Ridgerunner665
Member
Mine was an Ultimate Shadow...
Working on my elk rifle
- Thread starter sleepyone
- Start date
- Status
GJgo
Member
For an Elk hunting scope under 500 bucks, I don't think you can do better than the Zeiss Conquest 3-9 w/ the 1" tube. Low light optical performance and a relatively low magnification are the most important things for Elk- they're big & they move fast in the shadows.
Texans that come up here to hunt have built a reputation for shooting anything that moves. Perhaps that's because they have scopes that just aren't cut out for hunting in the mountains.
Texans that come up here to hunt have built a reputation for shooting anything that moves. Perhaps that's because they have scopes that just aren't cut out for hunting in the mountains.
sleepyone
Member
Hey GJgo, thanks for the tip! No offense, but I'll probably skip CO unless they repeal the recent anti-gun legislation. I realize it most likely means more out of pocket travel expenses, but I'm willing to inucr the expense.
Sleepy;
I've shot the .30-06 extensively for decades. I do not, and will not, have a scope with an adjustable objective on a big game rifle. It's too big a chance that it'll be out of focus for the shot you need to take right this instant NOW. Most scopes above 10X will have to have that feature. I've never needed anything above 10X to take a big game shot yet, and I doubt I ever will. I did nail an antelope at 470 lasered yards with the ought-6 & a 3.5-10X scope though.
I'll second the suggestion of the Zeiss. Clarity wins over magnification power every time in my book. I don't have the 3-9 Conquest, instead I use the 3.5-10X 44mm with the Zeiss mil-dot reticle. However, that is almost certainly over your budget number. I'm just hooked on the mil-dot reticle. I think the 3-9 Conquest would be an ideal scope to complement your model 70. Oh, and I took that goat with a model 70 also.
900F
I've shot the .30-06 extensively for decades. I do not, and will not, have a scope with an adjustable objective on a big game rifle. It's too big a chance that it'll be out of focus for the shot you need to take right this instant NOW. Most scopes above 10X will have to have that feature. I've never needed anything above 10X to take a big game shot yet, and I doubt I ever will. I did nail an antelope at 470 lasered yards with the ought-6 & a 3.5-10X scope though.
I'll second the suggestion of the Zeiss. Clarity wins over magnification power every time in my book. I don't have the 3-9 Conquest, instead I use the 3.5-10X 44mm with the Zeiss mil-dot reticle. However, that is almost certainly over your budget number. I'm just hooked on the mil-dot reticle. I think the 3-9 Conquest would be an ideal scope to complement your model 70. Oh, and I took that goat with a model 70 also.
900F
Abel
Member
3-9x40mm in a Leupold VX-2 is about perfect on my new Featherweight 3o-o6. It's light gathering is great until well past legal shooting times.
sleepyone
Member
Thanks for the feedback and suggestion, CB900F. I was trying to avoid spending $500 on a scope. I know the Conquest is well worth it. The Monarch I am looking at is around between $350-400. Someone else mentioned mentioned a Sightron, which I have never even seen or held.
There is also the VX-2 and VX-3 by Leupold people have mentioned. Plenty of research to do still!
There is also the VX-2 and VX-3 by Leupold people have mentioned. Plenty of research to do still!
jerkface11
Member
Sightron scopes have good clear optics and a lifetime warranty. Best bang for your buck when it comes to scopes.
Sleepy;
Not so long ago you used to be able to find the Zeiss Conquest on sale for $399.00. I just went lookin' at SWFA and Midway & found out that ain't so no more. I don't know why Zeiss discontinued that, but I don't think the did themselves any favors. If you search you may yet be able to find one at an LGS, but don't count on it. Since that's the case, I'll agree that a Nikon Monarch is probably as good a choice as any & better than most. Although there's no flies on a Leupold either.
900F
Not so long ago you used to be able to find the Zeiss Conquest on sale for $399.00. I just went lookin' at SWFA and Midway & found out that ain't so no more. I don't know why Zeiss discontinued that, but I don't think the did themselves any favors. If you search you may yet be able to find one at an LGS, but don't count on it. Since that's the case, I'll agree that a Nikon Monarch is probably as good a choice as any & better than most. Although there's no flies on a Leupold either.
900F
sleepyone
Member
I bought my rifle finally. Went with a new FN Winchester Model 70 Featherweight in .30-06. I've been happy with my other Model 70s. They came from the factory with triggers around 3 1/2-4 lbs. This one was at 4 lbs 7 oz. So I'm going the gunsmith set it around 3 lbs.
I have been really wanting to get a Monarch scope for this rifle since I'm hoping to use it on an elk hunt in a year or two. I had narrowed it down to two Monarchs; either the 3x12 42mm or the 2.5x10 42mm; both with NikoPlex reticles. However, I already have an extra Nikon Buckmasters 3x9 40mm with NikoPlex reticle. Is there any reason to spend $400 on a Monarch or any other scope for that matter? Anyone using 3x9 40mm Buckmasters on their elk rifles? It would be nice to be able to put that $400 into my elk hunt fund instead of new glass, but I would hate to have made the wrong scope choice if I end up having to take a longer shot or have bad weather conditions.
I have been really wanting to get a Monarch scope for this rifle since I'm hoping to use it on an elk hunt in a year or two. I had narrowed it down to two Monarchs; either the 3x12 42mm or the 2.5x10 42mm; both with NikoPlex reticles. However, I already have an extra Nikon Buckmasters 3x9 40mm with NikoPlex reticle. Is there any reason to spend $400 on a Monarch or any other scope for that matter? Anyone using 3x9 40mm Buckmasters on their elk rifles? It would be nice to be able to put that $400 into my elk hunt fund instead of new glass, but I would hate to have made the wrong scope choice if I end up having to take a longer shot or have bad weather conditions.
jerkface11
Member
I've never heard anyone complain that they bought too good of a scope. Can't really say the opposite though.
limpingbear
Member
Take a look at Hawke sport optics. I have been looking at these for use on my 1000 yard gun I am building (varmint rig) they make some really good scopes and a lot of different features.
Don McDowell
Member
3x9x40 or better yet a 2x7x40 is more than adequate for elk hunting Fixed 4 power about the best allround . Elk don't frequent corn feeders at measured distances in front of elevated blinds. They do hang out in nasty country that takes a good bit of physical exertion to get to and thru and the snow can get deep. So keeping things as light and compact as possible is preferable . 2 or 3x makes for a good option in thick timber on dark or snowy days, 7 or 9 on the top end will give you all the scope you need for shooting at elk with any cartridge capable of being fired from a 1 man operated shoulder fired weapon.
Boxhead
Member
Go buy a "whatever they are called these days"-II Leupold 2-7x and go kill stuff. It is all the scope you will ever need at a very fair price.
Andrew Leigh
Member
Sleepyone, a couple of my thoughts.
- 30mm tubes do not gather ANYMORE light. They use the same internal optics as for the 25mm tube. What the 30mm tube allows is for more adjustment in terms of MOA giving them the so called long range capability. Make sense? You cannot move the internal optics beyond the tube, bigger tube the movement increases for a larger adjustment.
- The rule of thumb is 2X power per 100m / yards. You want 600yds you will need 12X or more. Personally I would not hunt out at 600 yards.
- The higher the magnification the smaller the scope exit pupil and the harder it become to get a good picture.
- The bottom magnification needs also to be low. I had a Leipold VX3 4.5 to 14X40mm on my Kudu rifle. At 50m and at 4.5X it takes longer to find the target than say at 3X. Hunting in thick brush a 4.5X does NOT give a wide enough field of view when coming up close to an animal. In thick bush sometime animals just happen on you and you don't have time to battle with finding them through the scope.
- Speaking of the VX3. I took this off my Kudu rifle and replaced this with a Zeiss Conquest 3-9X40mm, in my opinion a measureable upgrade and significantly brighter and cheaper. But I will not shoot past 300m. The conquest has a nice focus ring at the back not like the VX3 which is slower and requires locking.
- The VX3 went onto the 6.5mm Swede as this rifle is used for targets generally much smaller, Springbuck, and on average 200+m away. Here you have the time to settle in and to get a good sight picture. I still generally never dial in more than 10X.
- 30mm tubes do not gather ANYMORE light. They use the same internal optics as for the 25mm tube. What the 30mm tube allows is for more adjustment in terms of MOA giving them the so called long range capability. Make sense? You cannot move the internal optics beyond the tube, bigger tube the movement increases for a larger adjustment.
- The rule of thumb is 2X power per 100m / yards. You want 600yds you will need 12X or more. Personally I would not hunt out at 600 yards.
- The higher the magnification the smaller the scope exit pupil and the harder it become to get a good picture.
- The bottom magnification needs also to be low. I had a Leipold VX3 4.5 to 14X40mm on my Kudu rifle. At 50m and at 4.5X it takes longer to find the target than say at 3X. Hunting in thick brush a 4.5X does NOT give a wide enough field of view when coming up close to an animal. In thick bush sometime animals just happen on you and you don't have time to battle with finding them through the scope.
- Speaking of the VX3. I took this off my Kudu rifle and replaced this with a Zeiss Conquest 3-9X40mm, in my opinion a measureable upgrade and significantly brighter and cheaper. But I will not shoot past 300m. The conquest has a nice focus ring at the back not like the VX3 which is slower and requires locking.
- The VX3 went onto the 6.5mm Swede as this rifle is used for targets generally much smaller, Springbuck, and on average 200+m away. Here you have the time to settle in and to get a good sight picture. I still generally never dial in more than 10X.
op - my son uses a buckmaster 3-9x40 scope on his "do everything" rifle, which is a rem m700 s/s in 7mmremmag. he has had no trouble killing deer, antelope, and elk.
were i you, i'd get a leupy 3-9x40 in either vx2 or 3. however, that buckmaster you already have will certainly work as well.
good luck.
were i you, i'd get a leupy 3-9x40 in either vx2 or 3. however, that buckmaster you already have will certainly work as well.
good luck.
GJgo
Member
Stick a set of antlers out at 400 yds. & see if you can count the points at last light with the scope you have. That should answer your question. What you need to pay for in an Elk scope is low light capability. I also agree that you should keep the low end at ~3x.
Don McDowell
Member
Binoculars are for counting points on antlers, scopes are for aiming at something you intend to shoot.
If you can't make out the points on a bull with a 40 mm scope at last light it's to far and to dark to be blasting away at something a 1/4 of a mile off anyway.
If you can't make out the points on a bull with a 40 mm scope at last light it's to far and to dark to be blasting away at something a 1/4 of a mile off anyway.
Vern Humphrey
Member
My experience is that elk hunting is work, hard work. Elk are usually found above 11,000 feet where I hunt (in Eagle County, Colorado) and the slopes are steep as a barn roof. I don't carry an ounce more than I need. My scopes are small -- a Weaver K 2.5, a Weaver K4 and a Leupold M8 in 4X. You don't need more than that.
Flatbush Harry
Member
On my lightweight rifles (Ruger M77 RSIs in .308 and .270 and a Ruger No. 1A in 6.5x55), I use a Leupy VX3 2.5-8x36...it's plenty for hunting deer and elk out to 350 yards, my self-imposed shooting limit. On my heavier rifles (Win M70, Savage 116 in .30-06 and Rem 700 in .375 H&H), I have Zeiss Conquests in 3-9x40. I keep all my scopes on minimum magnification for widest field of view and quick target acquisition...and I wear binocs. I did put a Zeiss 3.5-10x44 on my Win M70 7mm RM and like it...it's a good set-up for 7mm RM ballistics. That said, if I'm anticipating a fair amount of walking, one of my Ruger 77 RSIs or No. 1 gets the nod. They fit nicely in an Eberlestock pack and with 165gr Accubonds in .308 or 140gr Accubonds in .270, they'll stop elk with well-placed shots out to 350 yards.
Big heavy scopes on hunting rifles reduces their utility IMHO.
FH
Big heavy scopes on hunting rifles reduces their utility IMHO.
FH
Sleepyone;
I do believe that Nikon makes that Monarch 2.5-10X with a mil-dot reticle as a standard order option. You might want to think about that. Seems to me you've got a very good magnification range, coupled with some of Nikon's best glass for clarity. Then, there's a reticle that allows you to make windage adjustments on the fly as it were. The BDC doesn't allow for that. Now here's something you want to pay attention to: I live on the front range of the Rockies and hunt elk here. The wind blows here, and it's very frequently not a gentle wafting breeze. Get the mil-dot. Learn to use it.
A further tip; put a mil-dot on a .22 & get a lot of (relatively these days) low cost experience under field conditions, ie varying ranges & wind angles. You will never regret it if you do.
900F
I do believe that Nikon makes that Monarch 2.5-10X with a mil-dot reticle as a standard order option. You might want to think about that. Seems to me you've got a very good magnification range, coupled with some of Nikon's best glass for clarity. Then, there's a reticle that allows you to make windage adjustments on the fly as it were. The BDC doesn't allow for that. Now here's something you want to pay attention to: I live on the front range of the Rockies and hunt elk here. The wind blows here, and it's very frequently not a gentle wafting breeze. Get the mil-dot. Learn to use it.
A further tip; put a mil-dot on a .22 & get a lot of (relatively these days) low cost experience under field conditions, ie varying ranges & wind angles. You will never regret it if you do.
900F
CaliCoastie
Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 497
I personally like vortex these days, but your call had one failure with Nikon and took two different times to contact their cs(fist passed me off to no end, and it took me about two years to call them again), it was replaced after about a three month wait. Sold it southern a week, a friend had a monarch and uckmaster, he's looking at replacing them with Leupold vx-1's. I really wanted to love the Nikons but to me? There are loss of good Scopes out there that are better than Nikon for me, votex, Burris, Leupold to name the order I'd look. Good luck, show a pic of the elk when you get one.
Last edited:
I'm of the belief you should buy the biggest objective lenses your gun can fit....
You really aren't doing yourself any favors going with a smaller objective.... Ideally you want as much light as you can get.... It is not as apparent on a bright sunny day, but in overcast or low light situations you will be thankful.
People are going to argue weight....... I think that's a poor argument. What's the weight difference really going to be, it's cant be more than 0.5lbs at most.
Unless everything you own is ultra lightweight..... The scope is not going to be your biggest contributor.
People are also going to argue it will ge snagged on branches more easily.... That is also a poor argument.......you are carrying a 4' gun and a bunch of other gear, if anything is going to get snagged, it's not going to be the extra 20mm of scope diameter.
You really aren't doing yourself any favors going with a smaller objective.... Ideally you want as much light as you can get.... It is not as apparent on a bright sunny day, but in overcast or low light situations you will be thankful.
People are going to argue weight....... I think that's a poor argument. What's the weight difference really going to be, it's cant be more than 0.5lbs at most.
Unless everything you own is ultra lightweight..... The scope is not going to be your biggest contributor.
People are also going to argue it will ge snagged on branches more easily.... That is also a poor argument.......you are carrying a 4' gun and a bunch of other gear, if anything is going to get snagged, it's not going to be the extra 20mm of scope diameter.
This starts with a faulty premise and goes downhill from there.
Let me repeat: your eye can only take in so much light. Bigger is NOT necessarily better, no matter how intuitive that may seem. Above a certain point a bigger objective is just bigger, heavier, higher and more expensive, not better.
Unless you're very young, your eye can only take in roughly a 5mm exit pupil. For a seven power scope that's achieved with a 35mm objective. If an elk is too far away to hit at 7 power, he's just too far away, period.
Again, look up "rifle scope exit pupil", read the articles and then reconsider. Here's a couple of freebies:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/straight_scope.htm
http://www.opticsplanet.com/how-to-choose-riflescope.html
Spoken like someone who's never built a lightweight rifle. Lightweight rifles are built by saving a quarter pound here, a quarter pound there until all of a sudden you have a light rifle. Half a pound is a LOT, especially when it serves no useful purpose.
- Status
