Categories of Scope Buyers

[hornady308]

Categories of Scope Buyers

Something that most of us on firearms forums have noted is that, anytime someone asks about the quality or dependability of a certain brand of scope, there will be those who chime in loudly with their views on the subject. Rather than having to continuously explain their views on scopes, I thought it might be much easier to create four categories in which most scope buyers fit. This way, a person can simply say, "I'm in Category X", so they won't need to say anything else in there response. Below are the four categories I have created. I welcome any and all comments and insults.

Category 1
This group of scope buyers is made up of unapologetic cheapskates that use the least expensive scopes available. Their scopes are made in China and sold by Tasco, BSA, Bushnell, NcStar, Barska, TruGlo...you get the idea. These scopes are usually sold in clamshell packaging and hang on hooks in Walmart. There's no need to keep these scopes behind a counter because no one is going to steal them. These scope buyers always say things like, "I've had that scope on my rifle for X number of years and it's always held zero." These buyers have an advantage because, if their scope breaks, a quick trip to Walmart remedies the problem. Typical scope models in this category include the Simmons Blazer, Tasco Pronghorn, anything made by NcStar or BSA, and any scope that retails for less than $100 and includes a laser, flashlight and lighted reticle. Scope buyers from the other categories love to mock the people in category 1, and claim that category 1 shooters like to put 6-24x50 scopes on top of Marlin 30-30's and Handi rifles.

Category 2
These scope buyers are "frugal" and are continuously looking for the best deal for the money. They'll buy a Simmons Aetec, Bushnell Trophy, entry-level Leupold/Burris, or even an old Weaver K-4. They'll also snatch up any used Burris, Nikon or Leupold that comes their way at a great price. They shun the cheap scopes loved by category 1 users, but don't own anything made in Western Europe due to the high cost. Category 3 and 4 users look down their noses at those in Category 2 for being too cheap to buy a really good scope and pay full price.

Category 3
Leupold users. Ask them any question about scopes and the answer is always, "Leupold." Their first child would be named Leupold if they could get their wives to go along with it. Any scope less than a Leupold is garbage and any scope considered better, as if that were possible, is over-priced. There's really no need for other scope companies to even exist.

Category 4
The pinnacle of scope buyers. These people won't use anything that wasn't made in Western Europe, with the possible exception of a Unertl. They are embarrassed that the Zeiss Conquest is assembled in the United States when it should rightly be made in Germany. All other scopes are beneath them. If tortured to within one inch of their lives, they will admit that the very best Leupold scopes are okay, but they'd rather not be seen using one. They are frequently found hanging out at gun ranges with their custom, blue printed guns proudly on display. And they really hope that you or some other unfortunate will glance over at their rig so that they can tell you all about it.

I am definitely a member of Category 2 since I love to search ebay looking for Simmons scopes made in the Philippines. I also love Nikon factory refurbs, but only when they are on sale.

[dragon813gt]

I'm not on there. I've been taking scopes off my rifles because I don't need them ;)

I know the categories are kind of a joke. In reality there are a lot more than four categories. When I do buy scopes I buy enough scope for the intended purpose of the gun. I always end up w/ Nikons due to their price point. All my camera gear, and my father's, is Nikon. Doesn't mean I won't buy another brand. But I haven't come across a better value.

I've bought cheap scopes from Walmart and thrown them on 10/22s that the kids use. No point in putting a high dollar scope on one. There's a good chance the rifle will topple over or be dropped.

At the end of the day buy what works for you. I honestly don't care what other people use or think about the scopes I use.

[NSB]

I'm a 3

[Wayne Smith]

Where do the OpticsPlanet devotees fit?

[tigweldit]

I plan on spending as much on a scope as I did on the firearm. Not including the extra for good rings and mount.

[dragon813gt]

Where do the OpticsPlanet devotees fit?

Are they the people that like to wait months for products that were shown as "in stock"? Or have they gotten their act together?

[hornady308]

Where do the OpticsPlanet devotees fit?

The four categories are really more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule. Optics Planet fans are sort of new age, and would be in a subcategory with those who like Vortex.

[Love Life]

Hmm. Depends on the application. Sometimes I’m a 2, sometimes a 3, and sometimes a 4.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dragon813gt]

Hmm. Depends on the application. Sometimes I’m a 2, sometimes a 3, and sometimes a 4.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you're a 9.

[kens]

Well described.
I have a good friend a solid Cat. 1, another friend is a solid Cat 3. Both of them are dead.
I'm a Cat 2, moving past Cat 3, and closing in on 4.

Have you seen the new line of scopes from Zeiss Terra?
The Terra line would come in Cat 3.5.

[Jim_P]

I guess I'm a 3.5. I own a Zeiss and a Vortex. I give a slight edge to the Vortex Viper PST over the Zeiss. The Zeiss is not a FFP, and the Vortex is. Both were in the same price category of under $1200. But above $800.

I hope to grow up an be able to afford a S&B...

[ShooterAZ]

So...what category are we to place Vortex optics? I bought my first one a several months ago, and am pretty darn impressed with the it...I know they offer different grades, but I bought one of their higher end models and would put it up against Leupold all day long. And for the record, all my other scopes are Leupold.

[kens]

I have a scope of each class Cat 1, Cat2 (K-4), and Cat4. I have no leupolds.
I find it easy to better a Cat1, and my Cat2 K4 is hard to beat.
I'm talking of low light resolution.
The K4 is better than Cat1 by a wide margin
But the Cat4 is better than the K4 by a narrow margin.

It is easy to make a scope that works good in broad daylight, but it takes higher quality glass to work in low light resolution.
In low light resolution, the quality of the glass trumps magnification power.

[Kestrel4k]

So...what category are we to place Vortex optics? I bought my first one a several months ago, and am pretty darn impressed with the it...I know they offer different grades, but I bought one of their higher end models and would put it up against Leupold all day long. And for the record, all my other scopes are Leupold.
I think the Vortex and Leupold folks should get their very own category @ 2.5. ;)

I use Lp on all my hunting centerfires, with Vortex on many of my 22LR's; with some crossover in between.

I own mostly Lp's, but understand that they are not at the top of the heap, optically.
You're paying for the excellent warranty & domestic manufacture instead of top-tier optical quality; I am fine with those trade-off's.

Interestingly enough, a similar thing could perhaps be said about Vortex - good optics and /excellent/ warranty for a very competitive price.
I do think that these two scope lines are attractive to the same sorts of folks.

[john.k]

There are the young guys with a $6000 scope on each rifle,and another 'old scope' also a $6000 in the gunbag.And they dont mention the scope,just tell you why youre wasting your time without whatever custom B/R gun they have 3 of on the bench. Cat 5.

[lefty o]

there is cat 1, and everyone else. im in 2-4.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

There are "sleepers" that most Cat 2-4 people think are in Cat 1, but should be in Cat 2
IMHO, Simmons Aetec, Bushnell TrophyIf they are stamped "made in China", then these aren't those sleepers and don't really belong in Cat 2.

What I'm speaking of, is basically it's the older Japanese made optics (1980s and 1990s)...they may have a familiar name or they may not...(and Yeah, I will include the Philippines made Simmons Aetec)

[runfiverun]

vortex owners are right in there at the Leupold level...#3
many of them will happily buy one or the other.
it just depends on which one fits the rifle and happens to co-incide with the amount of cash they have on hand at the moment.
if they got 400 its a 400$ scope if they got 800 it's an 800$ scope.

[35 shooter]

I've been a category3 most of life....love the leupy's. Last year however, i tried a bushnell banner 3x9 for $80.00 on my .308 mauser, and while it's as bright as the leupy, it's not quite as good in showing "fine detail". However, for general target shooting and hunting, i wouldn't spit twice for the difference in them. The click adjusts on the little bushnell track perfect, just like the leupy.

[therealhitman]

I currently identify as a Cat 2.5 (Yes I have some Vortex glass) but am planning on transitioning to a full 3 asap.

[fatelk]

I guess I’m a solid 2. I’ve never spent more than $200 on a scope and don’t believe I ever would. I don’t hunt though, or shoot long range or bench rest.

[M-Tecs]

The high end Jap scopes like Nightforce dominate a lot of the long range games.

[Kestrel4k]

I currently identify as a Cat 2.5 (Yes I have some Vortex glass) but am planning on transitioning to a full 3 asap.
That's funny because until recently I had nothing but Leupold, but a few years back I sold off two Lp AO's to buy /four/ Vortex AO's for some of my more accurate rimfire rifles. :)

[osteodoc08]

Thanks for the laugh for sure. At one point before I knew better I was a Cat 1, the. graduated to car 2 and 3. My last 3 scopes I bought was a Burris XTR, Bushnell 6500 and a trijicon rifle scope. The last 3 are superb scopes. I believe you get what you pay for and there is also the law of diminishing returns. You can get a really nice general purpose scope these days from $200-400 depending on specific features the buyer wants.

[DerekP Houston]

Stick me in cat 3. I have a few cheaper ones that I've gotten (Nikon free with purchase etc) but typically I just buy a leupold and call it done. I like to eyeball the nicer stuff every now and then but I can't justify the price to myself let alone my better half.

[waco]

I guess I'd be a 3.5
I can almost promise you if a 1 or 2 scope guy gets his hands on, and uses, a high end scope it would be hard to go back down to wally world stuff.
I does not have to be a $1500+ scope either.
The difference in quality from a $200 to $400 scope is a lot.
The difference between a $400 and $800 is even more.
Most all out of the box rifles today are VERY accurate. I will spend my money on higher end optics all day.
You never see too many people with a Sako and a Tasco on it.
I do see LOTS of Ruger Americans with optics that are well north of the cost of the rifle.

[dverna]

Some cannot justify the added investment. Some just cannot afford it.

I found it much easier to have good scopes as I pared down the number of rifles I owned.

If all you have ever eaten is Salisbury steak, spending $15/lb for fillet seems silly. I suspect the vast majority of Cat 1 and 2 folks have never shot with a higher end scope or shot long range or shot competitively.

[john.k]

the trouble with moving upmarket is you cant take an old hanky out of your pocket and clean the lenses of a $1500 scope,or you will soon have a $200 scope.

[Greg S]

I guess I'm in the 3-4 zone. Before I got back into smokeless guns I shot air rifles alot, 30-60+ shots per day. Looking through foggy/blurred glass sucks. I probably would have tried some cheaper scopes but went weremthe warrenties are at. Springers are known scope destroyers. The other problem is alot of the scope don't have parallex adjustmentmdown to 10-12m.

That said, I not a real fan boy of the Vortex glass, alittle foggy to me. I think leupold has better glass than night force. The place to check clarity on a rifle scope is not in tye box store but at dawn/dusk foggy fieldmconditions.

[M-Tecs]

Even on cheap scopes clarity is rarely an issue anymore. Tracking and repeatability is a major issue even on the high end stuff. Not an issue for the average hunter/shooter but competitors that are using the knobs all the time will have scope failures. Not a matter of if but when.

Cat. 5 really needs to be for shooter that truly need and understand how to use their high end scopes. Most of these shooters could care less who and where the scope is made as long as it tracks, repeats and holds zero 100% of the time.

[Petrol & Powder]

I would be a category 3 except that I've occasionally strayed to Nikon when my wallet couldn't take the abuse. I had a Nikon 2 x 7 for a long time because I couldn't afford the Leupold 1.75 x 6.

The category 1 scopes sell a lot of rifles because people put cheap scopes on rifles and then proclaim the rifle "won't shoot" when in reality the scope will not hold a zero.

Optics ARE one of those places where you get what you pay for. I agree there are diminishing returns and you probably don't need a $2500 European scope but I've never seen a low end scope that was "good enough".

Frankly if Swarovski, Zeiss or others could compete in price with Leupold (and sometimes they do !), I'd put them in Cat 3. Of course that would defeat the reason that some users mount those scopes on their rifles. :razz:

[Texas by God]

A scope needs clarity, repeatable, consistent adjustments and true as advertised magnification. I have found that in in your first three categories- and not. I've shot rifles with $1000 plus scopes and they are nice. I'm not a competitive shooter or a globe trotting hunter so I'll leave those alone. To trash someone's set up as inferior before you've seen it perform is just foolish. Guiding Antelope hunters is very revealing. The guys winning the equipment race are often not up to their gear. Just put me down as a 2 with good eyesight.

[GhostHawk]

I sit on the fence between 1 and 2. Which way I lean depends on the application.

I will never spend more for optics than I did for the gun.
1/3 to 1/4 of gun price is my target.

That means that I have Simmon's 4x12x40 scopes on my Handi rifles. And have some nice targets showing why.

New guns are almost all getting Truglo 2x Red Dot sights at around 60$.

Fast lineup and target acquisition, good for a variety of light levels. And the 2x helps bring those far targets closer in for old eyes.

But would I ever put a 500$ scope on a 350$ Hipoint Carbine? Hell no.
Same for 500$ Red Dot.

[MostlyLeverGuns]

Well, I have a bunch of rifles and a bunch of scopes. Simmons, Weaver, Burris, Nikon Monarch, Leupold's Vari-X VX II,III,2,3,3i; YA KNOW, Leupold, Burris, Weaver, Tasco, Bushnell have all failed various ways. Recoil or vibration from living in a truck on washboard roads. The lower cost scopes work well on low recoil and heavy rifles that don't see tough conditions. Leupold, Burris, Weaver(El Paso), Bushnell fixed their stuff when I sent it back. Really cheap ones aren't worth the return. Now I Usually buy LeupoldVX-3i, Burris Fullfield II, or Nikon Monarch. Leupold is usually lighter, a consideration for rifles you actually walk around carrying. With a couple rifles I use a heavy Burris Fullfield 4.5-14 X 42 (Amazon $230) for load development and 'off-season fun' and swap to a light 2.5 or 4x Fixed (only leupold has light fixed power) to hunt. I stll shoot Simmons and Bushnell quite a bit. A Weaver 4-16 gets moved from rifle to rifle during load development. That $20 Bushnell 4x32 may be one of toughest bargains around. I do put $450 scopes on $200 rifles if the use warrants (8 hour drive with a 4-horse then 6 hours horseback pack-in, no place for scope failure)

[dverna]

GhostHawk,

I read somewhere that our friends across the great pond spend a minimum of the cost of the rifle on the scope. They have a different perspective on the issue. I suspect that unlike Americans, they do not have as many guns in their possession and it is easier to justify a better scope.

For punching paper and light hunting, scope failure is not a show stopper. MostlyLeverGuns gives an example of why a better scope is justified for serious hunting. But it is not for everyone.

I have one really high end scope (Vortex Razor HD) on my sniper rifle. It is for SHTF, and if the gun rides in a Polaris over logging roads, or gets dropped, or I fall down a hill etc etc, it has a high likelihood of keeping its zero and tracking. If I ever need to use it, I may not be able to check the zero after an accident. One of the AR's wears an EoTech for the same reasons. If it good enough for the military, it should be good enough for when the SHTF.

All of my other optics are much less critical and are less than $400. Good enough is good enough. But I will probably never buy a $150 sight again. YMMV

[Soundguy]

I own categories 1 thru 4.

Not trying to start anything.. but 2 rifles I have that I've hunted with for ? 27 years.. have a tasco and a bushnell scope on them.. and they take meat and eat out the center of the target when plinking... the rifles are nothing special either.. a rem 700 30-06 with the bushy.. and a quite old mossberg with the tasco.

The name on the old tasco scope has pretty much worn off over the years.. and I'm glad.. because it always gets ribbed... even when I was the person walking out with full tags. It's like racism.. some people are just bigoted haters.. Could also be a 'small member' issue.. some people have to make up for poor skills by buying a very expensive optic to let them hit things.

I remember taking a handgun safety class back in 1990.. I have a cheap blocky 1911'ish clone.. striker gun, no hammer.. plastic grips.. painted finish.. I think it was a Haskel 45.. unmarked fixed sights.. probably a 150$ gun, retail.. heavy.. blocky.. ugly. Guy in the next lane had a custom 1911.. custom grips.. scroll work all over.. skeletonized hammer. adjustable sights.. all the goodies and bells and whistles. It cost a bundle and he was proud of it.

This was back when you had to pass the class, to 'pass' the class.. and you stayed untill you passed.

I left early, he was still shooting when i left. He had a great gun.. he just couldn't shoot... People forget that as long as your gear is functional.. most of the success/fault is on the user... people have a hard time taking personal responsibility these days.

If they missed.. it's because of a cheap scope..... that's how they justify it... just saying...

[Scorpion8]

I'm a 2, or more closely a 2.75. I scrounge old quality used scopes at yard sales and used rifle take-offs if they were from a quality period, but I also have a full complement of Burris and Vortex and Nikon scopes on my rifles.

[toallmy]

I suppose I'm low rent but I have good neighbors , I'm at most a low 2 probably a strong 1 . My last purchase was a Nikon but it was on sale for around 200. my scopes are in the 125. - 300. Range . I shoot with some buddies that keep trying to get me to up my glass but like I tell my wife , you shouldn't spend more on your pocketbooks than you have in it . As long as you can see and hit what your shooting at I say enjoy it .

[Soundguy]

Exactly.. Why fix what ain't broken!

[RogerDat]

I'm in the zero category, that would be folks that every time they think about getting a scope because open iron sights are getting harder to use with time (I think the metal gets fuzzy or something) They seek out the wisdom of experienced people and run into all the different groups who advocate more is better and ignore it's a sporterized Enfield going to punch some paper not going out on safari or float plane hunting trip to Alaska wilderness. So then I read the Amazon reviews, which are all over the place (same scope can be second coming and devil incarnate depending on who did the review) so with some vague "knowledge" I go to gun shows looking for deals that wouldn't be recognized amongst all of the underpriced and overpriced piles of scopes.

Eventually the zero group just goes ahead and buy a mold, set of dies, some gas checks and figure they will just aim for the middle of the fuzzy round thing at the far end of the range and see how it goes because it turns out actually being able to see the bulls eye clearly requires mucho money or is doomed to failure and if they spend even $5 too little they are just throwing the money away on equipment that will fail. If sex was this difficult we wouldn't make it to the second generation.

[Harter66]

I'm in an interesting place . If I take all of the guns I've ever owned and averaged what I paid for them I'd be a criminal ........ No I paid the asking price in most cases and I can't help it that the guy only wanted $125 for a 1903A3 or that I have $80 in 2 95' Mausers . I have 2 full customs 1 a wildcat and I won't disclose that actual dollar amount but my knowledge and skills were fairly compensated far in excess of my hourly rate .
Which brings me to an average spent value of $240-275 per .

If I can take the optic of my choice and run a 16 click up/right , 32 down , 32 up/left , 32 down , 16 up right shoot 5 rounds at each stop and have the last 5 print over the top of the first 5 round group as a hunter recreational shooter do I need more scope ?
Does the brand new scope do it ? Does the 30 yr old scope do it ?
Do I really need 240 MOA for a 110HL in 30-06' how about a 257 Roberts or a 358 Win . I have to wonder is the $100 glass going to make me or my $700 ARP barreled 6.8 AR with a 4.5# add on trigger that I'm not yet convinced is any better than the GI trigger set it replaced shoot better than the fine wire Weaver K4 @ $75 .

I have an FN98' with a Weaver V9 . The rifle and scope new were probably every penny of $300 ..........in 1975 .

Honestly side by side I don't see the $900 difference between a Ziess Conquest and a feature compared Vortex . The Vortex vs the what nearly 40 yo V9 yeah I can see a maked difference . But to be completely honest I can't see it from the 4 yo 2-7 EER Leatherwood and the 6x LER pistol Leopold . As scandalous as it may be the glass is probably better on the Leatherwood .

I know where I fit . But I also know that I don't have enough rifle to see the the difference between 2nd and 4th cycle after annealing neck tension .

[Soundguy]

I'm in the zero category, that would be folks that every time they think about getting a scope because open iron sights are getting harder to use with time (I think the metal gets fuzzy or something) They seek out the wisdom of experienced people and run into all the different groups who advocate more is better and ignore it's a sporterized Enfield going to punch some paper not going out on safari or float plane hunting trip to Alaska wilderness. So then I read the Amazon reviews, which are all over the place (same scope can be second coming and devil incarnate depending on who did the review) so with some vague "knowledge" I go to gun shows looking for deals that wouldn't be recognized amongst all of the underpriced and overpriced piles of scopes.

Eventually the zero group just goes ahead and buy a mold, set of dies, some gas checks and figure they will just aim for the middle of the fuzzy round thing at the far end of the range and see how it goes because it turns out actually being able to see the bulls eye clearly requires mucho money or is doomed to failure and if they spend even $5 too little they are just throwing the money away on equipment that will fail. If sex was this difficult we wouldn't make it to the second generation.

Many people forget practicality and think only the most expensive is best. They forget times when stamped and welded firearms won great wars and kept countries sovereign and pushed back invaders.... Or became the most prolific battle rifle ever.

[Hannibal]

If you ever spend months on end trying to sort out an accuracy issue or buy and sell 3 or 4 rifles before finally discovering that a 'category 1' or 'category 2' scope as defined in the OP was the cause of all the trouble, you might change you view on what constitutes a bargin.

You can ask me how I know, but let's just say it's a sore subject and leave it at that, eh?

[Scorpion8]

There's also the fact that some of my favorite scopes, the quality Redfield TV-View "Widefield" scopes aren't made in any fashion by anybody these days. I have them on several rifles, and my Marlin 336 35 Remington with one is the meat getter par-excellence!

[woodbutcher]

:drinks: One of the nicest scopes that I ever had the privelege to use was a Unertl on a Mod 70 that was issued to a friend on the NG rifle team in Fl where I grew up.That was a sweet scope.Only thing that I disliked about it was the super fine cross hairs.
Most of the scopes that I have used and owned were Weavers and Tasco and some of the other low to mid range price groups.This was back in the mid 60`s to late 70`s.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

[Uncle R.]

If you ever spend months on end trying to sort out an accuracy issue or buy and sell 3 or 4 rifles before finally discovering that a 'category 1' or 'category 2' scope as defined in the OP was the cause of all the trouble, you might change you view on what constitutes a bargin.

You can ask me how I know, but let's just say it's a sore subject and leave it at that, eh?

I've told the story here before - I got a super accurate slightly used 700 in 7 Rem Mag for a very good price. It came with a cheap Bushnell 3-9 scope and it shot 6 inch groups. I took off the Bushnell and put on a Nikon Monarch - now it shoots near ragged holes at 100 yards.

I've always figured the previous owner of that Remington gave up in disgust and traded it off because he couldn't make it shoot.
Thanks, Bushnell. You got me a bargain on a fine rifle.
Your scopes? You can keep those...
:bigsmyl2:

Uncle R.

[Soundguy]

If you ever spend months on end trying to sort out an accuracy issue or buy and sell 3 or 4 rifles before finally discovering that a 'category 1' or 'category 2' scope as defined in the OP was the cause of all the trouble, you might change you view on what constitutes a bargin.

You can ask me how I know, but let's just say it's a sore subject and leave it at that, eh?

Hmm.. Sounds lil selling a vehicle that rides bad over and over, but using the same tires.... ..

[tazman]

I've told the story here before - I got a super accurate slightly used 700 in 7 Rem Mag for a very good price. It came with a cheap Bushnell 3-9 scope and it shot 6 inch groups. I took off the Bushnell and put on a Nikon Monarch - now it shoots near ragged holes at 100 yards.

I've always figured the previous owner of that Remington gave up in disgust and traded it off because he couldn't make it shoot.
Thanks, Bushnell. You got me a bargain on a fine rifle.
Your scopes? You can keep those...
:bigsmyl2:

Uncle R.

I have a Savage heavy barrel 30-06 like that. The scope seemed fine but it wasn't. New scope and better groups.

[Hannibal]

Hmm.. Sounds lil selling a vehicle that rides bad over and over, but using the same tires.... ..

It's funny how you can be SO SURE something is OK, until it isn't.
No, not funny at all.

But you can't convince the 'budget conscience'. It's a lesson they can only give themselves. I know. I used to be one.

[lefty o]

ive had budget scopes fail on me. not worth the frustration and wasted ammunition dealing with them. budget scopes work fine for many people, and thats ok, but spend a day on a dog town or try to reach out and touch something in the heat of the day with serious mirage, then the better glass pays huge dividends. a high performance rifle with budget glass on it is like buying a ferarri and putting the cheapest on sale tires on it, and expecting it to still corner!

[Soundguy]

It's funny how you can be SO SURE something is OK, until it isn't.
No, not funny at all.

But you can't convince the 'budget conscience'. It's a lesson they can only give themselves. I know. I used to be one.


Anything mechanical can fail. I'm an engineer, I deal with this daily.

Low cost does not guarantee low performance.

High cost does not guarantee high performance.

Even high cost, high Q/C items can experience early failure.

[Hannibal]

I 'got away' with a lot of things in years past. Then I started shooting more. A LOT more. And shooting 10 shot groups. And keeping targets and records. And measuring things.

Truth is, not so long ago, I'd have been ecstatic about groups that send me back to the shop mumbling under my breath now. And so, 'bargins' are slim to none to be had now.

MY experience has been that I can't afford 'bargins'.

[Soundguy]

Hmm.. 10 shot groups? I'm not very familiar with that.. I'm familiar with the 1 shot group then the animal drops... Weird huh?

[Hannibal]

Hmm.. 10 shot groups? I'm not very familiar with that.. I'm familiar with the 1 shot group then the animal drops... Weird huh?

Whatever works for you. I don't hunt any more. Lost my access and have no desire to try public access. So I spend my time trying to see how close together I can get the bullets to land.

Weird, huh?

[RogerDat]

I was recently looking at shotgun slug scopes, found a review, price ranged from Simmons to Nikon or $50 to $190 with Bushnell and Monstrum in the middle. http://www.reloaderaddict.com/best-slug-gun-scope-shotgun-optic-review/

Now I'm sure there are better scopes for slug guns, and the review did point out you got more in the Nikon for the added price. That said I would probably be happy with any of them for my uses. Even the $50 Simmons fixed magnification. Yes one can find that equipment is the problem, if one has a problem that is. In which case on tries something else. I get the folks that are dedicated to pushing to do better, shoot more accurately, more consistently. For the hobby shooter the task is trying to find "not junk" without paying for a high end piece of equipment that won't be used to it's potential.

We need all the help we can get toward making a good choice for our budget, not someone else's budget or standards. So I sit at zero for now but I have a couple of candidates for scopes and we shall see. I'm probably not going to buy it at Walmart. Especially since Amazon and several stores deliver :-)

[Soundguy]

Whatever works for you. I don't hunt any more. Lost my access and have no desire to try public access. So I spend my time trying to see how close together I can get the bullets to land.

Weird, huh?

I shoot paper often, my favorite is shooting flies that land on the target, or shooting swinging 3" diameter targets. My 218Bee is known as "The Terminator" among the local fly and balloon populations. It's scope is probably a 1.5, and is ? 53 us old.. So I'm waiting for it to break any moment now I guess?

[Hannibal]

Who knows? I expect the flies hope so.

Paper does not care. There is no near miss. Or blood trail to track. Or carcass to recover. Or trophy for the taxidermy man. Just a series of holes.

[toallmy]

I have had a few adventures with cheap glass , I purchased a win model 70 used in my youth that had a 2 piece over under mount on it that would slowly work apart from recoil ,this explains why it was for sale - after having the mount screwed together it became and still is a shooter , I also picked up a rem 700 in 300 win mag from a fellow that couldn't hit a paper plate at 100 yards with a K Mart broken scope mounted on it . I have rattled some glass apart in my lifetime -slug guns , inline muzzleloader , and magnums will show you a weak scope .

[Petrol & Powder]

I don't believe that spending more is always the path to obtaining higher quality - except in the field of optics.

I've NEVER encountered a cheap scope that was the same quality as an expensive scope. That does NOT mean I purchase $2500 Zeiss scopes but it does mean I avoid $39.99 scopes.

Quality optics are not inexpensive to manufacture. Good quality glass, precision grinding, lens coatings, durable reticles, high quality tubes, truly weatherproof construction, precision machining, etc.- All of that stuff costs money.
The manufacturer can drive the price point down but not without cutting corners somewhere.

I've never once held a cheap scope side by side with an expensive scope of the same magnification and seen an equally clear image in both scopes.
I've seen a few cheap scopes that held a zero but I've seen far more that would not hold a zero.
I've never seen an undamaged Leupold with water inside, can't say the same for Tasco or even Weaver.

You can take a chance on a cheap scope and if you don't mind the lower optical quality, maybe it will hold a zero and not leak.
OR, you can cry once, spend more money up front and never have to fool with it again.

There are plenty of times in life that spending more money just means you spent more money. Purchasing optics isn't one of those times.

[Jim_P]

My first scope was a bushnell. Sub $100. It wasn't water tight and got water in it and popped a lens. Bought another, money was tight, but it had Parkinson's and wouldn't hold zero. Moved to a Nikon Monarch and while not as bad as the 2nd bushnell on the 7mm Rem Mag it was mounted, it would string shots over about 2" in 10 rounds. Good enough for hunting. I replaced it with a Zeiss when the model discontinued and prices were good. It's clear as a bell, holds zero from month to month. On my .308 I mounted a Vortex Viper FFP. Same as the Zeiss. Completely reliable, clear as my eyes are, and hold it's setting even through the variable optical range.

It's why I say I'm a 3.5. But I think Vortex should be in the 4 category anyway...

[Soundguy]

P&P, I completely understand. If I had to pay 2500$ for glass to be able to hit a target, I'd vehemently defend that action as well.

If I was rough on my gear to the point stuff was able to break frequently due to handling, then I believe I also would pay thru the nose for 'idiot proof' grmear.

All a matter of perspective I guess.

[Kestrel4k]

About purchasing quality, a wise person once said:

You don't always get what you pay for; but on the other hand, you never get what you don't pay for. :)

[Rattlesnake Charlie]

About purchasing quality, a wise person once said:

You don't always get what you pay for; but on the other hand, you never get what you don't pay for. :)

That is quite an interesting saying.

[Soundguy]

I think its probably more correct to say that the chance to get a certain quality desired decreases and increases with price, however.. The word chance does not imply or negate a range of results. IE, you can find a good performance lower cost device, though it may be rare or uncommon vs finding that same quality using a higher budget device. Its also possible to find defective/doa high price devices. I routinely see this with electronic devices. Knowing what to look for helps, and luck does come into play.

Next up is skill of the user. In my line of business, there is an electronic device I prefer to use. Its considered almost antiquated.. Cost is about 800-1000$. Many I work with use a version in the 3400-4400$ range. I have never not been able to turn out at least the same quality work as my peers, and routinely turn out significantly higher quality.

A tool is only as good as the one who wields it. Sure, a little bit of chrome gives a slight edge..but uts seldom* the make or break point.

[Soundguy]

That is quite an interesting saying.

Its cute, but statistically false unfortunately. Most blanket absolute statements usually are. The notion of 'never' is a tough row to hoe, there are almost always exceptions, even if rare and remote.

[dverna]

I'm in the zero category, that would be folks that every time they think about getting a scope because open iron sights are getting harder to use with time (I think the metal gets fuzzy or something) They seek out the wisdom of experienced people and run into all the different groups who advocate more is better and ignore it's a sporterized Enfield going to punch some paper not going out on safari or float plane hunting trip to Alaska wilderness. So then I read the Amazon reviews, which are all over the place (same scope can be second coming and devil incarnate depending on who did the review) so with some vague "knowledge" I go to gun shows looking for deals that wouldn't be recognized amongst all of the underpriced and overpriced piles of scopes.

Eventually the zero group just goes ahead and buy a mold, set of dies, some gas checks and figure they will just aim for the middle of the fuzzy round thing at the far end of the range and see how it goes because it turns out actually being able to see the bulls eye clearly requires mucho money or is doomed to failure and if they spend even $5 too little they are just throwing the money away on equipment that will fail. If sex was this difficult we wouldn't make it to the second generation.


Here is a scope I recommend to Preppers who are on a budget and trying to scope a sniper rifle for SHTF:

https://www.amazon.com/SWFA-SS-10x42-Tactical-Riflescope/dp/B00ZGM7C80/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510856906&sr=8-1&keywords=swfa+ss+10x42

It is very highly rated (only one Amazon review under 3, out of 55 reviews) and it is built tough. It comes with a lifetime guarantee. It is not cheap but not expensive either at $300 shipped. If you dealing with fuzzy iron sights like our friend RogerDat it is worth looking into. And if all you are doing is punching paper or shooting varmints, having a fixed power scope is not much of a disadvantage.

[Uncle R.]

I think Colonel Cooper was right when he said that all scopes fail eventually.
I've had multiple scope failures over the years.

A couple of them were "good" scopes that I figured should not have failed.
One was a Colorado Redfield variable - my very first scope that I bought new many years ago when I was 14. That scope lasted maybe ten years. I missed a chance at a buck on a rainy day when I threw the rifle to my shoulder and the scope had water inside.

That would have been the best buck of my hunting career at that point in my life. To say I was unhappy about that scope failing me would be quite an understatement.

The other "good" scope that failed me was a Leupold - and not a budget model. It was a Vari-X 3 from back when they were Leupold's best. That scope did pretty well - it lasted through roughly 20 years of hard hunting and many, many rounds fired. It finally started going out of focus when I'd change the magnification.

All of the rest - and there have been many that failed - were cheap scopes. Bushnell, Tasco, Simmons - all what I call "undersea" scopes. As in "cost less than a C-note" scopes.

I have several Nikon Monarch scopes, and many of them have been hunted with for years. No failures. I have several Weaver Classic Vs - which I consider a "medium quality" scope - and some of them have seen a lot of use too. No failures.

I have a couple of Burris scopes that are well over 20 years old and have seen much use. No failures.

I've long since stopped buying "undersea" scopes for my own use.
If you think a $59.99 scope is just as good as a high-grade Leupold or Nikon, I won't argue. Arguing with that opinion would be pointless. If you acknowledge that the cheap scope may fall short in quality, but insist that it's good enough for your use, I won't argue. Nobody knows your requirements better than you.

As for me - I've long since stopped buying cheap scopes for my own use. Going up to the $169 - $200 range can get you a scope that's head and shoulders above the "bargains." Someday I might be shooting at something I really want to hit, and I might be glad I bought a decent scope.

My humble opinion.
Uncle R.

[RogerDat]

I think in other areas my experiences support Uncle R's where just a notch or so above cheap can reside some good quality at an attractive price. His $169 - $200 range for scopes is a lot like other purchases. Tools, camping gear, camera gear. Someplace in good, better, best generally has a sweet spot. Typically someplace in the better segment. Can be toward the lower end, or the upper end of that mid price point but often there are rapidly diminishing returns on price as you go up.

There is a site where it was suggested I could look at sorted and filtered list of scopes and aim for a certain price point, does anyone know about that site? As I said budget dictates a lot in my world and my needs are modest but often I have found a "bargain" model of a solid brand can be a good choice. So a budget Nikon might be found tucked into the high end of the less respected brands.

[kens]

Oh yeah, you mentioned Burris, what class do you guys put Burris in?

[Rcmaveric]

..... once again I am still the black sheep. I buy what I can afford that wont kill my bank and will last in the $60-120 range. Usually involves over $200 dollars because I have to have enough for the wife to get a petti to keep her quiet.

Good laugh though. Those guys at the range talk about the 400 plus dollar scopes and match ammo. I get a little envious but then I check their target and they cant out shoot me. Cures me right up with satisfaction.

[Petrol & Powder]

P&P, I completely understand. If I had to pay 2500$ for glass to be able to hit a target, I'd vehemently defend that action as well.

If I was rough on my gear to the point stuff was able to break frequently due to handling, then I believe I also would pay thru the nose for 'idiot proof' grmear.

All a matter of perspective I guess.

I didn't say I paid $2500 for a scope. Please go back and read what I wrote.

I'll make it easy, here's the quote from my prior post:
".........I've NEVER encountered a cheap scope that was the same quality as an expensive scope. That does NOT mean I purchase $2500 Zeiss scopes but it does mean I avoid $39.99 scopes."
Notice the word highlighted in red.

I've never seen a good cheap scope. That doesn't mean you have to buy the most expensive thing on the market but it does mean that the $39.99 special is probably not going to cut it.

[Uncle R.]

Oh yeah, you mentioned Burris, what class do you guys put Burris in?

Hi Ken.
In my limited experience with Burris scopes they have proven to be reliable, with predicable adjustments. All were optically excellent. I consider the Burris Fullfield to be one of the "sweet spot" scopes that Rogerdat mentioned, where $179 gets you a scope that will serve long and well.

I have read somewhere that the newer Burris scopes have tubes made of rather soft aluminum and are more prone to distort from ring pressure. I haven't seen it myself and can't say it's true - it's quite possibly just internet blather. If you choose a Burris you might want to use their Zee rings to prevent tube damage. They're excellent rings anyway, there's no loss in using them.

One of the difficulties in choosing a scope is that the marketplace changes constantly, and what was true of a certain brand or model yesterday may not be so today. Still, so far as I know, I'd rate the Burris Fullfield scopes a good value for the money. I'd hunt with them with no concern.

Uncle R.

[Omega]

..... once again I am still the black sheep. I buy what I can afford that wont kill my bank and will last in the $60-120 range. Usually involves over $200 dollars because I have to have enough for the wife to get a petti to keep her quiet.

Good laugh though. Those guys at the range talk about the 400 plus dollar scopes and match ammo. I get a little envious but then I check their target and they cant out shoot me. Cures me right up with satisfaction.I'm with you, I've had a couple of "cheap" scopes fail, one I bought at Rose's department store back in the mid 80s for around $40, a Redfield I think, but maybe a Simmons, it had an internal lens that broke loose. Another, a Russian scope which I could not get to hold zero, which I still feel is the mount not the scope. All the others have served their purpose. I took the Redfield back and got a Bushnell, for around the same ballpark price. It sat on my .270 Mdl 70 for over 20 years and was still doing it's job up to when I lost the rifle. I have scopes that run the gamut of price, with most well under the $300 mark. The most expensive I got in trade with the rifle, a Vortex, and it is more scope than I use. I am one of those people that once I zero my scope at the range I want, usually 100 Yds, I leave it alone. I use Kentucky Windage and Hold-Over instead of trying to dial in a range with the scopes adjustable turrets. I just hunt, and I have a 6-8" target (Deer) to deal with and I have hit it most every time. Now, I have bad eyes, even with contacts an expensive clear lens is lost on me, so the thing I concentrate on is to make sure it gathers enough light, doesn't have bad reviews and has a reticle I can use, I kinda like my mil-dots and others with range compensating scales in them.

[Harter66]

If you want to know what my real dig is with scope cost , I'll tell you .

It is that a fixed power , 2 knob , duplex retical , scope is virtually missing from the market and it costs as much as the 4 turret super do all . There are like 3 makers of true EER Scout Scopes 1 falls into the #2 class but the others are $400 + . Buyig a pistol scope is no better when the desire is for a scout application .

I understand about buy once . It's just crushing to have to spend $400 on a fixed 4 or 6 to put on a $300 Savage that will likely never be shot past 400 for man steel and 200 for game . It caused me moral grief to have a low ball offer excepted on a K4 ..........it was worse when I opened the box and found a brand new scope inside ..........I've never seen one with all the brass black in tact .

I asked a maker about a fixed power and was directed to the appropriate line . That's why I have what I have . Pig in a poke sure but I think I'd rather buy 3 at a time and get 2 good ones than wonder if the optics are really $200 better than the rifle .

[Uncle R.]

If you want to know what my real dig is with scope cost , I'll tell you .

It is that a fixed power , 2 knob , duplex retical , scope is virtually missing from the market and it costs as much as the 4 turret super do all . There are like 3 makers of true EER Scout Scopes 1 falls into the #2 class but the others are $400 + . Buyig a pistol scope is no better when the desire is for a scout application .

I understand about buy once . It's just crushing to have to spend $400 on a fixed 4 or 6 to put on a $300 Savage that will likely never be shot past 400 for man steel and 200 for game . It caused me moral grief to have a low ball offer excepted on a K4 ..........it was worse when I opened the box and found a brand new scope inside ..........I've never seen one with all the brass black in tact .

I asked a maker about a fixed power and was directed to the appropriate line . That's why I have what I have . Pig in a poke sure but I think I'd rather buy 3 at a time and get 2 good ones than wonder if the optics are really $200 better than the rifle .

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.

[W.R.Buchanan]

I buy whatever suits the intended purpose of the gun I am outfitting. I have 6 Bushnell TRS 25's and have them on all my Carbines and a 10-22 as well. They are excellent for the money, and since these are not life or death guns they suit the purpose just fine. It would be pointless for me to put $600 Aimpoints on these guns, unless I was being shot at, and then would only do it if they were given to me. I paid between $70 and $90 for each of these, and in 10 years none of them have faltered in any way or changed zero. Battery life is not as good as the Aimpoint but batteries are cheap.

The most expensive Optic I own is a 3-9x Leupold VX-R which is on my Scout Rifle. It cost me $600 and is really nice. I have a Leupold 1-5 VX3 which is on my Ruger Guide Gun. It was lightly used and I paid $300 for it. I have a Leupold VX1 on my R1 Pellet gun which is about the most brutal Spring Power Air Gun there is and it survives well. These are excellent scopes.

I also have a Burris Airgun Scope on another Gun and it is 30+ years old and has been sighted in exactly one time and is still right there. it was about $150 new I think,, Don't really remember.

I am buying a 24" upper assembly for my SCR Rifle soon. it is for long distance shooting. I bought a Millet 1-6 variable for that gun a few months ago when Midway had them on sale for $170. I was blown away at the quality of the optics in that scope !!! and normally they are $350, so I got a deal.

My whole point here is that each scope was chosen for it's suitability for the gun it was to be mounted on.

Another tid bit. I know how to evaluate optics which I learned along time ago playing with Astronomical Telescopes.

Here's some tips:

Look thru the optic and check to see if the image is clear all the way to the edges of the images.

With it focused on an object that is near. Check the edges of the image for distortion. Use an object that has an easily defined vertical strait edge. if the edge is not strait all the way to the edge of the image when looking thru the glass it is a ***. IE: the image is distorted. Do the same thing focused on an object that is far away. Same thing, if the line is not strait it is distorted.

Glass and coatings have come along way over the last 30 years. I have had a set of Steiner 8x30's for a long time. I just bought a new set of Vortex 10x42's last week. I took both sets to the lake for a comparison.

Both Binos are clear all the way to the edges of the lenses. however the new Vortex's are a significant amount brighter than the Steiner's. This is for two reasons. 30MM objective lenses versus 42MM objectives, obviously bigger lets in more light, and 30 years difference in ages of the glass used and coatings applied.

The newer stuff utilizes more advanced coatings and glass. This technology is trickling down to cheaper optics, and this is why Bushnell and other inexpensive optics can compete very well with more expensive brands.

Hope this helps you figure out what to buy.

Randy

[Soundguy]

I didn't say I paid $2500 for a scope. Please go back and read what I wrote.

I'll make it easy, here's the quote from my prior post:
".........I've NEVER encountered a cheap scope that was the same quality as an expensive scope. That does NOT mean I purchase $2500 Zeiss scopes but it does mean I avoid $39.99 scopes."
Notice the word highlighted in red.

I've never seen a good cheap scope. That doesn't mean you have to buy the most expensive thing on the market but it does mean that the $39.99 special is probably not going to cut it.

I didn't say you bought one, please re-read MY post. I said If "I" bought one...

[waco]

Cheap optics do not compare to higher end optics. PERIOD. You may like them just fine. You may shoot and kill with them just fine.
This does not change the fact they are inferior to a higher end scope.
You can not do the things I can do at 1000-1800 yards with a $150 scope. I promise you that.
At 50-200 yards? Sure okay.
High end glass has a place. It's not for everyone. Lots of people have no NEED for it. I get that.
I DO have a need for it.
To each his own. I'm not real sure why this thread seemed to turn into a pissing contest.
Some of us have different needs than others.

[Soundguy]

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.

[brstevns]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Soundguy]

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.

Ahh.. A meat hunter, nothing else matters. Might as well walk out in a pasture and shoot cows, cheaper, easier, faster, and you get your 100% prime concern.. Meat...

I tend to think that, assuming there are animals in the area you are hunting, that a better stalker won't need to look 500yds away, his skills allow him to read game signs, and find something you can see with the naked eye. At 500 yes you could be listening to music and making a phone call ;)

I clearly prefer up close hunting I guess.. The state I hunt in simply offeres no public hunting that has much more than a few dozen yards of flat open spaces.. Might find a few Acer plots of man height scrub areas, but its broken up without too many shooting lanes.

[Soundguy]

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.

Yep.. Most 1/1.5 scopes exceede economy levergun capabilities.

[MyFlatline]

Yep.. Most 1/1.5 scopes exceede economy levergun capabilities.
True, but I prefer the 3 9 variable, just me... All my centerfires are either Marlin or Henry levers and all get used hard. That makes a big difference in scope choice.

[Soundguy]

Agreed, application is king.

[Texas by God]

This thread has me wanting to test all four categories of scopes with a rubber mallet. I have samples of #1,2,&3. Will someone volunteer a #4 please?

[MyFlatline]

This thread has me wanting to test all four categories of scopes with a rubber mallet. I have samples of #1,2,&3. Will someone volunteer a #4 please?

LMAO,,that's there is funny

[FergusonTO35]

Yep.. Most 1/1.5 scopes exceede economy levergun capabilities.

Don't be so sure of that! My $200.00 Marlin Glenfield 30 is an honest MOA rifle, in fact I am saving to put a Leupold VX-3 on it. Yes, a scope that costs twice as much as the rifle did.

[lefty o]

This thread has me wanting to test all four categories of scopes with a rubber mallet. I have samples of #1,2,&3. Will someone volunteer a #4 please?

you should find nightforces video on youtube, they take a dialed in scope off a rifle beat it repeatedly on a table, throw it, beat it some more, re mount it and shoot groups. entertaining.

[Lloyd Smale]

have you looked lately at the price of beef?? I shoot probably an average of 30 deer a year doing crop damage shooting on a farm. Id say its a bit cheaper then paying the farmer for one of his cows. Ever shot a deer at 500 yards? Do you you even understand that it actually takes some (lots) of skill. I guess you can throw some bait out at 50 yards and shoot one with your 3006. Another thing is I'm not a young man anymore and walking and stalking through the woods isn't easy anymore. Many times its downright impossible. So should I quit hunting because I cant hunt or don't want to hunt like you? Ive been deer hunting for over 50 years now. Ive killed them about any way they can be killed. Ive shot them where they looked small in a 12x scope and ive shot them so close I could have thrown a rock and hit them. Another thing we run into up here is LOTS of hunters. Personaly I get a bit nervous walking through the woods during the first week of deer season. If everyone did it youd be bumping into other hunters every 1/2 hour. theres no way id send my 13 year old grandson into the woods to wander around on opening day. that's why most of the hunting up here anymore is blind hunting. Its about the only safe way in many places. Hunt them any way you like. But don't try to convince me it takes some exceptional skills to sneak up on a deer. Ive probably shot 50 or more doing it myself and I'm not grizzly adams or danial boone.

If you live in an area that doesn't allow for long shots of course your not going to take the time to master 500 yard shooting and you have no business doing it. When I hunt normal deer season up here just like you theres no place even near camp that a guy is going to shoot even 300 yards. Most deer up here are shot well under a 100. But not everyone hunts where you do. Not everyone hunts like you do. Hunt the way that you enjoy and so will I. I dont judge anyones hunting techniques as long as they are doing it legally. I dont judge anyones long range shooting skills that ive never even met in person let along hunted with. If sneeking up on a nice 8 pointer makes you feel superior somehow to someone who shoots the same deer of a good rest at 500 yards then you should do it how it makes you happy.

Me, ive got two freezers full of venison that will feed my family for the year that cost me a fraction of what it would to feed my family beef and had some fun going out and doing it. Win Win to me. Just had my back operated on AGAIN and its lucky I did shoot some of those "unethical" deer because I never even made it into the woods during regular deer season. Spent opening morning for the first time in my life sitting at home in front of the tv. My father whos 84 shot his first deer out of a deer blind opening day. Hes one that allways walked. Its how he wanted to hunt but he finally had to face the fact that he just couldn't do it anymore. Do you feel he should have just quit hunting? Probably his last year hunting and he got just as much of a kick out of shooting that 4 pointer as he ever did shooting any buck walking probably because he knew it would be his last. Nope I dont judge. Theres just to many variables involved.

To me I had a successful year. Ive got meat and dont eat horns and theres no more room at camp to even put more on the wall so personaly id rather a nice fat 150 lb doe then another 8 point rack to add to the umpteen that are already on the wall at camp. Ill leave the bucks to they young generation at camp that still get a thrill out of horns. Doesn't do much for me. Personaly if I'm wonder off in the woods where I know my shots are going to be 50 yards or less I leave the rifles at camp and take a good open sighted revolver. But ive even done that enough that its a been there done that thing to me.

[Mr_Sheesh]

I'm in the "Can't do any more damage to my knees" boat; Pretty much have to blind hunt, at longer distances if that's where a deer presents itself. Long way to walk to retrieve that deer, then, though. (Supposed to be able to find another hunter to help retrieve the game - Good luck with that though, none HERE yet.) Us hunters' situations and circumstances are SO varied that I learned long ago not to pre-judge things, it just doesn't work well. (Varmint hunter so I'm not too worried about longer distances - But closer IS good when you can, less problems and risk of problems.)

[Lloyd Smale]

had to chuckle. this year doing crop damage shooting with my partner(that has pain patches on 24/7 for his back) I shot a good sized doe at the edge of the field. It dropped in its tracks and I went to the truck to go and get it and as I was driving over it got back up and ran into the woods. No blood trail and in some real thick brush. I went in after it and waded around in pain looking for about an hour. Finally found it only about a 100 yards from the edge of the field. I bent down to gut it and pain just swept over me. I forced myself to finish and by that time the partner had walked over to help. Like I said he isn't much better them me so I insisted on trying to help him drag the doe out. I made about 10 steps and went to my knees and couldn't even walk. he had to finish dragging that deer out and then he had to come back and about carry me out of the woods. the next day neither of us could get off the couch. Ive got a deer cart to haul deer out of the woods but it was at camp. I called my dad and asked him if he could go and get it for me. Its a 40 mile round trip from his house to camp and another 90 mile round trip to my house for him but he knew the shape I was in so he did it. I will never go back out again without that cart. Sometimes its just to thick to use it but for 90 percent of the time its a NECISSITY.

Ive got no arugement that closer is better. I try to set up in crop damage about 200 yards from where most of the deer come out. But they dont allways do things my way. Ive done this for 7 years now and have shot together well over 400 deer in those years. In all that time ive lost exactly one deer and my partner two that weren't recovered but one of those he wasn't sure that he even hit it. Theres one part of deer hunting skills that I do put a lot of store in and that's retrieving hit deer. Weve spent the whole night out looking for one doe when we already had two in the truck. What you do after the shot is more important then how you shoot them. Knowing your limits and your abilitys means a lot too.

For example my partner who would be the first to admit isn't as good of a shot as I am puts a 300 yard limit on his shooting. Hes taken a couple out to 350 but for the most part doesn't trust himself any further. Me I wont pull the trigger unless I have the crosshairs dead steady where I want the bullet to go. I never rush a shot, something that like I said before has caused many to miss at even 50 yards. yes things can happen but I like to think that I'm far from a long range slob hunter. I practice every summer. I take the actual guns and loads out that I'm going to use and shoot them at a 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 and even 600 yards to see where the bullet really hits and tape cheat sheats to my stocks. I use a range finder on any deer that I think is 300 yards or more out. I use accurate loads, flat shooting rifles in calibers that are up to what I'm doing. I dont pull out my old semi auto 06 rem and a box of corelocks slap on a tasco scope sight it in a 100 yards and go hunting. I take it very serious.

Were talking an animal suffering if I goof up. That means something to me. I even got mad at the brother in law out in montana one year when we were out ground hog shooting. He had out his heavy barreled AR and hit one at about 350 yards and blew part of its body away and the rest was crawling to the hole and he shot at it two more times laughing all the time. I told him that he was very wrong doing that. even they are living creatures and deserve some respect when you shoot them. Someone once told me I was a hypocrite for claiming to care but then turning around and killing 52 deer that year. I told him that those 52 deer were harvested as cleanly and quickly as possible. Its either me that's going to do it or the farmer is going to have someone else do it that doesn't really care. My partners brother for example. he was the first one of us that was a shooter out there and got us in on it. He would shoot deer and if they ran out of the field he just let them go and didn't even try to recover them. The farmer didn't care. All he cared about was the deer were dead and out of the field so the potatoes pickers didn't grind them up into a mess. For the most part the farm owners sons were the same. They grew up around so much deer and deer damage to there income that they could care less about deer.

In fact in many states a farmer can shoot deer or have someone else do it and there legaly not allowed to take the meat home. Now that is sad. But to lump me in as a slob hunter because I'm capable of humanely taking deer at longer distances then you is kind of sad too. Go out and put a couple thousand rounds down range every summer practicing and you to might find out you dont need to get 25 yards away from a deer to kill it cleanly. I hope you see MR sheesh this post wasn't aimed at you in any way. Just some rambling from an old man that likes to eat venision. CHEAP venison. I can eat venison tenderloin on the grill tonight for a lot less the you can some nasty store bought hamburger. I consider myself lucky to be able to. We got off subject here a bit and I apologize. back on subject a good 200-500 dollar scope has never left me wanting more in all these years. If someone gave me a grand to buy a scope tomarrow id buy a 500 dollar scope (probably wouldn't spend that much if it weren't given to me) and save the other 500 bucks for gas to go and fill my freezer for the two months we do this and have enough left over to cover the bullets and powder.
I'm in the "Can't do any more damage to my knees" boat; Pretty much have to blind hunt, at longer distances if that's where a deer presents itself. Long way to walk to retrieve that deer, then, though. (Supposed to be able to find another hunter to help retrieve the game - Good luck with that though, none HERE yet.) Us hunters' situations and circumstances are SO varied that I learned long ago not to pre-judge things, it just doesn't work well. (Varmint hunter so I'm not too worried about longer distances - But closer IS good when you can, less problems and risk of problems.)

[barrabruce]

I learn't long ago that I can only shoot what I can see.
I'm a happy 2-3 person.
If I could be a 4-5 person just because I could I dunno

Iv'e never really had that many guns over the years but i never needed too many either.

I'd rather keep my few that are still up to the task than have many.
Mine are hunting guns a utilitarian work tool.
I use them but not abuse them.
Nothing fancy.

I had reasonable scopes on most over the years.
Good at dawn and dusk and keep their zero as well as good definition and clarity.
I have bought old good glass used in good nick that; many have said one could buy something new for cheaper ....but they never let me down and always held zero.
Wish I still had some of them.

I have seen too many times to believe myself that people won't hesitate to pay $1.5 - 2k on a gun and then buy the cheapest scope and ammo for fodder.
Mostly the gun wont shoot the cheap ammo well.
They end up replacing the scope in 6 mths or a year with another cheap scope after it rattles to bits or fogs up.
Sure..something like a 22lr may hold up alright but not much else if at all.
After a couple of years they have spent more money and time cursing and wondering why this gun and scope plays up.
Still have useless glass at the cost of something up to the task.
And it goes on.

I would rather one good scope with top quality detachable mounts to swap between rifles when needed ,than a few cheap and nasties in pot metal rings any day.
You can swap ,dial in the setting for that rifle and shoot with confidence to a decent range.
Maybe just a click or two out here and there sometimes.
A couple of sighter's and away you go.

If you find twiddling a couple of knobs is to hard and scary and you think you may wreck or upset something then surely you should have a play with a real scope for a change.

I like a really good 1.5-4.5x scope for an all rounder walking around gun.
Never felt underpowered and knew no better for years..Shot everything at reasonable ranges.
A fixed 6x or 8x is great with set triggers for glassing and shooting but useless when you kick up something from your feet.

[FergusonTO35]

I would really like to become a good still hunter. I've only taken one deer this way and it was quite a thrill. I can get pretty close to them, but they always see or smell me before I catch them. Yesterday I was hunting at my sister's place in Mercer County. I was sneaking through the woods and heard something big trotting through the brush about 75 yards away. This stuff was thick, I could hear just fine but couldn't see a darn thing. A huge doe (one of the biggest I've ever seen in the wild) suddenly bolted out of the woods and ran across a field out of sight. I'm thinking a hunter on the neighbor's place next door may have spooked her as that is the direction she came from.

[hornady308]

While 2-7x scopes make more sense for me, I have more 3-9x's than anything else because they are almost always the best deal. By the way, what is an "economy levergun"? A $500 Rossi or a $700 Henry?

[Mr_Sheesh]

I grew up long range bolt gun shooting; I'm setting up to go get back in practice picking on Rockchucks and if lucky the occasional Coyote. Not much luck on deer lately, I need to find property owners who want their varmints killed and would not mind a deer being harvested as well. Practice makes us better at shooting, definitely! I don't mess with the elevation / windage knobs, I just use my brain to solve the aim point, do change zoom on some shots tho, that helps me shoot better sometimes. I have a definite mix of scopes, trying a Vortex out and some VX2's added recently, Weaver K4 on the old Rem 722, VX3's, GOOD glass - Unless the Vortex disappoints, and I'm hoping it doesn't. Have to agree on harvesting humanely, that's the only way to go.

[Lloyd Smale]

What some don't take into account is in the 200-500 dollar range optical quality and even build quality have taken big leaps in the last 15-20 years. I mid priced scope today will probably blow an old high end scope out of the water in quality and even opticaly. Just take leupold for example. There vx1 line today uses the same coatings as the vari x III did 15 years ago and that was the scope most were measured by back then. A new vxIII is every bit as good opticaly as any scope made in the world 20 years ago. Ive used leupolds for years and will be the first to admit there old vari x 2 wasn't the best scope in the world. It had single coated lenses and friction ajustments and didn't to to well in low light. Ive got a couple of the newer vx1s with click adjustments and multi coated lenses and there just as clear if not clearer and probably better in low light then the old vari x 3s I have. All that said it seems that even some of the much cheaper glass is still the junk it allways was. some here will claim even a 300 dollar scope is to expensive for them. They go with the 75 dollar glass. Now factor in cost of living and what your buying for that 75 bucks is about a 10 dollar scope in the 60s and 70s. What do expect for that kind of money? I bought my first leupold in 1977. a varix 2 2x7 for a 120 bucks. Lots of money then. today you can buy a vx1 for 200 that's 5 times the scope and factor in cost of living and there selling them at tasco and weaver prices in the 60s. Never was a time where you got more performance per dollar in optics as today. Years ago if you wanted GOOD GLASS you had to pay BIG BUCKS and maybe even then it was justified because even the mid priced stuff was junk. today that isn't the case. id about bet my home that a ww2 or Korean war sniper would have about cut off his foot for a scope as good as a 500 dollar scope today.

[Lloyd Smale]

I'm on a fixed income too but cant use that to justify buying a 50 dollar scope that might fail. If I cant afford to put a decent scope on a rifle ill pass on the rifle itself and use what I allready have that's paid for or buy the gun and stick it away until I can save enough pop cans to buy a decent scope. Another thin I do is cruise the local gunshops for used glass. Lots of times they take trades in and sell them and the guy buying wants a different brand or magnification scope and it seems that some are pretty Leary about buying used optics so they can be bought for about half the new price if you watch closely. Id much rather have a used 200 dollar scope for a 100 bucks then a new 100 dollar scope.
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.

[hornady308]

"A mid priced scope today will probably blow an old high end scope out of the water in quality and even optically. "

So, if what Lloyd says is true, I'd be better off selling my 25-30 year old Leupold & Burris scopes, then buying new low-end Nikon, Leupold Rifleman, etc.?

[TenTea]

Quality optics are important to me, the older I get.
I own a Leupold and several Trijicon units.
I mentioned owning a Trijicon to a fellow earlier this year and he said, "that's a rich man's scope!"
I'm not rich, so I guess I'm doing OK. ;)
Not sure what tier I belong to, but to each their own.
I agree lower priced scopes today are better quality glass than in years past, at similar inflation-adjusted price points.

[Geezer in NH]

Ahh.. A meat hunter, nothing else matters. Might as well walk out in a pasture and shoot cows, cheaper, easier, faster, and you get your 100% prime concern.. Meat...

EXCEPT farmers get real upset if you do like a city kid would.

[Soundguy]

Yep. There are ranches I hear that basically let you pick out game and shoot it. Not very sporting, but is fresh meat. I prefer the animal have as much chance to hide, or avoid me as I do to find it, that means large hunting areas and skill.

[Uncle R.]

What some don't take into account is in the 200-500 dollar range optical quality and even build quality have taken big leaps in the last 15-20 years. I mid priced scope today will probably blow an old high end scope out of the water in quality and even opticaly. Just take leupold for example. There vx1 line today uses the same coatings as the vari x III did 15 years ago and that was the scope most were measured by back then. A new vxIII is every bit as good opticaly as any scope made in the world 20 years ago. Ive used leupolds for years and will be the first to admit there old vari x 2 wasn't the best scope in the world. It had single coated lenses and friction ajustments and didn't to to well in low light. Ive got a couple of the newer vx1s with click adjustments and multi coated lenses and there just as clear if not clearer and probably better in low light then the old vari x 3s I have. All that said it seems that even some of the much cheaper glass is still the junk it allways was. some here will claim even a 300 dollar scope is to expensive for them. They go with the 75 dollar glass. Now factor in cost of living and what your buying for that 75 bucks is about a 10 dollar scope in the 60s and 70s. What do expect for that kind of money? I bought my first leupold in 1977. a varix 2 2x7 for a 120 bucks. Lots of money then. today you can buy a vx1 for 200 that's 5 times the scope and factor in cost of living and there selling them at tasco and weaver prices in the 60s. Never was a time where you got more performance per dollar in optics as today. Years ago if you wanted GOOD GLASS you had to pay BIG BUCKS and maybe even then it was justified because even the mid priced stuff was junk. today that isn't the case. id about bet my home that a ww2 or Korean war sniper would have about cut off his foot for a scope as good as a 500 dollar scope today.

Yep.
Very astute, and matches my experience perfectly.

Modern scopes are a gold-plated bargain compared to the scopes of thirty years ago, but only when you get into that $169 and up range.
A VX-2 from current production is a fantastic scope and better than probably anything you could buy 30 years ago.
My brother's modern Burris Fullfield blows the doors off of my 25 year old Leupold Vari-X II for brightness and resolution.
My most modern Weaver Classic V 2-10x does just as well.
That old Vari-X II has been reliable at staying dry and holding zero for many years, but optically it's not as good as today's VX-1, or a Nikon Buckmaster, or any of scores of scopes in the roughly $200 price range.
When you factor in inflation, modern scopes are cheaper and better than they've ever been. $200 ain't nearly as much money as it was 20 years ago, but today it will buy you a pretty nice scope.

Uncle R.

[Lloyd Smale]

you probably are. A leupold rifleman is about identical to an old vari x 2 in lense quality, coatings and construction and mechanical ajustments. Both are a big step down from a new vx1. The newest vx1 is about identical in quality to the original vari x 3. Well I should take that back. the original vari x3 was a friction adjustable scope not a click adjustment scope and is a step down from a vx1. Same multi coat 4 lenses in both. So what would you rather have. A brand new vx1 with brand new orings no wear on the ajustments, no tiny scratches in the lenses. Or an old vari x 3 that the o rings are getting dried out and ajustments are getting lazy and years of use and chemicals have taken at least a small toll on lenses. Don't tell me old scopes don't go bad with age. Ive had a number of k series weavers and even two vari x 2s that had the nitrogen leak out of them. I wont even add the cheap scopes that its happened to also.

So yup. If I could sell an old vari x3 and make 200 bucks off of it and buy a vx1 id do it in a heartbeat and if I could get 300 and buy a vx2 id run not walk to get lense quality and coating quality that is even better then the old vari x line and on top of the upgrade be starting with a brand new scope. No brainer to me. If your talking 25 year old burris scopes at that time then had only one line of scopes not many like they do now and they were decent scopes but not great scopes. Ive had a few of them fail on me and was never impressed with there low light capabilitys and a new Nikon pro staff is twice the scope and can probably be bought for about the same price you paid for that burris 20 years ago. Factor in cost of living and again a now brainer.

I used to be a big cheerleader for spending as much or more on a scope as you did a rifle if not more. Thing is back 25 years ago you could get a good adl rem 700 for 300 bucks and to get a decent scope you needed to spend about the same. That's what the higher end leupolds redfields ect cost then. Now that same rifle is near 900 bucks and for 200 you can buy a scope that's as good or better then what you paid 300 for back then. You can justify a 900 dollar scope. heck I can. Guns are my life. But I'm not going to sit here and try to convince someone that I bought 3 or 4 times the performance for the 3 to 4 times more money I spent. Like I said in another post. There isn't ANY hunting I do that a good 2-300 dollar leupold, Nikon, bushnell, vortex or probably any brand of scope wont handle just fine. If paying 4 times as much for 2 or 3 more minutes of low light capability (and that's not even the case in every scope) means that much to you then go for it. Me ill stick with scopes in that price range. If I am going to spend BIG bucks on a scope its going to be for a LONG range varmint rifle or comp gun where those slightly superior lenses might help your resolution on a small target at 500 yards enough to justify it but on a deer rifle? Your wasting your money. But then its your money not mine.

Bottom line is there never was "the good old days of scopes" there better now and a heck of a lot more bang for the buck. Vintage scopes are OLD scopes nothing more. Same goes but about double that for binoculars. For 500 bucks you can buy a set of binoculars today that will perform right along side ziess glass that cost 4 times that much years ago. Even If you don't agree with my assessment on glass quality and coating quality id opt for new just for reliability. I'm sure not going on a once in a lifetime hunt or even risking my once in a year whitetail hunt on a 30 year old k4 weaver that was mediocre at best when it was brand new. I'm not buying cheap glass (and yes I count the leupold rifleman in that category) and I'm also not spending 4 times the money I need to to decorate a gun to impress everyone at camp. Ill show up with vx1 or vx2, Nikon prostaff or monarch, vortex diamondback, ect knowing it will get the job done.
"A mid priced scope today will probably blow an old high end scope out of the water in quality and even optically. "

So, if what Lloyd says is true, I'd be better off selling my 25-30 year old Leupold & Burris scopes, then buying new low-end Nikon, Leupold Rifleman, etc.?

[kens]

I recently talked to a Weaver rep, about the same subject, and he also said that today's mid-level scope is better than the high-end scope of some years ago.

[hornady308]

Well, I'm glad to be learning this now as I was just getting ready to mount a first generation Burris Fullfield on my primary deer rifle. It's in beautiful condition, but it doesn't seem to be quite as bright as my new Nikon Buckmaster. I guess I will sell it and get a new Prostafff, Fullfield II, Leopold VXI, or something similar.