I went out prairie dog hunting with a .17HMR, .223 rem, and .204 ruger, with the scopes being respectively a Scheels 4.5-14×42, a Barska 6-24×42, and a BSA Platinum 36×44 (fixed magnification).

The scope on the .17HMR seemed to be pretty decent, so I will probably leave it alone. 200 yards is about the distance that round is happy with, and the 14x is a good magnification for that.

The scope on the .223 is pretty nice, for the $90 I paid for it new (less than the lower power Scheels scope on the .17) it performs very well. The mil-dots allow me to fire once holding dead-on (200y zero) and identify where the bullet struck the dirt, using the dots like a grid, so I know if I put the P-dog at three dots down and two dots right, it will compensate for drop and wind, and I can get 2nd shot kills easily for not having a rangefinder. The magnification of 24x seems a little low for the range this rifle can shoot, when it comes to trying to hit golf-ball sized heads sticking out of holes, at 300+ yards. 32x would probably be a perfect fit.

On the .204, my 36×44 unadjustable BSA was a nightmare and almost ruined my mood for the trip. Sure, the scope seemed great for when I was zeroing and shooting paper targets in my field at 200 yards, and I had high hopes for it being the ultimate tack-driver of my three rifles. BUT then I show up for my first time hunting p-dogs, and find that they are very difficult to spot at anything above about 10x when panning around, and where my other rifles allowed me to spot the p-dogs at 4.5x or 6x, and then scoot my sandbags around so I could begin running the ring for the magnification all the way to max as I held the p-dog in the center of the scope, the BSA did not let me do this, instead I had to spot with binoculars and then look down the side of the barrel to get it roughly aligned to the target while moving sandbags, and then hope that once I put my eye to the scope, it would be looking at scenery my eye could recognize from the previous binocular view, to then pan over to the p-dog I intended on targeting. The ONE time I was happy with the .204 was when we found this valley of p-dogs, offering shots out to about 500 yards on the other side of the valley, which would have been a waste of ammo with any other rifle, but with this one, the distance was far enough off that I could finally pan the view through the scope to locate the fence posts, count left 6, and locate the p-dogs that thought they were safe since they were a quarter mile away from me. Boy were they wrong. Lacking mil-dots, I had to turn on the target drums, but lacking any rangefinding, it was trial and error, which at $0.80 per round is irritating. But once the wind and distance/elevation were compensated for, I could proceed to pick off about five p-dogs that had been sitting out there sunbathing.

So, now that I have experience with these guns in usage, and with how their scopes have performed, here are my observations, and I would be interested to see the feedback.

1) Adjustable magnification is a MUST-HAVE, to allow for target acquisition, and then to zoom in to an accurate level of magnification

2) Magnification (max) must match the caliber being used. Seems like .17HMR likes 14x, .223 Rem could be around 24x-32x, and .204 Ruger could be 30x-40x

3) Putting an underpowered scope on a rifle for long-distance shooting will lead to human-aim caused inaccuracy, so spending $800 on a 3-9×30 Nikon is a blatant waste of money on my .223 or .204 when being shot at a minimum of 300 yards at tiny dirt-colored prairie dogs.

4) Cheap scopes like the Barska, available as a 10-40×50 for $105, seem like so long as they would hold a zero, they will give me the best performance for my dollar.

Now yes, one big thing I hear is that if you turn the target drums off zero, and then come back, the expensive scopes will shoot a clean zero again, but the cheap scopes will be off their zero. The other thing I hear is that the cheap scopes fall apart. I also hear that the optical clarity of the expensive scopes is far superior. BUT, so long as I’m okay with the first shot missing, to then make my target drum adjustments based on its impact (moving incrementally, rather than absolute, from zero) and so long as the optical clarity is enough to identify the prairie dogs (compared to trying to see a deer in the middle of dark woods and identify if it has antlers), and so long as I have read reviews of guys shooting the scopes I want to buy on larger calibers like the .308 with no mechanical failures, then I have to think that something like the 10-40×50 Barska is going to be a scope that is perfect for my application. Then again, for a little bit more money, I can get a ZOS 10-40×60 with lit reticule and side parallax turret for
(Continued) Then again, for a little bit more money, I can get a ZOS 10-40×60 with lit reticule and side parallax turret for just a little more, so long as I’m okay experimenting with a new brand that is even less reputable than the Barska brand. But Barska is working very well for me, and my Scheels carries those along with their BSA, Nikon, Leopold, and NightForce scopes, so I have to think the brand isn’t too “made in china”. Except that the ZOS scopes are the scope of the chinese military, thereby embodying “made in china”… But I figure I’m risking much less on a cheap scope than with an expensive one. I figure the $2000 price tag on the NightForce that has the specs I’m looking for, is a worse bet than $179 shipped for a ZOS that has similar specs. It’s not like I’m shooting magnum rounds, or hiking with this rifle through woods and smacking trees with it and praying it will hold a zero well enough for a first-shot-kill.
I am always learning and basically every year I realize that what I thought last year about guns and scopes was completely uninformed and fledgling, so I have to keep actively learning about this stuff, because I am pretty sure a year from NOW, I will look back and be able to understand all the flaws in the logic I hold at this moment, and I’m hoping you can help me see the errors in my ways by offering constructive criticism and explanations of my misconceptions, in ways that can only have been learned by time, and experience. Thank you for all your contributions and for the efforts you all make on this forum to help ensure people are safe and responsible with their firearms.

Thank you… I appreciate your effort.
Butch… you surely may and thank you. I suspected as much but I wanted to hear it from someone who KNEW… not SUSPECTED. I’m off to do your suggested reading.

With this mount. – http://www.tejraj.com/binoculars-tripod.html

for comparison could anybody also tell me what would be the difference in the detail of the moon as seen from both of the above

But now im not sure if these will be sufficient for what I want. I want to be able to view planets with clarity. People have been raving about this telescope http://www.opticsplanet.net/bush-ts-785003.html

They all say its great for beginners, and one reviewer said that the rings of saturn he saw blew him away!

Binoculars would be a lot easier to use because with telescopes it will be troublesome to be dragging whole thing around the house. Please, tell me, which one of these would be best for my needs. I need to stay within the $0-100 price range by the way incase you have any suggestions. Thanks!!!

It doesn’t matter what you believe about UFO’s or who you think makes them, or if you think they exist or don’t.

But you have to admit a lot of weird things have been happening lately.

I have one thing to say to those people who say “UFO’s don’t exist, 100% of them are hoaxes, there is no evidence or proof” or what have you.

START LOOKING UP!!! all you have to do is start looking UP and you’ll see them… i have found that most people who say they don’t exist don’t spend much time outside, especially at night, and never LOOK for them in the first place.

Like i said… it doesn’t matter WHO makes them. it may be our government, it may be aliens, who knows… who cares… but to deny they are there is ignorant and closed minded..

I wasn’t going to start this conversation in that way.

I have a pair of binoculars. they are Nikon 10×50. these binoculars are powerful enough to see 4 moons of Jupiter. I’ve always been into astronomy and constellations etc. I look up at the stars OFTEN at night. Honestly, i’m a smoker, and i never smoke in my house. I always go to my back yard to smoke, and while i’m out there, i take my binoculars and look at the sky. I’ve been looking at the positions of jupiter’s moons just about every night since mid July. It’s worth mentioning, i am an amateur. Recently, i discovered that i could see the Andromeda galaxy.

If you find Cassiopeia, (the one that kinda looks like a W) the arrow points directly to the andromeda galaxy, which you can see with the naked eye if it’s REALLY dark. within the city, you need binoculars.

Anyway, i was looking at the andromeda galaxy, and in my field of view came 4 objects in a square formation. they had NO light radiating from them. within a second 1 more appeared, then another. they were moving a decent pace. They radiated NO light from themselves. They were triangular in shape. the only way i could see them was the light reflecting from them. the two that appeared formed themselves into the formation. the formation was FIXED and did not move.. stars passed between the objects I could not see them with the naked eye because they were too far away. Keep in mind, like i said, i can see 4 moons of Jupiter with these binoculars. I can literally read insignia on the side of airliners that fly over day or night, so to say i couldn’t see them with the naked eye is no surprise.

anyhow, they changed formation swiftly and precisely. they did not move like jets, they emmited no light, they didn’t waft around like high flying migrating birds to, and they were triangular in shape…

again.. i make no assumptions as to who created these… it could be anything…. but.. technically a UFO is something that is unidentified. it doesn’t mean aliens built them.. it just means it was unidentified. and. these were just that.

— in july, i was looking at the sky when i saw what i assumed was a satellite flying over. I called my girlfriend outside to look at it, and grabbed my trusty binoculars. In this case, it was glowing bright white like a meteorite entering the atmosphere, but not moving anywhere near as fast. once i put the binoculars on it, i realized it was much closer to the earth than i figured it would have been. it appeared about 3 to 5mm wide through them.. for perspective, jupiter is about 2mm wide through these lenses, and the moons of jupiter appear like faint stars that you can see with the naked eye.

I had time to pass the binoculars to her, when it suddenly took a hard 90 degree turn in mid course flew a little ways, STOPPED in mid air, blinked about 10 times rapidly – each time slower than the last, then completely disappeared…………

i’ve never seen an airplane do that, never seen a bird or a weather balloon do that, i know what flares look like. i used to live next to
Fort Hood.. which if you don’t know, is the largest army base in the world… i’ve seen jets, i’ve seen helicopters, i’ve seen flares, i’ve seen weather balloons, i’ve seen it all… including satellites, debris entering the atmosphere, pulsar stars emitting light, meteorites and asteroids, i KNOW the differences… and i know that none of these things move like what i’ve seen or behave like what i’ve seen.

Neither of these things were those..

The thing is, i’ve been seeing this kind of thing my entire life.. it doesn’t stop with just these two incidents. i’ve seen dozens of things like this throughout my life.

so……. i open a challenge… to those who have never seen anything like this, try this……..

Go out in your back yard every night for a month and spend 15 to 20 minutes just staring at the sky. You can get a pair of 10×50 binoculars if you want to make things a little more interesting..

just sit and stare at the sky at various times at night for an extended period of time, and i am at least 95% positive you WILL see something

What is the combined magnification of all the binoculars put together?
672,280 is WAY too high
Virus Detected: you are wrong

Brown Hair, Blue Eyes: it’s not one of those lame trick questions
So far, Lauren is the closest
ahaha – your working’s completely wrong, but strangely you came quite close to the correct answer…
Danny is now very close, comparatively. The closest out of all of you, anyway.
Grub: no it doesn’t

Clue to all: the 40 has nothing to do with magnification. It refers to how much light is let in. You can ignore it…