Best hunting scope for 2 bills?

[kludge]

Looking to replace my 23 year old Redfield Tracker 3-9x40 on the .358 WSSM. It has served me well these many years...

I think I have narrowed it down to these. Pros?Cons?

Burris Fullfield II 3-9x40 Ballistic Plex ($175 - this is the one I'm leaning toward)
Burris Fullfield II 4.5-14x42 AO Ballistic Plex ($240)
Redfield Revolution 3-9x40 Plex ($165) Accu-Range ($189)
Sightron Sii 3-9x42 ($197)
Vortex Crossfire 2 3-9x40 BDC ($128)
Vortex Crossfire 2 4-12x44 BDC ($159)
Vortex Diamondback 3-9x40 BDC ($149)
Vortex Diamondback 4-12x40 BDC ($168)

 

[TJ Kackowski]

Anything you have listed will be leaps and bounds above what you're replacing. It's almost impossible to explain exactly how much better optics are today compared to a 20+ year old scope. If possible, you should actually look through each of the scopes on your list. If you could do that with the scopes side-by-side, all the better.

Short of that, I recommend that you call Alan Alcorn (A&A Optics / 42769vette) to discuss. He'll give you the straight poop on your entire list ... good grief, he's forgotten more about scopes than many of us will ever learn. Best of all, he might still have some of the refurbished scopes left. If that's the case, you can get a much better scope for about the same amount as you've budgeted.

 

[kludge]

I get that - optics coatings have made huge strides, and the old Redfield has never been problem in low light for me so I'm really looking forward to see the actual difference in the field. However, I'm mostly wondering about the build quality/internals quality, not the optical quality, and the old Redfield has held its zero perfectly all these years, and holding zero is probably the most important thing for me in a lower priced scope since a few I have tried in the intervening time have not been very desirable in that regard. So that's why the Redfield has earned and kept its place on my hunting rifle all these years. I believe all the ones I have listed will have more than adequate optical quality.

Oh, and I'm also considering the Burris Droptine - I think I like the zoom/focus better on that compared to the Fullfield II.

My preference is to not have too many bells/whistles like adjustable objective/focus, lighted reticles (I think all the refurbs he has are lighted reticles).

 

[42769vette]

None of the Refurbs are around 200 bucks. They dont refurbish the cheaper scopes.

If it were me, I would stretch the budget a touch and go with this.

DIAMONDBACK 3.5-10X50 RIFLESCOPE

Durability wont be an issue, but to me I would want the little bit extra light transmission.

 

[ROLEXrifleman]

Does that particular scope have different lenses or coatings that give better performance in the light transmission?
it's still in the diamondback line and the 50mm objective only helps with FOV. Just curious ave in trying to learn more about vortex sa company

 

[42769vette]

Does that particular scope have different lenses or coatings that give better performance in the light transmission?
it's still in the diamondback line and the 50mm objective only helps with FOV. Just curious ave in trying to learn more about vortex sa company

50mm will allow the scope to transmit light a little better, as well as expanding the eyebox making the scope more forgiving.

 

[jrh84]

Looking to replace my 23 year old Redfield Tracker 3-9x40 on the .358 WSSM. It has served me well these many years...

I think I have narrowed it down to these. Pros?Cons?

Burris Fullfield II 3-9x40 Ballistic Plex ($175 - this is the one I'm leaning toward)
Burris Fullfield II 4.5-14x42 AO Ballistic Plex ($240)
Redfield Revolution 3-9x40 Plex ($165) Accu-Range ($189)
Sightron Sii 3-9x42 ($197)
Vortex Crossfire 2 3-9x40 BDC ($128)
Vortex Crossfire 2 4-12x44 BDC ($159)
Vortex Diamondback 3-9x40 BDC ($149)
Vortex Diamondback 4-12x40 BDC ($168)

May I ask what is pushing you toward the Burris FFII? A Fullfield II 3-9 like you're talking about was my first "decent" scope. I liked it well enough that I got a 2nd one. They are good scopes, and it isn't a bad choice. I then got a Vortex CF II 4-12x40AO for a CZ 452, and never looked back. Better glass (slightly subjective), similar BDC reticle, MUCH better adjustments, and unbeatable warranty. My Burris scopes are not 1/4 MOA adjustments as advertised. ..more like 1/2. After adjusting, it takes 2-3 rounds from a .22 to "settle in." My Vortex will go right to the new zero with no "settling in."

Don't have any experience with the others you listed. They very well might be outstanding. I can tell you with confidence, however, the CFII is a great deal for the money.

 

[Landon]

I'd take a look at the Nikon Prostaff line.

 

[ROLEXrifleman]

50mm will allow the scope to transmit light a little better, as well as expanding the eyebox making the scope more forgiving.

No doubt that by default the extra 10mm of objective lens will allow more light to be gathered and at lower power the eye box will have a few more mm's to give and still offer a full FOV, but if he's set up for something with a 40mm bell already will the gains of the 50 out weight the possibility of having to spend more $ on new rings to clear a larger front objective?

Just thinking out loud, not trying to be difficult.

 

[42769vette]

No doubt that by default the extra 10mm of objective lens will allow more light to be gathered and at lower power the eye box will have a few more mm's to give and still offer a full FOV, but if he's set up for something with a 40mm bell already will the gains of the 50 out weight the possibility of having to spend more $ on new rings to clear a larger front objective?

Just thinking out loud, not trying to be difficult.

Only he can answer that, but my line of thinking is this.

He kept his last svope for 23 years. If this costs him an extra 50 bucks, that equals roughly 2 dollars a year. Say he only hunts 5 time a year, and it gains him 5 minutes on each side of the day (by far the most important 5 minutes) thats an extra 50 minutes a year for 2 dollars.

4 cents a minute for the most important minutes of the day.

 

[JMWetzel89]

Only he can answer that, but my line of thinking is this.

He kept his last svope for 23 years. If this costs him an extra 50 bucks, that equals roughly 2 dollars a year. Say he only hunts 5 time a year, and it gains him 5 minutes on each side of the day (by far the most important 5 minutes) thats an extra 50 minutes a year for 2 dollars.

4 cents a minute for the most important minutes of the day.

has to be one of the most quality posts I've seen

 

[gregr]

Make the sacrifice you have to make to get a Leupold, you`ll never regret that.

 

[kludge]

42769vette and Rolex, A buddy of mine has a 50mm Nikon and the brightness is notable. I can fit a 42mm and I think I can squeeze 44mm objective on my rings, but it's already too high for me where it is -- that's my only objection to a 50mm objective. If I were stretching the budget, I think I might rather get something on the low end with a FFP reticle (but hunting Indiana, that's hardly necessary) or something like the Diamondback HP in 3-12x42 with a little larger objective and a bit more at the high magnification, but without going taller.

And yes if something works, I tend to keep it a long time... my vehicles are 17 and 24 years old. Longevity outweighs everything else 2:1.

jrh84, thanks for the real world experience and insight. The reason for the Burris is that I have a 2-7x32 pistol scope in the safe that is probably the nicest one I have, so like the old Redfield, it's trust in the brand. Now that the Fullfields are made in the Philippines that may or may not matter anymore. One thing that worries me about the Diamondback is the bulk of the zoom ring. I have decent clearance now to the receiver and bolt handle (Savage 10) but the Diamondback looks like it will be pretty tight. The eyepiece is 1.69" and my current scope is 1.34".

Question about the Diamondback: Is the listed eye relief of 3.3" at 3x or 9x?? If it's at 9x that's about what I have now.

 

[halfmileharry]

Only he can answer that, but my line of thinking is this.

He kept his last svope for 23 years. If this costs him an extra 50 bucks, that equals roughly 2 dollars a year. Say he only hunts 5 time a year, and it gains him 5 minutes on each side of the day (by far the most important 5 minutes) thats an extra 50 minutes a year for 2 dollars.

4 cents a minute for the most important minutes of the day.

Oh, you're good!

 

[DapperDan]

Another optic you may want to check out is the bushnell elite 3500 3-9x40. I have one on my Remington 700, for the price I think it's hard to beat. I paid around $275 for mine, glass seemed a lot clearer than the similar priced vortex and leupolds I compared it to. Has the raingauard lense which is also fog proof. Worth taking a look at in my opinion.

 

[42769vette]

42769vette and Rolex, A buddy of mine has a 50mm Nikon and the brightness is notable. I can fit a 42mm and I think I can squeeze 44mm objective on my rings, but it's already too high for me where it is -- that's my only objection to a 50mm objective. If I were stretching the budget, I think I might rather get something on the low end with a FFP reticle (but hunting Indiana, that's hardly necessary) or something like the Diamondback HP in 3-12x42 with a little larger objective and a bit more at the high magnification, but without going taller.

And yes if something works, I tend to keep it a long time... my vehicles are 17 and 24 years old. Longevity outweighs everything else 2:1.

jrh84, thanks for the real world experience and insight. The reason for the Burris is that I have a 2-7x32 pistol scope in the safe that is probably the nicest one I have, so like the old Redfield, it's trust in the brand. Now that the Fullfields are made in the Philippines that may or may not matter anymore. One thing that worries me about the Diamondback is the bulk of the zoom ring. I have decent clearance now to the receiver and bolt handle (Savage 10) but the Diamondback looks like it will be pretty tight. The eyepiece is 1.69" and my current scope is 1.34".

Question about the Diamondback: Is the listed eye relief of 3.3" at 3x or 9x?? If it's at 9x that's about what I have now.

3.3 is at the center of the eyebox, so it is at 9x, and 3x. Eye relief does not change, it grows and shrinks with zoom from a center position.

The dbk 3.5-10 will mount on your rifle with .87 rings, meaning it will raicmse your check weld .1 from your current setup. .1 isnt much diffrence.

I have ffp on my hunting setup. Quality internals, with FFP is nowhere near the 200 dollar price range. At 200 you can have FFP, or you can have longevity, but you cant have both.

Even in the Refurbs i have listed which are a incredible buy, you wont get to that orice range.

As far as zoom, in the hunting woods. Look at the last 10 deer you have shot. Ask yourself how many of those shots you could make on 12x (since you mentioned 3-12) that you would miss on 10x. Then look at the same shots, and see how many you would have made with light in the scope vs the ones you would have not been able to take.

 

[42769vette]

Oh, you're good!

Having the math on your side is pretty helpful.

 

[kludge]

I have ffp on my hunting setup. Quality internals, with FFP is nowhere near the 200 dollar price range. At 200 you can have FFP, or you can have longevity, but you cant have both.

Even in the Refurbs i have listed which are a incredible buy, you wont get to that orice range.

Correct, the lowest price FFP I can find is $300 and that's $60 below retail. But it has exposed turrets, so it's a no-go.

As far as zoom, in the hunting woods. Look at the last 10 deer you have shot. Ask yourself how many of those shots you could make on 12x (since you mentioned 3-12) that you would miss on 10x. Then look at the same shots, and see how many you would have made with light in the scope vs the ones you would have not been able to take.

A fair question... I've taken 6 deer in 6 seasons since I built the 358 WSSM (struck out year one and three) and my median range is about 100 yards. Shortest was about 15 and longest was about 150. The 150yd was 2015 at 3 minutes after legal time in the AM on opening day with a slight haze - could see that it was a buck but couldn't see the number of points. Magnification was ok and I could have used more light, but it was fine - a heart shot. The year before I passed on a buck at about 250yds at dusk. I couldn't get a good sight picture with the 9x. I needed more light and more magnification would also have been helpful. 250 is within the capability of the rifle, aimed 6" high it's dead on, and in that particular stand with the tree fork, within the capability of the rifleman.

The 40mm scopes I have looked at in the recent past (Burris, Vortex) have been notably brighter than my Redfield. The Nikon ProStaff and Redfield Revolution weren't as bright to me but still brighter than my current. But I don't think the quality is there with the Nikon at the ProStaff level, and the Redfields optics were notably dimmer in a side by side with the Vortex Diamondback. With the Diamondback HP I like the fact that you get a better glass and resetable turrets, a couple nice tangibles.

ETA: I have 0.175" of space between my scope and barrel right now with a bell diameter of 1.890". So you are correct, the 3.5-10x50 with a bell diameter of 2.29" wouldn't fit, and I would have to go to high rings. I can't find any drawings on Leupold's site, so I don't know how much higher they are. My current rings (Leupold standard dovetail rings) measure about 0.80" or 0.81" from top of base to center.

ETA: OK I just found an ad that says high rings are 0.9", so... some math... that would leave ~0.80" space to the top of the barrel and again you are correct the high rings would only raise my center line 0.1". Hmmm....

 

[ROLEXrifleman]

Even if you stayed with your 40mm objective, the advances in lens coating over the past 23 years alone will make the scope you pick look like an HD tv compared to that Zenith tube you've been accustomed to.

 

[kludge]

Even if you stayed with your 40mm objective, the advances in lens coating over the past 23 years alone will make the scope you pick look like an HD tv compared to that Zenith tube you've been accustomed to.

Agreed. Quality/Reliability is my #1.