Barska scope

[joeb33050]

I bought a Barska Varmint 6-24X42mm AO Mil Dot on EBAY a few weeks ago, for $59.99 delivered and with a promise that the seller would pay the shipping if I wanted tpo send it back. The package came from
Candace Tsao
Micro World Corp.
1721 Wright Ave.
La Verne CA 91750
This scope has a quick-focus coarse-thread easy-to-focus rear focus adjustment.
I've used it twice now on an M10 308 WIN at 24X, at 100 yards, and it works just fine. The click adjustments seem to work fine, everything is OK. It's not the brightest or anything-est scope I've ever used, but it does the job and very well.
Some say that with scopes, you get what you pay for. Not true. I've had a Simmons 8-32X $80 scope and a BSA 6-24X ~$40 second hand scope, and they work.
I can understand paying $400 for a Weaver 36X target scope, but the $700-and up Leupold, Night Force etc scopes just can't be worth it.
joe b.

[docone31]

I have mostly Barska scopes. After my first one, I was convinced.
I got the big ones.
The last one I got was more clear than the first ones I got. The 6 X 24 X 50s at top magnification was not as good as I liked.

[RobS]

The best buy right now IMHO for great quality to $$$ is the Nikon Monarch line of scopes. Solid construction with very bright and clear optics throughout the entire magnification range, at least through my 3-12X42. I had a Leupold VX-III and the monarch was as bright or brighter and every bit as clear. Put the math together I bought my Nikon scope just a wee bit over $300 or I could have forked out over $600 for a scope with equal optics. Long story short I sold the Leupold on evilbay to pay for other reloading supplies and the rest is history. Funny thing is I made up the ground on the new monarch and come out on the other side with $100.

Good to see that your scopes are working for you Joe.

Rob

[Wally]

I have two and think they are quite good...at the highest magnifications, especially at 24X, almost all variable power scopes have "issues". If one would buy the equivilent in a top name brand they would cost many times more--much more than I can afford. So mine serve me well.

[snake river marksman]

I've never used a Barska, but I had a Tasco 4x16 that bumped around on my NEF handi rifle for several years that worked well enough until I started to get unexplained misses on groundhogs. I checked it at the range and I was getting two groups 3 inches apart. I just threw that scope away as it didn't owe me anything. I also had a Tasco Pronghorn series 2x7 mounted to a 98 Mauser in 308 that took a lot of abuse and still worked great. That one is on the bottom of the Snake River in Wyoming along with the rifle and quite a bit of camping and hunting gear.

[rob45]

One person's "expensive" may be another person's "value".

Weight.
Durability.
Optical clarity.
"Brightness".
Eye relief.
Repeatability (of adjustments).
Warranty.
Origin (place of manufacture).
Reticle type/options.
Turret adjustment/options.
Focus/parallax adjustment options.
Finish.
Manufacturer reputation/ consumer loyalty.
Budget.
And on and on and on.......

These are but a few of the things to be considered when contemplating purchase of scope optics.

My personal reservations aside, I'll not downgrade a $30 scope, nor will I downgrade a $1500 scope. They all have their place.

We choose the features we feel are required, and buy accordingly.

[jcwit]

joe you missed the whole point of the bigest difference between an expensive and an economical scope. Bragging rights.

You can NEVER go to the range with a Barska scope and impress your buddies with what you're able to blow on a high priced scope. Just not going to happen.

With that said I've have had excellent results with Simmons, BSA scopes. Have not had the opportunity to try a Barska scope. Actually my go to is BSA, but thats just my preference.

[dubber123]

I prefer Leupold after my experiences with less expensive scopes. I really wish they didn't cost as much as they do, but I will save up if I have to. When it comes to optical clarity and brightness, many scopes are at least as good or better. When it comes to ruggedness, and a super warrenty, well, not so much. I have had 2 bad Tascos right out of the box, and quite a few more that went bad, same for several Simmons, and 1 BSA. Hard kicking guns weed out scopes fast. I have seen a bad Leupold, a 2-7 that had a rattle in it. It was still zeroed, and worked fine, but the rattle said something wasn't right. If what you are buying works for you, thats all that matters.

[Lloyd Smale]

I guess i tend to be a scope snob. About the lowest i go is a bottom line nikon or leupold

[Maven]

My experience with scopes mirrors dubber123's almost exactly. One bad Bausch & Lomb (not expensive) that wouldn't hold "0"; one 3 x 9x Tasco World Class (ca. 1983) whose internal adjustments fell apart. I deep-sixed the B & L, but sent the Tasco back to their successor in Miami (cost me $35 just for them to look at it). When they told me what it cost to repair it (only guaranteed for 90 days), I told them to keep it. Btw, Tasco's "lifetime warranty" is now meaningless. I replaced the 3 x 9 with a Leupold, mostly on the strength of their warranty and am quite pleased. However, I have 2 other Tascos (ca. 1984 & 1990) that are perfect and trouble-free.

[shooterg]

Mostly I shoot iron sights - but love the old steel tube Weavers I have on my few old bolt guns. And the Leupolds are top quality(and price!). Bought one of the Barska 6-24 with target dot from a Sportsman's Guide deal a while back - it works quite well as a test scope on various AR's up to maybe 18x(all I need, anyway). Don't know how it would fare on something with recoil but I'm happy with mine for it's usage. I kinda agree that a quality gun probably deserves a scope that cost about as much as the gun, but shooting with a cheaper scope is lots better than not shooting !

[Doc Highwall]

I have two Barska scopes in the SWAT series. The first one I bought was the 3.5x10x40mm that is a copy of the Leupold MK1V and showed it to some of my friends and they were impressed enough that they bought the same one. Later I bought the 6x-24x 44mm and compared it to my 8.5x-25x MK1V and could not tell the difference clarity between them at 100 yards. Now don't get me wrong about the metallurgy and tolerances for heavy use in competition where you are turning the knobs all the time, I think they are great for all other uses and would recommend them. Here is a picture of my 40x in .308 Win. with the Leupold mounted on it and the 3.5x10x40mm Barska next to it and the rings they send with it are cheep and I had a extra pair of Badger that are on the Barska.

[Blammer]

after I missed a deer at 75 yds because the scope was broken and I didn't know it till I checked it out on the range the same day, I've become very picky about what scopes I will use.

glad you like your barka

[Gee_Wizz01]

I still have a couple of old Weaver K4's from the '50s and '60s and they are great. I also have a late 60's Japanese Bushnell 3x9 that is also a great scope. I bought a 1.5 X 4 Bushnell for my Marlin GG and it lasted 32 rds, I am sending it back for repair and will put it on a .22rf. I replaced the Bushnell on my Marlin with a Nikon Prostaff 2X7 and it seems to be an excellent scope, it is bright and has taken the recoil from 120 rds of 45-70 420 gr loads at 1750 fps. Another inexpensive scope I have had good luck with is the Simmons Whitetail Classic 6X18 from Midway, I replaced a Leupold on my 220 Swift with the Whitetail classic and I was impressed with the brightness and image quality. I also agree that most of the time you get what you pay for, the scope business has changed and not necessarily for the better with Chinese imports. Many brands and models which were originally high quality Japanese optics are now cheap Chinese junk with the same model names.

G

[BruceB]

The purpose of the scope/rifle combination should have great influence on just how much money should be spent.

I have several Tascos and similar-grade scopes which serve only one purpose, and that is shooting at the range for load development. Even a varmint hunt one hundred miles from home will cost more in gas, grub and similar expenses than a decent-quality scope (meaning, maybe as much as $200).

What if the cheap scope fails on that varmint hunt one hundred miles from home? Carry a spare scope? Then the cost of TWO cheap scopes will equal the cost of a "decent" scope.

For most of my purposes, I buy Leupolds. There are a few others mixed in, like the Pentax 4.5-14 I bought last month for a pure-varmint rifle. For serious big-game hunting....nothing but Leupolds. There are eight or ten Loopys on my rifles now, and none has ever disappointed me. I do a LOT of shooting, too.

[dubber123]

If it is purely a range gun, and not a hard kicker, that opens the door to many different scopes. If it holds zero and the optics are decent, it will work fine. Alot of adjusting, or heavy recoil might not go so well. Bruce makes a good point about how little equiptment costs compared to a hunt. A friend has a particularly hard kicking .338 that he insists on putting inexpensive scopes on. I have seen it blow the reticle out of a Tasco in less than 5 rounds. I asked him why he didn't put a better scope on it, and he said "I'm not paying $200 for a scope" ($200 for a scope is "high end" to Jerry). I asked him how many $50 scopes he had bought, and before he could think, he answered, "Four"... The math caught up to him almost instantly.

[Wally]

Bruce,

You make an excllent point---one needs a dedendabl scope whe hunting & far from home. All my shooting is at targets so I can live with a csope going bad on me.

I have three 40mm Variable scopes made by Tasco that I purchased 25 years ago--they have been often used and they still work perfectly---they were made in Japan. The latest cheaper scopes are made in China and I am not as certain that they are built as well as the Japanese produced scopes.

[jhrosier]

joe b.

I have bought a couple of those Barskas with the mil-dot and I really like them.
The price is right and so far they both are working just fine.
I like the mil-dot on a .22 rimfire because the dots make it very easy to hold over for longer ranges.
I don't know where they are made but would guess china because the plastic lens cover smells funny.
I used to buy used Weavers for casual range use but the "collectors" have driven the prices too high for me.

Jack

[Lead Fred]

Come back in 100 of two rounds and see if it still works.

Barska is about the very bottom of junk third world glass.

I bought on for my rimfire, shot 10 rounds, took it off, threw it away.

We buy costly scopes because they will last a good long time.

[corvette8n]

I also had a problem with a BSA scope, sent it back but they wanted more money to process the claim then it was worth I told them to keep it.

[jcwit]

I also had a problem with a BSA scope, sent it back and they sent me a new one, I told them Thank You.

[Beekeeper]

Lead Fred,
I have a barska scope on a 30-06 and have shot at least 1000 rounds under it and it is still going strong.
I think the idea that you have to spend $1000 to get a good scope is garbage.
I have read here and on other forums where posters have had lousy experiences with just about any scope.
It is like buying a car " you pay your money and take your chances" so saying Barska ,BSA, Bushnell and all are junk is a falacy in todays market.
The " High Dollar" scopes now use Japaneese or Korean. or Chineese glass and are assembled in Mexico or Japan so I guess that makes them junk as well .



Jim

[dualsport]

REDFIELD IS BACK!! Leopold has the rights to the name and have just introduced a line of scopes under the Redfield name, made in OREGON, USA!! The reason this excites me is the price is very competitive, I think starting under $150. Check 'em out, you can buy American for what some Chinese scopes are going for. Who wouldn't want a Redfield?

[NickSS]

I have a couple of Barska 3-12 air rifle scopes that have been working fine for several years now. I just put one on a 22 RF and it works for that too. I put 200 rounds through that rifle yesterday practicing silhouette shooting. I also own some old redfields and leopolds that I have on hunting rifles that I have used for years and years. The Leopold I have on my 30-06 sako (since 1972) developed a problem of a shifted lense that caused half the field of view to be fuzzy but did not affect zero. I sent it back to Leopold and they fixed it at no cost to me and sent it back in less than two weeks. While they were at it they installed their improved guts and cleaned the scope. This was five years ago and the scope is still working only on a new rifle as I completely shot out the barrel on the Sako and retired it so I put the scope on my new Tika that replaced it. This scope has survived over 15,000 rounds of 30-06 to date. Thats why I put quality glass on rifles I intend for serious purposes. On a rifle I intend only for plinking and range shooting I buy cheaper scopes.

[RugerFan]

I've had a couple of the cheaper model Bushnell scopes go bad very early in their life. I've also had a couple inexpensive Tascos go on for years and years. For the most part I now spend a little more money on optics - Leupold or Nikon. I won't take the chance of having a scope puke out on a hunting trip.

[jcwit]

Redfield name, made in OREGON, USA!!

Their wording is "built" not made. Leaves me to believe using imported lenses.

Which really is mott. In this age of CNC machines ect. lenses are no longer hand ground anyway. How the optic is assembled is whats important.

[madsenshooter]

I bought a Barska Varmint 6-24X42mm AO Mil Dot on EBAY a few weeks ago, for $59.99 delivered and with a promise that the seller would pay the shipping if I wanted tpo send it back. The package came from
Candace Tsao
Micro World Corp.
1721 Wright Ave.
La Verne CA 91750
This scope has a quick-focus coarse-thread easy-to-focus rear focus adjustment.
I've used it twice now on an M10 308 WIN at 24X, at 100 yards, and it works just fine. The click adjustments seem to work fine, everything is OK. It's not the brightest or anything-est scope I've ever used, but it does the job and very well.
Some say that with scopes, you get what you pay for. Not true. I've had a Simmons 8-32X $80 scope and a BSA 6-24X ~$40 second hand scope, and they work.
I can understand paying $400 for a Weaver 36X target scope, but the $700-and up Leupold, Night Force etc scopes just can't be worth it.
joe b.

I was wondering about those scopes, and thinking of buying one. I once bought a Hammers 6x24. The parallax adjustment is way off, and the eye relief is too short for a high powered rifle, the ocular bell brushes my eyebrow with each shot. Sometimes cheapies work good, I bought one of the $30 LER scopes from Ultimate Arms Gear to put on my Krag, works great. One guy took a look through it and declared it was the clearest scope he ever looked through. I paid 5x that for a Bushnell and the eye relief is way out there, I'd have to mount it forward of the handguard on the barrel. So keep me posted, I might just get one of the Barskas for a little project I'm working on.

[Jal5]

Has anyone used the Barska spotting scopes? I was looking at one from Sportmens guide that is 20-60 60mm. I need an inexpensive spotter for sighting in and range practice with my rifles.

Joe

[joeb33050]

After reading the non-unanimous responses I'd better tell more.
I shoot only cast bullets, almost always at lower velocities. I don't hunt, because there's a Publix supermarket around the corner. And I like Bambi. I don't shoot varmints, because what we call varmints perform a much-needed dirt-mixing function, and because they're so darn cute. I shoot only at paper targets, and feel kind of sorry for them. I carry guns and scopes from home to the car, and from the car to the bench. No thrashing through the woods.
So, my scopes don't have to stand up to the heavy use that some of you put them through.
Don't get me started on the whales.
joe b.