At the risk of being repetitive...

[hdwhit]

cdb1 wrote:
Many people have good luck with used guns.

I'm not disputing that.

I'm also not ignoring used guns because I feel I can only have something new. In fact, half my "collection" is used.

What I am concerned about in this situation is that we have an LGS that I want to buy from. It is the only LGS in the county. That means that any used guns he has were likely owned my someone else in the area and the last thing I want to do is show up some place with "Bob's gun" because I don't know the circumstances under which Bob sold it.

 

[cdb1]

I'm not disputing that.

I'm also not ignoring used guns because I feel I can only have something new. In fact, half my "collection" is used.

What I am concerned about in this situation is that we have an LGS that I want to buy from. It is the only LGS in the county. That means that any used guns he has were likely owned my someone else in the area and the last thing I want to do is show up some place with "Bob's gun" because I don't know the circumstances under which Bob sold it.

Did you read all of the post? I prefer buying new.

 

[Varminterror]

$289 for a new rifle is too much?

What would you suggest to economize on the rifle so as to have more for the scope?

Please read the thread in its entirely and note that the rifle being talked about is a Savage Axis; at or near the bottom of the price range for the manufacturer as well as the posts explaining why the choice of the Savage is being made.

I know, I know, you could say to economize on the rifle by getting a used gun. But that means shopping at a different store in another town which defeats the entire purpose of buying locally. Buying a used gun from the LGS means I get "Joe's old rifle" and in a small town that comes with emotional baggage and expectations that I'm just not prepared to deal with.

I don't typically buy used guns. I have no need to justify my personal preference in this particular buying habit. Nor do you.

But yes, if you have $400 for a rig, then spend $289 on the rifle, leaving you with about $100 for the scope, you've spent too much on the rifle for that budget. Personal budget management is a continuum, in this case, there's a distinct reality - you got a bottom end rifle for $289, and a bottom end scope will cost you about the same. So the intended budget of $400 is too low for our reality. What's a guy to do? Live on the continuum, remember? Fixed income is still income - read that: in-come, as in coming in. It's not a fixed capital pool, it's income. You scrounged to get the $289 pulled together for the rifle, do the same for the optic. Just takes more time than you originally had planned.

It's really pretty simple for me - there's never a correlation between prices of rifle and optic. Those rules of thumb are completely arbitrary, and only make sense for a specific application and specific cash-flow paradigm. I've been happy to spend $350 on Rem ADL's, $150 on new stocks, and $1,000 on scopes to deliver long range shots on deer and elk. Why does that make less sense to some folks than spending $150 on a scope to put on a $300 rifle?

 

[wmgeorge]

You might look for a decent used one. I had a Bushnell scope on my varmint rifle and it was too low a power I found out after the fact and I ended up with a more power Leopold. I had the Bushnell on Craigslist and it sold at almost a give away price. Nothing wrong, I just needed more power for the pesky prairie dogs, who once they have been shot at seem to be a little gun shy.

 

[hdwhit]

Varminterror wrote:
I have no need to justify my personal preference in this particular buying habit. Nor do you.

Yet, you felt free to judge what you (erroneously) took to be the amount I was intent on spending on a scope vis a vis the rifle.

But yes, if you have $400 for a rig,... leaving you with about $100 for the scope,

Where did you come up with a $400 budget?

Where did you come up with $100 for a scope?

If you read the OP, I said I was intent on buying a new Savage Axis and wanted to spend less on the optic than on the gun. And since you know how much the Axis costs (you quoted it in your earlier reply), then it should have been apparent that if I'm looking to spend less on the scope means that the upper end would likewise been under $289.

I've been happy to spend $350 on Rem ADL's, $150 on new stocks, and $1,000 on scopes to deliver long range shots on deer and elk.

And for what you do, that may be appropriate. But had you read the OP, you would have seen that I'm not going to be hunting elk - or anything else - at long ranges, but deer at ranges of 200 yards or less.

You scrounged to get the $289 pulled together for the rifle, do the same for the optic. Just takes more time than you originally had planned.

My retirement date is fixed at this point and I want to get this purchase made at or around that time since afterwards my income drops to the point where I am pretty much permanently out of the gun market. And since other posters who did read my OP have already suggested a number of very good sights in the $200 to $300 range, I'm inclined to take their advice.

Thank you.

 

[hdwhit]

cdb1 wrote:
Did you read all of the post?

Yes, I did. And I apologize if I wasn't clear that my third paragraph was not disputing you. I was trying to explain the curious sociologic dynamic at work in this area. If I buy Joe's old car, nobody says anything about it. If I buy Joe's old gun, its treated almost as if I have stolen it from him. I think it comes from the fact the LGS is not a pawn shop, but at the end of deer season a lot of people sell their guns to the LGS. Often, the guns sit on the LGS rack all year and people come in and buy back their gun. So, whatever my opinion about buying a used gun, I don't want to take the risk of buying Joe's gun from the LGS and having people think I am a villian.

 

[cdb1]

Got it.

 

[hdwhit]

Thanks everyone for your input. I was at a gun store I don't normally get to and they had a 3-9X40 Bushnell on the clearance table for half off.

 

[cdb1]

Good luck with the new scope.

 

[Bart B.]

--

 

[hdwhit]

cdb1 wrote:
Good luck with the new scope.

Thank you. If it had not been for your comments and suggestions as well as those of other contributors, I would never have even thought to look at a 3-9x40 scope and I would have looked right over this one.