Good scope for a .22 / .17 HMR target rifle ... looking for advice / info ...

[CrimDoc]

Now ... I don't know which body you shot your images with ... you only mentioned the body and lens on one occasion ... but some of your bodies ALONE cost twice as much as my body AND lens combination.

So ... if a "newb" photographer were asking me: "Which camera body and lens combo should I use if I want to do some critter photography" I probably wouldn't jump straight to advising him to buy one of the 1D series + an F4.0 or faster L series prime. Yes, a full frame frame sensor with a high quality prime will yield better IQ than an APS-c sensor with a mid-grade telephoto zoom ... but will the difference be noticeable in the hands of a typical shooter?

And if so ... I would expect the "newb" would ask me "please explain WHY I need to buy a body that pushes $10Gs and a lens that's about $5Gs to get good shots. Or at least ... this newb would (if he didn't know anything about photography).

And I repeat ... I'm really not trying to be difficult ... I'm just the kind of guy who learns a lot from these kinds of discussions, where one questions assumptions and beliefs.

[JohnJak]

I use a 3x9 and do not have any problems. $29.95-$30.00 is all you need. You can always graduate to a more expensive scope if needed.

[Jmoney]

If you really want to know the difference between a $50 barska and a $300 leupold, it is workmanship. As far as it has been explained to me glass cutting and polishing technoligy is pretty much the same no matter where it is cut/ground i.e. country,it is more a matter of how stringent of specs the manufacturer holds to. Also things such as quality of optics coatings and and seals will be greatly dependent upon the same criteria. The quality and strength of the tube itself is also a big variable, I have personally seen a small bump bend a barska scope tube where a similar drop would have been shrugged of by a higher quality scope. I personally would recommend the Redfield Revolution scopes have one and absolutely love it.

[Garbo]

Ok I attempte to clean this up a bit. Please stay on topic

[CrimDoc]

Cool ... thanks ... that's the kind of thing I'm trying to learn.

I don't plan to hunt with this scope. I don't plan to shoot it at dusk. I don't plan to expose it to harsh environmental conditions.

So quality of optics, and the sight picture they generate matter to me. Whether the scope will have a tendency to "drift" after it has been sighted in matter to me.

Build quality ... not so much ... unless it is so bad that it will interfere with the the things I mentioned in the previous sentence.

So if the difference between a Leupold and ... say a Redfield or a Bushnell is in the optics. I'll probably be inclined to spend the extra money on a Leupold. But if the primary difference is in "robustness in the field" (for lack of a better term) ... then not so much.

If you really want to know the difference between a $50 barska and a $300 leupold, it is workmanship. As far as it has been explained to me glass cutting and polishing technoligy is pretty much the same no matter where it is cut/ground i.e. country,it is more a matter of how stringent of specs the manufacturer holds to. Also things such as quality of optics coatings and and seals will be greatly dependent upon the same criteria. The quality and strength of the tube itself is also a big variable, I have personally seen a small bump bend a barska scope tube where a similar drop would have been shrugged of by a higher quality scope. I personally would recommend the Redfield Revolution scopes have one and absolutely love it.

[Jmoney]

Cool ... thanks ... that's the kind of thing I'm trying to learn.

I don't plan to hunt with this scope. I don't plan to shoot it at dusk. I don't plan to expose it to harsh environmental conditions.

So quality of optics, and the sight picture they generate matter to me. Whether the scope will have a tendency to "drift" after it has been sighted in matter to me.

Build quality ... not so much ... unless it is so bad that it will interfere with the the things I mentioned in the previous sentence.

So if the difference between a Leupold and ... say a Redfield or a Bushnell is in the optics. I'll probably be inclined to spend the extra money on a Leupold. But if the primary difference is in "robustness in the field" (for lack of a better term) ... then not so much.

Well Redfield is made by Leupold which is partly why I recommend it. You get Leupold warranty and quality at a lower price point. The difference is the fit and finish. But make no mistake about the lens quality with cheap scopes, manufacturers have the ability to make good glass but that costs money so most do not. I will give you a couple of cliche' analogies you bought a very nice rifle so why go cheap on the glass kinda like buying a nice Lincoln and putting the cheapest possible tires on it. Also buy once cry once, if you buy a good quality optic it will last you years many many years. It has also been my experience with cheap scopes that they tend to lose their zero very easily.

[CrimDoc]

So would you happen to know if Redfield scopes use the same OPTICS as "real" Leupolds? And just the cases are different? If so ... Redfield might indeed be the best choice for me.

I appreciate the wisdom of that cliche analogy ... at the risk of derailing the thread again, I often tell folks the same thing when they ask me about putting a $5 UV filter they got used on E-Bay in front of a $500 lens and $1000 camera body!

But I also tell folks, if they DON'T need weather seals, an all metal body, lightning fast multi-zone auto-focus, and a whole host of other "bells and whistles" they can now get essentially the SAME sensor in the Canon Rebel line, the enthusiast line (the 60D) and the semi-pro line (7D) camera.

What I'm trying to figure out is whether the same basic analogy holds for scopes.

So ... to use another analogy ... I don't plan on putting a "bargain basement Walmart tire" on my Lincoln ... but I'm wondering if I might be able to put an HR rated tire on it, rather than a ZR rated tire ... since I really don't plan on driving it faster than 130mph!

Well Redfield is made by Leupold which is partly why I recommend it. You get Leupold warranty and quality at a lower price point. The difference is the fit and finish. But make no mistake about the lens quality with cheap scopes, manufacturers have the ability to make good glass but that costs money so most do not. I will give you a couple of cliche' analogies you bought a very nice rifle so why go cheap on the glass kinda like buying a nice Lincoln and putting the cheapest possible tires on it. Also buy once cry once, if you buy a good quality optic it will last you years many many years. It has also been my experience with cheap scopes that they tend to lose their zero very easily.

[Jmoney]

So would you happen to know if Redfield scopes use the same OPTICS as "real" Leupolds? And just the cases are different? If so ... Redfield might indeed be the best choice for me.

I appreciate the wisdom of that cliche analogy ... at the risk of derailing the thread again, I often tell folks the same thing when they ask me about putting a $5 UV filter they got used on E-Bay in front of a $500 lens and $1000 camera body!

But I also tell folks, if they DON'T need weather seals, an all metal body, lightning fast multi-zone auto-focus, and a whole host of other "bells and whistles" they can now get essentially the SAME sensor in the Canon Rebel line, the enthusiast line (the 60D) and the semi-pro line (7D) camera.

What I'm trying to figure out is whether the same basic analogy holds for scopes.

So ... to use another analogy ... I don't plan on putting a "bargain basement Walmart tire" on my Lincoln ... but I'm wondering if I might be able to put an HR rated tire on it, rather than a ZR rated tire ... since I really don't plan on driving it faster than 130mph!

I believe that they use the same lenses I know that I have put it side by side with my brothers VXII that same specs i.e. 3x9x50 and the view through the glass is identical. The most notable difference is the fit and finish his "looks" nice and the zoom is smoother. Also his turrets are nicer as well.

I think that down the road you wont regret spending a little more to get a better scope, I would also recommend you take a look a Burris scopes as well. Optics can be a slippery slope in that you can always spend "a few dollars more" and get something a little nicer.

But in all of my experiences with scopes I have a pile of old junk tasco's,bushnells,barskas,no name junk, etc. that I wish I hadn't wasted my money on but I have never done so with my nicer scopes. Also I would like to point out that buying used is not a bad way to go either. I have a few very old Weaver scopes that I bought for almost nothing and they are AWESOME! very easy to zero and hold it like no other.

[no im not squinting]

Try the Mueller APV. Lots of guys on the rimfire forums swear by them. I just got one and I am pretty impressed with it. Its a bit big and yes its made in China but they are from a Michigan Company. I think they are in Johannesburg MI. I chose this over the Nikon Prostaff 3-9X because the BDC was a little silly for my needs on a 10/22, now If I had a 17HMR then I would have gotten that one (and its made in the Philippines-like me). It cost me ony $117 shipped from Optics Planet after my 10% off code.

[EricF517]

OK folks ... so I don't mean to be a ***** ... but so far I've heard a lot of "Buy Leupold ... they're awesome!" and not that I'm doubting you ... but no one has yet really explained WHY.

I'm a "why" kinda guy ... I'm not just going to buy a Rolex cuz it's a Rolex or a Jaguar because it's a Jaguar ... in fact, I worked on Jaguar engine development in a previous career ... they didn't impress me much, leaked oil all over the place because of a design flaw.

Again ... I appreciate that good quality optics are important. And I get that the general answer is "Leupold Scopes have good quality optics" ... but don't the other brands?

As I said earlier, I'm a semi-pro photographer. I shoot Canon gear (a 7D) ... I appreciate the quality of Canon L series lenses (the professional line) ... but I recently bought a Sigma 50-500 OS telephoto instead of a Canon L series telephoto because I shot series of test photos with both and found that I liked the Sigma image quality and feature set better ... at a lower price.

So ... scope nerds ... school me (I really am pleading ignorance here) ... what is it about Leupold that makes them so superior (and worth the extra expense)?

As you said in your other thread, you are eventually going to go to a centerfire. So my suggestion was, and still is that this be a trainer rifle for the centerfire. You will have to make up your mind on what your scope will be there. Is it going to be mil/mil or moa/moa, first focal plane or second? Once you have made that decision you can make one for the 22. Personally I think since you like good glass, if you decide on a FFP optic the new SWFA Super Sniper 5-20 ($1500) would be good for the centerfire. If you like that optic for your centerfire, a good equivalent for the trainer would be a Falcon Menace 4-14 ($300). Should have good enough glass for out to 2-300y with the 22. Not to mention you can learn the reticle and adjustments so when you go to the centerfire you will be familiar with the adjustments and use of the reticle.