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.

[dragon813gt]

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.

The question is; which one is right? I buy the best tool at the best price for the job. I'm not averse to paying thousands for a tool. If I shot long range I'd have a need for one of the expensive scopes. Since I don't a Nikon ProStaff is all I need. I spend more time archery hunting anyway :laugh:

[RedJackson]

Scopes are easy. Almost anything works for casual shooting. If you're spending money on a hunt, spend the big bucks. Zeiss, Nightforce, Swaro and the big buck lupies are the way to go. A 500 dollar rifle almost always works, top it with a 1000 dollar scope and you're way ahead of the guy who flips that around.

[Harter66]

Trouble is I have a hand full of of really good rifles and an embarrassingly small amount of money in them . I have at least 6 that are known to shoot well beyond their dollar value . The idea of putting $500 worth of glass on a rifle that I have ,real dollars, less than $200 in that shoots full throttle cast into .750 just gives me the willies .
I guess I'll grow up some day.

[Love Life]

The question is; which one is right? I buy the best tool at the best price for the job. I'm not averse to paying thousands for a tool. If I shot long range I'd have a need for one of the expensive scopes. Since I don't a Nikon ProStaff is all I need. I spend more time archery hunting anyway :laugh:

I'd say the foreigners have it right. I will sell rifles, but I hold onto good glass. Long range guns get top end scopes. Hunting rifles get midrange low power scopes. 22 bench guns get fixed power weavers. Older guns get period correct scopes which tend to cost a bunch because they are "antique and vintage".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[54bore]

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.


I agree here! For the most part in optics you get what you pay for, there is a point that makes me wonder though

[ichthyo]

I have say it is interesting that many of us reload to save money while spending crazy amounts on scopes. Hard to explain to the spouse;-)

[Lloyd Smale]

I think a lot of that mindset came from the 60s and 70s when even some of the better mid priced scopes weren't much. What did they have back then Weavers, redfields and the original leupolds. None even came close to comparing optically or mechanicaly with ziess Kahles ect. What happened is the german scope makers sat on there laurels relying on there reputation and the American and jap scope makers stepped up to the plate and really improved there stuff. Back in say the 60s you payed 75 bucks for a k series weaver which in todays money is probably 400 bucks. Would you buy one of those old k series weavers for 400 bucks. Or pay 500 or 600 for a bushnell scope cheif? Not me. But today for that 600 bucks you can buy a darned fine scope with glass and mechanics that are probably better then that zeiss from the 60s or 70s. And stepping up to a 10 percent better scope cost you 3-400 percent more money. Just doesn't make economic sense to me. If the 500 dollar scopes today had poor glass or didn't track well or had poor low light capability id probably be saving my money for something much more expensive but it just isn't needed today by 98 percent of the guys buying scopes.
I'd say the foreigners have it right. I will sell rifles, but I hold onto good glass. Long range guns get top end scopes. Hunting rifles get midrange low power scopes. 22 bench guns get fixed power weavers. Older guns get period correct scopes which tend to cost a bunch because they are "antique and vintage".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Love Life]

Lloyd- You bring up very good points.

When I first got into long range shooting, I used a $66 dollar Tasco Varmint on my 308. That scope got me out to 700 yard hits reliably and consistently.

[tazman]

My most expensive scope($460 Weaver T36) sits on the only custom long range rifle I own. I just can't bring myself to spend more than the rifle cost me for a scope.
The Weaver allows me to see everything I need to at the ranges I shoot.
I always end up thinking about all the guns and reloading supplies I can get for the extra scope money.

[Hickory]

I have found in the world of quality products, you get what you pay for!
I have many Leopold scopes that I bought when they were around $200, that now cost upwards to $1000 for the same type/model.

I have in the last several years bought 2 Burris scopes and found the quality as good as a Leopold and for less money.

For the quality of product per dollar ratio, these two scopes will give the best product to dollar ratio out there, but, this is just my opinion and dose not reflect your needs or wants out of a scope.

[robg]

My favorite scope is a 3x9x40 Burris on my 308 with the ballistic plex . but I'm a user of cheap scopes ,AGS Mount master etc .have trashed 2 tasco's and a gamo .but that's all that failed in the the past 20 years since I had problems seeing open sights in poor light.

[No Blue]

Lloyd, you've been around for long enough. I've got Gun Digests back 45 years. They talk about how cheaper scopes fog up, won't focus, won't track. That was then, this is now.

Now the difference is pretty hard to see. When the Red Chinese got into lens grinding in a big way, that took the optic market in a new direction.

Now a ground lens is a commodity. What it takes to make thousands of them is a known. So the price premium from decades ago shouldn't apply today.

But the know-nothing mouth breathers will still insist 'you get what you pay for' and all the rest of their drivel...it's a new age, and the old rules don't apply...

[arlon]

I'm pretty fond of the old Weavers but most of my rifles are of that vintage. The most modern rifle I own is a mid 90's Colt HBAR AR15 that hasn't been used in 15 or so years. I recently got an old (1968) Ruger #1 in .222, the scope mount was made for the longer scopes of the era. Found a really nice cheap Weaver K6 for it ($50). Have a K10 on my old Model of 1917 sporter, K4 on a Remington 722 in .222 and a V9 on 788 in 7mm-08.. They still work and cost a fraction of newer glass. Maybe someday I'll find myself some nice modern rifle and get a new scope for it.. Naaaa, probably not.

[Love Life]

As the price goes up, it's not just better glass that you are paying a premium for.

In the arena of hunting scopes you can get a dang nice and functional scope for not much more than a C note.

I tend to buy used scopes with transferable warranties. You can get last weeks hot item for a hefty discount from the guys who chase the flavor of the week, lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[beemer]

I'm pretty fond of the old Weavers but most of my rifles are of that vintage. The most modern rifle I own is a mid 90's Colt HBAR AR15 that hasn't been used in 15 or so years. I recently got an old (1968) Ruger #1 in .222, the scope mount was made for the longer scopes of the era. Found a really nice cheap Weaver K6 for it ($50). Have a K10 on my old Model of 1917 sporter, K4 on a Remington 722 in .222 and a V9 on 788 in 7mm-08.. They still work and cost a fraction of newer glass. Maybe someday I'll find myself some nice modern rifle and get a new scope for it.. Naaaa, probably not.

Like a hand and glove, perfect. I have a mid 70's Ruger 77V with a K-12 Micro-Trac , exactly what it is supposed to be.

Dave

[sawinredneck]

I've got an entirely different perspective on this. Until around a year ago I'd never even owned a scope, just didn't like shooting with them, I liked sights. Nothing against them, I'd shot rifles with them, I was more comfortable with sights.
I came into a bit of a windfall and wanted a rifle and wanted in .308 and wanted a lot of bang for buck. In that political climate I wasn't sure how long I'd be able to get one and felt the need/want for a shtf rifle. I ended up with a DPMS Sportical in .308 for what I think was a good price.
I'd done a lot of research and really wanted iron sights, but even though it's a flat top it's not same plane. So I could buy the UTG Leapers setup for under $100, with really mixed reviews, or spend a LOT for other brand sights or change the gas block ad nauseam. I picked up a $50 red dot thing. Sighting it in, the batteries went dead, NICE! Sold it to a buddy.
Bought a Bushnell banner 1-4x, decent scope for right around $100 with rings. It worked until dusk, maybe it's me, maybe I'm getting old and blind, but the crosshairs were gone without some decent light. It's on my sons .243 now.
Back to research I went. Ok, shtf rules, must be able to use if the batteries go dead! Etched reticule was a must. Must be able to use in low light, adjustable illumination is a nice bonus. Must be durable, I don't beat on my guns, but I don't want to drive 100 miles to go shooting just to have the glass fall out! (Read some of the Amazon reviews, it seems to happen a lot) So I read and watched videos, magnification wasn't huge to me, but having it or being able to add it later was a plus. I finally settled on the Vortex Spitfire 1x, mainly because of some of the torture I watch it put up with on YouTube! Guys beat the snot out of it!
I finally caught it on sale at MidwayUSA on Black Friday, but the sons Christmas presents took priority over this. Just had about given up, but right after Christmas Cabela's had it on sale at $200!
I love it. I still would like to add a magnifier, but can live without it.
All I'd read or heard was ""Buy once, cry once!" "Spend as much on the glass as you did on the rifle!" Buy Leupold! Buy Leupold! Buy Leupold! You'll be sorry if you buy anything but Leupold!"
Sorry, I did good to get "she who must be obeyed" to let me get the rifle, I had to scrimp and save and use my Christmas money to buy the Vortex, she still has no idea what it cost!
Then in my instance, I hadn't used enough scopes to have a clue what would really work for me. Had I spent $500-700 on the first purchase, I'm stuck with it, or selling at a loss. I made some mistakes with my purchases, but I learned from each one and it was at a cost I could absorb.

[arlon]

LOL, I don't own a scope that was made after the WWW came into existence.

[johnsmith]

If I'm shooting at a range at 300 yards with a ruger precision 308 and vortex scope, do I need to sight it in each time I go to the range. Some guy got in my ear saying each time I go and shoot at 300 yards I should. Looking for info please at a lost.

[Mr_Sheesh]

johnsmith that sounds quite odd! Check zero, sure, but RE-ZERO? If you have to re-zero a scope each time you go to the range, something's off - I've seen a tip-off mount get bumped so the scope was about 50 MOA off, mounts have screws that have worked loose, or scopes fail and so on cause the need to fix those then re-zero, but 99% of the time a good rifle/scope (or pistol/scope for that matter) will be right on when I send the first round down range - *IF* I am on my game. Not so much if the guy next to me fires a revolver that spits lead / powder in my face right as I'm firing, or if someone has an overly loud rifle and I wasn't aware they were doing that, sometimes. (An 18" barreled 338 Win Mag in the next space can be distracting.)

[Mr_Sheesh]

I use variables on the Varminters, usually fixed on the sporters. Some nice old Weaver K4s etc. from earlier, I've definitely had GOOD use out of those! On variables I do get OCD on turning the magnification back to 4x after each shooting session, as if you spot a Coyote close in and it's still at 9x, that can make it hard to find the 'Yote quickly! Good glass is very nice, I don't go for the fancy highest end stuff but GOOD stuff. Low light performance can be very critical for a Raccoon rifle (10-22 with a cheap scope on it you won't see much at night even with light!) or a long range varminter.

[johnsmith]

So Mr Sheesh your saying once its been sighted in you should not have to sight it in again correct????

[sawinredneck]

So Mr Sheesh your saying once its been sighted in you should not have to sight it in again correct????

Yes! Shoot a couple shots to make sure nothing got moved, then game on.

[Texas by God]

The target turrets on so many new scopes as well as the quick focus eye piece bring their own problems to a hunting scope such as getting turned by accident- I've seen it happen.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[johnsmith]

Thank you, I thought I was losing my mind!!! Sometimes it doesn't pay to listen to others, I guess??

[tazman]

The turrets on my scopes are either covered with caps(hunting scopes) or have reference marks that I have adjusted to zero out when the rifle is sighted in(target style). I check the location of the marks before I start shooting and go from there.

I usually shoot a fouling shot before any serious shooting. This one is often an inch or two away from where the group will be at 200 yards. Wind and temp make a difference in impact point for really accurate shooting as well.
A lot depends on how small a spot you are trying to hit and how far away it is.
For hunting accuracy, even my fouling shot will be good for deer size game. For gopher and very small animals, I need to be within 100 yards for the fouling shot to hit. After the fouling shot I am good to go on small targets to 200 yards.

[Mr_Sheesh]

Come to think of it - I know MAYBE why they said that.

Some people change their elevation settings with turrets a LOT. So they see a 600 yard shot and change the POA 57 (or whatever) clicks downwards, then take that shot. And then by the time they're done, no one knows what their elevation is set to. And change the windage setting each time to make up for the wind.

Take a shot at 600 yards with that and forget to set the turrets back to your normal zero, then pick it up a couple days later and TRY, just TRY, to make an easy hit at 100 yards - Uh good luck!

I grew up varminting and once I have a zero I don't touch the turrets - I do the windage and holdover in my built-in ballistic computer. WOrks pretty well for me. Takes practice though!

Do what works for you - but, if you are changing turret settings for windage or holdover, you have to be super OCD if you want to end up with a zeroed rifle later.

(Those with marked turret knobs probably have an easier time here. Not tried that.)

[Texas by God]

Way back in time, we used Leupold and Weaver T scopes. After sighting in we'd set our knobs to zero so we could tell right away if your buddy moved your dials while you went for a break from prairie doggin'....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Mr_Sheesh]

I was lucky and buddies all had their own hardware, we had an agreement that "you don't mess up my rig and I won't growl at you" sorta LOL - Never had an issue on that. Helps if you all trained the same.

Leupolds mostly, VX2 and 3's, some Reddings and Weavers. A very few of other less noble scopes.

Reminds me, I need to upgrade one scope, maybe I'll transfer a Weaver off one older rifle and upgrade that one to a VX3.

[CLAYPOOL]

Last time I looked Leupold still sold those high end, straight 6 x scopes. They have excellent glass and their heavy cross hair option for low light - woods use...

[Harter66]

Currently only Leo and Weaver offer a straight 4 or 6 and Leo is the cheap one . Leo offers the standard duplex .

[robg]

Once I've got my scope zeroed it stays that way unless it needs tweaking if its moved slightly .my scopes have mil dot or ballistic plex ,ranging is the hard part!