Categories of Scope Buyers

[Soundguy]

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.

And to think others here call you a cheapskate... That's very telling of their character.

Have a great Thanksgiving!

[waco]

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.

I don't think the OP meant this to come off as sounding like he was talking down to anyone in any way.
I have met people who think that there is no place for a scope that has a higher price tag than a rifle. EVER.
This is nonsense. THEY might not have a need. Some do.
As far as Money goes? I fully understand some people have more disposable cash than others.
Different people have different priorities as well. I don't think anyone should EVER look down at someone's gear because of the financial situation.
On the other hand I don't think people should tell others they shouldn't spend 2K on a scope if they want to. It's their money.
We are all in the same brotherhood here. Shooters, casters, reloaders, ect...
Just my 2 cents.....

[RogerDat]

Now for the really high dollar question. Is there a difference between your group as a scope owner and a scope buyer? That is do you now buy scopes in a different class than you already own? Either up or down.

That cheap slug gun scope that I mentioned was on my radar because it was a fixed scope with good to decent reviews. I'm big on if you are going to buy basic don't buy it with all the features of the high end models, the shiny buttons and cool features cost money to do right, money that in the budget model came out of the money for overall quality. My commute mobile has crank up windows, nothing "power" to fail. Basic transport with fancy is going to be cheap knock off. Basic that sticks to its knitting will often have taken care of the important stuff sufficiently.

I would embarrass myself with a $600 scope, I'm not a $600 shooter. Not horrible but not to where I would need to be in order to have a decent $150 scope be holding me back a whole lot at the modest ranges I'm shooting at. With high end scope I think it would change what I consider a "decent" group near or around the center into a failure because they aren't all touching. Keeping the bar where it doesn't whack me in the nads. Is that a category?

[Soundguy]

"We are all in the same brotherhood here. Shooters, casters, reloaders, ect..."

That's how it SHOULD be.

[Harter66]

I'm reminded of a guy we ran across one deer season .
" Pre 64' model 70 , 270 , $1200 in glass on top . I shot that doe at 80 yd 3 times and had to finish her with the Kimber carry 45 ."
All the while I was thinking I killed the last 2 with a $250 Savage 110 06' and a $90 Tasco pronghorn......... Must be the price point .........

[kens]

I didn't read this as a pi__ing contest. It is an interesting thread. We all know somebody in each of the #1, #2, #3, #4 category, and each of us is in one of the category.
Interesting to read the why's and how's for each category.
Reading about all the why's and how's is how all of us learn more about stuff in general.
So, all you guys quit the pi__ing contest and just learn from each other.

[Drm50]

I'm a 2 13/16ths. I'm 67 and all my rifles are pre 64wins, and other older classic type rifles. No
Rem700s, Sav 110s ect. Back then I bought a lot of Weaver K series, some Redfields and last
scopes I have bought were Leupold. My keepers have been with me a long time, the scopes have
been on some of them over 50yrs. They still work good enough for me. If I need a scope I will buy
Leupold because new Weavers are junk and for the price difference I'd rather have the guarantee.
I don't need a $1200 scope to shoot Varmits, small game and deer. Around here we don't have
range bags, we just go on back porch and let fly.

[Mr_Sheesh]

I've had a variety; I like good glass, sometimes Leupold, trying a Vortex out though as they have a nice reputation. Keep finding that I hit occasional low light conditions and that cheap scopes don't do well though (10/22 for example, when a group of raccoons were trying to eat the barn cat, couldn't see much as it was a cheapie bought due to low budget.) Thing to remember here is that we're all different with different needs - Someone living in prarie-like conditions with a thousand yard shooting distances on occasion, is not going to need the same scope as someone in "Dog hair" where 30 yards is more a typical distance. A red dot isn't a good answer for the 1000 yard shooter, and a scope with 6+ magnification would be a poor choice for most at 30 yards. Plus some of us have older eyes, or are short sighted / far sighted etc. etc. - IMO educate each other, help each other, we can all gain that way. And take care of ourselves too, can't really delegate that! I've debated updating one old 4x on my first rifle, but it's always worked perfectly, I just detest the base (tip-off mount that managed to tip partially off once.) So I may just update that mount and call it good, then give that rifle a better stock

[Omega]

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.

Ha, I resembled that remark. For years I refused to give up my iron sights so would always put see-through rings on even my .270. Once I realized that my .270 was dead on from 10 to about 200 yrs I stopped doing that.

[toallmy]

How about the mounts and base , this can add up as well .

[762 shooter]

Leupold.........Leupold...........Leupold.


Sorry. Just calling the son, the dog, and the goat.
762

[dragon813gt]

How about the mounts and base , this can add up as well .

They really add up on ARs if you want a QD mount. I don't want QD mounts to pull a scope off and on and have it hold zero. I want them so I can pull the scope off in case of a failure and use the BUIS. I'm currently experimenting w/ one of the cheaper mounts from Amazon. Spending $200+ on a mount isn't something I'm willing to do for range toys.

[kens]

Interesting how many times people here refer to the Weaver K4.

[brstevns]

"We are all in the same brotherhood here. Shooters, casters, reloaders, ect..."

That's how it SHOULD be.

You are correct and I agree most heartily. Some of my best friends have high dollar scopes on their guns and I am happy for them. Do they look down at me for my cheaper brands, not at all. They shoot my rifles and say < man that sure is a clear scope> . " If I was sure I get one likes yours I would buy it in a second" I just smile and say "guess I am one of the lucky ones"
We have a great time teasing .

[NoZombies]

I buy scopes appropriate to their purposes.

I have some pretty nice glass that I've picked up over the years, ranging from Unertl to Zeiss, S&B and similar, but the 10/22's my nephews plink with both wear Tasco scopes. Most of my scopes are on the lower to middle end, because most of my shooting is under 200 yards, and I'm not hunting dangerous game or championships. I don't mind spending the money when it's appropriate, but I see no need in overspending when it's not.

[dverna]

I buy scopes appropriate to their purposes.

I have some pretty nice glass that I've picked up over the years, ranging from Unertl to Zeiss, S&B and similar, but the 10/22's my nephews plink with both wear Tasco scopes. Most of my scopes are on the lower to middle end, because most of my shooting is under 200 yards, and I'm not hunting dangerous game or championships. I don't mind spending the money when it's appropriate, but I see no need in overspending when it's not.

Great post!!!

I am not putting a $200 scope on my sniper rifle, or a $50 red dot on my AR15. That does not make me a snob.
I am not putting a $2000 scope on my 10/22. That makes me look stupid.

I have scopes in every class. Type of gun, intended use, and financial resources are the factors I weigh.

[waco]

Great post!!!

I am not putting a $200 scope on my sniper rifle, or a $50 red dot on my AR15. That does not make me a snob.
I am not putting a $2000 scope on my 10/22. That makes me look stupid.

I have scopes in every class. Type of gun, intended use, and financial resources are the factors I weigh.

Well said Don!

[FergusonTO35]

I'm a solid category two. There are lots of great sub-$200.00 scopes out there right now, and often you can get them on closeout for much less. Philippines and Korea scopes usually are very good for the price, this includes the lower end Nikon and Burris and also your better Bushnell. My number one criteria for any scope is, does it hold zero and not fog up. Everything else is irrelevant if the answer is not yes to the first two.

My heavy barrel .257 Roberts wears a Nikon Buckmasters II 4-12x40. This scope is a real bargain for only $130.00 or so and comes with a really good BDC reticle. The rifle I hunt with the most is a 1967 Marlin Glenfield 30. This rifle is surprisingly accurate and feels just right to me. It wears a Swift 1.5-4.5x21 made in Korea. This is a rather bulky, old tech scope similar to the old Bausch & Lomb Bushnells. In nearly ten years of clambering up and down trees and Kentucky temperature swings it has never fogged up or lost zero. The view is surprisingly clear and bright too. The Swift line has a very dated appearance and seldom changes but they do use quality glass in their scopes.

[FergusonTO35]

I would also add, the best scope in the world will do you no good without quality mounts. I hate see through rings. If you think you need them, then you are using the wrong scope, period. I use the standard Leupold windage adjustable bases and rings mostly, but there are a lot of good ones out there. The traditional USA made Weavers and equivalents are pretty good and don't cost much, especially if you plan to remove the scope and use sights frequently.

[FergusonTO35]

Some other thoughts while waiting for a deer to come by for dinner:

Every gun I own is more accurate than I am, and I would reckon that every scope I own has more capability than I can use. I am honest in admitting that my shooting abilities are not that good. I can kill something and make ok groups off a benchrest but that is it. I won't take a shot at game beyond 150-175 yards, I just don't trust my ability to make a clean kill. I'm not down in the dumps about it or anything, just a fact of life.

With that in mind, spending big bucks on a scope isn't going to gain me a single thing. As said before, if a scope holds zero and doesn't fog up there isn't a whole lot more it can do for me. Extra brightness and clarity is nice but it would not change anything in the real world for me. So, we see that for a guy like me the category 2 scopes are about perfect. I should also add that most of my rifles wear receiver sights, as nearly all my shooting is done at under 100 yards. Also, some rifles such as pistol caliber carbines and top eject 94's are at their best with sights.