Barska strikes again, out that is.

[LoonWulf]

They are on there, I just don't have enough experience with them yet to really recommend people go hunting for them.

I think Bushnell's done a pretty decent job of distancing the "cheap" variants from the "good" ones in the past. I do see your point tho about the newer "promo" scopes that get around.

 

[LoonWulf]

I forgot to mention, and now can't seem to edit my post....
Knob Twisting is a whole different ball game, and one I wouldn't be willing to trust to a low/middling scope unless I had quite a bit ofof ti in with it.
I have had some nicer scopes, and optically I really like some of the cheaper options (like the Athlon Argos on my 7), but when it comes to repeatable adjustments day in day out for an extended period of time I feel that most of the scopes I've owned would eventually fail.

 

[Mowgli Terry]

Intensity Scopes: Some years back there were many post on these scopes. Going through a name change those marked Intensity were dumped. The scopes had a good reputation. RF people went there when the prices crashed. I got mine NOS some months back. Got too much money in it but the scope is doing good on my 22 RF Savage MKII. Not too much twisting or recoil.

 

[cdb1]

I didn’t think very highly of Bushnell until I purchased an Elite 4200 a few years ago. The Bushnell lineup truly runs the gamut from bubble pack to excellent.

 

[Mowgli Terry]

When I was a kid Bushnell had a good rep period. The Scope Chief in particular was a very good scope. The new top of the line scope appear to be well received in this day.. On the other hand the Bushnell scopes seen on the entry level rifles today are not. My point was that Bushnell did their brand no good doing this thing. With the Elite's and similar we are in another class of scope. That's where the knob twisters can twist to their heart's content. My friends low end Bushnell scope had the ocular lens flopping in the eye piece. That scope was replaced with a better Tasco 3x9 on the warranty. I had tried to return a Bushnell package scope to the maker as it came from a replaced rifle. Scope was OK. I was told by the maker this scope was put on these rifles for the convenience of the buyer-keep it. Apples and Oranges.

 

[berettaprofessor]

John Wane in a movie I can'r remember the name of telling one of the women "windage and elevation"

"Windage and elevation, Mrs. Langdon. Windage and elevation." From The Undefeated, 1969, with Wayne playing the character Colonel John Henry Thomas. One of my favorite movies even though Rock Hudson isn't very convincing as a southern-accent Confederate.

Regarding cheap scopes, I have the advantage of a Bushnell outlet within driving distance that gives discounts for belonging to the state rifle association. So I can purchase their higher end scopes at a nice discount. The outlets also carry fixed 4X32 Bushnell's which are great for the run of the mill rimfire plinkers. Usually, you reach into a cardboard box of a few hundred loose scopes, all unpackaged, and pull out the best ones; better scopes mixed with complete junk, and each one only $10. The store employees say they're from bulk boxes which come in "damaged" and rather than sort through them, they just put them all out to pick through. Whatever; they're decent clear glass for a Marlin 60 or Ruger 10/22 and an improvement in accuracy over a cheap 3 or 5 MOA red dot..

 

[303 hunter]

Bushnell now being seen as a promo scope has not helped their reputation. We talked about this early on. These promo scopes were not for "knob twisters."
Add to you list of better scopes the Intensity. That scope has been known under three different names.

I have an Intensity 2.5-10x44 that's been a good scope. What are the other names they've been sold under?

 

[Mowgli Terry]

This is from memory: The other brand names were Simmons and Weaver. Check me out on this. Simmons 44 Magnum then Weaver 40/44 were the models. Our old Intensity scopes did not have a side focus. Some minor changes were made in the old Intensity during these changes. Most of this information was kicked around on the net at the time. Evidently, the Intensity had a following. Today I was shooting my Intensity on a 22 LR BSEV Savage. Scope and rifle worked very well. If I missed on some of the information it's because of the CRS disorder.

 

[303 hunter]

This is from memory: The other brand names were Simmons and Weaver. Check me out on this. Simmons 44 Magnum then Weaver 40/44 were the models. Our old Intensity scopes did not have a side focus. Some minor changes were made in the old Intensity during these changes. Most of this information was kicked around on the net at the time. Evidently, the Intensity had a following. Today I was shooting my Intensity on a 22 LR BSEV Savage. Scope and rifle worked very well. If I missed on some of the information it's because of the CRS disorder.

I thought the Simmons 44 Mag might be one of them. Bought it at a gun show years years ago, and the vendor told me Intensity was a joint effort by Weaver and Federal. Never looked into that story, but it’s been a good scope. I’m planning on buying a Ruger American Ranch in 7.62x39, and this will probably be the scope I use.

 

[Mowgli Terry]

The information was that scope had become a Simmons then a Weaver. There was no mention of Federal. Google Intensity for the drama. Yes, decent scopes. It was not a cheap scope until dumped during the name change/ownership.
'

 

[LoonWulf]

I believe ATK used Federal, Intensity, as the brand name for the scope line. I'm not positive, but it believe they failed to draw the attention ATK hoped, and the unbranded units/parts got used in the Simmons 44mag, and Weaver 40/44 line, but only the ones listed with aspherical lenses.

I THINK I remember the adds for the Intensity, right before I quit shooting in the early 2ks.
Along the same lines the Nitrex scopes are excellent, but they seem to still hold a premium.

 

[Mowgli Terry]

Like much on the net you can get a dozen different versions of the same story. These scopes really hit the big time on the net when the closeout sales started.

 

[Elkins45]

Optics are one of those places where you get what you pay for, if you're lucky. You hardly ever get more.

All scopes below $100 are a gamble with really bad odds. I have long since discarded all of my Simmons, Tasco and Bushnell junk. For a while there was a really good scope at the $100 price point, the Sightron S1 back when they were still being made in Japan. Once they moved production to the Philippines the optical quality took a big hit IMO. If I were in a real pinch I might consider the Nikon Pro Staff models, but for me any rifle that is going hunting wears Leupold, Burris or (one) Sightron Big Sky. I may never get a second chance at the buck of a lifetime.

Putting $40 scopes on $500 rifles is like dropping $20K on a bass boat and then spooling your reel with bulk store brand mono.

 

[IndianaBoy]

American's will buy a $1500 rifle and put a $100 optic on top.

Euros will buy a $200 rifle and put a $1500 Swarovski on top.


I prefer the European model.


If you are going to buy a cheap scope, go with the most basic model from a company like Vortex or Leupold. At least they know how to build a real optic and will stand behind the product if it has a defect.


There are some fantastic offerings in the $500 range. And some workable offerings in the $200 range. Cheaper than that is pretty much guaranteed to be junk.

 

[LoonWulf]

Cheaper than that is pretty much guaranteed to be junk.

Ive heard that over and over again, yet never experienced it.
At least with scopes not bargin basement. Ive had a Barska fail, and took a failed one off a friends gun (he got a Trophy in return, from the 90s and is still using it), ive also suspected a couple more Barskas of having failed, but since i wasnt working on the guns cant say for sure.
Ive had a couple BSAs that came with older spring guns shake apart, and one newer one with a canted reticle.
Ive never used any of the more expensive versions of these scopes, and honestly given a chance id try them again.

Ive had to send 6 scopes back to the manufacturer, none failed thru normal use. Either they were bad from the get go, or they received rougher than normal handling.
3 leupolds, 1 Nikon, 1 bushnell, and 1 Bushnell/Weaver,
Ive known of 2 Vortex Vipers that have gone back due to fogging.
Ive had the longest wait with bushnell, second longest with leupold. 1 bushnell, and the Nikon were both replaced and in my hands in a 2 weeks.
1 scope I thought failed during use, but after doing nearly the exact same thing on my other similar scope, im pretty sure it was me. I sent an Athlon Argos back, the horizontal turret quit working....after i loosened the screws that held the cap to set zero. Im now pretty sure i didnt snug them up properly before playing with the scope again. Athlon had its replacement to me in under a week.

I have no issue with folks buying expensive glass, and will often suggest that a person buy the best glass they can. I LIKE looking thru good glass, and ive used (and owned) some, but with 10 rifles at any given time going in and out of my safe, im not willing to spend 5-1k on glass unless I REALLY need it, and so far I havent.
Personally im quite comfortable with the 100-300 dollar scopes
My FF2 i bought used for 80 bucks (they go for 200ish new?), and its been sitting on my .375 ruger for months, and 200 rounds or so.
That gun weights 8.25lbs, and delivers something like 40flbs of recoil energy, and its been perfectly happy, holds zero, and provides as good an image as i can use during legal hunting hours.
Before that I had a Bushnell UltraHD 1.75-6x32 on there and it did fine as well, tho it only had to deal with 40 or 60 rounds (its now back on a muzzle loader where its supposed to be).....just looked funny.

Again, i have NO issues with folks buying the most expensive scope they want. Ill also never say that its a bad decision to get the higher end brand name scopes, and again if its in the budget ill suggest it.
BUT, I also feel that blatantly saying anything under 200 is garbage isnt a fair description of the situation. As with buying anything else on a budget you DO have to know your needs,do your research, and chose your scope more carefully. If your needs (and wants) dictate a higher end scope, dont scrimp, get the higher end scope.

 

[Mowgli Terry]

My recent Experience: I had installed a used Nikon Buckmaster on my Ruger American. This is a less than $200.00 scope. This rifle with scope is to be used mainly with lead bullets. This is OT but the American .308 is doing very well with lead bullets. I found the Buckmaster to be clear with knobs easy to read. This is kinda the experience I have had with ProStaffs and Fullfield II's. These scopes have done me well on the range. Should I be going on a hunt it would be with a minimum of a Leupold. The only Leupold that let down was a used 3x9 that had a previous rough life. It was repaired by the maker. Leupold has also replaced beyond repair damaged scopes.. This included a 4x purchased in the 1970's-no joke. Incidentally, package scopes are showing up with no brand name. Most anybody that puts a low end scope on a rifle has to take responsibility for the outcome.

 

[IndianaBoy]

I have had too many scopes fail me to trust cheap glass anymore. Not that high end glass is perfect. Anything man-made can fail.

Life is too short to deal with mushy turret, wandering zero, murky glass, and otherwise poor optical performance.

Maybe I was too harsh with my "sub $200 is junk" statement but it isn't far from the the truth. Maybe sub $150.

There is a line below which you are guaranteed to be purchasing some garbage with poor engineering, poor execution, and poor ROI.



The optics purchase I regret the least was my most expensive scope. That isn't to say that I favor throwing money at things.


Isn't it crazy to live in a world where a $1400 optic is considered the 'value' optic?

 

[LoonWulf]

Isn't it crazy to live in a world where a $1400 optic is considered the 'value' optic?

It is a bit, Its also amazing how good, consumer optics have gotten. My buddies nighforce is probably my favorite optic atm, I havent gotten to mess with any of the the really, REALLY, expensive scopes. Maybe in the near future tho, cause a friend of mine is talking about building an ELR rifle right now.

 

[farmerboy78]

if you're gonna use a barska, it better be on a rimfire. they tend to not handle recoil very well. one of the best cheap scopes is the bushnell banner... past that I'd go with an swfa ss

 

[Mowgli Terry]

Night Force is not a "really expensive scope"? You must be an oil sheik or something?

 

[LoonWulf]

one of the best cheap scopes is the bushnell banner

Thats generally been my experience as well, Ive had a few and none have stayed but they all did exactly what they were supposed to.

Night Force is not a "really expensive scope"? You must be an oil sheik or something?

No, but I have Sheik...e? friends.....
Ok i really dont, but my buddy is willing to drop that kinda cash on a scope for his Christensen Ridgeline. Hes now looking to get rid of it so he can get a lighter scope, most likely a Leupy VX-6.

Ive traded into or bought a few scopes in the 500 range, and used some of the 500-1k class scopes on other peoples rifles.
Ive always sold or traded all of my more expensive scopes off as well. Tho I did give a couple of nice ones to some folks who were fighting with cheap, cheap, scopes.
Like ive said, the lower cost options do everything I need them to do. I LIKE the expensive ones better, but end of the day i dont NEED them.

Id likely have kept a few of them, but (and this is something stuff like low end bushys and Barskas dont do) good optics hold their value better than guns. Ive traded or sold almost all of my more expensive scopes for little or no loss.

 

[cdb1]

Maybe it’s just age(59) or the severe astigmatism that’s developed over the past fifteen years but I can tell a huge difference between the glass of a Barska, Simmons, Tasco etc. and a $200.00 Fullfield II. So for me about $200.00 is the least amount I can spend on an optic and put it to good use.

 

[IndianaBoy]

Night Force is not a "really expensive scope"? You must be an oil sheik or something?

I get funny looks from some of my friends for my $1k+ optics but most of them in addition to their gun safe, have a closet full of between 15-40 inexpensive but utilitarian rifles and shotgun. Run the numbers and they could have some really nicely set up guns and ammo to feed them, but many choose to keep adding $3-400 guns to the stable any time they get a chance.

As such I can't give funny looks to the guys with $3k+ scopes. I get it.

A few years back I sold off a bunch of guns that never came out of the safe and spent the money on optics and silencers. If it were financially necessary I would pare down the safe even further and some rarely shot guns would get the axe before I would part with my best optics.


Not a criticism of the guys who own 100 guns all equipped with budget optics. It's a free country!

 

[Mowgli Terry]

Just kicking this low end scope business around. Down in my Skunk Works there are maybe a half dozen rifles with ancient Leupold scopes. Some of those scopes are thirty years old or older. How do they work? These older scopes are great for shooting. What else are they good for? Wow the wannabe's at the range? Let somebody else wow those folks. How much of this modern stuff is advertising hype? How many of these low end scope makers figure the oldds that a minority of the scopes ever make to a range or on a hunt? So we'll sell a 1000 scopes and, maybe, replace 20.

 

[Slamfire]

I have talked with a number of good competitive shooters. In time all scopes crap out. One shooting bud, a National Champ in a number of F class categories, mentioned $3,000 March scopes failing to track, when new, at a National Competition! Oops!

I think there was some logic behind the externally adjusted scopes of yore:






The cross hairs were not floating in a spring loaded tube. And, if you notice, the scope itself has a recoil spring to reduce the recoil impluse. That would make the cross hairs last longer. The only thing about this scope, is that I really don't trust it for clicks. I have had it jump after making windage and elevation adjustments. Bud's who have other Lyman super scopes, or Unertl's, sometimes it happens, sometimes it don't.