Scope Recommendation: Remington 700
 

Picked up a Remington 700 classic today in 8x57 Mauser. It doesn't have iron sights so will have to put a scope on it. I have heard great things about Leupold.

Anyone have a favorite? SmileWavy

It kind of depends on what you want to do with that rifle...great rifle, BTW. Generally speaking, yes, Leupold is one of the best. Lots of choices there too.

I have a Bushnell on my 700. Can't remember the resolution, though. 39 x something? It's decent, but I don't do anything serious with it.

I got a good price on the rifle so am more willing to splurge on the optics. I think I will go 2nd hand Leupold. The depreciation on those things are almost worst then Porsche's!

My father and I have killed many deer with a Burris. Not the most expensive scope, but mine has lasted in very adverse conditions. Excellent light gathering for the price.

you dont say what you want this for elk/deer/antelopezzez/upitty priare dawgs/or trench warfare.


a good rule of thumb on ANY rifle is 2x -4x the cost of the rifle for optics.


yeah flame me. but if ya spend bucks on yer dream rifle, plan on spending more for optics to achieve that dream with yer "wunder round" whatever it may be.


but from experience you cannot go wrong with bushnells on the low-medium end, you cant go wrong with leupold on medium end to high end.

obviously swarovski and zeiss and doktor are very spendy but the moment ya put yer eye thru them you will notice the difference.


i love my leupolds. insane good customer service, great quality and scads of reticles to choose from mil dots/ european reticles blah blah.

the bigger the far end ocular the higher you will have to mt scope off of barrel which is bad. the lower you can mount the better. example 40mm ocular will be lower than say 56mm ocular which will be higher off of barrel.


the lower the scope to the barrel THE BETTER!

simple would be pick scope/than pick rings from leupold and then pick mounts from leupold.com

Depends on what you want to do with it. 3X9 would be my pick

I have been a Leupold Fan, I have a few
VX-2 3-9x40mm CDS · Leupold


The Nikon's are a great value it's my choice during the econ down turn. I have a couple and have been very impressed, I May have been over spending for glass.

I really like the value with these.

VX-2 3-9x40mm CDS · Leupold

Ether is a safe pick.

I went with Nikon. Amazon.com: Nikon ProStaff 3-9 x 40 Black Matte Riflescope (BDC): Sports & Outdoors

Did a bunch of reading on scopes and decided it would be best for now. I don't plan on make this an ultra gun so don't need a super expensive gun. Just wanted a good shooter.

Thanks guys for the help.

All my scopes come from the (my) pawn shop.
Not like I get Leupolds every day, and have yet to see a Swarovski.
And not to imply I am a good enough shooter to require such quality optics.
But from what I've seen the Nikons look like a pretty good balance of price/quality. They are not made in Japan but in the Philippines, if that matters.
Jim

But the bigger ocular will have better clarity then another scope with smaller ocular if they do the same magnification..

eg
4 x 20 will be darker then 4x50
It's about finding the balance between clarity, tubeheight(and resulting parallax) and required magnification..

Simply saying that a lower tube is better then a higher tube is just silly
Why else would anybody make 56mm scopes if that were true.

Big scopes have there purpose, and for those that need em, they will no just consider those scopes "Bad" but they just require more input from whoever is using it to compensate for the increased parallax at shorter ranges..

So if 4x magnification is all you need, one is prolly better off with a smaller ocular
if 20x magnification is needed, then you'll have no choice then to go big. but i will be more difficult at shorter range.

"Simply saying that a lower tube is better then a higher tube is just silly"

sv, I thought it was a given that it is advantageous to have the sights as close to the axis of the bore as possible.


"Why else would anybody make 56mm scopes if that were true."

I can think of a few reasons as to why they are making all these big scopes, most involve marketing.

Jim

well i agree that most folks with a huge scope don't need one , let alone have what it takes to use it.

But optically, there is an advantage to a big lens , it brings in more light
that's not marketing.

And for huge magnifications, you need more light because you lose more light as the image passes through more lenses and mirrors to achieve the magnification.

If you start off with 30mm, you'll have a hard time getting it to magnify up to 20 power and still have enough light left at the eye to use that scope on anything but a bright and sunny day.

If you start off with 50mm, you'll have 66% more light for the same magnification.
That's not marketing, that's the way optics work.


So to say "lower tube is best" without even checking what the application is for the scope, is just downright incomplete advice, to say the least.

It was asked what he wants to do with it, it was never answered
Purpos, unknown
distance he wants to shoot it with , unknown.

If it's for 100 yards target shooting, he could easy do with an even smaller scope then that Nikon.. I agree

But if he wants to hunt, then the 3-9x40 is a better choice then a 4x24 scope, that would indeed sit lower then the 3-9x40 with the bigger lens does..4x24 is not "best" if you need bigger magnification.

Ah yes, the "German ought-six". Nifty caliber in a nifty rifle. Really kind of a handloader's caliber, though, if you want the most out of and don't want to spend more than necessary on sometimes hard to find ammo.

Your Nikon 3-9x is a great choice. I'm assuming this is meant for hunting, given the choice of rifle and caliber. That magnification range will serve well in the broadest range of field conditions, and the Nikon has a good reputation. Ya done good...

Just a couple of points in response to some of the discussion above. First, I think most guys over-scope their hunting rifles. 3-9x is absolutely as high as I would ever consider, and that only if I was planning on hunting rock chucks, or maybe prairie goats with it. 9x is unnecessary for most big game at any reasonable range, and even 3x is marginally too much in the woods. Lots of guys make the mistake of thinking seeing better equates to shooting better. Lots of guys mostly carry their rifles from the trunk of the car to the shooting bench. Lots of guys only shoot at stationary targets from well supported (bench rest) positions at known ranges with no time contraints. Hunting ain't like that. That rifle/scope combination that worked so great at the range soon becomes a burden to carry in the field, and that too-high magnification won't allow you to follow that six point bull walking through the dark timber. Way too much of this stuff gets vetted at the range these days instead of in the field. The requirements are vastly different.

The only way in which low mounted scopes are "better" has to do with stock design, not any sort of ballistic advantage. As a matter of fact, mounting a scope higher above the bore will "trick" the combintaion into having a "flatter" trajectory. So, no, it's really all about cheek weld on the comb. Funny, even in this day and age of rifles sold with no sights (and, in my opinion, there is no excuse for that on anything other than a pure varmint rifle), they are still being stocked for open sights. Sometimes even with the lowest scope, one must lift his cheek too far up on the comb to really hold the rifle properly.

And, finally, this whole occular lense debate. We have been sold on the notion that "bigger is better" because of superior light transmission. While true to an extent, we have, to a degree, seen marketing take over. The real issue is the "exit pupil" diameter provided by the scope. Once it exceeds the "input capability" of the human eye, the rest is wasted. Many, many scopes on the market today do just that.

Between that and some misidentified need for more magnification, way too many guys have burdened themselves with way too much scope to be useful in the field. Then again, I suppose many of these rifles (and their owners) never really venture into the field per se, or when they do, it's aboard a quad (at best) or in the cab of a truck. You can tell the hunters who actually get out and do it on their own hind legs by the fact that their scopes are smaller, lower powered, and lighter, their rifles are smaller and lighter, there are no silly bipods hanging off the forearm.

Oh well... Done editorializing. Nice rifle, cool caliber, good choice in a scope.

Jeff,

I have a CZMauser 98 sporter that I shoot mil surplus through. It's a fun gun, but I wanted everything to be a little more modern and polished with this rifle.

Bought 2 boxes of various ammo from a local guy to see which is the most accurate. The non-corrosive stuff isn't cheap but it wasn't all that bad either. $15.00-20.00 for a box of twenty. I went with 198gr Prvi Partizan FMJ and 196 gr Sellier & Bellot.

Please. I beg of you. All of you. Please do not trade with these guys. I bought my high end Nikon (crap optically) from these guys and they were no end of trouble. A very bad experiance. I still have the trail of emails. and it took 3 months to recieve the scope.

i went with the buckmaster w/BDC for my .308. at about $300, it is a good value and good for 600 yards. it tops out at 16X. the optics are nice and clear and the scope functions as advertized. if i were to do it again, i'd get a little bit more magnification, as the rifle is good for 1/2 minute. perhaps when i get that AR, i'll put the current scope on the AR and get a better one for the .308.

Wait I am confused. Who pissed you off? The particular Amazon seller?