TexasCHLforum.com

I put a Burris 4x long eye relief handgun scope on my .454 raging bull. I never had a problem with the scope other than the factory Taurus mounts would never stay put. I finally got tired of dealing with it and took it off. Anyhow, the point i'm getting at is you probably would be o.k. with any higher quality handgun scope, but your mounting may be a bigger problem.

Mounting should be easy, buy some quality Leopold or Burris scope mounts at the desired height and lock tight them down. You should be good to go.

I have the 8-3/8" 500 but I haven't put a scope on mine. I use mine mostly as a hog gun and rarely have to shoot longer than 40-50 yards, so I haven't had a need to put on a scope. One thing to remember is that it will be difficult to find a holster for it with a scope. Especially if your a lefty like me.

A buddy of mine has a Leupold on top of his mounted with Leupold rings with no issues from the recoil.

I have a Pride and Fowler with the .500 Reticle/BDC on my .50AE and it has held up fine.

AndyC wrote:Leupold is pretty much the gold standard in optics, but the Burris has had decent reviews and seem to be putting out some very decent scopes these days.

Sorry to disagree but maybe Leupold used to be a gold standard but I don't think so anymore, I have read somewhere that their QC appears to be slipping.

I have 2 Zeiss' Conquests and 1 Leupold VARXI1I3x9x50 and side by side the Zeiss is better to me.
Zeiss' is clearer, brighter, crisp and clean.
of course YMMV

glock27 wrote:ive been looking at leupold and burris and the bussis has 3-12X magnification where as the leu has 2.5-8X. how does their quality compare to each other?

I own both a Leupold 4.5-14x50mm VX-III with B&C reticle (mounted on a Remington 700 VSF in .308) and a Burris 3-12x50mm XTR Tactical with mil-dot reticle (mounted on a 24" barreled AR15 varmint rifle). The Burris is a very good scope, but the Leupold is marginally better. The Burris's optical clarity is very good, but the Leupold's is a little better - even though the Leupold has a 1" tube compared to the Burris's 30mm tube - and appears to be marginally brighter. The Leupold seems to have a better attention to detail in terms of fit and finish.

If I were shopping for a handgun scope, I would go with the Leupold. And you won't spend that much more money for one.

Nightforce IMO.

AndyC wrote:I was keeping it practical by saying gold standard, not platinum standard; most people will never want to spend the cash to put a Zeiss on a handgun. You're taking things to a whole other level with that - and while I agree that Zeiss > Leupold, bear in mind that when a man's talking Burris, I'm not going to assume Zeiss is on his short-list.

glock27 wrote:see but being a such big price purchase (to me) i want the better one. i buy guns like i buy my toools they will last a lifetime if treat4ed right,,,,, so leopuld or burris???

Leupold, definitely - it would retain its value better. Don't be swayed by magnification alone; more magnification = magnified shake and smaller field-of-view.

AndyC you are right. I was reading too much into ""i buy guns like i buy my toools they will last a lifetime if treat4ed right""
After I re-thought this, I have to agree - Leupold, definitely - it would retain its value better. If he gets one with the lifetime guarantee.

gigag04 wrote:Nightforce IMO.

They make handgun scopes?