Best all arround scope

[Lasiocarpa]

I like my SWFA fixed 10x more than I thought I would, but for all around use it is a concession up close.

Good glass is never a bad thing but is pretty far down in my list of requirements for an aiming device.

Personally, I want more help with wind holds than a mildot offers. The MQ is an excellent all-around reticle.

I would like to try the new S2H scope.

 

[Point Creep]

I like my SWFA fixed 10x more than I thought I would, but for all around use it is a concession up close.

Good glass is never a bad thing but is pretty far down in my list of requirements for an aiming device.

Personally, I want more help with wind holds than a mildot offers. The MQ is an excellent all-around reticle.

I would like to try the new S2H scope.

I’m sure that MQ reticle in FFP on low power with that shit glass is dynamite for a close range shot in low light. Wind hold might be last thing on your list to think about, but at least it’s way cheaper than the best.

 

[Lasiocarpa]

I’m sure that MQ reticle in FFP on low power with that shit glass is dynamite for a close range shot in low light. Wind hold might be last thing on your list to think about, but at least it’s way cheaper than the best.

Shit glass? I have a feeling you’ve never used one….
A fixed 10x is never going to be the “best” for all around use. Even at 400-500 yards I’m often on less than max power for ease of spotting shots

 

[Redmt]

Here's my definition of "best all around". My original take of the OP's question was what do I think is best all around. To me it is a scope that is at home one a .17HMR to a ..300 win mag. and everything in-between. If I only had 1 scope to swap from rifle to rifle , the VX 3 wins hands down.

 

[ArcheryElkHunter2024]

someone once told me the best scope is the one you practice with the most. more or less thats true

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I’m sure that MQ reticle in FFP on low power with that shit glass is dynamite for a close range shot in low light. Wind hold might be last thing on your list to think about, but at least it’s way cheaper than the best.

I’d take a 3-9 swfa at 4x for close range/low light over a fixed 10x of any glass quality.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Not sure there is anything I really like as a "best all around" as there are little things/compromises for everything. 3-9 SWFA is a good affordable option but it is a bit crude in regard to zero stop, tunneling from 3-3.75x ish. Glass is more than adequate though. I like more magnification at the range when shooting steel and paper but 9x isnt a limitation for any shot i can ethically take at an animal. NXS 2.5-10 might be a slightly better mouse trap for 3x the $.

 

[noharleyyet]

 

[BayouBuck985]

There are no close seconds, in my opinion, for a big game hunting rifle. Unfortunately they are not made anymore but when I see one available used, I’m going to buy.
View attachment 402923

Beautiful lineup you got there!

 

[BayouBuck985]

I’m looking to replace my Leupold VX-iii scope with either a Swarovski Z3 or a Zeiss Conquest V4. Of these two, which one gets the nod? This is going on my Bergara 6.5 Creedmoor for whitetail hunting.

 

[Doublegunner]

Trijicon 2.5-15 credo works pretty well. Also accupoint 3x9 and credo 3x9. One i recently bought on a special purchase from midway is a credo 2.5-10 with a 56mm objective. Really quite excellent with superb build quality.

 

[GreenMtnBoy708]

I’m looking to replace my Leupold VX-iii scope with either a Swarovski Z3 or a Zeiss Conquest V4. Of these two, which one gets the nod? This is going on my Bergara 6.5 Creedmoor for whitetail hunting.

To me it would depend on which Z3 model you're talking about.

I have both a Swaro Z3 3-9x36mm and Zeiss Conquest 3-12x44mm. The Zeiss is excellent, but the Swaro is smaller, lighter, and brighter. The Swaro is mounted on my go-to whitetail rifle for that reason. But the Swaro Z3 line all use a 3x magnifier lens, which means the 3-10x is really a 3.3-10x. You're giving up some field of view on the low end compared to both the Z3 3-9x (which has been discontinued) or Conquest V4 3-12, both of which have a true 3x at the low end. If that matters to you, then I'd steer clear of the Z3 3-10x.

 

[BayouBuck985]

To me it would depend on which Z3 model you're talking about.

I have both a Swaro Z3 3-9x36mm and Zeiss Conquest 3-12x44mm. The Zeiss is excellent, but the Swaro is smaller, lighter, and brighter. The Swaro is mounted on my go-to whitetail rifle for that reason. But the Swaro Z3 line all use a 3x magnifier lens, which means the 3-10x is really a 3.3-10x. You're giving up some field of view on the low end compared to both the Z3 3-9x (which has been discontinued) or Conquest V4 3-12, both of which have a true 3x at the low end. If that matters to you, then I'd steer clear of the Z3 3-10x.

 

[BayouBuck985]

That 7mm-08 is a great round. I’ve hunted with it for several years before acquiring the Bergara 6.5 CM (which replaced it). I was leaning toward the Z3 3-9x36, but for just a little more weight, I could get the 4-12x50 for better light gathering at dusk. That being said, I just picked up a great deal on a used Zeiss V4 3-12x44 ($450). I know it’ll be heavier, but I’m mainly looking for something noticeably brighter than my older Leupold VX-iii 4.5-14x40 (w/ 30mm tube). Just looking to keep the price point under $1000 or so, new or used. If the V4 is brighter than my Leupold, I guess my search is over. I appreciate the input. I also saw a used Zeiss V6 for much less than the new price of about $2000.