The best scope value is Tasco. For about $100 you can get a scope that will be good enough for 99% of hunting situations.
Say what???
just messing with ya...
The best scope value is Tasco. For about $100 you can get a scope that will be good enough for 99% of hunting situations.
Pretty much narrowed it down wanna go look thru it in person first but the leupold vx6hd 3-18-50. Liked everything I read about it !I came across this today in an email.
You'd be hard pressed to find a better scope for your application and you certainly can't beat the price.
https://www.scopelist.com/Leupold-V...Riflescope-1.aspx?affid=top-rated-optics-2018
I don't even have the HD models and haven't looked through one but will eventually replace just about all of my other scopes with either the 3-18x50 or 4-24x52's.Pretty much narrowed it down wanna go look thru it in person first but the leupold vx6hd 3-18-50. Liked everything I read about it !
I have both the Z5, Z6, and the X5i. The Z5 is a great scope but in no way does it come close to comparing to the Z6. In low light conditions the Z6 blows it out of the water. The X5i is even better. Given that your not looking to shoot past 500yrds I would go with the Z6 3-18. You will not be disappointed in the glass and will not feel the need to upgrade. In my opinion Swarovski has the best glass hands down. Not all Swarovski scopes are created equal but almost all are solid, reliable, and have superior glass. When you get to the z6 and X5i you would be hard pressed to find better glass.looking at getting a swarovski z5 or z6. Probably won't be shooting past 500 yrds and having problem deciding if the z6 is worth the extra money thinking of 5-30. Or 3-18 thanks
One thing you have to remember is EVERYONE will suggest what they OWN as THE BEST cuz they dont want to admit they screwed up, same on any forum.
Z5 3.5-18x44 BRH is what Swarovski in Rhode Island would recommend for your situation. I had the 25 power and it was too much magnification for hunting.
I purchased a Swarovski Z5 because I heard they were so good. It was a dismal disappointment. So were the next two; which were not as good as the first.