# Scope Upgrade



## Dwight Schrutester (Dec 3, 2007)

I have a Remmy .223 that needs a scope upgrade. Right now it has an older Bushnell 3x9 that has worked well, but a friend invited me to go with him to shoot some squirrels this spring so I want a scope with more magnification.

Not wanting to spend mega $$$ because it will still be a jackrabbit/yote rifle for the most part, I was looking at the Nikon Buckmaster 4.5-14 Mildot. Those who have them seem to like them. I also looked at the Leupy VX-II's, but a friend told me not to spend the extra money for a Leupy unless you are going to buy a VX-III.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Take the money you would spend on the scope, buy more ammo, and shoot more squirrels. 9 power should be plenty with a 223, for casual squirrel shooting. My 4-12 stayed in the lower ranges for most of my shooting until I transformed my 243 into a dedicated varmint shooter. Now I need a lighter walking varmint rifle, and it will get a scope that has a 10-12 magnification at the high end. You really don't need more.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

I would look at the burris fulfield 2. 4.5 X 14. I was in the same dilema, and I compared the burris and the Nikon head to head. The burris was brighter, with sharper images. Burris gives you a landmark 12-24 compact spotting scope with the purchase as well. http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/t...parentType=index&indexId=cat601233&hasJS=true


----------



## Poo Pie (Nov 23, 2007)

http://www.muelleroptics.com/

Check out mueller! great glass, great prices!!!! I put the 3-10x44 sport dot on my .06 two years ago and love it. If I need another scope I would buy another tomorrow, I've been very pleased


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

I would compare the field-of-view (FOV) at the lowest power of the scopes you are looking at. Most are listed somewhere on the maker's websites. Considering that you still want to use it for jackrabbit hunting where quick shots on the run at game dodging thru sagebrush is the rule, most shooters (myself included) are better served with a wide FOV on 3x or 4x for that purpose. The higher the power, the less the FOV. Some scopes are designed with a larger FOV at the same power than others. Burris normally has a bigger FOV that Leupold, for example. Remember objective lens size (i.e. 40mm, 42mm, 50mm) has nothing to do with FOV.

Burris 4.5-14x has *22* feet at 4.5x 
Leupold has *22.8* feet at 4x for their 4-12x VXII and *20.8*' for their 4.5-14x VXIII
Nikon Buckmaster has *19.9* feet at 4.5x for their 4.5-14x

So if it were me, it would be between the Burris FFII 4.5-14x and the Leupold VXII 4-12x depending on cost and how much I wanted 14x over 12x at the top. The Burris would look very good... 
Whatever you decide, compare FOV numbers of the prospective scopes and that of your current scope.


----------



## Dwight Schrutester (Dec 3, 2007)

I was thinking hard about the Nikon, but the smaller FOV bugs me. I didn't look at the Burris so that will be the next thing on the list.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

If it were me and I was primarily using the gun for jacks then I would save the money and go with a 3-9 without the adjustable objective. It will save weight for carrying all day and give you a much wider field of view at the lower power setting.


----------



## Nueces (Jul 22, 2008)

If you are shooting in low light conditions, then you want the biggest objective mm you can get. A 50mm lets in a ton more light. If the sun is up (and squirrels tend to wait until there is decent light to move around), then the size of the objective is not an issue.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

Ahhh... the 50mm question...
During the last elk hunt, my hunting bud was disappointed to find out that his 50mm objective on his excellent Leupold 4.5-14x didn't aid viewing elk in the pre-dawn darkness any more than if he would have had a 40-42mm objective.

Why?

Big objectives do let more light into a scope. They don't magnify it or increase it. Glass optical instruments merely pass on whatever ambient light strikes them. Since glass always reflects some of the light striking it, the more light you let in, the more you get out eventually. Magnification reduces light output. The relationship between objective diameter and power is reflected in the diameter of the exit pupil (EP), the window in the eyepiece through which the final image emerges. That's the critical one. Divide objective diameter by magnification and the product is the EP diameter. So a 10x 50mm yields a 5mm EP, while a 10x 33mm produces a 3.3mm EP. At 6x the 33mm scope will have an EP of 5.5mm - bigger than the 50mm scope at 10x.

A high-quality, fully multicoated scope with a 28mm to 42mm objective is bright enough to place black crosshairs on anything but a black animal 30 minutes after sunset on a cloudy evening, if the EP is at least 4mm. In most cases this will work at 40 minutes after sunset. The downside to such minimal EP is that it demands perfect form. If you align your eye slightly off-center with the scope, too far forward or too far back, you'll pick up that annoying edge blackout. A larger EP leaves more edge "window" for you to wander in before the dark edges come into your vision. So if you have trouble aligning head/eye perfectly behind your scope, you might want a large exit pupil, in which case the bigger the better.

You get plenty of EP room in a 33mm or even a 28mm objective scope by dialing down power. At 4x the 28mm will yield a 7mm EP. That's as wide as most [young] human pupils can dilate. But 4x does not reveal a distant animal as well as 10x. Even when high magnification compromises EP significantly, say down to 3mm, it shows greater detail simply because the object covers so much of your retina. It's just like walking closer to something in dim light in order to see it better. The light doesn't get any brighter, but it strikes such a higher percentage of your retina that it looks brighter.

The drawbacks to big objective scopes...

1. Heavy. Most weigh 17 to 24 ounces... you might not appreciate carrying it up a mountain...

2. Bulky. The diameter means the entire scope will sit atop tall mounts, so you may need to raise your head off the stock comb in order to see into the eyepiece. That slows down and compromises accuracy... A high scope will unbalance and average-weight rifle tending to pull it to the side and slowing down fast handling. The high scope will also catch on branches and be impossible to stuff into a traditional saddle scabbard. Many don't even fit standard soft cases.

3. Expensive. Glass costs. The bigger the glass, the bigger the price.

4. Less durable. During recoil, extra-heavy glass is more likely to pull loose from its moorings.

5. Rip-Offs. Huge objectives do little good if they and/or internal lenses aren't coated to minimize glare and maximize light transmission. Just because a Swarovski PV 3-12x 50mm transmits the most incredibly bright, sharp image you've ever seen doesn't mean a Cheapco XT 3-10x 50mm will match it. Some discount scope makers throw poorly ground glass onto scopes with single-layer coatings or no coatings at all. The result is so much internal glare that you can't pick out the target from the haze. To sharpen such poor lenses, some manufacturers place field stops (glorified washers) inside the objective bell behind the big objective lens. Like a small f-stop ring (diaphragm) in a camera lens, this blocks distorted light from the lens' edges. The image is sharpened, but also appears darkened. You pay for a 50mm, but get the light input of a much smaller lens (the size of the hole in the field stop).

Choose a 50mm to 56mm objective scope if you expect to do most of your shooting at high magnification near dark with minimal walking beforehand. That's where they really shine. And insist on fully-multicoated lenses throughout the instrument.


----------



## James (Oct 7, 2007)

> Take the money you would spend on the scope, buy more ammo, and shoot more squirrels.
> 9 power should be plenty with a 223,


I agree.


----------



## Dwight Schrutester (Dec 3, 2007)

After much back and forth on the issue... I decided to take the $300 I was going to spend on the scope and buy a Marlin 982vs 22 WMR to accompany my 223. I would rather have two rifles there than just one. The last thing I want is to be sitting there watching those squirrels running around while I wait for my barrel to cool down. 

Thanks for all the replies.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

I think along the same lines; I declined getting a $500 pistol and bought a rifle and pistol for about the same price (rimfire, of course).


----------



## Gee LeDouche (Sep 21, 2007)

Poo Pie said:


> http://www.muelleroptics.com/
> 
> Check out mueller! great glass, great prices!!!! I put the 3-10x44 sport dot on my .06 two years ago and love it. If I need another scope I would buy another tomorrow, I've been very pleased


I thought I was the only person in Utah to use Mueller optics. I give them a big +1. I have thier APV on one of my custom 10/22's. excellent glass for the money.


----------

