# Good glass



## swampthing (Mar 15, 2010)

I am the worlds worst at buying a used rifle and scope or a new package deal with the intention of putting "good glass" on it later. 30 years ago, a dependable scope was hard to come by and very pricy......My point is scopes have come a long way....back to my intro...I bought a Ruger 10/22 and put a Simmons on it with the intention of getting "good glass" later. I beat this gun chasing squirrel dogs for years. The exit end of the tube got bent....The scope has never let me down...I have had similar results with Bushnell and few others....I have also had my hands on some fine scopes (I still kick myself for not picking up a couple sawarskis when I was in Bulgaria)....The only real difference I can tell is right at dawn or dusk....Just flabbing.....Point is there is a lot of "good glass" out there now days.....Lately I have been impressed with bushnell and nikon


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Used to use all Bushnell, had a new one leak the nitrogen out. Switched to Leupold and havent looked back.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

I have used and use leupold, nikon, simmons, tasco, bushnell, old steel tube weavers (still have 4 that are the only ones that will work on a couple of old savage 222's with side mounts - 2 in use), etc.

For the price it is getting real hard to beat a S1 sightron for a 3-9 basic scope ($120). Every bit as clear as my leupold vary x iii on my 300 at dawn and dusk, lifetime warranty, etc, and better than the vx-i I have by far.

I haven't tried any of the upper end scopes yet, but definately will as the 3 3-9's I have have been completely flawless.

And you are right, there is a lot of pretty decent glass out there for cheap, especially in the basic scopes. I have a couple of Barska's and Trashco's on some old cheap 22's and as junky as they are and feel, for basic, during the day shooting they haven't let me down either, not that I would put one on a dedicated varmint, deer or rifle of the like, but just fine for plinking.


----------



## swampthing (Mar 15, 2010)

southdakbearfan said:


> I have used and use leupold, nikon, simmons, tasco, bushnell, old steel tube weavers (still have 4 that are the only ones that will work on a couple of old savage 222's with side mounts - 2 in use), etc.
> 
> For the price it is getting real hard to beat a S1 sightron for a 3-9 basic scope ($120). Every bit as clear as my leupold vary x iii on my 300 at dawn and dusk, lifetime warranty, etc, and better than the vx-i I have by far.
> 
> ...


Agreed...I get ALOT more picky when it comes to binos...They can make or break the hunt


----------



## Bigfootisreal (Jan 24, 2010)

I recently began switching to Nikon with side focus capabilities. After getting into handloading in pursuit of 1/2 MOA precision and long range prairie dog shooting, parallax adjustment has become non-negotiable in my scopes. The Nikons are every bit as good as anything else in the price range. I can't afford Night Force or S&B or even some of the Leupolds, especially when I am maintaining a fleet of 6-8 of these rifle combo's any given time. My trick is to constantly buy and sell something, always spending just a little more each time to not EVER let the wife know what's really invested in these things in the gun safe. Over time, you can build up a nice selection.

It's painful, but I have come to the realization that a really high performing setup often involves spending the same $ on the optics as you do for the hardware it sits on. Gulp, I know.

My 2 cent's worth...

And yes, Bigfoot is real. People need to start realizing this fact. I haven't actually seen him yet, but he talks to me in the woods sometimes.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

3-9 super sniper is a cheap option also when the new viper pst comes out they will rock. ffp with mil/mil matching reticle/turrets and the best cs in the buisness. I used to like leupy but the cs and quality control has went down in the last few years. 3 degrees of cant in the reticles is to much and that is aceptable to them. if i had my choice the hendsoldt would be # 1


----------



## Piebald (Feb 26, 2010)

I am slowly switching all of mine over to Redfield Revolutions. I have bought a 50mm for my .270 and a 4-12x40 for my 7mag.

Leupold is now producing the Redfields and the quality, low light capabilities, eye relief, adjustments, etc. are all top of the line.

I am taking more expensive scopes off in order to use the Redfields. By far the best scope for the money imo.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

what more expensive scopes are you replacing with the redfield?


----------



## Piebald (Feb 26, 2010)

50mm Buckmasters.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

where is having those made and dont tell me oregon because they use so many out sourced parts all they do is assemble them there. if you would do us a favor could you test the scope for us. here is how you do it http://www.arcanamavens.com/LBSFiles/Sh ... eChecking/


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

They claim to be made in Oregon, like most Leupold products I suspect they are assembled there but most parts are from somewhere else. The fact that Redfields are made by Leupold is reason enough for me to stay away.

Leupold used to be the standard by which all others where judged. In the last 10 years or so their QC and CS has gone south. There are many scopes out there in the same price range that are far better than Leupold. Sightron and Nikon are just two. All of my Leupold scopes are gone, replaced with Nikon.

And just for clarification, a 50mm Nikon Buckmaster, while a good scope, is hardly an expensive scope. IMO you would have been better off staying with Nikon and moving up to a Monarch, than switching to Redfield, the Monarch is a better scope. To each their own I guess.

huntin1


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> In the last 10 years or so their QC and CS has gone south.


Man, I'll say! I sent the VX-III I have listed in the classifieds off to the Custom Shop not too long ago to get the duplex reticle taken out and the VH reticle put in. I followed the instructions I was sent by the CS dept to a T. A week after I sent the scope off I got a call, and was chewed out over the phone by some one from Leupold because I didn't include a credit card number(instructions said nothing about it) with the work order. I then pulled out my credit card and said I was sorry, I was pi$$ed, but not sorry, and started giving the guy the number. I was then told he was unable to take the number because that was a different department and he would have them contact me.  I have a good number of Leupolds(trying to get rid of some), but I am sure I will find other brands from now on to replace them!!!

Sorry to get off topic, just wanted to reinforce the statement with some recent experience.


----------



## Piebald (Feb 26, 2010)

huntin 1 I have no doubt that you have never even looked through one of the new Redfields. The Monarch is a good scope but it is not a VXIII.

And for clarification I said, "more expensive" scopes when I was referring to the Buckmasters. More expensive than the Redfields. I have many rifles and don't put $1000 scopes on every one.

I get to look through quite a bit of scopes at the range every year and can say that the Leupolds are still the cream of the crop when you are talking about American made scopes. I love Nikon scopes too and did have a Monarch. It was a very solid scope but didn't work quite as well in low light conditions. If you want to look at quality check how many Nikon's have to be refurbished and placed back on the market.

Sometimes it's hard to admit that the scope that's not on your rifle is better.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

huntin1 said:


> Leupold used to be the standard by which all others where judged. In the last 10 years or so their QC and CS has gone south. There are many scopes out there in the same price range that are far better than Leupold. Sightron and Nikon are just two. huntin1


I completely agree. I am no longer a fan of the Leupolds. I sold a Mark 4 M1LR a couple weeks ago, I was very disappointed with it. The clarity just was not there and most the new ones are the same. I will admit that the current Nikon Monarchs are clearer than the current Leupolds IMO, I am disappointed though that their higher power scopes are 1/8" clicks. I have looked through the new Redfields and was not that impressed, although they were nice for a cheap scope. For a cheap scope I will continue to stick with Burris. I may break down again one day and buy a Monarch even with the poor luck I have had with them in the past.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Piebald said:


> huntin 1 I have no doubt that you have never even looked through one of the new Redfields. The Monarch is a good scope but it is not a VXIII.
> 
> And for clarification I said, "more expensive" scopes when I was referring to the Buckmasters. More expensive than the Redfields. I have many rifles and don't put $1000 scopes on every one.
> 
> ...


And you'd be wrong. I've looked at the Redfields.

I've used several VXIII's, IMO the Monarch has them beat on clarity, crispness, turret adjustment, just about everything, yes, low light conditions too.

And lets clarify something further. The Redfields, Leupold Rifleman, VXI, VXII are all assembled in the US, the components are made elsewhere. I'm not sure about the VXIII's, the Mark 4's are the only ones made completely in the US as far as I know.

And I have no trouble admitting that there are scopes better than what I have, but, the Redfields, Leupold Rifleman, VXI, VXII, and VXIII ain't among them.

As I said, to each their own.

huntin1


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Nikon seems to have some good glass. (I do like their binocs).

I was shooting with a co-worker though, and his scope was losing zero (impact wandering consistently down) with a .25-06. It was a Nikon, cant remember what model, one of their lower-level scopes (maybe the pro-staff scope). Sent it back, the replacement had the same issue. Sent the replacement back, called them saying he just wanted a refund. They asked him what he thought they needed to do to make it right. He said send me a Monarch. They did.

Customer service seems to be top notch.

Ive looked through Monarchs and Leupy's side by side. I see NO discernible difference in glass quality. Both are top notch. I think many guys "see what they want to see" in order to re-affirm their purchase. Just like everybodies factory rifle shoots "one hole groups". :lol:

I don't think a guy can go wrong with either high end Leups or Nikons. Both make some great scopes.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

> I think many guys "see what they want to see" in order to re-affirm their purchase. Just like everybodies factory rifle shoots "one hole groups".


Maybe, except that I compared them both when I had a Sightron and was looking for something different because I didn't like the 1/8" clicks. I could see a discernable difference, otherwise I would have kept looking and not went with the Nikon.

You mean your factory rifle doesn't shoot one hole groups?   :sniper:

huntin1


----------



## swampthing (Mar 15, 2010)

huntin1 said:


> > I think many guys "see what they want to see" in order to re-affirm their purchase. Just like everybodies factory rifle shoots "one hole groups".
> 
> 
> Maybe, except that I compared them both when I had a Sightron and was looking for something different because I didn't like the 1/8" clicks. I could see a discernable difference, otherwise I would have kept looking and not went with the Nikon.
> ...


I really did not want to start a fight. I was just saying look around there is some good stuff out there....And for your information, any factory rifle can shoot one hole groups if you mount the target on a Democrat and only shoot when they are bent over!


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

swampthing said:


> I really did not want to start a fight. I was just saying look around there is some good stuff out there....And for your information, any factory rifle can shoot one hole groups if you mount the target on a Democrat and only shoot when they are bent over!


Not fighting, just a bit of a debate. Interesting thought on target placement. :laugh:

huntin1


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

I don't own a Nikon at present. I have had too much poor luck in the past with their scopes, cameras, binos, and instruments. I do believe they have turned things around and are making a much better product then before as far as the scopes. Still wouldn't purchase a Nikon survey instrument! They work good as paperweights in the office though. :wink:


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Piebald said:


> huntin 1 I have no doubt that you have never even looked through one of the new Redfields. The Monarch is a good scope but it is not a VXIII.
> 
> And for clarification I said, "more expensive" scopes when I was referring to the Buckmasters. More expensive than the Redfields. I have many rifles and don't put $1000 scopes on every one.
> 
> ...


Not an american made scope some of the mark 4 are and that is it. If you want an american made scope the nsx f1, nsx compacts and us optics are the 2 that still can have made in america on the box. alot of them maybe assembeled here but use foriegn componets which is not a bad thing because the best glass comes from europe and japan.

it easy to admit there are alot of scopes that i dont have that are better nsx,s&b,hendsolt,us optics,vortex, super sniper even the mark 4 is probally better, but i will put the buckmaster up aginst a redfield any time. I still want to see a box test done on that redfield and see how it performs. the reviews that i have read have been less than stellar and these are from people who shoot on a 2 way range. for a low dollar scope it would be fine but to say it is in the relm of anything that is good is a stretch.


----------

