What makes a $1000 scope better than a $500 scope???

Walkalong said:

Setting aside the does one need it factor some will argue, some people simply cannot see the difference, and so would not be lying, they just can't see it.

Click to expand...

Prescription eye glasses and or cataract surgery tends to help with that...

tarosean said:

I think this is the first mini review Ive seen on the new Sig Optics... Been curious about them, just haven't seen much on them from real users. So mediocre is your conclusion?

Click to expand...

Not mediocre, but not in the same class as an optic twice as expensive.

For the price, the Tango4 is great.For the (reduced) price I paid for both of mine, even better. Tracking is good. Clarity, resolution, and brightness are great for the price. The illuminated reticle feature is crisp and the controls are well thought out (alternating positions on the knob for “off” and increasing brightness settings).

The ONLY reservation I have which prevents me from buying more and more of them has been seeing the parallax knob fall off of TWO Tango4’s for other guys. Never an issue with mine, and I know Sig took care of the guys who had failures, but the facts remain: 1) not many were on the market yet when I saw two guys I personally know have failures. 2) One failure happened during a match, rainy, and his optic went foggy instantly when his knob rolled across the deck, and 3) I haven’t had enough time pressure testing mine to convince myself I’m not vulnerable. I would happily put a Tango4 4-16x on one of my “practice match” AR-15’s, but knowing that I find myself using my windage and parallax knobs as pivot points against barricades - not exactly the best environment for a system suspect of knob failures.

I had used the Leupold VX3 and VX3i 4.5-14x50mm for several years as my “go-to” hunting scope. I paid $50 and $100 more for my Sig Tango4’s as I paid for my VX3’s, and got a LOT better scopes for in the Sigs. Beside the VX3, the Sig Tango4 has better resolution, better brightness, 4-16x instead of 4.5-14x, illuminated reticle, better adjustment click feel, BETTER TRACKING. For current street prices, the VX3i runs something like $600, and the Sig $900, but I paid $650 and $750 for mine.

If the knob failures were flukes, then the Sigs are GREAT for the money.

Where do I run into the point of diminishing returns buying a scope. That may be subjective in the end. Well, I like Blah&Blah Scope. The operative words here "I like...". For me, It's the half dozen Leupold's in the gun safe. I really like those gold rings.

I like my Leupold’s too. Currently I have a VX-2, VX-R and a VX-3. I like my Meopta’s better though.

By quick count there are actually ten Leupold's down in the Skunk Works. Some of those scopes I have had over thirty years with no problem. I like friction adjustment or am used to them. Over the years four of these scopes came new. The rest were used. I know many of the brands in this thread are brighter etc. than my old Leupold's. The Leupold's work great for the shooting I do. Do I get more for my money paying for for scopes. Nope.

Nature Boy said:

You might say, “nah, not worth the extra $500” but the difference is appreciable.

Click to expand...

This is the gap - most guys don’t admit they know there is a difference, but they don’t feel it is worth it. Part of that is often pride. A guy loves his scope, or maybe he worked hard to save the money to buy at that price point, so he talks highly of it, and will minimize any objective advantage a higher priced might carry. At its core, it is lying, to themselves and to others.

When I’m at a match with my Bushnell DMR II and someone asks how I like it, sitting with an ATACR, K525i, or PMII on their rifle - I have absolutely no problem saying, “it’s great for a $1700 optic, but it sure isn’t as clear as an ATACR, PMII, or Kahles. When I’m hunting with a Sig Tango4 or Leupold VX3, I have no delusion to pretend it’s as good of scope as the LRHS on my 22 match rifle or my DMR on my PR match rifle, nor as good as the NXS 5.5-22x on my wife’s coyote rifle. When I’m plinking 22LR with my son and my wife, a $250 3-9x Bushnell 3200 on her rifle, a $150 Bushnell Trophy 3-9x on his, and a $40 NC Star import 3-9x on my own, there’s a VERY obvious progression for whose optic is at the bottom, and whose is best.

And that NC Star optic is a good example of “the extra cost isn’t worth it to me.” I’ve had that NC star on that particular 10/22 for a decade, a shop gave it to me for free to demo/review to see if he wanted to carry them in his shop. It’s a junk scope compared to everything else I own, but it holds zero and it can see clearly enough for what I ask that rifle to do, so I left it there. I have other scopes I could put on top, far better scopes. But I don’t use that rifle much, and don’t demand much of it when I do. So it works fine. I would never even remotely consider using it for even a rimfire Appleseed match, let along something like Smallbore indoor or NRL22 - it’s not a good enough optic. I also have a crappy 6-18x Nikon Buckmaster on top of one of my Charger pistols. Terrible lensing at 16-18x, poor resolution compared to my $500+ optics, mixed mil/MOA turret and reticle, let alone being a rifle scope on top of a pistol. But it does what I ask it to do, and it is fine for that.

Being happy with a product doesn’t mean there aren’t objectively better products on the market, and folks shouldn’t mislead others to pretend those advantages don’t make a difference in the right conditions.

Varminterror said:

folks shouldn’t mislead others to pretend those advantages don’t make a difference in the right conditions.

Click to expand...

I stand by what I have said. Help me with right conditions? What is pretending about good enough?

Mowgli Terry said:

I stand by what I have said. Help me with right conditions? What is pretending about good enough?

Click to expand...

Never fails, someone gets butthurt when they’re called out for their denial.

So in your 30yr old Leupolds, how many are first focal plane mrad based ranging reticles, mrad based exposed turrets, side focus parallax, fully multi coated lenses, with at least a 20x top end, and at least 60moa internal adjustment (using a 20moa base, 90 if not)? Because if they aren’t, then they won’t fair well in the conditions of a rainy precision rifle match.

Be happy with your hunting scopes which excel under incredibly low-demand conditions. That’s fine. But don’t pretend conditions don’t exist which make your pride and joy about as useful as a paperweight.

How many people participate in the long range matches? I never made a comparison. The comment was made good enough. I recall in another thread somebody was blowing smoke about Leupold's not tracking. The next post was from a silhouette shooter who said otherwise. If you condescended to read ,my entire post you could perhaps could understand the message is "OK". Only my 25x Silhouette, and VXIII 6.5-25 has all the Bells&Whistles of which you speak. You are consistently wrong about the older scopes. There are four others in the lot that are current. My point was and is why buy a super expensive scope when what you got will do. How many of those fancy features mainly lure the wannabes? Good enough is good enough.

There are conditions that make my pride a joy a bad choice as well. If I had to put a scope in a lever action 30-30 for deer hunting in the mountains of Kentucky and had to choose between my Nikon prostaff or my vortex razor I would choose my Nikon. A 3lb ffp scope with exposed turrets and fancy bells/whistles is not the right tool for the job

Mowgli Terry said:

My point was and is why buy a super expensive scope when what you got will do. How many of those fancy features mainly lure the wannabes? Good enough is good enough.

Click to expand...

I felt that way for a long time, and can understand the sentiment.
'course my "good enough" (and believe me I'm pretty sure everyone thinks my taste in optics is....questionable) were 50-150 dollar scopes. I've killed a lot of stuff with optics a lot of folks wouldn't use as paper weights.
I'm still well aware that for what I do a 60 dollar Bushnell trophy will do as well as any of my current optics.
Im much happier with my nicer gear tho, and will continue to buy nicer and more expensive scopes scopes and things for them to ride on.
No matter what I would kill just as many things with my Savage 110 and premonarch Nikon, which was my "expensive" rig up untill fairly recently.

Walkalong said:

Different scopes for different jobs.

Click to expand...

No not all my scopes are antiques nor am I low rating current big ticket scopes. Leupold's reputation for durability, fog free and overall quality were made with these antiques. I do not think these scope are useless or junk. These scopes are not the same and the new state of the art scopes. My point is these scopes are still durable and do the job for which they were intended. The topic of the thread are $1000.00 scopes better than $500.00 scopes. It's what ever cranks your tractor. Repeating factory ads does not carry the day. I like my two Leupold's that pushed a thousand dollars. Are they better scopes than the $500.00. They're for different uses. Hope I did not quote Walkalong out context.

I think that there is a limit as to how low I would go for a hunting rig, but for sure the economy Leupold (Rifleman these days) will serve 99% of hunters just fine.
They are dependable and optically "good enough".

Anybody who`participates in the money pit of competition shooting has higher standards and needs different features.

z7 said:

There are conditions that make my pride a joy a bad choice as well. If I had to put a scope in a lever action 30-30 for deer hunting in the mountains of Kentucky and had to choose between my Nikon prostaff or my vortex razor I would choose my Nikon. A 3lb ffp scope with exposed turrets and fancy bells/whistles is not the right tool for the job

Click to expand...

This.

“Enough scope” isn’t always the best money can buy. But it also isn’t always expected to perform the same either.

My F-150 is enough for what I need, but it ain’t as powerful, nor as well featured, nor as nicely appointed as a King Ranch F-350, and doesn’t even get as good of fuel economy (per dollar). The F-350 King is a better truck. The only “con” is the price tag.

I’ve discussed here different scopes for varying applications within my safe - from $50 to $2,500. After using nicer quality scopes, I certainly will and do spend more for some of my scopes than I could, simply to have better glass or features, but I also certainly would not spend $2,500 on a scope if I didn’t find value in the additional upcharges.

Talked about coating and more durable innards. Wonder how much all this light gathering ability with lens, coating has to do with a 50mm objective? The old ones are still strong. In a real sense time has passed the oldies by. Can I varmint hunt with my elderly 16x Leupold. How about deer hunt my by 3x Leupold. The old M8 2x on my 586 has been on there for years. Don't feel compelled to toss that one. So far, I have not been accused of being out of step and old fashioned at this point. I'm not saying better than but still usable. I do OK with my 700 VS in .222 with 10x Unertl scope.

Mowgli Terry said:

Wonder how much all this light gathering ability with lens, coating has to do with a 50mm objective?

Click to expand...

Look through a 8-20 50 mm BSA and a Night force 5.5-22 50mm and you will immediately see the difference. If not, buy the BSA.

Walkalong said:

Or if you really want to see what $1k on sale dollars gets you. Great glass, a wide range of power (1.8 all the way to 12). Sweet, but not cheap.

https://www.eurooptic.com/Leica-Magnus-Riflescope-18-12x50-L-Ballistic-54400.aspx

Click to expand...

The Magnus is a beautiful thing.