Categories of Scope Buyers

[Soundguy]

P&P, I completely understand. If I had to pay 2500$ for glass to be able to hit a target, I'd vehemently defend that action as well.

If I was rough on my gear to the point stuff was able to break frequently due to handling, then I believe I also would pay thru the nose for 'idiot proof' grmear.

All a matter of perspective I guess.

[Kestrel4k]

About purchasing quality, a wise person once said:

You don't always get what you pay for; but on the other hand, you never get what you don't pay for.

[Rattlesnake Charlie]

About purchasing quality, a wise person once said:

You don't always get what you pay for; but on the other hand, you never get what you don't pay for.

That is quite an interesting saying.

[Soundguy]

I think its probably more correct to say that the chance to get a certain quality desired decreases and increases with price, however.. The word chance does not imply or negate a range of results. IE, you can find a good performance lower cost device, though it may be rare or uncommon vs finding that same quality using a higher budget device. Its also possible to find defective/doa high price devices. I routinely see this with electronic devices. Knowing what to look for helps, and luck does come into play.

Next up is skill of the user. In my line of business, there is an electronic device I prefer to use. Its considered almost antiquated.. Cost is about 800-1000$. Many I work with use a version in the 3400-4400$ range. I have never not been able to turn out at least the same quality work as my peers, and routinely turn out significantly higher quality.

A tool is only as good as the one who wields it. Sure, a little bit of chrome gives a slight edge..but uts seldom* the make or break point.

[Soundguy]

That is quite an interesting saying.

Its cute, but statistically false unfortunately. Most blanket absolute statements usually are. The notion of 'never' is a tough row to hoe, there are almost always exceptions, even if rare and remote.

[dverna]

I'm in the zero category, that would be folks that every time they think about getting a scope because open iron sights are getting harder to use with time (I think the metal gets fuzzy or something) They seek out the wisdom of experienced people and run into all the different groups who advocate more is better and ignore it's a sporterized Enfield going to punch some paper not going out on safari or float plane hunting trip to Alaska wilderness. So then I read the Amazon reviews, which are all over the place (same scope can be second coming and devil incarnate depending on who did the review) so with some vague "knowledge" I go to gun shows looking for deals that wouldn't be recognized amongst all of the underpriced and overpriced piles of scopes.

Eventually the zero group just goes ahead and buy a mold, set of dies, some gas checks and figure they will just aim for the middle of the fuzzy round thing at the far end of the range and see how it goes because it turns out actually being able to see the bulls eye clearly requires mucho money or is doomed to failure and if they spend even $5 too little they are just throwing the money away on equipment that will fail. If sex was this difficult we wouldn't make it to the second generation.

Here is a scope I recommend to Preppers who are on a budget and trying to scope a sniper rifle for SHTF:

https://www.amazon.com/SWFA-SS-10x42...=swfa+ss+10x42

It is very highly rated (only one Amazon review under 3, out of 55 reviews) and it is built tough. It comes with a lifetime guarantee. It is not cheap but not expensive either at $300 shipped. If you dealing with fuzzy iron sights like our friend RogerDat it is worth looking into. And if all you are doing is punching paper or shooting varmints, having a fixed power scope is not much of a disadvantage.

[Uncle R.]

I think Colonel Cooper was right when he said that all scopes fail eventually.
I've had multiple scope failures over the years.

A couple of them were "good" scopes that I figured should not have failed.
One was a Colorado Redfield variable - my very first scope that I bought new many years ago when I was 14. That scope lasted maybe ten years. I missed a chance at a buck on a rainy day when I threw the rifle to my shoulder and the scope had water inside.

That would have been the best buck of my hunting career at that point in my life. To say I was unhappy about that scope failing me would be quite an understatement.

The other "good" scope that failed me was a Leupold - and not a budget model. It was a Vari-X 3 from back when they were Leupold's best. That scope did pretty well - it lasted through roughly 20 years of hard hunting and many, many rounds fired. It finally started going out of focus when I'd change the magnification.

All of the rest - and there have been many that failed - were cheap scopes. Bushnell, Tasco, Simmons - all what I call "undersea" scopes. As in "cost less than a C-note" scopes.

I have several Nikon Monarch scopes, and many of them have been hunted with for years. No failures. I have several Weaver Classic Vs - which I consider a "medium quality" scope - and some of them have seen a lot of use too. No failures.

I have a couple of Burris scopes that are well over 20 years old and have seen much use. No failures.

I've long since stopped buying "undersea" scopes for my own use.
If you think a $59.99 scope is just as good as a high-grade Leupold or Nikon, I won't argue. Arguing with that opinion would be pointless. If you acknowledge that the cheap scope may fall short in quality, but insist that it's good enough for your use, I won't argue. Nobody knows your requirements better than you.

As for me - I've long since stopped buying cheap scopes for my own use. Going up to the $169 - $200 range can get you a scope that's head and shoulders above the "bargains." Someday I might be shooting at something I really want to hit, and I might be glad I bought a decent scope.

My humble opinion.
Uncle R.

[RogerDat]

I think in other areas my experiences support Uncle R's where just a notch or so above cheap can reside some good quality at an attractive price. His $169 - $200 range for scopes is a lot like other purchases. Tools, camping gear, camera gear. Someplace in good, better, best generally has a sweet spot. Typically someplace in the better segment. Can be toward the lower end, or the upper end of that mid price point but often there are rapidly diminishing returns on price as you go up.

There is a site where it was suggested I could look at sorted and filtered list of scopes and aim for a certain price point, does anyone know about that site? As I said budget dictates a lot in my world and my needs are modest but often I have found a "bargain" model of a solid brand can be a good choice. So a budget Nikon might be found tucked into the high end of the less respected brands.

[kens]

Oh yeah, you mentioned Burris, what class do you guys put Burris in?

[Rcmaveric]

..... once again I am still the black sheep. I buy what I can afford that wont kill my bank and will last in the $60-120 range. Usually involves over $200 dollars because I have to have enough for the wife to get a petti to keep her quiet.

Good laugh though. Those guys at the range talk about the 400 plus dollar scopes and match ammo. I get a little envious but then I check their target and they cant out shoot me. Cures me right up with satisfaction.

[Petrol & Powder]

P&P, I completely understand. If I had to pay 2500$ for glass to be able to hit a target, I'd vehemently defend that action as well.

If I was rough on my gear to the point stuff was able to break frequently due to handling, then I believe I also would pay thru the nose for 'idiot proof' grmear.

All a matter of perspective I guess.

I didn't say I paid $2500 for a scope. Please go back and read what I wrote.

I'll make it easy, here's the quote from my prior post:
".........I've NEVER encountered a cheap scope that was the same quality as an expensive scope. That does NOT mean I purchase $2500 Zeiss scopes but it does mean I avoid $39.99 scopes."
Notice the word highlighted in red.

I've never seen a good cheap scope. That doesn't mean you have to buy the most expensive thing on the market but it does mean that the $39.99 special is probably not going to cut it.

[Uncle R.]

Oh yeah, you mentioned Burris, what class do you guys put Burris in?

Hi Ken.
In my limited experience with Burris scopes they have proven to be reliable, with predicable adjustments. All were optically excellent. I consider the Burris Fullfield to be one of the "sweet spot" scopes that Rogerdat mentioned, where $179 gets you a scope that will serve long and well.

I have read somewhere that the newer Burris scopes have tubes made of rather soft aluminum and are more prone to distort from ring pressure. I haven't seen it myself and can't say it's true - it's quite possibly just internet blather. If you choose a Burris you might want to use their Zee rings to prevent tube damage. They're excellent rings anyway, there's no loss in using them.

One of the difficulties in choosing a scope is that the marketplace changes constantly, and what was true of a certain brand or model yesterday may not be so today. Still, so far as I know, I'd rate the Burris Fullfield scopes a good value for the money. I'd hunt with them with no concern.

Uncle R.

[Omega]

..... once again I am still the black sheep. I buy what I can afford that wont kill my bank and will last in the $60-120 range. Usually involves over $200 dollars because I have to have enough for the wife to get a petti to keep her quiet.

Good laugh though. Those guys at the range talk about the 400 plus dollar scopes and match ammo. I get a little envious but then I check their target and they cant out shoot me. Cures me right up with satisfaction.

I'm with you, I've had a couple of "cheap" scopes fail, one I bought at Rose's department store back in the mid 80s for around $40, a Redfield I think, but maybe a Simmons, it had an internal lens that broke loose. Another, a Russian scope which I could not get to hold zero, which I still feel is the mount not the scope. All the others have served their purpose. I took the Redfield back and got a Bushnell, for around the same ballpark price. It sat on my .270 Mdl 70 for over 20 years and was still doing it's job up to when I lost the rifle. I have scopes that run the gamut of price, with most well under the $300 mark. The most expensive I got in trade with the rifle, a Vortex, and it is more scope than I use. I am one of those people that once I zero my scope at the range I want, usually 100 Yds, I leave it alone. I use Kentucky Windage and Hold-Over instead of trying to dial in a range with the scopes adjustable turrets. I just hunt, and I have a 6-8" target (Deer) to deal with and I have hit it most every time. Now, I have bad eyes, even with contacts an expensive clear lens is lost on me, so the thing I concentrate on is to make sure it gathers enough light, doesn't have bad reviews and has a reticle I can use, I kinda like my mil-dots and others with range compensating scales in them.

[Harter66]

If you want to know what my real dig is with scope cost , I'll tell you .

It is that a fixed power , 2 knob , duplex retical , scope is virtually missing from the market and it costs as much as the 4 turret super do all . There are like 3 makers of true EER Scout Scopes 1 falls into the #2 class but the others are $400 + . Buyig a pistol scope is no better when the desire is for a scout application .

I understand about buy once . It's just crushing to have to spend $400 on a fixed 4 or 6 to put on a $300 Savage that will likely never be shot past 400 for man steel and 200 for game . It caused me moral grief to have a low ball offer excepted on a K4 ..........it was worse when I opened the box and found a brand new scope inside ..........I've never seen one with all the brass black in tact .

I asked a maker about a fixed power and was directed to the appropriate line . That's why I have what I have . Pig in a poke sure but I think I'd rather buy 3 at a time and get 2 good ones than wonder if the optics are really $200 better than the rifle .

[Uncle R.]

If you want to know what my real dig is with scope cost , I'll tell you .

It is that a fixed power , 2 knob , duplex retical , scope is virtually missing from the market and it costs as much as the 4 turret super do all . There are like 3 makers of true EER Scout Scopes 1 falls into the #2 class but the others are $400 + . Buyig a pistol scope is no better when the desire is for a scout application .

I understand about buy once . It's just crushing to have to spend $400 on a fixed 4 or 6 to put on a $300 Savage that will likely never be shot past 400 for man steel and 200 for game . It caused me moral grief to have a low ball offer excepted on a K4 ..........it was worse when I opened the box and found a brand new scope inside ..........I've never seen one with all the brass black in tact .

I asked a maker about a fixed power and was directed to the appropriate line . That's why I have what I have . Pig in a poke sure but I think I'd rather buy 3 at a time and get 2 good ones than wonder if the optics are really $200 better than the rifle .

I know what you mean. I have K4 Weavers on a couple of my rifles and they've been excellent scopes. A fixed power scope is intrinsically more reliable than a variable for multiple reasons, and it's the superior choice for many applications. There's no need for a 3-9 on a .44 carbine, or on a 12 ga. slug gun. It burns my biscuits to pay more for a fixed 2-1/2X or 4X than for a much more complex 3-9 variable, but that's the reality of the market. A fixed power scope is pretty much a specialty item these days, and you're gonna pay extra for it.

I do get a kick out of all the huge scopes I see on lever .30-30s and almost always in "over and under" see-thru mounts. I agree with Jack O'Connor that a high-mounted scope is the mark of a dub, and I would add my own observation that a high magnification scope on a relatively inaccurate rifle or (Even more so!) on a slug barrel is an indicator of a callow hunter.

Another two cents worth...

Uncle R.

[W.R.Buchanan]

I buy whatever suits the intended purpose of the gun I am outfitting. I have 6 Bushnell TRS 25's and have them on all my Carbines and a 10-22 as well. They are excellent for the money, and since these are not life or death guns they suit the purpose just fine. It would be pointless for me to put $600 Aimpoints on these guns, unless I was being shot at, and then would only do it if they were given to me. I paid between $70 and $90 for each of these, and in 10 years none of them have faltered in any way or changed zero. Battery life is not as good as the Aimpoint but batteries are cheap.

The most expensive Optic I own is a 3-9x Leupold VX-R which is on my Scout Rifle. It cost me $600 and is really nice. I have a Leupold 1-5 VX3 which is on my Ruger Guide Gun. It was lightly used and I paid $300 for it. I have a Leupold VX1 on my R1 Pellet gun which is about the most brutal Spring Power Air Gun there is and it survives well. These are excellent scopes.

I also have a Burris Airgun Scope on another Gun and it is 30+ years old and has been sighted in exactly one time and is still right there. it was about $150 new I think,, Don't really remember.

I am buying a 24" upper assembly for my SCR Rifle soon. it is for long distance shooting. I bought a Millet 1-6 variable for that gun a few months ago when Midway had them on sale for $170. I was blown away at the quality of the optics in that scope !!! and normally they are $350, so I got a deal.

My whole point here is that each scope was chosen for it's suitability for the gun it was to be mounted on.

Another tid bit. I know how to evaluate optics which I learned along time ago playing with Astronomical Telescopes.

Here's some tips:

Look thru the optic and check to see if the image is clear all the way to the edges of the images.

With it focused on an object that is near. Check the edges of the image for distortion. Use an object that has an easily defined vertical strait edge. if the edge is not strait all the way to the edge of the image when looking thru the glass it is a ***. IE: the image is distorted. Do the same thing focused on an object that is far away. Same thing, if the line is not strait it is distorted.

Glass and coatings have come along way over the last 30 years. I have had a set of Steiner 8x30's for a long time. I just bought a new set of Vortex 10x42's last week. I took both sets to the lake for a comparison.

Both Binos are clear all the way to the edges of the lenses. however the new Vortex's are a significant amount brighter than the Steiner's. This is for two reasons. 30MM objective lenses versus 42MM objectives, obviously bigger lets in more light, and 30 years difference in ages of the glass used and coatings applied.

The newer stuff utilizes more advanced coatings and glass. This technology is trickling down to cheaper optics, and this is why Bushnell and other inexpensive optics can compete very well with more expensive brands.

Hope this helps you figure out what to buy.

Randy

[Soundguy]

I didn't say I paid $2500 for a scope. Please go back and read what I wrote.

I'll make it easy, here's the quote from my prior post:
".........I've NEVER encountered a cheap scope that was the same quality as an expensive scope. That does NOT mean I purchase $2500 Zeiss scopes but it does mean I avoid $39.99 scopes."
Notice the word highlighted in red.

I've never seen a good cheap scope. That doesn't mean you have to buy the most expensive thing on the market but it does mean that the $39.99 special is probably not going to cut it.

I didn't say you bought one, please re-read MY post. I said If "I" bought one...

[waco]

Cheap optics do not compare to higher end optics. PERIOD. You may like them just fine. You may shoot and kill with them just fine.
This does not change the fact they are inferior to a higher end scope.
You can not do the things I can do at 1000-1800 yards with a $150 scope. I promise you that.
At 50-200 yards? Sure okay.
High end glass has a place. It's not for everyone. Lots of people have no NEED for it. I get that.
I DO have a need for it.
To each his own. I'm not real sure why this thread seemed to turn into a pissing contest.
Some of us have different needs than others.

[Soundguy]

It turned into a pissing contest on the very first post with the class distinctions and negative connotations. Starting spoiled, it was a fore draw conclusion that it would end this way. No need for 4009$ optics to see that!

Frankly, its disappointing to see such disdain for ones fellow man based on the cost of the gear he uses..especially on a website such as this.

[brstevns]

You Guys just had to push my button LOL I am a #1 not because I want to be , but because of a low fixed income. Am I jealous of the other groups not at all. I am happy for them.