How much do you spend on a scope for quality?

[MCgunner]

I ask this because everyone always says spend 300 on a Savage, but put the best scope available on it. Well, that's all fine and good, but some scopes top 2K dollars. I don't think it takes two grand to get a good scope. In fact, one of my favorite of favorite all time scopes is the 200 dollar Weaver 2x10KV I have on my .308. It took top honors in a "Gun Tests" comparo with a lot of higher dollar stuff from Burris, Leupold, etc. Very rugged scope and decent optics. I've fired shots using friend's leupolds, even know a guy who've I've fired rounds through his Kleingunther/Schmit and Bender. Great combo for a rich man. This old boy is retired and does nothing else, but shoot rifles. He's got several nice rifles with nothing, but Schmit and Bender scopes. I out shot him once at a club shoot with my Bushnell/Remington M722. ROFLMAO! He was miffed. He's quite up there in age and he's not as steady as he once was. His guns are more accurate, but he does real good with 'em considering his age and lack of steadiness.

Those Schmit and Benders have MARVELOUS optics, so I KNOW how good it CAN be with high dollar stuff. I just don't feel my Weaver is THAT much less useful afield. It has decent optics and is very rugged, never fogs, bright as any 40mm scope I've used. I just can't see that I need to spend more on a scope. Yeah, more money, a LOT more money, will get you better optics, but I doubt any scope could be much more rugged than that Weaver. It's a much better scope optically than the VariX 2s I've shot and costs less.

I don't think you need to spend the retirement IRA on a scope is all I'm saying. There is a level out there at which quality is plenty good and the scope will do the job without larger influxes of money. Oh, I totally agree about not buying a cheap scope, you know, those Walmart 40 dollar wonders. Simmons, in particular, will never get a dime of my money. Bushnell seems serviceable for a 100 dollar scope, just the optics ain't always up to a Weaver, usually not, and they aren't as rugged, either. I think the Weaver is an incredibly good scope, frankly, and I just can't see spending more on a hunting scope.

None of this has anything to do with competition. Money buys trophies in competition. I'm just talking hunting scopes here.

[Fumbler]

I agree. Personally I think you need to spend around the $200 mark for very good optics.
This includes the Leupold VX1s, Bushnell 3200, Weaver Classics, etc.

I think once you pass the $4-500 mark then more money buys the average person nothing.

[MAX100]

Well said, So true.




GC

[Eyesac]

I agree, $200 bucks and up from a reputable brand and I'm always satisfied...

[Ash]

Burris FFII can be had for $160 and is a good scope. So $200 isn't even the necessary bottom limit.

Ash

[USSR]

I guess it all depends upon what you consider "cheap" and how you define "quality".

Don

[pbhome71]

My thinking is that the optic price should be 60% or more of the rifle cost.

For example, if I spend $200 on a 10/22. I would spend at least $120 on a scope.

This means either I get a good scope, or stick with iron-sight till I can afford one. :)

[Lanyard]

The glass is equal to or more money than the rifle. Not including dots or holos.

[ArmedBear]

The price of the rifle has nothing to do with the quality of the scope that sits on it

A nice walnut stock can be $3000. Does that mean a $400 scope isn't good enough for the $450 barreled action sitting in that walnut? (I'm thinking of a particular rifle owned by a hunting friend with some extra cash, and the right connections, and who likes classics. It's a one-hole-group prairie dog gun done up to look like a fine sporter. It succeeds on both counts.)

[USSR]

The glass is equal to or more money than the rifle.

+1. That is the general consensus regarding optics.

Don

[Nathanael_Greene]

I've been very pleased with my Bushnell Elite 3200, which I pretty much got for free. It's in the $200 range, which seems reasonable to me for the kind of hunting I do.

[erict]

I can usually find good scopes (what I consider good anyway) in the $200-$400 range new or used.

[Hokkmike]

I would say 3 to 5 hundred for a decent brand name.

[Zak Smith]

I look at this a few ways:

* For most hunting and recreational shooting, a $200-400 low power variable scope will do the job and not fail. These have not changed much in several decades. My dad has a couple Leupolds and Redfields from 20+ years ago that still do today what they did then.

* A scope that will not hold zero or otherwise fails catastrophically at an inopportune time is a complete waste of money.

* The needs of different shooting types vary dramatically. There are some features you pretty much can't get in a sub-$1500 scope.

The best advice I can give is to carefully define what YOU want to accomplish, figure out the features and quality needed to do it, and spend your money wisely, considering the lifetime use of the scope.

-z

[greyling22]

A lot of people seem to think highly of the bushnell banner, which can be had for what, 80 or $90? I don't have any personal experience with them though.

My experience has taught me that I can miss just as often with a $50 tasco as with a $300 leupold, and I feel better about missing with the tasco :)

[rcmodel]

It's all relative.
A hunting scope for most of us can be a Tasco World Class if it gets the job done.

That is, adjust properly, hold zero, not fog up, and be clear & bright enough to see through at dawn & dusk.

What is needed to kill a deer here in Kansas, or many other places in the U.S., is to walk out the door, drive five miles, get in a stand, and kill a deer.

If the scope fails, what have you lost?

If I was going to go to Alaska, or Africa, or even Wyoming on a once in a lifetime hunt, I'd take the Tasco off and put a Leupold on.

If I was going to Iraq, and the government was buying my scope, I'd probably insist on a Nightforce or Schmidt & Bender.

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j219/rcmodel/KTOG/1224.gif
rcmodel

[ArmedBear]

The law of diminishing marginal returns on investment holds true for guns and scopes.

The price axis of the curve gets real steep past $400 or so, but if your thing is putting bullets through a quarter-sized hole at 300 yards, you gotta pay for it.

Like Zak said, you have to figure out what you want to do and what it takes to do it. For some uses, you have to pony up or forget it.

Ever seen an ARA competition? .22LR doesn't always mean "cheap." .22LR benchrest rifles can get really expensive. You can get a Marlin or CZ boltie that will shoot almost as well for 1/10 the price. But almost isn't good enough. If your gun can't shoot 1-hole groups at 50 yards, you simply can't be competitive, and for that, you have to pay.:)

But for rabbit hunting, practice, even some pretty serious shooting, a decent production .22 will do fine. You probably won't be able to tell the difference, because inherent accuracy will be buried beneath other variables.

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

For your standard run-of-the-mill deer rifle----Ziess Conquest 3x9x40 for $399----don't waste your time and money on anything else--------to get anything better with a minimal gain you'll be looking to spend at least $1000.

[Andrewsky]

I got an aimpoint compc3 for my M1A for $435 including the ring and lens covers. I should have gotten the CompM3. It would have been about $75 more but it is submersible to 115 feet whereas the C3 will only do 15 feet. What if I'm on the boat that I don't own on the lake I don't live by and I drop my rifle overboard in a place deeper than 15 feet?

What then? Hmmm???:D This is a good lesson for the newbies here>>>ALWAYS BUY THE MOST EXPENSIVE MODEL AN OPTICS COMPANY OFFERS!



Seriously though, my hunting rifle has a Leupold 3.5-10 that has been on it since 1991. It still works quite nicely.

[cpttango30]

It all depends on what your looking for in a scope. I have 3 different scopes. My 223 wears a Leupold VX-II 6-18x40mm Bright clear and all movements are fluid and percise.

My 308 wears a Weaver KT-15 possabily the best weaver scope ever. It is a stright 15x with a 40mm objective. This scope set me back $155 on Ebay 4 years ago.

My 22 wears a 4-16x40mm BSA platnium. It does what i need it to do .6" 50 yard groups is good enough for a 22lr with bulk ammo.

I have a 36x42mm BSA Platnium target scope that is junk. I tried it out and about pulled my hair out because if would shoot the first shot right where it should then it shot like a shot gun.

There are a lot of good quality scopes out there. Weaver, Swift, Truglo, Bushnell, Burris, Leupold are but a few.

I would say that $150 on up will give you a good scope.

Granted you get a much better scope when spend $500+ on it.

It will cost more if you want a scope with side focus vs one with an Adjustable Objective. multicoated lenses also add to the price and you never really see the differance untill you look threw a low quality scope with little or no lens coatings.

For leupold I would not drop below the VX-II line. the VX-I and rifleman series are not worth the money. You would be better off to go with a Mid range Bushnell.

I had bought a Bushnell elite 4200 6-24x40 and man was it a nice clear bright scope. Infact I might buy another one for my 308 put the weaver back on the 223 and put the leupold on the my 22lr. That is how much I think of the bushnell 4200.

[MCgunner]

More folks seem to be sane about scopes than not, sorta surprises me. :D

Yeah, I don't think the price of the gun has a thing to do with the glass, totally irrelevant. Of course, the gun I put that Weaver on cost me a dollar, won in a raffle, gun show door prize. I put a Weatherby Supreme 3x9x44 on my Savage, a 200 dollar gun at the time. Got the Weatherby for 150 on a sell out. I'd rank it with most 400 dollar scopes for optical quality and it's a very tough piece of glass. For me, quality is quality and I agree with most here who say once you get over 400 bucks, you're on the steep portion of the curve. I'd love to be able to buy a Schmidt and Bender, but hey, it ain't like I'd spend the money even if I was filthy rich. I mean, a 200 dollar Weaver or a 200-400 dollar Leupold is PLENTY good 'nuf for me, even if I'm taking a trip to Alaska, frankly. I really have a lot of respect and confidence for that Weaver. Every year I take it out, fire a couple of rounds at 100 yards, hits right where it's supposed to. I sighted it in when I bought it about 10 years ago. It's been on 4 hour boat trips, bouncing over rough terrain in a 4x4 Toyota, on dirt bikes, generally everywhere I hunt and experience the wild and I've never had to touch the scope on my yearly sight in. Says something right there, I think.

[browningguy]

Personally I like Bushnell 3200's and Burris FFII's for the bottom end of hunting scopes, with a slight edge to the FFII. I have some cheaper Bushnells, and while they work in low power models (1.5-4.5) they don't compare well at all to 3200's in the 3-9 range.

The 4200 is a much better piece of glass, as are the EuroDiamond/Black Diamond series from Burris. That's about as much as I will spend on a scope. The 3-9x40 Conquest I could see buying at $400 also.

[alsaqr]

Leupold and Ziess sell some good fixed power scopes. i have the Leupold 6x42 FX III on three rifles. It is a really superior scope for about $400. One of my rifles has a 6X Ziess. This was a $500 scope when it bought it in Germany a few years ago. Both of these scopes are really good in low light.

[ArmedBear]

If I'm going to go on a big expensive trip to a harsh place, I think my money would be better spent on two decent, rugged rifles and two durable scopes, and a couple of really good aluminum cases, than on one really fancy rifle and one really expensive scope.

[Fumbler]

Burris FFII can be had for $160 and is a good scope. So $200 isn't even the necessary bottom limit.
MSRP on the FFII is around $200, that puts it in the same class as the VXI or 3200 ;)

[Bartkowski]

If I'm going to go on a big expensive trip to a harsh place, I think my money would be better spent on two decent, rugged rifles and two durable scopes, and a couple of really good aluminum cases, than on one really fancy rifle and one really expensive scope.


Thats probably the most logical thing that has been said on this thread.

[Ash]

"MSRP on the FFII is around $200, that puts it in the same class as the VXI or 3200"

Hmm, must have gotten the bargain on my two. That said, SWFA has 2-7x35 FFII's for $159 right now, and 3-9x40 for $189.00.

Ash

[W.E.G.]

Some of the el cheapo scopes are incredibly rugged. The only problem is, you have no way of knowing whether YOUR el cheapo is one of the rugged or one of the ragged.

Buy a Leupold and sleep well.

[Lanyard]

I should have qualified my statement. Firearms are tools, they need to work 100%. Hunting, predators or self defense. I will not put a Schmidt & Bender on a 10/22 & I won't put a Burris on an AI. I use the retail price of the stock gun to narrow the selection in scope options, also based on retail price. You can get away with with a lot but where I hunt has a 20% sucess rate. It might be 5 more years before I get a shot again. Logistics & money don't allow most of us to have 2 of anything in the field, when that pilot jumps out of the cockpit and asks "How much do you weigh?" half your gear goes back home. You only need to have a scope go bad once when you really need it to cure you forever.

[greg531mi]

Nikon makes the prostaff, 3x9 for $140, great deal on a good scope, for a 22, I put a 3x9 Tasco world class on it, great scope for the money....
I think if shop around, you can find bargains, look through the scopes at the store and judge yourself...and how much quality you want to spend, and if it is worth it....

[The Annoyed Man]

How much do you spend on a scope for quality?Don't you hate it when someone answers a question with a question?

:D

Seriously though, I would ask, "What do you want to do with it?" (That's answering with two questions, which has to be some kind of record....)

I don't claim to be an expert, but my observation is that you can get a pretty decent, basic scope for about $200-$300. Above that, and $400-$600 will give you a larger objective and tube diameter, increased magnification, and a noticeably brighter image. Beyond that, as someone above said, I think that you start getting into features that most people will never be able or inclined to use.

My Leupold VX-III 4.5-14x50mm is the first brand new scope I've ever purchased, and I think I probably let my enthusiasm at buying new get in the way of buying more wisely. Don't get me wrong. It is a GREAT scope, and I like it very much, but even though I got it for considerably under MSRP, it was still over $500.00. What I've since learned about other scopes, like the Super Snipers, for instance, is that they are probably better suited for what I do with this rifle, and actually cost considerably less than what I paid for the Leupold.

Oh well, I'm not really unhappy about it. But someday, when I buy a lighter rifle more appropriate to hunting than my 700 VSF, I will probably transfer the Leupold to the new rifle, and put one of the other better suited scopes on the Remmy.

You live and you learn, and I wish I had been aware of this website before I started the whole process. I've learned a ton by reading the posts of all the wise heads here.

[pete f]

Its simple, What ever Leupold is charging for the lowest price gold ring scope, that's the entry price to quality.

Buy that and be happy.

[glockman19]

I look at this a few ways:

* For most hunting and recreational shooting, a $200-400 low power variable scope will do the job and not fail. These have not changed much in several decades. My dad has a couple Leupolds and Redfields from 20+ years ago that still do today what they did then.

* A scope that will not hold zero or otherwise fails catastrophically at an inopportune time is a complete waste of money.

* The needs of different shooting types vary dramatically. There are some features you pretty much can't get in a sub-$1500 scope.

The best advice I can give is to carefully define what YOU want to accomplish, figure out the features and quality needed to do it, and spend your money wisely, considering the lifetime use of the scope.

-z

+1 to everything Zack Said

[shootinstudent]

I spent 38 dollars for one of the best scopes I have: an old Weaver K4. Holds a zero, has a cool post reticle, and is made of steel.

Used weavers or used Leupolds-good bargains.

[islandphish]

Pretty happy with my Sightron SII. Clearer than a VX-1 or Burriss in the price range. Picked it up at right around 200.

In the 300 range, Nikon optics are super clear.

[MCgunner]

Its simple, What ever Leupold is charging for the lowest price gold ring scope, that's the entry price to quality.

Buy that and be happy.

You pay for the name with Leupold, why I've never owned one. A 200 dollar Weaver KV is a better, clearer scope than a VariX2 at more money. "Gun Tests" says so and so do I. Actually, I gave $189 for mine IIRC.

I spent 38 dollars for one of the best scopes I have: an old Weaver K4. Holds a zero, has a cool post reticule, and is made of steel.

I had an old Weaver KV steel 3-5X variable on my old 722 for 30 years. It was installed around 1957 by my grandpa when he got the rifle. Eventually, it lost its nitrogen and I sent it to El Paso and they repaired it free! However, it fogged up again in a few years, so I retired it. But, that old KV was one tough scope for a 1950s vintage and killed a LOT of whitetail over the years including the first one I shot in 1963 at age 11. :D I still have it. I plan to install a new Weaver on that rifle in the future, just from sentiment, but the new Weavers are great scopes for the money, just like the old ones. Don't know what I'll do with that Bushnell that's on it now. It's a 4x12 and while it's held up well, it isn't the best optics especially at higher powers. I'll put another 2x10KV on it like the one I have on my .308.

[skinewmexico]

You know, they guy who ran the repair department for Weaver in El Paso is still in business, and will rebuild your grandpa's old scope for you. Otherwise, as long as a scope holds zero, it's good enough. It amazes me what people think they have to have on their rifle to shoot a deer at 100 yards. The statement "spend as much on your scope as you do on the rifle" was probably formed by a marketing company, for a scope manufacturer's ad campaign. Face it, elitism works when you're trying to sell rifles and scopes.

[ArmedBear]

WRT spending as much...

There are many reasons that a rifle might cost a lot that don't have any impact on how much an appropriate scope would cost. Take these two hunting rifles from Remington:

This 700 Custom C Grade costs around $2000.
http://www.remington.com/images/products/firearms/cs/700_cust_c%5B1%5D.jpg

It probably shoots about like this 700 SPS for $500.
http://www.remington.com/images/products/firearms/centerfire/smsil_700sps.jpg

Maybe the C Grade is a hair more accurate because of how it's bedded, but for deer hunting, or even the target shooting you'd do with a sporter, you'll never know the difference.

You might want a gloss-finish scope on the shiny gun, and matte on the SPS, so the scope might be $20 more or less, but all else being equal, the same model scope, in the same price range, would make sense on both rifles.

Now if you're admonishing someone not to buy a $30 scope and put it on a $700 rifle, I'd agree. Spend more. But "as much as the rifle" is silly. In some cases, you need to spend MORE than the rifle costs, on a scope, to get the performance you want. Figure out what you want and need, save your pennies, and buy it.

[f4t9r]

As much as I can afford.

[phoglund]

I'm not an optics expert by any means and don't use my scoped rifles enough to really test the durability of their scopes. I had a Savage 30.06 that I hunted with for years with a low end Weaver scope on it that never failed to keep zero for over 20 years but the optical quality was pretty bad. I don't think that scope was ever responsible for a missed shot though. Lately I've been buying Mueller scopes. As I've said I'm no optics expert but I think they have wonderful optical clarity, repeatable finger adjustable windage and elevation adjustments, and useful features such a lighted reticles on all models save one. I have two of these scopes, a "Sportdot" 3x9x40 I paid $169 for and an 4.5-14x40AO APV for which I paid the princely sum of $129. I have no complaints.

They can be found here: http://www.muelleroptics.com/

[Rembrandt]

Hearing a lot of "my scope is just as good as the higher quality"....tells me you probably have never owned an upper end scope or don't know what you're talking about.

No mention that the big differences in price and quality is the lens polishing & coating process and how well they perform in low light hunting situations. Look at a fox through a cheap scope and the colors are dull and hazy, view the same fox through a quality scope and the colors are vivid and brilliant.

To illustrate the point, cheap glass is like looking through a lens that has been sanded with 320 grit sand paper scratches in it, top end glass has been highly polished & coated to a point where there is no light diffusion by the scratches put there in the manufacturing process....thus higher clarity and better color.

My personal rule of thumb is to spend about the same for the scope as you have in the rifle. Putting a $300-$400 scope on a $1500 rifle is like putting implement tires on a Rolls Royce. The rifle deserves to have a quality scope befitting the quality of the firearm.

[redneck2]

You only need to have a scope go bad once when you really need it to cure you forever.
Had a cheapie Simmons fog up when I finally should have had the shot at a buck of a lifetime. 14 point, 28" outside spread. I sat and watched him for 45 minutes because looking thru my scope was like trying to look thru a white sheet.

You're a fool if you think a $75 Tasco, BSA, or Swift is equal to a Swarovski. Now, not everybody needs or could even appreciate a $1,500 scope, but there is definitely a difference.

IMO, Laws of Diminishing Returns start to kick in at the mid range of the Leupold/Burris price range.

For years I hunted with a 4x Bushnell Sportview on my 870. Never fogged and worked fine. Held zero. Still isn't the same as the B&L I've got on it now.

I worked part-time in a gun shop. I'd have idiots that had booked 3-5k elk hunts come in and buy an expensive rifle, then buy the cheapest ammo and cheapest scope they could. Fools and their money.

In any event, these threads always seem degrade into the "I kicked the crap out of some rich dude and his Perazzi with my H&R Topper" or "my Hi-Point 9mm outshot some guy with an AI sniper rifle". This one just happens to be "my $50 scope is just as good as a Schmidt & Bender"

[skinewmexico]

Putting a $300-$400 scope on a $1500 rifle is like putting implement tires on a Rolls Royce. The rifle deserves to have a quality scope befitting the quality of the firearm.

Kind of subjective there, aren't you? Quality is a nebulous term. That's kind of like saying if someone puts a Bushnell Elite 4200 on their $1500 rifle, the deer won't die. If you're not competing at distance, I can't see why the scope has to match some magical price. I'd love to hear an actual story of when a guy with a 4200 couldn't see something to take a shot, but his buddy with a Schmidt & Bender next to him could. Too bad no one tests rifle scopes like they test camera lenses, then you could have some real data to use.

[Zak Smith]

I have done some optical test using Snellen optical charts at various distance with multiple observers, however, we only tested 4 scopes.

[Rembrandt]

As I said before, those who poo-poo upper end quality scopes probably have never owned one or used one in low light hunting senarios.

I've been at the range many times at dusk (Swarovski Rifle scope & spotting scope, 200 yards) easily viewing bullet holes when other shooters had to pack it up because they didn't have adequate light for their cheaper optics.

[redneck2]

There was a real nice test for scopes some years back on TFL, before THR came into existence. Wish I had the link, but I never could come up with it.

In any event, I think the reference Putting a $300-$400 scope on a $1500 rifle is like putting implement tires on a Rolls Royce. The rifle deserves to have a quality scope befitting the quality of the firearm. is that it's kinda foolish to put that kind of money into a quality rifle and them compromise on the glass. Would a $300 scope work most of the time? Yeah. Would a $300 rifle work most of the time? Yeah.

[jay43]

Kinda on the higher low side but I just bought a Nikon Buck Masters 4.5-14x40w/ao for 289 and the optics are amazing so clear and crisp

[Rembrandt]

.....kinda foolish to put that kind of money into a quality rifle and them compromise on the glass. Would a $300 scope work most of the time? Yeah. Would a $300 rifle work most of the time? Yeah.

Guess I don't want my rifles and scopes to work "most of the time".....I want them to work every time....

[Chipperman]

The glass is equal to or more money than the rifle.

So if I want to get a flat-top upper for my M16, I need to spend $10k for a scope? :scrutiny:


I agree with the other post:

The price of the scope has nothing to do with the price of the rifle.

The scope can cost more than or less than the rifle. Get good quality for its intended purpose, and you'll be fine.

[jpwilly]

Sounds like your a Weaver man just go get another one.

[SUBMOAS]

Your rifle is only as good as your optic..........

[Fatelvis]

I consider $300 to be the bottom end for a rifle scope. I like to catagorize them as follows:
Level 1 = Leupold, B&L, Burris / $300-$650
Level 2 = Leupold MK4s, Swarovski, Ziess, USO, Nightforce/ $1100-$1700
Level 3 = S&B/ too much for me!!

[MCgunner]

I doubt I'll ever own a rifle worth more than 1000 dollars nor a scope more than 400, personally. A 1 moa gun is a 1 moa gun. If I can hit what I'm shooting at, it's good 'nuf. I said in my post I've shot a Kleingunther (or however you spell it)/Schmidt and Bender and a couple of other rifles ol' Henry has. I know how good those S&Bs are, also know they won't do anything my cheaper scopes won't do in my deer hunting. They do have marvelous optics, though, and I'm sure a bit better in low light. If I was rich, I might would go for the high dollar optics, but I'd still be shooting a sub 1000 dollar rifles. LOL I like Remingtons, they're accurate, they do the job. I don't need fancy wood and gold inlaid hunting scenes to hit the target.

I think on my budget, no budget, I have to go for at least 200 dollars MSRP on a scope, though. I know there's a limit to how low you can go with optics and have acceptable quality.

I got a deal on that Weatherby Supreme. I'm not sure what those things went for new, got mine on a sell out, don't think they sell 'em anymore. But, it's MUCH brighter and a little clearer optics than my Weaver and seems to be pretty danged rugged. I shoulda got two of 'em at that price, LOL. It's only draw back is it's HEAVY. But, then, I have it on a 7mm Rem Mag, so weight is a good thing. That scope approaches what I've seen in 400 dollar scopes. The 44 mil objective helps the brightness of it, I guess.

I ain't no rich safari hunter, Bwana MC or anything. I'm just a poor white trash Texas deer and hog hunter, never will be anything else I reckon. I keep buying lotto tickets. I might even buy a suit and tie if I win, just to pick up my check in. :D While I'm in Austin, I'll be looking at hill country ranches, too, and maybe I'll pick up a Schmidt and Bender at one of the better gun shops while I'm at it. :D

[rbernie]

$300 is pretty much the least you should spend. How much more you spend is dictated by your budget and desire for incremental gains in quality.

[ArmedBear]

Hearing a lot of "my scope is just as good as the higher quality"....tells me you probably have never owned an upper end scope or don't know what you're talking about.

I don't think that I've heard that. And if I have, you're right that it's an ignorant statement.

I've been at the range many times at dusk (Swarovski Rifle scope & spotting scope, 200 yards) easily viewing bullet holes when other shooters had to pack it up because they didn't have adequate light for their cheaper optics.

Yeah.

And if it's so dark I can't see a deer with the scope I have on my deer rifle, I will get a big fat ticket and probably lose my hunting license for a while if I pull the trigger.

With a Swarovski, I could count the hairs on its nose way past legal shooting hours. I appreciate that kind of quality, and I definitely notice it. I just don't NEED it for deer hunting in open country, so my money is better spent otherwise.

With a mid-range, quality scope (Burris, Leupold, whatever) I can hit it perfectly well under any real circumstances. That statement does NOT mean that a VXII is equal to a $1500 scope. It means that it will do the intended job just as well. There is a difference between those statements.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't get a high-end scope for any purpose that actually exploits its capabilities. Nor does it mean I would buy junk when I need reliability. But I'm pretty confident that a Swarovski would break just the same as a Burris if dropped onto concrete from 50 feet in the air. If I'm wrong, let me know.

It's accurate to say that you won't be able to get groceries reliably in a car that's falling apart. However, it's not true that you need a new Rolls-Royce to do it. You will get just as many groceries, just as reliably, if you drive a Toyota. That doesn't mean a Toyota is the same as a Rolls-Royce, either. It means that, when you specify a task, it may do that task just as well for less cash.

[mes228]

Just a word on scopes. I've owned many kinds as I trade rifles a lot. Among them Leupold, Zeise, Bushnell Elite 3200 & 4200, Weaver Grand Slam, Kahles and several lesser brand cheapies. My last scope purchase was the Zeise Conquest. I recieved a Fuginon riflescope in a trade last week, it is NIB. It is without a doubt the finest optical scope I've ever looked through. It clearly exceeds any other optic I've ever owned, even the highest quality European glass. Down side is it's ugly, but that's the only down side. Solid one piece aluminum tube, etched reticles (I think) and very precise repeatable adjustments. Fuginon is world renoun for it's optics. The Border Patrol and U.S. Military use the Binocs (M22 & M24) and they are amazing. Why these scopes never caught on here is a mystery. I found some on E-bay that were quite inexpensive. This is a quote from a blurb I found on an optics site " Fuginon brings optical quality equal that of the finest European makers such as Zeiss, Steiner, Swarovski, Lica, and Doctor... Each Fuginon Model is brighter, clearer, and tougher than any model in it's class... They have the highest light transmission of any rifle scope on earth. I think this scope far exceeds the Zeiss I have. They are a treasure and they are affordable if you can find one I'm sure you'll agree. I consider this as the best bargain I've found in a very long time.