DuckSouth.com

ive been looking for a new scope myself and im gonna go with the nikon monarch 4x16x42 bdc. nikon is the best scope for the money

hey where did you order the nitrex from and get the 100.00 rebate?

Deltaquack wrote:I'd recommend finding a Meopta Meostar R1 on Ebay. It's the quality of Swarovski (made with the same internal parts). They cost 800-1000 new. I've bought 3 brand new ones off of ebay and the most expensive one was 500. You can honestly see better with the scope at dark than you can the naked eye. I have the 56mm which sits high.....so i'd recommend the 50mm and they have the 30mm tubes.

When was the last time you bought one on ebay? Was it from a dealer?

Leupold VXII/VXIII/VX3 or Zeiss Conquest as already mentioned. One that hasn't been mentioned that deserves a look is the Sightron SII.

stang67 wrote:

Deltaquack wrote:I'd recommend finding a Meopta Meostar R1 on Ebay. It's the quality of Swarovski (made with the same internal parts). They cost 800-1000 new. I've bought 3 brand new ones off of ebay and the most expensive one was 500. You can honestly see better with the scope at dark than you can the naked eye. I have the 56mm which sits high.....so i'd recommend the 50mm and they have the 30mm tubes.

When was the last time you bought one on ebay? Was it from a dealer?

The last time I bought one was about a year ago........but I looked again a few months ago for a friend and there were a few on there. You have to check from time to time. I don't wait until I need one.......I'll look from time to time.......and know what price i'm willing to pay.......so when I see one in that price range i'll buy it and when I need it and mount it......i'll start looking for another one. I just got another barrel for an Encore so i'll have to start looking for another one. I have a Nikon Monarch 50mm, a Leupold VariX3, and they're truly no comparison......the Meopta is in a different league......like the Swarovski's.

Just went on ebay and looked. There weren't any on there right now under 629 or so. I bet if you check around Feb. and March......you'll see the prices i'm talking about. I don't remember which month I bought the last one. It's still in the box in my closet......but about to get mounted.

I was asking because I had just looked, too. Seems to be only about two dealers selling a bunch now, all with set prices (starting bid equal to the buy-it-now price). I've heard enough good things about these Meoptas to try your strategy. I don't need one but could always use a good deal on gun stuff.

cwink wrote:

deltadukman wrote:I know its not the question you asked, but if you could spring a little more, you could get a Ziess Conquest for not much more than $100...thats going to be the next scope I sit on top of my .270

I will tell you this.. The gun that I put the Nitrex scope on had a Zeiss Conquest on it when I got it from my Dad. I sold it and put a Nikon Prostaff on it. Granted the Zeiss was a 36mm I believe, but I could not see a difference in the clarity between the Zeiss and the Nikon. I also have a pair of Zeiss binoc that I got from my dad (he was an optics freak ).. And my brother in law bought a pair of Nikon Travellite binocs for 100.00 bucks. One morning we sat in the stand and compared the two side by side. You could see a difference in the two, but not that much... I am not nocking Zeiss, I may actually get one of thier scopes also in the near future. I think the Nikon's are just as good optically as the Zeiss, but I am just not crazy about the BDC Reticule Nikon has out. The Zeiss is more like the Nitrex.

I bowhunt and turkey hunt with the travellite's from nikon and couldn't be more inpressed for $100.. they weigh nothing so you never know they are there..

benjidp wrote:hey where did you order the nitrex from and get the 100.00 rebate?

natchezss.com

stang67 wrote:I was asking because I had just looked, too. Seems to be only about two dealers selling a bunch now, all with set prices (starting bid equal to the buy-it-now price). I've heard enough good things about these Meoptas to try your strategy. I don't need one but could always use a good deal on gun stuff.

When i've bought them.......there weren't a bunch on there with BIN prices. Most of them were from individuals and would be bid on.......with some saying new in box.

deltadukman wrote:I know its not the question you asked, but if you could spring a little more, you could get a Ziess Conquest for not much more than $100...thats going to be the next scope I sit on top of my .270

You can find the 3-9x50 for pretty dang close to $500 if you shop around.

http://www.google.com/products/catalog? ... #scoring=p

The bulk of what you pay for a scope often comes in low light resolution. Tactical scopes cost more for toughtness and repeatable turrets ie. Nightforce. It is hard to tell a $1500 dollar differnce between a Swaro and Nitrex until you spend alot of time behind one in poor lighting conditions. A good 3-9x40 often appears to be stronger with a wider field of view than a cheaper 3-9x40. It really boils down to how far you are going to shoot and how much money you want to spend/waste.

Nail wrote:....One that hasn't been mentioned that deserves a look is the Sightron SII.

i've got a 4x9x42 on my .444 and it has better light gathering, for early morning and late afternoon than my prostaff, but the prostaff has better clarity at distance than the sightron

Super Sniper has a pretty good reputation and some very resonable scopes. I've been thinking about a fixed power scope for my winmag but haven't decided.

good deals on scopes right now on bullnettle. nightforce, kahles, leupold, nikon, etc
I would not be afraid to buy anything from huntfish.

Blackduck wrote:The bulk of what you pay for a scope often comes in low light resolution. Tactical scopes cost more for toughtness and repeatable turrets ie. Nightforce. It is hard to tell a $1500 dollar differnce between a Swaro and Nitrex until you spend alot of time behind one in poor lighting conditions. A good 3-9x40 often appears to be stronger with a wider field of view than a cheaper 3-9x40. It really boils down to how far you are going to shoot and how much money you want to spend/waste.

Another thing people pay for are the coatings on the lenses, ie: light transmission. I doubt most folks' eyes can tell the difference between 94% and 97% light transmission. Yeah, it's important to an extent, just not to the point most folks think.

The amount of eye relief gets overlooked sometimes too. Those who do learn the hard way.

And if you're really serious about your optics you'll go the extra mile to compare the actual weights and dimensions. I hate a scope that looks/is out of place on a given rifle.