Scopes ?

[Harter66]

I'll preface here with I get some of what I'm about to ask , I will try to do so with an explanation of the questions basis .

I recently looked through my rusty trusty El Paso Weaver K4 and I was surprised by the assorted layers of focus . The rainbow swirls around the edges . It just looks and feels right where it sits on top of a 358 Win on a 70s vintage/styled Mauser . The brass , white steel and thinning blue .

Then I looked through that 70-early 80 Bushnell 3-9×32 TV screen on my oldest daughters 110L 308 . The gasoline swirls were gone along with the focus layers most probably hidden in the frame .

I took a look through the 9? 3-9×40 Tasco . Another leap in clarity , no edge fuzz , much brighter and compared to the K4 ........none actually .

I'd say the new 2016 3-9×40 Tasco has about the same edge over the 199? as it has over the old Weaver V9 .

All of the above will pass the box test whether you shoot 15 in 5/3s or 30 in in 6/5s and come back within 1 or 2 clicks . Considering potentially 60 yo scopes with 3,000 rounds on 3-5 rifles of 7×57 - 06' I'm happy .

What that says to me is that there's little to no changes in the adjustment and focus sections from 1950 to present . Coatings make a huge difference in everything related to what the glass does .

So this begs the question , is the difference between a base Lupold and a top notch model really worth $1000 ?
Is the $200 Vortex really $2-300 less scope than a comparable Lupold ?

If a variable power has more parts and more and more complex seals then why does a fixed 4 or 6 cost as much as a variable ?

It's no wonder I own so many vintage optics to get fixed power scopes ....

[rking22]

I'm with you on the fixed power scopes. I buy used Leo and Burris fixed when I come across them. I think the new fixed cost more because the sell less of them, kinda like 410 shotgun shells.
Seems everything I pick up a new fixed power scope it's over sized and has a bunch of cluster on the cross wires. All about marketing now it seems. I just got a "free" Redfield 2 3/4 on a nice Rem 141 in 35rem. Figured the scope would be trashed but it is in great shape. Fitting to the gun as well.
I like the simplicity of the fixed powers and the minimal moving parts to go along with the size and weight advantages. Make your targets to match the magnification and give up very little in group shooting.

[beemer]

Also some of the new scopes with short bodies are pain in the posterior to mount properly, you have to have extension this or that or high rings and more bells and whistles than a new car. Although I have some newer ones I like the older ones myself, they just look better on an old rifle or milsurp. Most of my hunting is black dots on the range so not much hard service involved. I'll not argue that the new scopes are better but some of them are way out of my price range but it does't matter I buy what pleases me and what I want to play with.

I bought a Weaver Marksman 4X at the flea market Monday, beautiful shape and clear. Took the rings off and some idiot had put masking tape under the rings and let it get wet. It has spotty rust and light pits on the scope body, it's otherwise fine. Probably will go on a 22 so maybe I can hide them.

Dave

[Hick]

I think, when it comes to scopes, that we see so many bells and whistles because the scope manufacturers are really building for at least two different markets. One market is the group of experienced owners who have very specific uses for their different firearms and know exactly what they need (or don't need) to get what they want. Most, or at least very many, of the members of this site are probably in that category. For us, what you say is largely true (certainly for me). But, the second market is the buyer with plenty of money and the desire to have the best of the best to show off to his friends. There are a lot of people out there in this category. They don't necessarily know what they need-- just that it has to be good (or at least better than the one their buddy bought last week). In some parts of the country (such as around here with the mines and young--cash rich- miners) there seems to be plenty of these buyers. It's just like golf. I read somewhere that only 15% or less of golfers have handicaps under 20 and know what they need, but that the golf equipment companies make 95% or more of there profits off the other 85%. We've all heard how firearm sales in the US are up in recent years-- and that has to mean accessories (scopes etc) as well. So, I think that those fancy expensive scopes are probably not as much better as the price difference suggests, just that they are priced to maximize profit from that second part of the market.

[lefty o]

scopes are like many things in life. up to a certain level you get quite a bit for what you pay, and after that the minor improvements get quite a bit more expensive for what you pay. i own many moderate priced scopes, and a few very expensive scopes, and when the circumstances dictate it, yes the more expensive scopes perform better than the cheaper models.

[tdoyka]

i used to be a Swift guy. the warranty that they USED to have was an over the counter warranty. if you break the scope, then we'll do a new one free over the counter. them days have been long gone. nowadays i go for leopuld. leopuld does a 5-6"(?) eye relief on their 3-9x, which my tc encore in 444 marlin does. although vortex has got me interested.

i'll buy a $250( or under) scope for my deer and varmint rifles. i won't pay for more bells-n-whistles. i don't do competitive shooting or long range shooting, so why bother.

[waco]

I own half a dozen or so Vortex scopes now. Everything from there $200 Crossfire II line(which is very nice for the money) up to a Viper PST that is, IMHO, the best scope you can get for under a grand.

[Lloyd Smale]

are the top end leupolds better then the bottom end. Of course they are. But a guy has to buy what he can afford. thankfully scopes have come a long way in the last 20 years. The vx1 you buy today has the same lens coatings that the vari x3 had back 2o years ago. Same click adjustments too. Heck of a bang for the buck for 200 dollars. You are not buying a vortex for 200 dollars less then a leupold with equal quality. Actually there very similar in price if you compare scopes that give the same performance. The vx1s compare to the vortex diamondback. In my opinion the newest vx2 is a bit better opticaly then a diamondback. Don't get me wrong. I like vortex scopes and own a couple. In the 200 dollar price range id throw in the newest Nikon prostaff and the discontinued 3200 bushnell too. A nice step up is a vx2, Nikon monarch, 4200 bushnell, vortex viper. Those are 3-500 dollar glass and are on my best rifles. There all comparable. All are good enough for what I do. Do they hold up to a 1000 dollar scope? Nope. But I'm not shooting competitively and am not a navy seal sniper. I don't need a 2-3000 dollar nightforce or Kahles. That said theres no doubt in my mind that there a much better scope then a 1000 dollar scope.

[Rich/WIS]

My rant is that there are very few options for a small, simple low power variable or fixed power scope. Have a Bushnell Banner 1.5-4X that I have had for years and it is finally biting the dust. Zero at 4X and then adjust down to 2X and POI changes 4 inches at 100yards. Okay, got my moneys worth out of it so figure to replace it with something similar. Imagine my surprise to find there are very few options either in the same power range or fixed power scopes. When did Weaver stop making the K3? Some of the scopes I looked at are dual purpose, hunting and at higher power counting Jupiter's moons. Fortunately I have an old Kollmorgan 2.5X and a Lyman Alaskan (assuming I can find 7/8 in rings) stashed away if all else fails.

[lefty o]

My rant is that there are very few options for a small, simple low power variable or fixed power scope. Have a Bushnell Banner 1.5-4X that I have had for years and it is finally biting the dust. Zero at 4X and then adjust down to 2X and POI changes 4 inches at 100yards. Okay, got my moneys worth out of it so figure to replace it with something similar. Imagine my surprise to find there are very few options either in the same power range or fixed power scopes. When did Weaver stop making the K3? Some of the scopes I looked at are dual purpose, hunting and at higher power counting Jupiter's moons. Fortunately I have an old Kollmorgan 2.5X and a Lyman Alaskan (assuming I can find 7/8 in rings) stashed away if all else fails.

vortex viper pst 1-4X. excellent scope and you can find them on sale lately for about $350.

[725]

Waco, et al

I've gotten the Crossfire Vortex scope from a place called Optics Planet. $129 delivered. Love 'em. They are (or have been for me) fantastic. Got three so far. Will certainly get more when the need arises.

[Harter66]

Feature for feature ..... was what I meant by comparable not equals . Often the equals will be the top of the line to the 2nd rung .

[lefty o]

to be concise to your question, a $200 dollar vortex is the equal to a $200 leupold, right on up, and imo the top end vortex has an edge on the top end leupold, and in the case or vortex their warranty is as good as leuopold. personally im a nightforce fan, but have both leupolds and vortex scopes, and they both build a fairly decent quality product.

[Texas by God]

I tend to gravitate to fixed powers myself. I have many variables that are excellent scopes but a fixed power is what it is and I don't play with the power ring like I do on my variables. I can shoot 4" groups on a mirage free day at 450 yards with my Tikka 25-06 with a 6x Burris on it so why use a variable? I love old Weavers, Redfields, Leupolds, and even Bushnells if they are clear to my eye and adjust properly. Some people substitute their high magnification variables for binoculars but that's just dumb, period.
Best, Thomas.

[No Blue]

OP, anything with optics has a pretty weird price structure. Go compare camera lenses, binoculars, telescopes, rifle scopes, spotting scopes....prices all over the place.

But when you consider what it costs to make them; it's aluminum tubing, glass lenses, some focusing parts, and that's it. Labor is going to be about the same to put them together if they're of the same class; variable to variable, single to single.

There's going to be some difference in the glass, things like extra low dispersion, maybe the type of coatings and how many lenses are coated.

There's really nothing to explain why one can be 15 times or more expensive. It's not like comparing a Kubota tractor that weighs 3K pounds and costs $20K and a full size tractor that might weigh 20K pounds and costs $100K. You can see where the money goes there.

I have a 23 year old Simmons 44 mag scope, bought the same one last year. I can see the new one is brighter than the old one, so even the base level scopes are getting better.

[Jack Stanley]

Harter66 , for a long time I was watching gun show table for Leupold four power rifle scopes . Since few people wanted to limit themselves to something like that , I'd buy them cheap and put them of .22 rifles . Then Nikon came along and made a great scope for less that I was buying a used Leupold . I know probably not in the same category but I think I understand what you're getting at .

Jack

[Love Life]

The application for the scope is the biggest factor in what I buy and how much I spend.

[dragon813gt]

The application for the scope is the biggest factor in what I buy and how much I spend.

Same here. And since the few scopes I have are for hunting purposes I won't spend a lot of money on them. Most of my hunting rifles wear irons because they're perfect for the quick shots and close range that are most common. 100 yards is a long shot so I have no need to spend more money on a scope than what the rifle costs.

As stated above you reach a point w/ scopes where any minimal advancement costs a lot of money. Only you can decide if this cost is worth it.

[Love Life]

How does the saying go? Americans will put a $100 scope on a $1,000 rifle and Europeans will put a $1,000 scope on a $300 rifle or something along those lines.

[M-Tecs]

When it comes to long range target scopes that you are cranking on the dials all the time you do get what you pay for mostly. For that type of application tracking is the most important requirement. Problem is sooner of later they all will fail. Until recently almost all to the development went into the optics.