[jrdolall]

I have been hunting all my life with the vast majority being in the Southeast. I see rifle scopes foing for $1500 being sold in AL and GA and I wonder what the real difference in these and a $150 Bushnell could be. The most expensive scope I own is a $300 leupold. They are excellent scopes. I have Bushnell, Redfield and several others that are also good for what I do. What advantage would a $1500 scope have for MY applications? Hunting in the woods with 100-150 as my max shots. I understand there are "cadillacs" in anything so doo-dads and bells and whistles, while maybe nice,really don't improve what I do.

Do the "better" scopes draw more light? Are they more accurate? Prettier? Durable? I have a 20 year old Leupold and a 40+ Weaver that are still as good as new. I understand that Barska is a cheap Chinese scope and i don't own one but how ar they inferior to Lika?

[allaroundhunter]

For what you want, the $1500 scopes are not worth it.

Sent from my HTC One X

[Grumulkin]

The better scopes:

1. Probably do draw in more light but, unless you're hunting where it's fairly dark probably not enough more to really help you.

2. Have better/more dependable tracking but at the ranges you'll be using it for you probably wouldn't be changing scope settings often so it probably doesn't matter a whole lot.

3. Probably are more dependable and durable. I got rid of a bunch of cheap scopes after missing a coyote twice (it must have been a stupid one to give me 2 shots with a single shot rifle) and finding out my Tasco scope, a brand now owned by Bushnell, had its zero migrate up 10 to 12 inches in just a few days.

4. Many times have illuminated reticles but for what you want it for, it's probably a useless option for you.

5. Have things like ballistic or target turrets or special long range reticles which you probably won't use.

6. Look cool.

One of the scopes I use the most and that's entirely satisfactory is a lowly Leupold 2-7X scope (I forget the exact model) I bought on eBay a long time ago at a good price. That said, I also have scopes that are quite a bit more expensive because I do shoot at night, at long range, switch scopes on rifles and want great dependability. Most of my scopes are Leupolds I bought used with Mark 4 models being my favorite.

[jmr40]

The more expensive scopes offer clearer glass and better light transmission in low light. But the difference between a $300-$400 scope and a $1,000 scope is pretty small and the average person will not be able to tell the difference.

When you drop below $300 you are making some serious compromises in both clarity, and reliability. Not that you cannot make a $200-$250 scope work, but something in the $300-$400 range is really noticeably better, and well worth the small price difference. In my opinion nothing made that retails for under $200 is worth bringing home. There is a huge difference between models selling for $175 and something selling for $200-$250.

I could be perfectly happy with a $300 Leupold VX-2 model. I have some VX-3's, but wouldn't even spend the extra for one of those again. At least not now that Leupold has upgraded their entire line of scopes. I actually own a Zeiss Diavari that originally sold for well over $1,000 that I got at a steal used from a guy needing to sell a gun/scope quickly because he lost his job. Yes it is better, but not enough for me to pay full price for it. It is also a lot heavier than my Leupolds and I don't currently have it mounted on a rifle. Thinking about selling it to someone who will actually use it.

[Kachok]

In my opinion nothing made that retails for under $200 is worth bringing home. There is a huge difference between models selling for $175 and something selling for $200-$250.

I would not agree with that. I have a few $100-$150 scopes that have served me very well for years with zero issues, though now I don't think I would ever trust my hunt to anything cheaper then my Nikon Prostaff. Nikon Buckmaster and Leupold VX-II are both really nice glass for someone on a budget, both retail under $300 and are fantastic.

[Art Eatman]

The basic deer hunter's needs are easily satisfied by any halfway-decent fixed 4X scope. That's plenty good for Bambi to 350 or 400 yards, as a function of the shooter's skills.

What's a good used Weaver K4 going for, these days?

[wankerjake]

What's a good used Weaver K4 going for, these days?

The "vintage" El Paso Weaver K4s are going for $40-80 depending on condition, seller etc. They are good scopes, I run one one on my 30-06.

[a-sheepdog]

I agree that for the "high end" scopes are not necessary for most hunting situations. I have to admit though, I do enjoy my Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40. It cost me close to $400, but it has been extremely durable on my 338 win mag and has endured rough baggage handlers when I fly out of state and it holds its zero. For me, this particular scope is what I put on my rifles now. I know that it is a little more expensive than most, but I look at what I spend on the rifle and what the scope will have to endure. I see no problems with cheaper scopes as I had an old Weaver K4 on my deer rifle for years and it never skipped a beat and was the demise of multiple deer and other animals as well.

[MCgunner]

400 bucks ain't that much for good optics. Look up Schmidt and Bender. I knew an old fellow that bought NOTHING, but Schmidt and Bender. I shot his guns, the scopes were fantastic. I beat him, his S&B, and his Kleinguenther for first place at a big club shoot with my old Remington M722 and a Bushnell 4x12 with BDC. It really miffed him off. Oh, well, that was just a 100 yard target and I could see it just fine in broad daylight. That rifle and scope and the old KV Weaver "El Paso" scope it had before the Bushnell have taken a lot of deer, though. That Bushnell is 30 years old and never quit working. Would I rather put a S&B on it? Sure, but it ain't worth the money for MY uses. I do plan to put a better scope on it someday, but I ain't goin' broke over the optic on it. Weaver, Nikon, lots of better options that won't break me. Not that much better than the Bushnell, though, frankly, so I haven't been clamoring to put another scope on the gun.

For example....

http://www.opticsplanet.com/schmidt-bender-3-12x50-police-marksman-ii-lp-34mm-riflescope.html

[sage5907]

If you remember the Clint Eastwood movie Josie Wales the old Cherokee indian said Clint was waiting for an edge. The difference between a Leupold M3 for $900 and a Leupold VX at $400 is that edge. Most hunters may never need or recognize that edge but for a serious hunter it really comes in handy. Superior clarity, excellent light transmission and uncritical eye relief are some of the advantages. When that "one" opportunity presents itself that edge may be the difference between a great hunting season or going home empty handed. I have a hunting rifle that hits everything I shoot at and 90 percent of the reason is the M3 scope. BW

[redneck2]

I suppose it depends on individual situations. I was hunting with my friend last year. We were looking down a hay field to a thicket where the deer were coming out just at sunset. We were looking almost directly into the sun.

He had a Redfield which he thought was a pretty good scope. I have a Leupold VX-R. The Redfield had so much glare that it was impossible to see the deer coming out. Mine worked great and had zero glare.

Years ago I had a chance at a huge deer. My cheapie scope fogged internally and was useless.

The worse your conditions, the better the scope needs to be IMO. There's a reason good scopes cost more, and not just so someone can spend more money.

[MCgunner]

Most hunters may never need or recognize that edge but for a serious hunter it really comes in handy.

Serious hunters? Does it get more serious than hunting/making a kill or starving? Caribou doesn't use a scope, not even a fancy rifle! My grandparents made it through the depression partly on what they could kill and they didn't have no stinkin' Leupolds!

I think we get carried away on this "serious hunter" stuff. It don't get more serious than killin' or starvin'. Personally, I'm about as serous a sport hunter as it gets, within my meager budget. I don't fly off overseas, don't have that kinda stash. I've shot game with iron sights. Main thing I like about scopes now days is my aging eyes. But, I don't HAVE to have an optic to hunt, helps, but I don't HAVE to have one, let alone a 3500 dollar Schmidt and Bender. Now, Leupold is flat out JUNK compared to Schmidt and Bender, so if you're serious, why are you using inferior optics?

:D Probably a little too sarcastic, but the post brought it out in me. Sorry. :D

[BBQLS1]

In general, you probably don't need a really expensive scope. They are nice when everything else is at it's worst. As someone said, it can give you an edge.

I have inexpensive scopes on my rifles, but my shots don't get very far out there. Where I hunt is pretty heavily wooded with lots of ridges and hills.

[MCgunner]

Oh, another thought, there are PLENTY of serious bow hunters out there that don't use optics. The more serious they are, the more primitive is their equipment many times, not always, but many times.

[Art Eatman]

Back sixty years ago with a Weaver K2.5 on my 1917 Enfield, I figure I was as serious as any hunter ever thought about being. The rig was definitely a problem for the local jackrabbit population, anyhow. An 80-grain .32-20 bullet in front of about 55 grains of 3031 made a great micro-grenade. Now, that's serious!

[sage5907]

McGunner, for your information I bowhunt with a recurve. When I say "serious hunter" I am talking about being successful on the one chance I may get in an entire year to take home a really big buck. Your definition of serious hunter is apparently different and I don't have a problem with that. BW

[MCgunner]

I think maybe you mean "serious trophy hunter", to which I can't relate, ergo the confusion.

[Pistol Ranch]

The expensive scopes offer better glass, better light transmission, better lens coating,less distortion at the very edge of the sight window, more accurate/reliable tracking, better sealing and snob appeal. If I had enough money to hunt the world for exotic trophies, ALL my rifles would have high end glass. That said, I only have one rifle with a German made Zeiss and THATS the one I use if I am going to hunt late into the evening.

[H&Hhunter]

Gentlemen...

While I agree that you don't need a super duper uber cool Euro scope costing thousands of dollars. You also don't need a cheap piece of junk that is going to fail you at the worst time.

Cheap junk includes any and all Chinese knock offs.
Anything called Tasco or Simons.
Low end Bushnells are JUNK.
I've had poor experiences with the new Redfield line.
Any of the low end stuff coming out of Eastern Europe is junk.
Some of the older stuff is cool like the Weavers and the old Lyman scopes. However be careful and make sure they are still sealed and won't fog on you in the rain. I've had it happen with these antiques more than once.

So reasonably priced good stuff includes;
Leupold Vari X II and preferably Vari X III I like the III's better simply because they have positive clicks when adjusting windage and elevation making them more precise.

Burris makes some good stuff I'd stay away from their rock bottom glass.

Top end Bushnell is OK but I am unimpressed with their clarity in particular they tend to fish eye at low and high power settings.

Zeiss Conquest line, possibly the best buy on the Euro Scope market!

Swarovski Z-3 line is their "low" cost one inch line of scopes. The 3x9 and the 3x10 40 MM scopes run from between 7 and $800 USD. But I've got to tell you that they are FANTASTIC glass for the money the clarity and light tranmission is unbelievable! AND the BRX system is the most simple usable long range reticule system I've ever played with. But this is a very special use scope IMHO and not needed for 95% of what the average hunter uses a rifle for.

My serious general purpose rifles all wear either a 1.75X6 or a 2.5X8 in a Vari X III. Oh yeah my really hard use rifle all wear Iron sights. But I'm a gun nut so the truth of the matter is I own way to many rifles. If I had just two it would be my 30-06 and my .375H&H both wearing low power Vari X III's.

[MCgunner]

I can agree on Tasco and especially Simmons as crap in my experience. The old Japanese 4x fixed Tascos worked and were cheap, but they're not Japanese now and I don't trust 'em. I had a Simmons Whitetail (much ballyhooed via advertizing 20 years ago) fail me out west, that being when I put the Weatherby Surpeme on that rifle. Funny thing, I had a Bushnell Sportview 3x9x40 (cheap scope) for 2 years and a lot of rounds on that rifle and IT never gave me a problem. Seems the Simmons couldn't handle 7 mag recoil. :rolleyes: Probably wouldn't have lasted 3 shots on a .375. But, I've owned a lot of low end Bushnell stuff over the years and NEVER EVER had a mechanical problem. It is true, however, the optics aren't first rate on a banner or sportview, but I've never been let down by one in the field.

My current scopes include a Bushnell Banner on my old Remington 722, my Weaver KV 2x10x40 on my M7, and a Weatherby supreme 3x9x44 (best optics of the lot) on a Savage 110. I'm thinkin' I'll either put a Weaver or Nikon on the 722 eventually. Both are sub 300 dollar scopes.

[allaroundhunter]

I had a Simmons Whitetail on my Savage .270 WSM and not only would it not hold zero, it was not even possible to zero it. I even had it professionally installed... It just couldn't handle the recoil. I ended up putting a Nikon Prostaff 3-9x40 on it; let me tell you, for $150, that is a heck of a riflescope.

Sent from my HTC One X

[CountryUgly]

I hunt the SE as well and have to yet come across a situation where a 3-9x40 Simmons couldn't get it done. Heck a VX-3 is more than enough. With that being said after the first time I got behind a Nightforce on a Lazz rifle chambered in .308 Warbird I almost cried when I had to get back behind a Simmons atop a Savage 30-06. I try to buy the best optics I can afford and justify for their intened purpose i.e. Simmons for the south eastern deer woods, Nightforce for tiny groups at 1000 yards.