Thanks!

I went out prairie dog hunting with a .17HMR, .223 rem, and .204 ruger, with the scopes being respectively a Scheels 4.5-14×42, a Barska 6-24×42, and a BSA Platinum 36×44 (fixed magnification).

The scope on the .17HMR seemed to be pretty decent, so I will probably leave it alone. 200 yards is about the distance that round is happy with, and the 14x is a good magnification for that.

The scope on the .223 is pretty nice, for the $90 I paid for it new (less than the lower power Scheels scope on the .17) it performs very well. The mil-dots allow me to fire once holding dead-on (200y zero) and identify where the bullet struck the dirt, using the dots like a grid, so I know if I put the P-dog at three dots down and two dots right, it will compensate for drop and wind, and I can get 2nd shot kills easily for not having a rangefinder. The magnification of 24x seems a little low for the range this rifle can shoot, when it comes to trying to hit golf-ball sized heads sticking out of holes, at 300+ yards. 32x would probably be a perfect fit.

On the .204, my 36×44 unadjustable BSA was a nightmare and almost ruined my mood for the trip. Sure, the scope seemed great for when I was zeroing and shooting paper targets in my field at 200 yards, and I had high hopes for it being the ultimate tack-driver of my three rifles. BUT then I show up for my first time hunting p-dogs, and find that they are very difficult to spot at anything above about 10x when panning around, and where my other rifles allowed me to spot the p-dogs at 4.5x or 6x, and then scoot my sandbags around so I could begin running the ring for the magnification all the way to max as I held the p-dog in the center of the scope, the BSA did not let me do this, instead I had to spot with binoculars and then look down the side of the barrel to get it roughly aligned to the target while moving sandbags, and then hope that once I put my eye to the scope, it would be looking at scenery my eye could recognize from the previous binocular view, to then pan over to the p-dog I intended on targeting. The ONE time I was happy with the .204 was when we found this valley of p-dogs, offering shots out to about 500 yards on the other side of the valley, which would have been a waste of ammo with any other rifle, but with this one, the distance was far enough off that I could finally pan the view through the scope to locate the fence posts, count left 6, and locate the p-dogs that thought they were safe since they were a quarter mile away from me. Boy were they wrong. Lacking mil-dots, I had to turn on the target drums, but lacking any rangefinding, it was trial and error, which at $0.80 per round is irritating. But once the wind and distance/elevation were compensated for, I could proceed to pick off about five p-dogs that had been sitting out there sunbathing.

So, now that I have experience with these guns in usage, and with how their scopes have performed, here are my observations, and I would be interested to see the feedback.

1) Adjustable magnification is a MUST-HAVE, to allow for target acquisition, and then to zoom in to an accurate level of magnification

2) Magnification (max) must match the caliber being used. Seems like .17HMR likes 14x, .223 Rem could be around 24x-32x, and .204 Ruger could be 30x-40x

3) Putting an underpowered scope on a rifle for long-distance shooting will lead to human-aim caused inaccuracy, so spending $800 on a 3-9×30 Nikon is a blatant waste of money on my .223 or .204 when being shot at a minimum of 300 yards at tiny dirt-colored prairie dogs.

4) Cheap scopes like the Barska, available as a 10-40×50 for $105, seem like so long as they would hold a zero, they will give me the best performance for my dollar.

Now yes, one big thing I hear is that if you turn the target drums off zero, and then come back, the expensive scopes will shoot a clean zero again, but the cheap scopes will be off their zero. The other thing I hear is that the cheap scopes fall apart. I also hear that the optical clarity of the expensive scopes is far superior. BUT, so long as I’m okay with the first shot missing, to then make my target drum adjustments based on its impact (moving incrementally, rather than absolute, from zero) and so long as the optical clarity is enough to identify the prairie dogs (compared to trying to see a deer in the middle of dark woods and identify if it has antlers), and so long as I have read reviews of guys shooting the scopes I want to buy on larger calibers like the .308 with no mechanical failures, then I have to think that something like the 10-40×50 Barska is going to be a scope that is perfect for my application. Then again, for a little bit more money, I can get a ZOS 10-40×60 with lit reticule and side parallax turret for
(Continued) Then again, for a little bit more money, I can get a ZOS 10-40×60 with lit reticule and side parallax turret for just a little more, so long as I’m okay experimenting with a new brand that is even less reputable than the Barska brand. But Barska is working very well for me, and my Scheels carries those along with their BSA, Nikon, Leopold, and NightForce scopes, so I have to think the brand isn’t too “made in china”. Except that the ZOS scopes are the scope of the chinese military, thereby embodying “made in china”… But I figure I’m risking much less on a cheap scope than with an expensive one. I figure the $2000 price tag on the NightForce that has the specs I’m looking for, is a worse bet than $179 shipped for a ZOS that has similar specs. It’s not like I’m shooting magnum rounds, or hiking with this rifle through woods and smacking trees with it and praying it will hold a zero well enough for a first-shot-kill.
I am always learning and basically every year I realize that what I thought last year about guns and scopes was completely uninformed and fledgling, so I have to keep actively learning about this stuff, because I am pretty sure a year from NOW, I will look back and be able to understand all the flaws in the logic I hold at this moment, and I’m hoping you can help me see the errors in my ways by offering constructive criticism and explanations of my misconceptions, in ways that can only have been learned by time, and experience. Thank you for all your contributions and for the efforts you all make on this forum to help ensure people are safe and responsible with their firearms.

As a both a birding and sports optics enthusiast, I was pretty excited to come home to see the June edition of Birdwatchers Digest in the mailbox. When I opened up the magazine I was even more excited when I noticed there were ten pages of the magazine dedicated to reviewing and evaluating “Mid Priced Birding Scopes”.  The test was administered by Diane and Michael Porter, operators of the website, birwatchers.com.  Any person or birder who frequently visits birdwatchers.com knows that Diane and Michael Porter are well respected in the birding community for their knowledge, passion for birding, and integrity. For me, this meant that the results of the review just had to be completely authentic even before I read them.  

What really jumped out at me was the fact that ‘mid-priced’ scopes were being reviewed. Mid-priced scopes per this article/review ranged anywhere from $100 all the way up to $899, meaning that I would generally be willing to pay for many of the scopes being evaluated. Personally, when I think of mid-priced scopes, I think the range is anywhere from $200 to $600. But the point here is that the high priced birding scopes were out of the discussion. Yes!! Anyone who’s been a birder for even a short while knows that birding scopes made by high-end manufacturers such as Zeiss and Swarovski can run you $2,000 or more. While the optics performance of these scopes are certainly superior to most brands, they are simply out of my price league

The mid-priced scopes review was broken into three categories by size, each containing about three to five products each. You have your 50mm sub-compacts, your 60-70mm compacts, and your full size 80mm scopes.  Scores from 1 to 5 were given for Resolution, Image Quality, Focus Knob, and Ergonomics. The highest combined average score were winners in their respective size categories.  The $700 Nikon Fieldscope ED50 blew away the subcompact competition; while the $899 Pentax PF 65 EDA II 20-60×65mm also won by a wide margin in the compact category. No surprises there as both contests were won by the most expensive scope in the category. However, there was a pleasant surprise winner in the full-size 80mm scope category: the $434 Alpen #788 20-60×80mm won by a wide margin over both the $500 Bushnell Legend Ultra HD and the $750 Vortex Skyline! Being the sports fan that I am, I would almost call this a major upset.

As an avid birder with a limited budget, seeing Alpen win was very satisfying, almost vindicating.  I will admit that I am an Alpen fan and have purchased optics products from Alpen before. But how could anyone not be impressed with what Alpen has done in the sport optics market after being in business only 11 years? Anytime a ‘David’ beats a ‘Goliath’(or in this case two ‘Goliaths’), whether it be on a playing field or in any other competition, it is human nature to be impressed with the accomplishment. In this case I obviously liken ‘David’ with Alpen while Bushnell and Vortex are ‘Goliaths’. Maybe the reason l like reading product reviews so much is that there is always a good chance that the ‘little’ guy can actually win because the playing field is usually completely fair.

This post was created by Vincent  Saponar, owner and operator of OneSourceOptics.com. If you are interested in the Alpen #788 Birding Scope, or -other quality sports optics equipment; please visit us at http://www.onesourceoptics.com