what's your scope recommendation?

[Weatherby Fan]

I would look at a Leupold VX3 3.5-10x40, for the money I don't think you can buy a better scope for all round hunting purposes.
WF

[wlbc]

I would suggest the Zeiss Conquest in a 3-9x40 or a Meopta 3-9x42.

I'm finding less fascination with higher magnification on a hunting rig; in fact the last 4 scopes I've bought have been VX2 2-7, VX3 2.5-8, Zeiss Conquest 3-9, and Zeiss Conquest 3-9. Seems to be better bang for the buck on 3-9's over 2.5/3.5-10's in Zeiss or Leupold.

BC Brad, I'm thinking of a fixed 2.5 or 4 for my next scope, I was thinking that 6x might be too much. Any issues with target acquisition at close range?

[kennyg826]

Thanks for your input folks. Every bit helps and who better to ask than you guys who use them!
Ken.

[hunter1993ap]

I would suggest the Zeiss Conquest in a 3-9x40 or a Meopta 3-9x42.

I'm finding less fascination with higher magnification on a hunting rig; in fact the last 4 scopes I've bought have been VX2 2-7, VX3 2.5-8, Zeiss Conquest 3-9, and Zeiss Conquest 3-9. Seems to be better bang for the buck on 3-9's over 2.5/3.5-10's in Zeiss or Leupold.

BC Brad, I'm thinking of a fixed 2.5 or 4 for my next scope, I was thinking that 6x might be too much. Any issues with target acquisition at close range?

I don't have a problem but I put thousands of rounds downrange a year, plus i have used this rig since i started hunting so its about as comfortable as you can get. most of the shooting i do is a pellet gun, but if you spend enough time behind the scope you become fast.

[Sofa King]

could save a lot more money and go with iron sights and a pair of these.

[Sofa King]

[Fred1]

And the chicks will dig ya too!!!!

[BCBRAD]

I would suggest the Zeiss Conquest in a 3-9x40 or a Meopta 3-9x42.

I'm finding less fascination with higher magnification on a hunting rig; in fact the last 4 scopes I've bought have been VX2 2-7, VX3 2.5-8, Zeiss Conquest 3-9, and Zeiss Conquest 3-9. Seems to be better bang for the buck on 3-9's over 2.5/3.5-10's in Zeiss or Leupold.

BC Brad, I'm thinking of a fixed 2.5 or 4 for my next scope, I was thinking that 6x might be too much. Any issues with target acquisition at close range?

I don't find it so, big clear image when I shoulder the rifle, scope always seems to be on target, very generous eye box sure helps as well.

[msharkey]

I have to agree. I have been researching a lot of scopes this year and want to get a 4.5-14x40 leupold or the 3.5-18x44 swaro but I keep going back to the fx 6x42. I'm still on the fence weather or not I will get a new scope but I think my preferred hunting scope will always be the 6x42 leupold. the only difference with mine is its the fine duplex, so I can still shoot long ranges at smaller targets. I know with the fixed scope ill never make the mistake of hunting in the timber with the scope cranked and miss out on a critter.

I'm 100 % on board with fixed power scopes; I've two 6X42 Leupold scopes that get the job done on my hunting rifles. In fact, my No.1 wears a 4x33 Leupold that works just fine too.

[hookedonblacktails]

If you ever come across the now discontinued zeiss 3.5-10x44 for a good price I would snatch that up in a heartbeat, assuming you're not looking for a lightweight scsope. I like it because it still fits on med rings and the larger objective offers a larger sight picture, not field of view just a bigger picture, when compared to my leupold 3.4-10x40, when you have them side by side it's quite noticable, eveything just looks bigger looking throught the zeiss. It almost like having a 12 power, which I like because I like punching paper as much as I can at 200. Other than that I think everything suggested is a good choice