Scope budget??

[Ickisrulz]

I've heard for ages that you should be prepared to spend as much on your scope as you did your rifle. How many of you really feel this is true? I'm just asking out of curiosity. All my scopes save one are Leupold. All of them but one are fixed power. That being said I've spent much less on scopes than I did on the rilfes.

My last scope purchase is a new Weaver fixed 4x. It sits on my .338 Win Model 70classic. To tell the truth I like this scope a little better than my Leupolds. Time will tell if it is durable. I feel a little ashamed that I only paid $110.00 for it.

[unclebill]

i have noticed that scope and camera glass quality has improved leaps and bounds while prices plummet
what cost $1000 10 years ago can be had for $300 today.
last year i bought a mueller scope that i love.
i compared it to a leupold side by side.
i couldnt see the difference with 20-20 vision.
i kept the extra 800 bucks.
you are buying the name.
and the warranty.

[Heavy lead]

I have a lot of rifles approaching or exceeding 1000 dollars that have Leupold VX1and Vari X II's on them as well as a few Burris' and Bushnell 3200, one Weaver Grand Slam and a couple of Nikons that cost between 200 and 350 bucks, I've never once felt like I had inferior optics.
I've shot plenty of rifles with VX III's and never felt like they gave me any better accuracy or optic quality over the scopes listed above.
I don't like big scopes or especially big heavy objectives, I want good eye relief, power on a hunting rifle in 2x7 or 3x9, I do like power upward to 20 power on a 22-250, but still don't want a 50 mm objective, if it's much over 42 mm I won't buy it.

[unclebill]

it seems like there are the **** scopes
then the middle ones (and many of them are very good)
but once you get to the upper middle
$200-300
the next step in that you can really tell right away is about $1500-3000 more..
and that is when you are paying for the ulimate in clarity.

this is only my opinion and i am no optics expert.

but i have played with some REALLY hi-end scopes
and you bet there is a difference.

[Bill*]

I spend about half on a scope (i.e. $600 on rifle and $300 on scope)

[frankenfab]

I like the Nikon Monarchs---not the Buckmasters. I feel they are the best value in a scope. I have had Leupold (Mk IV, Vari XIII, LPS), Nightforce, Zeiss.

One thing I learned over time is that it takes experience to tell the difference, and you need to check any scope out under varying light conditions and at all power levels if it's a variable. Eye strain is the penalty for dealing with inferior optics if you have to spend alot of time looking through a scope.

That is just to do with optical clarity and light transmission. Then you have other quality parameters like mechanical repeatablity and holding zero to examine.

[Suo Gan]

The older I get, the more money I have, and the more I realize that just because something costs an arm and a leg and IS obviously better...it ain't that much better at least IMO. Lately $100 is my max and I am happy. I've owned expensive scopes and sent them down the road. Okay, so you can kinda make out a deer 60 yards away after legal shooting light, I'll keep my thousand bucks thank you. I can count on one finger the head of big game I took over 150 yards anyway, and it was foggy that day so I was using an 06 with open sights. I did keep a Redfield I bought new in 94 before they went belly up, it is a 36x and 56mm bell, I keep that on my varmint gun, I think I paid $700 wholesale at the time. I own twenty odd Leupold 2's and 3's both fixed and variable that I mostly got second hand or on the cheap. I never paid more than $150 for any of them. Pretty much the same way with the rifles too. I am not in an all fired hurry to lay down fifteen hunert for a hunk of blued steel and crotch walnut or some fancy black rifle with all the bells and whistles, leave them for the next guy.

I do keep a decent set of binoculars handy though.

FYI Guns always hold their value or at least go up, scopes never do (usually).

Anyway, you asked.

[Artful]

On average I use inexpensive glass on less kicky guns - my 375 weatherby killed 3 scopes before I broke down and bought a Leupold for it. If you intend it to be treated rough spend the extra bucks but most my guns are not treated rough or give rough treatment to my scopes. Most times under 150.00 for what I buy - I have a BSA Cat'seye on a FAL doing just fine.

[Lloyd Smale]

Im a big fan of leupolds. That been said i have quite a few of the old varixIIs and a couple vx1s that id like to replace with vx2s. Ive come to detest the friction ajustments. The new vx2s have click ajustments and a bit better glass. Id be willing to bet that the difference in price between a vx1 and vx2 would be recouped during its lifetime just in ammo saved when sighting in for a new load. Ive also had quite a few nikons. Prostaffs buckmasters and monarchs and the only nikon ill buy anymore is a monarch and there great scopes. I also have a 3200 and 4200 bushenell and like both of those. Ive got a couple varx111 leupolds and really like them but usually just dont have 500 dollars plus to buy one and the new vx2 has the same glass as the old varixIII so to me its a no brainer. Ive got one mueler that i won at a whitetails banquete and its a decent scope but i doubt id pay money for one. About the only under 200 dollar scope thats ever jump out and impressed me is the 3200 bushnell.

[unclebill]

Im a big fan of leupolds. That been said i have quite a few of the old varixIIs and a couple vx1s that id like to replace with vx2s. Ive come to detest the friction ajustments. The new vx2s have click ajustments and a bit better glass. Id be willing to bet that the difference in price between a vx1 and vx2 would be recouped during its lifetime just in ammo saved when sighting in for a new load. Ive also had quite a few nikons. Prostaffs buckmasters and monarchs and the only nikon ill buy anymore is a monarch and there great scopes. I also have a 3200 and 4200 bushenell and like both of those. Ive got a couple varx111 leupolds and really like them but usually just dont have 500 dollars plus to buy one and the new vx2 has the same glass as the old varixIII so to me its a no brainer. Ive got one mueler that i won at a whitetails banquete and its a decent scope but i doubt id pay money for one. About the only under 200 dollar scope thats ever jump out and impressed me is the 3200 bushnell.

our opinions are all across the board arent they?
viva la difference!

[Shooter6br]

Bushnell 3200 for me

[Von Gruff]

I have a Nikon Monarch on my varmint rifle and another for testing "stuff" in qd's for my 7x57 but have just bought a vx1 2.7 with LR reticle in another set of qd's for hunting as with a hold on the centre a 160gn Woodleigh is zeroed at 125yds while the 120gn GS Custom is zeroed at 250yds and my cast hunting boolist are on at 100yds although hunt with the aperture unless the scope is needed. This rifle cost me in the region of 6 g and the scopes and rings would cost less than 1 so the theory of as much for the scope as the rifle definately is not for me

Have had Weaver grand slams and Tasco world classes along with Niko Sterling Gold and Platinum crowns that have all gone but still have a couple of vx 1's
Have a friend with S&B's and NF's but for my eyes the difference between them and my Nikons is definately not worth the weight or the dollar difference.

Von Gruff.

[atr]

I have Leupold, Burris, Weaver,Bushnell and Mueller....I dont pay as much for scopes as I pay for guns,,,,but then I do shop around and usually find my best gun purchases in out of the way pawn shops....for my money and for the guns I have I would say that the Mueller scope is my price choice.

I try to match my scope to my rifle....
shooting long range and flat requires a different scope than short range and in the brush
for example,,,,my 257 has a 3x6Leupold,,,the 7x57 a 3x9 Mueller,,,,22-250 a 4x12 Burris and my 340 savage 30-30 a steel tube Weaver with post,,,,
the .308 another 2x6Leupold.....the 25-20 a 3 power weaver steel tube

[camaro1st]

i have found nikon to be a fair middle scope. all depends on your wants and needs. you may find a inexpensive scope that will last you for ever or a high dollar one that is all over the place. good luck on your pick. my nikon cost as much as the rifle, but the first two cheepies was half the price, yep i went through two before i wised up.

[byronw999]

I bought one of the new Redfield Revolution scopes a month or 2 back and stuck it on an AR varmit rifle... I've been real happy with it's performance... Made by Leupold and was about $170.. I'd rather spend th extra $$ saved on ammo for practice..

[bohica2xo]

Always fun to watch the reaction when someone sits down behind an IOR on one of my rifles. Their own rifle is on the next bench. Same targets / view, same lighting, etc.

There is cheap glass, good glass & great glass. There is a difference.

Not everyone needs to spend big money on optics. Some do because it is important to the task at hand. Others buy for status. Many choose less expensive optics.

B.

[Lloyd Smale]

ill tell you where i really notice it. Shooting long range. We shoot alot of crop damage deer and many out at around 400plus yards. Ive go the cheaper nikons, luepolds redfields ect and when the range is out that far they have problems with good focus. Im sure the same would hold for a long range target shooter. My better leupolds, nikon monarchs 4200 bushnells ect do a much better job out far. An ajustable objective is about mandatory at those ranges especially with a cheaper scope. I agree with the other posters though that optics have came along way in the last few years. I used to consider the old varix 2 a great scope but it doesnt hold a candle to the new vx2 and the old ones compared side by side with a 3200 bushy or even a buckmaster will show you how far scopes have come recently. I used to have an opinion that unless you spent 300 bucks for a scope you were buying junk but know theres many good ones for 200 and some even cheaper. Factor in the cost of living and you will see that your getting a decent scope for about what you would have paid 50 bucks for 10 years ago. I have no doubt the high end luepolds and nightforce ziess kahles swarov. and others like them are better scopes but for what most of us do there really not needed. I think more of them are sold to stroke the egos of guys that want to show there buts at the range then are sold to guys that really can appreciate the difference or need the small optical advantage they provide. Im on a fixed income and money doesnt grow on trees anymore. I cant afford a 2000 dollar scope. If they were 10 times better the a 200 dollar one id probably change my opinion but 10 times more money for a scope thats 5 percent better just doesnt add up.

[Tim357]

Burris Scoutscope for me. I disremember what is cost but scope, mount, rings and labor was around $500 about 12 years ago

[buck1]

For years I used Leupold or nothing. But then one day I traded for a TC in 338 JDJ #2. It came with a Bushnell Trophy scope on it. I planed to change it as soon as I had a few bucks saved but fell in love with it . Gerat scope and half the price of my Leupolds. I now have a few of these on hard kicking guns and love them.
I have never owned one in the 1K+ price range, If they are lots better please take pitty on me and dont let me know about it! LOL!!...Buck
PS...
IMHO the old B&L scopes with external adjustments in the mts are the most rugged of them all.......Buck

[Von Gruff]

I believe that as our eyes age we are only able to see as good as our eyes will allow and the quality of the glass only helps up to a point. It is like a sound system and it dosent matter if it is the clearest sound made if our ears arné capable of picking the difference between that and an old "mono" system.

The improvement in glass over the last 10-15 years means that scopes in the low to mid price range are all that many of use can apreciate simply because our eyes cant tell the difference between them and the top end scopes. The erector systems are getting more reliable both in repeatability and accuracy so the need for the high priced scopes is driven as much by ego as it is by the ability to see the difference.

Von Gruff.

[greenmntranger]

I have Burris, Nikon, Weaver, and even a Thompson Center. Probably have more Nikon scopes than any other brand. I tend to spend 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of the gun in optics. Like the Nikons for light gathering , value and warranty. Though the fixed 4X Weaver I put on my 336 I really like

GMR

[blasternank]

I really like Nikon and my burris scopes. I have some leupold ones and all work great. I just picked up a Nitrex on sale from Natchez and as far as light gathering that one takes the cake! Super clear optics. Now I will check it's durability but they claim the are GTG. We'll see!

[barrabruce]

Bugga
I just went and bought a loopy MK4 1-5 spr for my cheap and miserable 30-30 bitza H&R NEF .single shot ugly mother.

I want lots of elevation for long range low velocity cast shooting and something variable for PP'ed high velocity stuff.
While hunting
Guess I'm all a$$e about.

IT does shoot good for a hunting rifle but!!!!
And that was with my 'old cloudy fixed 4 that I have for 30 yrs.

I got sick of the eye strain and I only own a couple of guns....But I sure do have fun with them.

I think it should just about last me out even if I change rifles one day.


I see 1-2$k guns with cheap got-em off epray 4-900x scopes that last for a bit and sort of go 1x 1/4" clicks and jump to 10inches left adjustment or whatever they feel like.
They all tote how cheap they got'em but next year they have something else on there.

Barra

[jsizemore]

It depends on what your trying to shoot. A target or deer at 500 yards is easy to see compared to a groundhog among the rocks or under the bushes on the field border. If your shooting long range then there is no substitute for quality glass.

[RobS]

I prefer the best value scope for the budget with that said:

I've had Leupold’s and they do have good glass and are durable but expensive as to the name itself; I no longer own any. The new generation Nikon Monarchs are very decent scopes for the money and have clear lenses and 95% light transmission and is a strong referral when people ask me about scopes.

My latest go has been with a Sightron II Big Sky and it is a very good scope at a very great value. This scope is comparable to 800+ dollar scopes mark my words. Clarity is clear all the way to the edges at all magnification ranges (3-12) and light transmission is better than the Nikon Monarch's I've had which makes for a better low light scope. The eye relief is excellent as well with about 4" throughout the magnification which is really hard to find. The Nikon Monarch's are very close regarding eye relief. Additionally, Sightron is a US company that has excellent customer service and great warranties.

[barrabruce]

I suppose I should have said that first I worked out what
Ranges and type of shooting I will be expecting 90% of the time.
Size scope I realistically need / desire for my rifle.

Then looked at the features...for me

I don't believe it is worth putting poor quality optics on a good shooting rifle.

Quality means it'll do the job all the time.

Cheap= expensive waste of money. Save a bit longer ..give up a flashy gimmick.
Something you buy and is not up to snuff and will fail....which just cost you 2x the original price to replace it with another.
You have just wound up paying for reliable goods and ended up with rubbish.

Expensive = something you paid too much for but still is quality goods.


I really can't see how the $ value of a rifle has any bearing as to the quality of optics you should put on one.
I f you have something that shoots good enough why limit your self to less than the rifles ability.

A lot of high $ guns don't really shoot that great!!

Quality doesn't necessarily mean lots of $$ either.

I see my gear as long term investments.

Long after I can remember how much I paid or not paid for what not.

Just my random thoughts.
Barra

hope it helps.

[Shooter6br]

"Buy the best and cry only once"