Categories of Scope Buyers

[Harter66]

I'm in an interesting place . If I take all of the guns I've ever owned and averaged what I paid for them I'd be a criminal ........ No I paid the asking price in most cases and I can't help it that the guy only wanted $125 for a 1903A3 or that I have $80 in 2 95' Mausers . I have 2 full customs 1 a wildcat and I won't disclose that actual dollar amount but my knowledge and skills were fairly compensated far in excess of my hourly rate .
Which brings me to an average spent value of $240-275 per .

If I can take the optic of my choice and run a 16 click up/right , 32 down , 32 up/left , 32 down , 16 up right shoot 5 rounds at each stop and have the last 5 print over the top of the first 5 round group as a hunter recreational shooter do I need more scope ?
Does the brand new scope do it ? Does the 30 yr old scope do it ?
Do I really need 240 MOA for a 110HL in 30-06' how about a 257 Roberts or a 358 Win . I have to wonder is the $100 glass going to make me or my $700 ARP barreled 6.8 AR with a 4.5# add on trigger that I'm not yet convinced is any better than the GI trigger set it replaced shoot better than the fine wire Weaver K4 @ $75 .

I have an FN98' with a Weaver V9 . The rifle and scope new were probably every penny of $300 ..........in 1975 .

Honestly side by side I don't see the $900 difference between a Ziess Conquest and a feature compared Vortex . The Vortex vs the what nearly 40 yo V9 yeah I can see a maked difference . But to be completely honest I can't see it from the 4 yo 2-7 EER Leatherwood and the 6x LER pistol Leopold . As scandalous as it may be the glass is probably better on the Leatherwood .

I know where I fit . But I also know that I don't have enough rifle to see the the difference between 2nd and 4th cycle after annealing neck tension .

[Soundguy]

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.

Many people forget practicality and think only the most expensive is best. They forget times when stamped and welded firearms won great wars and kept countries sovereign and pushed back invaders.... Or became the most prolific battle rifle ever.

[Hannibal]

If you ever spend months on end trying to sort out an accuracy issue or buy and sell 3 or 4 rifles before finally discovering that a 'category 1' or 'category 2' scope as defined in the OP was the cause of all the trouble, you might change you view on what constitutes a bargin.

You can ask me how I know, but let's just say it's a sore subject and leave it at that, eh?

[Scorpion8]

There's also the fact that some of my favorite scopes, the quality Redfield TV-View "Widefield" scopes aren't made in any fashion by anybody these days. I have them on several rifles, and my Marlin 336 35 Remington with one is the meat getter par-excellence!

[woodbutcher]

One of the nicest scopes that I ever had the privelege to use was a Unertl on a Mod 70 that was issued to a friend on the NG rifle team in Fl where I grew up.That was a sweet scope.Only thing that I disliked about it was the super fine cross hairs.
Most of the scopes that I have used and owned were Weavers and Tasco and some of the other low to mid range price groups.This was back in the mid 60`s to late 70`s.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

[Uncle R.]

If you ever spend months on end trying to sort out an accuracy issue or buy and sell 3 or 4 rifles before finally discovering that a 'category 1' or 'category 2' scope as defined in the OP was the cause of all the trouble, you might change you view on what constitutes a bargin.

You can ask me how I know, but let's just say it's a sore subject and leave it at that, eh?

I've told the story here before - I got a super accurate slightly used 700 in 7 Rem Mag for a very good price. It came with a cheap Bushnell 3-9 scope and it shot 6 inch groups. I took off the Bushnell and put on a Nikon Monarch - now it shoots near ragged holes at 100 yards.

I've always figured the previous owner of that Remington gave up in disgust and traded it off because he couldn't make it shoot.
Thanks, Bushnell. You got me a bargain on a fine rifle.
Your scopes? You can keep those...


Uncle R.

[Soundguy]

If you ever spend months on end trying to sort out an accuracy issue or buy and sell 3 or 4 rifles before finally discovering that a 'category 1' or 'category 2' scope as defined in the OP was the cause of all the trouble, you might change you view on what constitutes a bargin.

You can ask me how I know, but let's just say it's a sore subject and leave it at that, eh?

Hmm.. Sounds lil selling a vehicle that rides bad over and over, but using the same tires.... ..

[tazman]

I've told the story here before - I got a super accurate slightly used 700 in 7 Rem Mag for a very good price. It came with a cheap Bushnell 3-9 scope and it shot 6 inch groups. I took off the Bushnell and put on a Nikon Monarch - now it shoots near ragged holes at 100 yards.

I've always figured the previous owner of that Remington gave up in disgust and traded it off because he couldn't make it shoot.
Thanks, Bushnell. You got me a bargain on a fine rifle.
Your scopes? You can keep those...


Uncle R.

I have a Savage heavy barrel 30-06 like that. The scope seemed fine but it wasn't. New scope and better groups.

[Hannibal]

Hmm.. Sounds lil selling a vehicle that rides bad over and over, but using the same tires.... ..

It's funny how you can be SO SURE something is OK, until it isn't.
No, not funny at all.

But you can't convince the 'budget conscience'. It's a lesson they can only give themselves. I know. I used to be one.

[lefty o]

ive had budget scopes fail on me. not worth the frustration and wasted ammunition dealing with them. budget scopes work fine for many people, and thats ok, but spend a day on a dog town or try to reach out and touch something in the heat of the day with serious mirage, then the better glass pays huge dividends. a high performance rifle with budget glass on it is like buying a ferarri and putting the cheapest on sale tires on it, and expecting it to still corner!

[Soundguy]

It's funny how you can be SO SURE something is OK, until it isn't.
No, not funny at all.

But you can't convince the 'budget conscience'. It's a lesson they can only give themselves. I know. I used to be one.

Anything mechanical can fail. I'm an engineer, I deal with this daily.

Low cost does not guarantee low performance.

High cost does not guarantee high performance.

Even high cost, high Q/C items can experience early failure.

[Hannibal]

I 'got away' with a lot of things in years past. Then I started shooting more. A LOT more. And shooting 10 shot groups. And keeping targets and records. And measuring things.

Truth is, not so long ago, I'd have been ecstatic about groups that send me back to the shop mumbling under my breath now. And so, 'bargins' are slim to none to be had now.

MY experience has been that I can't afford 'bargins'.

[Soundguy]

Hmm.. 10 shot groups? I'm not very familiar with that.. I'm familiar with the 1 shot group then the animal drops... Weird huh?

[Hannibal]

Hmm.. 10 shot groups? I'm not very familiar with that.. I'm familiar with the 1 shot group then the animal drops... Weird huh?

Whatever works for you. I don't hunt any more. Lost my access and have no desire to try public access. So I spend my time trying to see how close together I can get the bullets to land.

Weird, huh?

[RogerDat]

I was recently looking at shotgun slug scopes, found a review, price ranged from Simmons to Nikon or $50 to $190 with Bushnell and Monstrum in the middle. http://www.reloaderaddict.com/best-s...-optic-review/

Now I'm sure there are better scopes for slug guns, and the review did point out you got more in the Nikon for the added price. That said I would probably be happy with any of them for my uses. Even the $50 Simmons fixed magnification. Yes one can find that equipment is the problem, if one has a problem that is. In which case on tries something else. I get the folks that are dedicated to pushing to do better, shoot more accurately, more consistently. For the hobby shooter the task is trying to find "not junk" without paying for a high end piece of equipment that won't be used to it's potential.

We need all the help we can get toward making a good choice for our budget, not someone else's budget or standards. So I sit at zero for now but I have a couple of candidates for scopes and we shall see. I'm probably not going to buy it at Walmart. Especially since Amazon and several stores deliver

[Soundguy]

Whatever works for you. I don't hunt any more. Lost my access and have no desire to try public access. So I spend my time trying to see how close together I can get the bullets to land.

Weird, huh?

I shoot paper often, my favorite is shooting flies that land on the target, or shooting swinging 3" diameter targets. My 218Bee is known as "The Terminator" among the local fly and balloon populations. It's scope is probably a 1.5, and is ? 53 us old.. So I'm waiting for it to break any moment now I guess?

[Hannibal]

Who knows? I expect the flies hope so.

Paper does not care. There is no near miss. Or blood trail to track. Or carcass to recover. Or trophy for the taxidermy man. Just a series of holes.

[toallmy]

I have had a few adventures with cheap glass , I purchased a win model 70 used in my youth that had a 2 piece over under mount on it that would slowly work apart from recoil ,this explains why it was for sale - after having the mount screwed together it became and still is a shooter , I also picked up a rem 700 in 300 win mag from a fellow that couldn't hit a paper plate at 100 yards with a K Mart broken scope mounted on it . I have rattled some glass apart in my lifetime -slug guns , inline muzzleloader , and magnums will show you a weak scope .

[Petrol & Powder]

I don't believe that spending more is always the path to obtaining higher quality - except in the field of optics.

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.

Quality optics are not inexpensive to manufacture. Good quality glass, precision grinding, lens coatings, durable reticles, high quality tubes, truly weatherproof construction, precision machining, etc.- All of that stuff costs money.
The manufacturer can drive the price point down but not without cutting corners somewhere.

I've never once held a cheap scope side by side with an expensive scope of the same magnification and seen an equally clear image in both scopes.
I've seen a few cheap scopes that held a zero but I've seen far more that would not hold a zero.
I've never seen an undamaged Leupold with water inside, can't say the same for Tasco or even Weaver.

You can take a chance on a cheap scope and if you don't mind the lower optical quality, maybe it will hold a zero and not leak.
OR, you can cry once, spend more money up front and never have to fool with it again.

There are plenty of times in life that spending more money just means you spent more money. Purchasing optics isn't one of those times.

[Jim_P]

My first scope was a bushnell. Sub $100. It wasn't water tight and got water in it and popped a lens. Bought another, money was tight, but it had Parkinson's and wouldn't hold zero. Moved to a Nikon Monarch and while not as bad as the 2nd bushnell on the 7mm Rem Mag it was mounted, it would string shots over about 2" in 10 rounds. Good enough for hunting. I replaced it with a Zeiss when the model discontinued and prices were good. It's clear as a bell, holds zero from month to month. On my .308 I mounted a Vortex Viper FFP. Same as the Zeiss. Completely reliable, clear as my eyes are, and hold it's setting even through the variable optical range.

It's why I say I'm a 3.5. But I think Vortex should be in the 4 category anyway...