3-9x40 vs 4-12x40
 

I just purchased a used savage 7mm rem mag. I will be ordering a scope for it at the beginning of next month and wanted some opinions on what to get. I have narrowed the brands down to three. Redfield revenge, burris fullfield II, or a nikon prostaff. I understand the difference in the scope sizes I was wondering if I really need to get the higher powered scope. The max distance I will be shooting is 350 yrds. Was hoping someone could tell me if its worth the extra money.

9x at 350 yards is like 1x at 40 yards.

what is the price diff?

ask the salesman/woman if they will walk outside with you (with both scopes), and letchu use both to look @ a distant object with.

then, make your choice. you'll see.....quick, fast, and in a hurry what the difference is.

just remember, you get what you pay for. the 3 x 9 might cost more, but you most likely are gettin a better scope. NOT ALWAYS, but most of the time............even if it's just better glass and glass coating(s).

I myself prefer 4-12x or larger scopes. My go to hunting rifle is a 4-12x

I like the 4x12's to be honest. Though I have some of both.

I have looked through all three and the while they all have different pros and cons they are all pretty equal.

Burris 3-9x40 is 130
Nikon 4-12x40 is 200
Redfield 4-12x40 is 190

I've been looking at a Bushnell Banner 4X16. Any advice on this scope?

For a hunting scope a good 3x9 or 4x12 is a great power-range scope. It mostly depends on which one gives ya better glass and a more robust scope, especially for those Magnum or harder thumping rifles. Virtually any scope made Today gives you a good picture in broad Daylight, BUT it's the BETTER GLASS that gives you the "Brighter/Clearer" picture in Dawn and Dusk/wooded scenerios where most larger game does their feeding near backdrops like dark forested tree lines or edge of open fields where they rely on fast escape routes, and Scope's ability to make out color differences when shadows are involved. The Redfield/Nikon/Burris lineup is very good in their scopes while at a lower cost.
The Burris FullfieldII(Japan/Philippines) models are superb and the scopes W/E adjustments are positive clicks. If you like Nikon, which I also do, try to get the Buckmaster model(Japan) as it's a much better, stouter scope and will hold up better to that 7mm. As to the Redfield, go for the Revolution models as they're also much better made. Lots of folks do like the Prostaff and certainly nothing wrong with them, but for a harder kicking rifle, I would spend that extra $75 to upgrade to a longer lasting, better scope. I own Burris FullfieldII, Nikon Buckmaster, and Redfield Revolution, and Weaver Classic scopes and hunt with my rifles also.
Del

Surprisingly, a good little scope, and a few different models to choose from. However, I wouldn't use it on anything larger than a 223(Bolt action---not AR style). My opinion is it just won't stand up to heavy recoil over time. I have this scope on a little Savage 22LR and it does very well and I do like the Illuminated Recticle for when in heavy woods, Squirrel hunting. I also have a older Banner Dusk/Dawn 6-18x50 on a Target Ruger 10/22 and it does very well, but again not a recoil heavy rifle.
Del

You might want to give a look at the Weaver 40/44 3.8-12X44 scope. Very good optics in it, has an aspherical lens system which was a design based on what was used in 35mm camera lens. Originally used in Simmons AETEC scopes years ago and it had quite a following back then. Have one myself and love it.

Presently, www.natchezss.com has a sale on the Weaver 40/44 aspherical lens scopes they stock. 3.8-12x44 is $140 plus shipping. This scope sells for $180 to $200 elsewhere. Good buy on it. I'd buy another one, but just shoot paper and prefer higher power scopes for my target shooting. Be aware, not all 40/44 scopes have aspherical lens system.