# Help with a new scope



## wrooster (Nov 28, 2010)

Ok Guys, I started deer hunting this year and purchased a Savage 110 243 Win. that came with a Simmons 3x9 by 32 scope. I have harvested my first deer with it but would like to get a better scope. I have noticed that the Simmons becomes very grainy at low light conditions especially with the magnification turned up. I have read many reviews on line and have become aggravated by many conflicting opinions. I would live to have an American made product but I also want my moneys worth. The scopes I have considered are the Burris Fullfield II, Ziess Conquest and Various Luepold and Nikons. I will be wanting a 3x9 x 40 configuration. Your input will be appreciated.


----------



## Kelly Hannan (Jan 9, 2007)

I have a 3-9x40 Simmons on my 243 and like it very well. I have a 3-9x40 Nikon on my slug gun that I also like very well. Enough said.

you can't go wrong with leupold, ziess if you can afford it. Others have said they don't like Nikon. Some of the upper end Buhnell are ok. This is my opinion, and you will get a million other opinions.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

If you want american made you have nsx compact line and us optics and maybe premier but other than that all are made out of country. Any of those you mentioned will be better than a simmons which is one step above a toilet papper tube.


----------



## Kelly Hannan (Jan 9, 2007)

matter of opinion


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

The Simmons scope that is included in the Savage package deals are often the bottom of the barrel scopes, you know, the ones you see at Walmart for $29.99 and that is not on sale. They are, in a word, crap. There are some Simmons scopes that are ok, but most are not.

Leupold used to be real good, but their CS has gotten progressively worse since the old man died. Ziess are good, I don't care much for the Burris FF II's, lots of people like them but better glass is out there. I prefer Nikon, Buckmasters are good, Monarch is better if you can afford a bit more. The American made NF's, USO's and Premier's are excellent scopes but run somewhere north of $1500.

It all depends on your preference and the amount of money you want to spend.

huntin1


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Kelly Hannan said:


> matter of opinion


simons are crap and that is a fact. Sorry to bust your bubble but they are a good papper weight and that is about it


----------



## oldfireguy (Jun 23, 2005)

The Leupold line improves in quality as you go up the scale, but even the VX I or Rifleman should prove far superior to your Simmons. Leupolds are American made, and carry a lifetime warranty. For about $200 you can have a scope that will serve 99% of you whitetail hunting needs.
Good luck with whatever you choose.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Leupolds were american they can no longer put that on their products.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Leupolds VX-I and Rifleman line are no longer American made, don't think the VX-II's are either, the MK-4 line is, but now you are getting to the $1000 range and in that price I'd go with a used NF or USO over a new Leupold. Same goes for the cheaper Burris scopes. And when it come to scopes in that $200 range Leupold ain't as good as Nikon and some of the others. JMO of course.

My Nikon Monarch with mildots is far superiour to the older Leupold Vari-X II Tactical mildot scope that was on the rifle the department had issued me.

huntin1


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

And only a select few mk-4 can say made in america. I think it might be only the ffp models and then we are at about 1800 or so and there are so much better options when you get in that price range. 10 years ago leupy was at the top now they are lucky to even be in the top 10


----------



## wrooster (Nov 28, 2010)

After much research, I have decided to buy the Bushnell Elite 4200 3x9x40. SWFA rates the Elite 4200 series with the likes of the Zeiss Conquest and the Leupold 3 series. Many guides gave it a slight edge over the Leupold. I have found it online for as little as 240.00 and that looks like a bargain to me. Thanks for your input.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

The 4200 series are good scopes, better in my opinion to the Leupolds in that range. At $240 you got a good deal. Good luck!

huntin1


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

huntin1,

How are the 4200s compared to the Monarchs??? Thanks.


----------



## wrooster (Nov 28, 2010)

From what I see I give an edge to the Elite over the Monarch. The Monarch seems to be a great scope and I really didn't see a single bad comment on it. I was sold on the Elite after watching a torture test performed by a owner not Bushnell. It was amazing how rugged the Bushnell was. I also was sold on the Firefly reticle once I got a chance to peer through the glass and see the cross hair glowing against a black background. I read a review from a man in Canada that used a VX3 Leupold and his friend had a 4200 Elite. He said that the conditions of the hunt ( Snow and Rain ) limited his visibility to 300 yards but looking through his friends Elite he could see at least 600 yards. He stated he felt the Rain Guard coating on the Bushnell was the reason. I think you get what you pay for and Leupold and Nikon are top shelf scopes. I was leaning towards a Monarch or the Zeiss Conquest but I really feel the Bushnell suited me best. I believe the glass in the Bushnell is still made by Bausch and Lomb in Japan and assembled by Bushnell. Both of my sons are in the Air Force and attending language school in Monterey California and I had them ask a few Marines on base what optics they were being issued and they were using allot of Bushnell scopes. I don't know if they are commercial products or Mil spec but that I think speaks of what Bushnell is capable of producing.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

What scopes that bushnell are being issed and for what usage by the military did not here of them getting any contracts? For the price they are good but sure would not want to bet my life on that.


----------



## wrooster (Nov 28, 2010)

I find the statement, " I wouldn't bet my life on it " kind of humorous. So many gun cranks get so wound up in thinking that if they spend three times what they should for a gun and scope they can shoot like Carlos Haithcock. The Bushnell 4200 Elite that will adorn my Deer rifle that my life does not depend on, is a superior optic compared to the old Nam era Redfield that Haithcock used. Now he pulled off some of the most astonishing shots in sniper history with a scope that would be considered a lower end optic and ridiculed by the average hunter today. I couldn't shoot like Carlos if I had a Swarovski and a custom built rifle. It's the man stroking the trigger that counts. I shot trap in the ATA for many years and earned a A class ranking in my first event and maintained a AA rank for years to follow with a $650.00 Remington 1100 trap gun. I out shot many guys with their Perazzis and Kohlers and Kreighofs. Big money does not always yield big results.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

For deer hunting the 4200 would be fine but you said military contract did you not. So now from that if you were in a situation where you needed to count on the internals of a scope to perform every time after you beat the **** out of it would you rather have the bushy or a schmidt&Bender or a NSX. If you say bushy you are a idiot. So you are the one who said that the military was issueing them to out soilders and i wanted to know for what and to who. Or did you just make that up? The equipment does not make the shooter but if you dont think that it can help acomplish the tasks at hand when more than just deer are involved you have your head clearly in the sand. i think your talk speaks enough in one breath you say you get what you pay for in the next you say it is not how much you spend making it look like the top end scopes are no better than low price bushnell. We are not talking about trap guns here so you are comparing apples to oranges. Once again just answer the question who is getting the bushys issued to them and for what purpose because that last i saw Premier just got a contract with the Marines. And i still would not bet my life on a bushy and if hathcock had the choice i am sure he would of had a S&B to. Oh and swarovski are over rated when it comes to rifle scopes for the price they are not on the level of a few others. And would you do a review on the bushy as a freind is going to buy one. Have you box tested it and measured to see if adjustments are correct? Is it true moa of iphy? Here is a review on the 4200 that is very good http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthr ... ost2143390


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

The 4200 may be a decent scope, but saying it was better than a VX-III in poor weather is just silly!!! I live in ND which has some pretty poor conditions, and I would put my VX-IIIs over any Bushnell made. I have never met a Bushnell I liked, their products, from scopes to binos, that I have used have been sub par. I am no fan of Nikon, but the Monarch gets the nod from me.


----------



## wrooster (Nov 28, 2010)

For Kurt. If you would get your head from the sand you will see that I said OPTICS, I did not specify scopes! Bushnell was awarded a contract in 2008 for spotting scopes used by the US military. My post clearly stated that I was in search of a scope for my hunting rifle. The SWFA rates the Bushnell 4200 elite equal to the Lupy 3 and the Zeiss Conquest series. My reference to Bushnell making optics only was to state that they must make a quality product. I have read many reviews from midwestern guides that praise the 4200 a great scope and one of the best values.I never said it was superior to any other but it fit my needs best. So crawl under the covers with the latest issue of Soldier of Fortune and snuggle up with you favorite scope and have a good one.


----------



## wrooster (Nov 28, 2010)

Kurt, I did say scope in a latter sentence by mistake. But I did initially say optics. I had read many months ago what scopes were being used by Marine Snipers and it is a mixed bag. But all I have too say is that two people on this page are the only ones who have had any bushnell bashing to do. The pros by so many far out weigh the cons of two. No hard feelings.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Wrooster, I have no doubt you will have great luck with your Bushy, but you have to realize that for most folks writing reviews it is the best they own or have used, so they must be taken with a grain of salt. A lot of others are paid to post type stuff to sell products. Bushnell and Zeiss are not even in the same ballpark, and the VXIII series, while not as impressive as the Zeiss, still has it all over the Bushy. I mean, come on, a "glow in the dark reticle"? Is it scratch and sniff too? I was a firm believer that my Konus, Nikon, and Barska scopes were "pretty good" because they were just fine for my purposes. Now that I own IOR Valdada, and NF, I know those scopes were sorely lacking. I am sure if I had the chance to look through a S&B or US Optics I would think the NF wasn't as good as I do now. They don't make me shoot better, they just are better scopes.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

wrooster said:


> For Kurt. If you would get your head from the sand you will see that I said OPTICS, I did not specify scopes! Bushnell was awarded a contract in 2008 for spotting scopes used by the US military. My post clearly stated that I was in search of a scope for my hunting rifle. The SWFA rates the Bushnell 4200 elite equal to the Lupy 3 and the Zeiss Conquest series. My reference to Bushnell making optics only was to state that they must make a quality product. I have read many reviews from midwestern guides that praise the 4200 a great scope and one of the best values.I never said it was superior to any other but it fit my needs best. So crawl under the covers with the latest issue of Soldier of Fortune and snuggle up with you favorite scope and have a good one.


Ok chief if you would read and sound it out slowley what did i say on my first post i said for the price they are good so i have no problem if you want to be able to hit a pie plate at 100 yds and call it good. You were the one that said scope and then started running off at the dick suck when i asked you a simple question. Did you even look at the review on the hide that i posted and for the money they said the same thing good scope. It did not hold zero through all the tests but for a low price scope that was to be expected and adjusments were on. So big talk if the 4200 will suit your needs good for you but some people it wont as it is a lower priced scope with out the durabilty and glass of some other scope makers that come at a higher price. So it seems that you are the one who needs a big tube of ky and your 4200 and a nice corner to make some sweet love to the best scope ever because people on the internet gave it good ratings


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

AdamFisk said:


> huntin1,
> 
> How are the 4200s compared to the Monarchs??? Thanks.


My opinion, the Monarch is a bit better than the 4200, both in tracking and quality of glass. But then that's just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions, right? :lol:

Still, the 4200 for $240 is a good deal.

huntin1


----------



## wrooster (Nov 28, 2010)

Ok Kurt, You remind me of what Chief Joseph once said, " Some men speak many words but say nothing ". I had viewed the review on the 4200 long before you put the link up. It was a deciding factor on my purchase of the 4200. Hell they set of an explosive next to it and it came off zero by a half inch but came back in 10 shots. I haven't had a problem with IED's in my hunting fields but I guess you do. I never stated that the Bushnell was better than any other but for the money I felt it was a good deal and would suit my need. And as for being satisfied with pie plate groups at 100 yards my $ 40.00 Simmons has yielded 1 inch groups at that range. If you need a $2000.00 Schmidt and Bender to do that I suggest that maybe you get a better rifle or better yet get lessons from a competent shooter. And as for my reference to using a Remington 1100 trap against the likes of 10K kohlers and Kreighofs was not a 'You get what you pay for" it was to illustrate that even though the 10K guns were crafted better than my Remington the lack of skill of the one pulling the trigger could not be compensated for by having the best gun on the market. My Simmons has held zero fine, It just failed in low light. I do have the money to buy what ever scope I would want but I am a frugal person and care not what emblem is on the hood of my car of label on my clothes or what crest is emblazoned on my scope. And further more, Who gives a **** what a bogus idiot like you would think anyway. I bet you rode the short bus to school didn't ya?


----------



## wrooster (Nov 28, 2010)

Thanks for your reply Savage 260. Optically to my eyes the Zeiss looked to be the best on clarity. I'm no scope expert but I looked through all the Lupy's and Nikons and S&B's at Gander Mt and noticed that the color was more vivid and true in the Zeiss. I couldn't see any difference between the Nikons and Lupy's as they both were very clear. I did notice with one Nikon model that as I went up in magnification that it became a little grainy and dim and not in complete focus around the edges. It was not a Monarch but I can't remember if it was a prostaff or buckmaster. I was not that impressed with the S&B as compared to the Zeiss and two friends went and took a look and felt the same way. However another friend of mine says he has used one before and said the ability of the S&B really comes to life in the field at low light. I did see a great many people who said the firefly did help at low light levels in the woods. They said it was a great aide and really worked in keeping the reticle from being lost in a dark background. And another factor is that if I'm not satisfied Bushnell will either replace it or give a full refund within the first year and it also has a lifetime replacement warranty. And by the way I would assume your are a .260 fan. One of my best friends just purchased a Savage .260 and if you have any info on good shelf ammo or load info I would like to pass it on to him. Have a good one and happy hunting.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

wrooster said:


> Ok Kurt, You remind me of what Chief Joseph once said, " Some men speak many words but say nothing ". I had viewed the review on the 4200 long before you put the link up. It was a deciding factor on my purchase of the 4200. Hell they set of an explosive next to it and it came off zero by a half inch but came back in 10 shots. I haven't had a problem with IED's in my hunting fields but I guess you do. I never stated that the Bushnell was better than any other but for the money I felt it was a good deal and would suit my need. And as for being satisfied with pie plate groups at 100 yards my $ 40.00 Simmons has yielded 1 inch groups at that range. If you need a $2000.00 Schmidt and Bender to do that I suggest that maybe you get a better rifle or better yet get lessons from a competent shooter. And as for my reference to using a Remington 1100 trap against the likes of 10K kohlers and Kreighofs was not a 'You get what you pay for" it was to illustrate that even though the 10K guns were crafted better than my Remington the lack of skill of the one pulling the trigger could not be compensated for by having the best gun on the market. My Simmons has held zero fine, It just failed in low light. I do have the money to buy what ever scope I would want but I am a frugal person and care not what emblem is on the hood of my car of label on my clothes or what crest is emblazoned on my scope. And further more, Who gives a &$#* what a bogus idiot like you would think anyway. I bet you rode the short bus to school didn't ya?


Ok dont know how to say it real slow but i said in the very first post they are a good scope for the money. You are the db that brought up the fact the military was issueing them. if i was to spend that much on a scope it would be a hensoldt but that is just me and you are the one who got all puffed and ****** that i would not want to be a operator with a bushnell rifle scope and never claimed to be one. So any time you are in the mobridge area and want to go shoot some pdogs at 600 plus i will be more than willing to take you since you seem to know every thing as it is. Equipment does not make the shooter but there must be some reason for GAP and the such as it ups your odds. If you already had your mind made up that the 4200 was good enough why did you come on here and ask questions as no matter what any one said including some one who is a profesional marksman said you are not changing your opinion. So the invite is open bring that 4200 and do some work i have access to more dog towns than i know what to do with. i even have to shoot with a nikon buckmaster but get spoiled when i do get to use some of my freinds high end optics. Oh and seems like you must give a **** to get so butt hurt over what i say


----------



## KurtDaHurt (Dec 13, 2010)

You got a good deal on that scope and I am sure you will be happy with it for what you plan to use it for. The higher end bushy's sport a pretty decent glass for the money.

With that said I have quite a mixed bag of scopes. I have a monarch 4-16x42 on my 22-250 which I am very happy with, and I have found from myself screwing up my scope BAD that nikon's customer service is TOP NOTCH by all means. I have a cheaper bushy on a deer rifle and it does the trick. My other deer rifle sports a ziess conquest 3-9x40. My bro is a die hard luepold guy through and through, and has some pretty high dollar ones at that, we have gone to the our shooting range and shot each others guns, the ziess is above and beyond the best scope dollar for dollar that I own and is truthfully clearer than my bros 3.5-10x50 VX-III. I would say my monarch is a pretty close match to the glass in the VX-III and for almost 200 bucks cheaper. I have used the ziess while night hunting yotes and could see more through the scope than with my naked eye. A buddy has all bushy's on his guns and they are a decent scope for the money, a good value no doubt, but a light up cross hair? REALLY? I don't know what this is suppose to accomplish but seems like your eye tries to focus on the bright cross hair instead of the objects threw the scope, and you actually see less threw the scope in the low light conditions. Just my 2 cents, doesn't do much good being you already bought the scope, but maybe someone else looking for a scope will read the thread.

Good luck to you on your new scope and best of luck in the woods, I don't think you'll be dissatisfied with it, at that price range most brands are all pretty comparable, and respectable at that. :beer:


----------



## wrooster (Nov 28, 2010)

I agree Kurt, From every scope I looked through the Zeiss Conquest looked the best to me. I initially wanted a Nikon years ago when I was putting together a Rem 700 bdl 25-06. But I was busy raising kids with an absentee wife and never had a chance or place to hunt. So now many years latter the kids are grown and I have acquired a place to hunt, I now am enjoying being in the field and woods. This time around I have learned to shop and ask many questions and enjoy researching products before I make a purchase. There seems to be many great scopes out there today and I kind of did a look through test at local sporting goods stores and didn't see a great difference doing that. It was evident that Nikon and Leupold seem to be the most popular and did look good to me but the 400.00 Zeiss Conquest looked best to me even compared to the Swarovski on display. I had a friend who runs a local gun shop who showed me the Pentax lightseeker and it was his favorite but he even said that the Burris Fullfield 2 I compared it to looked sharper and seem to pull in more light. I was leaning towards the Burris but did read many reviews of reticle failure. I never read a negative about Nikon and only a few about Leupold but they were about the rifleman series. I plan to give the Elite a whirl and I will let you you know how it works. I more than likely will wind up with a Zeiss but the next thing in order will be a black powder gun. Happy hunting and Merry Christmas to you and yours.


----------



## wrooster (Nov 28, 2010)

Just thought I would trow this out for everyone. I thought it was interesting and very typical of most products of today.

From: Gale McMillan <" gale"@mcmfamily.com>
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: [Scopes] Which (non-Leupold) brand is best?
Date: 11 May 1997 16:49:17 -0400

John Abatte wrote:
> ...

Just for the record Nikon doesn't make their scopes or lens. They are
contracted to the lowest bidder. The last I heard they were being made
in the Philippines I think. I buy lens from the same manufacturers as
most of the Japanese Manufactured Scopes so I feel I can speak with
first hand experience. Lens are polished to a standard which is the
number and size of digs and dings that are not polished out. Then they
are coated to aid in light transmission. The better lens are coated
with a 4 layer coating and all use the same formula. The glass types
are dictated by the computer designed lens system and the flint and
crown glass all come from the same areas and the same computer design
programs are used by almost every one in the industry What I am saying
is while you may think one is better than the next. The only difference
between a Leupold, B&L Simmons or any of the rest of the scopes that use
Japans lens is the amount of quality control The importer is willing to
pay for. When it comes to mechanical design only the American companies
design their own mechanical systems. All Japanese scopes use nearly
identical designs so there is very little difference. The big
difference is where the importer wants to fit in the market place and
what he is willing to pay for. If you stay within the same price range
it doesn't make much difference what you buy if it is an import. I
would pay more attention to which company makes it as that is the big
difference. And one last comment. The scope companies don't polish
their own lens, they buy them from lens manufacturers and price dictates
quality.I have been in the lens factory when the buyer for one of the
best known European scope companies was there on a buying trip so the
name on the scope doesn't mean a thing on where the glass comes from.

Gale McMillan


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Well, kind of. May have been true 13 years ago.

Nikon sport optics gets their lenses from Nikkor, a subsidiary of Nikon, who also makes the glass in Nikon camera lenses. Incidently, Leupold reportedly also gets their lenses from Nikkor.

What is of the most importance, as stated in your post, is the polishing that the lenses recieve and the coating applied to the surface.

I have used a lot of scopes over the years, including, Bushnell, Baush & Lomb, Burris, Redfield, Leupold, Weaver and Nikon. Theres a reason I'm still using Nikon.

At any rate, the Bushnell 4200 that you picked up should serve you well, they are a decent scope.

huntin1


----------



## GriffGruff78 (May 12, 2011)

I don't know if the hunt is still on for some new optics, but for a good scope with a price-tag that is NOT wildly inelastic with the price of your Savage I would strongly suggest that you explore the Nikon ProStaff line. The glass is good (not the best, but very good) and if you are going to zero the rifle at 200 yards and never shoot at any critters beyond about 250 (like most people) then any money spent on performance that exceeds that of the Nikon ProStaff 3x9x40 is going to be WASTED. For $150-$200 you will get a scope that (i) will do everything you need it to do, (ii) will hold its zero virtually forever if you do your part and (iii) will not embarrass you to show in public.

It's easy to drive yourself crazy with research in the Sniper forums but the reality is that the vast majority of people simply do not need a scope with glass so clear you can read a penny at 500 yards, 24x magnification (let alone 14x), adjustable objective focus, bullet drop compensators, milliradian reticles, adjustable turrets, etc. etc. and can better use the money that they would spend on a top brand elsewhere.

Just my $0.02...


----------



## MonsterQuote (Aug 27, 2011)

If you want american made you have nsx compact line and us optics and maybe premier but other than that all are made out of country. Any of those you mentioned will be better than a simmons which is one step above a toilet papper tube.

Friendship Quotes

Funny Quotes

Love Quotes

Quotes About Life

Life Quotes


----------



## maximini14 (Dec 19, 2007)

i have an elite 4200 1.5-6x firefly on my 12 ga slug gun. Lets just say it has been a deadly combination on deer and bear out to 100 yds no problem. No bear has got up n ripped me a new one. So ur deer rifle should do just fine w/ a 3-9 elite 4200 on it and it won't cost u big bucks. good huntin!


----------



## Jig Master (Nov 18, 2011)

I have owned many different brands of rifle scopes, and am not going to knock any of them. What I am going to knock is variable power scopes. I have not had one variable power including Redfield and Leupold that didn't have problems of the target appearing blurry in the higher power settings. Fixed power scopes are a different story. I currently own two Bushnells, one Weaver, one Leupold and one Redfield, all fixed power, and have never had a problem with any of them. IMO, fixed power scopes are lighter, cheaper, and have less problems than variable power scopes. I have had a Redfield variable power scope and have a Redfield Fixed power scope. I have a Leupold variable power scope and a Leupold fixed power scope. Guess which scopes have given me problems? Bushnell variable power and fixed power, same thing, fixed power good, variable power bad.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

If they have an adjustable paralax sounds like that is some thing that might be a problem. Cant list them all but edge to edge clarity is of really no problem when paralax and eye piece is adjusted properly. Now variable bsa and such edge to edge may be a problem. Fixed powers are damn near bomb proof but why limit your self when so many viable options abound.


----------



## Jig Master (Nov 18, 2011)

Fixed power scopes are limiting, but it's nothing I can't live with, though hunting is easier with a scope that is to low in power than one that is to high in power.


----------

