquest