Cheap rifle scopes

[white eagle]

aint worth a hoot
I had a Bushnell firefly 3x9 scope mounted on my
Thompson Encore in 500 Linebaugh had it sighted in
and went to recheck it before the general gun deer
season opened up.Darn thing was a foot high at 50 yds.
readjusted it and was satisfied and go to turn the power
ring back to 3x and it would not go all the way to 3x
but stopped at 5x the adjustment ring froze up the p.o.s
took it off and replaced it with a Leupold 3x9, wanted a fixed
power but they (Cabelas)didn't have one.Another problem
with the Bushnell was I had to re-focus at each power setting
I have never had a scope that I had to do that for
ya get what ya pay for I guess

[Winger Ed.]

[QUOTE=ya get what ya pay for I guess[/QUOTE]

I've found that to be true of almost everything.

But there is still the challenge:
Its easy to find cheap stuff cheap,,,,,,,, with a little digging, you can often find good stuff cheap.

[Texas by God]

You didn't say if it was a handgun or a rifle, but I imagine that combo is a scope killer.
I would keep the Leupold on it for a while and send that Bushnell back and get a free new one. Then use the new one on something less vicious.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Kraschenbirn]

Once upon a time, I had an SSK Contender chambered for .375 JDJ...totaled 3 scopes - two Simmons (one a warranty replacement) and a Japanese Weaver - before going to a Leupold M8. Same scope was on that barrel when I sold it five years later.

Bill

[jonp]

I put a couple of Barska scopes on AR's to test the rifles out and the Barska's seem to be holding up. The cheap Tasco I stuck on a 243 I bought at Walmart for under $30. Works ok for what it is.

I bought 2 Bushnell scopes on sale in the plastic clamshell. After rebate they came to $10 each. Both are ok. Sure not the Nikon's or the Leopold I bought for my .416 but for a fraction of the cost I could deer hunt with them. I've also got a Simmons 44Mag. For the price its not bad.

I don't instantly turn my nose up at scopes but I consider the use and how much use I'll get out of them. Would I put the Tasco on a rifle I was going on a Bighorn Sheep hunt? Of course not but to cruise around close to home in the swamp or woods it would work ok.

I paid over $400 for an Osprey 20x variable to put on a 6.5 Creedmore. It's in it's box. A total piece of junk and money wasted. Don't buy any Osprey scope.

[JSH]

I have a fair number of Bushnells scopes, handgun and rifle, I won’t say they are cheap or junk. A 500 Linebaugh killed it, not surprising. They are known to be hard on optics. I won’t say a Leupold is recoil proof, 375 JDJ killed one, lens fell out.

[lefty o]

there is a time and place for cheap scopes for many folks, but if you are going to put a scope on something with a signifigant amount of recoil, it pays to just pay your money up front.

[Lloyd Smale]

500 Linebaugh=straight 2x leupold

[osteodoc08]

You get what you pay for when it comes to optics. Yes the cheaper optics have become much better, but the adage still applies. On my main hunting rifle sits a Leupold VX6HD 3-18. I have no doubt it will perform when needed. Or at least the odds are in my favor. Everyone will have an anecdotal story or x brand going back for repair. My shooting buddy had to send his NightForce back for an issue but I wouldn’t hesitate to put one on my rifle.

Yes there is the point of diminishing returns, agree there, but in the land of optics, you get what you pay for within the heart of the segment. I’m not talking about $7k Hensholdt optics

[gwpercle]

You mean my old man was right when he told me "you get exactly what you pay for" ?

500 Linebaugh is just a tad rough on handgun scopes ...try a better quality maybe a
Leupold FX - II 4X28 pistol scope , fixed 4 power will hold up better .

Gary

[white eagle]

this was on a rifle
the 500 Linebaugh is no harder to shoot in a rifle than a 45-70
matter of fact the old timer is more recoil than the 500
I should have known better I went through 3 different optics
on my 475 Linebaugh pistol before I mounted a Leupold that has remained to this day

[RogerDat]

I wonder how many novice scope buyers don't have a scope because they have been convinced there is no point to purchasing anything less than $$$ so they don't buy until they can afford what they are convinced is the cost of "good" quality.

Lot does depend on usage and requirements. As someone said going on a big horn sheep hunt? The rifle, ammo, and scope should be sufficient to that usage. Going to punch paper at slightly longer ranges or with eyes that are getting a bit older? It shouldn't cost a fortune for a scope to meet that usage. New shooter learning to use a scope? Should buy something suitable to their abilities. True enough that too cheap will just frustrate one with its failures to perform but I do wish there was more advice given on what budget priced scopes provide good value and a bit less on why nothing but the $$$ scope is worth buying.

A $60 shotgun scope may not be as good as a $250 one but as long as it holds focus and aim how much scope do you need at 100 yards and less?

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

I'm not up on new cheap scopes, but 30 or 40 years ago, there were some sleepers in the cheap scope price range. You can still find them on the fleabay for a reasonable price. One is the Bushnell with the circled BL mark on it (made in Japan by Bausch and Lomb).

[Kraschenbirn]

...One is the Bushnell with the circled BL mark on it (made in Japan by Bausch and Lomb).

Yup!! Got one of those on Ruger #3 (.22 Hornet) that was acquired from Cast Boolit's Swap & Sell. Crosshairs are a bit thicker than my preference but image is sharp and bright.

Bill

[white eagle]

cheap scopes are cheap for a reason
buying quality well made rifle scopes
does not need a second mortgage,although you can certainly do so

[dverna]

I have bought a number of cheap scopes....none worth keeping. After getting a high end Vortex, I was spoiled.

I will never spend less than $300 on an scope again.

When I had dozens of rifles, it was tempting to scope them all, but to do that with “good” glass was more than I could justify.

Thinnng the herd made my move to better scopes viable.

[white eagle]

it was said or written some place
that you should spend more on your scope
than you do for your rifle
I used to follow that advice but I tired cheaping
out and actually ended up paying more

[Tripplebeards]

My cheap go to scope are Nikons. Brightest and clearest glass for the money in my opinion. I’ve gotten some razz from other members here for this comment but the Cheap, entry level pro staffs are IMO brighter and clearer than any of my Leupold 111’s and mark 1V’s I paid up to $1300 for In years past(and still own). I just sold a leuopold Mark III fine cross hair target scope with a 30 mm tube and a 50 mm optic for that reason. My $269 on sale pro staff 5’s towered over that ridiculously expensive optic it as far as a brighter, crisp and clear picture goes. I have to admit the Nikons don’t look as nice and as light as the Leupolds but have way better glass in them for a lot less money. Back in the 70’s and 80s Leupold was the ultimate scope to have but too many manufacturers have come leaps and bounds in the last 2 Decades surpassing it for A lot less $.

[Blanket]

Leupold is my go to scope brand and have a bunch of them. Most bought used off of sites like this. Look for about 3 series back and they will be cheap.

[RogerDat]

I see Nikon listed in reviews as having a good quality sub $200 scope (not by much but still a bit less than $200) There is a Vortex scope also well reviewed at the same price point. People are reporting good accuracy achieved with these scopes.

I'm sure there are gains to be had by spending more. Just not sure where the point of rapidly diminishing returns is. Or where one doesn't need more scope so the money spent buys "speed" you don't need. I bet the quality of a $200 Nikon is notably better than a $100 scope. Not exactly sure one gets the same degree of increase going up another $100 to a $300 scope.

[smithnframe]

You get what you pay for when it comes to scopes!

[Petrol & Powder]

Absolute rule when it comes to optics - YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.

There is no free lunch in the field of optics. The only way for a manufacturer to drive the price point down is to cut corners somewhere.
You don't have to spend $2500 to get something "good enough" but you'll never get something "good enough" for $20.

It still amazes me to see someone spend upwards of a thousand dollars on a gun and then turn around and slap the cheapest set of bases and rings topped by a bargain basement scope. It fails to work, or works for a while and then fails.......and they blame the rifle.

When it comes to optics everything is a compromise: weight, size, field of view, eye relief, light transmission, reliability, durability and COST. You cannot change one factor without affecting some other factor and COST is one of those factors.

[Lloyd Smale]

don't get me wrong here. Im not buying a blister pack tasco for even a 22 but in recent years scopes in the 100-300 dollar range have made great strides. I remember 20 years ago when I wouldn't buy a scope under a 100bucks which would be like today saying I wouldn't buy one under 300.

I have a new pro staff 5 I payed 175 bucks for. Its HANDS DOWN twice the scope my old vari x 2 leupolds that I thought were so great in the 80s and 90s. Heck they didn't even have click adjustments or multi coated anything. Today you can get a decent scope for a 150 bucks. Nope its not a night force. If your going to use your elevation or windage turrents like a sniper you need to step up. No it doesn't have the glass quality of a 2000 dollar Swarovski. But that better glass MIGHT buy you 5 more minutes of low light shooting and in most states that's already way past legal shooting hours.

What has made optics so much of a better bang for the buck today is competition from the Chinese, Japan and other over seas manufactures. Ive got a 200 dollar athalon 1x4 that I paid 200 bucks for that tracks perfectly and blows away my vx1 1x4 leupold in low light and has a illuminated reticle. All for the same money or a bit less then a leupold. I like my leupolds but today im retired and don't have money to burn. I don't go on once in a lifetime trophy grizzly bear hunts, safaris, or even trophy white tail hunts. I shoot crop damage deer and we quit well before low light plays into it and I hunt deer season at camp.

I don't need a 1000 dollar scope don't even need a 500 dollar scope and in all reality don't even need a 300 dollar scope to do that. Tell you what. If scopes like todays mid range leupolds, vortex, Nikon ect were around 30 years ago companys like ziess would have been just foot notes in history. Tell you what im really against is buying older used scopes no matter what the brand on them is. Ive had 30 year old leupolds that have lost gas or lenses have come loose. If my choice is between a 30 year old vari x 2 3x9 or Nikon for a 150 bucks or a new Bushnell for the same id take the new Bushnell any day of the week. You get what you pay for I wont argue that. I wont argue that that 2000 dollar scope isn't better then my 200 dollar Nikon but not everyone has 2000 dollars to spend on a scope. But some seem to think that paying those big bucks makes them smarter. You don't need a 120k porche to go get grocerys. Cool if you can afford it but a 60k zr1 camaro will do 99 percent of what that porche will for half the money.

[Tripplebeards]

I see Nikon listed in reviews as having a good quality sub $200 scope (not by much but still a bit less than $200) There is a Vortex scope also well reviewed at the same price point. People are reporting good accuracy achieved with these scopes.

I'm sure there are gains to be had by spending more. Just not sure where the point of rapidly diminishing returns is. Or where one doesn't need more scope so the money spent buys "speed" you don't need. I bet the quality of a $200 Nikon is notably better than a $100 scope. Not exactly sure one gets the same degree of increase going up another $100 to a $300 scope.

I have five Nikon pro staff 5, 3.5x14 40 mm’s. I’ve shot .3 inch groups with my 14 1/2 inch barrel POF P415 at 200 yards with that optic consistently off the bench. That rig gets used for coyote hunting. My avatar is from the same gun and scope at 100 yards. I have to admit that scope looks pretty cheesy on a $2300 AR rifle,but boy it sure does the job. I used the same two scopes for my cast bullet testing I posted here on my Ruger 77/44 that I shot two different SUB MOA groups at 100 yards and also on used one on my Ruger American 450BM here using lee 300 grain Flatnose boolits. The best group I shot with the 450BM was 1.1 inch at 100 yards with those root beer barrel bullets. I forgot I have one on my Ruger American 22 Winchester Magnum rimfire with a 22 inch barrel. I shot .3 inch group at 100 yards with the Hornaday Vmax 2200 ft./s ammo and a .6 inch group with the Winchester 2250 ft./s varmint ammo the first time I went to sight the gun in and group testing the loads.

I bought a couple of the pro staff five 2.5 by 10’s for my deer rifles and boy they sure pull in the light I think they were a hair under 200 bucks. I bought them to upgrade my old 1980s Leupold VX11 3 x 9‘s that are all foggy... That were sent into Leupold...they said that’s the way they are and there are nothing nothing wrong with the glass. I just put one of the 2.5x10’s Nikons on my 35 Whelen 7600 carbine. You wouldn’t believe how much brighter, crisper, and clearer the glass is in my new Nikons compared to the old Leupolds I replaced them with. I still use my old Leupolds of course they just go on guns I don’t use as much.

I do have a few of the monarchs in the 2 1/2 by tens that pull in ridiculous light as well.

Just one man with one opinion but I’m sold on Nikons. They’re the best value for the money in my opinion. I haven’t tried Vortx yet but I know they’ve got some really nice clear glass and I’ve told they’re really good scopes as well by a lot of people.

[Petrol & Powder]

I have had good experience with Nikon and Leupold. You don't have to spend $2500 to get a good scope but I've never seen a good $20 scope. (at least not a new one in the last 40 years)


There is no secret to good optics, it takes high quality materials, excellent workmanship, excellent design and top of the line manufacturing facilities to produce good optics. That all costs money.

There is no secret manufacturing process that will produce excellent optics for little expense. There is no great savings achieved by the economy of scale. There are no magical factories in Asia that can produce a world class scope for $10.
Talk to any engineer in the field of optics and they will tell you that inexpensive optics can be made but good quality inexpensive optics are a fantasy.

Good glass cost money. Precise grinding of lenses and prisms costs money. High quality mirrors are not cheap to make. Anti-reflective lens coatings are very expensive, even on a large scale. Clean rooms are expensive to create and maintain. Precision machining requires good equipment and skilled labor. High quality materials are expensive. Nothing about the manufacture of optics is cheap.

In order to get a price point down, some quality must be sacrificed. Sometimes that trade off is minor but to get the price down into the super cheap retail range - you much accept a lot of sacrifice.

[shortlegs]

I have cheap and expensive scopes and have found that "you get what you pay for" in most cases but as said earlier there are sleepers out there. I have become partial to Burris for their simple ballistic plex. I find Nikon to be excellent scopes but the reticle is too "busy" for me. Leupold is great but cost more. Simmons Tasco Bushnell and other low priced scopes are fine for low recoiling guns but dont seem to hold up as well as higher priced scoped.