Finest Riflescope?

[Wheels]

And we all know that nothing beats a Royal.

Pretty good/quick play on your name!

 

[Red Leg]

Pretty good/quick play on your name!

Don't encourage him

 

[Wheels]

Don't encourage him

At least his name isn't Purdey!

 

[sestoppelman]

Having recently tried my first Meopta scope in 3-9x42 and liking it very much, I just ordered a fixed 6X to ride atop my recently acquired CZ Medium 9.3x62. A Czech rifle should wear a Czech scope, right? Best prices I have found for them is EURO OPTICS, by far.

 

[Mannlicher]

Meopta Artemis 2000 6x42 on O/U 20/65 - 6,5x52R:

Mannlicher

 

[Red Leg]

Magnificent bockbuchsflinte. Looks like a side-plated trigger-plate action. Have to see the proof marks, but assume it is pre-1939? Austrian?

 

[Mannlicher]

It is indeed pre-WWII, but czech made, with czech proof marks. It was rebarreled and the side-plates are not original. It seems to be reworked post WWII...

Mannlicher

 

[Bert the Turtle]

Deciding that the reticles on European scopes are too thin is like deciding that the paint on a Ford 150 is too black. There is a wide choice of reticles available.

 

[rookhawk]

Deciding that the reticles on European scopes are too thin is like deciding that the paint on a Ford 150 is too black. There is a wide choice of reticles available.

True. Specifically I'd say that some scopes have first plane reticles, meaning they are big and bold at 1-2 power for low light, and they get very fine at 6x when taking the long poke. Some people loathe first focal plane crosshairs but I find them very useful. It's a personal opinion naturally.

 

[Hank2211]

True. Specifically I'd say that some scopes have first plane reticles, meaning they are big and bold at 1-2 power for low light, and they get very fine at 6x when taking the long poke. Some people loathe first focal plane crosshairs but I find them very useful. It's a personal opinion naturally.

Here we go . . . another three pages of arguing over which focal plane is the bet!

 

[Red Leg]

It is indeed pre-WWII, but czech made, with czech proof marks. It was rebarreled and the side-plates are not original. It seems to be reworked post WWII...

Mannlicher

Lovely work with the side-plates making them fit the scallops on the action. Stylistically the engraving fits the original action as well - or the whole thing may have been done during restoration? A lot of 6.5x25R rifles will chamber the .25-35 Winchester - a boon for those who have one in the States. Ballistics are virtually identical. Wonderful little round for roe buck. Pick your shots and it will handle whitetail inside 100 meters as well.

We see relatively few of the classic old Czech makers in the US. That said, I suspect there may be more pre-war German guns and rifles here than in Germany. Lots of GI's brought back "liberated" hunting arms and many thousands more were destroyed between 1945 and 1952. Sadly, many of those here have also seen the attentions of clueless "gunsmiths" who rummaged around inside their actions or adapted creative scope mounting solutions to their barrels.

Anyway - lovely rifle.

 

[Scott Slough]

Tasco!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Ok, O.k, I'm kidding. I don't know what the "finest" is, but the best value for my money would have to go to Leupold, with Nikon being a close second. 8x magnification is the same no matter who you buy from, and as far a "clarity" goes, I think that is something that is somewhat subjective. I could pay thousands of dollars for a scope for a rifle, but the bottom line is A.) does it hold it's zero? B.) does the point of impact change with a change in magnification? and C.) can I see my target clearly enough at a reasonable range in low light conditions in order to accurately put a bullet in it?. If you answer yes, no, and yes, then you've probably found your scope.

I have never understood the need for better glass on a riflescope ... I only look through a riflescope for a few minutes (or seconds) a year. A $100 Tasco will let me shoot well before and after legal shooting light within my personal effective range which is more than I need it to do. I would love to spend the money on some really nice glass in a set of binoculars some day as the ability to see WELL before or after legal shooting and the ability to see effortless for hours are in fact an advantage.

 

[JGRaider]

Of the approximately 140 hunters I've had in camp over the past 13 years, I'd say roughly 70% of them use a leupold scope of some sort, and Swaro binocs. Most of these guys hunt all over the world and can afford whatever they want. I find that interesting.

 

[Foxi]

When I drive with a KIA SUV ,I can't say that is less comfort than with a Mercedes Benz.
Nevertheless a few people feel there is a difference
Also interesting
Foxi

 

[Bert the Turtle]

If you can't tell the difference it isn't with the money.

 

[Foxi]

If you can't tell the difference it isn't with the money.

my wife swears thats there is no difference

 

[Hank2211]

When I drive with a KIA SUV ,I can't say that is less comfort than with a Mercedes Benz.
Nevertheless a few people feel there is a difference
Also interesting
Foxi

Really? I've driven in both as well and I can sure tell the difference in terms of both ride and comfort.

 

[Bert the Turtle]

my wife swears thats there is no difference

You are lucky to have each other. It would no doubt be a source of friction if one of you believed there was a difference and the other thought there was no difference and the Mercedes was just a waste of money.

I'm always thankful that my wife sees things much the way I do so and it sounds like you have a similar situation.

 

[wesheltonj]

I could easily tell the difference between my wife's old Acura SUV and her new MB ML350 and the huge difference with my MB E350.

Just like you can tell the difference between a Land Rover 110 and an MB G. The MB is much better ride, but I would rather own the 110.

 

[Bert the Turtle]

I may have to test drive a Kia. If they have anything close to my SL55 I'm buying stock in Kia