# Good Scope???



## MiniMarine0311 (May 20, 2007)

I recently bought a Tasco Target Varmint 6-24 x 44mm Scope for my 243. I wanted to know if anyone uses this scope or have heard any good/bad things about it. I haven't had a chance to sight it in yet since I'll be floating my barrel soon. Didn't want to waste any ammo to sight it in now when I'll have to do it again soon. Also I'm not exactly sure how to use the yardage thing on the objective of the scope since none of the other scopes I use have one and the directions that came with the scope was like trying to read caligraphy....So if anyone can help me out that would be awesome. I plan on droping many a coyotes with it this fall.
:sniper:

Also any advice on differnt scopes would be welcomed...Keep in mind I haven't found my money tree on my property yet, but the wife thinks she has.... :lol:


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Do you have a sales receipt? Think Burris if you want a "lower" priced scope. I also feel there is no reason to go above 9 power unless you are shooting from a bench. REMEMBER this is a opinion and many others will disagree with me :sniper:


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

The adjustable objective (AO) brings the reticle and image into focus at the same time. As you use it a bit you'll notice that the setting of the AO is more critical the higher the power you're using. For calling coyotes I'd set the power ring between 6x and 12x depending on how far your setup allows you to shoot, and set the AO @ 200yds.


----------



## Fallguy (Jan 23, 2004)

ej4prmc said:


> I also feel there is no reason to go above 9 power unless you are shooting from a bench.


I can count a number of times where I had my scope on 10 power like a numbskull and had a called coyote get so close that I wasn't able to shoot him because my scope was up too high.


----------



## Danny B (Jun 6, 2006)

Yeah Fallguy, I normally use a 3x9x50 or a 3 1/2x 10x50. Had coyotes right in front of me at 3 to 5 yards with the scope on 9 or 10 power. 
All I did was point the barrel at em when they are that close, who needs a scope? I've killed a few that way too. The real hard part was a few of those times were at night :lol:


----------



## neb_bo (Feb 3, 2007)

ever heard the phrase "trashco"? its out there for a reason. that scope might last a lifetime, and never shift zero, but theres just as good a chance that its going to die on you mid hunt. or shift zero, and cause a huge frustration before you figure out whats wrong with it. it seems to hold true that you get what you pay for with optics.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

neb_bo said:


> ever heard the phrase "trashco"? its out there for a reason. that scope might last a lifetime, and never shift zero, but theres just as good a chance that its going to die on you mid hunt. or shift zero, and cause a huge frustration before you figure out whats wrong with it. it seems to hold true that you get what you pay for with optics.


Is that from personal experience or just what you have heard. Take a walk over to Cabelas review board and all 9 of the submitted reviews rate that particular scope high. Telling someone after they have already bought something that it is trash with no explanation is not right. Just like bullets and powder, with today's technology optics are getting better and in some cases costing less. There is no question this is not a high end scope but I wouldn't call it trash just because it isn't expensive in dollar cost. Some people don't mind paying more just for a name, like Leupold for example which are good scopes but ridiculously over priced but some people would prefer to pay less for the same quality such as a Nikon.


----------



## neb_bo (Feb 3, 2007)

the man asked for opinions, that is mine. i said it might be a good scope, but ive owned 2 tascos, not of that model, actualy a much cheaper model, but they were junk. neither would hold zero after i checked as many other variables as i could. you already have it, so like i said, it might end up giving you excellent service. i hope it does, because theres nothing more disheartening than having a new piece of gear fail on you unexplainably. your right, i should have explained that i have had bad experiences with tasco before making this statement, ive also owned a mid grade simmons, and low end bushnell, they were also both junk. i also had a bsa target scope that wouldnt shoot a group on the most accurate rifle ive ever owned. the bushnell actualy lasted a few months before it went bad, and i know it didnt get any sort of heavy shock. so, as for me, i will never buy a low end scope again, but there is a difference between quality and a name.

im sorry if i came off harshly, and i know i hate it when someone tells me something i just bought is junk, but you did ask for opinions.


----------



## MiniMarine0311 (May 20, 2007)

The scope that I had on my rifle before was a Tasco Pronghorn 3-9x40 and it is a good scope just old. I found this scope through a magazine and it was on sale for just $90.00 so I figured I'd give it a try. Where I hunt I do have some long range shots and I probably never will use above the 10-12 power range but I do like that fact I can go all the way to 24 power just because I can....What I would really like to get is one of the New scopes from leupold with the little hump on the bottom so you can use low scope rings and get that in a 6-24x50 but that's an extremly expensive scope and I don't have the money for that....I have heard good things about this model tasco that I have. A couple of people that I hunt with just bought one too and another guy has had one for a while and he said it's the best scope he has ever had. But I am greatful for all the feed back on this topic...I know scopes, rifles, bullets, are usually a hot topic.

Thanks again


----------



## fox412 (Mar 18, 2005)

Not to hijack the thread but I need a question answered. I have heard and I know that part of this statement is true. Tasco scopes were bought out in the mid 80's and then their products went downhill from there, and that if you have a Tasco that was made prior to like 84 or something they aren't that bad of a scope. Is this true or not.


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

I've read the same thing...don't know if it's true or not.
I do have an old World Class 1.75 X 5 variable that I initially bought for a .444 Marlin.
Hand loaded with 265gr Hornady over 46gr H4198 it was a meanie.
In fact, the only rifle to ever scope me!
300+ rds on the Marlin without a problem. The .444 is long gone but the :bowdown: Tasco, which has been on several rifles since, internally is sound. Externally...it's a little rough.

As of now, I'll admit to having 5 WC Tascos...acouple purchased in the last 3-4 years. Maybe I'm lucky...I just haven't had a problem with them. Apparently a lot of em fail if you just look at them wrong so I try not to do that.


----------



## neb_bo (Feb 3, 2007)

Apparently a lot of em fail if you just look at them wrong so I try not to do that.


> thats funny! :rollin:
> 
> the 3-9x40 pronghorn is what i had. the first one went, and i exchanged it since it was about 2 days old, and the next one was already screwed up when i got it home. i returned that one for a bushnell... sportview? i think, and that lasted about 6 months before it died. they were all mounted on the same nylon 66, and every time i made sure it wasnt the rifle, mounts, or ammo. i also tried a simmons 22 mag, 4x32, and that one also lasted awhile before dying, but ultimately, 4 miles from the truck, in mid hunt, it met its demise.
> 
> are the optics on that scope worth a spit? that was another thing i didnt like about that bsa contender 6-24x40 i had, was even though it was an A/O, you couldnt focus it well, and the light transmission sucked.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

fox412 said:


> Not to hijack the thread but I need a question answered. I have heard and I know that part of this statement is true. Tasco scopes were bought out in the mid 80's and then their products went downhill from there, and that if you have a Tasco that was made prior to like 84 or something they aren't that bad of a scope. Is this true or not.


Up until 1996 Tasco scopes were made in Japan and were pretty good scopes for the price. When Tasco was sold in 96 the scopes were then made in Taiwan and quality went down. Later the scopes were made in china and quality suffered even more. I don't know where the Tasco scopes are made now but quality does seem to have come back up. Couple things to consider is Tasco has never made a scope in their entire history. They find a OEM and have the scopes made to spec.'s. A lot of scope companies operate this way. Another thing is the parent company that owns Bushnell now owns Tasco and I think Redfield. Surprisingly Tasco won a military contract in 2000 to make sniper scopes. I think they were called "Super Sniper" and were made in Japan but without the Tasco name on them. So the bottom line is the OEM location is critical in most cases. Fox412, the better quality Tasco scopes you are talking about were made by Hakko in Japan.

Only Tasco scope I own is a older 4X that is on my Dad's 30-06. Can't tell you how many deer he took with that gun or how many hundreds of rounds he shot through the gun with that scope on it but it is sharp, clear, and still has the zero Dad dialed in years ago. I guess I'm just lucky in that I don't seem to have the bad luck some people have with their scopes.


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

Interesting!
Here's a link to confused enlightenment. :-? http://www.chuckhawks.com/scoping_out.htm


----------



## fox412 (Mar 18, 2005)

Thanks Gohon


----------

