Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 12/11/2013 4:44:57 PM EDT
My 24" RRA upper AR build is almost complete and I'm looking for the best optics I can find for $500 or less. The AR is .223 and will be used for bench shooting and coyote hunting. Max range shot will likely be about 300 yards.

I don't mind buying used if I can get a little nicer scope in that ball park. I love my Leupold for its clarity and ability to maintain a zero. I want something that is equally clear and dependable. What are your suggestions?
Link Posted: 12/11/2013 4:48:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/11/2013 4:49:50 PM EDT by truculenity]
nikon prostaff p223 3-9x40 is a good value ~$200. Ive ran it out to 600 yds with no problem and it helps me shoot some sub 1/2 moa groups. ive got friends with high end glass that always comment on brightness and clarity for the price range.
Link Posted: 12/11/2013 4:49:22 PM EDT
I know you said out to 300 yards but i like 1-4s like a burris mtac30

Scope and mount should cost less than $500
Link Posted: 12/11/2013 5:37:58 PM EDT
There are 3 different MTACs you can get for under $500.

http://www.opticsplanet.com/s/mtac

I have the base model with the P.E.P.R. mount.

http://www.opticsplanet.com/burris-ar-tactical-mounts.html
Link Posted: 12/11/2013 6:17:52 PM EDT
From my experience you can't go wrong with the Nikon M-223 line of scopes. I use the 1-4x20 BDC out to 500 yards.
Link Posted: 12/11/2013 6:22:31 PM EDT
Vortex Viper HS
Link Posted: 12/11/2013 8:12:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/11/2013 8:13:20 PM EDT by delirious1]
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 5:24:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2013 5:26:27 AM EDT by MS556]
If you love your Leupold, get another.  The Mark AR Mod 1 series, especially the 3-9x40mm with FireDot ranging reticle, is very nice.  I run the very similar 30mm tube version, the VX-R Patrol 3-9x40mm with Firedot TMR reticle and love it.  It is a little above your price range, but the one inch tube Mark AR Mod 1 is right where you need the price to be and is an excellent scope with mil dot reticle, mil rad turrets, the variable illumination dot and the really nice motion detection automatic on-off circuit that let's you not worry about turning it off.  It is a lot of scope for the money.
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 5:42:35 AM EDT
+1 on the Leupold Mark AR. I looked at many other brands, and chose the Mark AR. I really like the SPR FireDot on my 1.5-4x, very light weight at 9 ounces, and they have most of the features of the much more expensive Leupolds like the VXR series. The reticle is calibrated for the 62 gr. M855 load, the elevation turret is calibrated for a 55 gr. @ 3100. I guess they were trying to please more people, I myself shoot 62 or 68 grain loads. You can have them make a custom turret for any load if you send their custom shop all the required load info and a check for $35. A great scope for  $400.
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 6:41:28 AM EDT
this right here  best bang for your buck .
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 8:33:37 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jwb47:
this right here  best bang for your buck .
View Quote


Heavy.  Very all turrets.  No illumination.  But, I agree that Weaver is making some pretty good stuff right now. While not a bad choice,  I see more value in the Leupold, Mark AR,  especially if you want illumination, want lighter weight and solid warranty from an American company that actually makes the product here, too.
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 11:27:18 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MS556:


Heavy.  Very all turrets.  No illumination.  But, I agree that Weaver is making some pretty good stuff right now. While not a bad choice,  I see more value in the Leupold, Mark AR,  especially if you want illumination, want lighter weight and solid warranty from an American company that actually makes the product here, too.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MS556:
Originally Posted By jwb47:
this right here  best bang for your buck .


Heavy.  Very all turrets.  No illumination.  But, I agree that Weaver is making some pretty good stuff right now. While not a bad choice,  I see more value in the Leupold, Mark AR,  especially if you want illumination, want lighter weight and solid warranty from an American company that actually makes the product here, too.


16 oz is heavy? Some of my scopes weigh twice that much. I've said it before as I've owned both scopes. The Weaver is simply the better scope. Glass between the two is probably a wash. The Weaver has better turrets and reticle. Leupolds execution of the tmr in the mk ar is atrocious.

More details about that here.
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 12:53:49 PM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 1:13:51 PM EDT
SWFA - Link
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 2:40:13 PM EDT
Another vote for the Burris MTAC. Great optic, great price.
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 3:22:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2013 3:42:18 PM EDT by MS556]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RFutch:


16 oz is heavy? Some of my scopes weigh twice that much. I've said it before as I've owned both scopes. The Weaver is simply the better scope. Glass between the two is probably a wash. The Weaver has better turrets and reticle. Leupolds execution of the tmr in the mk ar is atrocious.

More details about that here.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RFutch:
Originally Posted By MS556:
Originally Posted By jwb47:
this right here  best bang for your buck .


Heavy.  Very all turrets.  No illumination.  But, I agree that Weaver is making some pretty good stuff right now. While not a bad choice,  I see more value in the Leupold, Mark AR,  especially if you want illumination, want lighter weight and solid warranty from an American company that actually makes the product here, too.


16 oz is heavy? Some of my scopes weigh twice that much. I've said it before as I've owned both scopes. The Weaver is simply the better scope. Glass between the two is probably a wash. The Weaver has better turrets and reticle. Leupolds execution of the tmr in the mk ar is atrocious.

More details about that here.


Yes, heavy.  And tall turrets.  If you're dragging around 32 oz scopes, then they are too heavy also.  

My best long range scope is a Pentax Lightseeker (relabeled US made Burris Black Diamond) 6-24x50mm, 30mm tube, that weighs only 22.7 oz.  That is a big, long, dedicated target scope..  There is no reason to be over 12 oz for a 1 inch tube mid power variable.   Old generation (leaded) glass is probably the reason.  Heck, I have a 50 year old real US (Rochester, NY) Bausch & Lomb variable that only weighs 8 ounces and some Leupolds that weigh 9.   No reason to be so heavy. When you add the mount and other accessories on these rifles, they start getting heavier and heavier (sometimes by a significant margin) than hunting rifles.  10-11 pound AR15's are becoming way too common with high power hunting rifles at 8 or less.   The tall turrets are totally unnecessary, represent opportunities to catch and snag on things, and represent archaic design for modern AR rifles.  They look taller than the turrets on some of my dedicated long range target scopes that have 1/8 moa clicks and need the extra revolutions.

Don't get me wrong.  I am a big Weaver fan -- The El Paso, TX Weaver, not the passed around, bought and sold and resold name, that we don't know who will own next.  Been there.  Sold them, bujt still have every one of my US Weavers - K-4s, V7s, V12s, even a Lee dot K-1.  Just a bright as the day they were new.

Have you considered how complex it is to make a mil dot reticle that also has an illuminated dot as with the Leupold Firedot TMR?  Leupold uses a fiber optics tube to feed the dot, so that you can change illumination intensity with a small button where many scopes have their side focus knob.   By doing this there is no big, bulky knob and battery compartment sticking out of the side of the eyepiece.  That makes the "ticks" a little bigger on the reticle to cover up that little tube, but it makes the scope way more useful, and . . . lighter.
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 4:53:35 PM EDT
Vortex Viper PST 1-4X would be my choice without a doubt. It's an amazing scope at a great price and is backed up by the best warranty you could ask for. It breaks for whatever reason and they replace it....period.

I don't have a single negative thing to say about it...
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 5:19:39 PM EDT
a used TR24. I've seen them go in the EE for 500-550, or 600-650 but that's with a $150 mount.
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 6:25:28 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MS556:


Yes, heavy.  And tall turrets.  If you're dragging around 32 oz scopes, then they are too heavy also.  

My best long range scope is a Pentax Lightseeker (relabeled US made Burris Black Diamond) 6-24x50mm, 30mm tube, that weighs only 22.7 oz.  That is a big, long, dedicated target scope..  There is no reason to be over 12 oz for a 1 inch tube mid power variable.   Old generation (leaded) glass is probably the reason.  Heck, I have a 50 year old real US (Rochester, NY) Bausch & Lomb variable that only weighs 8 ounces and some Leupolds that weigh 9.   No reason to be so heavy. When you add the mount and other accessories on these rifles, they start getting heavier and heavier (sometimes by a significant margin) than hunting rifles.  10-11 pound AR15's are becoming way too common with high power hunting rifles at 8 or less.   The tall turrets are totally unnecessary, represent opportunities to catch and snag on things, and represent archaic design for modern AR rifles.  They look taller than the turrets on some of my dedicated long range target scopes that have 1/8 moa clicks and need the extra revolutions. I guess the weight never bothered me and I hunt with all my rifles. If an extra 4 to 5 oz are going to make or break it for someone they have bigger issues. I have also never had a  turret move accidentally. It's something people obsess over and it's blown way out of proportion. The weaver's turrets are actually more stiff than the mk ar so if anything it would be more difficult.

Don't get me wrong.  I am a big Weaver fan -- The El Paso, TX Weaver, not the passed around, bought and sold and resold name, that we don't know who will own next.  Been there.  Sold them, bujt still have every one of my US Weavers - K-4s, V7s, V12s, even a Lee dot K-1.  Just a bright as the day they were new.

Have you considered how complex it is to make a mil dot reticle that also has an illuminated dot as with the Leupold Firedot TMR?  Leupold uses a fiber optics tube to feed the dot, so that you can change illumination intensity with a small button where many scopes have their side focus knob.   By doing this there is no big, bulky knob and battery compartment sticking out of the side of the eyepiece.  That makes the "ticks" a little bigger on the reticle to cover up that little tube, but it makes the scope way more useful, and . . . lighter. The overall thickness of the reticle is not what bothers me. What bothered me about it was the half assed attempt at making a reticle with usable holds. The .5 mil and 1 mil marks are way too similar in size. They are almost the same exact size it's ridiculous.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MS556:
Originally Posted By RFutch:
Originally Posted By MS556:
Originally Posted By jwb47:
this right here  best bang for your buck .


Heavy.  Very all turrets.  No illumination.  But, I agree that Weaver is making some pretty good stuff right now. While not a bad choice,  I see more value in the Leupold, Mark AR,  especially if you want illumination, want lighter weight and solid warranty from an American company that actually makes the product here, too.


16 oz is heavy? Some of my scopes weigh twice that much. I've said it before as I've owned both scopes. The Weaver is simply the better scope. Glass between the two is probably a wash. The Weaver has better turrets and reticle. Leupolds execution of the tmr in the mk ar is atrocious.

More details about that here.


Yes, heavy.  And tall turrets.  If you're dragging around 32 oz scopes, then they are too heavy also.  

My best long range scope is a Pentax Lightseeker (relabeled US made Burris Black Diamond) 6-24x50mm, 30mm tube, that weighs only 22.7 oz.  That is a big, long, dedicated target scope..  There is no reason to be over 12 oz for a 1 inch tube mid power variable.   Old generation (leaded) glass is probably the reason.  Heck, I have a 50 year old real US (Rochester, NY) Bausch & Lomb variable that only weighs 8 ounces and some Leupolds that weigh 9.   No reason to be so heavy. When you add the mount and other accessories on these rifles, they start getting heavier and heavier (sometimes by a significant margin) than hunting rifles.  10-11 pound AR15's are becoming way too common with high power hunting rifles at 8 or less.   The tall turrets are totally unnecessary, represent opportunities to catch and snag on things, and represent archaic design for modern AR rifles.  They look taller than the turrets on some of my dedicated long range target scopes that have 1/8 moa clicks and need the extra revolutions. I guess the weight never bothered me and I hunt with all my rifles. If an extra 4 to 5 oz are going to make or break it for someone they have bigger issues. I have also never had a  turret move accidentally. It's something people obsess over and it's blown way out of proportion. The weaver's turrets are actually more stiff than the mk ar so if anything it would be more difficult.

Don't get me wrong.  I am a big Weaver fan -- The El Paso, TX Weaver, not the passed around, bought and sold and resold name, that we don't know who will own next.  Been there.  Sold them, bujt still have every one of my US Weavers - K-4s, V7s, V12s, even a Lee dot K-1.  Just a bright as the day they were new.

Have you considered how complex it is to make a mil dot reticle that also has an illuminated dot as with the Leupold Firedot TMR?  Leupold uses a fiber optics tube to feed the dot, so that you can change illumination intensity with a small button where many scopes have their side focus knob.   By doing this there is no big, bulky knob and battery compartment sticking out of the side of the eyepiece.  That makes the "ticks" a little bigger on the reticle to cover up that little tube, but it makes the scope way more useful, and . . . lighter. The overall thickness of the reticle is not what bothers me. What bothered me about it was the half assed attempt at making a reticle with usable holds. The .5 mil and 1 mil marks are way too similar in size. They are almost the same exact size it's ridiculous.


We are talking about two specific scopes here that are very similar. The Leupold probably has the edge in the warranty/customer service but in no way can you justify that is a better scope. Have you even used or seen the weaver?
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 9:26:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2013 9:38:30 PM EDT by MS556]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
We are talking about two specific scopes here that are very similar. The Leupold probably has the edge in the warranty/customer service but in no way can you justify that is a better scope. Have you even used or seen the weaver?
View Quote


Only in the store.  But I invested rather heavily in a new Weaver Classic Extreme 2.5-10x50mm hunting scope.  30mm main tube and sold it.  Replaced with a Leopold LPS 2.5-10x45 that was lighter and brighter, way brighter. These were top of the line hunting optics  by both companies.  A hunting buddy and I compared his LPS to my bigger objective and equally expensive Weaver and I was made a convert. I have kept all my good American Weavers, though.  

Weight is cumulative.  That's my main point.  Four ounces on scope, four extra ounces on mount or rings, more weight on rail or hand guards or more stock, unused rails with covers, metal backup sights, longer barrel than needed or heavier profile.  It all adds up.  I have gone slim and lean on my build and cut about two pounds off.  Yes four ounces contributes.  I've bumped tall turrets against things scratched them at a minimum and caused me to question accuracy when hunting.    I just don't like them or need them except for very long range target use.  That's why the slimmed down and light Leupold, even with the illumination circuitry made a lot of sense to me.

That TMR hash or tic marks quibble seems like an excuse by the reviewer.  Yes the half mil and mil hashes are pretty much the same size.  True.  Once you know that you just count and forget that there is or is not a difference.  Gosh, if they were dots they'd all be the same size anyway.  I appreciate having a half mil tick, which is useful for windage adjustments a lot more than elevation.  I'll use the elevation turret to make trajectory changes and hold on, but I usually leave the windage turret zeroed and count hash or tic marks through the scope rather than fiddle with that turret when compensating for crosswind.

Maybe it's just me but the glass in that LPS was so superior to the Classic Extreme, and it was a smaller objective.  Might have biased me.  I use the LPS on my main deer rifle in a Talley rings.  Whole rig, rifle, scope, rings, bases, sling and full magazine (long action .280 Rem 700 KS Mountain Rifle) is exactly 8 pounds.  ARs for all but precision target  work ought not be much heavier.  That's just me.

The Weaver has good glass.  It is heavier, bulkier and lacks a lot if the features of the Leupold Mark AR Mod 1.  And the Mark AR has VX-2 glass which I submit is better.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 6:07:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2013 6:17:53 AM EDT by RFutch]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MS556:


Only in the store.  But I invested rather heavily in a new Weaver Classic Extreme 2.5-10x50mm hunting scope.  30mm main tube and sold it.  Replaced with a Leopold LPS 2.5-10x45 that was lighter and brighter, way brighter. These were top of the line hunting optics  by both companies.  A hunting buddy and I compared his LPS to my bigger objective and equally expensive Weaver and I was made a convert. I have kept all my good American Weavers, though.  What store? It's only available from Midwayusa online. Why not just admit you've not seen it?

Weight is cumulative.  That's my main point.  Four ounces on scope, four extra ounces on mount or rings, more weight on rail or hand guards or more stock, unused rails with covers, metal backup sights, longer barrel than needed or heavier profile.  It all adds up.  I have gone slim and lean on my build and cut about two pounds off.  Yes four ounces contributes.  I've bumped tall turrets against things scratched them at a minimum and caused me to question accuracy when hunting.    I just don't like them or need them except for very long range target use.  That's why the slimmed down and light Leupold, even with the illumination circuitry made a lot of sense to me. That's fine if that's what you want to use. That still doesn't make the Leupold a better scope.

That TMR hash or tic marks quibble seems like an excuse by the reviewer.  Yes the half mil and mil hashes are pretty much the same size.  True.  Once you know that you just count and forget that there is or is not a difference.  Gosh, if they were dots they'd all be the same size anyway.  I appreciate having a half mil tick, which is useful for windage adjustments a lot more than elevation.  I'll use the elevation turret to make trajectory changes and hold on, but I usually leave the windage turret zeroed and count hash or tic marks through the scope rather than fiddle with that turret when compensating for crosswind. Because if it was a mildot there would only be 4 dots on each line to discern. The Leupold has 9 hash marks on each line that are all very similar in size. Good luck with that in a hurry.

Maybe it's just me but the glass in that LPS was so superior to the Classic Extreme, and it was a smaller objective.  Might have biased me.  I use the LPS on my main deer rifle in a Talley rings.  Whole rig, rifle, scope, rings, bases, sling and full magazine (long action .280 Rem 700 KS Mountain Rifle) is exactly 8 pounds.  ARs for all but precision target  work ought not be much heavier.  That's just me. What the hell do these two scope have to do with the two that are in question? The LPS and the Classic Extreme are made to entirely different specs and are useless in this comparison.

The Weaver has good glass.  It is heavier, bulkier and lacks a lot if the features of the Leupold Mark AR Mod 1.  And the Mark AR has VX-2 glass which I submit is better. Pretty interesting you came to that conclusion with out ever using the Weaver.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MS556:
We are talking about two specific scopes here that are very similar. The Leupold probably has the edge in the warranty/customer service but in no way can you justify that is a better scope. Have you even used or seen the weaver?


Only in the store.  But I invested rather heavily in a new Weaver Classic Extreme 2.5-10x50mm hunting scope.  30mm main tube and sold it.  Replaced with a Leopold LPS 2.5-10x45 that was lighter and brighter, way brighter. These were top of the line hunting optics  by both companies.  A hunting buddy and I compared his LPS to my bigger objective and equally expensive Weaver and I was made a convert. I have kept all my good American Weavers, though.  What store? It's only available from Midwayusa online. Why not just admit you've not seen it?

Weight is cumulative.  That's my main point.  Four ounces on scope, four extra ounces on mount or rings, more weight on rail or hand guards or more stock, unused rails with covers, metal backup sights, longer barrel than needed or heavier profile.  It all adds up.  I have gone slim and lean on my build and cut about two pounds off.  Yes four ounces contributes.  I've bumped tall turrets against things scratched them at a minimum and caused me to question accuracy when hunting.    I just don't like them or need them except for very long range target use.  That's why the slimmed down and light Leupold, even with the illumination circuitry made a lot of sense to me. That's fine if that's what you want to use. That still doesn't make the Leupold a better scope.

That TMR hash or tic marks quibble seems like an excuse by the reviewer.  Yes the half mil and mil hashes are pretty much the same size.  True.  Once you know that you just count and forget that there is or is not a difference.  Gosh, if they were dots they'd all be the same size anyway.  I appreciate having a half mil tick, which is useful for windage adjustments a lot more than elevation.  I'll use the elevation turret to make trajectory changes and hold on, but I usually leave the windage turret zeroed and count hash or tic marks through the scope rather than fiddle with that turret when compensating for crosswind. Because if it was a mildot there would only be 4 dots on each line to discern. The Leupold has 9 hash marks on each line that are all very similar in size. Good luck with that in a hurry.

Maybe it's just me but the glass in that LPS was so superior to the Classic Extreme, and it was a smaller objective.  Might have biased me.  I use the LPS on my main deer rifle in a Talley rings.  Whole rig, rifle, scope, rings, bases, sling and full magazine (long action .280 Rem 700 KS Mountain Rifle) is exactly 8 pounds.  ARs for all but precision target  work ought not be much heavier.  That's just me. What the hell do these two scope have to do with the two that are in question? The LPS and the Classic Extreme are made to entirely different specs and are useless in this comparison.

The Weaver has good glass.  It is heavier, bulkier and lacks a lot if the features of the Leupold Mark AR Mod 1.  And the Mark AR has VX-2 glass which I submit is better. Pretty interesting you came to that conclusion with out ever using the Weaver.




If your avatar didn't say MS I'd swear you worked for Leupold. Leupold is not the end all be all of scope manufacturers and a lot of people are noticing that these days.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 6:31:30 AM EDT
As the Oracle said, hard to go wrong with Nikon's M-223 line of scopes, IMHO and his. Well with in your price range and the M-223 2-8 Rapid Action Turret or BDC reticle will easily get you to 300 yards. More compact and lighter then big 40 mm obj. but still great clarity. Bottom line, find some place that you can look down a few tubes, then buy the scope that you think will work the best for your needs. Rest assured, Nikon stands behind what they make with a  full lifetime warranty on their scopes.
As you can tell, I am a bit biased and yes I do do some PR work for Nikon, but believe me, if this scope didn't fit the requirements you have I wouldn't recommend it to you.

Nikon M-223 2-8 Rapid Action Turret
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 11:50:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2013 12:07:03 PM EDT by MS556]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History


.What store? It's only available from Midwayusa online. Why not just admit you've not seen it?

. That's fine if that's what you want to use. That still doesn't make the Leupold a better scope.

Because if it was a mildot there would only be 4 dots on each line to discern. The Leupold has 9 hash marks on each line that are all very similar in size. Good luck with that in a hurry.

What the hell do these two scope have to do with the two that are in question? The LPS and the Classic Extreme are made to entirely different specs and are useless in this comparison.

Pretty interesting you came to that conclusion with out ever using the Weaver.


If your avatar didn't say MS I'd swear you worked for Leupold. Leupold is not the end all be all of scope manufacturers and a lot of people are noticing that these days.
View Quote


A bit touchy aren't we?  Hit a sensitive nerve (again)?  Let me be clear.  The Weaver 3-10x40mm scope has been around a long, long, time in its standard hunting rifle version, without the mil/mil option made for MidWay.  It is that standard scope that I've seen in Gander Mountain, Academy Sports, Bass Pro Shop and other stores for years.  To my knowledge the only changes in the model you advocate have nothing to do with optical clarity.   Those scopes have been discontinued, for some reason now and seem to be on closeout if you can find them.  That's probably why Weaver made the deal with MidWay to change turrets and reticles, to find a source for the remaining parts.  I admit that I'm just speculating on that.   It does seem that if the scopes were that good, Weaver would still be marketing them in their hunting and general use lines.

Seems that a few retailers still have some of the 1/4" capped turret models for sale.

Gander Mountain Weaver Grand Slam 3-10x40mm Scope  

As to "good luck" with the half mil-dot ticks or hashes, yes,  I do have good luck with them, thank you very much.  I don't try to dope windage "in a hurry," and at typical hunting "in a hurry" ranges, it simply ain't gonna matter.  I find them useful for precision shooting.

The reference to the LPS and Weaver Classic Extreme was to point out that I owned both and was not enamored with that post El Paso Weaver glass, even when they are putting forth their best, top of the line product.

If you want to keep this dialog going, that's fine with me.   I don't have any relationship to Leupold whatsoever.  Never had.  I do have a lot of scopes from many different companies and, as stated, love my older Weaver ones.  I still have a superb Weaver V-12 AO (4-12x40mm)  on a Weatherby Mark V on a 300 Weatherby Magnum.  It's a bit heavy, but in a hard recoiling rifle that was a bit light to begin with, I though the extra weight actually helped me control the rifle.  I see no reason to put a newer scope on it.  Tracks beautifully, adjustable objective, very crisp and clear image.  Handles the recoil without a blink.

I do respect your perspective, but I deeply resent the condescending attitude, "red inking your responses" like I'm a school child having my paper graded, and personal attacks simply because someone disagrees with you and offers reasons that might make a difference to someone other than yourself.  In public discourse it is sadly  common, as a last resort, to attack the messenger because you don't like the message.  But perhaps there are people out there that might actually  like lighter weight, lower turrets, better warranty service and, yes, in my judgment, better glass.  

There are some areas of fair game for disagreement between us.  I agree.  You criticize the TMR hash marks.  It a fair issue to debate.  It is a trade off to get the illumination circuitry out of the eyepiece and make it lighter and more accessible when the rifle is shouldered and the target is being viewed - push button out in the turret area.  To accomplish those goals, which I think are laudable, the reticle design had to take into account the fiber optics tube coming up from the bottom of the reticle. The TMR reticle had already proven itself to be good, in fact highly acclaimed, on non-illuminated scopes.  We can disagree on our opinions on the reticle ticks and their practical consequences and each hold his own opinion.  

We can disagree on weight and turret height. I like the slimmer, lighter Leupold, that comes in lighter, even with the illuminated dot and its related battery, switch and circuitry than the non-illuminated Weaver.  That's fair.  You don't have a problem with the tall turrets and extra weight and apparently use mil dots "in a hurry."  No, Leupold, nor Weaver, nor any other manufacturer is the end all, be all in optics.  That's why we have these discussions.  There is no perfect optic, but pointing out differences may be useful to others.  We've given OP and others (if any) who may be interested, a choice of views.   We need not get nasty or haphazardly and back handedly accuse people of lying about the general availability of current generation Weaver Grand Slam 3-10x40mm scopes to make our points.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 12:44:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2013 3:58:42 PM EDT by RFutch]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MS556:


A bit touchy aren't we?  Hit a sensitive nerve (again)?  Let me be clear.  The Weaver 3-10x40mm scope has been around a long, long, time in its standard hunting rifle version, without the mil/mil option made for MidWay.  It is that standard scope that I've seen in Gander Mountain, Academy Sports, Bass Pro Shop and other stores for years.  To my knowledge the only changes in the model you advocate have nothing to do with optical clarity.   Those scopes have been discontinued, for some reason now and seem to be on closeout if you can find them.  That's probably why Weaver made the deal with MidWay to change turrets and reticles, to find a source for the remaining parts.  I admit that I'm just speculating on that.   It does seem that if the scopes were that good, Weaver would still be marketing them in their hunting and general use lines.

Seems that a few retailers still have some of the 1/4" capped turret models for sale.

Gander Mountain Weaver Grand Slam 3-10x40mm Scope  

As to "good luck" with the half mil-dot ticks or hashes, yes,  I do have good luck with them, thank you very much.  I don't try to dope windage "in a hurry," and at typical hunting "in a hurry" ranges, it simply ain't gonna matter.  I find them useful for precision shooting.

The reference to the LPS and Weaver Classic Extreme was to point out that I owned both and was not enamored with that post El Paso Weaver glass, even when they are putting forth their best, top of the line product.

If you want to keep this dialog going, that's fine with me.   I don't have any relationship to Leupold whatsoever.  Never had.  I do have a lot of scopes from many different companies and, as stated, love my older Weaver ones.  I still have a superb Weaver V-12 AO (4-12x40mm)  on a Weatherby Mark V on a 300 Weatherby Magnum.  It's a bit heavy, but in a hard recoiling rifle that was a bit light to begin with, I though the extra weight actually helped me control the rifle.  I see no reason to put a newer scope on it.  Tracks beautifully, adjustable objective, very crisp and clear image.  Handles the recoil without a blink.

I do respect your perspective, but I deeply resent the condescending attitude, "red inking your responses" like I'm a school child having my paper graded, and personal attacks simply because someone disagrees with you and offers reasons that might make a difference to someone other than yourself.  In public discourse it is sadly  common, as a last resort, to attack the messenger because you don't like the message.  But perhaps there are people out there that might actually  like lighter weight, lower turrets, better warranty service and, yes, in my judgment, better glass.  

There are some areas of fair game for disagreement between us.  I agree.  You criticize the TMR hash marks.  It a fair issue to debate.  It is a trade off to get the illumination circuitry out of the eyepiece and make it lighter and more accessible when the rifle is shouldered and the target is being viewed - push button out in the turret area.  To accomplish those goals, which I think are laudable, the reticle design had to take into account the fiber optics tube coming up from the bottom of the reticle. The TMR reticle had already proven itself to be good, in fact highly acclaimed, on non-illuminated scopes.  We can disagree on our opinions on the reticle ticks and their practical consequences and each hold his own opinion.  

We can disagree on weight and turret height. I like the slimmer, lighter Leupold, that comes in lighter, even with the illuminated dot and its related battery, switch and circuitry than the non-illuminated Weaver.  That's fair.  You don't have a problem with the tall turrets and extra weight and apparently use mil dots "in a hurry."  No, Leupold, nor Weaver, nor any other manufacturer is the end all, be all in optics.  That's why we have these discussions.  There is no perfect optic, but pointing out differences may be useful to others.  We've given OP and others (if any) who may be interested, a choice of views.   We need not get nasty or haphazardly and back handedly accuse people of lying about the general availability of current generation Weaver Grand Slam 3-10x40mm scopes to make our points.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MS556:


.What store? It's only available from Midwayusa online. Why not just admit you've not seen it?

. That's fine if that's what you want to use. That still doesn't make the Leupold a better scope.

Because if it was a mildot there would only be 4 dots on each line to discern. The Leupold has 9 hash marks on each line that are all very similar in size. Good luck with that in a hurry.

What the hell do these two scope have to do with the two that are in question? The LPS and the Classic Extreme are made to entirely different specs and are useless in this comparison.

Pretty interesting you came to that conclusion with out ever using the Weaver.


If your avatar didn't say MS I'd swear you worked for Leupold. Leupold is not the end all be all of scope manufacturers and a lot of people are noticing that these days.


A bit touchy aren't we?  Hit a sensitive nerve (again)?  Let me be clear.  The Weaver 3-10x40mm scope has been around a long, long, time in its standard hunting rifle version, without the mil/mil option made for MidWay.  It is that standard scope that I've seen in Gander Mountain, Academy Sports, Bass Pro Shop and other stores for years.  To my knowledge the only changes in the model you advocate have nothing to do with optical clarity.   Those scopes have been discontinued, for some reason now and seem to be on closeout if you can find them.  That's probably why Weaver made the deal with MidWay to change turrets and reticles, to find a source for the remaining parts.  I admit that I'm just speculating on that.   It does seem that if the scopes were that good, Weaver would still be marketing them in their hunting and general use lines.

Seems that a few retailers still have some of the 1/4" capped turret models for sale.

Gander Mountain Weaver Grand Slam 3-10x40mm Scope  

As to "good luck" with the half mil-dot ticks or hashes, yes,  I do have good luck with them, thank you very much.  I don't try to dope windage "in a hurry," and at typical hunting "in a hurry" ranges, it simply ain't gonna matter.  I find them useful for precision shooting.

The reference to the LPS and Weaver Classic Extreme was to point out that I owned both and was not enamored with that post El Paso Weaver glass, even when they are putting forth their best, top of the line product.

If you want to keep this dialog going, that's fine with me.   I don't have any relationship to Leupold whatsoever.  Never had.  I do have a lot of scopes from many different companies and, as stated, love my older Weaver ones.  I still have a superb Weaver V-12 AO (4-12x40mm)  on a Weatherby Mark V on a 300 Weatherby Magnum.  It's a bit heavy, but in a hard recoiling rifle that was a bit light to begin with, I though the extra weight actually helped me control the rifle.  I see no reason to put a newer scope on it.  Tracks beautifully, adjustable objective, very crisp and clear image.  Handles the recoil without a blink.

I do respect your perspective, but I deeply resent the condescending attitude, "red inking your responses" like I'm a school child having my paper graded, and personal attacks simply because someone disagrees with you and offers reasons that might make a difference to someone other than yourself.  In public discourse it is sadly  common, as a last resort, to attack the messenger because you don't like the message.  But perhaps there are people out there that might actually  like lighter weight, lower turrets, better warranty service and, yes, in my judgment, better glass.  

There are some areas of fair game for disagreement between us.  I agree.  You criticize the TMR hash marks.  It a fair issue to debate.  It is a trade off to get the illumination circuitry out of the eyepiece and make it lighter and more accessible when the rifle is shouldered and the target is being viewed - push button out in the turret area.  To accomplish those goals, which I think are laudable, the reticle design had to take into account the fiber optics tube coming up from the bottom of the reticle. The TMR reticle had already proven itself to be good, in fact highly acclaimed, on non-illuminated scopes.  We can disagree on our opinions on the reticle ticks and their practical consequences and each hold his own opinion.  

We can disagree on weight and turret height. I like the slimmer, lighter Leupold, that comes in lighter, even with the illuminated dot and its related battery, switch and circuitry than the non-illuminated Weaver.  That's fair.  You don't have a problem with the tall turrets and extra weight and apparently use mil dots "in a hurry."  No, Leupold, nor Weaver, nor any other manufacturer is the end all, be all in optics.  That's why we have these discussions.  There is no perfect optic, but pointing out differences may be useful to others.  We've given OP and others (if any) who may be interested, a choice of views.   We need not get nasty or haphazardly and back handedly accuse people of lying about the general availability of current generation Weaver Grand Slam 3-10x40mm scopes to make our points.


The Midway scope is under the grand slam line that still exists. They have done an aesthetic update to them this year but they are still in their product line. So they do share the same glass but that's where it ends. The reticle, turrets and adjustments are different in the midway model. It is a Japan made scope and is produced in the same factory as the Bushnell Elite Tacticals and SWFA SS series scopes.

The first round of classic extremes were made in Japan but the current line is made in the Philippines. The first seem to be a little better than the current models but neither are as good as the Super Slam line which is now at the top for Weaver.

Where did I personally attack you? The red text is a common practice on this site to distinguish one poster's comments from another. Otherwise it would be tough to tell them apart, kinda like the Leupold reticle.

FWIW the real TMR in my MK6 3-18x44 is my favorite reticle of all time. However it is a completely different animal than the MK AR. The only thing they share is the nomenclature.

If you would, measure the height of the turrets on your patrol and when I get home this evening I'll measure my weaver. I think the findings will be interesting. Other than that we can agree to disagree.

ETA: 1.230" from top of the tube to top of the turret.
Link Posted: 12/15/2013 4:43:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2013 4:46:38 AM EDT by MS556]
Measured the turrets yesterday on the Leupold.  My scope is the VX-R Patrol.  So, it might not be the same as the Mark AR but they look the same.  Since I have a 30mm tube that could possible make a difference too.  Therefore, I took measurements from the top of the tube and from the center line of the scope, which is probably the most accurate way to compare:  Here are the results per my dial calipers:

Top of tube to top of turret - .600"

Centerline of scope tube to top of turret - 1.250"

I'd say that is quite a bit lower than the Tactical Weaver sold through Midway.  Viewed another way, the Weaver turrets are twice as tall.  I took some pics and will upload them somewhere and post em up.  I know lower turrets may not matter to some or maybe most.  They do to me.  Tall turrets are a necessity on my 1/8" click target scope with revolution counter, but are superfluous on a mil/mil scope intended for 500 yards and less.
Link Posted: 12/15/2013 10:30:14 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MS556:
Measured the turrets yesterday on the Leupold.  My scope is the VX-R Patrol.  So, it might not be the same as the Mark AR but they look the same.  Since I have a 30mm tube that could possible make a difference too.  Therefore, I took measurements from the top of the tube and from the center line of the scope, which is probably the most accurate way to compare:  Here are the results per my dial calipers:

Top of tube to top of turret - .600"

Centerline of scope tube to top of turret - 1.250"

I'd say that is quite a bit lower than the Tactical Weaver sold through Midway.  Viewed another way, the Weaver turrets are twice as tall.  I took some pics and will upload them somewhere and post em up.  I know lower turrets may not matter to some or maybe most.  They do to me.  Tall turrets are a necessity on my 1/8" click target scope with revolution counter, but are superfluous on a mil/mil scope intended for 500 yards and less.
View Quote


Interesting. It got me thinking about my other scopes so I measured them as well. All from top of tube to top of turret.

Nightforce NXS  1.3"
SWFA SS 5-20  1.185"
SWFA 3-15  1.265"
Leupold Mk6 3-18  1.350"
Bushnell Elite Tac  1.438"
Vortex PST  .955"

The biggest surprise to me was the PST as it "feels" the tallest for some reason. It may be because the turrets are kind of skinny if that makes any sense.

You mention the revolution counter in the previous post. I agree if you are not shooting past 500 yards it may not be a big deal. I do think if you are shooting past 500 it is a huge deal. A zero stop would even be better but that's not always available. For me, no rev counter, is a deal breaker.
Link Posted: 12/15/2013 12:27:11 PM EDT
What about the leatherwood CMR 1 x 4?
Link Posted: 12/15/2013 3:33:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2013 10:08:44 AM EDT by MS556]
I was wrong.  The Leupold turret is even lower that I posted. I read the dial calipers wrong.  It is only 1.200 inches from the centerline of the scope to the top of the turret.  I did that to eliminate any differences between one inch and 30mm tubes.  These turrets are barely higher than ordinary hunting turrets with caps.  Here are some pics.


Leupold Turret Height From Centerline of Scope- 1.200" or .600" From Top of Tube

Close up of Dial Caliper Reading

Turret Profile - 1/2 the height of a 30mm tube - .600"


Top Top