What is the predominant optics on the dark continent?

[375Fox]

Is it OK to have a cheap scope on a cheap rifle?

I paid $80 for the used 1953 Model 70 .308 rifle years ago and do not remember the price of the Leupold 4 power M8 scope.
This goat was taken last October at 235 yards with a dead-on hold - bang flop. hundreds of deer and some other stuff since around 1970 with same rig. Longest kills were 300 yard mule deer and 400 yard whitetail.
I wish I had taken it to RSA, but took my older brother's Ruger .338 with Leupold because he passed away without ever hunting Africa.
Scope snobs, rifle snobs, car snobs and plain old hunters - use what you want and can and "Good Hunting" !

I think it’s wrong to say you had a cheap scope on a cheap rifle. You have a reliable scope and a reliable rifle that you paid a good price for. Leupold has proved this over time with their scopes where I don’t think many others can.

 

[Dirtdart]

I don’t understand either. Leupold has never failed me. I keep thing simple, just a standard duplex and sighted in for 100 and I hit what I aim at. I once watched a episode of Jim Shockey hunting sheep in Russia, he missed at 100 yards because his several thousand dollar scope was dialed to shoot at 900 yards by accident, my first thought was if he had a 3-9 practical hunting scope on the rifle he would have had his sheep.

To be fair if you are dialed in for 900 yards and took a 100 yard shot it really would not matter who manufactured the scope or what it cost.

 

[375Fox]

To be fair if you are dialed in for 900 yards and took a 100 yard shot it really would not matter who manufactured the scope or what it cost.

Fair point, I just can’t see the need in most hunting situations for some of the features that push scopes into the thousands of dollars.
If I remember right, I think it was a Leupold scope in that situation.

 

[BeeMaa]

Fair point, I just can’t see the need in most hunting situations for some of the features that push scopes into the thousands of dollars.
If I remember right, I think it was a Leupold scope in that situation.

I'm not badmouthing Leupold, but the fact remains that there is better glass out there.
I've spent a lot of time looking through scopes and binos.
Do it enough, and you will see the subtle differences.
Combine that with the features added to the top shelf scopes and there you have it...
For those willing to pay for it...features + subtle differences = worth it.

It's not in everybody's budget, but it should at least be researched and considered.
Making an uneducated/uninformed decision is not wise.
If the determination is made that you don't think it's worth it, I don't think anyone here would blame you.
But removing them from consideration based only on price is no more intelligent than picking one only for the price.

 

[Adrian]

I would suggest most European hunters use European glass, hunters from the U.S. use U.S. and European glass so likely the predominant is from Europe.

There is a following for the big name brands for a reason, they make good scopes but there are equally good scopes away from the grandee manufacturers and for a lot less money.

My hunting friends in the U.K. bang on about Swarovski Swarovski Swarovski.
You would think there are no other manufacturers.

I get fed up with it, I will never own a Swarovski because I can spend half the amount for an equally good scope without the name.

My friend looked through my Meopta and actually admitted he saw no difference from his all singing, all dancing Swarovski.

He has never shot anything with his 2k scope that I haven't with my £500 one.

I am not knocking anyone who buys an expensive scope, please don't take my comments the wrong way, everyone should buy what they like and enjoy using it.

I don't follow trends or fashions, while my friends are drooling over their scopes, I'm just getting on and using my equally good and less expensive ones and saving my money!

I had an interesting conversation with a representative of a high end German rifle company and the price of glass came up.
I asked the question of why Swarovski are so damn expensive? Is it really all about the quality? Are they so much better?

His answer was interesting, he asked me if I had ever seen advertising for said maker?
Have I seen the glossy magazine full page ads, the posters and fabulous glass cases, the floor to ceiling drapes with a hunter on a mountainside holding his high end binoculars?

Of course, I said yes, he said, there you go, that's why certain makers charge more for their products. An awful lot of money is needed for their promotions and glossy adverts.

I've no idea if he is right, but he could be.

Buy the best you can afford and good luck but don't be afraid to look at cheaper options for equal quality.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Swarovski, made in the us of a.

https://www.chuckhawks.com/swarovski_visit.htm

 

[Shootist43]

There have been numerous suggestions made for "good" scopes, but no mention of reticle. I have a German #4 Reticle in the scope of my 404 Jeffery as well as on my 416 Rigby. Lots of guys are going to scopes with a lighted reticle or dot. Those options make good sense to me.

 

[BeeMaa]

There have been numerous suggestions made for "good" scopes, but no mention of reticle. I have a German #4 Reticle in the scope of my 404 Jeffery as well as on my 416 Rigby. Lots of guys are going to scopes with a lighted reticle or dot. Those options make good sense to me.

I mentioned it back in post #9.
Extremely useful on the animals with a dark brown or black pelt.
Sable, Wildebeest, Cape Buffalo and almost anything under a tree without illumination is difficult.

 

[Dwight Beagle]

My nicest scopes are Leupold and Meopta with one Zeiss. I don’t know if I’m an optics snob or not but if I could afford it I’d be owning me some Leica.

One of the reasons I buy the best scopes I possibly can I have a hard time putting into words. I’ll call it being easy on the eyes. The cheaper the scope the more my eyes feel tired and strained after shooting. The converse is also true. The better the scope, the faster my eyes lock in on the target and I don’t have to consciously focus on the target as much as I do with lesser optics.

There are of course myriad other reasons for having nicer scopes, such as reliability and toughness.

I do like illuminated reticles, only have one at this time though. I believe there are few right or wrong reticle choices, get whatever floats your boat. My preference is German #4, even my one IR scope is a German #4.

There is no denying Swarovski makes good scopes but I don’t see well through them.

 

[nztimb]

I found the weight of some of the euro scopes to be an unballancing factor. I balance (lol) weight against the magnification I need on that rifle to the intended or possible areas the particular rifle may be hunted. For my particular needs and my older bespectacled eyes the innability to percieve the clarity advantage (if it exists) of the more expensive scopes and the dislike of the unneded weight I am content with the good Leupold and Nikon scopes.
I was testing and developing a load (cast bullet for pig shooting) for a friends Ruger magnum rifle in 458 Lott with a S&B mounted and that rifle weighed in at well over 11 lbs and I know for certain that it is not something I would have tollerated on a walk for more than a few hundred yards before a real hate for it became evident. Heavy and unbalanced is not something that even the very best of glass can compensate for.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

Please consider the Leica 1-6.3i x 24, it is a Fantastic scope in the range you have mentioned Lhleggtowner because it has the adjustable red dot for rapid target acquisition, enough magnification without wobble, 1x power so you can open both eyes on a followup and crystal clear vision with sharp contrast. It isn't light, made really strong. I have mounted mine with Warne quick release mounts, that being the preferable option if you have time to remove it on a followup.

 

[IvW]

This will be going on a 404 Jeffery.I all but have nailed down a builder. It will be a all around style scope. I am thinking 1-8x. Because if and when I get to go to Africa I would like to use one rifle. I would like to buff hunt but, while I’m there I would love kudu and plains game.

Is a first focal plans or second better? I have used both

30 mm , 34m tube better?

1-6 x 24, 30 mm tube mounted as low as possible fitted with the best qd mounts you can get.....backed up with open sights of your choice but on express 140 degree or better still a proper ghost ring rear sight(not peep).....

 

[IvW]

And illiminated reticle is very good if you plan on leopard, bush pig or anything else at night

 

[Dirtdart]

I will try to keep this on topic.
The OP stated that the rifle in question was to be chambered in .404 Jeffery and most of us here are familiar with that cartridge and its capabilities.
If you are comfortable with a one piece base then most any scope can be mounted to achieve proper eye relief. If the the action is of a conventional Mauser then I would think a two piece base set up that offers more access to the magazine is more desirable. A piece of glass may meet the criteria in every other way but if the "eye box" doesn't work for you then that scope is not a good candidate no matter the quality or price.
The bottom end magnification of 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.7 can be ideal depending on model. It is worth noting that some manufactures FOV numbers do not add up. Strictly from an FOV standpoint I can tell you that a Swaro 1.7 has a very noticeable wider FOV than a Leupold 1.5.
Optics have come a long way in the past decade or so where a 1-6 is common and more and more 1-8's coming along without sacrificing FOV. It is for each rifleman to decide how important that those extra digits are on the top.
With equal quality glass a front focal plane reticle will be more visible against the target in limited light than a rear focal plane. Unfortunately most FFP scopes in these lower magnification ranges these days have some sort of tactical reticle not particularly suited for 4 legged game. How "heavy" the cross hairs are in a reticle is far more important to me than used to be. One example is Swarovski's version of the plex reticle, it is far to thin for me. I guess that I am the exception there as opposed to the rule. Illumination is a huge help but you have to decide how bad of a handicap it is if it fails.
If you decide that illumination is important then the layout of the controls can be a big factor.

A tube larger than 30mm is at home on a long range rifle but a .404 not as much?

Weight is one of the few factors that can be accurately judged from manufactures specs. If you are trying to shave ounces then that will help narrow down the potential candidates quickly.

Unfortunately you can't always tell what is the ideal scope until you have had the opportunity to ring mark a few that are destined for resale, at a loss of course.

The factors I have mentioned are the ones that come into play for me when I am "on the sticks".

If you are unable to take, or make a shot due to the scope you have mounted make sure you know what is going to piss you off the least. Was it misplaced brand loyalty, spent too much money, didn't spend enough money, or some other factor that you could control.

 

[Rare Breed]

I am not a snob but in my 50 years of bunting I have used them all. For my Africa guns I only use Swarovski. Ever breaks, great light transmission amazing clarity. I spend a lot of money on my guns why would I be cheap on my scope

 

[nksmfamjp]

I once watched a episode of Jim Shockey hunting sheep in Russia, he missed at 100 yards because his several thousand dollar scope was dialed to shoot at 900 yards by accident, my first thought was if he had a 3-9 practical hunting scope on the rifle he would have had his sheep.

Heck, I’d just like to put some money on whether Jim Shockey hits an animal at 900yds from a field position.

people do, but they are the anal types with a fair amount of equipment, practice and a set method to dial, shoot, back to zero stop or dial corrections. They aren’t just throwing bullets at game.

Nothing negative intended about Jim, just the idea that you can buy something and start dropping game at 900 yds!

 

[Tanks]

One good scope brand I'd also like to mention that is mid priced is the Trijicon. They do handle recoil real well, have good illumination as well as multitude of reticle options.

 

[AES]

I will keep the answer very simple buy the best quality optics you can afford and don't look back! Nothing worse than seeing crap optics on fine rifles but people skimp on optics all the time then regret it later. Good high quality scope is going to start at 1500 USD and go up from there. I would consider a Leupold bare minimum on a 404 jeff. and yes I am an optics snob and have seen and had many mid range and Leupold scopes fail. High end European scopes don't fail very often. aka Schmidt & bender, Swarovski, zeiss and leica. I like swaro and S&B personally. Good luck

Agree with you. Glass > rifle

I use a Swarovski Z6i 1.7-10x42 (BT) on my big bores.

Have that setup on my 416 because had the scope available in the closet. If I were to do it from scratch z8i 1-8 is perfect. They're all great glass.

 

[Tanks]

Have that setup on my 416 because had the scope available in the closet. If I were to do it from scratch z8i 1-8 is perfect. They're all great glass.

One reason I like those scope series is the ballistic turret. Set it, verify it and forget it. No need for a dope sheet per se. Swarovski will even print custom indicators for each turret location.

 

[Hank2211]

I've had Leupold scopes and I've had Swarovski scopes. I currently have Swarovski Z6i's on a .375, a .404 Jeffery and a .416 Rigby.

I won't badmouth Leupold - they make a very good product. But I have no doubt that Swarovski makes a better product - I'd even say a much better product, especially when you're looking at illuminated reticles.

Are the Swarovski's two or three times better than the Leupold to justify the price difference? No, they aren't, but if you have the money, there is no doubt that you will have a better scope, and one better able to stand up to heavy recoil, with the Swarovski than with the Leopold. And you won't have to spend any time explaining your choice to anyone.