so i'm looking to buy a scope for my 223 this are 2 i narrowed down to TASCO TARGET VARMINT 6-24X44 RIFLESCOPE TG624X44DS
with crosshair with 1/8 " dot and Tasco 6-24X42mm Varmint Target Rifle Scope AO MilDot prices are simular the one with 44mil lense lil more exencive dilema is whitch recticle is better ? never used mill dot before.. i'll be using it as a play around cayote and target shooting gun what you guys think?????????????

wasn't realy asking what you got on yours ......... so thanx ... i gues

I have, use, and like the mildot varmint Tasco, 2 of them. They work good and no hint of a problem with them. For Coyotes they are a bit much so keep the power set down to 6x-10x.

yzchamp wrote:

wasn't realy asking what you got on yours ......... so thanx ... i gues

You are absolutely correct. I digress.

I have a Bushnell Dusk and Dawn 6x24x40 AO scope on my .243 but I would spend a bit more to get a better brand than Tasco. Not saying Tasco is bad, but if you can scrape up more money, go better brand.
For 'yotes, I would get a 3x9x40. You need a very low power if the brush is high. They will come in much closer then. They are big enough so that you can seem them at long range just fine with 6 power. I do marmont shooting and they are a lot smaller and don't run around as much.

I would go for the 44mm but nothing larger.

yzchamp: mil dots can be useful if you take the time to range them and know the zero of each dot. To be effective you must also know fairly accurately the range to target. In shooting prairie dogs, that distance will often vary with each shot.

OTOH the 1/8" dot with crosshairs can be a fast scope to use and, if you are experienced with your rifle, you may find that estimating elevation for longer shots is not too difficult.

Regarding objective size, it may be the least important factor between the two scopes. More important is the resolution and clarity of each scope and that is best done "hands on" by spending some time looking through them. Check the adjustable objectives for accuracy at different distances.

The power of the scope divided into the objective diameter in mm will give you the exit pupil size in mm. Between 40 to 45mm, the exit pupil size changes insignificantly. Under daylight sunny conditions, the eye's pupil will contract to the 3mm to 4mm range, sometimes even less. Therefore, if the exit pupil of the scope is 3mm, you are getting all the light the eye can use. At 10X, a 40mm objective will give a 4mm exit. 10X is often the maximum useful hunting power for prairie dogs as mirage will have its toll at higher powers. While 24X is great for 100yd target work, it is far less an asset in the field.

Scope quality and price are related. The more you spend, the better the optics regarding clarity and resolution. A quality scope in the 6X to 10X range is all that is needed for prairie dogs out to 400 and 500yds IME&O.

I picked up a great 12X Weaver fixed power, an old steel tube model, with AO from eBay for $125. It sits atop a very deadly and accurate 220 Swift HB that routinely hits prairie dogs and Belden squirrels to 500yds. But, for coyotes, my two coyote rifles have a 1.5-5X20mm on one and a 2-8X36mm on the other. I have never needed higher magnification and I priortize the field of view.

A good 3-9X40mm may be the ideal scope as "tech spec man" suggests for a dual purpose varmint rifle.

Cheap scope with high magnification are exactly that ....cheap scope with high magnification. I agree with handloader a decent 3 x9 40mm will handle any varmint/predator duty out to 350-400 yds. Beyond that it is doubtful that a $50 scope will serve you well.

Yea, it's a cheap scope and yes, it's made in China at this point, and it does not have the same resolution of a $900 scope but: not all of us have the change available to spend more for a scope than the gun itself.

I have used Tasco for 40 years. Early on it was "made in Japan" and that was an issue with "pure" gunners because it was made out of the country. I will tell you that Tasco still makes a good product. I layed-out a ground hog last week at 250yds with a Tasco 6-24x40 with a .223.

The optics are clear and cross-hairs definitive. If you opt for Mil Dot you will appreciate the optic.

I'm waiting for Leica people......

Made "out of the country" has nothing to do with it. I owned a BSA scope before ...I liked it so much I gave it away. There are better ways to spend scope money. Without breaking the bank.

skb:

I would really like to find a compromise between my Tasco's and the $1k scopes. I really would. I have tried the Bushnell's, Weaver's, and the like and I cannot find one better than another outside of my revolver scope - I'll swear by the Weaver on my 44Mag.

I must admit that I never purchased a scope that cost more than $300 but I have shot several in the $900-$1500 range. And I cannot honestly say that they shot better, more accurate, or otherwise than my cheap Tasco.

I'm not trying to grind bones so to speak; I just can't "see" the difference. If I can completely destroy Mr. Groundhog at 350 yards with an $80 scope; why should I spend $1k give or take a few hundred dollars which is a lot for some of us.

Well now, can I throw my hat in the ring too? I use a simmons redline 6-24w/ 50mm AO and duplex reticles on a 243bull. Works dang fine on jacks an ground rats. Now you can get a bushnell 4-14x44 i believeit's 44 could be 42 at walmart for around $55-65. they work just fine on light recoil rifles. Just my .06 worth. Dave

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder......I believe similar can be applied to scopes. Not everyone's eyes are the same and what is crystal clear to one isn't necessarily to another.

I have a "cheap as old boots" Nikko Stirling 6x42 on my .22 rabbit gun and a more expensive Nikko Stirling Platinum Wide Angle 3.5-10x45 on my .243 and both do a stirling job, no pun intended. The 3.5-10x45 is every bit as good as my mates Tasco World Class....well I can't see any difference. Last time we went out hunting we used a Coke can at 200m to confirm zero and I took it out first shot whereas he had difficulty seeing it clear enough. Now before you all arc up it needs to be said that my mates eyes are a bit dicky and not as good as mine.

I would dearly love to be able to afford a Leoplold VX I, II or III in 3-9x40, but here in Australia they can cost "an arm and a leg" or even as high as your "first born", so I don't have one. SavageRuger and fireball 3 are totally correct. Regardless of price, if it meets your needs then it is an acceptable scope. Sure there are better out there....no-one has mentioned Swarovski ......but we are all tied to a budget and usually get the best we can for the limited money we have. Keeps the "ball and chain" happy and off our back too.

Cheers, Vince

I own and use the same scope used by the US Navy Spec Ops (SEALS) And guess what? Its made by "TASCO" Its called the "Super Sniper". And it beat Leupold, Burris, Swarovsky, And other big name companys from Germany and other countrys.
Tasco, like all but a few optics companys, contract out for their lenses. They dont put top of the line glass in there cheap scopes and spend alittle more for the US NAVY glass and put extra in the guts of the scope itself.
I have seen Tasco world class glass at varmint shoots and target events alike and they held there own.
So dont be a scope snob. the name dont mean a thing anymore.