Has anyone actually had cheap scopes fail?

[hometheaterman]

I always read on here or other online sites how not to cheap out on scopes. It's always get this Leupold or that Nikon Monarch, or Bushnell Elite or something that's $3-500. In actuality I don't know anyone that has these rifles scopes personally. Most everyone I know has Tasco, Simmons, Nikon's that were in the $150 range, Leupold VX-I or scopes like that. With the exception of the VX-I not many of them seem to have many problems with them either. I've heard of one or two people having a problem with a Tasco but out of the amount of people I know with cheap scopes that's not a lot. I also know one guy with a Bushnell that came in a package deal that wouldn't hold up to the recoil of the .300 Win Magnum.

I know 3 guys with Leupold VX-I's myself included and 2 of us have had problems. The rest haven't.

I was talking to a friend today who has been shooting his whole life. We got on the subject of cheap scopes and he said he is starting to think that cheap scopes work just as well as others. He has used a couple Tasco's and said they have all held up fine.

I've got another buddy that has quite the gun collection and is also a regular shooter who says the only scope he has had bad luck with is BSA.

Then myself I've had a Simmons on a .22 that's been dropped, taken a beating, and just really not had a great life however it still holds zero just fine. Is it quite as clear as the Burris in low light? No but it's not bad either and was a lot cheaper.

I've also had a Tasco that was $30 from WalMart. Two actually although one I only used for 2 months or so. I didn't have any problems with either. Infact one is on my muzzle loader still and works fine. I shot it today and hit the bulls eye at 100 yards first shot. Haven't messed with it since last year.

Then I have a Leupold VX-I that like I said this is the only scope that's given me trouble. It's also the most expensive scope I've had. Loses zero easily and has been into Leupold twice for repairs. I've had it 2 and a half years.
I also couldn't tell a difference clarity wise between it and the $30 Tasco. A couple friends looked and said the Tasco was clearer to them.

Then I've got a Burris I use now that I've only had about a year. Maybe not quite. So far it's my favorite. Seems to hold zero well, is super clear and great in low light, and just seems like a quality scope. It was cheaper than the Leupold and way clearer imo. This is probably my favorite scope however, other than clarity I haven't noticed much difference between it and the Tasco and Simmons. It was $200 with a free Garmin eTrex GPS. So it was a decent deal too.

So how many of you guys that bash cheap scopes have actually had them and had them fail? Am I and my friends just lucky? Or is it that there are soo many cheap scopes out there that's why more of them seem to fail? Like I said I and my buddies with Nikons seem to have the most expensive scopes and they are still pretty cheap scopes. I also know a lot of guys that hunt a lot and kill several deer each year just fine.

How many of you have cheap scopes that haven't failed but have a complaint? How many have cheap scopes and see no reason to get a more expensive one?

 

[chevyforlife21]

ive had 4 cheap scopes all under 60 bucks. none have failed except one that the ring bent when the gun fell over.

 

[dakotasin]

i have busted quite a few scopes... but, i shoot a lot, and i hunt hard - not many other people do that... and i'm the first to admit that i am extremely hard on equipment.

if 'cheap scopes' have served you well and you like them, i advise you stick w/ them.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Ive had cheap scopes and expensive scopes fail (including leupold)

Cheap or expensive scopes break from time to time the difference is you don't have to put up with crap optics with a good scope and when one does fail you ain't out but a few $$ for postage t the repair center

 

[hometheaterman]

Yeah that's kind of how I feel. I guess it depends on in the future what it's going on and what purpose that gun will serve as to which I pick. If it was going on a $150-200 .22 rifle no way in heck I'd buy a $300 scope. However, I might if it was going on something like a nice Browning hunting rifle. Or if it was going on a gun I only used once or twice a year I'd probably go cheap in the future. I've really been impressed with the Burris Fullfield II and the clarity of it. So if I was putting it on a nice rifle I might go with that in the future. However, I see no reason for a $300 scope on a $300 Savage rifle. Maybe it's just me though.

 

[hometheaterman]

Ive had cheap scopes and expensive scopes fail (including leupold)

Cheap or expensive scopes break from time to time the difference is you don't have to put up with crap optics with a good scope and when one does fail you ain't out but a few $$ for postage t the repair center

While this is a good point don't most of the cheap scopes have a lifetime warranty too? Or are they more of a hassle? I've never used a warranty on a scope with anything except my Leupold and they were good about handling it. The second time they paid postage.

I agree that the Simmons and Tasco I've used is not as clear as the Burris. However, in daylight it's a minimal difference. In low light the Burris is also better. Then again you aren't supposed to hunt at night so that doesn't matter a whole lot to me. I'm not sure it's worth a extra few hundred for it to be slightly better in low light anyway. I couldn't tell a difference like I said above between the clarity in the cheap scopes and the Leupold I've had though.

 

[R.W.Dale]

I see no reason for a $300 scope on a $300 Savage rifle. Maybe it's just me though.

I do

A $300 stevens 200 is more than capable (accurate enough) of shooting groups and or targets well beyond 500yds in the right caliber.....BUT....only if the optic is up to the challenge.

Cheap scopes in my experiance do not track reliably, are blurry at range, offer very little eye relief and simply do not hold zero as well. Insult to injury almost all the cheap scopes Ive gotten on rifles had terrible parallax error

 

[Moose23]

cheap scopes

My old man always shot Tascoes, so I have a bias towards them. I've had several on different rifles & only ever had trouble with one. Zero changed every shot. Bought a new one (Wal-mart, $30) & haven't had a bit of trouble. It's on a Win M70 .270, and it sees & kills deer just fine.
Bunch of friends bought $99 Swifts 10 years or so ago when they came out, and most of them liked them. Matter of fact, several buddies replaced Leupolds (one replaced a Redfield) with those Swifts. One had a problem with the Swift. He carried it back to the store, and they handed him another one, no questions asked. Took it home, sighted in, and been shooting it ever since.
Personally, I can't see dropping $1000 for the very best optics, when I can drop less than $100 for very damn good optics. The deer don't know the difference.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Personally, I can't see dropping $1000 for the very best optics, when I can drop less than $100 for very damn good optics. The deer don't know the difference.
_________________

that's all well and good, but some of us shoot at targets much much smaller than a deer

 

[Moose23]

Good point about smaller targets. I think a lot of it comes down to putting something on a decent rifle that is functional & and that you the shooter have confidence in.

 

[Red State]

I have had a Bushnell fail on a .22 (reticle broke) and a tasco fail on a .223 (lost zero never found it again).

If it is under $100, I dont think that I am interested. At least not when scopes like the Fullfield II and Prostaff and Elite 3200 can be picked up for less than $200.

 

[TehK1w1]

However, I see no reason for a $300 scope on a $300 Savage rifle. Maybe it's just me though.

I guess I'm stupid for putting a zeiss on mine then
I've had several cheap scopes, and had very mixed results. The bushnell Banner series seem to be a good quality, inexpensive scope. If I bought another scope under $150 it would be one of those.
On the flip side, I've had 2 simmons scopes fail on me( they both came as part of the savage 110 package), and a BSA Catseye scope my father bought broke after less than 30 rounds. Incidentally, the Catseye scope had terrible glass in it, it looked like someone taken a steel wool pad to it at the factory.

There seem to be a bunch of good scopes out there for $150-200. Why not spend an extra $50?

 

[benzy2]

I have had a bushnell banner die on a .243. Something internal broke and could be seen when you looked through the scope. I had a Simmons 8 point that was horrific to look through. It wouldn't hold zero when the magnification changed and it tracked inconsistently and off from level. I had a BSA Platinum that while it now holds POI it was a nightmare to get on target as the adjustments weren't near what they said and were hard to repeat. That scope has god aweful resolution as well as terrible color transmission. It's like you are looking through a black and white picture darn near. I have had a few other BSA's and to be honest most gave me a headache to look through them over any extended period of time. I have had two tascos, one older made in Japan that is a fixed 4x which looks pretty good still and the other newer which lasted about 2 months before the terrible image quality and the inconsistent turrets frustrated me enough to give up on it.

With the quality of firearms today most rifles made are more accurate than the people pulling the trigger. As such even inexpensive rifles will benefit from good glass. Every scope doesn't have to be a $1000 model but I don't see spending $100 on anything out there today and really being satisfied. I know a lot of hunters who will pull a rifle out once a year, check zero over 1 or two shots, take one or two shots at a deer with it, and call it a season. If a cheap scope works in that situation go for it. I'll pass. After seeing the difference between even a $300 scope and a $100 scope I'm sold on the $300 scopes. I find the glass to be fairly obviously better in the more expensive scopes and the build quality/durability/turret function to tend to follow as well. There are always lemons with whatever you buy but I honestly feel you get your money worth out of a slightly nicer scope. From there I have difficulties telling the difference between some models as well as difficulties justifying the extra expense. You keep enjoying the cheap scopes and I'll keep enjoying the more expensive ones and we both will be happy. Too many bad days due to a crappy scope for me to spend more money on cheap scopes.

 

[pgeleven]

3 Barskas, and my ATN holosight, even after 'warranty repair'

 

[natman]

I once had a Simmons 3x9 on my JC Higgins Model 50 30-06 Mauser. Flew to Colorado for an elk hunt, test sighted when I got there, shot under MOA. Hunted for four days, never got a shot.

The next time I shot it it sprayed bullets everywhere. The scope had gone belly up. That was the last time I put a cheap scope on one of my hunting rifles. At least I felt a little better about not having had a shot. I would have hated to have wounded an elk because I scrimped on the scope.

I'll put Simmons, Tasco, BSA etc. on my range toys, but my hunting rifles get Leupold, Burris or Bushnell Elite.

 

[jmr40]

Older Tasco's were decent scopes. Not the same quality as a Leupold or other upper end scope, but good enough to use until you could afford something better.

I've had the cheaper scopes leak when wet many times. I've had scopes that would not hold zero and glass that was not clear.

You do not have to spend a fortune to get quality glass. The Nikon Prostaff at around $150 is comparable to the Tasco's of 25 years ago. Not a bad scope and something that will work fine until you can get something nicer. For around $300 there are lots of scopes that are durable and have decent glass. When you consider how much everything else costs these days $300 is not too much to spend on a scope.

 

[BMF500]

Had a Tasco red dot on a .44mag Redhawk that lasted 15 rounds before the back glass cracked.

 

[22-rimfire]

With expensive scopes, you are paying for the glass and the repeatability of the windage and elevation adjustments. Yes, you pay for the "name" to some degree.

The only scope I ever had fail me was a cheap scope I had on a 243. It fogged just about every time I too it out hunting in rainy or wet conditons. In the case of the 243 scope, that was all I could afford at the time and it never bothered me that I didn't buy a more expensive scope.

I tend to mount a scope on a rifle and it stays there forever or until it breaks. I seldom change scopes from rifle to rifle. Unfortunately, I generally just buy another rifle and mount a better scope on the new one.

Folks that shoot target a lot and make frequent adjustments to their scopes put them through their paces. I would assume that the cheaper scope will eventually loose zero and fail.

There are certain brands of scopes now that I won't buy. Most are due to comments read on the forums about them.

 

[qajaq59]

I think you'd have to take in account where you were going to use it and for what. Where I shoot and hunt it likely wouldn't make a whole lot of difference. But if I were hunting for a ram way up in the mountains, I think I'd spend some serious money for the scope.

 

[Mr_Pale_Horse]

Tasco World Class: Would not hold zero from day one, gave it away

2 Bushnell Banner 1.5-4.5 - 1 is still going on a bolt action rifle, even after being dropped on the elevation turret on concrete: the other died after 2 shotgun slugs, go figure

Simmon Prohunter Pistol - After 40 shots, eye box is distorted, obscuring top 1/4 of view. Still holding zero though

Leupold Vari-X III - No Problems

Leupold VX - III - No Problems

Cabelas Pine Ridge - No Problems

Nikon Prostaff - No Problems

Leupold Rifleman - No Problems

Leupold VX-III - No Problems

 

[JohnBT]

"The Nikon Prostaff at around $150 is comparable to the Tasco's of 25 years ago"

fwiw - My father bought a couple of Tasco World Class 3x-9x40 scopes about 20 years ago. He paid $99 for one of them and got the other on sale for $89. They weren't particularly cheap scopes back then and had reasonably good glass in them.

Anything can break or be defective out of the box. The odds are better on getting a good one with the better brands.

I like good scopes and don't buy cheap scopes, and I really want a clear scope for target shooting. Staring through a cheap scope (or binocs) for hours gives me a bad case of eyestrain and a headache. Good for me is something like a Leupold 6.5x-20 EFR or 3x-9 EFR or even a Weaver T-36. I'd like better, but so far I'm too cheap.

John

 

[rbernie]

I've had several Simmons fail (wandering reticle, failure to hold zero) and a BSA fail (internal lens issue). If any of these failures happened in deer camp instead of at the range, I'd have been pretty steamed. As it was, I took these failures as lessons.

I've had zero failures with my Burris, Leupold, Sightron, or Nikon scopes.

 

[benEzra]

I have a cheap Tasco Propoint from Wal-Mart that has had the interior anti-reflective paint flake off and rattle around loose in the tube, scratching the inside of the lens. It still works, it's just annoying.

 

[Tim the student]

I had a Simmons fail (part of the Savage package too).

 

[academyassociate024]

its not that a cheap scope may not work but i look for clarity craftsmanship and fog proof, the cheeper one $70 price range just dont work also the cheeper one ive had experience with them not holding zero or having to sight them in more often then my $159 nikon prostaff bdc