|
This definitely is a tough one. I have onwed just about every scope on the market over the last 10-12 years which certainly doesn't make me an expert, but has at least allowed me to try them and form an opinion. I also spent four hours at a optic shop in Colorado this past week comparing scopes optically as I was looking for a new one for my new Kimber rifle. With me price is always a consideration so I'm not to anxious to look at the Swaro's and Zeiss stuff. So here's what I have decided personally.
I will never mount another Tasco or Simmons on anything. Good enough for a .22 but I'll pay a little extra and put a Burris on one. I had one Tasco World Class and one Simmons Aetec fall apart on a .30-06. Internal parts just fell apart in the first season. My partner also had a Tasco WC fall apart in the mountains on his first .30-06.
We both went to Sightron after that and before they were high priced. He has had three of these for six years now and not had to touch them. The one I had was on my .30-06 then on a 7mm and no trouble at all either. Best warranty in the business bar none. But the prices now put them in the same category as Leupold and Nikon and the likes and they aren't as good optically to my eyes.
Never had a problem with a Leupold either and my father-in-law swears by them. Had a rifle take a tumble from a horse and land on a rock on the scope, picked it up shot it and still shot in the same place. They have built a great reputation on their durability. I have an article about the toughest scopes and custom gun makers said that on anything larger than a .338 cal rifle they won't mount anything but a Leupold. Not even a Swarovski.
The Bushnell Elite stuff is supposed to be real good stuff and I did have a 3200 on a Remington rifle. But I just bought a Kimber and on principle alone I can't mount a Bushnell on it.
After my four hour session last week the best scope I looked through was a Nikon Monarch. The Sightron SII, Leupold VXII, Weaver Grand Slam and Pentax didn't compare optically and all of them were either the same price or higher. They weren't a crisp or as bright and the edges weren't good on a few of them. The Burris Fullfield II compared very well. Optically as sharp but not quite as bright. I was surprised, but I didn't even like the particular Swarovski I compared to the Nikon. It wasn't as sharp. Had a wider field of view but for a hell of a lot more money. THe Zeiss scope was every bit as good optically and had a wider field of view, but that isn't worth and extra $600 to me.
A lot of people have said that the Nikon is the best for the money and I agree but compared to most scopes I think it's the best no matter the price. I bought one Monarch for my Antelope/Varmint gun and the Burris for my new Kimber .300WSM. The plus about the Burris is for $200 it came with a Ballistic plex reticle and a free pair of Burris bino's. There's the best for the money.
Sorry for being so long winded. Hopefully some part of it is usefull and remember its only an opinion.
|