# Poll- Best Riflescope for the $$$



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

Simple poll- suppose you had about a $200 budget to spend on a new scope to mount on your new rifle. Which model would you choose? Anything that's not listed in the poll that you think is worthy? 


PS- My new scope will be mounted on a Remington Model 700 bolt action .270


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

*Re: Best Riflescope for the $$$*

I've really liked my Buckmasters scopes, but didn't like my Rifleman much


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

I voted for Bushnell, but only because I own a couple of them. No issues so far and good scopes for the money.

I also own a couple of Leupolds. They make good glass as well.


----------



## Gee LeDouche (Sep 21, 2007)

I have had really good luck with Bushnell optics so I voted Bushnell. I also really like the Nikon Buckmasters though. But bushnell still gets my vote.


----------



## RBoomK (Feb 10, 2011)

Take a look at the Weaver V or 40/44 series. Really good scopes for the money. Haven't looked at the new Redfields, but they seem to be getting great reviews.


----------



## Al Hansen (Sep 7, 2007)

Love my Nikons. The Monarch is fantastic and the Buckmaster is very good at that price range. I have bought several and a lot of my shootin buddies have bought them also. Never a problem. A no I don't work for Nikon.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

First choice for me is almost always a Leupold. Most of that is probably tradition. But i did put a nikon buckmaster 4.5-14 x 40 on my .204 and it has been very good. I wanted more magnification than 3-9 and didn't have the 500 bucks to get a leupold so I bought the nikon and have been very happy with it. I hear good things about bushnell, but their low grade scopes are nothing to brag about. 

I have heard great things about vortex, but have not used one personally.


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

I would go with Bushnell Elite in that price range. I have the Elite 3200 3-9x40 on my 30-06 hunting rifle, and an Elite 10x40 mil-dot on my 308 target rifle. Both are bright and clear, and I really like the Rainguard coating. The Burris Fullfield scopes are pretty good too for around $200.


----------



## goonsquad (Sep 15, 2010)

I bought a Millet but I was going back and forth between it and the Nikon Monarch. The Nikon is nice but didn't have as many features as the millet did. 

I would go with it over any above.


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

I have a Millett DMS on one of my AR's and it is a decent scope for a tactical rifle, but I wouldn't get one for a hunting rifle. The optics are not in the same category as any of the brands listed above, and they are also big and heavy.


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

There is a wide range of prices and subsequently quality in rifle scopes and generally you get what you pay for. Personally I can afford "Fords" but not "Ferraris" so I like Leupolds. But to answer the original question I think the "best scope for the money" is a Tasco World Class.


----------



## Latigo_allen (Apr 14, 2011)

I have a rifleman, its a good scope but I like my nikon and bushnell better. I dont think you could go wrong with any of the ones you mention. Only you can decide. Look throught all of them if you can your eye will tell you which one it likes.


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

campfire said:


> There is a wide range of prices and subsequently quality in rifle scopes and generally you get what you pay for. Personally I can afford "Fords" but not "Ferraris" so I like Leupolds. But to answer the original question I think the "best scope for the money" is a Tasco World Class.


Absolutely. Good optics are both expensive and complicated to manufacture so the bottom line is you almost always get what you pay for. The only thing I disagree with is your comparison of Leupold to Ford. Bushnell = Ford, Burris = Dodge, Weaver = Chevy, and Leupold = Cadillac.  For the Ferrari of scopes I would go with Zeiss or Swarovski.


----------



## ultramagfan2000 (Nov 27, 2009)

I don't thinkg the Burris fullfield II should be left out of this discussion. I think it is a great scope and as others have mentioned the Tasco World Class is a great scope for the price.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

> Look throught all of them if you can your eye will tell you which one it likes.


I have looked through so many scopes in the past few weeks it's ridiculous. :lol:

I can't really tell a difference between these models, thus the reason for the poll. The truth is that I kind of like looking through the Buckmasters and the Vortex maybe a hair better than the others, but the light transmission is rated lower in those two than in the Bushnell and the Leupold. I seem to shoot most of my big game animals very early or very late, so I'm wondering if that will be a big deal... :?

The Leupold and the Bushnell have the highest light transmission rating, but neither's clarity is as sharp as the Nikon. The Nikon, on the other hand, does tunnel vision a little bit easier than the others even though it has the clearest picture of all the scopes (to my eyes).

The Redfield is neither great nor horrible in any aspect. I'd say it's maybe a half notch lower in visual quality than the others, but the price is lower also.

The Vortex does seem dimly lighted compared to the others (particularly in the shade), but the visual acuity is really good. The images are very sharp.

I've eliminated the Cabela's Alaskan Guide model completely. The glass is as good as any, but my Cabela's rangefinder broke on the first day of the hunt last year so I lost trust in the brand.

I was sort of hoping that one scope would clearly be the winner here, but opinions seem to be split.


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

Some times you can just think too much. Buying a gun or a scope is a lot like buying a pair of shoes. Just get the one that feels the best and you will be happy with it.


----------



## fishawk (Aug 23, 2009)

Vortex optics are some of the best quality glass you can buy for the money. The warranty can't be beat!


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

I got a Nikon Prostaff 3-9 x 40 with the BDC reticle on sale at Cal-Ranch for 160.00 awhile back. It's been a great scope. I have also heard great things about the Buckmasters and Monarch series. 


Don't rule out Sightron and Burris, I have heard great things about them.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Depends on the caliber of the gun.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

If you like the clarity pretty similarly and cost is about the same; I think the Vortex will come out way ahead in other areas, mainly warranty and customer service. I just bought a diamondback from SW and I like it just fine. This is my first Vortex. That being said, best for the money is a little different question if we open up the discussion to other options. I have two of the Cabelas's new generation vs the old style pine ridge and I like it very well. At half of the cost of the Vortex I could not say that the Vortex is twice as good, but the Vortex certainly is better. As far as the reliability of the Cabela's brand goes; they are kind of like Kenmore in that there is no such thing as a Cabela's or a Kenmore factory. They are all licensed products made by some other manufacturer, so the range finder is most likely made by a totally different company. I have the cheap Cabela's range finder as it came free with my euro binocs, and indeed you get what you pay for, free is about the right price for the rangefinder.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

I vote for the Vortex, I got my first vortex binos and love them. This week I will going to pick up my vortex viper scope 4-12x40 from SW for my new 22-250. They had a deal on them for 249.00 down from 299.00. 
The warranty on the vortex is what makes them a great choice. The thing is they make an excellent product so they can back up a no questions asked warranty.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

mikevanwilder said:


> I vote for the Vortex, I got my first vortex binos and love them. This week I will going to pick up my vortex viper scope 4-12x40 from SW for my new 22-250. They had a deal on them for 249.00 down from 299.00.
> The warranty on the vortex is what makes them a great choice. The thing is they make an excellent product so they can back up a no questions asked warranty.


$249?! They usually start at $400. Aren't they the ones with the huge zoom dial/handle? I may have to upgrade since I just got the diamonback if it is only $50 more. They also give you $25 in gift card if you apply for their credit card...


----------



## goonsquad (Sep 15, 2010)

mm73 said:


> I have a Millett DMS on one of my AR's and it is a decent scope for a tactical rifle, but I wouldn't get one for a hunting rifle. The optics are not in the same category as any of the brands listed above, and they are also big and heavy.


My Millett is the TRS-1 its a variable power 4x16, I would compare the quality to the Nikon Monarch. When I compared the two I couldn't see the difference except in price.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

Well, fellers, thanks for all the opinions and advice. The deed is done. I just picked up a Vortex Diamondback 4-12x40 with Dead-Hold BDC.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Huge29 said:


> mikevanwilder said:
> 
> 
> > I vote for the Vortex, I got my first vortex binos and love them. This week I will going to pick up my vortex viper scope 4-12x40 from SW for my new 22-250. They had a deal on them for 249.00 down from 299.00.
> ...


I got the one with the V-Plex reticle not the BDC. The BDC is $400. The V-plex was $249 marked down from $299 at sportsmans.
http://www.sportsmanswarehouse.com/spor ... /cat100737


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

I did some research and apparently the scope I bought is discontinued.
http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vor ... ex-reticle


----------



## pocone (Sep 29, 2009)

When I was looking at scopes, I took a bunch that I could afford ($200 range) and looked through them in the store. Look across the store, in the dark corners, light areas, etc. You may want to take them outside if they will let you. One tip I will give you is to avoid looking at the brand when you pick them up. Just have them hand you one and look through it, then move to the next. I thought I would like a certain brand but found that the Bushnell Elite 3200 was clearer to me. I was a little surprised, and really had to fight the "Oh it's a Bushnell so it can't be that good" thought in my head, but I felt like that was the best of the bunch that I tested. When I bought my second rifle, I wanted another 3200, but they were out of stock. Being the impatient person I am, I settled for second best and went with the Nikon Buckmasters. I like the scope, but if I could do it over again, I might have just waited for the 3200 to scope the rifle. 
To sum up: test a variety, avoid stereotypes/branding, choose the one you feel is the best.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

There are a lot of good scopes available at affordable prices nowadays. Virtually all of the scopes mentioned are good ones. Even though the choice has been made, here is some info I've gathered that may be interesting:

Today good optics are made all over the world. World-wide manufacturing has affected the price-to-value ratio of many products including optics.

Another factor affecting product price is computers. Computers initially cost money, but in the long run save money both in design and in manufacturing. Sophisticated programs can design optical systems in a fraction of the time it used to take several engineers to develop a new scope - and when production begins, the parts (including lenses) are made on computer-numerically-controlled (CNC) machines. These require fewer workers to run.

The same sort of CNC machines are being used all over the world to make not just scope tubes but all sorts of optical parts, including lenses. Now, many shooters still firmly believe that only German-speaking Europeans really know how to make optics, but the truth is that high-grade optical engineering and manufacturing went world-wide more than a generation ago. Parts made all over the world go into many optics, and in fact some supposedly "German" optics are made elsewhere - something that's also true of Japanese and American optics.

Workers in other nations tend to be paid less than German, American, and Japanese workers. Thus, quality optics can be made for far lower prices. Some of us may not like the political fact that many modern optics (_either complete, or major parts_) are made in communist China, but the global economy is a perfect example of capitalism at work.

Japanese optics companies used to be the big players in the Far East. In recent years many Japanese companies, including Nikon, began selling even more "affordable" scopes, made in other Asian countries such as Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines, forcing other companies to compete with these low-priced scopes.

There are more scope companies than scope factories. Following the lead started by David Bushnell in the '50s, scope marketers go to one of the various Pacific Rim optical factories and decide on what price point/profit margin they want for the prospective scope and this drives the features - some that can't be seen. Prospective marketers may pick from 8 levels of waterproofing, and what lens coatings are used. These rare-earth coatings have a whole range of expense/cost but are critical to optical performance. Also are the scope lenses coated, multi-coated, or fully multi-coated? Do you know what that means?
One problem is that many of the lower end companies have been bought and sold a lot recently and while the names have stayed the same......the product has not. So something like a Weaver, Simmons or Tasco (even "World Class") may not be the same now as it was just a bit ago. This is the hidden issue in buying all the market name brand scopes. The marketer has to have a real commitment to quality to keep things good and consistent when they switch around factories for cost bid reasons.

At some point, improvements in optical quality become difficult to detect. Not all eyes are sensitive enough to see subtle differences, and if you can't see it, why pay for it? And how much of this is really necessary anyway? Money being no object, we'd all buy the best. But when money is an object, we must compromise. I begin that compromise by recognizing that a scope is a glorified front sight. As long as it keeps its reticle where the barrel prints bullets, shot after shot, season after season, stays dry inside, and has consistent adjustments, I can live with slightly less optical quality than required to observe the moons of Neptune. That should be kept in mind when choosing a scope. Fortunately, there are a lot of great scopes in the $150-250 range. (_BTW anything other than 3-9x costs a bunch more due to economy of scale reasons_)

High cost or a German name may not guarantee a great scope. John Barsness mentions that he has had the occasional high-dollar Germanic/Euro scopes fail in either recoil or fogging - what good are great optics if they won't hold zero? So lots of money is no guarantee of reliability.
With Tactical scopes - using what the Special Forces use is great, remember the military will pay a ridiculous price for stuff. In their mind, the tactical scopes on the team rifles are an insignificant sum compared to the cost of a helicopter insertion of the Spec Ops team on a single mission. Free-market price/value doesn't apply here. Most of us would be better off with an affordable scope and more practice ammo.

I have scope prejudices. A lot of them have to do with what has worked for me and other people I know in the past or over the long run - and what hasn't. My scopes tend to be Burris, Leupold, and Nikon - not that there aren't other brands that are as good, but these have been solid for _me_. With the current crop of these, I would tend to shy away from the cheapest budget version of them (Rifleman, Pro-Staff, Timberlines) as well, just because there is a point that you get what you pay for and the mid-grade models are very good optically and well-proven and cost very little more.

So if I were to be asked about my favorite "Best Riflescope for the $$$", I would answer *Burris Fullfield II* with the Ballistic Plex.
The Fullfield II (Fully Multi-Coated) rates very good optically in tests by John Barsness. In addition, his experience mirrors mine with the outstanding reliability of Burris scopes. They are tough. John says that they are his go-to scope when testing rifles. They hold up under heavy recoiling rifles like the various .300 and .338 mags. .300 Mags are normally the make-or-break point when it comes to testing scope recoil. In addition the adjustments are nicely repeatable. Price for the FFII has actually dropped over the last couple of years while quality remains the same.

Burris in Greeley Colorado was founded by chief Redfield engineer Don Burris who disagreed with Redfield management on reliability issues like moisture sealing etc. and started his own company. The FullField IIs are among Burris' lowest-priced scopes, originally made in the U.S. to compete with many inexpensive scopes that at one time were being imported from Japan. But as prices for Asian optics continued to drop, Burris couldn't compete as well.

Now a typical tactic would be to have a foreign company make a reasonable copy of the FFII. Instead, Burris provided a factory in the Philippines with the same machinery used in the U.S., and sent Americans over to make sure the machines were set up and used correctly. The result was a fairly seamless changeover in manufacturing exactly the same Burris Fullfield II scopes - well, except for the "made in" lettering underneath the adjustment housing.

John Barsness reports that, if anything, the Philippine FFIIs are smoother and better finished than the U.S.-made ones.

What I like is the _continuity_ of the product (FFII) and its quality by going this route as opposed to hoping that the scope marketer keeps "old reliable" as good as it was and give the purchaser the confidence that if they bought another of the same model, it would be as good. It helps if the scope company has a solid history of _scope making_ as opposed to _scope marketing_ like Nikon, Burris, and Leupold.

Not to say that there are some very good and conscientious scope marketers out there - there are, and some are mentioned above (Vortex, Sightron and others) - but you need to do more research to be sure. Once again, I would probably spend a little more and not get the bottom rung model. As an example, the Bushnell Elite 3200 (_formerly Bausch & Lomb 3200 - a premium "name" in optics and intended to set it apart from lesser Bushnells_) has always had a good rep. Not so much with lesser cost Bushnells that have been spotty in reliability over the years, IMO (_sorry Bushnell fans... JMO_)

So those are a couple of the reasons I like the Burris FFII and it would be my first pick.


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

I used to have a Burris FFII 3-9x40 with Ballistic Plex reticle and I did not like it, though I will admit that the optical quality was very good - as bright or brighter than the Leupolds and Nikons I compared it to. It is also a very well made scope that feels like it could stand up to any abuse you might throw at it. What I did not like about it, however, were the ergonomics of the scope, specifically the zoom lever and focus adjustment. For those not familiar with the FFII, the eye-piece and zoom lever are all one piece so changing from 3x to 9x means turning the entire eye-piece. Mine was so stiff it required a death grip on the whole eye-piece to rotate it. This might loosen up with time but mine never did in over two years of fairly regular use. This also makes focusing the reticle difficult. When you turn the focus adjustment it tends to rotate the whole eye-piece thus changing your zoom level. Quite often I would turn the zoom all the way to 9x and would then try to focus the reticle to make it a little sharper but would not be able to unless I turned it all the way back to 3x where the eye-piece stopped rotating. I replaced it with a Bushnell Elite 3200 3-9x40 and I like it a whole lot better. The ergonomics of the scope are a huge improvement for me, and I feel like the optics are as good or better. Still, I do think the FFII deserves consideration as it is a very well made scope with very good glass.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

Just a follow up to this poll-

I've had the Vortex Diamondback scope on my rifle for a couple of months now and I've gotten it dialed in to bullseye at 100 yards. My .270 Remington 700 is dead on every shot and that makes me very happy. The visual acuity of the Vortex scope is excellent. It bothers me if there's even a little weed in front of my target because I'll see the weed so clearly. 
This scope is not the most wonderful thing in the world during the first and last ten minutes of light, but other than that I'm good to go. I'm very happy so far. The next steps are to start practicing with the BDC aspect of the scope and then I'll test how it does with me sweating all over it on a frosty morning.


----------



## Bhilly81 (Oct 18, 2009)

i have used several nikons as well as the bushnells but i had just recently purchased a vortex and it so far to me seems much clearer to me as well as better eye relief as well i would have to say i will i will purchase another vortex in the near future


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

I love my FFII 4.5-14x42 mounted on my 300win. Great scope for the money. I chose the FFII over the Nikon Buckmaster after a lot of thought and I'm glad I did.


----------



## gnfishn (Sep 25, 2007)

I will never buy another Leupold product again ever! They may have SOME good products but they have the worst customer service that left a very bad taste in my mouth. Long story that I may post when I have more time but for such a big player in outdoor optics they have unacceptable customer service.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I just purchased my second Vortex. I have a Diamond back on a .243 and I just bought the Viper PSTwith a FFP reticle for my 7mm. I am even more impressed. To top it off I have not seen any scope maker come even close to the no hassle/amazing service Vortex delivers.


----------

