Fish-Hawk.Net

Just ordered my new big game rifle Browning BAR 7mm WSM

Looking for feed back on what scope I should mount on it.

What do you have , any regrets, anything to stay away from ?

Bushnell 4600 2-12X 50 best value hands down for under $500 I have a 3600 and am extremely pleased with it. Wish I had ponied up for the 4600
H&S

Bushnell 4200 3x9x40mm is a pretty amazing deal for around $300. This is what I have on my Tikka.

you need to figure out what yer needs are. long range or short. in the bush or in the open. the kind of mounts and rings you want to use also make a difference. do you want see through mounts.

if you want something versatile that you can use in the bush and up to 250yds in the open then you don't need a high power scope.
i would go with any Bushnell or Burris Signature Select 1.5X to 6X by 40mm. if you are like me, you would want to be able to pick them off on the run.

Looking for short range capacity in the bush as well we have a few open fields with up to 300 yard possible shots.

I am leaning towards a Bushnell 2.5X10 X 50 with the FireFly rectile.

Firefly because its tough to see a black rectile against a black bear.

if you are looking for a high quality scope check out Kahle Scopes (austrian).. http://www.kindermann.ca/
in my opinion they exceed leopold and match up well with Swarovski etc, but much less money... 2.5x10x50 my favourite of a variety of situations.

Kindermann's is the Cdn supplier of out Toronto and they give first rate service..

Kahle binoculars are awesome as well... I gave my son a pair and find myself using his as opposed to my Swarovski

MLR
The Firefly on my 3200 is OK but there are battery operated luminance that are better. The Rainguard is an excellent invention though. As far as optics first rate for a mid priced scope. As moonshine suggested 1.5X6 is what you should look for.If you were glasses go with a large aperture 40mm at least.
H&S

I have a Weaver 3X9 on my Remington Model 700 Classic in Rem. 7MM Mag.

I purchased both in 1976.

Both have stood the test of time and more importantly, both have stood up to me.

I guess the biggest question is where will you spend most of your time hunting. Sometimes 3 power is a bit much depending on the type of bush being hunted.

Regardless of where your are going to purchase your scope, do some reserch on the models that have your intrest. Check out BPS and Cabelas, they have product ratings on every product sold.

Good luck in your purchase,
DS

MLR, correct me if i am wrong but i seem to recall you sayin that your gang uses dogs. if this is the case you may want to forget even using a scope, unless of course you have been using a scope all along. I use a scope in moose season, a 1.5 X 6. then remove it for deer. when using a scope, i've actually had to pass on deer because sometimes picking up a flying deer with a scope is a challenge in itself.
the biggest advantage of a scope is not the magnification. its the scopes ability to show your target under very low light conditions. so many times, you see a deer in the early morn and you cant see a rack. when you put up the scope, the rack jumps right out at you. so don't get hung up on the hi-power scopes, unless its bino's that you really want

Moonshine, yeah we use dogs first thing in the morning chases, and then in the afternoons we hit the tree stands and platforms most of which long range shots up to approx 300 yards (don't think I would attempt that shot yet) So I am not leaning too hard towards the higher magnification. I like the idea of the 1.5, but would be interested in seeing 6 x magnification at 300 yards.

So my deer needs in the morning are low light 20 yds to 50 yds and in the afternoons 50 yds to 300 yds with low light at the end of the day.

Bear needs 25 yds to 100 yds in low light late afternoon / evenings

Is there a Burris dealer in the Ottawa / Ottawa Valley other than Lebaron's where I can take the time to have a look through a scope or two?

thanks for the input so far guys, I plan to stick in a budget of 400 to 600 bucks and don't want to buy something that I will regret and say I wish I would have spent another 80 bucks for a different model when its too late.

not sure about Ottawa, but Al's corner store has some choice of scopes, Algonquin outfitters in Deep river is a good place to look too. its in the same building as the dairy.
i think you may want to skip Burris cause i think that rifle scopes start at around $800. You can't beat bushnell scopes. i would then go to the 3200 2-7 power

Pathfinder maps in Carleton Place sells Burriss scopes good guy to deal with too.

Burris does make a good scope I agree and at a good price too

All good info so far...
I agree with the low power scope comments for deer, for long range coyotes I do occasionally up the power to 5-7x. But I always start with the scope at lowest power, yielding largest FOV.
I have a couple Bushnell Trophy series (lower end) but they hold their settings well.
Stay away from Simmons - unless buying a mattress

I have owned probably several hundred scopes in my lifetime and still have about thirty or so.

You have already received some very good advice here.

Optics are about the only part of shooting and hunting where price is a pretty good indicator of quality, and I think that most experienced folks would suggest you buy the best scope you can afford. That would also be my advice.

My personal preference for good quality at a reasonable price, in other words VALUE, is Burris scopes. But there are lots of folks who do not like Burris. Most folks find Leupold to be of high quality and I know several guys who will only use Leupold glass. I have several Leupolds, and they are good scopes but do tend to be pricey, especially new.

Which brings me to my final point, there are LOTS of excellent used scopes for sale, and this is where you will find the best value for your money.

Doug

PS) OK, my final FINAL point is that a 50 mm objective lens will require extra high scope mounts and will put the scope a long ways above the rifle. If you are using that rifle in a short-range scenario (as you describe), that will be hugely sub-optimal.