Shopping for a Beanfield Rifle scope. I have always preferred 42 mm objectives but recently visited my local gunshop at closing time ona dreary evening. Looked at the Swarovski, Ziess 30 mm tubes with illuminated reticles. Was only margianlly impressed with last light brightness versus Leupolds. The shop owner suggested that I look at the Bushnell Elite 4200
2.5 - 10 x 50 mm with their proprietary "firefly reticle". I have to say that I was extremely impressed and thought it superior to either Ziess or Swarovski for low- light brightness and sharpness of image.
I know that this is a single opinion and I have less experience with Bushnell than Leupold or Ziess. Certainly, Swarovski has a sterling reputation for quality. Opinions?

Hugh,

For what it's worth, I would avoid the lower end scopes (Bushnell included). At a minimum, I would look at something like a Leupold VX-III 6.5-20x40 mm as the starting point. If you have more money to spend, look at the LPS series (which will dial you down just a bit in magnification). Beyond that, take a look at the Swarovski PV4-16x50 or PV6-24x50. These are available with illuminated reticles.

The one thing you want to look at (which you may aready have) is the degredation of the optics at high magnification. The better scopes will maintain a reasonable eye relief and sharpness at the higher magnification. If you are going to a lot of long range shooting, don't skimp on the scope.

BTW, what are you putting this on?

If money is not option then a Nightforce is it, period. They make a 3.5-15x50 that is truely unbelievable and the 5.5-22x50 is simply out of this world.

Hugh, a good compromise between some of the scopes mentioned is the Diavari (Zeiss) 5x15x42. It is unique for a Zeiss Diavari in that it is a 1" tube, and a 2nd focal plane reticle, which means the reticle doesn't get larger as you increase magnification.

This is actually opposite of many european scopes, in that the reticle is in the first focal plane, and usually gets larger when you increase magnification--something I always thought was retarded, as your target was farther away (and thus smaller) the stupid reticle gets larger and covers up more of your target???? Someone around here might could tell us why a lot of the Euro scopes are that way, but when I called/e-mailed the Swaro and Zeiss folks, they were actually a little dumbfounded and had no explanation, other than 'it helps keep the reticle 'stable' and is good for image quality' which sounded like BS to me.

Anyway, sorry to ramble, but check out the Zeiss.

Good Luck--Don

The reticle doesn't get larger, it stays the same size--instead of getting smaller in relation to the target as you crank it up. If it doesn't cover the target at low power then it won't at high power.

This is particularly useful when using the scope to range or using lines/dots, etc, as hold-over marks, hold into the wind marks as they will always be correct no matter what the power setting.

Though I have never owned one, a buddy just put an Elite on his 22-250. I have spent a little bit of range time in with his rifle after work, just at dusk and was impressed also. I didn't see anything wrong with it.

quote:

Originally posted by perry:
If money is not option then a Nightforce is it, period. They make a 3.5-15x50 that is truely unbelievable and the 5.5-22x50 is simply out of this world.

What makes these the end all do all scopes?

The Bushnell 4200 & 3200 series are actually the Bausch & Lomb scope series bought out by Bushnell.

I have a Bushnell 3200 scope in 1.5-4.5x32 with the firefly reticle. It is on my .375 H&H and has served me well. It is a very good optic and is durable.

I am picking up another Bushnell 3200 in the 5-15x40 in the firefly reticle for my 300 Wby for coues whitetails here in AZ. That is the western version of a beanfield rifle. It comes with a screw-on sunshade at no extra cost. Check it out. Any 4200 series scope would be great also.

Not to sound elitist, but if you are willng to spend the $ to have a first class scope, why would you buy a Bushnell of any type? Leupold at the minimum, with preferences to Swarovski and Schmidt & Bender if you can afford them. I love my Leupolds (I have either 27 or 28 of them) but the Swarovskis and the Schmidts that I have are clearly superior. They extend my shooting time a minimum of 10 minutes past what my best (30mm LR Tactical) Leupold can provide. My opinion is backed up by many of the big names in custom rifles, including the guy that started the beanfield rifle concept, Mr. Jarrett. It is also backed up by about every guide I have used out west...they LOVE their Swarovskis...that alone should tell ya something.

I like Leupolds.

Don't have one of these but(yet), for a Beanfield Rifle I want the Leupold LPS Premier 3.5-14x50 with the Mil Dot Reticle and side focus.

quote:

Originally posted by Hugh W:
Shopping for a Beanfield Rifle scope. I have always preferred 42 mm objectives but recently visited my local gunshop at closing time ona dreary evening. Looked at the Swarovski, Ziess 30 mm tubes with illuminated reticles. Was only margianlly impressed with last light brightness versus Leupolds. The shop owner suggested that I look at the Bushnell Elite 4200
2.5 - 10 x 50 mm with their proprietary "firefly reticle". I have to say that I was extremely impressed and thought it superior to either Ziess or Swarovski for low- light brightness and sharpness of image.
I know that this is a single opinion and I have less experience with Bushnell than Leupold or Ziess. Certainly, Swarovski has a sterling reputation for quality. Opinions?

Guys... Why should the man buy a Leupold or a European scope? He discovered, just like I did......The Bushies are brighter in low light. Well, they are brighter in any light.....Grant.

Jarrod,

Many aspects of Nightforce scopes make them superior to others. Their ruggedness is second to none, no other scope even comes close. You have about 10 reticles to choose from. Their reticle travel is 100moa and the turrets are calibrated in 10moa/turn which makes the math easier when your under pressure. Their coatings are crystal clear, literally. I used one on a Mark 12 and after using it wouldn't go afield without one. One of my buddies bought his own and mounted it on his issued Mark 12 while in Iraq after getting used to it on a 50cal.

quote:

Originally posted by Jarrod:

quote:

Originally posted by perry:
If money is not option then a Nightforce is it, period. They make a 3.5-15x50 that is truely unbelievable and the 5.5-22x50 is simply out of this world.

What makes these the end all do all scopes?

Just look through one. Perry covered the basics and beauty/performance is literally in the eye of the beholder, but I have the 3.5x15x50 and having owned S&B, Swarovski, Leupold, etc, it is the cat's ass.

If the Nightforce was the rugged scope you say it is, then, no doubt, you would see it on all the big boomers headed to Alaska and Africa. Check it out....Leupold is on 99% of the scoped hard kickers.

Regarding the Bushnells being "brighter in low light"....No way....thats the biggest load of manure I have ever seen. I won't even get into the aspects of ruggedness and warranty repair.

I am sure I will get flamed for that comment, but Good Lord.....Bushnell? Go over to the African Game forum and ask if anybody over there has a Bushnell on their 416 Rigby, 458, et.al. Don't need to make enemies on this forum, but if anybody has any extra Swarovskis they want to trade, I'll go buy a bunch of Bushnells and meet you somewhere!

Hank H.,

I love leupold and have scores of them but in ruggedness Nightforce is in a whole other category. I saw NF abused in Iraq that took it a still performed wonderfully and Leupolds with the same abuse have to be switched out. Like I said earlier I love Leupold and shoot numerous ones but they are not in NF league. I suspect the reason you dont see more of them is cost and availability. The military is switching out all their Leupolds with NF and that is causing a small availability problem on the civilian market.

IMHO, if I'm going to war its Nightforce, on my hunting rifles I have all leupolds just because of cost. You can get a great Leupold for 500.00 where as a NF is going to cost you 1200.00 minimum. But like I said earlier if money is no object...

Hey Folks,

Thanks for your input. It is greatly appreciated. Opinion polls are opinion polls.

I do not want to have over a 50 mm objective.
I probably was not clear about what my perception of a beanfield rifle was. I am not planning on entering any 1000 yard matches with it. I just want to be able to shoot a buck at 400 yards at dusk. I think a 2.5 - 10 x50 should be able to do that job pretty nicely. I was just wondering about your opinions between Leupold, Bushnell, Ziess, Swarovski and Schmidt & Bender. I would like opinions on illuminated reticles. Thanks. Hugh

for starters gentlemen--a beanfield is not and never been as large as a wheatfield, period, so lets get back to basics and mr. jarret is not a farmer, maybe a shooter, but not a wheatfield shooter.

Personally for me, it's Conquests. If I was to spend $1500+ It'd be a toss between S&B, Swaro's and Zeiss Diavari.

Dear Two,

Kenny farmed before he built rifles...he has a 10,000 acre plantation. Been to his place plenty of times. He quit farming and decided to build rifles full time when the cost/price squeeze made him reconsider his committment to farming. Also, what do you mean beanfield not being as large as a wheatfield? Good Lord. "Beanfield" is just a word attached to a rifle that denotes that it is designed for long range work...thats all. If the field has beans in it, its a beanfield, corn = cornfield, wheat = wheatfield and so on. Of course this changes from crop to crop, as rotation practices dictate.

Well, everyone has opinions and is free to express them. I suppose I came on too strong, but I do love those Leupolds and Swarovski's.

HughW,since you only need something for around 400 yards at dusk, buy a Leupold 4.5-14X40LR, it will do everything you need. Now, everyone has named off what they feel is the best and some mighty fine scopes they are but the very b est has not been brought up. U S Optic's hands down, not even a close race. but set down when pricing them.
Good luck with the project

Bushnell Elites kick Leupold ass

Having both a Bushnell Elite and a Leupold, I must say I am more fond of the Leupold. Leupold's warranty is the best in the business, and the value for the dollar is hard to beat. Money being no object, I would pick Swaorvski, Schmidt & Bender, Kahles, Leupold, then Bushnell (in that order.) But, as I would rather have money to hunt than to have the best scope on the market, I would choose bedtwen the LPS 3.5-14, VX-III 6.5-20x40 or a Mark4 10x scope.

John

A Beanfield scope is one time a high magnification sacope is a good idea. I really like the Leupold 3.5x10 long range with the ballistic cam, for an allround long range hunting rig.
But perry is giving good advice. I have used a Nightforce 3.5-15 on a Sniper rifle for several years, and recently been using a Nightforce 5.5-22 on a Barrett 50 semi-auto CQ.
For long range shooting the NF is hard to beat. I do not see needing less than 5.5 power on a beanfield rifle, I would go with the 5.5-22.

Nightforce and the Bushnell Elites are both made by Light Optical Works in Japan. I think the main advantage is the Nightforce is just "bigger" in the objective and tube and thats its main advantage. FNMauser

I have a Leupold Vary X III 4.5x14x40 AO on my .270 WSM with dual twist lock leupold base/rings and love it.

My vote goes to the Weaver Grand Slam 6-20. I have the stainless version with fine crosshair & 1/4 minute dot on a Model 70 7-STW. It's a lot of scope for a reasonable price. Only drawback to mine is that the reticle is tough to see under low light conditions on high magnification. I would opt for the plex if I were going to do more hunting than targrt shooting.

Wow, got lots of opinons didn't you.

Ok, here's mine. Burris Euro or Black Diamond for under $600.

Zeiss, Kahles, Schmidt and Bender, Swarovski, for over $1000.

You have to pay Leupold so much more to get an equal product to Burris it's rediculous.

quote:

Originally posted by Hank H.:


Regarding the Bushnells being "brighter in low light"....No way....thats the biggest load of manure I have ever seen. I won't even get into the aspects of ruggedness and warranty repair.

I am sure I will get flamed for that comment, but Good Lord.....Bushnell? Go over to the African Game forum and ask if anybody over there has a Bushnell on their 416 Rigby, 458, et.al. Don't need to make enemies on this forum, but if anybody has any extra Swarovskis they want to trade, I'll go buy a bunch of Bushnells and meet you somewhere!

I have not had any reason to work with Bushnell warranty repair dept. so I can't comment. I have however, shot 500+ round through my 375 H&H that wears a 1.5-4.5x32 Bushnell 3200 elite and have had no problems. It has the firefly reticle so I have used it to hunt hogs in very low light with no problems.

The Elite series of scopes (3200 or 4200) are the only ones I would suggest. The lower lines are not great choices IMHO

I see no reason to "flame" anybody - it's just my experience and opinion

I like my 5.5 x15 and 6.5 x 20 power nikons.I have a good scope tester.Its my 416 Remingon that weighs 7.5 pounds.The burris 3x9 balistic plex lasted one shot.I have a 3x9 nikon monarch that been on my 416 rem mag winchester for 1600 shots.I like the NikonsI have had only one go bad.that was a 3x9 Nikon monarch on my dads 300 win mag BAR.It seems that its the forward kick of the action that does scopes in. I have a 243 Winchester 742 Rem that tore up 7 busnells .I had onre come in half.I trust busnells on my 22s with cb caps only not hunting.I have 20 something Nikons on my rifles.I have hunted with them for 20 yeaRS.Simmions is another nice scope.It took 3 shots on my 338 and 7 on the 300 win mag to tear up two in one day.I use to work at bass pro a while and they had buggies full of tasco,bsa,busnell and others.There were quite a few of the newer cheap Leopolds in the grade one probally 30 or so out of the 100 they sold.I tore up a nikon buckmaster on my 338 win mag it took about 200 shots.I then switched back to nikon monarchs.I love the 6.5 x 20 power scopes for long range hunting.I can carry it to the mountains and leave my spotting scope and just take binos.I trust Nikons with my life.I dont trust Tascoand simmons to leave the store.I have had busnells fog up, fall apart ,lock up and not move the cross hairs.I have had two good busnells out of about 20 of them I had.Its worth putting a $300 scope like a 3x9 Nikon monarch on a $500 gun instead of a $50 one.The 300 win mag bar and the 338s I have are scope eaters and if you dont have a very good scope on them they wont last long.The 416s I have are scope distroyers they can not be fixed according to burris after one shot.I wish some one made a 2x20 power 50mm range finding bullet compistating scope foe long range hunting.I think it wont be long till ones out maybe the next 10 years or so.

quote:

Bushnell Elites kick Leupold ass

That's a funny joke. I don't even care for Leupie all that much but they are better than any Elite I've looked through or shot w/

Hugh, Have you thought about a Nikon Monarch or Monarch Gold?

I've worked w/ rifles that had Swar., Leupie, Kahles, Zeiss, Nikon, Burris and Bushnell. If someone were to ask me which had the best clarity and brightness, I'd have to say that I'd go w/ a Zeiss Conquest or a Nikon Monarch before I even considered the others.

Good Luck

Reloader

Hugh W,
I would not put a big Swarovski on a hard kicker. If you do, you will be sad shortly thereafter...I sure was!

The best bang for the buck in the high end scope world is by far Nightforce. Bright, accurate, and tougher than nails.

USO makes a supreme scope but will cost 2-3 times more than a Nightforce. You don't need to wait 2 years for a Nightforce either (I have one on order).

quote:

Originally posted by perry:
If money is not option then a Nightforce is it, period. They make a 3.5-15x50 that is truely unbelievable and the 5.5-22x50 is simply out of this world.

I have the latter with an NPR-2 reticle. And you are absolutely correct.

For long range hunting, I like my Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50mm. It has performed well for me in low light. I also have a Leupold VariX III 6.5-20x40mm, and the Conquest is hands down better in low light than my Leupold. I also have a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44mm which I would have to say is my favorite scope of any that I have ever owned. It is just a good all around scope. My 2 cents.

I have a bunch of European scopes and generally find them outstanding. That said the scopes that impress me the most now for the money are Nikon's Gold Monarch and Zeiss' Conquest. If money is not an issue look at the S&B Zenith.

Stay with top of the line if for only one silly reason no one mentions RESALE! Leupold Swarovski Zeiss will get you an awfull lot of your dollar back if you sell your scope just look at ebay most go for around 80% not a bad return on your used goods

quote:

Originally posted by x-man:
USO makes a supreme scope

Now there's a man that recognizes quality.

For those who doubt US Optics because the name is unfamiliar, look on top of each and every M40A1 and M40A2 sniper rifle made by the US Marine Corps. There you will find a 10X Unertl overhauled by US Optics, or actually made by them.

Ne Plus Ultra.

The real test of a scope like you're looking for will be:

1. Image quality looking directly into the setting sun on the horizon, and,
2. Image quality on a really dark/dreary dawn/dusk.

It's in these conditions that it's much easier to separate the various options.

As far as an illuminated reticle goes - I've always wondered if they really serve a purpose or not, as what you really want is the target to be illuminated. Where I hunt, if it's too dark to see the reticle then it's too dark to be shooting at something.

quote:

Originally posted by douglast:


...take a look at the Swarovski PV4-16x50 or PV6-24x50. These are available with illuminated reticles.

The one thing you want to look at (which you may aready have) is the degredation of the optics at high magnification....

Both I and a friend independantly owned Swaro PV6-24x50s. We both noted the same problem - namely that image sharpness was great until 16 power and thereafter tailed off sharply to the extent that the image was pretty poor at 24x.

I sold mine. I am a lifelong Swaro fan but I do not rate this scope.

I remember someone posting here about parallax issues on the 5-15x42 Zeiss Diavari and on the replacement he got from Zeiss. This scope is now discontinued by Zeiss who no longer have any 1" Diavari variables.

400 at dusk is not a shot I would want to take even with my tracking dog at the bottom of my stand (as she allways is) I would consider it in the morning though.