Why do people chintz out on scopes?

LoonWulf said:

I agree, but once you get used to the amenities, how hard is it to go back to the box stock chevy....
Im the guy who DOES drive an old beat up truck, so i can afford to buy fancy (ok fancy for me) gun crap. Im also the guy who would sell one of his guns to replace the hot/cold water cooler he has in his kitchen....freaking love that thing.
So while I 100% agree with you, I think its also has to be asked "what do you WANT to spend your money on?"

Ive gone round and round In my head about wants and needs. What I need from a rifle could be handled completely by 350 dollar Ruger American, topped with a 200-250 dollar Burris FF, bushnell 3200, Atholn Argos, or any number of other better than price point optics.
But Ive also used enough guns and optics now to know there are specific features and esthetics that I WANT to own at some point, and im going to have to pay out the nose to get them.

I figure ill probably still be driving the old toyota then too....well maybe not, toyota rot may claim it unless i can find a donor body.

Click to expand...

I remember your old Toyota from the background in a couple pics a while back. Those trucks do rot away, but they are also built solid underneath the rotten body. It might just have to end up like that thing Mick Dundee drives around in the outback. Body gone but still going strong.

Old Dog said:

When I was coming up, the wise old dudes always told me, spend the same on a scope as you spent on the rifle. I bought cheap when I was young, got cheap, had a couple hunts ruined.

Cheaper optics are just that: cheap. There's so much good glass available now, I don't understand why the constant requests from guys asking for "what's the best bargain scope out there?" or "best inexpensive optic on the market?...

I've learned the hard way: buy once, cry once.

Why the insistence from those wanting to know what the best cheap scopes are? I'm seeing guys buy $900 (or even more expensive) rifles and putting $299 scopes on them. What's up with this? (I just put a $1200 scope on a $950 rifle, and felt guilty that I hadn't sprung for a better scope.)

Is it the "good enough" culture?

Do we just have a culture now where there's a lot of folks who don't understand, or can't see, the difference between substandard glass and good optics? Are we (our generations) failing to teach those who follow just what constitutes acceptability and quality?

Or is it simply that our economy -- or the job market -- is so bad, a lot of hunters can't save up to buy decent scopes?

Click to expand...

I can hit deer just fine using a $299 scope. Why would I spend 3 times as much for 10% (if that) better quality? Same reason I'll buy dewalt and craftsman tools when milwaukee and snap on are better. There's also plenty of people who buy fancy tools but don't know how to use them.

In some situations buying more scope is just as foolish as buying a bargain one, especially if you can't hit the broadside of a barn from the inside anyway.

ETA: Don't get me wrong I'd love to be able to spend $1500-2k on glass but that isn't in my budget. Even if it was it would be hard to justify, though. That extra $1300 could go a lot farther somewhere else.

WestKentucky said:

I remember your old Toyota from the background in a couple pics a while back. Those trucks do rot away, but they are also built solid underneath the rotten body. It might just have to end up like that thing Mick Dundee drives around in the outback. Body gone but still going strong.

Click to expand...

Very possible, tho the last accident caused some structural damage that i may not be able to repair completely..... still gonna get it a new body if i can, and drive it till its dead dead.

Last time around I spent WAY more on the scope than the rifle. Can I join the club?

FYI the rifle was $49 on sale new (Savage Axis) ... that Burris Fullfield was 4x the cost of the rifle it is on. For that matter factoring in the $50 debate a set of Leupold rings cost 3x more than the rifle.

The Burris is a darn good scope. Glass is clear and sharp, etc. I would not be ashamed of it on any rifle it is suited for.

Then again I am not competing in precision rifle matches or trekking far and wide to take long shots on game in poor light. The Burris is a good scope for what I do.

That is why I "chintz out".

That, and a practical streak a mile wide from Depression era family.

It all seems to boil down to how much you're willing to compromise and even risk potential problems. Scopes don't last forever, not even the best ones. All of them crap on you sooner or later. Better ones just have a far better chance to stay intact and do what they're supposed to because of build quality and QC that's been put into manufacturing them.

See what kind of scopes the military uses. Would anyone think they'd substitute any of them with a $299 Black Friday special? Reliability under fire is of course a different situation but personally I'm not willing to give up or just wound game just because I cheaped out and used a scope that has to be explained as "good enough for me and what I use it for", instead of simply saying "Zeiss, Victory HT" (or equivalent) and be self-explanatory. Not a chance. Never again.

YMMV.

Old Dog said:

I get that there are a lot of Americans on pretty tight budgets. I certainly didn't mean to come across as an elitist gear snob. I'm not the greatest rifleman in the world, just a once or twice a year deer hunter who has learned the hard way about cheap optics. I do 99% of my rifle shooting at the club these days... What spurred my original post and questions was basically three individuals I've been around in the past few weeks -- who can all easily afford higher-end gear (these guys put $2500 worth of crap on $750 ARs) -- with budget optics on pretty decent rifles.

One guy at the range was trying to sight in a rifle with a scope, apparently a bad seal, fogged up on the inside. Couldn't get on the paper. Cheap scope on a decent Tikka rifle. Last year's hunt -- guy who could certainly afford better, really nice classic Remington 700 with a freakin' Tasco -- in Northeastern Washington weather. Then a buddy who picked up a top-end Kimber 8400... and put a $200 Burris scope on it. This guy makes way more than I do, and just bought a new $70K truck.

I dunno. I've got a couple mid-level Leupolds that are actually pretty worthy, but, but my questions came up again after I spent two hours yesterday waiting for my number to be called at the Cabela's gun counter watching guys shopping for scopes. It was kind of entertaining.

Click to expand...

I kinda get what you mean.

My ol' shootin' buddy wouldn't spend any real money on optics. Cheap this or that, hard to see through scopes and red dots that washed out in bright light and always mounted on a rifle that cost more than anything I've ever had. Of course, he had better natural vision than I've ever had . . . he probably could see an object several states away through fog and rain.

Truth is he was cheap on other things as well. He'd pay good money for some things, but was a tightwad on almost everything else and he never cared about appearances. Of course, he's retired now and independently well-to-do all on the back of his own hard work. His system worked for him, that's for sure.

There are a lot of $200 scopes out there that I'd not feel the least bit handicapped with. The Leupold VX2's were as much scope as anyone NEEDS and by all accounts the new VX-Freedom will do as well. The Burris FF-II's are in the same category.

Granted my preferred scopes cost a bit more, but even then I have nothing that retails for over $500. And I bought those discounted closer to $400.

When you get below $200 I think there is more of a risk of getting poor performance.

Speaking for myself, it's a question of need and budget. I also don't buy expensive rifles. My most expensive rifle was my AR, which ran me about $675 if I remember right. I could have less rifles and better optics for sure with what I've spent. However, being budget minded has allowed me to amass a few more options for the range that I otherwise would not have, not to mention I have been able to afford more ammo.

I don't feel like I'm losing out on anything with the optics I have. I'm sure I could find clearer optics with more features, but for my 200 yard max shooting/hunting I don't NEED them. The scopes on my rifles cost me, if I recall correctly... $170 (Burris Fullfield E1 4.5-14), $160 (Primary Arms 4-16), $130 (Mueller APV 4.5-14), $90 (Bushnell AR Optics 1-6, was originally a much cheaper clearance Simmons that I returned for a warranty issue), and $80 (Bushnell Trophy Bone Collector 3-9). The two Bushnell scopes were screamin' deals when I bought them, definitely worth more than what I paid. All that said, though, those scopes allow me to accomplish what I need to with each rifle they're on.

So I guess "good enough" does kind of play into it, but I'm also very picky and do ALOT of research before I buy an optic to make sure I'm getting my money's worth (and that the company has a good warranty if I run into an issue).

Looking at the rest of my life (cars, tools, etc.) I'm pretty much the same way. I buy inexpensive cars that have a reputation for reliability, I don't need bells and whistles I just need something to get me there and back safely. I usually buy "pro-sumer" grade tools. I don't need the true pro grade stuff, but I also don't generally buy the cheapest thing available. I do frequent Harbor Freight from time to time for low-use hand tools, but I avoid their power tools for the most part. In the same vein, I usually dive into research before I buy these as well.

jmr40 said:

The Leupold VX2's were as much scope as anyone NEEDS

Click to expand...

Having still a couple of VX2:s that see fairly regular use, Leupolds are top notch as far as overall durability and service life are concerned. Great bang for the buck in that regard. One of the very few cheap(-ish) scopes I personally trust. OTOH, in low light they're rather useless so personally I find myself often needing (gosh I hate that word, it sounds so frugal) quite a bit better glass.

Amazing things can be done with very little resources in a pinch, of course, when standards of ease, reliability, features and repeatability are set low enough. When you possibly could doesn't mean you should, though.

Scopes have got a lot better over the years---todays $300 scope would compare well to a $1000 scope of 25-30 years ago------so I'm not so sure its chintzing out rather than just getting better value for your money these days-------competition is a good thing.

Location also likely plays a role here.. i.e hunting out east "set it and forget it" point of view vs. people who need to make changes on the fly.

I prefer the extra time that good glass allows AM and PM

Omaha-BeenGlockin said:

todays $300 scope would compare well to a $1000 scope of 25-30 years ago

Click to expand...

I still have an early 90's vintage Zeiss Diavari 3-12x56T*, which was pretty much exactly a $1000 scope at the time. If you can name a current $300 scope that can match it let me know, I'll buy at least five immediately.

It really depends on what the rifle is and what its intended purpose is. I have a Ruger 44 Mag carbine, bought 2 years ago for around 650 bucks, I want to add a scope to it. Am looking at 1-4 and 1-6 scopes. Is a 700 dollar Trijicon scope gonna gain me anything over a 190 dollar Vortex?

When I was young and had little discretionary income, I bought what I could afford. Even though I'm much more financially solvent these days, I still shop wisely. A few years ago I bought a Leupold VX III 4.5-14X AO and paid around $500. To date, it's the most I have ever spent on a scope. It's a good scope, but not my best. The options currently are almost endless in terms of features and prices are wildly variable. Cost is a poor measure of quality. I bought 2 Tract scopes this year, for $194 and $424. They are two of the best scopes I own. Many of you can tell similar stories. I only spend what seems prudent to me. I have lots of good scopes, all under $500.

Many years ago I bought a “good enough” Simmons .44 Mag (IIRC) for my muzzle loader. I missed a chance at a buck that I had been after for four years when the scope fogged solid. It was like looking thru waxed paper. At the time it would have been the state record.

When you buy a better scope, you’re not only getting better glass but more reliable internals.

Once you buy a scope, you’ll most likely have it for years. I’d rather use something decent.

Buy once cry once is my motto buy the best you can afford and do t worry about what others have


I am slowly turning into a scope Snob for Myself I’ll never badmouth your personal choices but for me I keep upgrading and upgrading once you start it’s impossible for me to go back to the way it was

sevt_chevelle said:

I have a Ruger 44 Mag carbine, bought 2 years ago for around 650 bucks, I want to add a scope to it. Am looking at 1-4 and 1-6 scopes. Is a 700 dollar Trijicon scope gonna gain me anything over a 190 dollar Vortex?

Click to expand...

Possibly. I've got a Zeiss on mine (99/44 Deerfield), no surprises there, but only after the Bushnell it had wouldn't eventually hold zero anymore.

Sniper66 said:

Cost is a poor measure of quality.

Click to expand...

I haven't been able to avoid an experience-based impression that there lack of is a great one. With cheap scopes there's little to no room for speculation what the quality is, with expensive ones you can never know for certain.

Almost forgot, this reminds me of one of my pet peeves. Scope brands that have German names, moderately high price tags and absolutely no manufacturing or R&D of their own. The ones that use third world subcontractors to manufacture and label their scopes, in an attempt to inflate their profit margins for very mediocre optics.

I don't name any of them but with a bit of research it's easy to find out which they are.

OTOH, made in China doesn't necessarily mean that the products are utter crap. My limited personal experiences of Hawke scopes have been better than expected so far. This is not a recommendation, at least not yet, but they've been able to take more abuse than I originally thought they would. Jury is still out on them.

I have had cheaper scopes perform well.
Had a couple Bushnell Banners, before they moved production, and they dialed in, held zero, and no issues afield.
However, they also weren't shot a lot, were hunted and sold w the rifle/shotgun within 2 yrs.
Have no idea how well they endured.

Did see a lot of them come back with probs, to my LGS.........when they moved production.
This yrs 8-10 yrs ago. Saw similar w other brand(s).

I've had Leupolds off and on since the 80's.
They are now my baseline as far as hunting scopes go.
Its Leupold, or something better these days.

Am not a fan boy either, but do have some OCD............I might at some point go all Meopta or Steiner.

Have cut back on wants/needs so only require a half dozen new scopes to do the upgrade.

That axiom no longer holds. You want to be a glass snob that is fine. Hitting the target is all that counts.

I want to hit the target under varied conditions.
And I won't risk a good buck (deer) to save a few bucks (dollars).

There certainly can be "good enough".

But sometimes things change, and usually not for the better.

Starting off a little higher is actually cheap insurance, IMHO.

Know that 30 yrs ago a major shop I did biz with quit handling one brand of optics due to so many problems with new ones.
Same brand has less than stellar rep to this day.
Yes, many users create problems, but even when employing such a filter, some stuff doesn't have a good track record.
For the tin can popper, failure may not be a concern.
When you work all year for a few days of hunting, it's pretty darn serious.

I have seen problems with a few brands/models.
Then there is customer service.

Spend your money how ya want.
But some stuff is better and justifies the expense.
At least IMHO

I have been accused of being a bow/gun snob, on forum and off LOL
But then when I shoot I hit where I aim.

Don't think Leupold scopes are good enough to qualify me as a glass snob though LOL

Willingness to pay for quality and features not commonly (if ever) found on lower priced products can be called lots of things.

On the other hand, the definition from Mirriam-Webster Dictionary:
"Definition of snob
1 British : cobbler
2 : one who blatantly imitates, fawningly admires, or vulgarly seeks association with those regarded as social superiors
3 a : one who tends to rebuff, avoid, or ignore those regarded as inferior
b : one who has an offensive air of superiority in matters of knowledge or taste"

Unless a mere reasoned notion of refraining from purchasing and using cheap products as a personal choice, regardless of what anyone else chooses to do, is considered offensive nowadays, "snob" misses the point by a country mile.