How can the best scopes cost more than the rifles they're put on?

[jbech123]

For 95% of people, a decent leupold or similar is more than adequate. As someone said, there are situations where you can at least justify spending the big $$. The quality is there, but some rich guy that only has the time to shoot twice a year and goes on a whitetail hunt with a $2500 nightforce is really just throwing away his money. Most people don't have the skill to leverage the advantage those type optics bring.
I am a proponent of at least decent optics, just for reliability. The really cheap stuff just does not stand up to the rigors of hunting in my experience.
That said, the best shooting rifle I've ever owned was a remington 700 VS topped with a simmons 6-18x scope. On at least 20 occasions I shot sub 3/4" groups with it at my buddies range, at 300 yards! I've since "upgraded" my rifle and optics, and have yet to be able to do that with any kind of consistency since.

 

[beechnut]

I guess this is one situation where the saying comes in true.You gotta pay to play.I myself cannot justify spending alot of money on a scope.Keep in mind this is coming from a savage mk2 bolt action 22lr owner who only shoots at 25 yards and rarely at 50 yards.

I use a 3x9x40mm simmons scope on my rifle.I dont need the type of quality that some of the other guys need.Plus it's a rimfire rifle also

 

[federalfarmer]

If you want over-price for under performance buy a nikon or leopold.
If you want a good scope for a fair price buy a bushnell 4200. Or tell youself that your worth a great scope and get a swarovski. It has already been said; high magnification, low light, repeatable zero.
So should I put a swarovski on my 10/22 and one on my mossberg 500 slugster??

 

[PT1911]

because without the glass the gun is pretty much an elaborate paper weight...

 

[jim in Anchorage]

High end glass comes into its own when sighting towards the sun at sunrise or sunset.looking thru a scope in a store will not tell you this. The better glass/coatings are better at not "scattering" light.

 

[rangerruck]

hey , I love the old tasco / 30 year old / made in Japan scopes. they are top notch quality in my opinion, they had to pass pretty rigorous japanese govt. inspections in those day, same with their cameras, binoculars, and telescopes, and if they didn't pass, they got trashed. I've got a couple of them right now,
and would never get rid of them.

 

[akodo]

My understanding:

For starters, part of apreciating a truely excellent scope is to drop it hard 3 times and THEN look through it (of course stores don't let you do this)

#2 To consistently get 1/4 MOA on every click, even 20 years from now. (again, hard to judge at the store)

#3 better light gathering at dawn and dusk, sharper colors then too. (again, hard to judge at the store)

However, I do think you rapidly get into diminishing returns at that price level.

I think a $200 scope is TEN times better than a $50 scope

I also tend to think a $500 is twice as good as a $200 scope.

I think a $800 scope is just a tad better than a $500

I also think a $1200 scope is just a tiny bit better than an $800 scope

 

[jester_s1]

I might break down the differences like this. The ranges would reflect different levels of magnification.

<$75 You're buying junk that won't hold up. Ok for .22 toys, but not anything serious.

$75-$150 The ability to hold zero throughout the average deer season if you set it and don't touch it again. The bare minimum for ethical hunting.

$150-$300 Decent clarity in the middle of the lens, useable light transmission, and will hold zero through the deer season. These are good enough for most occasional hunters.

$300-$500 Improved clarity and light transmission, solid adjustments that hold even with lots of shooting. Most of these have lifetime warranties.

$500-$800 Extra features over the group above like target turrets and illuminated reticles, extra durability, or higher magnification.

$800-$1200 The best clarity, color, and light transmission, improved durability in tactical models, the best adjustments that are repeatable over years of heavy use.

>$1200 All possible clarity enhancements, best glass, best light transmission, broad adjustment range or high magnification. All excuses removed. Break it if you can!


In a nutshell, for the casual hunter who goes to the range and burns up a box to tune up with and maybe goes through another box during the season, the $300 range works fine and will last a lifetime. The $800 range is the ticket for a critical hunt or an accuracy buff who doesn't change his adjustments much. And the high end is for the guy who needs or wants the best of everything.

 

[NickEllis]

using the above, what are the examples of the "$800-$1200" range of scopes?

 

[MAX100]

using the above, what are the examples of the "$800-$1200" range of scopes?

Leupold MK4 & some VX-3, Zeiss Conquest, IOR Valdada, Sightron SIII, Swarovski AV, Some NightForce scopes, Burris top of the line scopes.

There are a few more.

I feel the Sightron SIII is the best deal to be had at around $800. It preforms like a scope costing 2/3 more.


GC

 

[Horsemany]

>$1200 All possible clarity enhancements, best glass, best light transmission, broad adjustment range or high magnification. All excuses removed. Break it if you can!

jester
I agree with your entire post other than this. IME and from what I've read by credited writers and custom gunbuilders, the high dollar Euro scopes are not more durable than a Leupold VXIII. John Barsness has written much on the subject and tested scopes for years. Custom gunbuilders who build heavy recoiling african game guns have had failures with some Euro scopes. More than one big name custom rifle builder will only use Leupold's. And most of them use their own Leupold scopes for testing accuracy in their customers rifles. I'm not trying to sell everyone on Leupold's. I'm just using the example that high dollars aren't proportional to durability in optics.

I'd also say it's far more important to use good glass in the binoculars. Most hunters only spend a few seconds looking through the scope before a shot. You could spend hours looking through binoculars. And many times the binocs are used to actually locate and identify the animal. Most focus more on riflescopes though.

 

[John Wayne]

Why spend $350 on a pair of bifocals when you can buy a pair of reading glasses at the dollar store?

With that said, I have a $150 Pentax scope. But it's mounted on a Hi-Point

 

[Harve Curry]

I don't beleive it. It's all smoke and gloss, a gimick to get alot of money for something that has nothing in it compared to what goes into a rifle, or the liability that comes with making any firearm.
In 1974 I bought a brand new Savage 99A in 308 Win, $115. Bought the Weaver K3 scope and see thru mounts at the same time, for $35.
No computors then to help with the glass or assembly all hands on in the USA. Plus a steel 1" tube.

I have had Weavers, Leopuld, Redfield all fail due to not being able to hold their Zero on normal hunting calibers. A Burris Black Diamond I bought for a 50 BMG and is still going and I did that for their claim of the "POSI LOCK " feature to keep the darn cross hairs from coming undone. I don't know if that Burris feature is worth it or not but time will tell I guess.
Something don't add up.

 

[BADUNAME27]

"How can the best scopes cost more than the rifles they are put on?"

Stop buying cheap guns. Problem solved.











Now in all seriousness. If I'm your stereotyped "rich" guy I'll tell you how/why I'd justify it. I work some long ass hours and the time I have to myself is rare and it is precious. If I'm a hunter it means I don't have many weekends to go enjoy the outdoors the way others might. NOTHING pisses a guy off more than equipment failures due to poor quality while trying to enjoy a hobby. I paid 40K for my truck, I bought all this stuff, I only get these five days during the fall due to job requirements, and here comes my nice fat elk only now I can't shoot it cause the objective lens fell out of my cheap ass scope when I slipped on that wet moss.

How ****ty would that be?

 

[Harve Curry]

That still don't add up. I never heard of a lens falling out. What I have had happen with Leopold, Redfield and Weaver is they quit holding there zero.
On the Savage which shoots 3/4" MOA, I thought I had shot it out. Then one day sitting down a friend tapped on it with his finger and you could hear the reverberating cross hairs across the room. The cross hairs were loose.
It cost more to have the Weaver fixed then when it was new. A new Redfield Illuminator went the same route. A Leopold 3x9 the same way. The only one of the 3 that was ever used roughly in a saddle scabbard was the Weaver. I guide trophy elk and mule deer hunters and one of the commonest things is their scope will not hold zero, these are big names makers and well heeled hunters. You cannot depend on a glass optics. Scopes are a great tool but I won't have a scoped rifle that doesn't have good back up iron sights that are sighted in and ready to use.
The short of it is we're getting ripped off by optics and scope makers.

 

[ArmedBear]

I'd also say it's far more important to use good glass in the binoculars. Most hunters only spend a few seconds looking through the scope before a shot. You could spend hours looking through binoculars. And many times the binocs are used to actually locate and identify the animal.

I'd agree.

I've been drooling over a pair of $1200 Swarovski binocs since a guy passed me some while we were "glassing" in aptly-named Big Sky Country.

I'd like to get some expensive rifle scopes, but the binocs are something I REALLY WANT.

Now if I were a benchrest shooter, the rifle scope would come first. But I'm not, and have no plans to be.

 

[BADUNAME27]

That still don't add up. I never heard of a lens falling out. What I have had happen with Leopold, Redfield and Weaver is they quit holding there zero.
On the Savage which shoots 3/4" MOA, I thought I had shot it out. Then one day sitting down a friend tapped on it with his finger and you could hear the reverberating cross hairs across the room. The cross hairs were loose.

You took me a little too literally. I've never personally had that happen either. Nor have I ever heard of it happening. It was meant more at an attempt at humor.

Obviously didn't work.

But I have heard of turret knobs going bezerk, wandering zeros etc.

 

[Horsemany]

But I have heard of turret knobs going bezerk, wandering zeros etc.

That's my whole point. For $2000 you are often NOT buying more durability or repeatability than $600 scopes. Mr. Barsness has written some interesting articles on this subject. And he's hunted all over the world with all kinds of scopes. "You get what you pay for" doesn't tell the whole story when it comes to optics IMO.

 

[MCMXI]

That still don't add up. I never heard of a lens falling out. What I have had happen with Leopold, Redfield and Weaver is they quit holding there zero.
On the Savage which shoots 3/4" MOA, I thought I had shot it out. Then one day sitting down a friend tapped on it with his finger and you could hear the reverberating cross hairs across the room. The cross hairs were loose.

What century are we talking about here? Companies such as Leupold, US Optics and Nightforce laser etch the reticle onto a glass disk ... the reticle isn't a piece of wire that was common in the 70's and 80's and may even be used today in low-end optics.

I wonder how many folks that started with $150 Tasco, Weaver and Burris optics, then upgraded to $300 to $600 scopes and finally ended up with $800 to $1300+ scopes went back to lower end optics by choice.

 

[MCMXI]

That's my whole point. For $2000 you are often NOT buying more durability or repeatability than $600 scopes.

Somehow I doubt that Nightforce owners will agree with that.

How many scopes would pass this test .... ?

 

[jacob.elliott]

my uncle has a swarovski on a sauer 243 and a friend of mine has a leupold vxII on his 300 wsm and i much prefer the leupold and it was less than half the price of the swarovski

 

[Horsemany]

Don't get me wrong 1858. Nightforce scopes are known for their durability/repeatability. But how bout Swarovski? How bout Zeiss? Mr. Barsness had 3 Swarovski 3-9x36's fail in a row. 3!!!!! Yes many high end scopes are as durable as a VXIII. But not all of em. By the way I own 2 high end Zeiss scopes. I like them. The optics are amazing. When I shoot box tests they are not the best I own though. Durability has been good but they are not on heavy kickers either.

 

[BADUNAME27]

Impressive no doubt, but indulge me and allow me to tell a story.

It's the early-mid 1980's and it's a hot/humid day on the ranges at MCB Quantico in Virginia.

The Marines are evaluating optics for sniper rifles and all the big brand names are there. So are the Unertyl clan. The old man and his son.

The scope (Unertyl) is mounted and they are putting it through the paces, cranking knobs, checking ballistic cams with drop tables and seeing just how well the things work.

They finish with 300meters and decide to take a break. It's suggested that the scope be pulled from the gun and then reinstalled to see if the scope mounts repeat at all.

John Unertyl's son goes one better. He uses the scope as a hammer to drive a GP Medium tent stake into the ground.

They then reattach the scope and it repeats within half a minute of its previous zero.

The rest is as they say. . .history.

True story. Wasn't there but colleagues of mine were and they all tell it the same way.

 

[ugaarguy]

LRI, part of Nightforce's 60 point inspection includes beating the scope three hits each at 3, 6, 9, and 12 o'clock on the objective bell against an anvil (faced with 1mm thick neoprene to protect finish). The scope is then reinstalled in a fixture and checked for both minimum resolution, and adjustment repeatability. This test is repeated three times.

 

[BADUNAME27]

that must be why one of my NF doesn't work. . .

Just kidding. I own a few of them. Great optics. Just passing info that's all. (those guns in the photos are all personal guns of mine.)