It will be a while but I am already planning a hunting rifle build and I am looking at scopes. I want something with minimum magnification around 3-4 and max mag around 14-18 with a 50 mm bell. I can't decide if I want tactical turrets or not. I used to have a $1000 4-12x50 Swarovski and it was a great hunting scope. One of the scopes that has caught my eye is the Steiner Predator 4-16x50 with 30 mm tube for $999. There are several 44mm Swarovski scope that I would like if they were 50mm. What will be the difference in "light gathering" ability in a 44mm vs 50mm? I am mostly looking at Swarovski, Zeiss, Steiner, Kahles and Leupold. I prefer a 30mm tube and 2nd focal plane scope. Any ideas?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Best Hunting Scope under $2000
- Thread starter EasternNChunter
- Start date
I just have to throw this out out there to look at, even though its a 56mm objective... A little large I know, but if low light is a factor, you can really stay up at the higher powers later in the evening. Kahles 3-12x56 Helia C 30mm Riflescope
Plus, it's FFP and mil/mil and weighs 19 oz! I wish it was also available in a 50mm obj.
Another low-light monster : Meopta 3-12x56 Meostar R1 30mm Rifle Scope
It can also be had in 3-10x50 sfp.
On edit, didn't notice you wanted SFP. Some others to check out:
http://swfa.com/Zeiss-3-12x50-Conquest-Duralyt-30mm-Rifle-Scope-P51699.aspx
http://swfa.com/Leica-35-14x42-ER-30mm-Rifle-Scope-P42515.aspx
http://swfa.com/Leupold-3-18x44-VX-6-30mm-Riflescope-P52967.aspx
If the 44mm scope is dialed under 6x, and the 50mm is dialed under 7x, and the 56mm dialed under 8x, there would be no real difference in appearant brightness between them as they will all be yielding a 7mm exit pupil. Glass quality and coatings go from there to dictated brightness, clarity, contrast, and resolution.
I too am intrigued by the new Steiner Pretator series, haven't read much on them yet.
Meopta, Kahles, Swaro, Zeiss for the win!
Plus, it's FFP and mil/mil and weighs 19 oz! I wish it was also available in a 50mm obj.
Another low-light monster : Meopta 3-12x56 Meostar R1 30mm Rifle Scope
It can also be had in 3-10x50 sfp.
On edit, didn't notice you wanted SFP. Some others to check out:
http://swfa.com/Zeiss-3-12x50-Conquest-Duralyt-30mm-Rifle-Scope-P51699.aspx
http://swfa.com/Leica-35-14x42-ER-30mm-Rifle-Scope-P42515.aspx
http://swfa.com/Leupold-3-18x44-VX-6-30mm-Riflescope-P52967.aspx
If the 44mm scope is dialed under 6x, and the 50mm is dialed under 7x, and the 56mm dialed under 8x, there would be no real difference in appearant brightness between them as they will all be yielding a 7mm exit pupil. Glass quality and coatings go from there to dictated brightness, clarity, contrast, and resolution.
I too am intrigued by the new Steiner Pretator series, haven't read much on them yet.
Meopta, Kahles, Swaro, Zeiss for the win!
Last edited:
Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x50 - Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x50 AO Zplex Reticle 5214909920 are on sale and free shipping. - EuroOptic.com
These gather more light and are more clear than any high end 34mm tube/56mm Obj. I've ever used, price point is awesome, and has turrets in case you have to take a longer shot.
These gather more light and are more clear than any high end 34mm tube/56mm Obj. I've ever used, price point is awesome, and has turrets in case you have to take a longer shot.
As far as I'm concerned nothing compares to a Swaro for a hunting rifle. I'll take one over a Schmidt or Diavari any day of the week. Tough, light, and clear, everything a hunting scope should be.
Objectives don't gather light, light passes through, and then it has to go through a much smaller tube so it's a moot point. You won't notice a difference between even a 40mm and 56mm in the same scope no matter how low the light is. Great glass and coatings is what determines light transmission.
Objectives don't gather light, light passes through, and then it has to go through a much smaller tube so it's a moot point. You won't notice a difference between even a 40mm and 56mm in the same scope no matter how low the light is. Great glass and coatings is what determines light transmission.
Really, he wants to spend up to $2K and you recommend him a conquest? The glass in the conquests are nothing special and quite frankly they are pieces of shit. They're constantly breaking which is why you see so many refurbs. Every one I have had has eventually shit the bed, every time something came loose inside and they weren't exactly heavily used scopes. I've heard they are even going to discontinue the line which explains all the sales and rebates going on right now.
Their glass is about on par with a Leupold VXIII or Bushnell Elite, I'd even say the Bushnell is a touch better.
I'll agree, the Swaro 4-12x on my 300 Weatherby is still the best overall scope I have personally been behind, tough, lite, durable and extreamly clear.
I will say though, about objective diameter: if 2 identical scopes with the same coatings, same glass, same design, brightness will be identical, until the smaller scope's exit pupil drops below 7mm as magnification increases. You can't overcome physics. The only thing a larger objective does period, is alow the same exit pupil but at a slightly higher magnification. If below the threshold, it makes no difference. For most guys, the trade off of higher magnification low light performance isn't worth the trade off of higher overbore mounting, size and weight. 40mm is most common because it works for most hunting magnifications requirement into dusk pretty well.
And, if anyone is interested in a quick example:
Comparing a 56mm objective to a 40mm objective at high power:
Both at 14x, the 56mm will yield a 4mm exit pupil, the 40mm, a 2.8mm exit pupil.
This is more dramatic than it seems though, as it is about not the diameter of the exit pupil, but the the area.
A 4mm pupil is 12.56 sq mm's. The 2.8mm is 6.15 sq mm's, less than half of the area.... A very noticable difference to the eye as brightness increases at the square of the area.
Again, both at 6x, basically no differance.
Comparing a 56mm objective to a 40mm objective at high power:
Both at 14x, the 56mm will yield a 4mm exit pupil, the 40mm, a 2.8mm exit pupil.
This is more dramatic than it seems though, as it is about not the diameter of the exit pupil, but the the area.
A 4mm pupil is 12.56 sq mm's. The 2.8mm is 6.15 sq mm's, less than half of the area.... A very noticable difference to the eye as brightness increases at the square of the area.
Again, both at 6x, basically no differance.
TAC, redneckbmxer24 is right man, I would definitely buy a 2k Swaro with no turrets and a duplex reticle. Can't believe I even suggested a Zeiss scope knowing that their glass is the same as Bushnells...
I've owned several Conquests and their glass is significantly better than the VX-III or Bushnell 4200s I've used. The Conquests I've used were clearer than the Nightforce NXS scopes in my experience. But they aren't durable, nor are they comparable to the big boys in the $2k price range.
To the OP:
I'd decide what factors are most important to me...including "glass quality", weight and size, durability, and functionality. For me, if the scope doesn't offer good functionality, as in good reticles and knobs, the other points are moot. Secondly, it has to be durable (which is precisely what has moved me away from the Conquest line and VX-IIIs. Next, I want it to be small and light if its going to be used on a light rifle I'm going to have to carry a long way, if not it moves to the bottom of the list. Finally, there's glass quality. Rarely has there been a time I had to spot with my scope rather than a set of binos. Rarely has one scope offered me a shot I couldn't have made with another of comparable quality.
With these things in mind, I like looking through "good glass" as much as the next guy, I just don't make that the most important factor. Of the things on the market at the moment, the Leupold Mark 6 looks VERY appealing to me at the moment. The new NF 2.5-10x42 is also worth a look.
To the OP:
I'd decide what factors are most important to me...including "glass quality", weight and size, durability, and functionality. For me, if the scope doesn't offer good functionality, as in good reticles and knobs, the other points are moot. Secondly, it has to be durable (which is precisely what has moved me away from the Conquest line and VX-IIIs. Next, I want it to be small and light if its going to be used on a light rifle I'm going to have to carry a long way, if not it moves to the bottom of the list. Finally, there's glass quality. Rarely has there been a time I had to spot with my scope rather than a set of binos. Rarely has one scope offered me a shot I couldn't have made with another of comparable quality.
With these things in mind, I like looking through "good glass" as much as the next guy, I just don't make that the most important factor. Of the things on the market at the moment, the Leupold Mark 6 looks VERY appealing to me at the moment. The new NF 2.5-10x42 is also worth a look.
+1 on Conquest glass being better than vxIII.
When I made this decision 2 or 3 years ago, it was the Swaro Z5 3.5-18, the Leica 3.5-14, and the S&B summit 2.5-10.
I have one each of the Leica and Swaro. Both have AMAZING glass. My Leica has the #1 (post) reticle and I love it for dark timber hunting. The swaro is their plex, I had one with the #4 the thin center parts of the reticle were much wider and harder to see. I'd say the swaro has just a tiny bit better glass, has a touch more mag, and is lighter. I know the Z5 can be had with turrets, I'm not sure about the Leica. The Leica has a better reticle for low light.
In the last couple of years new models have come out, such as the Leupold vx6 and Zeiss hd5 scopes. I have no experience with these but can confidently guess that my two hunting scopes are at least as good as they are.
When I made this decision 2 or 3 years ago, it was the Swaro Z5 3.5-18, the Leica 3.5-14, and the S&B summit 2.5-10.
I have one each of the Leica and Swaro. Both have AMAZING glass. My Leica has the #1 (post) reticle and I love it for dark timber hunting. The swaro is their plex, I had one with the #4 the thin center parts of the reticle were much wider and harder to see. I'd say the swaro has just a tiny bit better glass, has a touch more mag, and is lighter. I know the Z5 can be had with turrets, I'm not sure about the Leica. The Leica has a better reticle for low light.
In the last couple of years new models have come out, such as the Leupold vx6 and Zeiss hd5 scopes. I have no experience with these but can confidently guess that my two hunting scopes are at least as good as they are.
Conquests are generally king of the hill at their price point. The Meopta meopro and Minox ZA3 and ZA5 are all very similar. The conquests do everything well for the money. I really haven't heard of poor durability in them until today. Every brand will have failures, but as a whole, tons of hunters are happy with the Conquests. It's a bummer the members here have bad trouble with them, good to know.
That said, they simply aren't in the same league as the $1500 Kahles, Swaro, Leica, and higher Zeiss models. But they are VERY good for $500...
That said, they simply aren't in the same league as the $1500 Kahles, Swaro, Leica, and higher Zeiss models. But they are VERY good for $500...
Another few to add to the pile:
Schmidt & Bender 3-12x50 Variable Hunting 30mm Riflescope
Schmidt & Bender 4-16x50 Variable Hunting 30mm Riflescope a little over budget and little heavy
March rifle scopes Australia & New Zealand Hunting 2.5-25 x 42 excellent scope, 42mm objective though
Schmidt & Bender 3-12x50 Variable Hunting 30mm Riflescope
Schmidt & Bender 4-16x50 Variable Hunting 30mm Riflescope a little over budget and little heavy
March rifle scopes Australia & New Zealand Hunting 2.5-25 x 42 excellent scope, 42mm objective though
I wish but the Z6 is at least $2200 with discounts from Hide vendors.
I have gotten lots of good advice through PMs and think I am going to go with the Swarovski Z5 3.5-18x44 with Ballistic Turrets. I used to have a lower end Swarovski and it was a great scope.
Absolutely wrong.
A larger objective has more surface area than a smaller objective, allowing more light to enter the scope, and incorporating a larger exit pupil for a given magnification.
All other things being equal (glass, coatings, # and arrangement of optical elements) a scope with a larger objective will be brighter than a scope with a smaller objective at a given magnification. Fact.
Joe
That sounds good in theory but my experiences tell me otherwise. I've tested this in low light with no discernible difference. The only difference was exit pupil which another member already mentioned and the larger objective = larger exit pupil on the same magnification but thats as simple as lowering the magnification a bit. You're not going to be able to crank a scope way up in low light regardless of how good the glass is unless there's a NVD in front of it.
Reviews for Steiner 4-16X50mm Predator Xtreme Riflescope, S-1 Reticle 5003 - View or add your review!
Most people don't know Steiner also has a line of hunting scopes. You can buy two for $2000....
Most people don't know Steiner also has a line of hunting scopes. You can buy two for $2000....
Correct again Joe. This is FACT as talked to death in many other threads in addition to countless other sites and related topics. As stated, The variable is glass quality, coatings and layout.
Reviews for Steiner 4-16X50mm Predator Xtreme Riflescope, S-1 Reticle 5003 - View or add your review!
Most people don't know Steiner also has a line of hunting scopes. You can buy two for $2000....
Like the OP, I've also been looking at the Predator series. Any inside info on the construction? I wonder if they use the same glass and coatings as the military series, but with hunting turrets and SFP? I think I like the reticle too, I would like to look through one on of these days.
I spend a LOT of my time analyzing hunting scopes and from your stated objectives it will be hard to beat the Swarovski
The only glass my Premier Illum. hunting scope has not beat is my Zeiss Hensoldt,that was to close to call.I really had to nit pick the Premier over my Zenith FD#9 & Leica ER2.I think we are all very lucky to have so many Alpha hunting scopes to choose from.There are times I kick myself for selling my Z6I,I guess I will just have to start another build to get a SWARO once again.Just my personal opion ,no scope out there better all around than the Premier 3-15 Illum.
Hard to wrong with any of them really. FWIW I tested Kahles K312 at the same time as the Premier LT and chose the Khales.
Personally I found it to be easier to use than the Premier and ended up buying it.
I have to say I also really like Meopta glass if they have one that needs your needs you can be assured it will have damned good glass .
Personally I found it to be easier to use than the Premier and ended up buying it.
I have to say I also really like Meopta glass if they have one that needs your needs you can be assured it will have damned good glass .
For a Hunting scope I would say the Swarovski & Kahles. I have heard good thinks about the Steiner hunting line and the Leupold VX-6.
Mike @ CST
Mike @ CST
1 vote for Zeiss victory HT. I also own premier& SB scope, imo Premier glass is tiny tiny better than SB.
I have ran a Zeiss FL 4-16x50 for a season, own a S&B FD9, currently testing a Zeiss Conquest HD 3-15, etc..
All of these scopes will take you past 30 minutes past sundown.
Splitting hairs at some point and one guy may prefer X over Y and the next guy the opposite.
My experience with scopes over about 12x, even the FL 4-16x50 you need to back off magnification some to get a decent exit pupil when it gets dark.
All of these scopes will take you past 30 minutes past sundown.
Splitting hairs at some point and one guy may prefer X over Y and the next guy the opposite.
My experience with scopes over about 12x, even the FL 4-16x50 you need to back off magnification some to get a decent exit pupil when it gets dark.
What weight your Rifle; will you be shooting it standing unsupported? Many tactical scopes are on the heavy side and will rather throw the balance of a sporting rifle, or make them unwieldily. Twilight light gathering has as much to do with the glass as the objective so go for the better glass.
We do a lot of poor visibility or dusk shooting in Europe and the European makes like Zeiss and Swaro do show their pedigree in this area. Unless illuminated then the cross hair shouldn't be super fine (Swaro are too fine). Finally, all the bells and whistles like parallax, variable magnification all get in the way of making one good shot count in field at dusk. I do a lot of dusk, lamping and NV shooting. Deer at dusk and rabbit and fox at night. The majority is done with the magnification set a 7x and the rest once set pretty well left alone. If the glass is good there is very little between 42, 50 or 56 in practice other than a wider field of view. I fit what matches the rifle's scale and weight.
Remember for dusk shooting you are shooting at point blank so you just don't need ladder reticles, or even target turrets for the most part.
I've been using a Zeiss Conquest HD5 on my .17 HMR with the Z plex. I like it a lot for the weight, features, reticule and glass. The Zeiss plex is one of the best for field use. Though it has a fixed eye relief through the magnification range it is a bit eye position critical (that can be said for a lot of scopes):
http://i820.photobucket.com/albums/zz128/Muskett_2009/IMG_5153.jpg
I also rate the Zeiss Victories which I have on my .300 WSM Blaser and .308 Milspec. (The Blaser is set up for running boar and the Milspec my culling rifle.) Bar the weight I can't really fault the Victories, though you don't have to go for the fully featured Victories as a less featured model would work as well. I have the Victories because I need the daylight long range ability too. The bit I really like is the 60 reticule. Fast to centre on target the 60 reticule is just superb and though mine have the illuminated reticle I very rarely turn it on. Eye relief and position are really forgiving which only the best hunting scopes have (Jap and American scopes rarely have this important feature; why European scopes are so good in the hunting field. At night or for running game it makes a huge difference as does rifle fit). Money no object the Zeiss Victories are my recommendation, but you could go for a more basic model:
http://i820.photobucket.com/albums/zz128/Muskett_2009/IMG_4924.jpg
That lamp has been changed to a modern LED Dereelight.
We do a lot of poor visibility or dusk shooting in Europe and the European makes like Zeiss and Swaro do show their pedigree in this area. Unless illuminated then the cross hair shouldn't be super fine (Swaro are too fine). Finally, all the bells and whistles like parallax, variable magnification all get in the way of making one good shot count in field at dusk. I do a lot of dusk, lamping and NV shooting. Deer at dusk and rabbit and fox at night. The majority is done with the magnification set a 7x and the rest once set pretty well left alone. If the glass is good there is very little between 42, 50 or 56 in practice other than a wider field of view. I fit what matches the rifle's scale and weight.
Remember for dusk shooting you are shooting at point blank so you just don't need ladder reticles, or even target turrets for the most part.
I've been using a Zeiss Conquest HD5 on my .17 HMR with the Z plex. I like it a lot for the weight, features, reticule and glass. The Zeiss plex is one of the best for field use. Though it has a fixed eye relief through the magnification range it is a bit eye position critical (that can be said for a lot of scopes):
http://i820.photobucket.com/albums/zz128/Muskett_2009/IMG_5153.jpg
I also rate the Zeiss Victories which I have on my .300 WSM Blaser and .308 Milspec. (The Blaser is set up for running boar and the Milspec my culling rifle.) Bar the weight I can't really fault the Victories, though you don't have to go for the fully featured Victories as a less featured model would work as well. I have the Victories because I need the daylight long range ability too. The bit I really like is the 60 reticule. Fast to centre on target the 60 reticule is just superb and though mine have the illuminated reticle I very rarely turn it on. Eye relief and position are really forgiving which only the best hunting scopes have (Jap and American scopes rarely have this important feature; why European scopes are so good in the hunting field. At night or for running game it makes a huge difference as does rifle fit). Money no object the Zeiss Victories are my recommendation, but you could go for a more basic model:
http://i820.photobucket.com/albums/zz128/Muskett_2009/IMG_4924.jpg
That lamp has been changed to a modern LED Dereelight.
Last edited:
I have no idea what the rifle weighs as I haven't started on the build yet. I know that I want to go with a 26" fluted medium-heavy contoured barrel. Something a little smaller than the Sendero contour. It will be a hunting rifle though. Most shots will be done from tower stands but I am sure there will be other shots taken from all positions.
Swaro and Zeiss have better glass than NF.
I like stiff barrels and fluting does take a few ounces off. However 26 inch barrels are heavy and for standing unsupported shots give the rifle a weight forward ballance as often as not (I quite like it). Be careful of the stock weight let alone the action as those pounds add up fast. Once a rifle is above 91/2 pounds I consider it a culling rifle rather than a sporting rifle (my Milspec comes in at 131/2 and is a culling rifle as it needs support, bipod or off a backpack). My Blaser comes in well under 9. Scope tube size makes no difference to light gathering. If you are not going to shoot further than 600m then no need for a 20 degree picatinny base either. Frankly, you can save weight on the mounts by fitting straight to the action (I like Leupold for this task).
All I'm saying is its really easy to add toys until the rifle becomes too heavy to be a true sporting rifle. Magnification to 14 or 16 does allow you to shoot at small things and a boon to zeroing. However, at practical field ranges the 10x and below has more advantages. Some magnification can help looking into the gloom, so its not the case of as little as possible. A 50 objective is a good compromise.
Have a look at the Zeiss stuff and get back to us with what you think.
I like stiff barrels and fluting does take a few ounces off. However 26 inch barrels are heavy and for standing unsupported shots give the rifle a weight forward ballance as often as not (I quite like it). Be careful of the stock weight let alone the action as those pounds add up fast. Once a rifle is above 91/2 pounds I consider it a culling rifle rather than a sporting rifle (my Milspec comes in at 131/2 and is a culling rifle as it needs support, bipod or off a backpack). My Blaser comes in well under 9. Scope tube size makes no difference to light gathering. If you are not going to shoot further than 600m then no need for a 20 degree picatinny base either. Frankly, you can save weight on the mounts by fitting straight to the action (I like Leupold for this task).
All I'm saying is its really easy to add toys until the rifle becomes too heavy to be a true sporting rifle. Magnification to 14 or 16 does allow you to shoot at small things and a boon to zeroing. However, at practical field ranges the 10x and below has more advantages. Some magnification can help looking into the gloom, so its not the case of as little as possible. A 50 objective is a good compromise.
Have a look at the Zeiss stuff and get back to us with what you think.
This is a Premier 'Hunter' 3-15x50, Gen II mildot over a 24" # 3contour barrel...
Not too overbearing for size on a hunting rig, and don't let the FFP scare ya. The Gen II is just like a standard duplex reticle @ lower magnification. Had this scope side by side with a couple Swaros, and two different pards like the Premier glass over their own Z6s. Course, that's subjective opinion...
The scope whore in me would like to try out the newest Kahles scopes, but I really can't ask for much more than my Premiers allow. Still have a few older 1" tubed Khales Helias, and they are great little scopes in their own right. But if I had $2K to burn, I'd be all over another Premier. If ya can find a 'Hunter' over Lite Tac, you'd have a couple hundreds left over for powder...
Good luck & have fun deciding!
Not too overbearing for size on a hunting rig, and don't let the FFP scare ya. The Gen II is just like a standard duplex reticle @ lower magnification. Had this scope side by side with a couple Swaros, and two different pards like the Premier glass over their own Z6s. Course, that's subjective opinion...
The scope whore in me would like to try out the newest Kahles scopes, but I really can't ask for much more than my Premiers allow. Still have a few older 1" tubed Khales Helias, and they are great little scopes in their own right. But if I had $2K to burn, I'd be all over another Premier. If ya can find a 'Hunter' over Lite Tac, you'd have a couple hundreds left over for powder...
Good luck & have fun deciding!
i have 2 Premier Hunters. one A7 illum & one Varmint w/ Gen II illum. They were aquired from a friend that needed money BNIB $2000 for both. Best money i've spent on a scope(s) to date. Cant beat the glass or size of scope. Not the lightest hunting scope, but definately superb glass. I would buy more Premier Varmint scopes if i could find them.
I vote for the Swaro Z6, 3 - 18 x 50, w/4Ai reticle. Clear and light. Doug at Cameraland (a hide sponsor) has dealer samples from time to time. Used to be under 2 grand, don't know about now.
This is a Premier 'Hunter' 3-15x50, Gen II mildot over a 24" # 3contour barrel...
Not too overbearing for size on a hunting rig, and don't let the FFP scare ya. The Gen II is just like a standard duplex reticle @ lower magnification. Had this scope side by side with a couple Swaros, and two different pards like the Premier glass over their own Z6s. Course, that's subjective opinion...
The scope whore in me would like to try out the newest Kahles scopes, but I really can't ask for much more than my Premiers allow. Still have a few older 1" tubed Khales Helias, and they are great little scopes in their own right. But if I had $2K to burn, I'd be all over another Premier. If ya can find a 'Hunter' over Lite Tac, you'd have a couple hundreds left over for powder...
Good luck & have fun deciding!
Thanks! That sounds PERFECT!!! Are they hard to find?
From what I can tell the "Hunter" has capped turrets. I think the Light Tactical is the same thing but with uncapped tactical turrets, which I prefer.
I bought a 3-12x42 S&B Klassik years ago and had Premier put a gen 2 mildot in it. It's on my go to hunting rifle and I wish I had another one like it.
Yes, the Hunter has covered turrets, and the Lite Tac has exposed turrets. This is a Lite Tac on another # 3 contour barrel, Gen II lit reticle...
The Lite Tac would be a great choice also, but the price might settle slightly above your $2K limit.
The 'Varmint' model had a single external elevation turret, the windage was capped. Looks like that one is now discontinued as well...
