Scope Recommendation

[462]

Earlier this year, I bought a .223 Ruger American/ 3-9X40 Vortex Crossfire II combination. With my limited scope experience, I think it's an excellent scope of quality construction and materials. However, I feel that more magnification would be beneficial, even at 100-yards. Before I earnestly start looking and comparing prices and brands, I've a few questions.

Qualifiers:
The local range's maximum target distance is 200-yards.
I'm not a hunter, only a target shooter.
I like Vortex's bullet drop compensator feature.
Either a 3-12X40 or a 4-12X40 seems like it would fill my needs.
I have limited funds, so Leupold and its ilk are out.

Questions:
1. RCBS is under the Vista Outdoors umbrella, and their Veteran discount program also applies to Bushnell optics. How does Bushnell's quality compare to Vortex's?
2. How does Athlon's quality compare to Vortex?
3. Nikon is getting out of the rifle scope business. Any reason to not consider Nikon?
4. Is side focus/adjustable parallax necessary?

Given the above and a price to not exceed $175, what is(are) your recommendation(s)?

Thank you in advance.
Michael

 

[Joshua]

The Vortex warranty is much better than Bushnell’s.

 

[RicinYakima]

A 12X will not let me see .22 holes at 200 yards. You will need a spotting scope.

 

[462]

A 12X will not let me see .22 holes at 200 yards. You will need a spotting scope.

My spotting scope a 20-60X60.
I haven't shot any rifle at 200-yards, so don't know what size hole will be discernible, at that distance. Have never used splatter targets, but they may be 200-yard helpful.

 

[Glaciers]

I have a Vortex 3x12x42 Diamondback HP on my 30-06, fairly new to me only shoot it once, but it's a 1" tube and not overly heavy. Not as light a a Leupold but affordable, clear, with turrets, and side focus. I will be buying more Vortex scopes if the need arises.
In the Vortex lineup I believe it goes Crossfire II, then Diamondback, then Razorback. There's more but they are headed way out of my budget.

 

[Glaciers]

I just acquired a used CZ455 American 22LR and it need some glass. I rooted around in my cheap used scope box and found a ugly (not really that bad) Bushnell-Banner 4x12, and that's going on the CZ. Unlike Joshua I have had good luck with Bushnell-Banner scopes, but never needed their warranty services. I've also never had one fail that I can remember. I'm sure they do at that price point, but, I've had good luck. YMMV.

 

[fiver]

I'd look at Simmons in that 175-200 range too.
I have several Vortex scopes, but IMO the honeymoon with them is over and their quality is flat lining to their price point.

 

[Spindrift]

I have a couple of Nikon scopes, and I’m happy with them! I think both the optical and mechanical quality is very good, considering the price. Very clear optics with good contrast, turrets with distinct clicks and a nice «easy-reset» feature.

If you’re shooting 100-200 yards, with no more than 12x magnification, you don’t need parallax adjustment in my opinion.

 

[CWLONGSHOT]

I have never owned a Vortex. I would not hesitate, just havent yet.

I wanted a BDC reticule. I contacted Leupold about having one installed in an existing scope. But they are currently in a shutdown for some renovations. So like you not wanting to spend allot so close to Christmas I saw a add and ordered a New Bushnell Banner2 3-12. It was 88$ on sale!!

I have personally used Both (used most all actually) Bushnell and Leupold Warrantee services and have ZERO COMPLAINTS WITH ANY OF THEM! I will say Simmons and Bushnesll are more apt to send replacement then repair while Leupold and Trijicon will most likely repair.

But this Banner2 is a nice scope! Very Clear and adjustments where easy. Mine is on my Ruger American 350 Legend. I shoot subs and wanted the extra aiming points.

They offer a 3-9, 3-12 & 6-18 (IIRC)


IMHO where these "cheapo" scopes suffer its overall durability, light gathering & Weather resistance. For me this is a fun gun, (range use 75%) so never something needing or requiring best I can buy. Like personal protection or $$ spent on costly hunting trip. Spending less here ALLOWS me to spend more where its better utilized.
If I read correctly this probably describes your needs as well.
CW

 

[Petrol & Powder]

There is absolutely no free lunch when it comes to optics. You get what you pay for.

If you're target shooting, you don't need a reticle with thick stadia.
You do need a scope that holds a zero and has repeatable adjustments. That type of precision and quality doesn't come cheap.

I agree with RicinYakima that a Spotting Scope is probably a better first investment than a lot of magnification in the rifle scope. IN FACT, I will suggest buying a spotting scope Before you dump money into a new rifle scope.

As for a scope for target shooting, I think you want magnification around 14 power. Higher power results in smaller field of view (not a huge concern for target shooting) but it also results in more mass (harder on the rings & mounts during recoil - perhaps not a huge concern with a rifle in .223). You can go higher with power, some bench rest shooters do, but greater magnification doesn't make YOU a better shooter. Lots of fine resolution may make you feel as if you can precisely place the shot, but you just end up chasing the bullet holes around the target. You may be better off putting that money into better mechanics in the scope than just more glass.

You want high quality components so that settings are repeatable.
I don't think parallax will be a problem if your ranges are consistently in the 100-200 yards spread.
Mounts are important - Don't go cheap with rings and mounts.

Huge objectives were in vouge a few years ago but they are not needed AND they require taller (read that as weaker) mounts.
Target knobs are a nice feature for rifle scopes that don't see the woods.

When it comes to optics, there is NO way to reduce price without also reducing quality. That doesn't mean you have to have the very best possible scope to accomplish the job but it does mean that quality costs. Spend the money where you need to and only spend it once.
You don't have to spend $3500 to get a scope that is "good enough" but I've NEVER seen a $20 scope that was even worth mounting on a rifle.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Earlier this year, I bought a .223 Ruger American/ 3-9X40 Vortex Crossfire II combination. With my limited scope experience, I think it's an excellent scope of quality construction and materials. However, I feel that more magnification would be beneficial, even at 100-yards. Before I earnestly start looking and comparing prices and brands, I've a few questions.

Qualifiers:
The local range's maximum target distance is 200-yards.
I'm not a hunter, only a target shooter.
I like Vortex's bullet drop compensator feature.
Either a 3-12X40 or a 4-12X40 seems like it would fill my needs.
I have limited funds, so Leupold and its ilk are out.
......................

To specifically address some of the OP's comments.

You're already at 9 power with a 40mm objective, spending money to go to a 12 power but not spending the money to go to higher quality optics, is just spending money.

The statement, ".....However, I feel that more magnification would be beneficial,........" is an honest statement about your feelings but just because you "feel" more magnification would be beneficial doesn't mean that it WOULD be beneficial. It sounds like you have a little bit of money burning a hole in your pocket and you just want to spend it. Rather than dumping $175 in another scope (of the same quality you have or possibly even inferior to what you have) , how about putting that towards ammunition or components to practice with? Or saving it and adding those funds to more funds to actually step up in quality ? (which you may not even need to do)

I don't think spending money just to spend money is going to produce the results you are seeking.

 

[popper]

I have an older 3x9 bushy that was on my 30/30, moved the 4x16 Nikon to it. Bushy goes to the CVA BO whenever the rings get here - it still works well. My 22lr has another bushy 3x9 but I don't shoot 100. I have 4 other Nikons and they still work well on AR10s. I use the higher mag so I don't have to use the spotting scope and walking to the 100 target to check is painful. IIRC Ian did a test of the Athalon.

 

[462]

No, money is not burning a hole in my pocket.

At 100-yards, with the scope set at 9, a 5" bull is easy to see, but a 2" circle, square or diamond isn't. Thus, I "feel" higher magnification would be beneficial.
Maybe not.
Maybe higher magnification is not the answer, at all.
Maybe bigger bulls, circles, squares or diamonds is all that's needed.

I figured parallax would not be problematic, but asked anyway.

 

[fiver]

I dunno I see a 100 yd target quite a bit better with a 12 power scope than I do a 9 power scope.
that makes quite a bit of difference to me, it matters to me in the field too, that little extra bit of zoom help me settle in and make a better shot when I got a deer across a draw up under some pine trees.

with a lower power scope you couldn't even tell it was a buck sometimes, zoom it in a bit more and your waiting for it to clear the Does or make that half/quarter turn for the shot.

 

[Glaciers]

Most of my woods carry rifles have Leupold scopes, but the rifles that hange around the house or my range some have Leupold or lesser scopes on them. I have a mini 14 that came with a Tasco that shoots great, but, it will disappear soon to have a Leupold 3-9 that's in the drawer. Looking at new scopes about all you find, and there's so much to wade through, are scopes with big turrets. I'm fine with a old style screw cap with adjustments that just requires a quarter to adjust, if the need arises.

Anyway P&P's point about quality is right on. On my rifles that I would use to go into a tight spot after something with teeth and can openers on each paw, I either use open, or receiver sites, but for scopes I have a Luepold VX 1x6 which has a awesome field of view of 110' at 100 yards. My moose gun carries a Bushnell Elite 6500 in 2.5x16, both with 30mm tubes. All other rifles I have that I count on for any "need" within 100 yards, and that would be a long shot around the homestead, are open sighted weapons. I do have one with a red dot that I like.

I do use 2 Leupold 4-12 vari-X II's that are nice, light and small compared to others. No frills, just basics. That scope can be had for low $200 if you hunt around. I just can't afford Night Force or brands of that nature. They are beautiful scopes but, way out of my budget.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

9 power magnification makes objects appear 9 times closer than they are. So, looking at a 2" aiming point, 100 yards away through a 9 power scope, would be theoretical equivalent of looking at that same 2" target at 11.1 yards without assistance. Now, in the real world it doesn't quite work out that way. There are environmental factors (amount of light, haze, dust, mirage, etc.) AND the loss of light through the scope, the distortion created by the lens and about a half a dozen other factors.
Spending $175 or less to go from a 9 power scope to a cheap 12 power scope, isn't going to buy you a lot. Sure, you'll get more power but you will also get cheap glass, a mediocre erector tube (at best) and probably not the best assembly quality. The loss of light transmission alone will negate some of the gains from the higher magnification.

Truth be told - There just aren't that many people willing to really pay for good optics. And because most of the products are geared towards economy, there 's a LOT of marketing hype in the world of scopes.

The technology has improved and you can now buy affordable scopes that are better than the affordable glass from 40 years ago BUT there's still no free lunch. Good quality optics are EXPENSIVE.
Sales literature will proclaim their company has "cracked the code" and "discovered how to deliver affordable quality". The marketing people will tell potential buyers what they want to hear.

 

[CWLONGSHOT]

Actually same here John. I have more Leupold VX II 2x7x33. Its my favorite scope and power range on a hunting rifle for my style and ranges.
I never was a 3x9 fan boy. 4-12 was a "powerful" scope!!! My first was a Tasco 3-12 on a air gun! It was decades ago and that tasco was not in the same hemisphere as the VXII. But today that statement simply isnt true. Todays cheap scopes are EVERYBIT as good as those Leupolds made thirty years back. Everything has improved and scopes where not left behind. If that Leupold back in the 80's and 90's was what you thought of as top shelf. Dont look down your nose at the Bushnells Simmons and other Name Brand less expensive optics. Yea sure there is still junk that might not be as good as that 1980's Tasco 3-12 like Centerpoint or NC Star for example but we are speaking to those here at least I am not. Scopes in the under 200$ range are very likely to be as good as that Ol Leupold VX II. Scope lines like Nightforce command some crazy dollars. I have never owned one.

I actually switched from a Redfield 3-9 to that Bushnell 3-12 and its advantage was much appreciated a d surely "helped" my needs. Its a personal thing neither is wrong.


If your able look at them side by side you will see.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

I'll will say that a 2 x 7 power scope is probably far more useful in most hunting situations than a 3 x 9.
Somehow, the 3 x 9 became sort of the American "go-to" for basic scopes. While it isn't a horrible combination, it probably could stand to be shifted towards the lower end a bit. A 2 x 7 is a good compromise and 1.5 x 6 may be even better. The larger field of view and greater light transmission of the lower power scopes often prove to be more useful than the maximum magnification.

I could never justify the expense of a 1.75 x 6 Leupold and I settled for a 2 x 7 Nikon back when I was in that game. I never needed more than 7 power and frankly could have easily lived with less. A fixed 4 power scope may not be as mainstream as variable but it is a good tool. Fixed power scopes have become almost rare these days, that's a shame because simple and lightweight are good qualities.

Target shooting is a different ball game. I would never dream of dragging a big scope with target turrets and a sun shade through the brush but precision rifle is a different tool.
Looking through two scopes side by side in a gun store doesn't tell you much.
Look at a target through those same two scopes on a cloudy day in the evening and see which one transmits more light. See which one has the least distortion. Take note which one will hold a zero after repeated exposure to recoil. Which one will return to zero with the exact amount of "clicks" after adjusting for wind. Which reticle will remain firmly locked in place year after year.

You don't have to buy a $3500 German scope to get something "good enough" but you'll never get a $40 scope that is "good enough".

 

[Glaciers]

I have a couple of 1x4, and a couple of 2x7 Leupold's which I agree with both of you, they are my favorites for the rifles around the homestead. I also have never been a 3x9 fan, but, I have 5 or 6 of them and 3 of them are in the draw gathering dust. Just about all came to me on guns in trade or whatever. The plan is to get rid of some lesser scopes on certain rifles and use up the Leupold's up by replacing some $40 scopes. I do like that Leupold VX II 4x12 because it's basic no frills and light and small for its magnification.

 

[BBerguson]

For target shooting I love lots of magnification. I put a 5x20 Nitrex on my Kimber HS 22 rimfire and usually shoot 50 yards with it. Very satisfying to see a fly land on the target, zero in on it and then see the bug splatter around the hole. Actually though, I am making a change on this gun, moving the scope to the CZ 6.5 creedmore and getting a Bushnell Nitro 4-16 to replace it. My son just put a Nitro on his 338 and we were both very impressed with it. I use my Kimber to shoot 50 ft bullseye indoors in the winter and the Bushnell will focus down to 10 yards, the Nitrex is 25 yards so I was always looking at a blurred target with it. 16x should still be enough for the 22. Midway has them on sale for $224 (I think). It’s a 30mm tube so I’ll need new rings but think it will be worth it.

Only scope I’ve ever had to send in for repair was a Leupold. They fixed it free of charge like their warranty says they will.