I hear good things about Nightforce.
But I don't want to afford one.
I have an old Weaver on my 270
a Leupy on the 375
and a dial up Vortex on the STW
So far they have held their zero and
done the job.

I have used Weavers and Leuys all of my life without any problems. I have sent back 1 weaver and 1 leupold and the service turn time was almost identical. My question is, are these other scopes 2 or 3 times better than a Leuy?
I use Gato's plan of having a back up scope along but in all of my trips, I've never had to use it.

10 years and 4 months later......resurrection

I have used Leupold scopes for 30 years and never had a malfunction. I have hunted all over the world and in all weather conditions.

Aziz

quote:

10 years and 4 months later......resurrection

I did not pay any attention to when the OP was started.

Course my comment would have been the same back then, except that I had not bought the Leupold to replace the Weatherby at that point in time.

I mostly use Swarovski. Probably 10-15 of them.

The Leupolds, especially the newer ones are good. I have had a problem with one. Also, I had a couple of the rimfire scopes . To say they sucked would be an understatement.

For the Nightforce advocates, aren't they very heavy?

Swarovski - I have just one Z6i 1x6 24 - worth the 2k plus.

My hunting going forward is not dg as I kind of have lost interest in it and not high dollar price - sheep. If I was doing any dg or high dollar hunting I would spend the extra $1-2k and upgrade to a high end scope. Scope matters more than rifle.

I shoot just better with the swarovski - the scope is good enough to allow me to shoot my very low prescription distance glasses.

Mike

I've done the complet round trip with rifle scopes. Started with Leupold back in 1970, used them for 20 yrs, then started using Swaro, Zeiss, and a S&B. The only failure I've experienced was using a Swaro A 3-10x42 shooting at a big 190" mule deer. While the glass is great in the euro stuff, the reticles IMO are not, being much too thin. I've gotten rid of them all and am back to using VX3's and VX6's, which are fantastic hunting scopes. The glass in the VX6 is also very close to the euro stuff IME.

An optical rifle sight has many qualities, not just a single "best quality". I suppose the telescope on Mount Palomar would beat any of the ones listed simply for optical quality -- at least insofar as you define optical quality as simply resolution. Of course, the Mount Palomar telescope (or the Hubble, etc.) are impossible to mount on a rifle and use as an optical gun sight.

It appears that the questioner is referring to scopes for hunting rifles. If so, the right combination of optical/physical trade-offs is what makes the best hunting scope. Factors that matter are size, weight, length, water resistance, fog resistance, field of view, field blending, magnification range, reticle configuration and visibility, light transmission, resolution, holding of zero, repeatability of internal adjustments, resistance to impact, eye relief, eye window, compatibility with mounting systems, lack of interference with case ejection and bolt operation, cosmetic appearance, durability, simplicity of operation, and perhaps even resale value.

European manufacturers tend not to make optical/physical trade-offs which in any way compromise simple optical quality. Therefore, their hunting scopes tend to be large, heavy, have critical eye placement, outsized power adjustment rings, poor field blending, limited field of view per magnification, and historically are less weatherproof than American-made scopes. As a result, European scopes tend to provide a high-resolution image, but are lacking in the features which allow a hunting scope to function as a quick, efficient, and effective sighting device.

So, there seems to be a good reason the Leupold is listed as a "nominee" for "best".

Leica ERi

Scope selection is a very personal thing and often results in heated discussions as to which is best. To me, "best" really doesn't exist. To boot, what works well for one person may not be the best for another as our eyes are different.

I can't "hunt" anymore, per se, so bulk or weight of a scope is of no concern to me. With my mobility diminished, I am relegated to a couple of shooting platforms near the house and simply sniping some unaware creature. Thus, my opportunities for a shot are both quite minimal and usually fleeting, so if a hog presents itself in midnight moonlight or a buck appears in the shadows 29 minutes after sundown, I want to be able to make the shot.

I am guilty of swapping scopes around a LOT -- and I've tried quite a few of the models out there -- but I finally think I've found some combinations that work well enough for me and that I am happy with (for now, at least).

My primary hunting rifles are Contenders (well, one is actually a G2). From top in the photo: the 20 1/8th" 7mm Bullberry is fitted with a Zeiss Duralyt 2-8x42/#60 (ill.). My 24" 6.5x30-30AI has a Schmidt & Bender Klassik 8x56/A4. The 24" 7-30 Waters has a Meopta MeoStar R1r 3-12x56 (2nd FP) #4c (ill.). And the 25-35 wears a 2004 model Swarovski (Austrian/pre-Z3) 3-10x42 with 4-a.

About the only thing I'd change right now is putting the Duralyt in medium rings instead of high, but that's all I had here at the time.

---

This is something I actually posted as a reply last year. It still applies now:

Of scopes I have actually used significantly and compared, here is my list starting with what has been the best, and there are two at the top of the list: a Swarovski PV 2.5-10x56 and a Schmidt & Bender Klassic 8x56 A4. There is no such thing as perfection, though I seem to be chasing it and forever swapping scopes. Some have better contrast. Some resolve fine detail better. Some are sharper to the edges. Some are more forgiving with their sweet spots. And some have better reticles. But none seem to have hit on the ultimate combination just yet. And with dumb marketing moves -- like Zeiss ditching its wonderful #4 reticle -- I don't see that ever happening.

Swarovski PV 2.5-10x56/S&B Klassic 8x56 A4
Zeiss Diavari Victory 2.5-10x50
Zeiss Diavari Victory 3-12x56
Meopta MeoStar 3-12x56 (both R1 and R1r)
Kahles KX 3.5-10x50
Zeiss Conquest DL 3-12x50
Kahles Helia CL 3-10x50
Kahles Helia CL 4-12x52
Zeiss Diavari Victory 2.5-10x42
Zeiss Duralyt 2-8x42
Zeiss Conquest HD5 3-15x50
Meopta Meostar 3-10x50
Zeiss Diavari Victory 1.5-6x42
Kahles Helia C 8x56
Zeiss Classic Diatal 6x42
Meopta MeoStar 4-12x40
Zeiss Diavari V 3-9x42
Swarovski PH 2.5-10x42

There are probably a couple I have forgotten about. My memory isn't what it used to be. Below that list, lots of scopes clutter the candidates and can certainly take you to the edge of darkness, including the Conquest 3.5-10x50 and similar models, the MeoPro series, the AV/Z3/Z5 series, the VX6 and VX3s, upper-end Burris, upper-end Nikon and the Kahles AH among others.

And before anyone asks, yes, the 2.5x10x50 Victory scopes outperformed the 3-12x56 of the same. And, they were manufactured at virtually the same time and were brand new as well.

A lifetime of hunting with many scopes by this Kentucky family with new generations coming on. All on Model 70 Winnys except one Sako. A 3X9 Redfield Widfield, 4X16 Burris Signature and 6X24 Burris Signature, 2-3X9 Ziess conquests, 6-Ziess 4.5X14 Conquests, a 2.5X10 Ziess Conquest, 2-Leupold Vari-X III 4.5X14, 2 6.5X20 Leupold Vari-X III, 3-Ziess Conquest 6.5X20. Chamberings from .223.Rem, .243wssm, .25 wssm. 257 Wby, .270 WSM, 7mm STW, ,300 Winny, .340 Wby, .338 Lapua, .358 STA, .416 Rem, .416 Rigby. These are all shot extensively by me, my son and three grandsons with great grandsons starting out. Deer and Elk primarly with Alaska and Canada several times, Africa once and more to come. All these scopes are tools and serve us in all weather and conditions. Just our experience for what it is worth. I load for all and furnish and maintain all with a labor of love. Good Shooting.

I do not typically spend a lot of time looking through a scope while hunting. I do use my Binocs a lot. I spend my money there and buy what suits my eyes and reliability.
Have looked through every scope imaginable but see no reason to spend beyond what a Leupold VX 6 offers (Hunting).


EZ

quote:

Originally posted by vigillinus:
IMO the longer eye relief of Leupolds outweighs the slightly better optics of the Euros.

Amen to that.Most European scopes while having Uber optics are awkward and heavy.

and short eye relief.

I totally agree with Bobby's comments regarding reticles of the below scopes, and add to of Zeiss dropping the 2.5-10x42 as dumb. I really like that reticle in the below scopes.
I use the 1.5-6x42 and 1.1-4x24 mostly. And to my eyes, I do give up a bit with the 24mm objectives, but I do like straight tube scopes, and the darker shots for me are less than 100yds. I am thinking of trying out the Swarovski 1-6x24 with #4 this year. Though definitely like the 1st focal plane reticles as the power goes up and the light becomes little.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[ And some have better reticles. But none seem to have hit on the ultimate combination just yet. And with dumb marketing moves -- like Zeiss ditching its wonderful #4 reticle -- I don't see that ever happening.

Zeiss Diavari Victory 2.5-10x50

Zeiss Diavari Victory 2.5-10x42

Zeiss Diavari Victory 1.5-6x42

Leupold has always done what I need them to but I used a Trijicon ACOG on my M-4 when I was with the Navy Riverines and it was a great sight. If I ever buy another scope I'd look at Trijicon. That illuminated reticle that uses ambient light is pretty slick.