Magnum pistol scopes

[Orin]

Thinking about getting a scope for my Super Redhawk. Have one, a BSA, for my .22 but am afraid to use it due to recoil. Been shopping & the prices are across the board. Granted, to some degree you get what you pay for but not always. I'll never get th' durn thing wet... Just paper punching. May not use it a lot since my range only allows pistol shooting out to 50yds. Some silly safety rule the state has. Anyway, is there such a critter fer $100 or under? Think I paid $54 for the Beeser.

[Lee D]

under 100? when it comes to quality thats kinda hit and miss, but if you do some looking around on the net, you can find Burris for just under $200

[Farmalljon]

I was just going to start a thread on the exact same topic... I'm finally getting my long awaited Super Redhawk in .454 casull next week. I'll be needing a scope suitable for hunting. If I get drawn in Maine's moose lottery, I'm thinking of bringing the 454 and using it if I see a moose under 100 yards. As with everything, I want to get out of it as inexpensively as possible without sacrificing quality. Easier said than done, I know. What do you all have on top of your Super Redhawks?

[Zane71464]

On the SB .44mag I had, I had a bushnell that ran around $300 that was mounted
on it. Sad but true, I didnt get a much of a chance to put it through the paces.
I passed it on in a trade.
Welcome to the Forums, Farmalljon!

[Hammerslagger]

The shortcomings of cheap scopes is not so much their optics (which are all computer assisted in design and manufacture) but their ability to hold zero under repeated heavy recoil or the sharp vibrations caused by a semi-auto action.

One major scope company once advertised that their best scope was good for 10K shots on a .375 H&H Magnum. Their next to best scope was rated for 2K shots on the same.

With optics you do necessarily pay for what you get. In the above example the next to best scope would be good enough for most shooters; especially considering that both were expensive scopes and the best model cost significantly more money.

Hope this helps.

[LDJ]

I have a Bushnell Elite 3200 2x-6x by 32mm. I have had very good luck with it. I have shot about 200 rounds with it since I purchased my Super Redhawk 454. I started out with a cheaper scope, but after only 10 rounds I could not adjust it. I had knocked the adjustment screw loose. I paid $270.00 for the Elite plus shipping, but you have to have a magnum scope to handle the 454.

LDJ

[Zane71464]

That's the same scope I had LDJ. And as I said, didnt get a chance to put it through
the paces. (didnt have the revolver long enough)

[gcalloway]

I have a Leupold 2X on my 454 Casull Ruger Red Hawk. It has yet to fail me. I have taken an elk at 95 yards and deer out to just past 100. I just do not think I am good enough to shoot much past that range. The only trouble I have had is with my flipup scope covers. If i shoot 6 times without pushing the front cover back down it comes off. I have never had any change in zero it is always consistant. The brightness is also helpful in low light. I have a 2X Nikon on a 44 mag Ruger Red hawk. I have taken deer ot to 70 yards, here again is the limitation on my shooting abilities. It has done well but the Leupold works much better in the dawn and duxsk lighting conditions.

[jodonald6]

I have a 454 Casull in a Raging Bull.... I just replaced a broken BSA Edge 2-7x32mm pistol scope after less than 200 rounds. It was lable "Designed for high powered hand guns".... The Reticle broke and the coating was comming off inside the scope... This was a $ 180 scope when I purchased it. I upgrading to a Bushnell Elite 2-6x32mm which was specifically tested to withstand the recoil of a 454 Casull. A couple other guys on this forum also said it was a good scope, but it costs $285.00 I hope it does much better than the BSA.

Good Luck.

John D. O'Donald

[al45lc]

I've had a Bushnell banner 2-7 x32 on my .45 Blackhawk for years now,no problems. A less costly version of the Elite serious, think I paid $140
Not the same recoil as a .454, but still VERY stiff, and it's never lost accuracy.

[GunnyGene]

Maybe it's just me, but I've never understood why anyone wants a scope on a revolver. It adds weight, and doesn't improve your hold as far as I can tell. Seems to me that a decent set of iron sights is sufficient for that short range. Somebody enlighten me.

[al45lc]

Originally Posted by GunnyGene

Maybe it's just me, but I've never understood why anyone wants a scope on a revolver. It adds weight, and doesn't improve your hold as far as I can tell. Seems to me that a decent set of iron sights is sufficient for that short range. Somebody enlighten me.

I have shot deer with my 7.5" Blackhawk at 125 yards, in addition a scope can add up to 20 minutes in low light hunting conditions, and my older eyes can't make out deer hide against trees like they use to.
And even with scope, it's less weight and easier to carry than any rifle, especially in heavy undergrowth and pines.
I hunt both scope and iron sights, depending on conditions.
That's why I love my Super Blackhawk Hunter, I can remove the scope, put it back on in the field and it returns to zero every time, so I have the best of both worlds.

[GunnyGene]

Originally Posted by al45lc

I have shot deer with my 7.5" Blackhawk at 125 yards, in addition a scope can add up to 20 minutes in low light hunting conditions, and my older eyes can't make out deer hide against trees like they use to.
And even with scope, it's less weight and easier to carry than any rifle, especially in heavy undergrowth and pines.
I hunt both scope and iron sights, depending on conditions.
That's why I love my Super Blackhawk Hunter, I can remove the scope, put it back on in the field and it returns to zero every time, so I have the best of both worlds.

Thanks. Hadn't thought about low light. Makes sense.