Rifle Scopes $1000 for a scope

[TheBigCountry]

I have researched all the past threads, and with $1000 max to spend on a scope, I can use some input. Looking for a FFP with MIL/MIL adjustments. I have come to the conclusion that with that price range, the scopes that would work are:
Vortex PST FFP
SWFA SS 3-15
Bushnell Elite 3.5-21 (ProDeal price)
If I can find a little more cash, I can pick up the Steiner Tactical 3-12x50 on my ProDeal

With that amount of cash, which one is the winner? I am thinking it is the Bushnell...

 

[280nosler]

I'd give the bushy the nod over the PST, and both are in similar power ranges. I have shot 12x out to 1000 yards with limited effectiveness, and feel 15x is the min for that distance. Part will depend on the range and targets at which you plan to shoot, and part will depend on buying value versus quality. I don't have any time behind the SWFA, (although I do have 2 of their scopes) or the Steiner.

 

[goodmanfj]

Bushy Elite with G2 ret.

 

[DeadSilence]

I own a PST and although I don't currently own an Elite I have used one (friends rifle) numerous times. I will be getting an Elite in the near future. I love the turrets and the glass is as good if not better than my PST.
I don't regret getting my PST it is a good scope but the turret system is more limited than the Elite (less range of adjustment). Hope this helps

 

[drum13]

I believe the Steiner 3-12 models have been discontinued - if that helps narrows down your decision.

 

[0311@LAR]

Bushy with G2 reticle hands down.

 

[TheBigCountry]

Thanks all. The Bushnell looks like the winner, just curious as to the G2 reticle. Does it have to be set to a particular power for those hashmarks to work? I see they are marked from 1-10. Can someone explain this?

Also, what is available in my price range that has just a mil-dot reticle? This scope will go on a rifle that will be used for both targets and hunting, so the less clutter the better.

 

[BigJohn141]

Get the G2 reticle, you wont be disappointed. The whole point of a FFP scope is the reticle is correct no matter what power you are on.

 

[TheBigCountry]

Get the G2 reticle, you wont be disappointed. The whole point of a FFP scope is the reticle is correct no matter what power you are on.

Bushnell with G2 it is then. Thanks much!

 

[mpncc]

Sightron makes a ffp scope also that should be in your range. They make it with a mil hash reticle. They make the sfp in mildot though. The sightron has better glass than the pst swfa non hd or elite.

 

[madAB]

Just to reinsure you more. . . definitely the Bushnell. I have the 3-12x44 on one of my rifles and it's awesome for the price.

 

[INMY01TA]

Also, what is available in my price range that has just a mil-dot reticle? This scope will go on a rifle that will be used for both targets and hunting, so the less clutter the better.

The Bushy Elite comes with a mil dot reticle also. I'm looking at that one myself.

 

[goodmanfj]

Simple mil dot try a SWFA 8x20x50 HD , wonderful glass, built like a tank , locking eye pc,strong turrets.

 

[lash]

It looks like you've already decided on the bushnell, but I can tell you that the Sightron SIII is a great scope for this price range. I love mine, but you won't go wrong with the bushy.

 

[Prebanpaul]

I second that sightron.

 

[Johnny Lately]

PST with the new EBR-2C reticle

 

[Greenwood187]

Keep reading threads with a lot of same questions I have about scopes and is making me think twice about getting a vortex pst and getting a bushy... Decisions decision. Very helpful advice though

 

[bronco_buster]

Disagree on the claim that Sightron has better glass than the new Tactical Bushnell Elites...I love my Sightron (SIII 8-32), but to my eyes the Bushnell scopes are closer to my Razor HD and equal to my Nightforces versus my Sightron which, to my eyes, is a step below my Nightforces...there's a definite step down in clarity at full magnification between the two.

 

[myownman]

The other day I had a chance to look through a premier, sightron S3, and night force. Of course premier was the best glass. Second best was the sightron. I wasn't impressed with the night force. Mabe it was a older model.

 

[Pinecone]

When I went through this exercise about 9 months ago, I ended up getting a Vortex Viper PST 6-24x FFP scope.

Sport Optics gives a GREAT SH discount. Rifle Scopes, Binoculars, Spotting Scopes and Range Finders | Swarovski, Leica, Zeiss | SportOptics

 

[TheBigCountry]

Thanks for all the replies all. I am still pretty set on the Bushnell 3.5-21, but I stumbled across the thread about the new Bushnell LRHS 3-12. The LRHS might just be the scope for me. I actually prefer the 3-12 range, as I dont need that much magnification since it will go atop a hunting/target rifle.

 

[Dallas4rceMarine]

If I may add my 2 cents before you make your final decision.

I also only run FFP scopes, but keep in mind those reticles are best seen at the higher magnifications since they zoom in and out with you to stay true to their mil scale. Although I have no time behind the Bushnell Elite 3.5-21 I do have lots of time behind the SWFA 3-15, and PST 4-16. While I do love FFP for the obvious reasons most others do you should notice that the reticle at the lower power settings is very small and often cannot be used for its milling abilities. You usually do not need to as lower power settings are for closer shots but it brings me to my whole point here. The bigger the range of magnification the less effective your reticle will be at lower powers. The less range your scope has the more usable magnification you have. The 3-15 and 4-16 both have a 12x range, and 5-20 is about my max because it has a 15x range. Again I have no time behind the 3.5-21 but that has a 17.5x magnification range so I can only assume that the reticle is tiny until AT LEAST 8x.

By all means buy whatever scope YOU like (not just what we recommend) but try to find a local store that will let you get behind the glass and check the reticle at different magnifications if you can. The 3-12x you mentioned should also be good since there is only a 9x range in it.

 

[ridenrunwv]

Range of magnification relative to reticle size should depend more on a multiplication factor rather than subtraction... So 3-15 is 5x magnification range, 4-16 is 4x, and 3.5-21 is 6x.

This might seem like it doesn't make a difference but it especially does when comparing optics with different levels of magnification. A 5-25 for example has the same 5x as a 3-15 rather than comparing it as 20 vs 12 range of magnification. A 5-20 is actually only a 4x factor so the same as a 2.5-10 or 4-16

 

[bp7178]

This thread has some very nice through the scope pictures of the ET 3-12x44. It will give you an idea of how the reticle scales.

Guns.ru Talks

I also saw some pics of the 6-24x, but I can't find the link. I'm between the 3-12 the 6-24 and a NF 2.5-10x42, which are all kind of on opposite ends. In any case, the scope would be paired with an offset RDS, which makes me think the low end magnification isn't that critical. For working up loads or doing accuracy testing, I think the x24 on the high end would be helpful - or at least having the option to dial that high.

The issue I have with low(er) power FFP scopes is that what I'd want to use the scope for on low power, shooting moving targets at closer distances, how fine the FFP reticle would be isn't conducive for that purpose, and a SFP would make more sense. Which is where the NF comes in. All though its at a much higher price point, the scope is more compact, offers an improved exit pupil and field of view and I'm sure better construction and a richness of features that would come with the extra $1k.

I would also add, the standard mil-dot seems like the best choice for this kind of use, ie actually shooting at lower magnification on a FFP scope. The bold portions of the reticle extend very close to the center. Some of the reticles are very fine and while this makes shooting on the upper end good, on the low magnification it isn't all that helpful.

 

[Dallas4rceMarine]

Range of magnification relative to reticle size should depend more on a multiplication factor rather than subtraction... So 3-15 is 5x magnification range, 4-16 is 4x, and 3.5-21 is 6x.

touche!
I just know with the higher magnification scopes I have looked through (5-20, 5-25, 6-24) the reticle was so small at low power it was basically useless to me. I only like my 5-20 (4x) at 8 power and above but my 2.5-10(4x), 3-15(5x), and 4-16(4x) seem to have more usable magnification ranges, and since I run a clip on NVD I need a scope that has a usable reticle at lower magnifications.

 

[ridenrunwv]

It's because 8x is barely larger than that the 5x min on a 5-20 or 5-25 scope. 8/5 is 1.6 so 8x is 1.6 times the 5x min that the reticle must size down to. On a 2.5-10 a magnification of 4x provides the same factor of 1.6 increase from the minimum magnification.

 

[coWSMasher]

I'm gonna be the odd man out and say say viper pst. I went through the same decision a year ago and got a chance to get behind a bunch of scopes in the process and the only scope I got a chance to look through that was clearer to my eyes was the nightforce and it wasn't much clearer. I was very disappointed in the leopold mark 4, I liked the bushnell but I didn't think it was as clear, I didn't get a chance to look through the sightron but the general consensus from what I read was most people liked the vortex better and I have no experience with the swfa. All that being said I went with the 6-24 on my hunting rifle and the rifle does triple duty for Minnesota whitetail (usually 100yards or less), Wyoming antelope and punching paper. Most people would not like having a minimum of 6x but it works fine for me.
just my 2cents

 

[zac_c]

I would go with swfa

 

[drum13]

This thread has some very nice through the scope pictures of the ET 3-12x44. It will give you an idea of how the reticle scales.

Guns.ru Talks

After doing a double take - I just noticed those crazy bastards put a 4-15x56 Hensoldt on a .22 cal bull-pup air rifle!