Nope Dave. Don't need any outside authority. I read Field and Stream.

Purchased the Shooter's Bible just last week as a gift for my son. I spent a little time leafing through the pages, mostly looking at pictures and reading captions. It is a wealth of information, even for a casual Gun Nut as myself. I can easily see how the Optic's Guide would be a valuable asset to any hunter.

Have been kicking around purchasing a high-end spotting scope. $20 bucks is cheap for good advice.

To WA Mtnhunter;
App. your input, but NO_NO_NO_NO_.

We could argue all day long about what is the best scope, rangefinder, binoculars, etcetc. The book that Dave mentioned is a very good reference book and answers questions most people have so that a person can make a choice based on optics that fit his or her need. So for $20.00 buy the book.

No offense taken, Dale.

Other optics may be touted as clearer, better, more value for the money etc. Bottom line is... in 50 years of hunting (I killed my 1st deer in 1962) I have NEVER had a Leupold product fail me since I threw away everything else back in 1969. Rain. Sleet. 10 degrees. 110 degrees with 85% humidity. My first rifle was a 7.7 Jap my uncle brought back from Iwo. Had Bill Dunbar up in Petersburg check the headspace, chop the barrel off behind the front sight and install a dropped bolt handle and an aftermarket trigger. I bought a stock from Herter's and did the rest myself. Put a Leupold 3x9 on it, much to the horrors of my hunting buddies. The scope was worth 3x what the rifle was worth. But it still zero's after 40 years. Killed many deer with it and once killed 2 turkeys with one shot. My dad told me to wait until another walked behind before I pulled the trigger. 210 yards and got 'em both.1973. I can still offhand a deer at 200 yards with that rifle. Hold dead-on with a rest at 300 and show just a little light under the crosshairs at 400. 48 gr. of 4895 and a 150 spitzer. Have a 4x12 Leupold on a Ruger #1 for groundhogs. Since 1976. Never touched it. 35.5 gr of 4895 behind a 55 gr and the only drawback to distance is that after about 450 yards I lose the pig behind the crosshairs. Carried it around in my pickup every day farming. Bump, whop, drop, kept its zero. Shot a turkey through the head with it 3 Thanksgivings ago off of the railing of my upstairs porch at 125 yards. If you are looking for something to impress your friends, by all means buy one of those new improved brands touted by writers. If you want something proven to last as long as you do... Buy Leupold.

Dr. Ralph,
Good to hear from you. Long time no read. From reading posts and comments the last three years about scopes and especially bad ones on 'L' I have made up my mind the next scope will probably be a Zeiss but I am ordering the book Dave posted today.

Thanks Jim. I try to get here as often as I can but I am 52 and it looks like I need to make a LOT of money now if I ever want to retire. So I am working a lot and making a lot, it does not help that my house has lost $60,000 in value and gas has doubled since Obama took office. If he is re-elected I will cry. Hell if he is re-elected another ten countries will be overthrown and taken over by Muslims. Perhaps that is his plan.

Dr. R,
Hell, your a young pup.

All . . .

I've had good experiences with Nikon Monarch and Buckmaster scopes, although I do not care for the BDC reticles. I prefer a simple duplex crosshair. I zero my rifles to shoot two to two one/half inches high at 100 yards, which puts them dead on at about 225 yards (with the loads I use), and anywhere from four to seven inches low at 300. Under perfect conditions with the right rifle and load, I would take a shot to 400 (and from time to time I practice on paper targets out to 500, generally for practice with wind doping).

I have a Vortex Diamondback 3.5x10 (50mm) scope on one of my .257 AIs. Been on the rifle about a year. I like this scope very much. It is incredibly bright, the eye relief is excellent, and there is little to no color degradation or blurring of focus on the extreme edges of the lens. Visibility at low light (or even under a full moon)seems fine. An excellent scope for the dollars spent.

I have a optics question for anyone who might have a reasonable answer . . .

I recently obtained a Savage Model 99 (I've wanted one since I was twelve years old) I found on a rack in a tiny gunshop by pure chance. On this rifle (which is chambered in .308 and still has the original barrel) is a battered Weaver 3x9. I figure the rifle and the scope are probably forty years old, maybe older. Though the scope seems decently bright, at the range this afternoon (where I attempted to sight-in the rifle), I noticed the crosshairs always seemed slightly (or more than slightly) out of focus. It didn't matter how I adjusted the scope, I could never get the crosshairs to be super defined and focused. This was a frustrating experience. Sighting-in the rifle was difficult, and I did not finish the task.

When combined with a trigger that one could do pullups from or use to pull tractors, my groups at 100 were unpredictable, about 4" to 5". (I think the rifle, with a good load, good scope and new trigger is capable of consistent decent (say 1.5 MOA) accuracy.) I managed one group that was about 1.25", but this more concidence and chance than anything else. The scope made accurate shooting very difficult, and the trigger made it pretty much impossible.

But then I noticed the same slightly blurry crosshairs problem in a Leupold VX-II (which is about ten years old) I have at home, and then in a Leupold VX-I (also about ten years old).

So . . . is this a problem with my eyes or is this a symptom of lower-end scopes? Or both?

(On my best scopes, I've not (yet) noticed a significant problem with the crosshairs. On the other hand, and though I hate to admit it, my eyes are simply not as good as they once were--20/12 vision when I was young man. Far from it now.)

One last optics or semi-optics question . . . does anyone have a recommendation about proper shooting glasses for use with scoped rifles? (I hate to wear sunglasses (or any other kind of glasses) when I shoot, but the rifle range at which I am a member requires all shooters to wear eye protection all the time. Rather than be harassed by the range officer, I wore my sunglasses, but they kept getting in the way or making things worse vision-wise between my eyes and the scope.)

Thank you.

TWD