Has anyone actually had cheap scopes fail?

[THE CULLER]

gidday,ive never had a tasco or bushnell scope fog up yet,and they were both cheap as chips.I guess the quality of the lenses will reduce paralex at longer distances and there is no substitute for quality when its a trophy of a lifetime your about to line up the x-hairs on in the early morning light.
Burris fullfield II scopes are very cheap at the moment and they have the same lenses that leupold vx1 are equipped with.You can check em out by googling "opticzone" $162 us

 

[tkopp]

My simmons kept going left, and left, and left, and left. I adjusted it until I ran out of room to adjust it, then I held over a couple inches, then a couple more...

Finally took it off and threw back on an ATN red dot. Wasn't the rail's fault. Red dot was still quite close to zero after having been yanked and replaced months later.

 

[AKElroy]

Alright, I just put my money where my mouth is & ordered a Nikon Prostaff 3X9X40; BDC reticle from Midway. this will be replacing a Simmons 8-point on an H&R .243 currently shooting 12" groups. It shot MOA first outing with this scope; mounts are tight, it just will not hold zero. I have Leupold
's on two bolt guns; a .270 and a 7 rm. Both have been sighted in ONCE, and have never failed zero in over 12 years hard use each. Not a single adjustment since they were first sighted in.

 

[Kernel]

Not all my scopes are cheap, but I do admit to slumming quit a bit. I'd rather have ten $100 scopes and one $1000 pair of binoculars, than the other way around. (Though, why you'd need ten $100 binoculars, I don't know)

Last year had a B-Square 2.5x20 shotgun scope come apart halfway thru the hunting season. The elevation turret just fell off. We thought we were unscrewing the turret cover. Instead we unscrewed the entire turret! We just screwed it back together, best we could. Checked the zero with a bore sighter. Finished the hunt and my son shot the biggest buck of his life with it. It was probably a $40 scope, at best. Came in a package deal with a no-drill base. I was such a POS I didn’t even want a warranty replacement.

Had a $100 Millett 1x30mm red dot fly apart after about 30 rounds of .44 Mag on a Ruger Super Black Hawk. Got a new one under warranty and put it on a Ruger MkII .22 rimfire.

Have a number of sub $100 Tasco Pro-Class 3x30mm pistol scopes that have lasted for 10 years plus on Contender barrels in snot-knockin’ calibers like .375 Winchester. Surprisingly, they’ve all held up flawlessly. The optics are nothing to brag about, though. All of them were Japanese made.

The Bushnell Trophy series is a nice sub $150 scope. I have several of the 1.75-5x32 rifle scopes and two of the 2-6x32 pistol scopes, but only the ones that say "MADE IN JAPAN" are any good. The Chinese made ones look identical, but aren't in the same league, they're total junk in comparison.

One thing I‘ve noticed in my 35 years of shooting is the cheap scopes of today are much improved over the cheap scopes of just 15 years ago. Go to any gun show and look at the old scopes. The optical quality of an old Tasco is laughable compare to today’s cheapy scope. I think optics is one area were we do get more for our money today. Unfortunately, in just about every other area, we’ve lost ground.

 

[Dallas Jack]

I have had my share of cheap scopes (Tasco, Bushnell, and Simmons) and did not have a (in my opinion) high failure rate. What I did experience was incorrect tracking, lack of repeatablity, excessive parralax, and not so clear glass. What I found was once I got the scope zeroed, if I left it alone it would work OK. I thought that was alright for shooting at the range or going on a cheap, close to home hunt.

Then I started shooting in NRA Hunters pistol matches using rifle scopes. That's when I bought my first Leupold. They would track perfectly, the repeatability was spot on, and the glass was clear. Since then I have used several Leupolds, a Burris, a Nikon, and my latest is a handful of Weavers.

With prices like they are I see no reason to buy a cheaply made scope. I only drive 160 miles to deer hunt but I would still be upset if while hunting my scope malfunctioned or I couldn't see my target becuase of bad glass.

To sum it up any scope at any pricepoint could fail. But your chance of failure goes up with cheap scopes. Stuff happens.

Use what works for you.
Dallas Jack

 

[garyhan]

I've had a couple of older Bushnell Sportview and Banners fail. Also have had to twice get warranty replacements for a Simmons Aetec. I do think cheap scopes are fine on guns that are not intended for serious usage ( i.e. big game hunting or self defense). My big game guns all wear Leupold or Bushnell elites, which have never given me any problems. I might also note I have never had a failure with the much maligned Tasco scopes.

gary

 

[skoro]

I've had a couple of failures. One was an ultracheap Tasco that gave up after a fair amount of abuse. The other was a Bushnell Banner (not all THAT cheap) that broke the reticle after only about 50 rounds on a 22LR.

And it was a centerfire scope. I'm not knocking Bushnell, though. I have another Bushnell I've been using for twenty years and it's still as good as new.

All things considered, I like good glass much more than cheap glass. And I've never had a problem with a quality scope.

 

[alsaqr]

Yes, cheap scopes do fail. There is a box in my attic with 14 bad scopes in it. A couple of them are Weavers that gave long service and finally gave up. The rest are cheap Bushnell, Simmons, Barska, BSA and Tasco scopes that simply failed early in life.

One of those scopes is a 4X Nikon Prostaff scope that was meant for a .22 rifle. That scope was on one of my .50 muzzleloaders for many years and about 1,000 rounds before it finally gave up. IMO: This is proof that an inexpensive scope manufactured by a reputable maker will hold up.

 

[DennyF]

Never had a Tasco fail yet, have had one fairly pricey Simmons 15X bite the dust after about 8 years and thousands of rounds on a 22-250 varminter. Will no longer hold zero. Cost around $150 on sale, maybe 18 years ago?

Only scopes that ever failed, (mostly trashed reticles or lost ability to track), were cheap Bushnells. One of those was dropped and died on the spot. On the other hand, have two 4x12x40 Banners w/BDC, that are still working fine after 25 years.

One Jap Tasco, a 6x24x40, has been on the same heavy barreled 25-06 since day one, no problems at all and that rifle has also been heavily used. Bought that scope new in the mid 80s when I built the rifle.

Current Tascos still working fine, are a 3x9x40WC, on an 8x57 sporter, probably 15 years old; 2.5x10x42 mildot, on a 223 heavy barrel; 6x18x44 (two), on varminters (22-250 and a .224-06); couple assorted Tascos on rimfires. Also have several old steel tube Weavers, no problems other than the K2.5 will fog a bit. That one is over 45 years old, the others not much fresher.

I have one Leupy Vari X II, on a Ruger M77 tang safety in 25-06. Looks like it's been rode hard and put up wet, still very clear, works as it should. Figure it's at least 25 years old?

Newest scope is a Bushnell Trophy 6x18x40, on a 243 varminter. Only a coupla years old, but a buddy had two of them on his varminters and never had any problems. He was a life-long Leupold fanatic, made me chuckle when he bought those Bushnells.



BTW, there is nothing much harder on any scope, than a semi-auto centerfire. Mini 14s are especially noted for killin' scopes dead, even expensive ones. Most scopes cannot hold up to the repeated bolt cycling and resultant jarring effects.

The average deer rifle might get fired a dozen or so times per year, while varminters will see hundreds or thousands of rounds in that time period. A scoped Mini might also see that many rounds, if one has enough time and ammo, but firing cycles are much more rapid.

The old adage still holds true: Buy the best scope you can afford and you'll never be sorry.

 

[husker]

how about Ednar Scopes. are they any good? i have a NIB 3x9x32 that was given to me in 1986. would like to put it on a 223.

 

[foghornl]

The very first Tasco I owned did well untill it got dropped on the concrete. it was a 2-7 x 21 variable on my Nylon 66. (I sort of very vaguely remember those specs, but I could be wrong)

Failure was a cracked front (Objective??) lens

 

[hometheaterman]

gidday,ive never had a tasco or bushnell scope fog up yet,and they were both cheap as chips.I guess the quality of the lenses will reduce paralex at longer distances and there is no substitute for quality when its a trophy of a lifetime your about to line up the x-hairs on in the early morning light.
Burris fullfield II scopes are very cheap at the moment and they have the same lenses that leupold vx1 are equipped with.You can check em out by googling "opticzone" $162 us

I disagree with this. I own both a Burris Fullfield II as well as a Leupold VX-I. The Burris is much much better imo. If you look through both side by side the Burris seems much clearer. The colors look better and it's also brighter in low light. All in all I haven't found anything better about the Leupold. Maybe it's the same lens but it doesn't seem like it as it's quite a bit clearer and better colors when you look through it. A friend helping me sight it in was amazed when we changed scopes. He was there when we put the Burris on and took the Leupold off. He looked through it and goes wow. Of course I had to see what he was wowing about so I looked through both and he was 100% right. The Burris was a lot better looking. The Burris is the one scope I've really been happy with and could say it was worth every penny of the $200 I paid for it. The Leupold I don't think was worth anywhere near the $225 I paid for it.

 

[gaweidert]

More expensive scopes are usually more robust, but they also have better quality glass in them. Better resolution, better contrast and better light transmission. These scope really come into their own for long shots and low light conditions. Cheaper scopes for plinkers and better scopes when you want to get deadly serious.

For us old shutterbugs, sort of like the Soligor verses the factory Nikon/Canon/Pentax lenses.

 

[ArmedBear]

Yes.

Tasco and BSA.

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

Every cheap scope, other than on a .22 has failed for me.

Im up to 2, and dont plan on 3

 

[ochadd]

Few years ago I bought my first nice scope. Buschnell Elite 4200 and it has changed my whole family.

Everyone bought cheap scopes. Simmons and Cabela's Alaskan guides mostly. Between us we had eight rifles with them and we all shoot each others rifles for deer and prairie dogs as they are all different calibers, makes, and models. The Elite 4200 was $550 and I will buy more. The glass is so much better, leaps and bounds better, and we all agree on it. It makes me not want to shoot the other rifles.

Not a wealthy man at all and $500 is a substantial purchase for me but it's worth every cent. With that said I got to try out a $1200 Nightforce scope and a Zeiss and could tell little or no difference. Don't have the best vision so maybe $500 good is as much good as my eyes can pickup.

 

[DennyF]

If I had the money, always wanted to mount a thousand dollar Zeiss on a $300 Savage 110E, just to annoy people that are easily annoyed.

Could raise the money for the Savage, but the other part is out of my reach.

 

[pogy]

I also have a Eurolux 6x40 I got for $30 that I keep on my .22 hornet. has kept zero and works excellent however it does have clarity issues, like something is not aligned inside. Anyway my gun hits everything I point at.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

There are two answers:

1. For some scopes, YES

2. For others, depends upon how you define the word "fail".


Simmons "8 point"- Teh suckage in clarity/resolution - worthless as a practical matter.

Simmons "22 mag" - terrible clarity, but hey, it worked.

BSA "Airgun" - Turret broke about a year after getting it, with very little use. Holds zero though.

Tasco "World Class" - Reticle broke before it was ever even mounted or shot.

Weaver "??" pistol scope - bad fishbowling


Some cheap scopes will crap out unduly early, and some won't. Some expensive scopes will crap out unduly early, and some won't. But it's all about the LIKELIHOOD or risk, not about guaranteed performance. The *likelihood* of an expensive scope crapping out is significantly lower than with a cheap scope.

Some of the cheap and semi-cheaper scopes I've had good luck with (so far), and would buy more of:
-Mueller
-Bushnell "Banner"
-NC Star
-Nikon Prostaff
-Burris Fullfield II (these are just "ok", but not that great)

The following cheapies are just "ok" - they work reasonably well for the money, but you sacrifice some clarity and such, and I would not buy another one unless it's the deal of the century:
-Millett Buck Gold
-Barska SWAT E.T.

I'm a Nikon and Sightron man now myself for the most part (and Trijicon when I can afford it). Nikon makes great products across the board (all lines), and all are good values. Sightron is very good stuff for the money, too, Maynard. I'm also a big fan of Bushnell Elite 4200s.

I cannot possibly say enough good things about the Nikon Omega and Slugmaster, for the money.

On cheapies for fun guns, I'm starting be pretty keen on NC Star products, and I hear good things about CenterPoint, but haven't tried one yet.

 

[cottonmouth]

A friend of mine put a Simmons 8 Point (I think is the name of them) on a SB2 45-70, it worked good until he shot some of our hot loads, then the cross hairs came from together! He took it back to Wallyworld and got another one and got the same results with it too. I guess the strain was more than it could bear!

J.B.

 

[Hesenwine]

I've got quite a variety of scopes-BSA, Tasco, Simmons, Bushnell, Leupold.

One Tasco failed several years ago-canted reticle.

Sent it back to Tasco & they sent me a new one.

I'm saving up for a Nikon now so the Swarovski/Zeiss/Leupold crowd will stop making fun of me,