Texas Hunting Forum
Rifle Scope Question
Hello Everyone...I am brand new to the Forum as of today. I just bought a Marlin XL7 .270 after reading many good reviews and am looking to find a decent scope for around $150-175 that I will be using in the hill country to deer hunt. Does anyone have any suggestions?
Posted By: Big Tony
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/14/09 10:38 PM
Go to Cabelas.com I think for that price range Simmons is a good scope. However, with that being said, the old saying "you get what you pay for" Really applies here. Go to a scope store close by (Academy is a good one) and have 'em drag out all the powers and price ranges you want and look across the store and get the one you like best. Asking scope brands here will be a never ending story. TP
Posted By: exoticbob
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/14/09 10:44 PM
you can get a bushnell elite 3200 3-9x40 just under $200. be hard to beat this scope for the price. riflescopes.com has them for $175, but add tax and shipping.
Posted By: scottnsa
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/14/09 11:14 PM
I would look at the Nikon scopes at Academy. I think the Pro Staff is in that price range.
Posted By: Plano Cooter
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/14/09 11:28 PM
Good old Luepold VX in 3x9x40 for under $200 just about anywhere would be my choice.
Posted By: BMD
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/14/09 11:33 PM
no such thing as a decent scope in that price range unless u pick up a used leupy.
Posted By: jdickey
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/14/09 11:43 PM
Nikon has two good scopes in the price range....
both are 3-9x40 one for $149.00 and one with the BDC reticle for $159.00.
Burris has their combo 3-9x40 Fullfield II scope with a pair of binos for $199.00; that scope has the mil-dot reticle.
Both Nikon and Burris are brighter and clearer scopes than the Leupolds.
Burris is also part of the Beretta family and offer their Forever Warranty if you should need it.
Posted By: dirty bird
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 12:24 AM
my honest advice would be to stick around on this forum. there are many very good people on hear that are willing to sell one to you. i purchased a good NIKON 3x9x40 for 125 FTF,also, vernon [sig226] is a good start. i purchased some equipment from him, a game cam included. works great. he did all he said he would and more. boss hogg in plano was another good partner to deal with. i just bought a good gun case from him. put some faith in the THF members, i always look here first.
if you wish to go new...I highly recommend the NIKON 3x9 in your price range. it fits well with my BROWNING 30.06 semi-auto.
Posted By: turkeyslayer76
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 01:43 AM
Considering the Bushnell Elite 3200. What are the benefits with 40mm vs. 50mm.
Posted By: BOBO the Clown
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 02:32 AM
samplelist.com
Posted By: A.B.
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 02:46 AM
I have forever been a Leupold guy, but on my new toy sits a Burris. If I had to choose between the two I would say Burris.
Posted By: Texas Dan
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 02:56 AM
Quote:
I would look at the Nikon scopes at Academy. I think the Pro Staff is in that price range.
That's what I put on my Remington .270 and I've yet to miss taking a shot because I couldn't see the target.
Posted By: Longhunter
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 04:27 AM
Check Pawn Shops first then your other stores, but don't settle for anything less than LEUPOLD...You wont have to buy 2. 3x9 or 4x12. That is tooooo good a rifle to put a cheep scope on.
Quote:
Considering the Bushnell Elite 3200. What are the benefits with 40mm vs. 50mm.
Short answer: The 50mm has a bigger exit pupil which translates to greater light transmission to your eye in low light conditions.
BTW, the B&L Elite is a great scope.
Posted By: Mconner
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 04:46 AM
I have a Bushnell Elite 3200 and it is a good scope for the money. I also bought a Burris Fullfield II for my sons first rifle and was real surprised at how good a little scope it was. I would have no problems recommending either of these scopes to anyone.
Posted By: JCB
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 04:49 AM
I have several of the Elite scopes, and one Burris, and have no complaints!
I would choose either of those over the Leupold Rifleman!
Posted By: KBTXHunter
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 05:17 AM
Quote:
no such thing as a decent scope in that price range unless u pick up a used leupy.
X2 
Posted By: Parker
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 05:18 AM
kevinu has a Fullfield II for sale in the Trading Post for $135. I have one and have had no problems.
Posted By: tx270
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 05:52 AM
In that price rnage Burris Fullfield II 3-9x40. The Bushnell Elite 3200 is also a good scope.
Get a 40mm, no need for a 50mm for 99% of hunting situations.
A 50mm is heavier and also has to be mounted higher, which for most people the lower to the gun the scope can be mounted, the better that person will shoot. The SLIGHT advantage in low light of the 50mm is not worth the other negatives in my opinion.
I've hunted here in TX for 30 yrs as well as a few other western states. If its too dark to make a good shot with a quality 40mm scope then its to damn dark to be shooting at a big game animal.
Bill
Posted By: exoticbob
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 05:57 AM
also, the rainguard really does work on the elite scopes
Let me start by saying that these conversations are reflections of our opinions and I respect opinions that differ from mine. I hope to receive the same consideration. I also base the following date on 3x9x40 and a 3x9x50 Elite scopes.
Quote:
Get a 40mm, no need for a 50mm for 99% of hunting situations.
Just hope that the deer you've been hunting all your life shows up within that 99%.
Quote:
A 50mm is heavier and also has to be mounted higher, which for most people the lower to the gun the scope can be mounted, the better that person will shoot.
Yes, the 50mm is heavier. It weighs 6 oz more and it's 3" longer. However, it doesn't necessarily have to be mounted higher on the rifle. The difference in the radius is 5mm. If the 40mm is sitting higher than that above the rifle barrel, the centerline of the scopes will be essentially the same. The only way the 50mm would sit higher is if you had the 40mm sitting 1mm or 2mm above the barrel and had to buy higher rings.
Quote:
The SLIGHT advantage in low light of the 50mm is not worth the other negatives in my opinion.
The exit pupil on the 40mm varies from 13.3 to 4.4 depending on the magnification setting. The exit pupil of the 50mm varies from 16.7 to 5.6 depending on the magnification setting. The average human pupil will expand to ~7mm in darkness. If the scope has an exit pupil of 4.4mm, then it is providing less light than the eye can accommodate. While the same is true if the exit pupil is 5.6, it is bigger and does provide more light. There is more to "light" than brightness. There is also color definition. That's what allows you to pick out the color of a deer standing in the woods or brush. Being completely fair about this part, you can adjust the magnification settings on either scope to provide the most efficient light transmission. The difference is that on the 50mm, the magnification setting can be higher to allow the same amount of light.
Quote:
If its too dark to make a good shot with a quality 40mm scope then its to damn dark to be shooting at a big game animal.
If the animal is standing in an open field, that could be true. If it is standing 20 feet back in the woods, not so sure.
Posted By: BMD
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 05:05 PM
I like 50's with 30mm tubes.
Posted By: Catfish_Hunter
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 05:36 PM
I'll probably get run out of town for this one, but I've been impressed with my BSA. It's not a Wal-Mart plastic pack special BSA either. It's a mil-dot 6-24x40 that came on the used rifle I bought. It's pretty clear and I've had no issues with it holding up or holding it's zero on my Ruger M77 .300 WM. Brand new they're around $130 @ Cabela's, but Natchez has 'em for under $100 (I highly recommend Natchez for any scopes if you know what you want, they're alot cheaper).
Posted By: A.B.
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 06:36 PM
He said an affordable scope.....
I agree with the above mentioned... If you cant see a deer with a good 40mm scope, then it is to damn dark to risk the shot.
I was a Leupold only guy for years... Recently, last few years, I have come to like Burris. We deal with a lot of different scopes and shooters/hunters. Never any complaints from Burris. Have sent back several Leupold's lately, especially Riflemen and VX-I's, and on my personal truck/four wheeler gun, it's a Burris FullField II 3-9x40.
Hard to beat them for consistent accuracy and durability. I have one that has about 1500 four wheeler miles or more, numerous trips in the truck, and is always dead on.
I still like Leupold, but in that price range, I'd go with Burris.
As for 40 vs 50, with good scopes and good glass and coatings, 40mm will be fine. If using lesser scopes, 50mm helps.
Posted By: txtrophy85
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 08:28 PM
i have used a redfield 3x9 tracker that my dad bought me in 96' cost $185 and has served me well.
Posted By: tx270
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 08:47 PM
Quote:
Let me start by saying that these conversations are reflections of our opinions and I respect opinions that differ from mine. I hope to receive the same consideration. I also base the following date on 3x9x40 and a 3x9x50 Elite scopes.
Quote:
Get a 40mm, no need for a 50mm for 99% of hunting situations.
Just hope that the deer you've been hunting all your life shows up within that 99%.
Quote:
A 50mm is heavier and also has to be mounted higher, which for most people the lower to the gun the scope can be mounted, the better that person will shoot.
Yes, the 50mm is heavier. It weighs 6 oz more and it's 3" longer. However, it doesn't necessarily have to be mounted higher on the rifle. The difference in the radius is 5mm. If the 40mm is sitting higher than that above the rifle barrel, the centerline of the scopes will be essentially the same. The only way the 50mm would sit higher is if you had the 40mm sitting 1mm or 2mm above the barrel and had to buy higher rings.
Quote:
The SLIGHT advantage in low light of the 50mm is not worth the other negatives in my opinion.
The exit pupil on the 40mm varies from 13.3 to 4.4 depending on the magnification setting. The exit pupil of the 50mm varies from 16.7 to 5.6 depending on the magnification setting. The average human pupil will expand to ~7mm in darkness. If the scope has an exit pupil of 4.4mm, then it is providing less light than the eye can accommodate. While the same is true if the exit pupil is 5.6, it is bigger and does provide more light. There is more to "light" than brightness. There is also color definition. That's what allows you to pick out the color of a deer standing in the woods or brush. Being completely fair about this part, you can adjust the magnification settings on either scope to provide the most efficient light transmission. The difference is that on the 50mm, the magnification setting can be higher to allow the same amount of light.
Quote:
If its too dark to make a good shot with a quality 40mm scope then its to damn dark to be shooting at a big game animal.
If the animal is standing in an open field, that could be true. If it is standing 20 feet back in the woods, not so sure.
I did say in my post it was "my opinion", and I respect your opinion.
As to the 1% animal I might not get, after taking over 100 big gamee animals including WT, mule deer, sheep, antelope, etc. in more than a couple states. I think I'll take my chances on that 1%.
Don't know here you got your specs but your wrong on the obj. only being 5mm larger on a 50mm scope. On almost all 50mm scopes the obj. bell is a min of 10mm larger, or about a 1/2".
With most 40-42mm scopes you can usually use low rings and you can definitely use medium rings. With most 50mm scopes you MIGHT (and that a big might) be able to use medium rings but you usually have to use high rings. The cheek weld difference between low rings and high rings is very noticable for most peeople. BTW I've mounted ALOT of scopes.
The length/weight issue I agree is not a big deal if your sitting in a plywood box staring at a barrel of corn 75 yds away. But it is a big difference if you hike ten miles a day or try to stick a 50mm scope in a horse scabbard.
I agree the color definition and resolution will be SLIGHTLY better with a 50mm.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is folks who don't know alot about scopes seem to think they will see some astonishing difference with a 50mm scope. They get to caught up in "its bigger so it must be way better" IMHO I just don't think its so.
The nice gentleman who started this thread seems to be one of those folks who doesn't have alot of experience with riflescopes so he asked everyones opinion here. So I gave my opinion with a good bit of experience to back it up.
If a person likes 50mm scopes then I say go for it. I won't ridicule anyone for it. I just think people get to caught up in the its bigger so it must be better theory. Yeah, they are a slightly better in some areas, but that comes with alot of trade offs in my honest opinion.
And I still stand by my "if its to dark to see with a quality 40-42mm scope then its to damn dark to be ethically shooting at a big game animal" 
Bill
Posted By: moderno
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 08:59 PM
I used to think there was no better scope than Leupold, and have a few of them.
I recently bought a varmint gun in 204, and topped it off with a Burris Fullfield II 4.5 x 14 Ballistic-Plex. This scope came with a compact 12 x 24 spotting scope. The spotting scope works very well for what it is.
The Burris scope is excellent, I couldn't be happier with its performance in low light conditions. The Ballistic-Plex works just as Burris claims. I was somewhat skeptical about it, but it works. I haven't tried the next aim-points at their respective distances yet bet intend to very soon. I intend to work up some hand loads first.
I sighted in dead on at 100, then backed up to 250 and used the next aim-point mark, dead on at 250, using Hornady 32gr. V-Max factory ammo.
Would I buy another Burris?? Yes Sir I would. Life time warranty!
JMO, I think Leupold is over rated and overpriced. But they are very good scopes.
Posted By: rifleman
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 09:19 PM
shouldn't matter what scope you get (all brands of scopes have had someone bashing on them at some point)..... 99% of the time it's still the indian, not the arrow that matters. 44mm works well for me on scopes up to 12 power, once I go above that I prefer the 50mm. Some people will swear up and down that you should never need anything more than a 9 power scope to hunt with. May be true for their hunting set-up but not for all. For the way I hunt, I would rather just put a large scope on my rifle instead of carrying a spotting scope to the stand every trip.
I do have a cpl of guns set up with 3-9x32 scopes on them.... one is a 30-06 and the other a sweet little 7mm-08. Those are my late season rifles when I'm toting a climber to get back in some secluded areas. I do not have a scope that I'm partial to, I just expect what I buy to do what it's supposed to.... I will say that I have had the least amount of trouble out of leupold and nikon, but I can't justify spending more on the scope than I do the rifle in order to get the sizes I want.
Posted By: A.B.
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 09:27 PM
I love hearing all the praise for Burris. I will never own a Zeiss or Swarvoski in my lifetime. I will however buy a few more Burris'. Thinking about topping off my beloved 300 with one( anyone want a VARI-X 2 4-12X40 AO?), I love the B-plex that we put on Joshua's 308. Burris makes some dang fine binoculars also.
Posted By: amber
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 09:37 PM
I highly recommend the Simmons Aetec scope. It is a good affordable scope that is bright, clear and can handle recoil. My fiance and I have several Aetec's on our rifles ranging from a 22-250 to a 7mm wsm. Simmons changed the design of the aetec and moved the AO from the front of the scope to side mounted knobs. I prefer the old design with the adjustment in the front but it still works the same. I favor the Simmons Aetec scope over the Nikon Monarchs.
Cabelas has a sale on the 4-14x44 matte for $189.99
Posted By: moderno
Re: Rifle Scope Question - 01/15/09 09:47 PM
I don't carry the spotting scope with me, no need to. It came with the scope, and all I have used it for is checking paper, but then again, really dont need to, I can see the holes just fine through the scope at 100yds. 250yds. is a different story with that little bullitt.
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't bashing Leupold or any other brand of scope. I just bought an brand new Rock River Arms Preditor Pursuit AR-15 from TX50Cal on the forum here. It came with a Tasco 4x16 scope. It shoots very well with this scope. Will I put a better scope on the AR, sure, later but right now I'm having too much fun with it.
Quote:
On almost all 50mm scopes the obj. bell is a min of 10mm larger
Sorry I was not clearer on this point. The CENTERLINE of a 50mm scope is 5mm higher than the CENTERLINE of a 40mm scope. The other 5mm that is above centerline doesn't matter.