re: Let's Talk Optics!!

I want a scope that has longevity, but I don't want to buy a name/insignia/brand without a performance advantage.

I am most concerned with low-light and zero. If the more expensive brands deliver these qualities...then I am all aboard.

I am concerned about dropping $1,400 on a scope and some guy whips out the Nikon Monarch and gathers more light than me.

quote:

---

Straining to determine rack size in twilight is what drove me to a high $ Zeiss.

---

I have 8x56 Zeiss Binoculars for that. The problem is seeing deer in the binoculars and not being able to pick it up in the scope.

I may need a watch that keeps better time after sunset, and not a better scope.

I had a Nikon which was, and still is on my .45-70, a very nice scope. I have a Zeiss on my meat packer though. I wouldn't say there is much difference between the two more the most part. My zeiss gets more daylight but in the moment I would take either one.

Been using TPS rings and bases lately. They are more affordable then the Badgers and have a really good reputation.

quote:

---

The VXL is suppose to be top of the line. It still sells for around $1100 at Simmions.

---

Yeah. I get that. If you are posting that in regards to my earlier post about compromising standards, then step back and think about that again. Leupold has progressed to that point while Zeiss was producing high end optics for years before they came out with their Conquest line of scopes. It's like MeOpta and Swarovsky, but at least they had the decency to change the name.

I have 2 Leupold 3.5x10 50mm that are 20 years old now and both still work perfect. I shoot my guns every year at the beginning of the season and haven't had to reset the sights on either in over 5 years. Great scope for the money!

It's all good. I only comment on stuff I use and know. It helps when you don't pay for some of the stuff you use and have hook ups on some of the stuff you do have to come out of pocket for.

I have been using a VX III 6.5 x 20 x50 for over 10 yrs it has been a very good scope. I would like to try one of the high end scopes though.

I have the VX I and Nikons on my kids rifles and my 45/70 they have been very good scopes as well.

I learned a long time ago you get what you pay for when it comes to optics.

IMO, get the vx3, if you want a better scope then spend real money and go night force or swarovsky.

Nikon Buckmaster 3x9-50 on my Remmy 700 30-06
Nikon Monarch 4x12-50 on my Savage 112 7mm mag
Swarovoski Z3 4x12-50 on my Browning x-bolt 300 WSM

I love the Nikons. They gather great light and hold a great zero on some hard hitting guns. However, I ran across a deal on a Swarovoski that I couldn't pass up and let me say, it's the tits.

I think that my Nikon Monarch is comparable to my fathers Leopuld VX3 and that any scope that costed more was just throwing money away. Well the Swarovoski is absolutely worth the extra $200 I paid for the Monarch and probably worth the $700 difference in retail pricing.

I am convinced that when it comes to scopes, you get what you pay for. Sure there are some very good scopes which have moderate price tags on them, but don't pick up a higher end scope cuz you won't put it down.