So what's your mid range go to scope?

[look no hands]

Hi all,

We've had a few "what's your go to rifle" threads in the past, so I thought how about a scope equivalent.

I have to say that my new go to scope is the Nikko Stirling Panamax range.

They seem to remind me of the earlier Bushnell Trophy scopes that where my first "go to" choice (I've also had a few EB Optimate's enter the collection), when I started buying better quality scopes in the 90's, I've had a Bushnell Legend on my Prosport for many years and it's always impressed me and never let me down, it's not until recently when I first stumbled across the Panamax range that I realised what a gem of a scope they are for the money, I managed to win another Panamax on evil bay a couple of days ago, which I'm rather chuffed with as it's a brand new and was a bargain, that's going to be replacing the Legend if it performs the same when the two are compared.

So what's your mid range go to scope then? (I say mid range as we all know that scopes like S&B etc are damn fine scopes but they are out of reach for a lot of shooters).

Cheers

Pete

[Muskett]

Had success with Bushnell, as they seem to be making good scopes.
I like Zeiss Conquests too.

[Blackrider]

Used like Pro Airs then Legend 3-15x40’s and now I’m liking Vortex Diamondbacks all for air.

[les allam]

The Vortex Diamond back range get my vote.
Les..

[TonyL]

I'm far from a scope expert but for my next scope I'd be choosing between the Panamax 3-9x40AO, Hawke Airmax 2-7x32, Hawke Vantage 2-7x32AOIR and Nikon Prostaff with AO.

[Gary C]

MTC Genesis.

Not going or glam but bombproof and great glass. Sadly discontinued

[PCPShooter]

Don’t Nikko Panamax have 40 moa like most 80s scopes as against the vastly more modern Nikon and Hawkes at around 80 moa + ?

The Nikon EFR and 2-7 were the best glass for the money but not sure after the massive price hike and tweak to the new models ......

[angrybear]

All depends what you class as "mid range", I'd say a Sidewinder 4-16x50 would be mine, superb glass & excellent ret, 10x half mil-dot.

[look no hands]

All depends what you class as "mid range", I'd say a Sidewinder 4-16x50 would be mine, superb glass & excellent ret, 10x half mil-dot.

I'm leaning towards the sub £150 range, give or take £25, something that would be around the £100 mark secondhand, my first Bushnell Trophy I got off of here for £60 and it was superb, fantastic lenses and never lost zero, I ended up selling it to fund my currant Legend, which I paid £100 for, I've all of a sudden been smitten with mildot rets, which my Legend doesn't have.

Pete

[look no hands]

I'm far from a scope expert but for my next scope I'd be choosing between the Panamax 3-9x40AO, Hawke Airmax 2-7x32, Hawke Vantage 2-7x32AOIR and Nikon Prostaff with AO.

I recently done a comparison between the Panamax and Hawke Panarama and have to say the Panamax was far better in my eyes, the way my mind works is that if a particular scope from a makers range is quite high up the quality ladder and it doesn't cut it for me, then the rest of the range which is below it can't be any good either.

I've had a couple of Nikon Prostaffs in the past and although excellent, there's something I just can't put my finger on but I just seem to sell them on.

Not sure if you've ever done a scope comparison test at any of the boinger bashes but may be have a look at a few at the next one.

Pete

[TonyL]

Must admit, Pete, that certainly comparing the cheaper versions (Nikko Mountmaster vs the old Hawke Sport HD), the Nikko scopes seem to suit my eyes better. I have loads of Nikko scopes, including a fair few of the old Gold Crowns. I have a Hawke Panorama which I find excellent. Not sure if there's been much change with the Hawke ones with the Vantage replacing the Sport HD?

Casually looking through a scope doesn't tell you too much, I usually find, unless it's a really terrible one! And, outdoors at longer ranges, in daylight, and it seems most scopes I look through when shooting others' guns are also fine. Trying to shoot tight groups on paper, where you're trying to pick out a tiny "pip" to aim at and you really want the target and ret to be clear and sharp, highlights the shortcomings that I used to find with the HD.....FOR MY EYES. Shooting down the hallway at home (if target not brightly lit) and at close range (up to 10 yards) also exaggerated this.

Shooting in poor light conditions is more of a test, but I don't hunt these days. And I've always placed far more importance on good image quality to having more bells and whistles.

[look no hands]

Must admit, Pete, that certainly comparing the cheaper versions (Nikko Mountmaster vs the old Hawke Sport HD), the Nikko scopes seem to suit my eyes better. I have loads of Nikko scopes, including a fair few of the old Gold Crowns. I have a Hawke Panorama which I find excellent. Not sure if there's been much change with the Hawke ones with the Vantage replacing the Sport HD?

Casually looking through a scope doesn't tell you too much, I usually find, unless it's a really terrible one! And, outdoors at longer ranges, in daylight, and it seems most scopes I look through when shooting others' guns are also fine. Trying to shoot tight groups on paper, where you're trying to pick out a tiny "pip" to aim at and you really want the target and ret to be clear and sharp, highlights the shortcomings that I used to find with the HD.....FOR MY EYES. Shooting down the hallway at home (if target not brightly lit) and at close range (up to 10 yards) also exaggerated this.

Shooting in poor light conditions is more of a test, but I don't hunt these days. And I've always placed far more importance on good image quality to having more bells and whistles.

I have to admit, when I was younger and didn't have much money, I'd have to buy the best scope for my money, I'd always go for the "less is more" approach, thinking and hoping that the maker had put the money in the lenses if I had decided to forgo AO or an illuminated ret etc, I would often compare my scope to my shooting mates set up who never seemed to know much about them and would often fall into the "this is a good scope" gun shop sales patter trap, he'd often show me this, what he thought was a superduper scope because it had everything on it but when you looked through it, it was like looking down a smarties tube with cling film over the ends, he was a damn fine shot so he used to hit most things with it but he'd be packing up way before me when the light started fading in the evening, where I'd still be waiting in the gloom for the first of the night bunnies to venture out before you couldn't really see anymore.

Pete

[MartynB]

I still use my Swarovski Habicht 4x32 I bought back in 1985

[MrGreengrass]

Falcon Merlin and Falcon Menace.
Had them 10 years or so
They do their job well.
About £100 and £120 s/h from here.
Good with the Pard 007 as well.
Sold all the Rapids off but kept the scopes.
Now on a S400 and a S410.
Hold zero well ,rugged ,all weather and a nice ret.

[Muskett]

The Sidewinders have all the toys and pretty good glass. However, a bit of a big lump.

I would always have money in the glass rather than features, but some target shooting demands more features. Repeatable turrets and consistent parallax adjustment can't be done cheaply. There are loads of cheap scopes with features that compromise actually hitting the target where the crosshairs are. If the scope can't hold its aim its not worth anything, in fact just a cost of wasted ammo.

To me mid range start above £350, below that are budget scopes. Top end scopes start above £1,200. Some mid range are overpriced for what they have. A quality scope is still quality second hand. A poor scope doesn't get better second hand.