3-9x40 vs 4-12x40

Discussion in 'Optics & Mounts' started by eric1985al, Oct 26, 2012.

  1. eric1985al

    eric1985al New Member

    14
    0
    0
    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.
     
  2. JTJ

    JTJ Well-Known Member Supporter

    9,563
    178
    63
    9x at 350 yards is like 1x at 40 yards.
     

  3. USEBOTHHANDS

    USEBOTHHANDS New Member

    1,319
    2
    0
    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).
     
  4. gunnut07

    gunnut07 New Member

    944
    0
    0
    I myself prefer 4-12x or larger scopes. My go to hunting rifle is a 4-12x
     
  5. DrumJunkie

    DrumJunkie New Member

    4,823
    0
    0
    I like the 4x12's to be honest. Though I have some of both.
     
  6. eric1985al

    eric1985al New Member

    14
    0
    0
    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
     
  7. Fathead00

    Fathead00 New Member

    2,922
    0
    0
    I've been looking at a Bushnell Banner 4X16. Any advice on this scope?
     
  8. Triumphman

    Triumphman Active Member

    1,007
    10
    38
    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
     
  9. Triumphman

    Triumphman Active Member

    1,007
    10
    38
    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
     
  10. huffmanite

    huffmanite New Member

    342
    1
    0
    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.
     
  11. huffmanite

    huffmanite New Member

    342
    1
    0
    Own two Bushnell banner scopes. One I bought in mid 1960s and another I bought about 4 years ago. Prefer the old Japanese made one. Newer one is a variable to 18 power. I own a fair number of low priced higher power scopes for my target shooting and like my Banner the least. For me, I just dislike the clarity of the optics in my Banner.

    I'd buy a BSA Majestic DX Hunter in power range you want. Have three of the 6-24x44 majestics, mounted on .223 to to 308 rifles. Nice optics, a side focus variable, turrets and adjustments are good. Quite a few rounds have been fired with them mounted on my rifles and no problems with any of them to report. Grafs and Sons has the BSA Majestics on sale. Think the 4-16x44 is under $90 dollars. Others sell the scope for around $140.
    Yea its a BSA, but one of their newer models and its a pretty decent scope for the price.
     
  12. JTJ

    JTJ Well-Known Member Supporter

    9,563
    178
    63
    It looks like we have two different questions from two different posters. To the original poster, I am not fond of very high power variables. I have seen too many people using them for spotting and I dont like anyone looking at me through a rifle scope. My preference would be a 2-7x but the 3x9x40 seems to be the most popular size and the best value. You can buy a better 3-9x scope for the cost of the 4-14x and the 3x will serve you better in close cover. I have seen some nice 2.5-10x but they are pricey.
     
  13. Khromo

    Khromo New Member

    41
    0
    0
    I have a Fullfield II 3-9, and a Buckmaster 4-12. They are both very effective scopes. I believe the Burris is a little more forgiving of your eye location. The Nikon seems to take just a half-second longer to get my eye into the sweet spot.

    My tired old eyes prefer the higher magnification. I feel like that helps more than the slightly wider field of view of the Fullfield.

    I agree with the comments about checking the low light performance, though. I've never used used either in low light, and that can be very telling.
     
  14. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,417
    312
    83
    For shooting out to 350 yards, a 1.5-6 or a 2-7 is all you'll ever need. If you're too far away to count antler points at 6X, you need to get closer.
     
  15. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    if the quality of the scopes is equal and the price difference is narrow, then personally i would go with the 4-12 over the 3-9 myself. but a quality 3-9 is much better than a lesser quality 4-12. clarity will overcome magnification.
     
  16. Triumphman

    Triumphman Active Member

    1,007
    10
    38
    Quote compressed by Delbert

    Having a FullfieldII and Buckmaster, both in 3-9x40, I found the FullfieldII to have better light gathering to see in more darker conditions. I tested mine one night AFTER the Sun was down, but Sky still had a glow, and noticed some Neighbor's Angus Cattle on a ridge around 300yds with naked eyes. Went and got both rifles with these scopes mounted. With the Buckmaster I could make out most outlines, but certainly could tell they were Cattle just by their shape. With the FullfieldII, I not only could see the Cattle more clearly, but could make out definite outlines and could count each Cow. Even saw some Cattle laying down, that I hadn't noticed with the Nikon. I'm thinking maybe it was the Len's Coating color difference making the Burris(red lens coating) seem better over the Nikon(blue-green). Haven't tried this test with my other scopes, but would make for good scope len's comparison on a cheap scale.
    Del
     
  17. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,417
    312
    83
    There's an adage among optics folks.

    With a Bushnell, you can tell there's a man on the otrher side of the lake.

    With a Leupold, you can tell he's smoking a cigarette.

    With a Schmidt & Binder, you can tell what brand of cigarette.

    IOW, you get what you pay for.