|
|
Post by ncyotecaller on Sept 14, 2009 15:15:40 GMT -5
I was looking at picking up one of these in 2.5-10x56 w/ illum. reticle. I was wondering the good, the bad and the ugly of these scopes.
|
|
|
|
Post by rangeball on Sept 14, 2009 15:28:52 GMT -5
Do a search, lots of info here. Pretty much nothing but praise. At $297 @ Natchez, probably the best deal going on the planet for this top notch tough as nails scope  Only downside I've found is don't leave the reticle turned on when you put the gun up after a days shooting. It won't be on when you pull it out the next day... |
|
|
|
Post by tucker301 on Sept 14, 2009 16:07:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rossman40 on Sept 14, 2009 16:24:02 GMT -5
If you can get it for less then $300 it is the best buy on the market right now IMO. Some of the best glass on the market. Better then Nightforce and right there with a Sightron SIII. Mechanically maybe not as tough as a Nightforce and not much choice on reticles. They are big and not a light weight. But with the illuminated reticle and good glass makes it a winner in the low light shooting category. Lot of the features are going into the Super Slams but with 1" tubes and tactical turrents and there is supposed to be some new Tactical models that may be close. Your going to pay around $700 for a Super Slam.
|
|
|
|
Post by ncyotecaller on Sept 14, 2009 16:36:56 GMT -5
Are the better glass than the old Leupold Varix-III scopes? I have a Varix-III 3.5-10x50 w/ illm. duplex reticle and 30mm tube so it is pretty similiar to the Weaver. I like the idea of the 56mm for very first and last light and the price is unbeatable. I can always move the Leupold to the .223 calling predator gun.
|
|
|
|
Post by KerryB on Sept 14, 2009 16:49:36 GMT -5
I have several of the WCE 2.5-10X56 scopes with the duplex, lighted reticle and i love them. I also have some Leupold and Sightron scopes and the WCE is easily the equal or better than any of them. It is exceptionally sharp and bright in dim conditions and the illuminated reticle allows use even after true dark when the crosshairs have disappeared. I love the side focus feature on any scope, so it is another advantage of this scope. They are rated for magnum recoil rifles which makes them perfect for smokeless muzzleloaders. I know of several guys here that are using them and i haven't heard the first complaint. That should tell you something........  |
|
|
|
Post by rossman40 on Sept 14, 2009 17:19:43 GMT -5
The Vari-X III was about the last of the real good Leupys with a one piece tube and would be a close match to the WCE. Glass would probly be better on the WCE plus it is argon filled. Depending on how old the Leupy is the WCE may even have better lens coatings
|
|
|
|
Post by sw on Sept 14, 2009 18:43:02 GMT -5
Last year I did a comparison test in waning light between the WCE 50 and 56mm, 2 VarX3s,2 4200s, 2 3200s, a Sightron 2. The WCE was significantly better than second choice(4.5X14 50mm VarX3). I couldn't tell the difference in the 50 and 56 except at virtually dark sighting @ 150 yds 10X where the 56 was actually slightly better. But at 8X down no difference under same conditions and no difference at 4X @ 50 yds. This is the best deal out there I know of. I'd buy more but domestic resistance is present. I like it more than the 56mm 3.5X15 Nightforce I had. I do believe I would choose the 50 mm if still available but it's a toss-up.
|
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Sept 14, 2009 20:09:58 GMT -5
The Good---> best rifle scope for the price in the world The Bad-----> not enough money to buy as many as I want The Ugly----> had to sell Kahles CL 3-9x42 to afford to buy 2 WCEs  |
|
|
|
Post by rangeball on Sept 15, 2009 8:47:22 GMT -5
I'd buy more but domestic resistance is present. Very well put I think that's going around... |
|
|
|
Post by DHinMN on Sept 17, 2009 13:38:13 GMT -5
You guys are pretty good salesman. I just ordered a WCE 2.5-10X50. Now I need to find 30MM rings. I'm thinking of a Warne one piece base and Warne QD rings in medium height. Is there a better choice? I need to go from this scope for the fire arms season to a 1X scope of the ML season. I have the Warne QD rings for the 1X scope. DH
|
|
|
|
Post by rangeball on Sept 17, 2009 13:54:35 GMT -5
I have burris signature Z rings on mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Sept 17, 2009 15:50:00 GMT -5
In sprite of all the opinions express here, in life you get what you pay for. There are no bargains.
The reason Swarovski scopes are expensive, is they are the best scope made. period.
Buy the very best scope you can afford.
I have had to Leupolds on both my Savages, 5000 shots with full power loads, wonderful glass, why would I change
|
|
|
|
Post by lwh723 on Sept 17, 2009 16:30:20 GMT -5
The reason Swarovski scopes are expensive, is they are the best scope made. period. That's a bold statement. I've never looked through one, so I'll have to take your word for it. Have you used any USO's, S&B's, etc? |
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Sept 17, 2009 17:33:04 GMT -5
Forget about my opinion, read what Kenny Jerrett writes about scopes.
|
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Sept 17, 2009 19:59:17 GMT -5
I will say this. A Swarovski, USO, Xotic, Zeiss Victory or Schmidt & Bender is not worth four times what a WCE is worth to my eyes! I have a hard time justifying 5-10% better optical quality at 400% price increase. But hey........not everyone looks through my eyeballs and not everyone has my teeny weeny pocketbook either.
However if my life depended on my long distance sniper ability I might feel differently about paying much more for such small gains in optical quality.
Doug
|
|
|
|
Post by ncyotecaller on Sept 17, 2009 21:40:33 GMT -5
I took the plunge and got my WCE 2.5-10x56 from Natchez today and I am very impressed so far. I mounted it on my laminated stainless 10ml-II in Burris XTR medium rings and it fit just right. Got it boresighted now just need to go burn some powder. I do like the extra weight it adds to the gun to help tame the recoil a little bit sinc I am shooting .458 300gr Remingtons and 69gr RL-7.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Sept 18, 2009 9:47:00 GMT -5
Buying any product, is a personal choice, a Rolls maybe the best car, I wouldn't want one, even as a gift.
As I said, I have been using Leupold scopes for 60 years, and never had a failure, so way change, although if some wants to gift me with a Swarovski, I'm your man.
|
|
|
|
Post by sw on Sept 18, 2009 10:30:12 GMT -5
Sometimes a company can make a sales mistake, then takes a loss on the product, and the buyer is the winner. Mazda is an example. Other Jap car companies(Honda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus, Nissan/Infinity) had their upline cars, and Mazda planned on this also, then the recession. The Mellenia(sp?) came out and was a wonderful Mazda, even beyond the 2nd generation 929. It was planned to be sold at much more than what it was sold for as "just a Mazda". The buyers came out ahead on this one.
I think such was the case for Weaver who tried to enter the mid-higher line scope arena again. Originally planned as a great scope for appx $1,000, it just didn't sell, set on shelves for years, and then they tried to cut losses. I've had a 3.5X15 56mm Nightforce and like the Weaver even more. It seems as bright as the very bright Nightforce but with less wt. It tracks as well as the Nightforce. The glass is great, the tracking is as good as my 2 Weaver T-36s which is excellent,etc.
I think we get more than we paid for.
Rossman40, please correct any errors in this, if there are any.
|
|
|
|
Post by lwh723 on Sept 18, 2009 12:27:36 GMT -5
I will say this. A Swarovski, USO, Xotic, Zeiss Victory or Schmidt & Bender is not worth four times what a WCE is worth to my eyes! I have a hard time justifying 5-10% better optical quality at 400% price increase. But hey........not everyone looks through my eyeballs and not everyone has my teeny weeny pocketbook either. However if my life depended on my long distance sniper ability I might feel differently about paying much more for such small gains in optical quality. Doug Doug, Well put. Most of the middle of the line respectable brands are more than good enough for what we do. That extra $1-3K for a really high end scope doesn't really buy enough to be worth it for most of us. Luke |
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Sept 18, 2009 13:14:48 GMT -5
Once again a personal choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Sept 18, 2009 18:51:56 GMT -5
Forget about my opinion, read what Kenny Jerrett writes about scopes. I went to the Jarrett rifles website and read his opinion of rifle scopes. Nothing really profound there. Basically he is saying to buy the top of the line and keep your rifle scope simple. One very good suggestion that he makes is that you always carry a substitute scope with you on hunting trips just in case your mounted one fails. He is admitting that even the highest quality and expensive scopes are capable of malfunction. One of the four scopes that he recommends is the Kahles from Austria, which is the oldest rifle scope manufacturer in the world. I actually sold a Kahles CL 3-9x42 with multi-zero feature to be able to afford two WCEs. The reason that I would do such a thing is that I could not give the Kahles the nod in any of the optical tests that I normally use to determine it's relative optical performance. Two of the tests were performed in very dim light where the Kahles is supposed to really shine. Of course these tests are subjective in that only my eyes were used for evaluation but it would be my eyes that would be shooting and hunting with it also. As far as mechanical reliability, the Kahles failed me. It didn't withstand the harsh recoil of the Savage muzzleloader and the side parallax adjustment stuck on it. I eventually had to send it over to Austria to be repaired and four months later I received my repaired scope. The moral of the story is that just because you pay more doesn't necessarily mean that you will recieve the commensurate benefits of putting out the extra cash. However, I would agree that it is a good rule of thumb to evaluate the requirements of the rifle and match it with the best optics that you can afford. But doggonit.......every rule seems to have an exception and I believe that the WCE is one. To date I have not heard of one negative comment concerning this fine scope in this message board or in any other optical forum. Below is a link to a review of the WCE in an optical scope forum. opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=15340 Doug |
|
|
|
Post by wvscott on Sept 19, 2009 4:52:50 GMT -5
I wonder what the warranty is like with these? I just bought a leupold vxII 3-9x40, but after looking at these WCE's, I like the side PA adjustment and the fact that they should be brighter than my leupold...just wondering if the warranty is as good as leupolds?
regards, Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Sept 19, 2009 5:39:37 GMT -5
Full lifetime transferable warranty
|
|
|
|
Post by wvscott on Sept 19, 2009 16:58:59 GMT -5
Thanks Doug, I just ordered one of 2.5-10x50 scopes. Do you know how low the parallax adjustment goes?
thanks, Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Sept 19, 2009 21:26:57 GMT -5
20 yards
|
|
|
|
Post by boarhog on Sept 20, 2009 9:14:41 GMT -5
OK Guys, you've sold me! I called Natchez yesterday and ordered the 2-10X56 WCE with the regular plex reticle. I think I would have preferred the 50 obj., but would have had to take the Ger reticle. Not sure I would have liked it, and I know I like the plex. I am concerned about the 56 mm obj and how high it will have to be for the bell to clear? I may have to find a strap-on cheek pad somewhere. I also ordered steel bases and rings, plus the flip open scope caps while I was at it.
This Natchez sale price is the only way I will likely ever be able to buy a top quality scope. A major boost of my disposable income, or a Powerball win, would be required before I could afford to spend $500.-1500. for a scope!
|
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Sept 20, 2009 10:14:36 GMT -5
Boarhog.........the only downside that I see to the WCE is that it is heavy which also means that it is heavily built. I have a 2.5-10x56 mounted on a Savage 10ML2 and with high Burris Zee rings and Warne base it leaves about 1/4" of clearance which is enough. Not all makes of rings and bases have the same dimensions so be careful. I am a "stock creeper" which indicates that I have a tendency to stretch my neck forward toward the scope right before I shoot which is very bad form that causes me to lose the proper sight picture while trying to maintain proper cheek weld. As long as you keep your head up (with 4" of eye relief) you will probably be fine.
Keep us posted on how you like your new scope and set-up when you get the chance.
Doug
|
|
|
|
Post by wvscott on Sept 20, 2009 11:58:49 GMT -5
OK Guys, you've sold me! I called Natchez yesterday and ordered the 2-10X56 WCE with the regular plex reticle. I think I would have preferred the 50 obj., but would have had to take the Ger reticle. Not sure I would have liked it, and I know I like the plex. I am concerned about the 56 mm obj and how high it will have to be for the bell to clear? Another difference between the 56 obj. and the 50 obj. models is the length...the 50 is almost an inch shorter and two oz lighter (if that makes that much of a difference.) I just ordered the 50mm model with the german reticle. I hope I like it...never used a reticle like that before. regards, Scott |
|
|
|
Post by boarhog on Sept 20, 2009 23:41:39 GMT -5
Doug,
I might worry about a few ounces on my 257 Rob Mtn Rifle or my light weight Savage 7-08, but it doesn't seem worth worrying about on a 10+ lb ML. At this point, if it would give me consistent accuracy, I'd hang a bag of shot off of the trigger guard! LOL
|
|
