Categories of Scope Buyers

[Soundguy]

Yep. There are ranches I hear that basically let you pick out game and shoot it. Not very sporting, but is fresh meat. I prefer the animal have as much chance to hide, or avoid me as I do to find it, that means large hunting areas and skill.

[Uncle R.]

What some don't take into account is in the 200-500 dollar range optical quality and even build quality have taken big leaps in the last 15-20 years. I mid priced scope today will probably blow an old high end scope out of the water in quality and even opticaly. Just take leupold for example. There vx1 line today uses the same coatings as the vari x III did 15 years ago and that was the scope most were measured by back then. A new vxIII is every bit as good opticaly as any scope made in the world 20 years ago. Ive used leupolds for years and will be the first to admit there old vari x 2 wasn't the best scope in the world. It had single coated lenses and friction ajustments and didn't to to well in low light. Ive got a couple of the newer vx1s with click adjustments and multi coated lenses and there just as clear if not clearer and probably better in low light then the old vari x 3s I have. All that said it seems that even some of the much cheaper glass is still the junk it allways was. some here will claim even a 300 dollar scope is to expensive for them. They go with the 75 dollar glass. Now factor in cost of living and what your buying for that 75 bucks is about a 10 dollar scope in the 60s and 70s. What do expect for that kind of money? I bought my first leupold in 1977. a varix 2 2x7 for a 120 bucks. Lots of money then. today you can buy a vx1 for 200 that's 5 times the scope and factor in cost of living and there selling them at tasco and weaver prices in the 60s. Never was a time where you got more performance per dollar in optics as today. Years ago if you wanted GOOD GLASS you had to pay BIG BUCKS and maybe even then it was justified because even the mid priced stuff was junk. today that isn't the case. id about bet my home that a ww2 or Korean war sniper would have about cut off his foot for a scope as good as a 500 dollar scope today.

Yep.
Very astute, and matches my experience perfectly.

Modern scopes are a gold-plated bargain compared to the scopes of thirty years ago, but only when you get into that $169 and up range.
A VX-2 from current production is a fantastic scope and better than probably anything you could buy 30 years ago.
My brother's modern Burris Fullfield blows the doors off of my 25 year old Leupold Vari-X II for brightness and resolution.
My most modern Weaver Classic V 2-10x does just as well.
That old Vari-X II has been reliable at staying dry and holding zero for many years, but optically it's not as good as today's VX-1, or a Nikon Buckmaster, or any of scores of scopes in the roughly $200 price range.
When you factor in inflation, modern scopes are cheaper and better than they've ever been. $200 ain't nearly as much money as it was 20 years ago, but today it will buy you a pretty nice scope.

Uncle R.

[Lloyd Smale]

you probably are. A leupold rifleman is about identical to an old vari x 2 in lense quality, coatings and construction and mechanical ajustments. Both are a big step down from a new vx1. The newest vx1 is about identical in quality to the original vari x 3. Well I should take that back. the original vari x3 was a friction adjustable scope not a click adjustment scope and is a step down from a vx1. Same multi coat 4 lenses in both. So what would you rather have. A brand new vx1 with brand new orings no wear on the ajustments, no tiny scratches in the lenses. Or an old vari x 3 that the o rings are getting dried out and ajustments are getting lazy and years of use and chemicals have taken at least a small toll on lenses. Don't tell me old scopes don't go bad with age. Ive had a number of k series weavers and even two vari x 2s that had the nitrogen leak out of them. I wont even add the cheap scopes that its happened to also.

So yup. If I could sell an old vari x3 and make 200 bucks off of it and buy a vx1 id do it in a heartbeat and if I could get 300 and buy a vx2 id run not walk to get lense quality and coating quality that is even better then the old vari x line and on top of the upgrade be starting with a brand new scope. No brainer to me. If your talking 25 year old burris scopes at that time then had only one line of scopes not many like they do now and they were decent scopes but not great scopes. Ive had a few of them fail on me and was never impressed with there low light capabilitys and a new Nikon pro staff is twice the scope and can probably be bought for about the same price you paid for that burris 20 years ago. Factor in cost of living and again a now brainer.

I used to be a big cheerleader for spending as much or more on a scope as you did a rifle if not more. Thing is back 25 years ago you could get a good adl rem 700 for 300 bucks and to get a decent scope you needed to spend about the same. That's what the higher end leupolds redfields ect cost then. Now that same rifle is near 900 bucks and for 200 you can buy a scope that's as good or better then what you paid 300 for back then. You can justify a 900 dollar scope. heck I can. Guns are my life. But I'm not going to sit here and try to convince someone that I bought 3 or 4 times the performance for the 3 to 4 times more money I spent. Like I said in another post. There isn't ANY hunting I do that a good 2-300 dollar leupold, Nikon, bushnell, vortex or probably any brand of scope wont handle just fine. If paying 4 times as much for 2 or 3 more minutes of low light capability (and that's not even the case in every scope) means that much to you then go for it. Me ill stick with scopes in that price range. If I am going to spend BIG bucks on a scope its going to be for a LONG range varmint rifle or comp gun where those slightly superior lenses might help your resolution on a small target at 500 yards enough to justify it but on a deer rifle? Your wasting your money. But then its your money not mine.

Bottom line is there never was "the good old days of scopes" there better now and a heck of a lot more bang for the buck. Vintage scopes are OLD scopes nothing more. Same goes but about double that for binoculars. For 500 bucks you can buy a set of binoculars today that will perform right along side ziess glass that cost 4 times that much years ago. Even If you don't agree with my assessment on glass quality and coating quality id opt for new just for reliability. I'm sure not going on a once in a lifetime hunt or even risking my once in a year whitetail hunt on a 30 year old k4 weaver that was mediocre at best when it was brand new. I'm not buying cheap glass (and yes I count the leupold rifleman in that category) and I'm also not spending 4 times the money I need to to decorate a gun to impress everyone at camp. Ill show up with vx1 or vx2, Nikon prostaff or monarch, vortex diamondback, ect knowing it will get the job done.

"A mid priced scope today will probably blow an old high end scope out of the water in quality and even optically. "

So, if what Lloyd says is true, I'd be better off selling my 25-30 year old Leupold & Burris scopes, then buying new low-end Nikon, Leupold Rifleman, etc.?

[kens]

I recently talked to a Weaver rep, about the same subject, and he also said that today's mid-level scope is better than the high-end scope of some years ago.

[hornady308]

Well, I'm glad to be learning this now as I was just getting ready to mount a first generation Burris Fullfield on my primary deer rifle. It's in beautiful condition, but it doesn't seem to be quite as bright as my new Nikon Buckmaster. I guess I will sell it and get a new Prostafff, Fullfield II, Leopold VXI, or something similar.