Lower end optics

Out of the few hunting scopes that I have (mostly on rimfire rifles) I have both Nikon and Bushnell scopes. I prefer the Bushnell over the Nikon at the 'el cheapo' price point. The Bushnell scopes definitely track better and are a little more clear at higher magnification for me.

By no means am I a scope snob. I really like the 4-14x44 MIL/MIL scope from Primary Arms for the price point ($230). I also like my Bushnell Elite 4500 6-24 MILDOT scope too. The Bushnell Elite is in a whole other ball park as far as quality and price though.

Scopes and scope cost is a subject that seems to bring out opinions.....and I have mine. I actually consider the Low End to be Simmons, Tasco, Barska, Centerpoint,Tru-Glo. and No Name territory. (and I own and use all of those). I think of Nikon and Bushnell as mid level scopes along with Redfield and Weaver and some others. Frankly this is a field where improvements in tooling and manufacturing as well as coatings has made some new cheap stuff rival and surpass expensive scopes of a few decades ago. The best are still the best.....but whether they are worth the price difference is up to the buyer. For myself I have some Tasco's and Centerpoints that are crisp and clear. I've got Redfields and Bushnells that are a bit sharper and better in low light. I don't have any higher end stuff. I wear prescription lenses. I can look through my Redfields and see a difference in performance beyond those very usable Simmons and Centerpoints. I can look though someone's Zeiss or Schmidt and Benders and they are very sharp....but I can't really tell any difference from the Redfields.

Stumper said:

Scopes and scope cost is a subject that seems to bring out opinions.....and I have mine. I actually consider the Low End to be Simmons, Tasco, Barska, Centerpoint,Tru-Glo. and No Name territory. (and I own and use all of those). I think of Nikon and Bushnell as mid level scopes along with Redfield and Weaver and some others. Frankly this is a field where improvements in tooling and manufacturing as well as coatings has made some new cheap stuff rival and surpass expensive scopes of a few decades ago. The best are still the best.....but whether they are worth the price difference is up to the buyer. For myself I have some Tasco's and Centerpoints that are crisp and clear. I've got Redfields and Bushnells that are a bit sharper and better in low light. I don't have any higher end stuff. I wear prescription lenses. I can look through my Redfields and see a difference in performance beyond those very usable Simmons and Centerpoints. I can look though someone's Zeiss or Schmidt and Benders and they are very sharp....but I can't really tell any difference from the Redfields.

Click to expand...

High end for me is Nikon Buckmaster II, and Bushnell.

I’ve got several Nikon scopes, and have always been happy with them, except for once. I tried an older ProStaff on my 450 Bushmaster AR, and it wouldn’t hold zero with the recoil. Replaced it with a Burris Fullfield II, and it has held zero fine. Both of my 450’s now have Burris scopes.

Walkalong said:

I have a Pro Staff 2-7 on my .458 Win Mag, so far so good.

Click to expand...

I’ve never had a problem with any Nikon scope before, and it may have been that particular scope. It’s now on a friends 7.62x39 AR and it’s working fine.

My personal experience has been that if a scope is going to break it will do so within the first dozen rounds. I have never had a scope - including some laughably bad blister pack scopes - fail in regular use after it had been sighted in.

So to me, the downsides of cheap scopes are two: optical quality and adjustment reliability.

As far as optical quality, it takes a large amount of money to get truly clear optics. This is critically important to some folks, but after long experience, I decided it was not, for me. I want my binocular to be spectacular. I want my rifle scope to point my rifle in the proper direction.

Reliable, repeatable adjustments are in the same vein. Were I choosing a scope for target shooting or sniper school I would expect to pay for knobs that moved the reticle the same amount and to the same place every time. On my hunting rifles, though, I am going to set my zero and then leave it alone. That is a much easier task for a scope.

So Nikon vs. Bushnell (or Tasco or Burris or whatever)? I'm going to look through it in the store (into a darkened corner and not out the window into the broad daylight) to check for anything truly wrong with the optics. If it passes that test, I'm going to mount it to my rifle, bang on it with a couple of boxes of ammunition, and if it stays zeroed and undamaged I will then assume that it will outlast me.

BrocLuno said:

I run the gamut from Center-Point to Leupold. But mostly reconditioned blue steel tube Weavers. I especially like Weavers with Micro-Trac. But even used, they are above the budget range the OP wants to discuss ... Blue steel scopes on blue steel rifles

I have some Nikons and Bushnell Elites (very nice scopes), but again, above the range the OP wants.

I have to say, I have bought two Weaver Kaspa's for AR projects underway (one mine, one a bud's). They are within the budget the OP wants and are pretty good scopes. They are on clearance on eBay for now, for decent money. But when they are gone, the new ones will be more ...

Click to expand...

I have a couple Weaver Grand Slams and like them. Around $200 on sale at Natchez. I just ordered a Weaver Kaspa from CDNN for $39. They are far better than something like a Barska or Simmons in my experience.

LiveLife said:

For low light application around $100, I am happy with Banner Dusk & Dawn AO 6-18x50mm. Here's my low light (near dark) comparison of Trophy, Banner and Leupold -

Click to expand...

Picked up one of those recently, but haven't tested it out yet. Maybe my next range trip I'llount OT and do some testing out to 300 yds. I'll have to pull either the Leupold vx3l or my Nikon 4-12.

I'd have to say "Bushnell". Simply because that is the only brand scope I've ever possessed.

I don't have any idea what model it was. I haven't had that .22 for going on 30 - 35 years now. I remember it had a 1 inch tube, not a 7/8 inch.

EDIT:
Thinking about it, I may have had a 7/8 inch tube Tasco on a .22 when I was a youngling.

stillquietvoice said:

Picked up one of those recently, but haven't tested it out yet. Maybe my next range trip I'llount OT and do some testing out to 300 yds. I'll have to pull either the Leupold vx3l or my Nikon 4-12.

Click to expand...

I mounted the Bushnell 6-18x50 yesterday and went out to the range. My first 2 shots at 25 yds to get on paperwork 3 in low and 2
5 left. Then moved to 50 yd line were I dialed in better putting 10 rds into 1 hole. I shot through some of my newest reloads with blc2, 50 gr bullets to check for overpressure. The loads were fine. At 100 yds I turned the mag ring to 14x and adjusted the parallax. There was some edge distortion nut not terrible.

It was 42 degrees when I went out and had a 10 to 15mph wind from 10 to 11 o'clock. So I didn't shoot longer range. The clarity was real good I could see the 223 holes with out issue. I changed mag to 16 and scanned the 300 meter berm and could see small rocks with clarity. Overall a pretty good piece of glass for 100 dollars.

I like a lot of Bushnell's stuff. Don't much care for Nikon. For the price I think you could get better. Check out what Weaver has to offer as well.

If you want to save some money, check out places like Sniper's Hide. I've bought and sold lots of equipment there. You could find a deal.

Not sure what lower end is but go to Primary Arms and see what they have. Also most of the time, Natchez has optics on sales. Nikon is going out of the weapon optic business and pretty sure Weaver is gone.

Roamin_Wade said:

That’s how I feel about Nikon too. In the camera world, they aren’t base line camera’s.

Click to expand...

You know they are now getting out of the rifle scope business, might be able to find some good deals, but wonder who will do warranty work if they require it.

I have a Bushnell 4200 Elite 3-9x40 on the rifle I’ve had the longest, a 700 ADL .270 I got when I was 13 in 1972. The scope is the oldest I own. I went on an optic improvements spree from around 2012-2016. The only optic I didn’t replace was the 4200 because it held its own with the newer scopes.

I sometimes struggle with expressing something in writing that I have no trouble expressing in conversation but here goes. One of the qualities I do not care for in lower end scopes is what I’ll call eye fatigue for lack of a better term. On low end scopes I have to concentrate hard and really focus my eyes to shoot accurately. It’s a non-issue for hunting but comes into play when shooting many shots at a target. If using a cheap scope my eyes get seriously fatigued and sometimes cause a headache. I don’t have this issue with scopes starting at Fullfield II quality and better.

ms6852 said:

You know they are now getting out of the rifle scope business, might be able to find some good deals, but wonder who will do warranty work if they require it.

Click to expand...

I contacted Nikon and was told they would continue to warranty scopes, but they couldn’t/wouldn’t say for how long. I’m figuring until they run out of parts.

303 hunter said:

I contacted Nikon and was told they would continue to warranty scopes, but they couldn’t/wouldn’t say for how long. I’m figuring until they run out of parts.

Click to expand...

It is good to know. But the problem with lifetime warranties as I have seen it throughout my life is that the companies sometimes don't last or are bought out by other companies, changing the rules and not having to honor those warranties. I would still by a Nikon if that scope checked all the boxes I was looking for.