The perfect hunting scope.

[jhm2023]

For my style of hunting, the Leupold VX-5HD 3-15, windplex reticle, capped windage, locking / zero stop elevation turret, with aluma scope caps would be the near perfect hunting scope if the held zero and tracked reliably and kept the same or similar weight. Until Leupold gets their crap together, I'm liking the credo hx scopes good enough.

 

[Shortschaf]

with unlimited funds, Im sure this I'd be perfectly happy with this

Schmidt Bender 3-12x54 Polar T96 FFP P4FL ASV II // BDC II / Posicon 1 cm/100 m cw Black Riflescope 756-911-972-E4-03

Schmidt Bender 3-12x54 Polar T96 1.BE P4FL 1cm cw ASV H // BDC H Riflescope 756-911-972-E4-03 For Sale

www.eurooptic.com

As it is... I know everyone gripes about 20+oz being heavy, but until they start making scope tubes out of titanium
features and durability = ounces

FFP reticles and glass coatings will get better over time though which will make our current products more enticing

Another thought: 7075 aluminum scope tubes. I think everyone uses 6061. That might come around and drop an ounce or two

 

[Weldor]

Titanium is great but I am sure it would add quite abit to the price. I believe we over think scope needs for a hunting rifle. JMHO. Also prices these days are way up for what we are getting again JMHO.

 

[Shortschaf]

Titanium is great but I am sure it would add quite abit to the price. I believe we over think scope needs for a hunting rifle. JMHO. Also prices these days are way up for what we are getting again JMHO.

Absolutely. Switching to 7075 is a far more feasible. And even then.. mfgs are sticking with 6061 because of cost.

With wildly diminishing returns after $1000, adding another $100-200 to the price tag just doesn't pencil out yet. If enough consumers demanded what Rokslide demands, then it will come around

Its possible there are operations in scope mfging that totally make 7075 not viable either

 

[redchinviking]

The credo has checked most of the boxes for me as well, minus the no ffp and no locking turret but a good zero stop is close enough. The 4-16 Atacr is all but perfect minus weight. It’s on my closer to the truck gun. In a 30mm tube it would be a knockout. Or an nx4/5 with a few more bells and whistles. I thought the vortex lht and mark 5 would be perfect because they checked all the boxes but both failed zero retention on long backpacking hunts multiple times. Very curious to see how the mark 4 holds up to the tests. I understand different styles of hunting require different scope preferences but I can’t help but wonder where those preferences generally lie within this demographic (big game hunters).

 

[SDHNTR]

with unlimited funds, Im sure this I'd be perfectly happy with this

Schmidt Bender 3-12x54 Polar T96 FFP P4FL ASV II // BDC II / Posicon 1 cm/100 m cw Black Riflescope 756-911-972-E4-03

Schmidt Bender 3-12x54 Polar T96 1.BE P4FL 1cm cw ASV H // BDC H Riflescope 756-911-972-E4-03 For Sale

www.eurooptic.com

As it is... I know everyone gripes about 20+oz being heavy, but until they start making scope tubes out of titanium
features and durability = ounces

FFP reticles and glass coatings will get better over time though which will make our current products more enticing

Another thought: 7075 aluminum scope tubes. I think everyone uses 6061. That might come around and drop an ounce or two

People buy $4000 ZCO and Tangent Theta’s.

I don’t think cost is that limiting. If titanium made a scope tougher at lighter weight, good marketing would sell it.

 

[TaperPin]

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.

The current trend of magnification turning to get on target on low power and cranking it up for the shot seems more than a little problematic for anything under 500 to 600 yards, not only for introducing an extra error prone step, but for the time penalty. I get the biggest kick out of guys who say they only do it sometime - when things get stressful we all revert back to how we train. By the time my nephew lasers a shot, dinks with his phone, dinks with the tripod, dinks with a rear bag that’s not tall enough, cranks on the parallax knob, dials windage, screws up and redials windage, adds elevation for an easy 350 yard shot, then gets on target and starts to dial magnification, the dang deer has aged enough to grow an entire new set of larger antlers.

For out to 600 on a deer or antelope sized target I still think a simple 6x fixed scope with a simple elevation knob marked in 100 yard increments is all most people need. If the animal is 537 yards, the error in quickly estimating 1/3 between the 500 yard line and 600 yard line will not be the reason someone misses.

I’ve moved up to a fixed 8x this year, but it doesn’t seem to be a benefit over 6x since I can’t tell a difference in long range hits on big game size targets. More trigger time will tell. Either scope is only about 10 ounces.

 

[SPAZ]

Obviously depends on how one prefers to hunt. Dialers are going to have a different preference than holdover folks. The durability vs weight is always a tradeoff. So nope, no perfect scope out there.

If Nightforce had a better MIL reticle on the 2.5-10, that might be perfect for me.

 

[WKR]

The RS 1.2 is close, but is a few oz heavier and 2-3” longer than I’d like. As it is I’ll deal with that. The Steiner, when it comes out with the MIL reticle, will get a hard look from me. BUT - I’ve heard the MIL reticle will be awful. Just another competition reticle stuck into a hunting scope.

If steiner would have put a good mil reticle in that scope it would be nearly perfect. Instead they but the dumbest reticle choice and I dont understand why.

 

[rtrevith]

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.

The current trend of magnification turning to get on target on low power and cranking it up for the shot seems more than a little problematic for anything under 500 to 600 yards, not only for introducing an extra error prone step, but for the time penalty. I get the biggest kick out of guys who say they only do it sometime - when things get stressful we all revert back to how we train. By the time my nephew lasers a shot, dinks with his phone, dinks with the tripod, dinks with a rear bag that’s not tall enough, cranks on the parallax knob, dials windage, screws up and redials windage, adds elevation for an easy 350 yard shot, then gets on target and starts to dial magnification, the dang deer has aged enough to grow an entire new set of larger antlers.

For out to 600 on a deer or antelope sized target I still think a simple 6x fixed scope with a simple elevation knob marked in 100 yard increments is all most people need. If the animal is 537 yards, the error in quickly estimating 1/3 between the 500 yard line and 600 yard line will not be the reason someone misses.

I’ve moved up to a fixed 8x this year, but it doesn’t seem to be a benefit over 6x since I can’t tell a difference in long range hits on big game size targets. More trigger time will tell. Either scope is only about 10 ounces.

What fixed 8x scope did you go to?

 

[TaperPin]

What fixed 8x scope did you go to?

Partly because I like them, and partly to show the kids some old school vintage kicking their butts, I have a variety of Leupold fixed scopes in their own rings that I can easily swap depending on what kind of shooting we’re doing. 4x for timber, 6x for most big things, 8x for open country big game, 12x for coyotes and antelope, and 20x for little varmints. To fit in, I still have a variable Nightforce of some flavor on my wish list to Santa Claus, probably a higher magnification of some kind for steel plates and varmints.

An ordinary 8x Leupold out of the 1990’s(?) fell into my lap - it looks just like a 6x but a fraction of an inch longer. There’s an aftermarket dial for Leupold scopes that just replaces the adjustment cap.

I really like the Schmitt and Bender 8x56, or even a Meopta, but production of a lot of European optics seems to have switched gears to supply the war effort over there - used they are selling for new prices.

 

[Justin Crossley]

The Maven rs1.2 is a great scope imo. That and the 4-32 NX8 pretty much cover everything I need in a scope.

I'm currently using only Nightforce scopes. But, I would 100% buy the Maven rs1.2 for a hunting gun after using one when I set up a rifle for a friend.

 

[Kramerica3]

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.

 

[Kramerica3]

Also imo locking windage is nice because I hold windage. Locking elevation I could take or leave. Elevation check should be part of the pre shot routine, and I’ve never had an elevation turret spin on me by accident, it’s not a big deal either way to me.
It has to be FFP for me but 90% of the reticle selections suck on low power… apparently it takes an act of congress for a manufacturer to listen to the end user and design a half way decent reticle. It ain’t brain surgery, but apparently it is…

 

[JGRaider]

People buy $4000 ZCO and Tangent Theta’s.

I don’t think cost is that limiting. If titanium made a scope tougher at lighter weight, good marketing would sell it.

The day I need a $3-$4k scope to kill something is the day I quit hunting.

 

[Macintosh]

Already can see why no one offers perfect…cuz half the stuff people are wishing for is stuff that is a deal-breaker for me.
My perfect is for a northeastern woods rifle that can do double duty hunting in open country. Its something of a mashup between the NF NXS 2.5-10, my S&B 3-12, and features from a few other scopes thrown in…so Im dead-certain its possible, its just a combination that apparently isnt a priority for any scope company:

• Holds zero under abusive handling, routine slips on wet leaves under wet snow on 45-degree slopes, dragged thru brush, etc
• 2x low mag, up to 10x. I want an exceptionally wide fov walking around, but want just enough magnification that my aging eyes can zoom in to pick a hole through twigs in the woods, and I can practice at longer range than I hunt.
• low light performance for “29 minutes past sunset, in the thickest part of a dark-ass cedar swamp on the north side of a mountain”, which is where most of its use ends up being located.
• BOLD reticle. It has to be positively eye-grabbing under the above low-light conditions AT LOWEST MAGNIFICATION. Center-only illumination helps but isnt a substitute for a bold reticle. A daylight-bright “shake-awake” or always-on type like an accupoint could be ok.
• Fixed parallax—nothing to shift unexpectedly, and at 500 and in the amount of realistic parallax error is a non-issue.
• low profile capped windage—any wind holds are rare, and are always done using the reticle.
• Simple reticle with holds for wind and elevation. NO TREE. A mil-dot or half-mil-dot mil-based reticle with a .1mil thick fine center section, and a .8 or 1.0mil thick outer line (it could taper toward center), with the center section taking up 4 mils to each side from center. This would be like a S&B P3 or P4, but thicker, and with a slightly smaller center section.
• FFP
• Mil adjustments
• Low-profile elevation dial is exposed and locking, with zero stop. 10 mils of total useable travel is plenty and would allow practicing to 1000yds with most centerfire cartridges. Ccw elevation adjustment.
• 30mm tube, 40-44mm objective, mounting length so it’ll go on most rifles without odd bell or bolt-handle interferences.
• Zoom ring goes from low to max zoom in 180-degrees of rotation or less.
• longish eye relief and exceptionally forgiving eye box.
• Excellent depth of field, should be visually crisp from bayonet range to infinity.
• Glass quality on par with vx-3 or similar with regard to edge to edge clarity, color, glare, etc.
• 20oz weight.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

The day I need a $3-$4k scope to kill something is the day I quit hunting.

Exactly. What a waste of good hunting capital.

 

[WKR]

The new leupold mark 4 10x sucks without side focus/parallax. Totally makes it a non option for me.

 

[Jbuck]

IMO the FFP argument is lost when the top end is only around 10x, and maybe upto 12x. If I'm needing a true reticle for holds I'll already be at 10x.

Now when you start getting higher power then it's more important. The highest magnification I've shot at game with my NX8 2.5-20 was around 9x. Using enough magnification to shoot, but keeping a max FOV.

 

[Macintosh]

Certainly theres less down-side to 2fp in a lower-power scope. Cant agree that the argument is moot though, I definitely use the reticle to spot shots at less than 10x. I COULD do it at 9or 10x usually, but assuming a good reticle I dont see any down-side to ffp. The problem is not that sfp has advantages, I dont think it does except by correlation—the problem is that a good ffp hunting reticle is uncommon.