[morpheus]

Hey, you guys, I just got in layway a Ruger M77 in 6.5 Swedish. It's for Christmas but my mom already paid most of the money on it. The best thing about it is the MSRP at Ruger.com for the rifle is $695, but the guy that sold it to me, brand new, was $549. Even though thats without tax it is a great deal, and I can't wait to shoot it. Now I need to save up some money to get a scope which scope would you suggest Mel? It's only going to be for hunting, but should I get a Leupold Rifleman in 3-9 or 4-12?

 

[Guest]

Well I am definitely not at Mel's level of expertise but I believe I may be able to help you. First of all those magnification levels are pretty close together to make a big difference. It really depends on the range you will be shooting at. If you are attempting Some longer range hunting, you might be warranted the extra bit of magnification afforded by the 4-12 power. But in all actuality, you will be as able to kill a deer at 100 yards on 9x as you will on 12x. And if you have confined yourself to the Leupold Rifleman Line (which are, by the way, very good scopes. I had one on a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle for a time) you might as well save yourself $50 and get the 3-9x. Hope my 2 cents helped.[/i]

 

[Jeff_850]

I'm a Leupold fan. Leupold makes a great product. The difference is very little between 3-9x and 4-12x. Either will do just fine. I dont see how you can go wrong with either, they both give you enough power. I would reccomend the 3-9x because its less money.

 

[morpheus]

Yeah, I'm a big Leupold fan also. The only scopes I'll get now are Leupold. But, I have enough time to save up enough money to get a VX-II 3-9X40 with a Post & Duplex reticle. I think the P&D reticle would give me the best of both worlds when hunting. I can see more through the P&D reticle than just the normal Duplex.

 

[mele]

If you can save the little extra and pop for a VX-II, I would do it. The rifleman scopes are fine, actually pretty good, but the coatings and optics on a VXII are enough better to warrent the extra money if you can do it. As others have suggested, I would go for a 3-9x also. I would say most shooters are OVERSCOPED out there. I would prefer to go with less magnification for better field of view and light gathering. Now, variables are nice because you do get the option, but I still would save the money, get better field of view and light gathering with a lower power scope. 3-9x is a great all around power, and is what my next scope review is on (Burris though). 3.5-10 is another great all around.

MEL

 

[morpheus]

Thanks, Mel, I am going to save up my money to get a VX-II scope. I'm going to check out a couple of gun shows to see if I'm lucky and I get a good price on one. I might try the gun store where I got my Ruger from, I know the guy, so he might give me a good deal on the scope also. That would be a good deal.

 

[ironman]

What's Up?

What are you going to put that Leupold LS or whatever on? The $700 one. I think that you should put it on your Swedish, but if you're going to put it on your 30-60 that should be good too.

 

[Guest]

I'm glad Mel touched on the Burris. I have a few Leupold as well as a few Zeiss scopes on my rifles, but the Burris is by FAR the best value. The optics are every bit as clear as my Zeiss scopes, even in extremely low-light conditions (that's the real test of ony set of optics). The adjustments are very precise and the Burris has a greater range of adjustment than the Leupold. This last feature is important especially on Ruger rifles since there is no adjustment for windage in the scope base. Burris has also proven to be more rugged than Leupold (at least that's my experience in over 20 years of using Burris scopes on my guns). Try the ballistic-plex 3x9 on your 6.5. You'll have a lot more scope for less money than the Leupold. Good luck!

K2

 

[morpheus]

Now, that I have time to think things over, until I get the money for the scope. I am also think about the Lepold VX-II 2-7X33. I think this would be a good little rifle with a low profile on my new 6.5mm. What do you think about that scope? I'm either going to get the 3-9X40 or the 2-7X33 in VX-II, input from anyone would help. I'd mainly use it for down here in south Texas, I'm not going to be shooting a great distance. What would be better, a low profile with a little less light gathering capability or a slightly higher magnification with greater light gathering with a bigger profile? I think I've been redundent in the post.

 

[Guest]

Again those magnification levels are really quite close to really argue one way or the other. Purely for asthetics, I would go for the 2-7 in a set of Ruger low rings. As you will probably not be hunting at night, the extra 7mm of obj diameter are really not necessary, as both being VX-II scopes, the optical quality will be the same. You honestly could not go wrong either way, but I would have to suggest that you go with 2-7x33 and save both a few dollars and a few ounces of weight.