new .264 win mag, but what scope

[Deerhunter264]

I have purchased a Remington CDL in a .264 Winchester Magnum, and i now need to buy a scope, but i do not know what to get. The scopes i have been trying to decide between are the Zeiss Conquest, the NIkon Monarch, and ether the Bushnell 4200 or 6500. The rifle is a long range rifle and the .264 is a good round for distances so i was also wonding if i should get turrets on the scope or are they not neccessary. I dont know what to do and i would be thankful for any help.

 

[mapsjanhere]

What do you want to do with it? Quick shots at long range, you're probably better off with a mil-dot or other rapid aim recticle without messing with elevation. Shooting a lot at long distance targets at known distances, and the turrets come real handy.

 

[crowbeaner]

Redfields are BACK! Made HERE! midsouthshooterssupply.com

 

[Deerhunter264]

thankyou for the help about the turrets, any suggestion in scopes....i am still willing to here other opinions about the turrets

 

[Stiofan]

Any of those scopes would be fine. The 264Mag is an excellent antelope/deer/elk cartridge.

 

[Art Eatman]

I bought a '65 or '66 production Model 70 in .264. Tack driver. I vaguely recall that I stuck a 3x9x40 on it. Since 3X is plenty of magnification for killing Bambi at 350 yards, I figure the old 3x9 is about as much as a fella ever needs, outside of the varmint shooting on itty-bitties.

So far, the gun writers who have messed with the new Redfields have spoken favorably without gushing over them.

Face it, the scope makers have pretty much spoiled us. We're snobby, today, about scopes which twenty or fifty years ago were considered top of the line.

 

[WIN71]

I can't comment on the turrets. I've never even seen one let alone used one. I do however, have a Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10 on a long range hunting rifle (300RUM ) and it has worked fine for the last 5 years or so. Normally I would say that 2-7 or 3-9 would be fine. My eyes have gotten so bad I need a little more power.

 

[Flatbush Harry]

.264 Win Mag is a great hunting caliber...6.5mm cartridges aren't as popular as they should be here in the USA.

As to glass, I have Zeiss Conquests with Rapid Z600 reticles and hunting turrets for my .30-06 and .308 Win. I zero both at 200 yds and use the distance marks on the reticle once I establish range (I use a rangefinder when hunting). I spend a bunch of range time at my club that has a 1,000 yd range, studying which marks to use at which ranges.

My next rifle will be either a .25-06 or a .264 of some sort...and I'll probably get another Conquest.

FH

 

[James R. Burke]

I mostly use Leupold but the ones mentioned are good. There are a few good makes out there. I mainly use a 3x9x40 seems to work good for me. I just leave it set on 4x most the time. But like I said thats just me.

 

[MosinM38]

Right now mine has a 3-9X Bushnell banner on it....Not my choice but it came with it, sighted in, and I haven't seen a reason to change it. Stayed zeroed through 2 years of hard hunting use, including rough transport.

To my recomendation though: My 7MM mag has a 4-16 Tasco World Class. I know "It's a low class". I'll say two big things about it. #1. It's not quite the low light scope, I'll say that. It doesn't do real good at dusk. #2. World Class scopes are head and shoulders above the Silver Antler and Pronghorn scopes that give people (not me though) horror stories.

What I personally recomend: standard 3-9X Nikon Prostaff. On a normal hunting rifle, even at long range (Longest shot was about 425-450 yards), 9X is plenty...for me at least.

I saw a Bushnell Elite 3200 5-15X though and it is a great scope. Good at dark,etc. So; Also recomend Bushnell Elite 3200.

 

[olyinaz]

For the money, both the Nikon Monarch and a Bushnell 4200 are outstanding values (I own both and like them). I'd favor a 4x12 or 4x16 on that rig just because it's made for reaching out long distance. Nothing wrong with a 3x9 (or the modern 2.5x10) but honestly I prefer more magnification at anything over 200 yards. Just me talkin'.

I don't think you need the turrets on a hunting rig but it's your money - make yerself happy.

Cheers,
Oly

 

[Deerhunter264]

well I want to know about the turrets for the gun because i have never really hunted at long ranges, but within 200 yards and i am going to start hunting at the greater distances, and just wondering if the turrets would be a good add on to the scope

 

[mapsjanhere]

If you can afford something like the Svarowski with the ballistic turrets (where you have 4 rapid set distances), go for it. Otherwise, for hunting I'd stay with a graded recticle. The 264 drops 10 MOA at 600, you can count that faster than you play with a target turret. Take the rest of the money for a decent range finder, anything past 400 and a 100 yard "off" in your distance estimate will get you out of Minute of Deer.

 

[olyinaz]

Agree. Get a mil dot or BDC reticle scope and use the saved money to buy a good range finder. Anything you can set, you can forget (and will). Reticle aids don't lay in wait to ambush you with a Murphy's law example.

Oly