i dont really know anything about scopes, because whenever i buy a gun it is a combo. here soon im going to get a remington 700 and it doesent have a scope. Im wanting to know alot about scopes now because i dont want to just go out and buy a scope without knowing much about them. im wanting to know just the generals of a scope, things like the magnifications. Help Please???

Bigger objective = better light gathering ability but also means higher mounting location. Your 3-9; 4-12 for deer is going to be plenty of magnification. Don't get sucked into 20x magnification.

Also don't go cheap on a scope. Stick with your major brands and you'll be good.

+1

Good rule of thumb is spend about as much on the scope as you did on the gun. redfield, leupold, bushnell elite, etc are all good brands. im personally a fan of Nikon. I'd stay away from Tasco or Simmons scopes, but that's just me.

+2

For the money, I don't believe a 3-9x40mm Zeiss Conquest can be beat. Personally I stick to Zeiss and Leupold scopes ONLY on all my rifles. I have quite a few. When it comes to scopes, you truly get what you pay for. For a deer rifle, I wouldn't suggest spending less than $300 on your scope.

whats a good magnification of a scope for deer hunting

I like a 3-9X50 for deer hunting. probably the most used magnification there is. If i were you, go with a Leupold Rifleman 3-9X50. Great scopes with Leupolds lifetime warranty. It's the bottom of the Line Leupy, but I've had mine on my Savage 7mm Rem Mag for over 2 years now and not had one problem. You can pick them up new for around $220.00. In my opinion one of the top scopes for deer hunting.

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templa...&hasJS=true

out of all of these which one is one of the cheaper ones but still a good power?

The 3.5-10's or the 4.5-14's would be my choice, but your in Zeiss price range there. Cabelas has the 3-9x40 Zeiss conquest (as stated above, awesome clarity) on sale for 399.99 which is a hell of a buy.

And what does that exactly mean? 3.5-10, 4.5-14, and 3-9x40?

3-9, 3.5-10, 4.5-14 are used to describe a scopes magnification range (or zoom), adjustable by the power ring.

x40 or x50 is the objective lens size.

So 3-9x40 means the scopes magnification is adjustable from 3 power to 9 power and the objective is 40mm.

It isn't a good idea to have two post on the same subject going on in two different forums at the same time.
It can get very confusing for those trying to help and for you to keep it all straight.

okay thanks that helped alot. is it better to have bigger objective lenses?

In my opinion it is personal preference.

I use a 40mm on a deer/hog rifle, 50mm on varmint/target rifle.

I've always used 50mm lens. Have a couple of 40mm that i like but there's something about them that's not as good as t he 50mm in my personal opinion, but i can't pin point it yet. so i say 50mm

Bigger objective will will gather light better in low light conditions. If you will be hunting in low light a lot you will probably want to go with a 50mm.

40mm in a quality scope is fine for any big game hunting in North America. If its to dark to see an animal to shoot it with a 40mm Zeiss, Leupold VXII, etc. its propably past legal shooting time anyway.

50mm has to be mounted higher on the gun which can keep you from getting good cheek placement on your stock, having to raise your head from the stock, even slightly, is an unnatural shooting postion and you will not shoot as well. Its also heavier, bulkier and cost more.

Usually people notice the difference in optical quality between 40mm and 50mm scopes on cheap scopes. But a cheap 50mm scope is still not as good as a higher quality 40mm.

Suck it up and buy a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 or Leupold VX3.

Either will last you a lifetime and you can pass it on to your kids.

Bill

What he said X2

IMO, 50mm objective scopes add too much bulk to the top of a rifle. The rifle just doesn't look as good to me as one with a 40mm objective. I also think they, 50mm, can make the handling of the rifle a little bit top heavy, esp. if it's a sporter.

Personally I've only used 40mm objective scopes and have never seen a reason to go bigger. This is all personal opinion and there are plenty that disagree with me.

Chuck Hawks is a good place to start some learning about scopes. His opinions are rarely off. http://www.chuckhawks.com/index2i.scopes_optics.htm

The 3-9x 40 Zeiss Conquest that has been mentioned is a good scope, and several retailers have it on special for $399.95. This is not the same scope as their higher end scopes, but it is a good scope at a good price.

I own a Zeiss Conquest 3x9-40mm and a 3x9-40mm Leupold and both are excellent scopes. I agree with tx270.

Depends on what part of Texas. We hunt lots of flat tops with deep canyons. When it is still plenty of legal light to shoot those West side canyon walls loaded with brush get dark when Daddy is getting ready to come out. 50 MM makes it's case then on being able to see broke tines and small details and 200 - 400 yds. in West Texas.

I like the Nikon Buckmaster 3-9x40 BDC. I have it on my 30.06 and it has donr me very well.

a old man told me once if you have a good gun with a bad scope you have nothing but you can take a OK gun and put a good scope on it and you have something. I've never been able to shoot as good as the gun anyway.
I have 1 Zeiss Conquest 3x9x40 and 5 Leupold 3x9x40 and I think all are very good scopes