3-9x40 $200 Suggestions

[bjp04b]

I'm following this thread with a lot of interest. My thought was that the Leupy VX-Freedom was probably the best choice. The marketing hype from Leupold is that it's VX-2 glass, which sounds pretty great although I don't know if that's the case. I don't like the look of the VX-Freedom compared to the VX-1 and VX-2. I'd be interested to know how the VX-Freedom (or the VX-2) glass compares to the Fullfield, which pops up in a lot of threads like this.

One model I'm interested in is the Nikon Prostaff 5 (not the normal, cheaper Prostaff) in 2.5-10x40. It can be had for a little over $200 in the places I'm looking. I'm curious about how much better it is than a normal Prostaff. It's definitely a heavier choice than the Leupold, weighing almost a pound. I wonder how the glass compares on the Prostaff 5 and low end Leupolds.

 

[cdb1]

To my eyes Freedom glass is better than Fullfield II glass and and Fullfield II glass is better than ProStaff 5.

 

[LoonWulf]

I dont have the PS5, best i could compare was a 2015 buckmasters.

I just took a handful of my scoped rifles out to check at sunset. Looking from inside my garage, across my neighbors yard, at a flowering ohia in the shade of the far treeline.

Ive got a vx-f 2-7x32
Buckmasters 3-9x40
Athlon argos 2.5-10x40
2 burris ff2s, one older one newer, 3-9x40
GP Optics P3 3-9x42
Bushnell 4.5-14x42 ultrahd
Bushnell Trophy 4-12x40
Athlon 2.5-10x50 Midas btr

I checked them all at 7x first since thats as high a mag as the leupy has. I then turned the others upto max.

Firstly, in those conditions, which do well with simulating the late evening shooting i do, all were completely acceptable. Even the 50 dollar trophy was useable at max power. They were also surprisingly close together in terms of optical quality. Id happily pay 200 bucks + for any of them besides the trophy.

To my eye best to worst would be

7x (or best guess)
Midas btr
GP optics p3
UltraHD
Leupy vx-f
Burris ff2 (old was better to me, but the new one is mounted on my stubby little 6x47, which has a short stock)
Athlon Argos (would be better except the colors are a little yellow, same as the older leupys for me)
Buckmasters
Trophy

At max the only real changes is that the
GP is brighter than than the midas, but thats expected from a significantly less powerful scope of similar quality.

Having done the side by side, id probably be willing to recommend the vx-f (i dont usually prefer leupys) to the prostaff 5, if its anything like my buckmasters.

Honestly for the cost I like the Athlons....except for the turrets.

 

[spazzy]

I ended up reevaluating what I needed in a scope and found a lower power option fit better. Ended up looking at 2-7 power and settled on a burris fullfield ii 2-7x35 and I am very impressed. Very clear and bright. I cant wait to get it mounted up and sighted in.

 

[BigBL87]

Glad you found something! For an all around application, I really prefer 2-7, and if I ever take my AR back from being set up as a varmint rifle, that's the magnification range I'll probably go with.

 

[cdb1]

I ended up reevaluating what I needed in a scope and found a lower power option fit better. Ended up looking at 2-7 power and settled on a burris fullfield ii 2-7x35 and I am very impressed. Very clear and bright. I cant wait to get it mounted up and sighted in.

Once upon a time I had two of them, one on a 30-30 and one on my daughter’s .243. Good scopes IMO.

 

[Hookeye]

I still like the Redfield Revolution 3-9X.
Might buy the one at my LGS just to have a spare.
Prefer the lines of it over the VX Freedom.........I have the EFR Freedome VX on a target .22 rf...........that turret body flat just doesn't look right to me.

 

[Skylerbone]

Is more eye relief always better?

I know the choice is already made (and you made a solid choice at that), but I figured to take a stab at answering the above.

Many people consider eye relief in terms of distance between their eye and a big metal tube waiting for a kiss. While true with heavy recoiling rifles that a bit more space can be a comfort to those worried about scope bite, I prefer to think of eye relief in terms of vision; the further away a scope sits the more I can see around it.

Where that comes in particularly handy is with a moving target. I shoot both eyes open which also helps but retaining as much field of view around the scope means acquiring the target sooner when transitioning from binos to shouldering the rifle.

Of course a scope’s physical dimensions will also play a part in how much peripheral vision is blocked so keep that in mind as well. Returning to the question, yes, for a hunting riflescope I feel more eye relief is always a good thing. It is also a strong factor in my preference for Leupold’s offerings despite having looked through comparably priced scopes that best its glass.

 

[Bfh_auto]

Maybe I'm not reading the specs right but the diamondback seems to be fairly competitive as far as eye relief? Maybe it's a situation where on paper is different than real world conditions?

Diamondback 3.3 inches
Fullfield II 3.1-3.4 inches
Leopold vx freedom 3.66-4.17 inches
Nikon pro staff 3.6 inches

At what point do you all notice the difference between eye reliefs? 1/2 inch difference? Is more eye relief always better?

In my experience, Nikon underrated their eye relief. Because of eye relief, glass clarity, and price, I have switched most of my scopes to them.
I am not a fan of the low end Vortex. They appear to have a bluish tint.
Nikon is clearer to me, but stay away from their buckmasters.

 

[Bfh_auto]

I'm following this thread with a lot of interest. My thought was that the Leupy VX-Freedom was probably the best choice. The marketing hype from Leupold is that it's VX-2 glass, which sounds pretty great although I don't know if that's the case. I don't like the look of the VX-Freedom compared to the VX-1 and VX-2. I'd be interested to know how the VX-Freedom (or the VX-2) glass compares to the Fullfield, which pops up in a lot of threads like this.

One model I'm interested in is the Nikon Prostaff 5 (not the normal, cheaper Prostaff) in 2.5-10x40. It can be had for a little over $200 in the places I'm looking. I'm curious about how much better it is than a normal Prostaff. It's definitely a heavier choice than the Leupold, weighing almost a pound. I wonder how the glass compares on the Prostaff 5 and low end Leupolds.

I have the Prostaff5 2.5-10x40. For normal conditions, you won't notice anything. If you look across a mile section, you will notice a difference. It is a far better hunting scope than the 4-12x40. Natchez usually has refurbished ones for a decent discount, but you lose the lifetime warranty.

 

[wild willy]

I ended up reevaluating what I needed in a scope and found a lower power option fit better. Ended up looking at 2-7 power and settled on a burris fullfield ii 2-7x35 and I am very impressed. Very clear and bright. I cant wait to get it mounted up and sighted in.

I have several Burris Fullfield IIs.The eye relief on the 2-7 is a little short on a gun with much recoil the scope will get you.I had mine on a lightweight.50 caliber muzzleloader the scope just kinda touched my eyebrow didn’t really hurt but after 5 or 6 Shots it would get kinda tender made it hard to concentrate

 

[d2wing]

I just bought a VX-2, from Natchez for under $200. They also have Freedoms on sale. My first choice is always Leopold. Then I like Weaver for the money.

 

[wild willy]

The short eye relief is only with the 2-7 the other Fullfield IIs are fine.

 

[Kp321]

I went with the Leupold VX Freedom 3-9 for my 10-22 because the AO adjusts down to 50 feet and it has plenty of eye relief flexibility. I have been very pleased.

 

[straightShot]

Since you said Cabela's and have a price limit, I got a Leupold American Marksman 3-9x40 from them that I like. Right now, they have it at full retail at $230. I got it on sale for $160 last August. It does go on sale from time to time.