TexasCHLforum.com

For hog hunting I think a red dot would be a great choice. Since its generally at shorter ranges, it will allow quick target acquisition and move from hog to hog quickly. You can also add night vision to help out and many red dot sights have night vision settings. I would look at the aimpoint pro. Its a VERY solid scope and great quality. They run about $400, so they're not too outrageous.

Thanks for all the input. It's not so much that I can't afford it as I'm cheap.

Part of me says why buy an $800 scope for a $700 rifle. Another part of me says why not buy the best scope you can. Then there's the part of me that says you're not getting any younger, you need magnification. I won't be buying a $3000 scope, that's for sure, but the choices between $100 and $800 or so are vast, and this is all very new for me, so I'm still researching and learning. All of the input I've gotten from you guys has been very helpful in clarifying the issues and availability, and I really appreciate each one of your inputs.

I recently bought a Leupold 3x9 ultralight efr. That might have been to much for a 10/22

baldeagle wrote:Thanks for all the input. It's not so much that I can't afford it as I'm cheap.

Part of me says why buy an $800 scope for a $700 rifle. Another part of me says why not buy the best scope you can. Then there's the part of me that says you're not getting any younger, you need magnification. I won't be buying a $3000 scope, that's for sure, but the choices between $100 and $800 or so are vast, and this is all very new for me, so I'm still researching and learning. All of the input I've gotten from you guys has been very helpful in clarifying the issues and availability, and I really appreciate each one of your inputs.

A good rule of thumb for the non-professional shooter is 50% to 100% of the rifle's value spent on optics. For the person who makes their living this way, cost of the optic should be no object, plain and simple.

You asked a couple of posts back about the importance of magnification at 100 yards. The answer is, "how good are your eyes?" I used to have 20/15 vision in my left eye and 20/17 in my right eye........when I was 24 years old. Those days are well behind me. At 100 yards, in controlled conditions on a rifle range, unaided by magnification, I can "see" the white rectangle of my paper target. With concentration, I can probably hit the paper. That means that with iron sights, and given a very cooperative target, I could probably hit a man sized target with my AR.......IF he wore a white shirt and stood still against a dark background. Probably. But I can also say without a shred of doubt that, unaided by magnification, I cannot see the target markings at that distance, nor can I see my bullet strikes so that I can adjust my point of aim.

If all you're doing is plinking on a range at paper targets, and barring any range rules requiring a minimum magnification level (Elm Fork requires a minimum of 3X on the 100 yard line), then you can do without it. But if you are shooting at animals, whether for meat or extermination, you have an ethical responsibility to try and put the animal down with one shot if at all possible. And you'll be doing that to an animal whose colors blend in with the background, and he may be moving, and there may be brush between you and it, etc., etc., and in a lot of situations good hunting ethics practically demand magnification beyond 50 yards or so. And if you're using your rifle in a firefight and you have diminished eyesight, then you'll want magnification there too. Please note that a lot of the ACOGs used by our troops are 4X fixed power magnified optics. They can't even zoom in and out. Even with my EOTech, I used a 3X magnifier routinely as the default setup.

Bottom line: don't be cheap. Whatever $100 or so you save by buying a throwaway optic over a better one will come back to bite you in the butt, not to mention that you will have a less satisfying ownership experience overall for the rifle/scope combination. Another young man from my church, my son's age, who shoots rifles and hunts with them just bought himself a lower end Remington 700 in .308 for something in the $500-$600 range, so a scope in the $250-$500 range would have been entirely appropriate for it. It's the nicest rifle he's ever owned, and he's justifiably proud of it. Until now, to give you an idea, he has been doing all of his hunting with a Mosin-Nagant 90/31 with an ancient Russian scout scope mounted to it. Yes, he's a starving student, and he has helped to fill his mother's refrigerator with the pork he brings home. He told me the other day that he had bought a Vortex scope for his R700 and had taken it to the range at Elm Fork to zero the rifle. When he got there and started shooting, he realized that no amount of cranking the windage knob in either direction would shift the bullet impact point. I asked him how much he paid for it, and he said $50. I said, "NEW?" He said yes. I asked, because Vortex makes good products and it would surprise me if they delivered one with with a windage adjuster that didn't work—let alone one that only costs $50. I asked him where he bought it, and he said SFWA. Well, SWFA doesn't HAVE a $50 Vortex for sale, not even in their used department, so my friend is obviously mistaken about who the manufacturer is. Anyway, I told him that this is EXACTLY why I tell people to not try and cheap out on optics. I understand why he did it. He lives on a shoestring budget. But he is also very industrious and very frugal. In addition to his job, he also makes and sells knives on the side, and he has a side business as a photographer. So it would not have been that difficult to put aside $300-$400 over the course of a few weeks to buy a scope worthy of his new Remington. In the end, trying to save money by cheaping out on the scope ended up being a frustrating experience and a $50 lesson for him.

It is entirely possible to buy "inexpensive" without cheaping out, but "inexpensive" does have a price, and it is going to more than the el-cheapo products.

Thanks, TAM. I am leaning toward the same Burris you use, for two reasons. 5x magnification and a 36mm tube. I figure I can use every bit of light I can get and magnification will help tremendously. I used to have 20/20 vision, but at 65 I have the typical reading glasses issue, and now I actually have to wear corrective lenses for distance as well. Recently the Dr. told me he thinks a cataract is developing in my left eye, and that eye has definitely degraded rapidly and significantly in the past year or so. My other "lean towards" is this: Leupold VX-3 2.5-8 x 36mm, although I'm not sure it would be the best choice for hog hunting or tactical work (like three gun).

TAM, you've actually hunted hog with the Burris, right?

I have a Bushnell TRS-25 on one of my ARs. The other one has a Leupold 3.5 x 10 x 40 Tactical. I have only had the Bushnell for a little while and I can't tell you much about the quality or durability but I was impressed with the accuracy at 100 yds. I still don't like having to deal with batteries though.

Speaking of batteries, what do you guys think of this scope? Trijicon 3-9x40 AccuPoint? A little on the pricey side (for me) but no batteries. I have to admit, the battery thing bothers me a little. And TAM, I'm worried about eye relief on that Burris 5x36. From what I'm reading you can't mount BUIS behind it, because it has to be all the way to the back on the rail.

The more I read the less my decision is made. I think I'm going to have to go to Cabelas and actually look at some scopes.

baldeagle wrote:The more I read the less my decision is made. I think I'm going to have to go to Cabelas and actually look at some scopes.

To add to what other's have said, the Objective Diameter is an important part to add to the equation. I can almost promise you a lens by Carl Zeiss in 25mm will let more light in than a cheap 35mm. I havn't seen this with scopes but have on cameras where there is a certain level of light and you can see an image with one and not the other. I can't afford Zeiss and your budget won't allow for it now either... Going to see them at Cabela's will help you "see" the difference. I pick up the scopes and target one of the eyes on the taxidermy or see how clear I can see the fur. You'll see the difference between $100 and $400 glass.

I'm sure that the Allen store has an optics guru... Mike in the Fort Worth store is a great guy to talk with about optics and follows TAMs rule. I'm working with him on a couple options for my AR-10. I like the Nikon M-223 14-16, Burris Fullfield Tac 30, Burris Fullfield E1 4-14. I'm leaning towrds the Nikon and the E1.

I plan to go back up and look at the two again now that I have researched them online.

Good luck!!

baldeagle wrote:Thanks, TAM. I am leaning toward the same Burris you use, for two reasons. 5x magnification and a 36mm tube. I figure I can use every bit of light I can get and magnification will help tremendously. I used to have 20/20 vision, but at 65 I have the typical reading glasses issue, and now I actually have to wear corrective lenses for distance as well. Recently the Dr. told me he thinks a cataract is developing in my left eye, and that eye has definitely degraded rapidly and significantly in the past year or so. My other "lean towards" is this: Leupold VX-3 2.5-8 x 36mm, although I'm not sure it would be the best choice for hog hunting or tactical work (like three gun).

TAM, you've actually hunted hog with the Burris, right?

No, I bought the burris after the last time I went hog hunting, although it would be excellent in that application. Here is the scope I bought for hog hunting, but on a different rifle:
http://swfa.com/Leupold-15-5x33-VX-R-Sc ... 51466.aspx
Leupold 1.5-5x33 VX-R Scout Scope, $599.95


This is a long eye-relief scope, and it is mounted on my Ruger Gunsite Scout. Since this picture was taken, I have removed the spacers in the buttstock and scooted the scope forwards a bit so that the rear Butler Creak lens cover (not shown) clears the rear iron sight when it flips open. This particular scout scope body is a bit longer than the more commonly seen 2-7X versions.


Please note: scope is still off-kilter in the rings when I took the picture, but as you can see, it is a large, easily acquired view:

A-R wrote:

baldeagle wrote:
Also Nikon has come out with a new line of "AR-223" scopes that seem to be decent for the price -

Ding ding ding ding...

Good investment...

baldeagle wrote:Speaking of batteries, what do you guys think of this scope? Trijicon 3-9x40 AccuPoint? A little on the pricey side (for me) but no batteries. I have to admit, the battery thing bothers me a little. And TAM, I'm worried about eye relief on that Burris 5x36. From what I'm reading you can't mount BUIS behind it, because it has to be all the way to the back on the rail.

I have the accupoint 1.25-4x40 - TR21G on my AR-10 and love it. Very clear glass and I really like the post and triangle reticle. I originally wanted the 1-4 magnification to have true 1x like a red dot, but settled for this one as I found it used, but LNIB and couldn't pass it up.

I like being able to use it with both eyes open, there is a 3" eye releif and on the AR-10 is perfect for me. Thinking about a 3-9x or higher magnification for longer ranges, but so far this is working great.

geekwagun, what mount do you use for the Accupoint?

I'm loving this thread. I recently picked up a couple of rifles in .308 (well, 1 is on the way) & am in the market for optics for both.