Do most

[hometheaterman]

So I know I've asked on here about what kind of scopes most of you use. I know the results have always usually favored scopes like Nikon, Leupold, Burris, Vortex, etc. I also read a lot of bad on here and other sights about cheap Chinese scopes like Simmons, Tasco, etc. Even other cheap scopes that aren't made in China get bad press. I've used both and while the cheaper Simmons and Tasco's have worked for me There is a difference between a lot of $2-300 scopes and a $50 Tasco or Simmons. Now my Leupold VX-I is the exception to this as I couldn't tell a difference. However, most of the scopes in that price ranger there does seem to be a difference. After seeing so many guys online on various sights say they don't use cheap scopes as they fail often. Now I think most of us can all tell a difference between these cheap scopes and most expensive ones clarity wise, but it seems like most people just want it clear enough to use, and to hold zero.

I decided to ask around to most of the shooters I know and see what they use and like. The name that keeps coming up is Simmons and Bushnell Banners. I asked several guys I hunt with. 5 of them really like and have Simmons, one of them likes Bushnell Banners(he said he tried Simmons but it failed after a year so he no longer uses them), another uses a cheaper Bushnell. A couple of them say they have had a few Tasco's fail and no longer like Tasco, but have never had a problem with a Simmons. None of them use even scopes in the $200 price range other than myself.

So since all of the guys I hunt with use cheap scopes and most of them have good luck, I decided to ask a few other friends that both hunt and shoot for fun. The first one I asked said he had Bushnell Banner, a few Tasco's, and quite a few Simmons. He said he likes them all and Simmons seems to be his preferred choice. Now most of his Simmons are the White Tail Classic ones, but not all of them. He also has some old Redfields and likes them. He said he has had a few scopes fail over time, but not many and in general he has found them to hold up well.

Then I asked two others that are brothers. One mostly a gun collector that hunts, the other is a hunter and mainly just a hunter. Both of them said they prefer Tasco's.

Then tonight I got to chat with another guy that owns a lot of guns and shoots a decent bit. He told me he has had several he likes but that he has a Simmons he likes and he has never had a problem with it. He then told me he tried Konus or something recently as they had an over the counter replacement warranty and so far he likes them.

Another friend that is a hunter mostly and only has a few guns has a couple Simmons and has had them for quite a while and likes them. He has used Tasco and Bushnell and said he has been happy with them too.

I've talked to 2 others that have had Leupolds. One sold his to me cheap when it failed to hold zero. Another one had his fail to hold zero and traded it for a .22 rifle. So I no longer know anyone that owns Leupolds.

Now one thing I've noticed is that several of these guys either don't have the internet and don't use it, or they have it and use it, but don't surf gun forums and don't seem to care what others think too much.

So this really made me wonder. For you guys, do your friends, people you meet at the range, guys you hunt with, etc that don't go by what they read online still use scopes in the $200+ range. Or do they use cheap scopes from Simmons, Tasco, Bushnell, etc?

Sorry for the long post. I was just curious as I was really surprised how many people that I've always thought of as gun collectors, great hunters, etc, use and recommend cheap scopes. They seem to think my $220 Burris is on the high end of things. The other thing that made me wonder about this is when I went to Dicks the Burris for $220 was the second nicest scope they had. They did have one Nikon in a higher magnification for slightly more. Most of their scopes were under $100 though. Several gun shops I've been to lately I've noticed also seem to only stock cheap scopes with one or two mid priced ones. I just was surprised and wondered if others have run into this.

 

[TIMC]

I know a lot of people that are happy with cheap scopes and know a lot of people that use nothing but upper end scopes.
I have used both not always having the disposible income I have today and have found that most will do the job but where the rubber meats the road is in low light and long range shooting. You just can't beat really nice optics for less than perfect conditions.
This is the way everything is in life. Some live in nice homes and some live in trailers; both keep the rain off. Some drive a Taurus and some drive Cadillac's; both will get you there but some have the cash to arrive in comfort. Catch my drift?
As I grow older and have more disposable income to blow on toys; Leupold VXIII's and even the occasional Swarovski scopes have come to replace the Simmons and Tasco's on top top of my rifles.

 

[Abel]

I have some cheap scopes that work fine. But I like my Burris better because of the crisp image and clarity in comparison to my cheaper scopes. The low end VX-I Leupolds, along with their Rifleman & Redfield lines, may very well be on par with the Bushnell Banner....but you are paying for Leupold's outstanding customer service. Transferable warranty, good repair turnaround, and courteous customer service representatives all go towards the end price of the scope. In my experience, you usually get exactly what you pay for.

 

[Tirod]

I think it's significant that the Simmons "fans" are largely internet free. What your are seeing is a consumer buying on price, not pride, and spending what they think will perform at a comfort level that considers their budget.

What probably falls into their category is that many of them have family and career. Spending as much as the gun is valued takes away from buying the kids shoes or having a night out with the wife. Simmons does a good job of being on the shelf in the gun department, having good quality, an attractive appearance, and a good price point.

The old cliche of spending as much on the scope as the gun is good advice for those who work with them as a tool on a daily basis. ACOG's for $1100 on a duty M4 comes to mind. For the rest of us, who hunt in season, shoot less than monthly at the range, and who don't own a dozen guns, a scope at half the price is pushing the comfort zone.

Here's the issue - does paying 50% more for the scope get you 50% improved performance, accuracy, and durability? Most buyers think not. It's a diminishing return for the money.

As for Chinese, mid range products from their have been on the market for 20 years now. Most consumers haven't noticed or cared. They don't much know the difference and keep buying the stuff. Check the packaging on Stanley hardware or tools the next time you're in the store, it's rare to find any of it that's not from China, and same for their competitor's.

It's not that "someone" is importing cheap Chinese stuff, it's that WE won't pay our fellow citizen's a living wage to make it here. WE are too cheap.

 

[R.W.Dale]

The most important question you failed to ask was "have you used other scopes" a lot in fact I dare say most users and layman propenents of low end Chinese optics have no standard of comparison because these bought a bushnell at otasco in 1964 that worked good and as a result have bought little else since.

I view cheap scopes as I do Fram oil filters.

It doesn't matter how many reports of munched engines you find or how bad a ford300 or jeep4.0 sounds on startup you'll have folks whose only used fram defending them simply because that's all they know.

As to not spending as much on the optic due to budget reasons. FWIW I'm on a budget and I view that like I do folks who buy a v8 full sized SUV and then complain cause they can't afford gas. If you bought the gun you can save the same money again if need be. Now do you have to spend 100% of the gun price...no...a mere 150clams will get you into some darn fine optics.

 

[Tirod]

Oh, gee, Krochus, I could have gone all day without remembering that mistake.

Saving $2 an oil filter for 180,000 miles of engine life can't even begin to pay for a $1800 engine replacement at 95,000 when the cheap part scores the bearings and throws a rod out the block. There are some brands and parts I will never buy again.

Having surveyed as many shooters as could have been, it's noted the Tasco and cheaper brand scopes were getting replaced. That's lost money that could have gone to longer performance and superior use.

The money I saved on cheap oil filters wouldn't even buy a block to return as a core. So far I have avoided cheap scopes.

 

[JoeMal]

This is an interesting discussion...I'm looking into a scope for my Marlin 60 .22 and have pondered several of the mentioned brands (Tasco, Bushnell, Simmons, Nikon, etc). Part of me hates to buy a nicer scope for a $150 rifle, but I also would be upset with myself to go 'cheap' and find myself replacing the scope next season because I'm unhappy with it. Maybe putting the money into it now will save me money in the long run.

 

[Walkalong]

A Burris Fullfield II, or a Nikon Buckmaster, or a Bushnell Elite 3200 is as cheap as I want to go. I'll buy better when I can afford it.

If you can't see the difference in them and the cheap scopes, by all means buy the cheap ones, but for not a whole lot more money, those choices are a big step up from the cheap ones.

I would prefer to step up to the Vortex Viper, Bushnell Elite 4200, Leupold VX III, or Nikon Monarch. My Vari-X III is s superb scope.

Of course there are even better scopes than these out there, and if you can swing the cash, they won't disappoint.

Over the last say 20 years, all my cheap scopes have been given away or relegated to a shelf in the closet. Ever since I ponied up and put the Leupold Vari-X III on my .308, it was hard to use a cheap scope. The price stung a bit, but it was worth it in the long run.

 

[briansmithwins]

How expensive of glass you need depends on what you're trying to do with it:

The guy who zeroed his rifle 3 years ago and is taking it out into the woods to shoot a deer 50 yards away that's walking in the sun really doesn't need a very good scope.

The guy that's taking a class where you have to ID targets, correct for wind and elevation, and get hits in bad light is going to appreciate the resolution, repeatability, and light gathering ability of a higher end scope.

With glass, you generally get what you pay for. BSW

 

[hometheaterman]

After using a Burris Fullfield II comparing it to the cheap scopes you can tell a difference. I've also looked through some higher end scopes like Swarovski and it's a huge difference. While I still have a few cheap scopes laying around I prefer to use nicer scopes. The cheaper ones hold zero and for what I use them for that's all I need. However, as said in low light there is a big difference. I have also noticed with one cheaper scope it doesn't track accurately at all. I moved it two clicks and it moved a little over an inch. Where as 1 click is supposed to be 1/4". However, once dialed in it stays there. The other 2 cheap scopes I have don't seem to do this and seem to adjust accurately. So I've been won over by nicer scopes.

I just was really surprised to see how many others that seem to really be into guns, or into hunting had these cheap scopes. 2 of them have tried Leupold by trying VX-I's and had the same experience I did and now think they are overpriced junk. A lot of the others I don't think have tried much better. Actually one of them has tried Nikon's and says he likes them, but can't tell much difference between it and the Tasco's and Simmons he has. I just found it surprising so many people used cheap optics.

 

[hometheaterman]

This is an interesting discussion...I'm looking into a scope for my Marlin 60 .22 and have pondered several of the mentioned brands (Tasco, Bushnell, Simmons, Nikon, etc). Part of me hates to buy a nicer scope for a $150 rifle, but I also would be upset with myself to go 'cheap' and find myself replacing the scope next season because I'm unhappy with it. Maybe putting the money into it now will save me money in the long run.

I don't know. While I've kind of been won over by quality optics I don't know that I'd put one on a .22 rifle. The reason being is that I just don't see the advantage on a .22. The cheaper Simmons, Tasco's, etc seem to hold up fairly decently, they are clear enough, and seem to do well on a .22 with little to no recoil. The places I've noticed they suffer often is low light, and the tracking sometimes suffers. However, on a .22 you aren't likely to be constantly adjusting the scope for the range, so that part usually doesn't matter. Also you usually aren't hunting deer or any other animal with a .22 that you need it to function great in low light. So I just really don't see the huge need for an expensive scope on a .22 like I do on a main hunting rifle.

The one scope that almost everyone I've talked with the exception of one person has said that they have had bad luck with a BSA and wouldn't get another. That seems to be the one brand they all dislike. The one person that has one got it for a gift and I helped him sight it in a few weeks ago on a .22. I wasn't impressed, but it held zero while we sighted it in. I'm not sure how it will hold up for him though. The Simmons I've got on my .22 seems a lot better for not that much more.

 

[JoeMal]

Exactly, I won't be hunting deer with it, just more of a fun range/target gun and small varmint gun. I would like a scope that could get me shooting good groups up to 100ish yards, during the daytime. I think a sub $100 scope could do just fine for that. But a bigger caliber gun with more application I would definitely invest in a better scope

 

[hometheaterman]

That's how I feel too. I have a Simmons 3x9x32 on my 10/22 and to me it's perfect for that gun. It's one of the Simmons I've used that does track properly. I sighted it in for 100 yards and got about 1.5"-2" groups which for a stock 10/22 with cheap bulk pack ammo from Walmart. Now this is shooting 25-50 rounds. Not doing 3 shot groups. I think this is pretty good. At 35-50 yards, when I dial it in for that range I get about 25 round groups at right around 1" or so. It's accurate, holds zero, and has impressed me for what it cost. I've dropped it, had it bumped all around, etc and it's always held zero. When comparing this to my VX-I it's just as clear looking to me and a way better scope when it comes to holding zero. Where it lacks is in low light compared to the Burris I have and other higher end scopes. To me that's fine for a .22 as I don't hunt with it in low light anyway.

 

[buck460XVR]

Now do you have to spend 100% of the gun price...no...a mere 150clams will get you into some darn fine optics.

I agree. Modern optic technology and the use of robotics has made a big difference in the clarity and light transmission in today's lower end and moderate level scopes. Many boast of a 90+ percentage of light transmission, something nearly unheard of 30 years ago even in top end optics. Many of these $150-$250 scopes have the same lifetime warranty as many of the upper end scopes. As others have said, intended use should have bearing on how much you spend also. I read somewhere lately that the average deer hunter spends 4-5 days a year in the woods in pursuit of deer. He shoots an average of 3 shots, plus whatever he uses to check his rifle before season......if he does that at all. For the AVERAGE deer hunter a $1000 scope is a waste of money, except for the bragging rights.(Kinda like the penguin on the polo shirt thing) For these hunters, a modern $150 scope is more up to the task than the hunter himself. For 35 years I carried an M1917 with a cheapo 3-9X40 Tasco world class scope on it for deer hunting. If I had to do it over again, I would put a better scope on it, but at the time I didn't know better.....but then again neither did the many deer it took. Never over all those years did I miss an opportunity to take a deer (during legal hunting hours) because I couldn't make out a target in low light.(altho I did once have to pass up a buck because it was pouring rain/sleet and the lenses were covered with water/snow) Never over those 35 years did it ever loose zero or have to be resighted even tho the gun was not used with kid gloves.

I am not suggesting everyone use a cheap scope, I'm just saying that for many applications they are fine. I personally don't use entry level scopes myself anymore, but I certainly don't trash those that do. I suggest one go somewhere where they can look thru a variety of scopes that will fit their application, needs and price range and then go from there.

 

[Rokman]

I have owned numerous Simmon's scopes in the past and have replaced all but an Atech model that is sitting on a 10/22. I had a Simmons Whitetail Hunter that was part of a rifle/scope package that was a dog. It looked cool, but my .30-06 nocked it all over the place. I have owned Bushell Banners on .22 rimfire and they were OK. If you buy cheap scopes, don't set your expectations very high.

 

[R.W.Dale]

I agree. Modern optic technology and the use of robotics has made a big difference in the clarity and light transmission in today's lower end and moderate level scopes. Many boast of a 90+ percentage of light transmission, something nearly unheard of 30 years ago even in top end optics. Many of these $150-$250 scopes have the same lifetime warranty as many of the upper end scopes.

And IMO this is the critical part!!

You can dog the VX1 line all you want but for lets say $200 when your scope quits you get a new one ASAP no jumping through hoops to get it. When your $80 simBSAco craps the bed and you replace it yourself you then have a $160 simBSAco. This means there's a good chance a leupold will only set you back $40 more in the long run ASSUMING your cheap scope doesn't crap out thrice. My main point being that SCOPES WILL FAIL
if you hunt and shoot enough irregardless of brand the important factor is what happens and the costs incurred afterward.

I don't care what you fellas claim even the entry level VX1 is lightyears ahead optically of any of these scopes out of china. It's worthy of note to point out that todays VX1 is the same scope as yesteryear's variX-II

Another factor where these sub $100 optics are SEVERELY lacking for use on centerfires is in actual usable eye relief.

 

[JDGray]

The guy that's taking a class where you have to ID targets, correct for wind and elevation, and get hits in bad light is going to appreciate the resolution, repeatability, and light gathering ability of a higher end scope.

This Repeatable tracking, good turrets, parallax adjustability, glass clarity, all drive up the cost. The guy who sets his scope to hit at 150yrds, and never dials in elavation, doesn't need parallax adjustments cause he's shooting at a huge gut pile, can get buy without all the finer features that drive up the cost. Buy the best scope you can afford, never heard someone complain about their scope being too nice!!

 

[Maverick223]

I all but refuse to settle for poor quality optics (though a couple rifles still have cheap, but good scopes on them). I made this decision a while back and have pretty well stuck to it. That is not because all cheap scopes will fail on you, some will and some won't (more on that later), but because I shoot quite a bit. When you shoot a lot, it becomes apparent that saving a few bucks for less comfort, less clarity, less repeatability/durability, just isn't saving anything at all. The cheap stuff makes the shooting experience less enjoyable, and that makes it not worthwhile.

Now I realize that there are many folks that don't shoot that much, and for the rifle that gets sighted in once a year, and shot twice after, that inexpensive optics probably isn't a bad decision. There are a few manufacturers that offer durable scopes, at a low price. The optical clarity is as one would expect, but workable for most situations. IMO the best option for someone that meets this criteria is low-end Bushnell scopes. They have performed fairly well for me over the years, whereas others have physically broken, lost zero, or had a complete mechanical failure. I am relatively easy on my rifles and accessories, and generally maintain things well, but they do get used. Some of the more spectacular failures that I refuse to repeat are from BSA, Simmons, NCStar, and Tasco. Others that have performed less than adequately (or had a less spectacular failure) include: Weaver (reticle died, but was an older scope; would possibly buy again), CenterPoint (lost zero and didn't have enough elevation; might buy again), and Barska (changed zero when magnification was adjusted; doubtful that I would ever buy again but not nearly as bad as the four above).

OTOH, I feel that most of the folks here are like me, and shoot a quite a bit. If that is the case I would recommend that you bite the bullet (or as some would say: "buy once, cry once") and purchase a good quality scope to begin with. Some of the optics that have performed well for me, but are not ridiculously expensive include: various Sightron, Vortex Viper and Diamondback, Bushnell Elites, various Nikons, Leupold VX-3, Kahles CL, Zeiss Conquest, and Meopta Meostar.

High end optics that I have found to perform well include: Premier Reticles, S&B (in my limited experience with one), IOR, Zeiss Diavari, and various Swarovski. I probably left out a few, that I have used (in all categories), the ones listed above are ones that I have extensive experience with (unless noted) and/or owned (includes the majority of them), and left an impression (whether that be horrible, surprising value, or outstanding).

Hope this saves someone the expense and aggravation of having to repeat the trial & error of finding a good scope. Many of us tend to learn the "hard way" (as did I), until it gets beat in that cheap isn't always cheap.

 

[Geno]

This is a fantastic thread! I appreciated the reading, especially given the collective experiences here. The most common speak that have heard regarding scopes, for that matter all hunting equipment, revolves around: application, equipment, frequency, location and time. Are you hunting varmints or big game? What firearm platform are you using? Are you hunting once per year, or with every season, as much as you can? Are you hunting the bean fields or the woods? Are you a day-time hunter, or an all-available-hours hunter?

For me, the higher the standards go in each category, the more money I'm willing to invest in the item. For a .22LR that I pull out 1 time per year to plink cans at 25 yards with my nephew, a 4X Tasco|BSA|Bushnell is perfectly fine. But, when I'm in the varmint fields, from sun-up to sun-set, I want good glass, with excellent repeat adjustments. When I'm in the deer fields, I want excellent glass, and excellent maintenance on the zero.

Good thread! Thanks fellas!

Geno

 

[KodiakBeer]

I once managed a gun store and saw far too many complaining customers trying to return Bushnell and Tasco scopes. The optics are OK, but they simply don't last. If you hunt from a tree stand or whatever once a year, they're probably fine. But if you actually intend to pack them around in any kind of rugged country they will break and fog up, and probably at the most inopportune time.

I like Burris scopes. Others may have equal or better optics, but nothing is as rugged and that's the bottom line with me. I want a scope that can get banged around and still work.

 

[seanie!]

My justification for buying cheap scopes is that I have used them to experiment. I bought my first ever scope(a 3-9x30 Simmons) around a year and a half ago for $40. The reason I didn't go all out, is before then, I had never used anything other than iron sights. I picked up what I figured was a reasonably priced scope for a reasonably priced gun(Saiga .223). Turns out the scope was great. It held zero, everything looked good through it, although I had never used it on anything other than a sunny day at the range. Personally though, I didn't like having a scoped AK. It seemed counter productive, so I went with purchase number 2:

A Bushnell Trophy 6moa 28mm red dot. Reasonably priced at $70, I picked this up because I once again had never used a red dot. As luck would have it, I have astigmatism. Do you know how miffed I would've been if I picked up an Aimpoint and saw a cluster of red blobs?

To this day, I still have my Trophy red dot, but have since upgraded from a side mount to an Ultimak. I might pick up an Aimpoint Micro some day, but I don't run my guns into the ground anyway, so what I've got suits me just fine.

If I ever pick up another rifle(who am I kidding? when I pick up another rifle), I'll probably just stick my Simmons scope on it, as I already have it. Maybe then I'll learn a lesson about price over quality and all that.

 

[benzy2]

I shoot for fun. Cheap glass has never been fun. I've tried at least one scope from all of the budget lines and have been very unhappy from almost all of them. Problems with wandering zero, CRAPPY turrets that basically all sucked, glass from bad to ok, problems with poi changing with magnification changes, breakages, eye strain from looking through poor glass, etc. It just never ends. There have been one or two, though made outside of China, that have been keepers. Once I used a mid grade optic though I have completely changed my tune on what I'll use on any rifle. Honestly, the rimfires get the nicest scopes. I find I shoot them the most and might as well have the best scopes on the rifles that get used the most. Try a good scope and lessor scopes lose their appeal real fast. I realize spending huge money on every scope isn't always an option but still $200 is worth it.

 

[westerngrizzly]

Weaver scopes are good. they are decently priced and they are very clear ect.

 

[Leaky Waders]

Remember that lifetime warranty really means lifetime of the company, not your lifetime.

As for scopes, I have mostly Leupold of various models and powers both fixed and variable, one trijicon, one very old tasco word class and tasco 4x (15 years + old), and a bushnell elite, and a one 1x power bsa or bushnell (i forget the model). I used the 1x on my son's 22 when he was first learning to shoot.

Sometimes I'll buy the new yesteryear models when distributers put them on sale and give them to family and friends or keep them for back ups or some new project.

I've never had a scope fail. But, I don't abuse my scopes.

For binoculars I spend more...zeiss and leica. My spotting scope is a zeiss too. But we use them much more often than rifle scopes - birdwatching.

 

[DasFriek]

This is gonna be my experiences from somewhat of a noobs perspective.
Lately ive owned 3 scopes, $30 Bushnell from a "packaged" gun, a CenterPoint 4-16x40 and a Nikon Buckmasters 3-9x40.

All my scopes are on .22lr's and the Bushnell is gone from trading it and the gun in.
But i hated the Bushnell, It had the worst eye relief and positioning with no margin for movement. It was unusable imo.

Next is the CenterPoint which is a somewhat controversial scope on forums.
The scope is a steal for $70 for all its specs. Its also on my .22lr CZ Ultra Lux i use for benchrest shooting. But its eye relief is lacking alot also. This point shows why its $70 imo.

My Nikon Buckmasters is a great scope with eye relief that is so amazing and forgiving. But with it only being a 3-9 power its lacking in power imo so it sits on my 15-22 fun gun. But in reality it should be on my CZ if only it were more powerfull.

As you may be able to tell i have a reoccurring theme in my scopes and how i look at them. Eye relief is what makes a good scope imo. Even the $30 Bushnell was bright,clear and held zero but despite all that i hates it as it made my neck hurt so bad after a day at the range it wasn't funny.

One of my goals is to find a 16x-24x scope with great eye relief like the Nikon has and slap it on my CZ.
Being i mainly shoot .22lr recoil and zero holding isnt much of an issue.

Before you buy look through each scope and move it around your eye and see just how picky it is on placement and how it reacts to being out of position. Imo thats how i base alot on what scope ill like once i buy it and put it on my gun.

From what ive seen good eye relief and forgiveness costs $$$$ and ive not seen a good one under $200 yet that can do it and even at that its a 9x scope max. Ill have to pay around $350 to get a scope i love.

Mabey i need to try that Nikon back on the ole CZ and enjoy some stress free sight for a while since my eyes can still handle 50 yards at 9x.