$5,000 rifle scopes?

[rabid wombat]

The best way I have ever seen to quantify clarity is to have a number of optics handy and see how far away you can discern barbs on a wire fence. The number of “Oh, wow, yeah.” comments from folks in the group makes me believe they were seeing things for the first time, so to speak.

I always knew some glass is better than others. My epiphany was using my Swarovski spotting scope to look at birds sitting on the power lines behind the house….cool bird and all, but I started reading the black on black embossed designation of the wire itself. That was the ‘ah ha’ moment for me.

As all have said, buy once, cry once. Likewise, get the tool that is appropriate to the task at hand. Big difference between Harbor Freight and Proto or Snap On. Choose the right tool for the job.

 

[.38 Special]

I guess I'll go against the grain here. Top level scopes do offer slight improvements in things like color rendition and clarity under low light conditions. That can sometimes be important, especially to people - Europeans, mostly - who can legally hunt in the dark.

Most of us, though, don't really benefit from those improvements, and so don't have any real reason to pay those prices - unless, of course, we just want to. (Europeans, of course, are often limited in the number of guns they may legally own, and so often invest in a single high-quality hunting rifle rather than a dozen mid-range models.)

Personally, I don't encounter any situations where the benefits of top-quality scopes make any objective improvement in my hunting, so I am perfectly content with mid-range models. The savings then goes toward my binocular, which really does make a difference. "Seeing" devices vs. "aiming" devices...

 

[.38 Special]

Big difference between Harbor Freight and Proto or Snap On.

For sure. I splurged on some Snap-On pieces and it's always a pleasure to use them. And while I have a weakness for Harbor Freight (I call it the "Toys R Us for grownups") I try to resist, because so much of their stuff is simply junk.

But most of my tools are mid-level stuff, like Craftsman and Ace, and the things I build and repair with them don't come out any better or worse than they do when I use the Snap-On stuff. That's pretty much how I feel about top-end scopes: a pleasure to use, and no reason not to buy if you don't mind spending the money, but for most of us, the actual results don't really justify the expense.

 

[Conelrad]

I don't believe they have to pay for them out of their own pockets.

Of course not, unless they are freelancers. Mercenaries get paid well, so can buy whatever they like.

Our strike teams in the service or law enforcement are issued the best gear for the job.

 

[entropy]

You do have a rifle, don't you? Any rifle. Mounting a good scope doesn't mean that it has to stay there forever. I've rotated a bunch of scopes (even some high-end ones) from one rifle to the next and only a handful have found a permanent "home". That said, my Ruger deer guns (Deerfield and Mini30) have Zeiss scopes on them and they are there to stay. Why? I like these rifles a lot so I make shooting them as pleasant as possible. It doesn't matter if the scopes cost quite a bit more than the rifles, it's all about the combination and a personal preference.

I have one bolt action rifle; a Savage Axis II in .223 that is still wearing the 4-12 Bushnell that came on it. I paid $29 gun and scope after the rebate.
Yes, that scope is not the best quality, but a Swarovski on that rifle would be like a $5000 makeup job on Susan Boyle.
I have a Vortex Strike Eagle 1-8x on my 16" AR, that rifle has a more serious purpose, and the Vortex was on sale, so at least I put some quality glass where needed. If I were going to spend some serious $$$ for a scope for the Savage, it'd be a digital day/night one for coyotes.

 

[Atavar]

What I was always told is to spend at least as much on the scope as you did on the rifle. A high end PRS rifle deserves more optics than a 12-22.

 

[Varminterror]

What I was always told is to spend at least as much on the scope as you did on the rifle. A high end PRS rifle deserves more optics than a 12-22.

I’ve never had a rifle pay for a scope for me. I buy my scopes for what I need to do.

But what do I know, I have a couple of $1300-1500 scopes on $275 Ruger 10/22’s, and hell, they don’t even have buttstocks… but I know I need a lot of elevation adjustment for what I want to do, reliable tracking, FFP graduated reticles, and I want good glass quality to cut clean shapes in mirage. And one of those scopes even came off of my PRS rifle, and I have another just like it on my PRS gas gun…

 

[HowieG]

Most hunters and casual target shooters can do just fine with a $500 scope. There are even some $200 scopes that I'd not feel handicapped using. The light transmission on high end scopes is one big difference, but even most $300-$500 scopes do fine during legal hunting hours.

In most places that is 30 minutes prior to sunrise, and 30 minutes after sunset. For non-hunters, there is still plenty of light 15 minutes prior to sunrise and 15 minutes after sunset. It is really only those first and last 5 minutes of legal hunting time where light transmission matters.

But in at least one state (South Carolina) legal shooting time is one full hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset. In those conditions a scope well into 4 figures can make a difference.

Or you can just by a grand worth of Omaha steaks every once in a while and call it good. )

 

[Conelrad]

Ye Olde Styer SSG-69 with Schmidt & Bender P1 steel 3-12x50mm.

Atlas bipod, railed forend, Killflash ARD, 5/8-24 thread.

Holds a good group, likes 150 and 168gr.

I don't hunt.

 

[LoonWulf]

What I was always told is to spend at least as much on the scope as you did on the rifle. A high end PRS rifle deserves more optics than a 12-22.

That's probably not a bad way to look at it, but personally im more likely to put my better glass on stuff ill use most often, or when i need something specific.
.

 

[HowieG]

That's probably not a bad way to look at it, but personally im more likely to put my better glass on stuff ill use most often, or when i need something specific.
.

The version I heard was don't spend more for the scope than you did on the rifle. A $3000 scope on a $200 Axis doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[HowieG]

How about this for a rule? Don't spend more on a scope than the vehicle you are going to carry it in.

 

[hq]

like a $5000 makeup job on Susan Boyle.

Except that in case of a quality scope it's "refundable" - just loosen the mounts and put it on something else instead. It doesn't even have to be the Gisele Bündchen of rifles, just something special enough to you.

 

[Nature Boy]

The version I heard was don't spend more for the scope than you did on the rifle. A $3000 scope on a $200 Axis doesn't make a lot of sense.

Unless the Axis is just a place holder to that custom rifle you’ve been pining for.

 

[HowieG]

Unless the Axis is just a place holder to that custom rifle you’ve been pining for.

Well, in that case, use a place holder scope on the place holder rifle.

 

[Varminterror]

Well, in that case, use a place holder scope on the place holder rifle.

But in THAT case, you’ve spent extra money which you can’t recoup, AND you’re tolerating lower performance from both the rifle AND the scope, instead of just the rifle.

For almost all shooting I do, I’d rather have a nicer scope than rifle. I can do a lot, for very little cost, to improve rifles - and most rifles will shoot small enough for most things I do. But I can’t tweak and modify a scope at low cost (not productively, at least).

 

[HowieG]

Except that in case of a quality scope it's "refundable" - just loosen the mounts and put it on something else instead. It doesn't even have to be the Gisele Bündchen of rifles, just something special enough to you.

That is the key right there. I hope nobody actually thinks that the aluminum, glass, steel, and whatever else comprising the parts of a $5K scope are really worth that much more than the same types of parts in a $600 scope. Also, you would have a hard time convincing me that there is a $4500 labor or skill difference either. I have no doubt that the 5K scope has a certain small percentage better image, and is perhaps more precise (perhaps not though). The real deal is that you, the buyer, for whatever reason have decided that it is worth it to YOU. It may be entirely subjective and ephemeral, but if certain people are convinced, or like the status, and they have the money, it's good the free market fills the demand. That is capitalism and I like it. I am not in the $5K scope market, but I am happy the market exists.

 

[HowieG]

But in THAT case, you’ve spent extra money which you can’t recoup, AND you’re tolerating lower performance from both the rifle AND the scope, instead of just the rifle.

For almost all shooting I do, I’d rather have a nicer scope than rifle. I can do a lot, for very little cost, to improve rifles - and most rifles will shoot small enough for most things I do. But I can’t tweak and modify a scope at low cost (not productively, at least).

You are lowering the performance of the $200 rifle? And you don't have place holder scopes laying around already? I find that hard to believe. I always have one or two sitting around. I guess it's possible your place holders may be busy already.

 

[Nature Boy]

I hope nobody actually thinks that the aluminum, glass, steel, and whatever else comprising the parts of a $5K scope are really worth that much more than the same types of parts in a $600 scope. Also, you would have a hard time convincing me that there is a $4500 labor or skill difference either.

I’m afraid I’m going to dash your hopes here.

Cost or worth? You’ve conflated two things that are very different.

Worth is entirely subjective so I’ll start with cost, which is summation of material, labor and overhead.

I don’t want to get into a cost accounting class here but it is almost assured that a $600 scope made in the Philippines cost a lot less to manufacture than a $3,000 scope made in Germany.

Why?

Tighter tolerances = the more it cost
More features = the more it cost
Skilled labor = the more it cost
Lower volume = the more it cost
Better materials = the more it cost

As to the subjective worth of the additional cost + margin (price to the consumer) of a high end vs a lower end optic, obviously there are enough consumers that believe the difference is worth it to keep these businesses thriving.

Kahles, which has been making scopes for the last 120 years, is the definitive example. I happen to own two of them and their worth is self evident to me.

 

[C-grunt]

There are scopes that "punch above their weight".

The Vortex Viper PST gen II 5-25 is a prime example. Especially if you get it on sale. It has pretty decent optical quality, good reticles, and nice turrets.

The Leupold Mk5 line is another example. At 2k for the 5-25 it compares pretty well against the NF ATACR in my opinion. Is it as good as an ATACR? No. But it's close enough that I view it to be a bargain at 2k.

The Razor 3-18 can be had for around 1600 right now. Fantastic scope that was a good buy when they were over 2k a few years back.

A while back I picked up a Nikon Black FX1000 4-16 after Nikon left the scope game. I paid something like 450 bucks for it. Optical clarity is decent and turrets are ok. But the lack of a zero stop is a downside. If I had paid full price (900ish I believe) and choose it over a PST gen II, I'd be a bit disappointed.

 

[hq]

Tighter tolerances = the more it cost
More features = the more it cost
Skilled labor = the more it cost
Lower volume = the more it cost
Better materials = the more it cost

Not to mention R&D costs, in this case proprietary anti-reflective coatings that have required decades of hard work by highly paid experts using exorbitantly expensive equipment for their research. Few companies even license their technologies out to other manufacturers, rather than combine it with state of the art glass manufacturing methods and sell their products at a premium.

And it makes a discernible difference.

Our tech company (in a different field) is based on several millions of euros of R&D from our own pockets and now, after years of work we're finally commercializing it to recuperate the € we've put into developing it. Then some junior einstein tries to tell us that "the same" can be had from a number of Baltic companies for a fraction of the price. No, not quite. Not at all, if we're honest. They're manufacturing mediocre pet food with their tech, we have pharma industry contracts to increase yield in mass production of vaccines and pharmaceuticals. That's a major, major difference even though everything looks "the same" to people who don't have a clue what they're talking about.

 

[Nature Boy]

There are scopes that "punch above their weight".

I agree. I the example I gave earlier of my Leupold VX3 does just that. It’s a great value for a hunting scope. In comparison, my Swarovski Z6i is a luxury, not a necessity.

However, would I lay down on an F Class line and shoot a match with it? No. In that case my Kahles 1050 is a necessity if I want to perform my best

 

[Nature Boy]

Not to mention R&D costs,

I didn’t mention it on purpose. R&D hits the P&L as its own line item and for the sake of simplicity I tried to keep my post centered on cost to manufacture.

I’m not an account but I’ve spent a few minutes of my career running factories

 

[Varminterror]

You are lowering the performance of the $200 rifle?

Yes. The scope is the aiming mechanism of the rifle. See my photos provided above. When a shooter can’t find the edges or center of a target because their scope offers aberration or lacking resolution, they can’t aim consistently, and performance suffers - as measured by rounds on target, game taken, and group size. If you can’t see it, you can’t hit it.

As a parallel, an aphorism in photography is “date the body, marry the lens.” This is said to new photographers to remind them, succinctly, that glass matters much more than the body, and while body performance will change rapidly in time, relatively, good glass prevails. Exactly akin to your analogy of a $3000 scope on a $200 rifle, which you wrongfully assumed would be an absurdism, sticking a flagship lens like Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L III in front of a Canon Rebel T6i, an entry level, 10yr old camera, will give drastically better results than sticking a $150 kit lens EF-S 75-300mm f/4-5.6 STM in front of a $2500 Canon R6. Both the body and lens obviously matter, and certain genres of photography, like sports, are exceptionally demanding of the camera body, but the glass is what we see, and we can’t do anything to get around that.

So yeah, if I had the choice of shooting a Savage Axis Precision with a Tangent Theta or an Impact Precision with a Vortex Strike Eagle, I’d take the Axis with the Tangent Theta every time…

And you don't have place holder scopes laying around already? I find that hard to believe. I always have one or two sitting around. I guess it's possible your place holders may be busy already.

I am “scope poor” most of the time, so when I get a new rifle, I need a scope too - I don’t keep scopes just sitting around. I buy scopes to saddle onto rifles for certain applications, and typically, if I try a scope and find I don’t have use for it, I resell it. I’m more apt to take a good scope off of a rifle and rezero it onto something new, even for a short time, than to buy a lower grade scope than I’d actually want just to have it lay around waiting for a rifle to mount. That paradigm has always seemed like an insecure sorority girl to me - always with some guy, wasting energy even if they don’t actually like them, and in fact, knowing they don’t actually like most of the dudes most of the time, just to have a guy on their arm.

When I try a new rifle, usually I have the scope bought before I get all of the parts for the rifle, but otherwise, I pull a scope from another rifle - usually one of my SigSauer Tango4 4-16x scopes from my hunting rifles or I pull one of my Bushnell DMR II’s from my plinking rifles.

 

[JFrank]

This might be the most expensive scope.

https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/deon-announces-the-march-x-8-80x56-hm-wa-x-majesta.4082723/