Scope for hunting Elk - budget $1,500 or less

[Scot E]

I missed your comment about the fact that you were on option overload.

To help I would suggest you at least answer these question first. The rest will fall into place much easier.

Do you want MIL or MOA turrets and/or reticle?

Do you want a specialized reticle, ie BDC, MILDOT, MIL-Hash, MOA-Hash,etc. or just a standard duplex.

If you are going to have a duplex then that means you will be dialing the turrets for your longer shots so make sure you get repeatable turrets. Nothing is more important.

Do you want a First Focal Plane (FFP) or Second Focal Plane (SFP) reticle?

Answering these questions will leave you with a much shorter list to choose from.

HTH,

 

[Iron Worker]

Of all listed IOR glass is the best.

 

[edjfadz]

I'm at a loss why Swarovski is never recommeded as a scope to buy. Talking to hopefully a guide that I will hunt with this fall and suggestions from other guide site suggests going with 44 or smaller bell to keep your face as low as possible to rifle. Keep the rifle as light as you can cause you have to carry it all day, have enough power if needed. The Z5 BT I bought gives me that plus the simple flexibility to sight in exactly at what-ever yds that I want, not trying to match the reticles, different ballistics to whatever yards that fit. Desirable low to high power range, the glass is as good as it gets and $1400.

 

[pyroducksx3]

The only reason I don't like swaro/ziess is that there adjustment are in IPHY vs MOA. I don't have the luxury of having just a gun for hunting and another for longrange shooting, so I would like to be able to use my scopes turrets as well as a reticle , and I don't want to use the custom turrets that are just for yardage. I prefer MOA adjustment and a reticle to match them. My budget is limited so I had to go with a vortex viper 6.5-20 x 44 objective with bdc reticle. Even with the 44 objective I needed the defensive edge cheek piece to get a good check weld. I think the ziess and swaro are great options if you plan on using just the reticle (or like IPHY adjustments). But I prefer MOA which means I don't look at these two.

 

[Scot E]

I'm at a loss why Swarovski is never recommeded as a scope to buy. Talking to hopefully a guide that I will hunt with this fall and suggestions from other guide site suggests going with 44 or smaller bell to keep your face as low as possible to rifle. Keep the rifle as light as you can cause you have to carry it all day, have enough power if needed. The Z5 BT I bought gives me that plus the simple flexibility to sight in exactly at what-ever yds that I want, not trying to match the reticles, different ballistics to whatever yards that fit. Desirable low to high power range, the glass is as good as it gets and $1400.

For me, glass is at the bottom of the "requirements" list. Most glass today is good enough and almost any upper end glass is great so it is basically a non issue for me.

Durability, turret repeatability, reticle straightness, and reticle choices are at the top of the list.

Swarovski has great glass but is extremely expensive for what you get IMO. They have had and still are having durability issues. Their turrets are not my favorite and I have seen a couple and heard of a few more that have repeatability issues. For long range stuff that is a deal breaker. If I am going to spend the kind of money Swarovski demands then I am getting some of the better scopes like Premier, S&B, SWFA, IOR etc.

My opinion.

 

[Iron Worker]

IOR hunting version I'm talking about is a 4x14x50mm 30mm tube. Its going for under $1300 on SWFA. BUT it weights a whopping 26oz. I have a Bushnell elite 6500 2.5x16x50mm its glass is great.If I was to drop it I'm sure I'd have to re-zero it in again. You can pick those up for under $800.00. Sightron S3 has a 3.5x10x44mm for under $800 also. Its supposed to have the best glass for under a $1,000. Those last two weight less and cost less then the IOR but they're glass is more then enough for hunting conditions.

 

[captainjoe]

Very helpful set of questions. I'll attempt to answer... warning, long rambling answer, so get yourself a cup of coffee!

Do you want MIL or MOA turrets and/or reticle?

I'm leaning towards MIL turrents and reticle. My only reservation is that I have worked in yards all of my life, but I think I can make the transition.

Do you want a specialized reticle, ie BDC, MILDOT, MIL-Hash, MOA-Hash,etc. or just a standard duplex.

This is an area where I am less certain. I would like a reticle that gives me options when I have time to take up a spot and set up for a shot. I'm a hunter that does a lot of walking, but also spotting/sitting. So, in my type of hunting where I am working my way up through the timber to a favourite clearing, I need to be able to shoot quickly as well, so I don't want too much stuff in the view. Maybe I am making too big of a deal of this, but I think I would like something not too simple, but something that isn't too busy either. Again, my ranges are from 10 - 600+ yards. The upper end is where I want to push myself because of the meadows that I love to hike up to.

My ultimate and highest purpose is field hunting in timber and open areas, however, developing my skills at longer ranges is where I am going. So I need something that will push me on the target range and give me as many options as possible as I don't have the funds to buy a number of specialised rifles for different purposes. I know there are compromises with this, but I'm forced to try to have an all-rounder situation as much as possible... at least in the near term.

If you are going to have a duplex then that means you will be dialing the turrets for your longer shots so make sure you get repeatable turrets. Nothing is more important.

Agreed. I have read this more than once. You can have the best glass in the world, but if this isn't part of your scope, you only just have a nice viewing glass.

Do you want a First Focal Plane (FFP) or Second Focal Plane (SFP) reticle?

I prefer FFP.

I also want a scope that has a relatively low range, no more than 4.5x on the low end and 10x or even 15x or greater on the upper end would be nice.

A lighted recticle would be nice, but not required. (I think)

Some scopes that have caught my eye so far:

Of course the NF NXS F1 3.5X15X50

Pros:
- ticks all my boxes
- very durable
- good optics

Cons:
- might cause a divorce
- a bit heavy on weight

Vortex Viper PST 4X16X50 FFP

Pros:
- ticks all my boxes
- might save my marriage

Cons:
- relatively untried new product, but from a very good company
- some claim the optics are disappointing

Bushnell Tactical Elite 6500 4.5X30X50

Pros:
- Awesome power range
- Under $1K

Cons:
- Some claim the 6500's optics are inferior to the 4200
- No FFP

On paper, the Vortex is the best option, but the reports of the optics are concerning to me, particularly when it is compared to it's bigger brother the 6x24X50. I would go for this, but I think 6x is too much power if I get in close to elk. I am a bit off put with the Bushnell's lack of FFP and the optics have been questioned in comparison with the 4200. So at present this leaves me with risking optics on the Viper or the Bushnell, or risking my marriage with the Nightforce. I could probably put up with the weight of the Nightforce as I am fit, and the weight of my rifles have never bothered me as much as some of my friends.

I am open to any other apples to apples comparisons that anyone might have to offer. I am also open to any corrections of perceived flawed logic or conclusions, so please torpedo away! I'd rather hear them here, than spend a bunch of clams and be sorry.

I would also appreciate if anyone has any good books on long range shooting that they would recommend. Trolling the internet is fun and free, but sometimes time consuming and it would be nice to just sit down with a good book and read.

Thanks again for all the suggestions. This forum is paying off big time and I am glad that I found it.

 

[mthunter86]

I think the pst you mentioned is a very good choice. I have spent quite a bit of time behind both the 4-16 and the 6-24, in feild conditions. I can not see any optical difference when the scopes are set to the same magnification. Good glass, good turrets, great price from a company that will back their product no matter what.

 

[MHO]

As for hunting and cost related. I dont think you can go wrong with the Nikon BDC reticle or Leupold's Boone and Crocketts reticle. I have also sent some of my old leupolds to the custom shop and had the BC reticle put in. Couldnt be happier. There is better glass out there. But dollar for dollar and what your using it for, thats what I would recommend. Range it and your done. We have made one shot dirt naps out to 755 yards on elk with these scopes. I have the Nikon on a 300 wsm and the Leupold on a 300 win mag. They definitely do the job without all the stuff your most likely hunting never going to use. Again I know some guys are going to blast me. Theres better glass for the money with everything but a GPS on it. But for your budget, you will be very happy. Just my two cents.

 

[Scot E]

As for hunting and cost related. I dont think you can go wrong with the Nikon BDC reticle or Leupold's Boone and Crocketts reticle. I have also sent some of my old leupolds to the custom shop and had the BC reticle put in. Couldnt be happier. There is better glass out there. But dollar for dollar and what your using it for, thats what I would recommend. Range it and your done. We have made one shot dirt naps out to 755 yards on elk with these scopes. I have the Nikon on a 300 wsm and the Leupold on a 300 win mag. They definitely do the job without all the stuff your most likely hunting never going to use. Again I know some guys are going to blast me. Theres better glass for the money with everything but a GPS on it. But for your budget, you will be very happy. Just my two cents.

No blasting here although I am not a big Leupold fan and I don't like Nikon's reticle options but do like their glass and scopes for a mid level price range.

The only thing I would say to that is to remind the OP that those scopes are SFP and if you don't have your scope on the correct power when you use your reticle you are going to be way off. I really like the BDC style concept of reticle but to put it on a SFP is just silly IMO. That is why I think the FFP hash reticles are so much a better choice if a guy is going to use the reticle to shoot at varying distances. With it you can compensate for all the atmospheric factors, distance, angle, etc., and come up with a MIL or MOA adjustment, find the right reticle hash and fire, AT ANY POWER LEVEL!

 

[captainjoe]

No blasting here although I am not a big Leupold fan and I The only thing I would say to that is to remind the OP that those scopes are SFP and if you don't have your scope on the correct power when you use your reticle you are going to be way off. I really like the BDC style concept of reticle but to put it on a SFP is just silly IMO. That is why I think the FFP hash reticles are so much a better choice if a guy is going to use the reticle to shoot at varying distances. With it you can compensate for all the atmospheric factors, distance, angle, etc., and come up with a MIL or MOA adjustment, find the right reticle hash and fire, AT ANY POWER LEVEL!

I think I agree with you philosophically. Not to put down the suggestion in regard to the fine scopes with the Boone and Crockett or BDC reticles, I am inclined at this stage for MILDOT FFP for the reasons you cite. I have a friend who is a die hard Boone and Crockett fan and he might convince me in the end, but it seems a bit limiting at this stage to me. Now, the problem I am having is finding an FFP scope, with good optics and somewhere around the 4x15x50 range in my price range. I keep winding up at Nightforce, which is $700 clams more than my maximum original budget.

 

[Jon A]

Some scopes that have caught my eye so far:

Another scope you should add to that list, especially if you feel 5X-6X is too much on the low end, is the new Weaver 3-15 Tactical.

I have used and hunted with the 4-20 Weaver quite a bit and have been very impressed with it for the money. The big things I felt it needed for me to really like it were:

Thicker and/or illuminated reticle.
1/2 Mil marks on the reticle.
0.1 Mil clicks to match the reticle.
More elevation travel.

Weaver has pretty much fixed all of those for the new 3-15X. While I like some of the features on the 4-16 PST a bit better, for that power range I'd choose the Weaver as the glass is much better. The FOV is way bigger on the low end and you'll be able to see more detail on the high end.

Of course I hope Weaver will eventually do the same treatment on their 4-20 as 4X is plenty low for me in the brush (especially since the Weaver has a bigger FOV than other 4X scopes) but that may be a ways off.

 

[captainjoe]

Another scope you should add to that list, especially if you feel 5X-6X is too much on the low end, is the new Weaver 3-15 Tactical.

Yes, thanks for pointing this out. I read something about this scope yesterday. Do you know if it is FFP or SFP?

 

[Scot E]

Yes, thanks for pointing this out. I read something about this scope yesterday. Do you know if it is FFP or SFP?

The Tacticals are FFP