[dude]

Well that's what I now have.

My trusty NEF .17HMR single-shot is now sporting a Simmons Model WTC45 4.5X14X42mm AO beast and shoots quite nicely so far compared to the $30 POS it replaced (as you can imagine).

http://www.simmonsoptics.com/images/whitetailcsm1.jpg

Now I'm not into optics and did not actually pay very much for it.......... but my favorite gunshop had this thing mounted to a used 10/22 going for about $180 or so. I picked it up and told the owner/operator (after my dog was finished mooching some jerky off him) that it will never sell because you've priced it way to low, the scope alone is worth more.........folks will think you are up to something. He agreed and took the scope off and priced the good condition 10/22 for $110 and put the scope in the case for $75. I said that if that scope is still here next tuesday and if it fits my .17 NEF I'll pick it up.

Well next tuesday rolls around and after finding some medium-rise Weaver mounts in his junk box I'm out the door less $50. He took off $25 because it seems that two Dan Wessons that had been hanging on his wall for 1/2 year or so had suddenly sold after I had mentioned one of them on a certian Web Board.

moral of the story- it pays to shop local and this BB rocks!!

[444]

I personally don't understand the relationship between the price of a rifle and the price of a scope. Where is it written that you can't spend more on a scope than the rifle costs ? For that matter where is it written that you can't put good optics on a .22 rifle ? Why is it that if you are shooting certain calibers that you don't deserve to see well ? I think that most of my scopes cost more than the rifles they are on. I don't own any really expensive rifles. But all the scopes I have mounted are Leupold Vari-X IIIs. It is my opinion that something like an out of the box Remington 700 shoots better than I do. It functions fine. It works well for my needs as is. But, I have had some bad luck with cheap scopes and even moderately prices scopes. The scope is my interface with the target. It helps me to come closer to shooting up to my potential and closer to the full potential of the rifle. I believe that you can buy a very good quality, accurate rifle for $400-$500 and a lot of the time less. But I don't believe that you can buy a good, precision optical instrument for $100.

[dakotasin]

i agree w/ 444.

all my rifles wear leupold. some of them certainly cost more than the gun, but i have never shot one apart. i also believe that you can't hit it if you can't see it...

i have no qualms about putting scopes on a rifle that cost what the rifle did. in fact, i think more hunters would be happier if they saved their scope money an extra month and picked up something other than the $30 tasco/bushnell...

[3 gun]

I have to agree, a good rifle deserves a good scope. I use a scope on my sub MOA grouping Marlin 22mag that cost 3x what the rifle cost.

[BIGR]

No problem having a scope like that on a rifle. The way I see it if you can get on target better with it and shoot better then go for it.

[Tropical Z]

Personally,i think your'e NUTS!:eek:

[rugerfreak]

ALWAYS buy the best glass you can afford----if you think it's too much scope for a certain rifle---you can always put that scope on a different rifle down the road.

[Soap]

Some really inexpensive guns are real shooters! Most really inexpensive scopes are real pieces of trash.

I don't mind spending my cash on good glass.

[Coltdriver]

It is astounding how much $$$ you can get wrapped up in a scope.

But once you have tried a truly great scope on any rifle it is tough to go back.

I used to have the same incredulous feeling about the cost of a scope versus the rifle, but no longer.

Comparing my old Tasco to my new Bausch and Lomb there is no comparison.

So my B&L rides on a rifle that cost less than the scope! The rifle is a .17 HMR too, a Savage.

[firestar]

I have heard people say: "buy the best scope you can afford". What about buying the gun you can afford?

I just don't think I could spend more on the scope than the gun. It would be like buying a holster that cost more than the pistol ot buying a hi-cap mag that cost more than the pistol. It just doesn't seem right to me.:scrutiny:

You only paid $50.00 for your scope so I don't think you are crazy, just smart. I would put a scope that is worth more than the rifle on agun but I just wouldn't pay more for a scope than the gun it is supposed to go on.

[Mannlicher]

No gun is worth spit if you can't hit anything with it. Good optics on a rifle are as important as the rifle. I try to buy the best quality I can, both in the rifle and the scope. Sometimes the rifle costs more, sometimes its the scope.

[tex_n_cal]

Depends on what you're trying to do:)

If the rifle itself is only intended for casual plinking, and doesn't kick too hard, a cheap scope is fine. I have a 4x Tasco on my XP100 in .22-250 - it was fairly cheap, but the recoil is mild so it works fine. Now that I've found the gun is spooky accurate, I will upgrade at some point.

I usually spend more on big game rifles' scopes, just because I don't want any excuses when I finally get that big mulie in my sights.:)

Although I haven't taken it hunting yet, I will never again put a Redfield on a .375 H&H:p

[444]

"I just wouldn't pay more for a scope than the gun it is supposed to go on."

That is your decison to make, and I am not trying to be argumentitive, but why ? As I said in my previous post, where is that written. People say that as if it is a given, people say that like it is only common sense, but it doesn't make any sense to me. Why does the rifle have to cost more than the scope ?

[cheygriz]

Most guns can be made to shoot fairly well with a little tinkering. Cheap scopes are junk, and a waste of money.

I would see no problem at all putting a $1,000 Hensoldt scope on a $150 milsurp Swedish Mauser.

If your funds are limited, as most of us experience, spend your money on the best glass you can afford, and spend what's left over on the rifle.

I always get a good laugh out of the neophyte that spends $2,000 plus on a match M1A and then spends $150 on a Wal-Mart special scope, then whines that his expensive M1A isn't worth a damn cuz he can't hit anything with it. Go figure!

[Double Naught Spy]

The price of the scope, rifle, and ammo are not what is relevant. All that matters is that combined with the three, you are able to put rounds down range and on target in the manner you want to be able to accomplish that goal.

Actually, it should not be surprising that the scope costs more than the rifle. Quality optics are expensive.

Where it gets expensive and unreasonable is when you have a $2 human being shooting $3 ammo out of a $129 gun using a $300 scope. :D ...but I digress.

[hksw]

If it works for you, why would it matter?