Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Tippman

Scope for .270?

16 posts in this topic

Looking for some help picking out a scope for the .270. Figured I would try here before getting to the sporting goods store.

I'm not too up on optics but looking for something that will emit as much light in low light conditions as possible for around a few hundred bucks. Also must not fog up in wet conditions. Ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would look at the Nikon Buckmasters series or the Burris line of scopes, both good scopes without breaking the bank, those are my two choices

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i got a bar .270 and put a leopold vari-x1 3x9-50 on it. that scope runs for about $279 +/-. it works great in low light and has never fogged up on me. when i was looking i was told to look for the bigger front objective to collect as much light as possible and magnify it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking a Bushnell elite 3200 series Great Scope and in your price range. A general rule is to spend the same on your scope as you did your rifle or think of it this way your gun is only as good as your scope.

A 3-9 power is great plenty for a 270 and if you want the best light gathering go with a 50mm objective lense and also the biggest tube the scope comes with, because with the combination of the 2 you cant beat the light gathering ability and I would strongly suggest getting quick flip scope covers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard nothing but good things about the buckmaster scope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We run several Alaskan Guide Series and love them, We have put them through anything you can think of and they have been flawless. Mines logged several thousand miles since I put it on and zeroed it and I have never made an agjustment to it. Last time I was at the range, 200 yards 3 shot groups you could cover with a nickle. We have 3x12x52x30's mounted on 300 Win Mags and a 300 RUM and none have lost adjustment or had any problems. Picked most up in the bargin cave for around $120.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard nothing but good things about the buckmaster scope

I have a Nikon buckmasters scope and I realyl like it. I also have some burris signature series binocs, and I really like those as well. Next scope I might try Burris, not becasue I don't like Nikon, just to try somethinga bit different.

good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't go wrong with the Nikon Buckmaster or the Leupold VX-1 or VX-2. The VX-1 or the Buckmaster will put you in the $200 - $300 range. The Nikons optics are very crisp. Both lines have a lifetime warranty and are waterproof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just picked up a Leupold VX-2 from Mills today. They dropped the price to $279, plus I applied for a credit card there and they knocked off another 10%. It is very nice scope for around $250, plus lifetime warranty, and Leupold stands behind their products. I think they had one left there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that you should get the biggest objective that you can. I have a 50mm objective on mine and it makes a HUGE difference at dawn/dusk picking up light. I personally will never go back to anything other than a 50mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

optics and calibers are the two most discussed issues. You can go from a 100 dollar Bushnell Trophy series to a 700-2000 dollar Swarovski/Zeiss.. It boils down to pocketbook tolerance. I'd say there is not a scope on the market that is not waterproof or fogproof. Hard decision to make sometime. However, I would add to be sure you go with quality rings and mounts. Redfield, Burris & Leupold are in that scheme of things and if you want a one piece mount or two piece. I prefer the one piece and would shy away from Weaver type rings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got a Leupold Rifleman 3 by 9 on my .270. It is a great scope very clear, and they arent too badly priced, but i would say that it is definately worth it. It has great eye releif, like four or five inches. It also has a large front objective,so it lets in quite a bit of light. it is really easy to find stuff in it. I would for sure recomend this to anyone who wants a great scope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nikon is the best out there IMO. I have one for my muzzy, and love everything about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I picked up a nikon buckmasters 4.5 x 14 x 40 and it is awesome. I can see very well in low light conditions. It also has the bdc. best 300$ I have spent in a while!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    •     I believe you said it was "libertarian" drivel, actually, so you dismissed it out of hand...          
    •   You posted about neither.     But if you would read the article, my commentary and TJ's commentary you would know that's not really what the article is about.     You have to be kidding, right? Just about everyone who has an opinion on politics at all is this sort of person. Do you look at social media at all?
    •     Ok, now getting back to whether Trump will win the War on Drugs, do you think he will take any steps at all to decriminalize drugs, such as reclassifying marijuana, and recognizing state laws and programs designed to move towards the decriminalization of drugs?   Or do you think he will take steps to protect vested interests, such as prisons and the pharmaceutical. industry?   Just going off his rhetoric and his choice for a drug czar, I'm guessing he much prefers the latter, and will end up spending a bunch of taxpayer's money, and actually lose ground by continuing on with the brute force/criminalization approach.        
    • Because at the time, I don't have anything better to do.   I posted about the article, and you wanted to talk about the topic.  I posted about the topic and you want to discuss the article.    Which is it?     I support a particular candidate because their positions, taken as a whole, are preferable to me as compared to the other candidate(s).   In a few years I get to do it over.     I don't think there are really that many ardent "rah rah for my party" type folks out there, in spite of what we see on TV, or the occasional people we meet.     So the article is basically drivel, as I said before, based on a false premise.   
    • Borch I just signed up Ryan, Morgan, and me but I only see my name listed in the summary. Do my kids not show up because they don't have hso usernames?  Or did I not enter it right?     Please let me know how to fix it and I'll do so.  Thanks!
    •   Because I think self reflection is good for all of us from time to time.   If you don't wan't to discuss this article, why do you persist in posting here?           No one is disputing that at all. The premise of the author's article is in regards to the hypocrisy of then justifying everything your chosen candidate or party does blindly while vilifying the other candidates or party. It's the "all in" sports like mentality that is being discussed here.  
    • There is a really excellent book called "The Righteous Mind" that approaches this tribalist mindset from an evolutionary psychology standpoint. The author, Jonathan Haidt, does a remarkable job of unpacking why people persist in truly irrational defense of the indefensible - when it's their team doing the stupid stuff. I highly highly highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in lessening the hyperpartisan idiocy we have today.

      The trouble is that the closed-off mindset that lends itself to reflexive support for Obama/Hillary/Trump/whomever also tends to preclude any serious engagement in self-examination that the book is designed to provoke. Really good read, though.
    •   I get what your saying here but I think what Dave is talking about is the willingness of some to blindly follow, without question, their party or candidate. I saw this first hand during the primary with some of my own relatives, for example. I had a SIL who was a huge Bernie backer. The things she said about Hillary were worse than anything said here. As far as she was concerned, Hillary should be tarred and feathered and ran out on a rail. Then Bernie loses the nomination. She then became Hillary's biggest defender. Everything she said about her during the primary was instantly washed away. Even her own husband called her out. She wasn't simply voting for her because she found Trump worse. That's understandable. She defended or at least tried to deflect the issues with Hillary when just a few months prior, she said things that would make even Cooter or Bill say, "man you're harsh on her."   I don't think this is a new phenomenon. I also don't think it's widespread. Like everything else, access to more and diverse information just makes it possible to hear more about it than before. I think human nature causes people to internalize candidates and/.or elected officials. It's a "if you're critical of my candidate, you're critical of me," kind of thinking.   I don't fault anyone for voting for a candidate that one feels best represents their line of thinking. Or even defending their candidate from detractors. I don't think that is what Dave is talking about here. It's also the flipping of political opinions just because the candidate you voted for or support is supporting certain positions. For example, many conservatives opposed BHO's stimulus, including myself. It didn't work  as promised and we just added more on to the debt. So on the campaign trail, Trump also spoke of a stimulus plan that was even more expensive than BHO's and  those same people not only supported it but are justifying it. In summary, one can vote for a candidate without defending everything that person does        
    •  Come on.   The world, life is a bit more complicated then that.          Quit passing the blame. Your whole thesis is on choice and owning it.   Let me guess, you hate big banking also since they made it easy to refinance and purchase.   It just proves that general society is incapable of making the right decisions as a whole.   Sorry, you go down with the ship.    
  • Our Sponsors