Michigan deer hunting rifle ?

[BJXDS]

250-300 yards would probably be the maximum. What's the best I could swing on a $400-$500 budget for glass?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

Sorry I can't recommend a specific scope but here are a few points for you to ponder. Fixed 4X use to be my standard favorite scope for the conditions you think you will be hunting in. But several years ago I moved to 3x9, and I would go no lower than a 40 mm lens, bigger is better for low light conditions. I use 3x 95% of the time but it is nice to use 9X at the range for sighting in.

Honestly if I was looking at 4X it would be a 1x4, but for closer range such as doing drives and running dogs. I think a 3x9 has all your bases covered.

There are so many scope options now it is over whelming.
Does your price range include rings/mount? Don't skimp there. I have had good luck with Leupold and Nikon.

[okie john]

Interesting. Not that I doubt you, I'm genuinely curious, but what makes Leupold that much better than say a Nikon Monarch or a Vortex Viper HS? I ask because I've had people of similar age (fact) and experience (guessing, admittedly) with the popular scope brands that don't think much of Leupold these days.

I've had good luck with the 12-15 that I've owned, but I'll admit that they're not the newest scopes around. The new ones could be subject to the QC issues that Lost River mentions.


Okie John

[spinmove_]

I've had good luck with the 12-15 that I've owned, but I'll admit that they're not the newest scopes around. The new ones could be subject to the QC issues that Lost River mentions.


Okie John

Given that it sounds like most of yours are older and the ones Lost have are newer, I don't doubt either of you. However this statement doesn't really answer the question in which you quoted.

I'm not trying to be rude or doubtful, I'm genuinely curious. What makes Leupold, or I guess specifically older Leupolds, better than a current Vortex Viper HS or Nikon Monarch? Ability to hold zero despite Recoil? Better glass clarity? Ability to gather light in low light situations? Edge to edge clarity? Something else? I want to know what I'm looking for when I attempt to compare my options.

As for the Weaver K4 vs a Leupold FX-II 4x33, are those that comparable to each other? Because that's quite the price disparity.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[Lost River]

As for the Weaver K4 vs a Leupold FX-II 4x33, are those that comparable to each other? Because that's quite the price disparity.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

I used Leupolds for years, and some of the older ones were solid scopes. That said, while they usually retained zeros quite well, where many really failed was tracking and repeatability. Running box drills with them on paper, they often would not return to the same POA/POI. However, I had some late 90s/early 2000s era MK IVs that were good scopes, and tracked properly, and only got rid of them due to the reticle being MIL and the turrets being MOA. In the VX lines it was a roll of the dice to see if a Leupold would track correctly or not, so I eventually divested myself of most of them.

As far as Weaver VS Leupold, Jap Weavers have long had a reputation for excellent tracking and repeatability. The Jap Weavers and most Leupolds get their glass from the same factory in Japan, LOW (light optical works). There are a BUNCH of Jap Weaver scopes that are used in Benchrest shooting due to their repeatability. The T series and some of the V series like the V16 (4-16x) and the V3 (1x3) have long held a reputation as being very repeatable, with good glass. I have numerous K series (fixed power) Japanese Weavers and they are rock solid.

I have no "fact based" idea on the price difference between Weavers and Leupolds, other than Weaver rarely advertises, and Leupolds have always been in a certain price niche. I suspect that Leupold started cutting corners and importing some of their internal parts from overseas, to increase their profit margin, while still keeping the same retail prices.

If you look, you will not find a "Made in the USA" sticker on new VX series scopes. Leupold carefully words how/where they are built. They say "Leupold Golden Ring riflescopes are designed, machined, assembled, and tested in Leupold’s state of the art manufacturing facility in Beaverton, Oregon, USA. Note that they never say they are "Made in the USA".

Along with "Leupold uses foreign sourced components for some parts of Golden Ring products, primarily lenses." In other words, while the lenses are LOW, many of the internal parts are Chinese.


BTW, LOW actually produces some great glass, for many manufacturers. No problem at all with the better LOW glass.

[spinmove_]

I used Leupolds for years, and some of the older ones were solid scopes. That said, while they usually retained zeros quite well, where many really failed was tracking and repeatability. Running box drills with them on paper, they often would not return to the same POA/POI. However, I had some late 90s/early 2000s era MK IVs that were good scopes, and tracked properly, and only got rid of them due to the reticle being MIL and the turrets being MOA. In the VX lines it was a roll of the dice to see if a Leupold would track correctly or not, so I eventually divested myself of most of them.

As far as Weaver VS Leupold, Jap Weavers have long had a reputation for excellent tracking and repeatability. The Jap Weavers and most Leupolds get their glass from the same factory in Japan, LOW (light optical works). There are a BUNCH of Jap Weaver scopes that are used in Benchrest shooting due to their repeatability. The T series and some of the V series like the V16 (4-16x) and the V3 (1x3) have long held a reputation as being very repeatable, with good glass. I have numerous K series (fixed power) Japanese Weavers and they are rock solid.

I have no "fact based" idea on the price difference between Weavers and Leupolds, other than Weaver rarely advertises, and Leupolds have always been in a certain price niche. I suspect that Leupold started cutting corners and importing some of their internal parts from overseas, to increase their profit margin, while still keeping the same retail prices.

If you look, you will not find a "Made in the USA" sticker on new VX series scopes. Leupold carefully words how/where they are built. They say "Leupold Golden Ring riflescopes are designed, machined, assembled, and tested in Leupold’s state of the art manufacturing facility in Beaverton, Oregon, USA. Note that they never say they are "Made in the USA".

Along with "Leupold uses foreign sourced components for some parts of Golden Ring products, primarily lenses." In other words, while the lenses are LOW, many of the internal parts are Chinese.


BTW, LOW actually produces some great glass, for many manufacturers. No problem at all with the better LOW glass.

Good to know. Sounds like you're paying for that gold ring near the objective vs running a Weaver. It's a shame their VX series isn't quite what it used to be.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[okie john]

Given that it sounds like most of yours are older and the ones Lost have are newer, I don't doubt either of you. However this statement doesn't really answer the question in which you quoted.

I'm not trying to be rude or doubtful, I'm genuinely curious. What makes Leupold, or I guess specifically older Leupolds, better than a current Vortex Viper HS or Nikon Monarch? Ability to hold zero despite Recoil? Better glass clarity? Ability to gather light in low light situations? Edge to edge clarity? Something else? I want to know what I'm looking for when I attempt to compare my options.

As for the Weaver K4 vs a Leupold FX-II 4x33, are those that comparable to each other? Because that's quite the price disparity.

I've used enough older Leupolds to have a pretty favorable opinion about them. I haven't used Vortex or Nikon scopes, so I have no opinion on them. I've ignored Weaver products for years, but based on Lost River's comments, I'm going to a long, hard look at them.


Okie John

[spinmove_]

I've used enough older Leupolds to have a pretty favorable opinion about them. I haven't used Vortex or Nikon scopes, so I have no opinion on them. I've ignored Weaver products for years, but based on Lost River's comments, I'm going to a long, hard look at them.


Okie John

Fair enough and I wouldn't want anyone to make up data points or guesstimate just because. I'm just trying to dig for whatever nuggets of knowledge that I can find.

Speaking of Weaver K4s. Here's one that I was able to find for not too bad a price.

https://www.amazon.com/Weaver-K4-4X3.../dp/B0000V2DB8



Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[Lost River]

Another solid scope is the older American made Burris Fullfield and FFII 3x9s. Make sure it is an AMERICAN built one instead of the Philippine or Chinese versions.

I sold off a couple of them and regretted it after I found out that they took their manufacturing off shore. A quick google search will reveal many unhappy customers with the offshore versions versus the old American made Fullfields.

I still have one that is on my daughter's .308. It replaced a faulty 2.5-8 Leupold. It tracks well, and holds it's zero, though I normally leave it set on 6X when she hunts with it.