Cheap Rifle Scopes That Actually Work
- Thread starter Abel
- Start date
- Status
I have an old Tasco World Class 3-9x44 on my deer rifle. I bought it back in '95 IIRC. They were more expensive then though. I think I gave about $125 for it back then (maybe I got took). It has never lost zero & is still as clear as when I bought it. I do find myself wanting something that would do a little better in low light though.
guntech59
Member
I have two Simmons 3-9x40 8-Point scopes. One on an NEF 243 (8 years) and one on my ML (6 years) No problems with either one.
My wife dropped the .243 on a rock and dented the front bell. It still holds zero and does not fog up at all.
Both scopes have been through several Upstate NY hunting seasons.
My wife dropped the .243 on a rock and dented the front bell. It still holds zero and does not fog up at all.
Both scopes have been through several Upstate NY hunting seasons.
I think Bushnell makes a good scope for less than $100.00. I found an old Tasco World Class Plus from 1988 4x44 in a pawn shop about a year ago. The original sticker said $150, I walked out with it for $45.00. I swear it is clearer than my Leupold VX3. Back in the 80's they were good scopes.
In general I've had good luck with cheap scopes.
I've still got a few cheapo's, although most of the optics I use now are quite a bit nicer. I've got a Tasco Bucksight 3-9x40 I bought for $30 at Walmart back 5 years ago and stuck it on a cheapo used muzzle loader I bought. It's got surprisingly good glass for $30, and seems to hold zero well. I killed my two biggest bucks with it.
The other cheapo I have is a Simmons Deerfield 3-9x32. I bought probably 7 years ago and it's held up great. It's been dropped, banged around, and just treated like crap. It still holds zero, and never seems to be off when I go to shoot it. This one also tracks extremely well, and has really good glass. I just can't complain about this one and I wish I had about 10 more of them.
I've had a few other Simmons and have had pretty good luck with most of them. The only one I've ever had fail was a Simmons 8 Point that a guy threw in when I bought a Leupold from him. It failed after 6 shots on a 30-06, but I'm not sure what kind of previous life it had, so I can't really blame the scope too much. I've got a Simmons Presidential that was made in Japan that I've loaned to a buddy since I don't have a use for it, and it's one heck of a scope as well. I had a Simmons Blazer too, and had good luck with it. I've really just had good luck with Simmons in general.
I've used the Center Point 4-16's, and while I feel the glass leaves a lot to be desired, the one I had was durable, held zero, and tracked well.
I've used a couple of Bushnells, and even a couple of Bushnell Elites. For some reason every time I use a Bushnell I end up feeling extremely disappointed. I've never had one fail, but other than the tactical models I've never had one that tracked accurately. On anything below the Elite lines, I think the glass is severely lacking, and I've just honestly never really seen much positive about them. I know they now own Simmons and Tasco, but I've still had decent luck with them.
That all said, you can spend $180 and get a Burris FFII which you know will be a great scope, so I'm no longer a big fan of taking a risk by buying cheap. If it was a cheap scope or open sights though, I'd go with a cheap scope as I've had good luck and 98% of the guys I hunt with use scopes under $120, and very very rarely do they ever have one fail. So I don't think cheap optics are nearly as bad as some people online make them out to be.
I've still got a few cheapo's, although most of the optics I use now are quite a bit nicer. I've got a Tasco Bucksight 3-9x40 I bought for $30 at Walmart back 5 years ago and stuck it on a cheapo used muzzle loader I bought. It's got surprisingly good glass for $30, and seems to hold zero well. I killed my two biggest bucks with it.
The other cheapo I have is a Simmons Deerfield 3-9x32. I bought probably 7 years ago and it's held up great. It's been dropped, banged around, and just treated like crap. It still holds zero, and never seems to be off when I go to shoot it. This one also tracks extremely well, and has really good glass. I just can't complain about this one and I wish I had about 10 more of them.
I've had a few other Simmons and have had pretty good luck with most of them. The only one I've ever had fail was a Simmons 8 Point that a guy threw in when I bought a Leupold from him. It failed after 6 shots on a 30-06, but I'm not sure what kind of previous life it had, so I can't really blame the scope too much. I've got a Simmons Presidential that was made in Japan that I've loaned to a buddy since I don't have a use for it, and it's one heck of a scope as well. I had a Simmons Blazer too, and had good luck with it. I've really just had good luck with Simmons in general.
I've used the Center Point 4-16's, and while I feel the glass leaves a lot to be desired, the one I had was durable, held zero, and tracked well.
I've used a couple of Bushnells, and even a couple of Bushnell Elites. For some reason every time I use a Bushnell I end up feeling extremely disappointed. I've never had one fail, but other than the tactical models I've never had one that tracked accurately. On anything below the Elite lines, I think the glass is severely lacking, and I've just honestly never really seen much positive about them. I know they now own Simmons and Tasco, but I've still had decent luck with them.
That all said, you can spend $180 and get a Burris FFII which you know will be a great scope, so I'm no longer a big fan of taking a risk by buying cheap. If it was a cheap scope or open sights though, I'd go with a cheap scope as I've had good luck and 98% of the guys I hunt with use scopes under $120, and very very rarely do they ever have one fail. So I don't think cheap optics are nearly as bad as some people online make them out to be.
ColtPythonElite
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,477
I have several 15+ year old Tasco World Class scopes and have never had a problem with them.....However, Tasco is not the same company it was.
ColtPythonElite
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,477
Are Weaver K's cheap? I certainly don't find nice steel tubed ones priced cheap. I have several and have paid good money for them.
TurtlePhish
Member
SWFA scopes are cheap for what you get. Mine's awesome. I love it.
My ArmaLite came with an older Leapers 4x20. It's very clear but I don't use it because I don't much care for optics.
The latest version of the 4x20 apparently has illuminated crosshairs. At around $40 it's a pretty small gamble. I don't know about you, but I've spent a lot more on a lot less.
The latest version of the 4x20 apparently has illuminated crosshairs. At around $40 it's a pretty small gamble. I don't know about you, but I've spent a lot more on a lot less.
ColtPythonElite
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,477
I know very little about of the "new" Weaver scopes. I'd guess about the only thing that that have in common with the El Paso steel tubers is the name on the box...They may be good scopes, though....I can say I have shot a few .22lr bench guns wearing high power newer Weavers and was impressed with the optics
henschman
Member
My friend and I have had a cheap Chinese Red Star 4x20 scope for many years... I think it came on an SKS he bought a long time ago. We have passed it back and forth and have had it on many different rifles. It never failed to zero right up. It is extremely small and compact... it is barely longer than those flip-to-side AR magnifiers. The reticle is kinda neat... it is a really fat post that is the width of a man-sized target at 300m, kind of like an M1 front sight.
I have some pre-bankruptcy Tascos that are still soldiering on. 3x9 world class and a 4-12x and two EXP's.
I had a UTG 4x that lasted 3200 rounds before it puked, apparently thats a world record.
I had a UTG 4x that lasted 3200 rounds before it puked, apparently thats a world record.
wnycollector
Member
I have three Simmons WTC's (two 2-10x44's and one 6.5-20x50). All are made in the Philippines and the grand total for all of them was less than $200.
wally
Member
I too have had very good luck with cheap scopes. As I got old and my vision got worse scopes became a necessity, although these days I tend to prefer red dots for the kind of shooting I mostly do.
I've replaced several of the cheap scopes because I wanted better, not because they stopped letting me shoot better with them than with the irons.
Only one has been replaced because it actually broke. It was an early (first generation?) Leapers 3x9. I actually liked it because it was compact and good enough optically for my needs -- 9X for sighting in (I could resolve the bullet holes making it easy), 3X for position shooting; but after a case (2000+ rounds) of 5.45x39 on my Saiga (it'd been on other rifles before this) I took it to the range when I opened a case of Russian to see if there was a POA/POI shift from the Romanian. Zoomed it out the 9X and couldn't see anything, back to 3X and it looked fine. No telling when it broke as it'd had been on 3X since I first zeroed it on this rifle. Since I'd be mounting a new scope I didn't see much point in shooting much, although a few shots convinced me any POA/POI shift between the new Russian and the Romanian I had been using was not going to be an issue shooting steel plates if I got a chance to go out with it again before I got a replacement scope -- which ended up being a cheap red dot.
If you are pushing the limits of shooting hours or using a range finder and "dialing in" distance corrections no cheap scope will likely be very useful, but if you just can't cut it with irons any more and don't want to spend a ton of money for a good scope with features you won't really use, cheap scopes will usually do just fine.
Cheap is relative, but there are a lot of nice choices in the $150-250 range, some of my favorites are the Weaver 2.5-10X, Millet DMS 1-4X, and Nikon Prostaff 4-12X.
In the ~$100 category I've been pretty happy with the UTG 1-4X and Barska 1.25-4X and the ~$60 BSA 4-16X I've got on my 10/22 has been wonderful.
I've replaced several of the cheap scopes because I wanted better, not because they stopped letting me shoot better with them than with the irons.
Only one has been replaced because it actually broke. It was an early (first generation?) Leapers 3x9. I actually liked it because it was compact and good enough optically for my needs -- 9X for sighting in (I could resolve the bullet holes making it easy), 3X for position shooting; but after a case (2000+ rounds) of 5.45x39 on my Saiga (it'd been on other rifles before this) I took it to the range when I opened a case of Russian to see if there was a POA/POI shift from the Romanian. Zoomed it out the 9X and couldn't see anything, back to 3X and it looked fine. No telling when it broke as it'd had been on 3X since I first zeroed it on this rifle. Since I'd be mounting a new scope I didn't see much point in shooting much, although a few shots convinced me any POA/POI shift between the new Russian and the Romanian I had been using was not going to be an issue shooting steel plates if I got a chance to go out with it again before I got a replacement scope -- which ended up being a cheap red dot.
If you are pushing the limits of shooting hours or using a range finder and "dialing in" distance corrections no cheap scope will likely be very useful, but if you just can't cut it with irons any more and don't want to spend a ton of money for a good scope with features you won't really use, cheap scopes will usually do just fine.
Cheap is relative, but there are a lot of nice choices in the $150-250 range, some of my favorites are the Weaver 2.5-10X, Millet DMS 1-4X, and Nikon Prostaff 4-12X.
In the ~$100 category I've been pretty happy with the UTG 1-4X and Barska 1.25-4X and the ~$60 BSA 4-16X I've got on my 10/22 has been wonderful.
The Nikko Stirling scopes are very nice for the money. I actually replaced a Nikon Monarch with one, just because I wanted an adjustable objective. Other budget scopes I have had good luck with are the Leupold VX-1, and Nikon Pro-staff.
velocette
Member
I own many low priced scopes, all under $250.00, & most under $150.00.
That said, What I have found as the major problem with inexpensive optics is the repeatability or consistency of the adjustments. They say, 1/4" per click at 100 yds. What really happens is click - no movement - click - no movement - click - 1" movement - click no movement - click - no movement - click - no movement etc. Once set, they seem to stay set. I've had two that the reticles came loose & moved about. Optically, the higher magnifications tend to be less sharp, not a lot, but less sharp. The only way most folks can tell the difference is to look through the inexpensive scope & then look through an expensive one. Most folks can tell the difference.
That said, unless you are a picky target shooter (I am) or a hunter planning for shots beyond 200 yds, (I'm not)the differences are little.
On my target rifles, I use mid priced scopes (Weaver mid to upper level), on plinkers or most .22 rifles they are not expensive optics & work quite well.
With my Weaver target scope, (T-24) I can make 1/8 moa adjustments in a match and see the results consistently. (and yes I'm that good a shot, or at least the NRA says I am.) Shooting at tin cans, shotgun shells, squirrels & other targets of opportunity, the cost of the scope matters little. It is also my OPINION that as you go up in the price of optics, the quality differences between the price levels becomes less & less. That is, the difference between a $150.00 scope and $300.00 scope is noticable as is the difference between a $300.00 scope and $600.00 scope. But the difference between a $600.00 scope and a $1200.00 scope is not as much. All that said, I still would like to be able to afford a Schmidt & Bender scope for my favorite rifle.
Just my opinion YMMV
Roger
That said, What I have found as the major problem with inexpensive optics is the repeatability or consistency of the adjustments. They say, 1/4" per click at 100 yds. What really happens is click - no movement - click - no movement - click - 1" movement - click no movement - click - no movement - click - no movement etc. Once set, they seem to stay set. I've had two that the reticles came loose & moved about. Optically, the higher magnifications tend to be less sharp, not a lot, but less sharp. The only way most folks can tell the difference is to look through the inexpensive scope & then look through an expensive one. Most folks can tell the difference.
That said, unless you are a picky target shooter (I am) or a hunter planning for shots beyond 200 yds, (I'm not)the differences are little.
On my target rifles, I use mid priced scopes (Weaver mid to upper level), on plinkers or most .22 rifles they are not expensive optics & work quite well.
With my Weaver target scope, (T-24) I can make 1/8 moa adjustments in a match and see the results consistently. (and yes I'm that good a shot, or at least the NRA says I am.) Shooting at tin cans, shotgun shells, squirrels & other targets of opportunity, the cost of the scope matters little. It is also my OPINION that as you go up in the price of optics, the quality differences between the price levels becomes less & less. That is, the difference between a $150.00 scope and $300.00 scope is noticable as is the difference between a $300.00 scope and $600.00 scope. But the difference between a $600.00 scope and a $1200.00 scope is not as much. All that said, I still would like to be able to afford a Schmidt & Bender scope for my favorite rifle.
Just my opinion YMMV
Roger
Last edited:
bowhntr04
Member
I have a Universal 4x on my Marlin 336 in 35 rem that i absolutely love. It has the post, not crosshairs and glass is incredibly clear. Made in Japan, probably 70s model. I've shot Bushnell Bannes and Trophy scopes that got the job done. I agree that you should buy the best glass you can afford.
Jaxondog
Member
I just would not trust a $50 or $100 scope if I am going on an important or long awaited hunt for that trophy of a lifetime. Redfield in my opinion would be the cheapest I would use in a situation as that. I've had two and one was on 338 mag and never had a minute's problem with either. For plinking i guess you can use a scope from Harbor Freight, but that's not for me.
Hunting in Michigan's shotgun zone, I've had quite a few cheap scopes that couldn't survive the recoil. I had a Tasco 3x9 on my 20 ga that managed to last about 10 years, though I'm not certain it held a tight zero since it was a 75 yard gun at best. Since I've switched to a 12 ga, I've gone through a couple of cheap scopes; another Tasco, and a Simmons. Both were less than $100 and neither lasted a full year. I now use a Nikon. My Prostaff 2x7 has survived 2 years and a lot more slug shots than either of the other two. It also pulls part time duty on my .458 socom, which had too much recoil for a Primary Arms red dot.
jcwit
member
I've had excellant results with BSA Contender & Platinum target scopes both on .22 rimfire and on centerfire.
Now that statement should have poked the hornets nest.
Now that statement should have poked the hornets nest.
- Status
