Advice on New Hunting Scope

[SDHNTR]

If March ditched the hare brained idea of big zoom in a hunting scope and made that same scope body with a 4 or 5x erector, it’s probably all I would own. High zoom is a gimmick, IMO.

 

[SDHNTR]

I have noticed that with my mom and sister they can't find animals or targets well when the scope is cranked up so we have to back the power down for them and then turn it up when they find it. I appreciate the explanation and all makes good sense.

Now combine that with recoil and a high-pressure situation. It’s a bad recipe.

 

[Axlrod]

“Nelson from Seekins he mentioned to stay away from a NF NX8 as in his opinion they are junk. He mentioned the vortex lht is a great scope as well as the leupold mark 5.”

That might be the most butt backwards thing I’ve read in awhile. Nelson from seekins needs to explain that statement

I think he meant Nelson from the Simpsons!

 

[LongWayAround]

Bushnell LRHS-2 4.5-18 x 44 G2H reticle | G.A. Precision

New feautures for LRHS2

www.gaprecision.net

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

Just another opinion here, but I strongly disagree. I owned one for two years. Tried to like it. Never could. There was always some significant compromise optically, which is exactly what happens when you cram that much zoom into that short tube. The big NX8 is twice the scope, less money and far more user-friendly.

Commie!

 

[wpeach1912]

I have good luck with the LHT 4.5-22, and I’d say it’s one of my favorite hunting scopes. I shot several NRL Hunter matches with it, took it to missouri, Colorado, and Idaho hunting. It rode on atvs and my Kifaru gun bearer for many miles. Never had a zero issue or tracking issue with it. FOV is a bit narrow though

 

[cuerro viejo]

If March ditched the hare brained idea of big zoom in a hunting scope and made that same scope body with a 4 or 5x erector, it’s probably all I would own. High zoom is a gimmick, IMO.

Ditto, 8x plus erectors are dumb

 

[nobody]

Obviously 95% of the guys here would tell you to get a NF no mater your budget and call it a day.

This statement is objectively false. The most common scope recommended on this site, by far, is the $1200 Maven RS1.2, followed closely by the SWFA 3-9 and 3-15 (if available, and are priced WELL below the $1k mark), then an SWFA fixed 6x or 10x, with the 10x being available right now for $350.

More dollars spent doesn’t equate to more durability or ruggedness or reliability. Glass quality doesn’t matter until the scope functions as an aiming device, especially since a scope’s one and only job is to steer bullet to target, and until it does that job perfectly, there’s no amount of glass quality that can make up for the fact that it’s not durable or wanders zero or won’t track correctly.

LOW makes optics for nightforce, and they also make the vortex Razor LHT. One is know to work day in and day out, and one is know for a great warranty program. Just because it’s made at LOW, doesn’t mean it’s all made to the same spec. Optics marketing companies spec a design to an OEM, and that OEM manufactures what the optics marketing company (because virtually no optics company makes their own stuff in house 100% of the time) dictates. If they spec a rugged, reliable, work-every-time optic, then that’s what LOW builds. If they spec an ultralight, high mag scope and don’t mention durability, then that’s what LOW builds.

To the OP, start here:

Rifle Scope Field Evaluations

rokslide.com

Spark notes version, you want a Maven RS1.2, Trijicon, Nightforce, SWFA 3-9/3-15/fixed 6x/fixed 10x. Those optics range from $350-$3500, pick whichever fits your budget. Then mount it in good rings (nightforce ultralight, ARC m-brace, Burris tactical, etc), torque everything TIGHT with loctite/nail polish/paint pen, and go shoot and live happily ever after.

 

[AlpineBeard]

This statement is objectively false. The most common scope recommended on this site, by far, is the $1200 Maven RS1.2, followed closely by the SWFA 3-9 and 3-15 (if available, and are priced WELL below the $1k mark), then an SWFA fixed 6x or 10x, with the 10x being available right now for $350.

More dollars spent doesn’t equate to more durability or ruggedness or reliability. Glass quality doesn’t matter until the scope functions as an aiming device, especially since a scope’s one and only job is to steer bullet to target, and until it does that job perfectly, there’s no amount of glass quality that can make up for the fact that it’s not durable or wanders zero or won’t track correctly.

LOW makes optics for nightforce, and they also make the vortex Razor LHT. One is know to work day in and day out, and one is know for a great warranty program. Just because it’s made at LOW, doesn’t mean it’s all made to the same spec. Optics marketing companies spec a design to an OEM, and that OEM manufactures what the optics marketing company (because virtually no optics company makes their own stuff in house 100% of the time) dictates. If they spec a rugged, reliable, work-every-time optic, then that’s what LOW builds. If they spec an ultralight, high mag scope and don’t mention durability, then that’s what LOW builds.

To the OP, start here:

Rifle Scope Field Evaluations

rokslide.com

Spark notes version, you want a Maven RS1.2, Trijicon, Nightforce, SWFA 3-9/3-15/fixed 6x/fixed 10x. Those optics range from $350-$3500, pick whichever fits your budget. Then mount it in good rings (nightforce ultralight, ARC m-brace, Burris tactical, etc), torque everything TIGHT with loctite/nail polish/paint pen, and go shoot and live happily ever after.

Sorry I have not had a chance to conduct the same statistical analysis of scope recommendations that you have… I hope that if I did, your analysis would not prove to be “objectively false” but I’ll take your word for it. I think most would understand what I’m saying… I’m not against NF either I’ve owned a dozen of them at least. I’ve seen a few Maven optics and they’re fine, though I have no plans to purchase one.

I am not suggesting that all scopes made by LOW are equal in every way, there are always compromises made with the goals for a scope design and materials used. I was illustrating that there are scopes brands some may have never heard of that could infact be as good or better than scopes you have heard of… most scope manufacturers don’t design or manufacturer their own scopes, some design parts of the scope in-house and may even install certain parts themselves.

Ive worked in the industry in a few capacities over the years (even had to sign some NDA’s) and have had the opportunity to see large sample sizes of certain optics. All I can say is some companies seem to have won the marketing game… it appears to be at least as important as making a good product. Luckily for us most well known manufacturers seem to be trying to make decent products.

This forum is lucky to have someone like you to provide us with the objective facts. I can only offer opinions which are subjective. I’ll humbly take your corrections under advisement. I hope you’re on the Hide too… we need some help over there.