Categories of Scope Buyers

[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.

Current scoped rifles in my battery are:

Howa 1500 .257 Roberts with ER Shaw 24" magnum sporter barrel with Nikon Buckmasters II 4-12x40 in Leupold mounts

Marlin Glenfield 30 .30 WCF with Swift 1.5-4.5x21 in Burris mounts

Browning BLR .308 WCF with Simmons Pro-Hunter 2-7x32 (Phillipines made) in Weaver USA steel mounts

I also have a Burris Fullfield II 3-9x40, NIB Bushnell Trophy 3-9x40, and Japan made Bausch & Lomb Bushnell 2.5x20 not attached to anything currently.

[hornady308]

FergusonT035,
Of the first three scopes you mentioned, I have all three. I consider them excellent for my hunting environment. I'm ​a big fan of scopes that are 1.5 or 2x on the low end, but they aren't en vogue these days (unless you count "tactical" scopes). I have several of the Tasco EXP 1.5-5x32/44 and obviously like them, but they are quite a bit heavier and bulkier than the Simmons 2-7x32.

[Soundguy]

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.

I'd wager that covers a bunch of us. In the scrubby are of florida I mostly hunt in, you can't even FIND a 150 yard open space to shoot across. Last Hog I took was 1/3 of that, THRU TREES. I have a scope on my marlin 336 30-30.. the scope cost 50$ more than the gun.. and the gun can't possibly outshoot the scope.

[FergusonTO35]

This is weird: I tried to edit my last post, and it posted the same thing as a new post with the part that I added.

[waco]

I have a lot of wide open space out here in Oregon. If I chose to shoot at game at long distance(I don't) It helps to have a very clear optic with the reliable adjustments to dial in the distance. My targets of choice are made of steel. Same things apply though.....

[Soundguy]

I never could wrap my head around the sportsmanship of hunting at extreme ranges. And if nothing else, if I do shoot a deer 1000 yards away, I have to hump 1000 more yards to even get over there, assuming no rough terrain in-between.

[fatnhappy]

3.

I have a couple nikons and bausch & Lomb elites, but I'm a 3.

[hornady308]

3.

I have a couple nikons and bausch & Lomb elites, but I'm a 3.

Do you see any difference between the B&L Elites and the newer Bushnell Elites?

[fatnhappy]

Do you see any difference between the B&L Elites and the newer Bushnell Elites?

honestly, I haven't used a newer Bushnell elite. Mine are packaged and represented as Bausch and Lombs. I'm unqualified to answer. Sorry.
I will say this though, the rain guard on elites works! I love it.

What it doesn't do is prevent fogging when the dummy behind the buttplate mouthbreathes on the ocular.

Back to the B&L elites, I have one mounted on my Remington 11-87 SPS slug gun. The reticle gave up the ghost from the pounding. They repaired it under warranty and returned it to me in a mere fortnight. I was quite pleased with their service.

The same applies to Nikon. I have a pair of 10x42 monarchs. As anyone that owns them know, the eye cups are less than perfect. These binos are more than 10 years years old. they repaired them free of charge. When I got them back I Would swear they looked like nikon recoated the lenses.

[Love Life]

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

It all adds up, but it all matters when it all has to matter.

I prefer American Rifle Company rings, Steiner military scopes, and NEAR rails on my long to intermediate range toys.

My hunting guns get Leupold gold ring scopes with high gloss finish. Ton of class in those scopes.

I use 2 $60 Tasco 6-24 varmint scopes for working with 22lr.

It’s all about the application.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rintinglen]

When I have looked at a top of the line Zeiss, S&B or other high end scopes I am reminded of the old car joke. If Rolls Royce Makes such a nice car, why don't you see more of them on the road? I am a Cat 2 pocket book with Cat 4 dreams.

[keyhole]

After many temporary romances with a variety of scopes I ended up being mostly a #3.
When I was initially testing the scout mount concept on military surplus rifles I used NC star, just to minimize the investment until I knew the scout mount and scope configuration was going to work for my eyes, etc. Then I "upgraded" to BSA and Simmons, which I have to admit I never found lacking for range work.
For commercial rifles I finally realized the extra money for a Leupold vs. other brands was money well spent. I never had the need or the funds to pay $3-4K for a scope.
The one time I used Leupold customer service to repair an old 3-9 I was very favorably impressed. They rebuilt the whole scope, for free of course, and updated several features.

[waco]

I just bought a new Bergara B-14 Hunter in .30-06
I purchased a Leupold VX3i 4.5x14x40 CDS scope along with two piece steel Warne mounts and steel Warne low rings.
I have not shot this yet but I was very impressed with the quality and clarity of this optic.
I'm looking forward to developing a hunting load so I can send all the data to Leupold to get my custom turret cap made.

[ShooterAZ]

I just bought a new Bergara B-14 Hunter in .30-06
I purchased a Leupold VX3i 4.5x14x40 CDS scope along with two piece steel Warne mounts and steel Warne low rings.
I have not shot this yet but I was very impressed with the quality and clarity of this optic.
I'm looking forward to developing a hunting load so I can send all the data to Leupold to get my custom turret cap made.

I have the same scope setup for my Ruger MKII 300 Win Mag. The Leupold turret/cap system, it flat works and is very repeatable at all the distances I have tried with it. The longest distance so far for me has been 600 yds, and no I won't shoot any farther than that when hunting. There's some guides in my area that put the very same scope on a Weatherby 30-378 and have their clients shoot game at 1000 yds+ with remarkable success.

[Lloyd Smale]

I think cost is a pretty reliable indicator of scope quality. Sure there may be exceptions but if you buy X brand 300 dollar scope its usually so close in performance to y brand 300 dollar scope that its hardly worth arguing. I think a better way would be to go by cost

under a 100 bucks and your not getting much more then a set of crosshairs to put on a target.
100-200 you can get a serviceable scope with decent optics
200-300 is where you start seeing good scopes. Scopes like the vx1 and vx2 leupolds, vortex diamondbacks, Nikon prostaffs (new version) ect. For the average guy whos not an optics expert these are the bread and butter scopes that are all you really need to deer hunt ect. they usually have glass and coatings that transmit plenty of light for legal shooting hours. Most of the track good enough for deer hunting. combine the 200-300 and the 300-500 and these are my hunting scopes. Ive probably own more leupold then any other but I'm far from a leupold snob and most all the scopes in this price range get it done.
300-500 same as before but maybe a bit better glass and a bit better tracking
500-1000 these scopes are usually put together a bit better. they might not blow the 300 dollar scopes out of the water with there glass performance but usually mechanicaly are a bit better, Return to zero, tracking ect. these are what my varmint guns that shoot small targets or target guns wear.
1000 plus. yes they might have better optics but not enough to warrant two to four times the money. Yes they may track a bit better but unless your shooting 1000 yards or are a competitions shooter your not going to really take advantage of it. If you just have to have a nightforce, Swarovski, ziess, kahles ect then its your money but don't try to convince me it makes a bit of difference in the deer woods. Id be willing to bet other then the military 75 percent of these types of scopes are bought by the same people that buy a Ferrari and never drive it over 65. More of a decoration on a gun that a justified expense. I'm sure there real fine precision instruments but most of us are just shooting deer, bear, elk, moose, golphers ect. Many of us do a lot of it with cast bullets. don't know about you but I'm far from rich. I have to justify every dollar I spend on guns and loading anymore and I can buy a boat load of stuff I really need for the price of a nightforce scope decorating a 2000 dollar gun that is no more effective in the whitetail woods then a savage axis with a vx1 is. but to each his own I guess. Just don't try to convince me theres any economic sense or bang for the buck involved in your decision. Brand thrown right out the door don't expect much from a 100 dollar scope and for most of us a 1000+ dollar scope is right in there with winning the lotto

[labradigger1]

I buy what I can afford. Sometimes vx3's, sometimes k12 weavers. Something else to consider is mounts and rings. For me it warne vertical split steel. Heavy but rock solid.

[Texas by God]

I never could wrap my head around the sportsmanship of hunting at extreme ranges. And if nothing else, if I do shoot a deer 1000 yards away, I have to hump 1000 more yards to even get over there, assuming no rough terrain in-between.

I agree wholeheartedly. One movement of the animal while the bullet is flying can result in a wounded animal with a 1000 yard head start. Around 400 yards in perfect conditions is my limit but I'd rather it be 40 yds every time. Other than varmints my longest kill has been an elk at 300 yards- a large target.

[Soundguy]

Yup.. The sportsmanship of super long range shots is baffling. You aren't stalking an animal if you shoot it a half mile plus away. It can't see, smell or hear you at that range. Kinda like shooting a turkey on the roost....

[Lloyd Smale]

not everyone is out there for the thrill of the hunt or to stalk game. Ive killed enough deer in my life that it doesn't do a whole lot for me to outsmart a deer. I'm a meat hunter anymore as are many here. If I get a 500 yard shot that I know I'm capable of I sure don't get anything out of trying to sneak up on it. More interested in putting it in the back of the truck for supper tomorrow night. Also two different guys might get a thrill of the hunt differently. You might like the thought that your stalking skills allow you to get close and someone else might get a thrill out of knowing there a good enough shot not to have to sneak up any closer. Neither is wrong and its not my place to judge how another hunter hunts as long as he does it legally. theres guys out there (surely not me) that are more then capable with the right equiptment of taking a deer at a 1000 yards humanly. It took them as long or longer to get that skillful then it takes the average guy to learn to walk quietly in the woods and sneak up on a animal. Nope if there 50 yards away I shoot them when I get a good shot and when there 500 yards away I do the same. Not out there to prove anything or impress anyone. Its a matter of skill level. Ive seen guys take deer at well over 500 yards and ive seen guys miss deer broadside at 50 yards.

Yup.. The sportsmanship of super long range shots is baffling. You aren't stalking an animal if you shoot it a half mile plus away. It can't see, smell or hear you at that range. Kinda like shooting a turkey on the roost....

[MyFlatline]

The day I put a $1000 scope on a $350 Marlin levergun is the day they put me in the nut house. I'm more of a 1.5 on the scale. Have a couple Nikons, but most are Bushnells. For me and where I hunt in the swamps of Florida, they are more than adequate. To many variables to make it black and white.

I prefer to spend that extra money on a new mold or a fixer upper rifle.