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

In regards to the guys shooting at last light.
In my experience, they are gonna do that whether they can see properly or not, and personally I rather they be able to see......

Specially if it's my happy...uh....toosh, that gets to find the thing after dark with a cell phone.

For your average Hunter I think 500s a VERY good place to be, I've got a couple 5-800 dollar optics, and I've had some 1200 dollar optics.
For my tastes it's a toss up.
Get into the 1500+ range and I'm with @Nature Boy, you eye might be writing checks your wife won't like being cashed......I damn near bought an NXS after playing with one for about a min, and the owner didn't even thing it was that nice.....

Leupold.

Jack B. said:

Leupold.

Click to expand...

Like....Rifleman?

I've got about a dozen rifles and most ware stuff like burris ff2s, or cheaper. I've got a Athlon Ares BTR on my 7mag, Midas BTR on my 6.5 Gowild, and a GPO p3 on my .375 abolt, those are all I've got for expensive (ish) scopes these days.

One thing not specifically mentioned is not abuse, but sustained usage in such as long range competition, now high power rifle competition, and long range varminting where windage and elevation adjustments are frequently made. Durability and repeatability (Precision) come at a price.

Another is the warranty backing for extended time. Leupold specifically has repaired three scopes FREE, and replaced one out right, they couldn’t repair for lack of parts fo me. We are talking about $500 scope, for FREE. NOT A $70 scope for $10, plus Shipping, (actual cost of $70scope to manufacturer) as I’ve had with Bushnell, Simmons, and Tasco. (Have experience with all three). And a Cabelas, that they WOULD NOT warranty, because it was part package deal.
Consider a scope with a price point below $150 a “disposable” item... The manufacturers, do.

I don’t actually own a $1000 scope, but have used them. (NightForce, and IOR Valdada). They ARE worth what they cost, if bought on sale, or promotion. Retail, not so much...

Today's tv hunting & shooting programs & & even magazines all lean toward people with money,

Click to expand...

They don’t exist for you, they exist for advertisers you don’t have the same need to advertise quality products that sell for low prices, as some of them sell themselves.

I have both inexpensive and very expensive optics and there is a difference. Is it a large enough difference to make up the cost? I don’t know, that’s perspective.

Kind of like how long a minute is, depends on what side of the bathroom door your on.

I think a factor that is filtering into the world of variable scopes, and apparently commands a premium, is the power range ratio. It used to be 3x, i.e. 3 - 9, 4 - 12, and even 2 - 7 (there is some rounding going on there). Now, 6x is getting common, i.e. 2-12, 3 -18, 4 -24 etc.

Leupold has a Mark 8 series 1 - 8 and 3.5 -25.

Interesting thread. My realm of experience goes from cheap scope failure (broken seals and fog rendering it nonfunctional during a hunt) up to my current Leupold VX3 which has served me well. My brother had an experience where a hunting partner of his found an elk herd in poor but legal shooting light of an early, drizzly morning. Using his VX2 or 3 (not sure which model Leupold he has on his rifle) he was not able to identify legal bulls in the herd before they spooked. This event prompted my brother to spring for a Swaro. We're both curious about what the side by side comparisons in the field will show and where one finds the point of diminishing returns vs "good enough".

I haven’t read every post here, but I will share this as a reference:

I bought a Simmons Blazer 20-60x spotting scope for $60 at Walmart around 15yrs ago while on a prairie dog hunt in Nebraska because I had forgotten to pack my Leupold Ventana. I used it on that trip and several other occasions over the years. For the money, it did more than expected, but it was a known source of headaches, and a sincere letdown in terms of spotting anything beyond 300yrds at all, and certainly limited bullet hole witness to 100yrds. The Ventana was not a top tier spotter, but it was about 10x more expensive than the Simmons.

Then several years ago I bought a Bushnell Elite 20-60x, which was running $1600-1800 street price at the time. What the Ventana was over the Simmons, the Bushnell was over the Ventana, but the price only tripled between them (not 10x). I also have a Bushnell 15-45x Elite Tactical (T Series compact), which isn’t quite what the Elite cost, actually about equal to the Ventana when I bought both. For the money, the T Series was as clear on target as the Ventana, despite being a 45x, rather than a 60x.

So then early last year I picked up a screaming steal on Swarovski SLC 15x binos, and immediately replaced my big Bushnell as my primary spotting tool for precision Rifle matches.

Comparably (using the original street prices of all of these), the $600 Ventana was more clear at 600 than the $60 Simmons at 300, the $600 T Series could see as well at 600 while on 45x as the Ventana could at 60x, and the $1600 Big Bushnell could see as well at 1,000 as these others at 600. But the $2500 Swaro binos has better image at fixed 15x than the big Bushnell can at 60x. You might imagine, looking through the Simmons beside the Swarovski’s establishes a spectrum of “nearly blind” to “perfect image”.

Similarly - I killed dozens of deer with a Tasco World Class 4-16x on top of my old 30-06, which I paid $350 for WITH a Ruger M77 MkII over 20yrs ago (not a used package - used rifle + new scope). I have a $900 Sig Tango4 4-16x on it now, which is every bit better than the $200 Tasco was, in every lighting condition. The Sig, however, doesn’t keep up with the Bushnell 3.5-21x DMR II for image quality and light transmission. It also cost less than half as much. I have a Nightforce ATACR 7-35x on my new match rifle, and it’s everything above the Bushnell that the Bushnell was above the Sig. Like the spotting solutions - looking through that old Tasco beside the Nightforce is a night and day difference. Looking at the price tag between them is a night and day difference as well. I demo’d a Tangent Theta last month, and everything the Nightforce is above the Bushnell, the TT is over the NF.

You really do get what you pay for. Sure, one brand or model might be higher priced than another for the same quality, and more importantly, not every shooter NEEDS the image quality of $2000-5000 optics.

But it’s a disservice to lie to others to say there’s no appreciable difference between a $500 optic and a $1000 one.

Nature Boy said:

I have a Vari-X3 and love it.

My Swaro has a lot more features and the glass quality is superior to everything I’ve ever looked through but it's +$2k over the Vari-X.

Click to expand...

I think that was my point. $500 more than a VariX won't buy much better glass. $2, 3, 4K more absolutely will. But it also comes with weight. The Z6i is not the heaviest, but it's still about double the weight of a VariX3. A 60mm Zeiss Victory is like triple the weight. No argument the optics are better. They're luxury scopes.

40-82 said:

Thanks for pointing the limits of my remarks out. Your objection is completely fair. A telescope is of great utility in killing varmints in low light. Sometimes it's not even a matter of great distance. For instant a brown groundhog with his head out of the hole against a brown dirt background as close as forty or fifty yards away might be nearly invisible to the naked eye. Whereas, in a good scope, he shows up clearly. Another case: coyotes, I'm a stockman. If I can get him in my crosshairs, and it's a safe shot, I shoot.

The truth is, you're right. Big game hunting is only a limited part of the reason to own rifles. Five, six deer sized animals will easily do me for the year. Varmint hunting makes up the rest of the year.

Click to expand...

There are many many people who can’t say, “I was wrong”, or admit someone else has a good point if it is contradictory to their opinion. You are a class act.

labnoti said:

$500 more than a VariX won't buy much better glass.

Click to expand...

This hasn’t been my experience. $500 scope vs. $1,000 scope is going to be considerably better glass and coatings within most brands. You might not see it immediately looking across a store at taxidermied deer and camo coolers, but it becomes immediately apparent the first day in the field when you’re looking over wheat rows or through woods.

Varminterror said:

This hasn’t been my experience. $500 scope vs. $1,000 scope is going to be considerably better glass and coatings within most brands. You might not see it immediately looking across a store at taxidermied deer and camo coolers, but it becomes immediately apparent the first day in the field when you’re looking over wheat rows or through woods.

Click to expand...

So true. Spend a week in the field and you’ll notice.

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

Think about it this way, if there was no discernible difference in quality between the average $500 and $1,000 scope choices in the market, no one would ever buy the higher priced models.

Unless you subscribe to the premise that anyone who does is just a gullible fool with more money than sense. If so, there are a lot of them because they keep making them and fools like me keep buying them

No, I think the extra $500 is going toward light-dot reticles, CDS zero-lock turrets, a wider zoom range, and a 30mm tube. There is a discernable difference, but it's more likely to be in bells and whistles than better glass exactly for the reason you're saying: the customer at the counter will buy a light-up dot, a fat tube, and big numbered dials, but can't see why they should pay for glass with no apparent difference in the store. You're saying for $500 they'd get all the bells and whistles and better glass too? I say to get all you're saying it will be a $1500+ scope.

To my eyes there is a noticeable difference in glass quality between a VX-3i and VX-6HD

Varminterror said:

I have a $900 Sig Tango4 4-16x on it now, which is every bit better than the $200 Tasco was, in every lighting condition. The Sig, however, doesn’t keep up with the Bushnell 3.5-21x DMR II for image quality and light transmission.

Click to expand...

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?

I grew up with tasco 3-9’s and Simmons 2-10’s for deer hunting. They worked but two of the tasco’s broke, we rarely took a shot beyond 150yds and our “zero” was whatever was good enough to hit a 20oz bottle at 50 yds

My path to high end scopes started with a steal of a deal on a Nikon prostaff 3-9 and it was a world of difference from the $50 tasco to a $150 Nikon

Fast forward a few years and I got a vortex pst 4-16, first focal plane and loved it. It was just as clear or maybe more so, but the reticle was more useful, the illuminated reticle was awesome and I learned the value of parallax adjustment when my 22lr wouldn’t group below 1.5”at 50 yds with the Nikon scope became a .5” at 50 yds with parallax adjusted

After my last deployment I built a custom 308 and put a vortex 3-18 gen ii razor on top

Clarity and features. I can dial for a 1000 yd shot then dial back for a 100yd shot and repeat indefinitely and the zero never changes

One thing I haven’t seen mentioned is quality checks during manufacturing or place of manufacturing

Tasco and other cheap scopes are mass produced in China or similar places and the company and consumer all assume some of the products will fail.
Nightforce scopes are made in America and are quality checked at a very high rate, their products are torture tested and beat to crap and then refined to reduce failures. Us manufacturing, top quality components and frequent quality checks are expensive but have you met someone with a failed nightforce? I bet you have read about way fewer nightforce failures than vortex, and way fewer nightforce failures than Nikon or the lower end Bushnell


The price matters in time as with usage. If you shoot 10rds or so each year with your hunting rifle inside of 200yss, sit in a stand or blind and then clean your gun and put it up for the year, you don’t need a really expensive scope, but you will appreciate an expensive scope. If you shoot 1000 or more rifle rounds down range or you are going on a back country elk hunt where a scope failure means a ruined season and a wasted thousand dollars on the hunt. You need a perfect scope

For a quick and easy understanding, go to a sporting goods store and look at $50, $150, $500, and $1000 binoculars there is a difference. If the difference is worth it, is up to the user

Glass and features. The best glass costs $$$, quality coatings cost $$$, and things like FFP, side operated objective focus, repeatable variable power zero, and etched reticles cost $$$. As an optician, I can appreciate and see the differences in the glass and coatings, and as a rifleman, know and appreciate the differences in the features, and appreciate when a scope company takes the time time put all these things together with precision and rugged components.

labnoti said:

No, I think the extra $500 is going toward light-dot reticles, CDS zero-lock turrets, a wider zoom range, and a 30mm tube. There is a discernable difference, but it's more likely to be in bells and whistles than better glass exactly for the reason you're saying: the customer at the counter will buy a light-up dot, a fat tube, and big numbered dials, but can't see why they should pay for glass with no apparent difference in the store. You're saying for $500 they'd get all the bells and whistles and better glass too? I say to get all you're saying it will be a $1500+ scope.

Click to expand...

That’s just not my experience. Referencing my original example on the 1st page when comparing my $500 Nikon and $1,000 Leupold, the latter had much better optical quality.

Cautionary tale here. A while back, when that $1,000 Leupold was my best scope, I was at the range and a guy shows up to zero his brand new LaRue 308 and new scope. He had gone through a box of shells and still wasn’t on paper. Frustrated, he came over and asked me if I could help him. He thought his scope was defective. It was a Kahles k624i and I was happy to take a look through it and help him get zeroed. There was obviously nothing wrong with the scope. On the contrary, it was fantastic and after a few rounds to get him zeroed I gave it back to him and went back to my $1,000 Leupold.

You can guess the rest of the story. I now own two Kahles scopes, a NF and a Swarovski.

I almost want to say if you are happy with what you have don’t even think about looking through a higher end optic. It will ruin you

labnoti said:

No, I think the extra $500 is going toward light-dot reticles, CDS zero-lock turrets, a wider zoom range, and a 30mm tube. There is a discernable difference, but it's more likely to be in bells and whistles than better glass exactly for the reason you're saying: the customer at the counter will buy a light-up dot, a fat tube, and big numbered dials, but can't see why they should pay for glass with no apparent difference in the store. You're saying for $500 they'd get all the bells and whistles and better glass too? I say to get all you're saying it will be a $1500+ scope.

Click to expand...

You can get the bells and whistles for 500 bucks if that's your thing.
My Athlon Midas has a 30mm tube, nice lighted mil reticle, side focus, it's clicks and tracking are even pretty good (so far).
Msrp on that scope was 500ish.
I can tell a difference in glass quality on my Ares which has all those goodies + ffp and hard zero stop. It's a minor one, but it's still enough to be worth it.
Comparing the Midas to my buddies SHV, and the optical difference is also obvious.
Comparing anything I've used to date to the NXS (or ATACR, Now I'm not positive which it was) I played with and there's a very, very, obvious difference.

My point being that paying more for a scope dosent only get you cool gizmos, and more reliable adjustments (hopefully), but it also gets you a better view.

Of what ive got, I think the GPO is the nicest, but it was also fairly expensive for a regular 3-9 hunting scope

I've really wanted to try other more expensive scopes. Might have to pick up something soon.