[gunman42782]

I have had cheap scopes my whole life. Never spent over $75.oo on a scope before now. Bought a Leupold VX-1 3-9x40 for my new AR. Now, I have not shot the gun yet with this scope, and I am with-holding judgement, but honestly, I am not too impressed. I can't see it is all that better than my el-cheapo Tasco. It seems like there is more "black" around the eyepiece unless you hold your eye just right. I mean if you so much as wiggle a tad you will see that black ring. So, tell me, am I doing something wrong with this scope, or do I just need to get used to it, or what? Heck, it may be a good thing that you have to hold your eye in just the right spot, I don't know. One thing I will have to get used to is that the variable power ring turns the opposite direction than any scope I have ever owned.

[Clipper]

Same here...The high-dollar scopes usually have a sharper focus at the periphery of the lens, but the part I'm interested in is the center, and that's not all that much better than the less expensive ones. As for durability, I've never had a failure of one on 30-06 class rifles. The 3-12X42 illuminated mil dot w/AO Guide Gear scope I paid $80.00 delivered for has been a paragon of efficiency...

Now, if one is a 'scopeophile' and fractionally superior edge focus and light transmission for that extra 15 minutes of shooting really is worth $300-500 more to you, go for it, but I have to laugh at the scope snobs who claim any scope that costs less than the rifle it's on is junk...

[Rembrandt]

Ship your Leupold to me and I'll give you a couple of new cheapies in exchange for it.

[no_problem]

my Leupold is much clearer, brighter, and has a stronger, crisper reticle at dawn and dusk than the cheapies.

[Charles S]

I mean if you so much as wiggle a tad you will see that black ring. So, tell me, am I doing something wrong with this scope, or do I just need to get used to it, or what?

Honestly it sounds like you have mounted the scope too close to your eye (too far back on the rifle). Leupold scopes typically (including the one you purchased) have a very generous non-critical eye relief, meaning that you mount the scope further from the eye and have more head movement. If you see a black ring when you move and you are not on the highest power you are too close to the scope.

I am not too impressed.

I have had very different experiences. The first cheap scope I owned was a Simmons with a wandering zero. The second was the re-vamped and all new and improved Simmons Aetec which Simmons advertised as remarkably clear, lost of eye releif and very durable.

I will agree, mine was very clear, had great eye relief, but it lasted one shot on a light weight 300 Win Mag. Great customer service, but I just never have been able to trust the scope thereafter.

OTH I have a 15 year old Leupold that holds zero, the clicks are absolutely 1/4 MOA every time (I am so confident I can change wind age or elevation without confirming). The Leupold has been dropped (when a rope broke) from a 15 foot tree stand and held zero. Rained on for years, suffered hot Louisiana and East Texas Summers, freezing North Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado winters. It still incredible clear and reliable.

Again, you get what you pay for.

[waterhouse]

I agree it sounds like an eye relief issue you are having with the leupold.

While I don't think that spending more money on glass is necessary, I do tend to think that you get what you pay for, for the most part. I buy a lot of used rifles that come with "economical" scopes.

When held up side by side, the difference in glass quality is pretty obvious to me. I've looked through $100 scopes that were clearly inferior in clarity to $400 scopes, which in turn were inferior to $1200 scopes. This isn't always the case . . . I've got a $180 Sightron and the glass compares very well to a $300 Leupold.

Like everything else in gun land, there comes a point of diminishing returns. Is the $1200 scope worth $800 more than the $400 scope? Not to me, so I sold it. It was noticeably better, but I don't shoot enough at a high enough level to take advantage of its "betterness." The guy who bought it from me has a lot of land and does some shooting out past 1000 yds., so to him having very clear glass at 22X is worth every penny.

And that is just the glass quality. Repeatable adjustments might be important to you. I've played with cheap scopes where 1 click might be .25 MOA on one click and not .25 MOA on the next click. Put your scope on a solid mount some time and sight in on a ruler, and then keep track of how much your reticle is really moving. Again, in general, the expensive scopes are going to be more exact in their adjustments. Also again, this might not matter to you one bit, if you sight in and go deer hunting a couple times a year and only shoot within 200 yards or so.

Plus the ruggedness issue. . .I have personally had Tasco and Millet scopes break, as well as one other that I can't remember the name of. My Sightrons, Leupolds, one Nightforce, and a couple other have never had a hitch.

It all comes down to what you have to spend and what factors are important to you, but if I had the choice between a .5MOA rifle and $250 optics and a 1.5MOA rifle with $500 optics, I'd take choice B.

[welldoya]

I used to have several Tascos and IMHO they are very good scopes for the money. I still have several on some of my .22s. But for deer hunting I have a Leupold Vari X lll 3.5x10x50 on my 30/06. It's a great scope and I can tell the difference.
To me, it's worth the $500+ I paid for it. I don't think it would be worth it for me to go any higher end.

[Coronach]

Ditto eye relief.

If you look in the manual, or on Leupold's webpage, they should give you an eye relief distance. make sure you're within that envelope, measured from your eye to the ocular lens. It has been my experience (limited, I'm no optics guru) that you have more eye relief issues with cheap scopes, as oppsed to expensive ones. It sounds like you had your Tasco set up right, and you've set your Leupold up wrong.

Mike

[Blackfork]

When I was working for the army teaching folks to shoot, we had the occasion to scope several hundred M14s. The units were allowed to buy their own scopes so the soldiers showed up with every kind of glass there was. BSAs, Tascos, Sheppard, Leupold, Nikon, Springfield Armory, et. IMHO, the M14 platform, because of the recoil, mount, height of the scope, et, really puts a beating on optics. The cheap ones tended to die. The expensive ones held together. Most BSAs wouldn't last one five shot string before the reticle started rotating or the crosshairs broke.

The Long Range NRA competitors say that you need to spend a dollar for every yard you intend to shoot. Shooting 1000 yards? Spend 1000 bucks and do it right.

My Leupolds are mounted with quick dismount rings that attach to Weaver rails. That makes one scope cover several rifles.

Good glass in spotting scopes and rifle scopes increases the enjoyment of shooting for me....a lot. I'd spend the money.

[jklinstein]

There's three issues that play into the "quality" of a scope. One is durability. Another is optical qualities (clarity, eye relief, etc.). The one that gets missed is repeatability and lack of hysteresis in the adjustments. That last one can make sighting in relatively easy, or a real chore. Most cheap scope adjustments I've used are not easily dialed in. Five clicks up + two clicks down doesn't always result in the same POI as going straight for three clicks up (on many cheap scopes).

[Jimi]

I am new to this forum and will be putting myself at risk as a scope snob, but I am partial to Swarovski's. Whether the incremental quality is worth the extra price is partly a function of one's pocketbook, but I can tell you without hesitation that the PH's I've hunted with chuckle at Americans who come over with $2,000+ rifles and $200 scopes. Their feeling is that if you're going to spend that much money on a rifle, and another $20,000+ on a safari, only to waste a good opportunity because your scope fails due to its inability to handle the abuse that Africa throws out... you might want to rethink your priorities. But for much of the hunting in the US I think a Leupold is great. Their guaranty is tops and the clarity and variability is great too.

But as was said earlier, you do get what you pay for.