The perfect hunting scope.

[Erebor]

SWFA, Leupold, and the Zeiss for me. I'm not really a fan of large scopes with big objectives for hunting. Exception might be for mountain goat or sheep hunting but even then a smaller one at 10x magnification or less can get it done. I like his simpler is better attitude for hunting scopes.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

Wieght wise credo or sfwa but you lose the upper magnification.
Otherwise maven 1.2 checks most of the other boxes.


Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

But at 26.4 oz, you arent that far off from a nightforce NX8 and no better than the tenmile 3-18. If Maven would have come in at 20 oz, it would be the scope to beat. At its current weight, its nothing special.

 

[Sundodger]

Its the nature of all things though, not just scopes. They perform best in the middle of their capability, not at the extreme ends

There are 4-20x and 3-18x scopes that exist that have great eye boxes at 14ish to 16x. If they just put a travel limiter on the mag ring I think many hunters would be quite happy.

I think one of the issues is that terrible eye boxes are workable at the range, it's actually in the field shooting something where it's a problem, and most hunters don't kill a lot of animals, so it's a bit of a marketing situation...

 

[Beetroot]

There are 4-20x and 3-18x scopes that exist that have great eye boxes at 14ish to 16x. If they just put a travel limiter on the mag ring I think many hunters would be quite happy.

I think one of the issues is that terrible eye boxes are workable at the range, it's actually in the field shooting something where it's a problem, and most hunters don't kill a lot of animals, so it's a bit of a marketing situation...

What scopes have terrible eye boxes these day? The last scope I had that was bad was a Vortex HST but I sold that years ago.

I haven't seen a scope that had a truly bad eyebox in a quite a while.

 

[Shortschaf]

What scopes have terrible eye boxes these day? The last scope I had that was bad was a Vortex HST but I sold that years ago.

I haven't seen a scope that had a truly bad eyebox in a quite a while.

I agree with this^

 

[Sundodger]

What scopes have terrible eye boxes these day? The last scope I had that was bad was a Vortex HST but I sold that years ago.

I haven't seen a scope that had a truly bad eyebox in a quite a while.

Last year I had a scope fail on me mid hunting season, so I went to a handful of gun shops to look at every 3-15x and 4-16x scope I could find. Most had awful eye boxes at full magnification, including some not so cheap ones like Leopold VX5 3-15x. I can’t remember everyone I looked though, but ended up buying a vortex viper 4-16x HS. Not my favorite scope but had a workable eye box (best I could find).

 

[Marbles]

I buy into the 3-18's and 4-16's because then I have an actually comfortable 10x to use

I use 5-6x the most, so that argument carries no weight for me and actually argues against a high magnification as that would put me using the extreme low end rather than the middle.

 

[AZ_Hunter]

You're the only person I've ever seen on a public forum admit they bought a Leica riflescope.

What’s wrong with Leica?

 

[Yaremkiv]

I really like the Leupold VX6HD

 

[Kurts86]

With all the interest in carbon fiber I’ve wondered why no scopes have come out with carbon fiber tubes. They do chip more easily, so maybe it’s a cosmetic thing, or maybe the force of over tightened rings just cracks the tube too often and the customer service phone would ring too much.

It’s largely because while carbon fiber is really strong in tension it sucks in compression. It doesn’t clamp well and the additional layers required to make it work are negligible weight savings to 6000/7000 series aluminum. The material properties of aluminum are nearly identical in tension and compression, also called Isotropic in material science.

This has long been a problem with carbon fiber bike seat posts clamping both from slipping and cracked parts in nearly indentical sized 25-35mm tubing. It’s such a problem they sell carbon fiber seat post grip paste and plenty of manufacturers ship torque wrenches with the frames/post to prevent cracking.

 

[Shortschaf]

I use 5-6x the most, so that argument carries no weight for me and actually argues against a high magnification as that would put me using the extreme low end rather than the middle.

It's not an argument lol
Not everyone likes 5-6x

 

[RockAndSage]

I really like the Leupold VX6HD

I used to feel this way, entirely...until I saw the Leupold drop tests.

 

[JGRaider]

I really like the Leupold VX6HD

I used to feel this way, entirely...until I saw the Leupold drop tests.

After 11 years and over 100 big game animal kills, I still like mine.

 

[KenLee]

After 11 years and over 100 big game animal kills, I still like mine.View attachment 744076

Didn't the vx6hd come out in 2017?
I remember years by what rifle I bought, and remember looking at the new model summer of 17.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

After 11 years and over 100 big game animal kills, I still like mine.View attachment 744076

This must be a photo from when it was still brand new? Very clean!

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Didn't the vx6hd come out in 2017?
I remember years by what rifle I bought, and remember looking at the new model summer of 17.

I have some photos of a couple VX6’s on rifles going back to 2013 I believe it was.

 

[Yukon Cornelius]

There isn’t a perfect one yet. Closest was Bushnell LRHS 3-12 G2H.
Here how it could be perfect: add illumination to just the donut and inside the donut, add .3mil windage hash marks on the horizontal instead of .5, increacese fov, change magnification to 2.5-12, keep weight under 27oz, add the zero set system the forges have, offer a tree reticle version.
The new mavens rs2.1 are nice and they are usable but come on add a donut in it, they missed the mark there big time.

So basically fix almost everything about it?

 

[KenLee]

I have some photos of a couple VX6’s on rifles going back to 2013 I believe it was.

I THINK it was 17 for the HD though

 

[Lowedown]

I'm in a similar Boat as the OP. Some scopes come close but nothing checks all the boxes for me, even if "affordable" wasn't one of the boxes!
Aside from price point, durability, tracking, and glass quality, reticle/turret pairing and design have been a large disappointment for me. Again, some are close but for Big game hunting at varying ranges I would like to see a scope with:
Quality externally adjustable elevation turret with solid zero stop and multiple revolutions available
Capped Windage Turret
a FFP duplex type reticle with 3 distinctly different marks for holdover below the center, and 1 or 2 moa hashes on the horizontal axis in alternating height. The Leupold B&C reticle or the Vortex Dead Hold BDC come close but need improvement, as well as becoming FFP.

reasoning: I want a quick reticle I don't have to count things in or worry what power I'm on for shots under 400 yards, with the ability to dial for elevation and hold for wind at longer ranges. I also want to be able to hand it to another hunter and be able to tell them which mark they should use in a quick situation without asking them to count marks or something. The Redfield accu-plex reticle worked well for this with my wife's rifle. As I ranged animals I could simply say, Center, Bottom of Circle, Dot, Top of Post.

 

[Sundodger]

Disagree. I use holds on 3-6 x on my SWFA 3-9 and have shot at over 1000 yards without cranking it up all the way.

IMO, any argument for more than 10x is lost when it comes to field shooting. Holds remain useful at all magnifications though.

I also think a fixed 4x is a great hunting scope for all realistic ranges (out to 600ish yards). High magnification is nice punching paper though.

I use 5-6x the most, so that argument carries no weight for me and actually argues against a high magnification as that would put me using the extreme low end rather than the middle.

I think a couple points that don't get delineated enough by people.
-Correct, you don't need that much magnification to shoot animals out to pretty far hunting distances
-Some people like a bit more magnification than others overall
-But like you said, there is an advantage when punching paper to having a large amount of magnification.

I argue having something even 20+x on the top end will help you sort out your groups and drops (even at those hunting ranges) much faster with less ammo. Those competitive bench rest guys don't have Hubble telescopes on their rifles for fun. For this reason I have seriously considered having a single giant scope I move between guns to dial in loads and drops.

I tend to settle on the 3-15x as my preferred choice, I like the 3x for hunting the thick rainforest, 15x is quite helpful to dialing in things quicker, and I do prefer a bit more mag than most (and what's needed) when shooting critters outside the rainforest.