beast44k

I'm looking to get a Knight Long Range Hunter sometime soon.
I've always shot a 3x9 scope, but would like to move to a higher power.

Maybe a 3.5x12 or a 4x16 that holds up to a 50 cal muzzleloader w/o spending too much.

Would a Leupold Rifleman 4x12 be the best option, concidering they run around $250.00???

cayugad

I've never owned a scope more powerful the a 3-9x40mm. Also I have never needed a scope more powerful then that for deer hunting. And with a center fire have shot a lot further at deer with that 9X then I ever dream of shooting with a muzzleloader. Now I can understand some of the varmint shoots needed something like that. But just how far do you expect to be shooting this muzzleloader?

Then again, who am I to say what you need. I would think a Leupold, Bushnell, Burrisor one of the better Nikons would do you just fine. Good luck with your rifle and which ever scope you pick.

Hawkenman

I bought a 3x9x40 Bushnell scope from Optic's Planet for $79.00. The recticle is a Circle-X design that is great for muzzleloading. I've fired many heavy duty rounds and the scope held up perfect. I have two scopes I paid over a thousand dollars each for. But that little Bushnell performs as good as they do.

beast44k

That's funny about the Bushnell scope, I hunted with one for many years, and it preformed as well as a Leupold 3x9 I own.

Anyway, I don't plan on shooting at a deerpast 80-90 yrds, unless it's in an open area or field.
I am going to hunt 1st rifle season elk next year and would want to take the muzzleloader.
I'd like the option to shoot 200-250yrds....if I had to.

I've got a short list of either a Leupold, Burris, or Nikon.
If Bushnell had a decent guarantee, I'd go that route.
But if I'm dropping $150 for a get-by-with, it's smarter to spend an extra $100 for a scope if it doesn't hold up, it'll be under warrantee.

cayugad

My Nikon Pro Sport has a life time warranty and was only $129.00. I would rate that with any of the better scopes on my center fire rifles. I personally went with a 2-7x32mm because of the eye relief and the fact that was recommended by the gunsmith/store ownerI use. I see no reason I could not shoot out to 200 yards, but like you most my shots are much closer so I set my rifles up for that type of shot. If I get a 100 yard shot, it is a very strange day since my field of view is rarely past 80 yards.

Have you ever looked at them scopes that have a post with a lighted triangle on the top of the post? I have no idea who makes them, but saw them on a hunting show where they were elk hunting. That lighted triangle they showed through the camera stuck out like a sore thumb, and looks like an easy way to aim.

gleason.chapman

I am going hunting in 2008 for Elk in Colorado in 1st Rifle Season also. I bought a Savage 10ML to be able to shoot 200 yards,the Savage will shoot that no problem with a 300g bullet. My bullet of choice right now is the 275g Parker Ballistic Extreme.

The Bushness Elite Series has a lifetime guarantee, they are clear, work ing the rain, sleet and snow and are an excellent scope. I have firefly in one and the other is without it. I don't think you can beat them on price and performance. I think the Nikon beats them on price alone, but with rainguard I think the performance is there with Bushnell. IMO.
Chap

gowkout

I like to stick to the same scopes on my rifles and ML just to keep it simple. I prefer Zeiss scopes 3x9X50, have used one on several different ML and they hold up real well. The conquest line has made them more affordable but I still drool over those diavari's but just can't bring myself to spend that much on a scope.

beast44k

I think I found a winner....

Last night, I checked out a Nikon 4.5-14x40,and compared it to a typical 3x9....man, what a difference!!!