I like Atkinson's outlook - up to a point. With old steel scopes, slim is good. Old steel scopes where the reticle needs to be kept in the middle, even better.

Iron sights, particularly big apertures, should be just as accurate as scopes at the usual African DG distances but front sights, out there on the end of your barrel, can be even more vulnerable than scopes, which tend to be more protected by proximity to your body.

Of all the things you spend money for a hunt, optics should be at the top. Buy the best you can afford.

Going "back to the old days" is a serious mistake.
The enhanced coatings on high end scopes work regardless of what others say here. I have tested them and used several.

Illuminated scopes remove doubt when shooting in low light. I use them regularly. I shot a hyena by moonlight that I would not have seen with a lower end scope and without illuminated reticle.

Going back in time is not a good idea on optics.

Really Dogcat? I been using the same old vari X2 and a few older variX1's Leupolds for at least 36 years without failure. A couple Ive sent back, one that a horse rolled and broke it in half! They replaced it for nothing. The other for a erector that was too stiff, no charge again...that amounts to about 30 Leupolds, some of which Ive sold over the last two years and Im down to about 12 right now, and one of the new Redfields by Leupold scopes..

I wouldn't call that a mistake. I still buy my scopes used at a pawn shop..save the money to go hunting. My guns are where I spend my money. I see the $1000 plus scopes for big game hunting as a suckers game.

The one exception is I did some scope testing for a 7.5 lb. 505 Gibbs, a458 Lott, and a 505 IMP, and they trased a couple of Leupold 2x7s, a 3x Leupold, 2.5x and 4X Weavers, 3 NIkons, and a number of high dollar foreign scopes. The ONLY scope that made the grade was the 2.5X Leupold Compact, it never gave up the Ghost.

I apparently had different results than your tests. but one thing for sure we live in a country where we arrive at conclusions such as this and agree to disagree.

quote:

I see the $1000 plus scopes for big game hunting as a suckers game.

People put their money on what has value to them.

I have enjoyed Leupold scopes and especially liked the 2.5-8 on a 338WM type rifle. However, for the past decade I have been even happier with Nikon. The Monarchs are a great line, but I especially try to fit a 3-9 Inline (Muzzleloader, 5 inch eye-relief) wherever I can fit them on a rifle. And my big rifles (416, 500 AccRel Nyati) shoot with more muzzle-energy than factory 505Gibbs. The Nikon Inline does it, at $200. Amazingly tough, and excellent glass, tracking, etc.

To me it seems the new VX-5 & 6 HD look pretty amazing. Can't beat those features.

I like the Swarovski's for their decent eyebox. Had two Zeiss scopes one time, and sold them both. I cannot afford a new Swarvo on my military pension, but I certainly wish I could.

Somebody foisted a pair of 7x porro prism Swarovski binoculars on me once. They were a mess. I sent them to Swarovski. Six weeks later they came back to me, essentially brand new. Same story when a friend's son kicked my 416 Rem Mag out of the Ford and screwed the 1-4 scope up big time. Again, within six weeks my scope was at least as good as new. the middle of the scope landed on a pointy rock, so it was not an easy job.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Of all the things you spend money for a hunt, optics should be at the top. Buy the best you can afford.

Going "back to the old days" is a serious mistake.
The enhanced coatings on high end scopes work regardless of what others say here. I have tested them and used several.

Illuminated scopes remove doubt when shooting in low light. I use them regularly. I shot a hyena by moonlight that I would not have seen with a lower end scope and without illuminated reticle.

Going back in time is not a good idea on optics.

Yes, the clarity of scopes is bound to have improved (though some old German ones seem so good I suspect looking for better is like sewing fly buttons on flies). As Atkinson has said in the past, scopes are just sights - we should not confuse them with spotting scopes and binoculars.

I would love one of the top-quality makers to bring out a variable with all their latest coatings and any design improvement that can keep the eye relief constant through the powers BUT go back to the old reticle-movement or external adjustments (a la B&L). Better the scope that keeps shooting where you point it than one with an eternal warranty.

Illumination is unnecessary if you have the right reticle. It is also a decadence that nudges the bounds of sportsmanship and reliability more than any development I can remember.

Ray,
We have to disagree. I place little value on the gun actually. I have zero sentiment toward any gun , no more than a carpenter with his hammer.

If you can't see it you cannot shoot it. Open sights are fine however, Teddy Roosevelt wounded a great deal of game on his epic 13 month safari.

In the day and age, with a trophy fee that hits 5 figures for the big stuff, I would always use a scope and a scope that is clear and with a red dot. I have yet to have a PH tell me that he preferred open sights or cheap scopes.

A very top end scope runs $2000 if you shop a bit or talk to Gr8fuldoug who posts here. Leupolds are fine, especially the new ones. Any of them older than 10 years and you are in the dark ages. The optics on the new ones are very good. If you are shooting a $200 scope bought used, you handicap yourself - especially when you need great optics.
I will quit preaching.

The red dot ensures the aiming point. It is the same as a regular cross hair, just brighter. There is nothing "near the edge" or morally wrong using one.

We use binoculars and spotting scopes yet decry quality scopes??? I do not get it.

On guns, a Remington 700 or Ruger 77 shoots as accurately as a $5000 custom or some parted together Mauser. So why the emphasis on the tool??

I have had 6 pre-64 Model 70's. Each was a 2 MOA gun with a lot of tinkering. Why own that when I can own a new Model 70 or 700 or Blaser made to higher standards and with better materials nowadays? Same logic on optics.

Anyway, to each his own. I put my money on the optics, then the gun. I also test a lot of ammo to get MOA or better at 300 yards. With the cost of wounding and losing - I prefer to have the tools tuned in.

You dont need it but the Z6 is a better scope and I am liking that red dot more and more especially in poor light. You can shoot faster as well.

I guess my personal situation is Im a big game hunter primarily and if its got a cross hair and will sight in, I can get by at least so far as Ive done in the past, don't need to know hair color or count the ticks, just put the X in the center and pull that fine 2.5 pound trigger..Been working for me for many years, probably cause I didn't know better!!

Shame on ya son for not likeing your rifle, that's sinful and you should be stringhaultered and gilflurted for such a thang as that!

I do not think that you will regret your upgrade.

I personally think the scope / type reticle can define the use/purpose of the rifle nearly as much as the cartridge (within reason). The reticle means a lot to me. But, so does the ability to see a well defined target image. I normally hunt in timbered areas, closer range encounters, and it seems most of my opportunities are in low light.
Around the age of 50, I really began to appreciate the higher end optics. 20 years earlier, no way in hell would I have spent the money. I do believe that higher end scopes assist my eyes. I am not hung up on the higher cost equaling higher quality or a higher degree of usefulness, not always is the case.
Though after years of transitioning, most of my scopes do cost more than I paid for the rifles that they are on.
No regrets, other than the one purchase of a much too thin reticle. I do like bold reticles for the distances I shoot.

As to cost verses reliability, you can get a good one or bad one regardless of cost or manufacturer.

quote:

Originally posted by Brandon.Gleason:
Well, I broke down to midway's temptations tonight. They had a refurb Z6i 1-6 EE with CDI reticle marked down to $1180. I've been watching that price creep down from 1600, so I jumped on it. 6 weeks to go till my trip, so plenty of practice until then.

Took it out to sight in today and do some offhand shooting. I have to say I am enamored with the scope! The lighted reticle was great at 100yds, didn't cover too much of the target at 6x. Off hand at 50yds on 1x allowed me to shoot both eyes open without a problem, much like a red dot. Can't wait to put a buffalo in front of it!

On my two big game rifles, I have Leupold scopes on, due to ocular size. I needed small oculars to clear the safety and bolt handle.

On these rifles, I use a binocular to spot the animal and study it.. then, I spend 10-15 seconds putting the crosshairs in the right spot. No need for best in class then.


On my other rifles, where I actually have to spend a while behind the scope.. ie Varmint rifles, Long range rifle and rimfire, I use Schmidt & Bender and Kahles scopes. MUCH better quality then Leupold.

Yeah, I think tough and reliable is more important than ultimate clarity and light gathering. Unless you have some European tree house to sit in and no legal time restrictions - except a demand from the hunt master that you take out more roe deer - call a truce and leave the night to the game.

If you have to sit up for leopards or lions use a #1 reticle. Even a #4 or duplex with the heavy bars close in should do - if you can't imagine where the centre is, things are worse than you think.

Its been a good conversation and we've all said our piece, that's what is good about these threads..Difference of opinion is what makes a Chevy better than a Ford or visa versa, a dog fight, a rooster fight or a horse race, its all the same..

Brandon,

I doubt you will ever regret that decision until you look to scope your next rifle and want another Swaro! Good luck on your hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Brandon,

I doubt you will ever regret that decision until you look to scope your next rifle and want another Swaro! Good luck on your hunt.

Thank you, sir. You are completely correct on both counts.

If I recall, you were looking to put a Swaro Z5(??) on that 7 Bee to take to TZ. How'd that turn out?

Stay safe and dry there in Houston. My NDMS team is deployed there as of today for Harvey.

Brandon,

Thanks for the good wishes and all the help down here. Lots of folks need it. We're a lot more fortunate than most. House and family are all fine. Office has no power and won't be able to get back in before Monday is the last word. Working remotely from home in the interim.

The 7mm didn't work out. Long story short, I usually install my own scopes, but needed some other work done so asked gunsmith to do it. He didn't tighten the front base and it wrecked the scope during sight-in.
We'll be testing that Swaro guarantee, because it clearly isn't their fault. Did the hunt with a lightweight, cut-down M70 in .30-06 with a Z6 1-6 and my .416 with the same scope except illuminated. Longest shot with the .416 was 210 yards and a bit over 300 with the 06, so the lack of the 7mm didn't hurt a thing. Let me know how your hunt goes.

I returned my Zeiss 1-8 that was mounted on my .416 Rem Mag without even firing a shot. Even though they claim 3.75" eye relief, I couldn't get anywhere near that.

And more annoying; the ocular part of the scope is so fat, that it is hard to run the bolt with low-mount rings without getting your fingers hung-up on the housing (probably not a good attribute for a dangerous game rifle). The 36mm tube is just too damn much for a low power optic on a hunting rifle. This might be fine with a straight-pull, but was definitely a problem on my Winchester. IMO, Zeiss really screwed the pooch with this design.

I replaced it with a Leupold VX6 1-6x24. I like the Leupold much better. I like the firedot illumination system better than the Zeiss system, even though both are great and have motion sensing capability. The eye relief seems to be a true 4" on the VX6 and I never get scoped no matter what position I shoot from. The housing is the perfect size for running the bolt with low-mount rings. Even though the Zeiss has a 36mm tube and larger objective lens, the field of view is better with the leupold, so that big tube is a complete waste compared to the smaller and lighter Leupold.

I will admit, the glass is a little better on the Zeiss V8 than on the Leupold VX6, but the VX6 is no slouch and the etched reticle behind great glass really holds its own.

Also, the Leupold VX6 has the same warranty as the Zeiss, but was $1,300 cheaper. Basically, with the money saved, you could buy a M70 Safari or CZ 550 rifle to go with the scope!

Good grief! I have no use for a variable power scope and would not want a 30mm except in cases where the extra adjustment might be needed! I am in the dark ages, but that does not pertain to the amount of light through my scope! KISS

Each to his own. :-)

When there is a larger objective bell, I don't believe fatter tubes are much to do with getting more light through a scope - and I wonder to what extent 30mm tubes are just about extra reticle adjustment.

In the old days of reticle-movement, when the aiming mark had to be more-or-less in the centre for aesthetic reasons (at least), Zeiss/Hensoldt, Nickel and others used 30mm tubes on their dural 1.5-6x variables, while their lesser, steel models seem to have remained at 26mm.

So, either the difficulties of providing the larger, 4x, multiple required thicker elements in the full-width erector set, or it was about strength. I think it may have been the latter, because even the fixed-power scopes used thicker bodies in dural than steel.

For this reason, I wonder if one-inch alloy scopes without even a rail to resist bending, may be a bit fragile.

If no other obvious evidence exists for this theory, may I tender the use of steel rods to align rings - something I don't recall from the days of steel-tubed scopes.

It all depends on where your hunting!

If you are a fairweather hunter any scope on the market will suffice.
If you expect to get drenched and bang your scope around Leupold is the only scope I've never seen fail.
Not prejudice just honest!

quote:

Originally posted by waterrat:
It all depends on where your hunting!

If you are a fairweather hunter any scope on the market will suffice.
If you expect to get drenched and bang your scope around Leupold is the only scope I've never seen fail.
Not prejudice just honest!

Keep shooting your Leupolds on rifles with over 5000 ft# muzzle energy and see what happens.

How about over 500 rnds through a 10,000 ft lb rifle with a leupold 2.5x that's never failed!actually nearly 1000 rnds over 10 years through the same rifle that's been shot by many members here. Been there and done that!

You're just lucky, I guess.

I suppose that 2.5x scope is the compact model, the only one Atkinson trusts on big rifles.

Not an issue of luck at all. I've put leupold 2.5x compacts on some of the most powerful rifles ever built and had great success with them. Of course you need to know how to properly mount a scope and what mounts to use to have any scope survive that level of recoil. Not being snarky but more scopes break because people use crappy mounts,too small screws over tighten them and position them wrongly rather than individual scope design flaws. The leupold 2.5x is unusually rugged though. Agree totally with Ray on this!

Is this particular scope still available new, Robgunbuilder? Ray's posts give the feeling that his are superseded models, as he picks them up in pawn shops.

I suspect that Leupold may have even customised one for him after his repeatedly sending them back with the erector tubes rattling.

We know that Leupold has recognised a problem with erector-tube springs breaking down, hence their spruiking the beryllium-alloy springs in their VX-3 line. These springs have to handle the recoil inertia on the articulated erector tube, which Swarovski claims can be from 500 to 800 times its mass when at rest.

Reading your posts, I accept that after 50 years of dealing with this problem Leupold may have finally solved it, in one small scope at least. It may be that part of the fix is a particularly light erector tube that reduces inertia load. (Vortex, on the other hand, sees erector/screw wear as the problem, whereby they add hardened steel bands to their brass tubes.) If Leupold's miraculous springs are the answer, I would like to see them employed in an old-timey reticle-movement scope, where the internal assembly that might move under recoil weighs perhaps one-tenth that of an average erector tube. Given a good, stout scope body, that one could last even longer than your compact Leupold and give me the confidence to hunt dangerous/expensive game with it.

I believe they are still available, however I have not had to buy a new one or send one back to Leupold in recent memory. None of mine have broken!
Personally, I now mount Trijicon RM02 red dots on my big bores as they are way faster and lighter than any scope, more rugged and the RM02 will stay on for 3 years. No one Needs a scope for a rifle normally used at 40 yards or less. Try one, you'll
Never go back!

I must admit I am intrigued by sights like that Trijicon; how something so short can be parallax-free, battery issues etc. I suppose I could put one on my 450/400, except it might destroy the retro look.

On the other hand, I am over the express sights with no flats on top - while I remember to pull the bead right down into the V for deliberate, standing shots, there's a tendency for snap shots to go high.

I got over the retro look issue once it dawned on me how good the red dots really were. Like with a good low power scope you focus on the target and bring the red dot into your field of vision. Close enough is good enough! You dhoot extremely fast compared to a scope. They can take enormous impacts and keep
On working. As I said give it a try!

I've used a Leupold 2.5x compact on my 105 ft.-lb. recoiling rifle for years and hundreds of rounds down range. And in QD Talleys.

Still good.

Leupold FX-II 2.5-20mm scope is still available.

https://www.leupold.com/scopes...-ultralight-2-5x20mm

Or FX-2 3x20mm Bigbore

https://customshop.leupold.com...?s=667&r=2&aw=5&ae=5

Are these the same ones you swear by, Atkinson - if you're watching this thread?