Choices, choices, choices

J

jlmdlm

New member
I am looking for a new scope in 3-9x50. Within my ideal price is the Leupold VX-I, Leupold Rifleman, Bushnell 3200, Burris FF2, and Nikon Buckmaster. Also in a 3-10x50 is the Bushnell 3200 Compact. I know that everybody will have a different opinion. But for the most part, I have read a lot of positives about each of these optics. Help me narrow it down. Are there other options I should consider? Any of these I should cross off? Is it worth extra $ to step up to say the Monarch line. I would really like the 2.5-10 Monarch, but it is an extra $100. This is for a 18" AR coyote rig. Typical shots where I hunt are in the 150-300 yard range, fairly open areas.
 
Last edited:
I would go with the one that offers the widest field of view, if all other qualities were equal...second would be eye relief..The more flexibility in eye relief gives faster target acquisition..
 
Personally, I'd cross the Rifelman off your list. I own a couple and compared to my FF II's, they weren't worth the extra $.

I have no first hand experience w/ the Monarch scopes, but a couple of buddies have Monarch bino's. Assuming the glass is the same, they are VERY nice bino's for the $ - incredibly clear for the price.

Under "normal" situations coyote hunting, I doubt you would ever truly realize the benefits of the Monarch glass. I think you would have some benefit from them in lower light situations and/or night hunting situations.

IMO, the FF II is a hard scope to beat for the $. I'm a big fan of the bplex reticle. Another option that deserves consideration is the Burris Timberline series. For daylight hunting situations, these are dandy little scopes for AR's. They're compact, light, and have long eye relief. SWFA did have the 3-9 on sale for $119. I will say these ARE NOT suitable for night hunting as the objectives are very modest (I believe the 3-9 has a 28mm) and simply cannot gather enough light. My longest shot to date on a coyote using a 2-7X26 Timberline is 386yds (confirmed).
 
I was at Dicks the other day and they had a Redfield 3x9x40 and a Leupold VX-I 3x9x40 and as far as the glass went I could tell zero difference holding one in each hand and looking through each one back and forth. Redfields are made by Leupold in Oregon. So the difference was the Redfield was on sale for $120!
 
Leupold VX-I - Don't Like

Leupold Rifleman - Like less than the VX-I

Bushnell 3200 - Good scope. I think Natchez just had them on sale.

Burris FF2 - Far and above the clearest of the aforementioned.

Nikon Buckmaster - Very good scope. For the money though, hard to beat a Burris FFII.

The Monarach has probably the best glass of the bunch, but again, on a budget, I would reach for the FFII every time.
 
I would go with a Leupold. In 30 years when you drop it and need it fixed Leupold will still be there. Where were all the other companies 30 years ago?? And is their product they sold you 30 years ago warranted today?? I don't think so.

Don't go for the hype or Leupold bashers. Pay the little extra and have a top notch qualtiy optic for the rest of your life, and with a warranty that will still be good in 30 years. It's your choice. But IMO pay now, and never again. Tom.
 
Who's bashing Leupold? He asked among those choices what would we chose. The Leupold scopes he listed I don't think have very good glass.

As for warranty, Nikon has a lifetime warranty and I don't see them going anywhere in 30 years. Same with Bushnell or Burris.
 
I know that, the redfield scope is about like the VX-1 with click adjustments instead of friction that is why I would pick redfield. In a Leupold scope I wouldn't go lower than a VX-2 and would prefer a VX-3 but you are talking more money than he wanted to spend. As a rule I like Leupold scopes and have several.
 
i have a bushnell elite 3200 and a nikon monarch. both are excellent scopes for the money. you will be happy with either one.
 
Back
Top