Yes I've heard the Unertyl story before too. I'm sure they're great scopes. I've never owned one. I'm not trying to take away from all the great high end scopes out there that ARE durable. I'm simply saying you don't by default get a more durable scope the more money you spend. Yes some like Nightfoce, Unertyl, US Optics etc are very durable indeed. I'm referring more to hunting scopes than tactical.
How can the best scopes cost more than the rifles they're put on?
- Thread starter mbpautz762
- Start date
- Status
Zak Smith
Member
There is type of fallacy in many of these optics discussions: that scopes "features" are all the same, the application of scopes is the same, and that scopes X can be compared to scope Y by being "30%" better or worse, etc.
In reality, it's more like vehicle selection: some scopes are the equivalent of the 6-year-old Honda Accord (not glamorous or luxury or very fast and can't haul very much), while some are like a BMW M3, and some are like a Dodge turbo-diesel truck.
Is a big 3/4-ton truck "not worth it" to anyone if all you need to haul is groceries?
Realistically, most scopes are used for relatively short-range target shooting or average North-American big-game hunting. That's the grocery-getting.
To make a contrasting example, there are relatively few scopes that have all the features one really wants for practical long-range shooting. The ones that are "close" start $1200-1800. The good ones are $2000-3500.
-z
In reality, it's more like vehicle selection: some scopes are the equivalent of the 6-year-old Honda Accord (not glamorous or luxury or very fast and can't haul very much), while some are like a BMW M3, and some are like a Dodge turbo-diesel truck.
Is a big 3/4-ton truck "not worth it" to anyone if all you need to haul is groceries?
Realistically, most scopes are used for relatively short-range target shooting or average North-American big-game hunting. That's the grocery-getting.
To make a contrasting example, there are relatively few scopes that have all the features one really wants for practical long-range shooting. The ones that are "close" start $1200-1800. The good ones are $2000-3500.
-z
Horsemany said:
Horsemany, I value your opinion more than most on this matter since YOU own and use the scopes in question. There are folks here expressing opinions about things that they have ZERO experience with. How can you talk about the merits (or lack thereof) of high-end optics if you've never owned or used them for more than 30 seconds? Do you know all there is to know about a car or truck during a 10 minute test drive? Some people here think that looking through a scope at a gun shop or looking through their friend's or relatives's scope makes them an expert on the matter. The one consistent thing here is that the folks that go on and on about how high $ scopes are a rip off or a waste of money, or are no better than the a cheap scope, don't own them and most likely have never owned them.
My experience/expertise with scopes is limited to WHAT I OWN or HAVE OWNED (unlike so many here) which include a couple of Tasco scopes that I owned 15 years ago, a Leupold Vari-X III and Varix-X II (still own) that I bought 10 or so years ago and six Mark 4s that I started to buy about two years ago. I don't know anything about Zeiss, Swarovski, US Optics, Nightforce or Schmidt & Bender. Not only have I not owned any of those brands, I've never looked through one or even handled one. It's ridiculous that people here have an opinion on a scope that they don't own, have never owned, and probably haven't even looked through more than once or twice, if at all.
Zak, I think most here know that you're heavily involved in long-range shooting, so what optics do you use and why? What would you consider to be the bare minimum for your particular sport and why? How many successful competitors use low-end optics (feel free to define low-end)? How many successful competitors use mid-range optics (feel free to define mid-range).
I ask these questions with the genuine hope that we can all learn something and separate "the woods from the trees".
Thanks.
I ask these questions with the genuine hope that we can all learn something and separate "the woods from the trees".
Thanks.
Zak Smith
Member
This article lays out the qualitative differences in LR scopes (IE, the difference in features, not "amount" of quality)
article | Practical Long-Range Rifle Shooting, Part I - Rifle & Equipment
Here's the published version
article | Introduction to High-End Long-Range Rifle Scopes ("Don't Skimp on the Scope!")
I use S&B PMII scopes (namely the 3-12x50 and 5-25x56) on my long-range rifles, although I currently have one of the new Premier Heritage 3-15, a couple USOs, and the new FFP Nightforce here for testing/eval (as well as a Leupold M3 and a Burris, and some other stuff). For LR scopes, I've bought Leupold, NF, USO, and finally S&B with my own money- kept the S&Bs.
The bare minimum that I recommend is a Leupold Mark 4, either in the 3.5-10 or 4.5-14 versions, with M1 or M2 knobs. If you look at the economics of long-range shooting, it's not worth it to get an insufficient or questionable fixed-cost item, when you'll be wasting recurring costs (and time) because of its failures/deficiencies.
I was the match director at last year's Steel Safari and I collected equipment information.
article | Colorado Multigun 2008 Steel Safari Practical Rifle Match
(survey starts on page 3)
article | Practical Long-Range Rifle Shooting, Part I - Rifle & Equipment
Here's the published version
article | Introduction to High-End Long-Range Rifle Scopes ("Don't Skimp on the Scope!")
I use S&B PMII scopes (namely the 3-12x50 and 5-25x56) on my long-range rifles, although I currently have one of the new Premier Heritage 3-15, a couple USOs, and the new FFP Nightforce here for testing/eval (as well as a Leupold M3 and a Burris, and some other stuff). For LR scopes, I've bought Leupold, NF, USO, and finally S&B with my own money- kept the S&Bs.
The bare minimum that I recommend is a Leupold Mark 4, either in the 3.5-10 or 4.5-14 versions, with M1 or M2 knobs. If you look at the economics of long-range shooting, it's not worth it to get an insufficient or questionable fixed-cost item, when you'll be wasting recurring costs (and time) because of its failures/deficiencies.
I was the match director at last year's Steel Safari and I collected equipment information.
I'd estimate that about 85-90% of the scopes used would cost more than $1200 if purchased new today. Some of the Leupolds (only 13% of total) were under a grand when purchased years ago. 45% of all the scopes used were more than $2000.
article | Colorado Multigun 2008 Steel Safari Practical Rifle Match
(survey starts on page 3)Zak, thanks for the excellent information but I'm wondering about the remaining 6% of shooters in the "% by manufacturer" quote ... maybe they use iron sights!
How many of the shooters at those matches started out with low to mid range equipment but eventually upgraded. I'm sure that some jumped in the deep end but there must be a bunch that have upgraded over the years.
So has anyone won a match using a scope other than NF, S&B, US Optics or Leupold? It would be interesting to see the results by manufacturer.
How many of the shooters at those matches started out with low to mid range equipment but eventually upgraded. I'm sure that some jumped in the deep end but there must be a bunch that have upgraded over the years.
So has anyone won a match using a scope other than NF, S&B, US Optics or Leupold? It would be interesting to see the results by manufacturer.
Zak Smith
Member
Should have been 9% not 4% Burris/Tasco, and the rest is rounding error.
Almost everyone goes through a process of buying the wrong thing and then buying the right thing later. Some of these guys have been shooting the same Leupold and Nightforce scopes for 6-10+ years (since before I met them); some of them have upgraded to USO/SB; some of them started with USO/SB.
Very few people have shot more than one match with anything "less than" a Leupold M1/M2/M3. Those that try to invariable come better prepared the next match... with a Leupold, NF, USO, or S&B.
Keep in mind that I am talking specifically about field-style "practical" long-range rifle matches. There are different qualities someone wants in a Bench-Rest, F-Class, etc scope vs. this criteria.
If you think about it, it's cheaper to buy the right thing (or one of the right things) from the get-go. Upgrading loses money at every step. If you buy a $300 scope, and then a $600 scope, and then a $1300, and then finally a $2400 scope, even if you get 65% when you resell them used, you've still wasted $2200 x 35% = $770.. which means you could have used that money on training, ammunition, or to get a $3170 scope. Bottom line, it's wasted time and money.
I don't have an answer to your last question. However, I can run down the 2008 SS winners and tell you what people ran, places 1-10: Leu, Leu, Leu, NF, S&B, x, USO, USO, Leu, x. (x= I can't remember.) For the 07 match, places 1-3: Leu, S&B, Leu. For 06, I believe it was S&B, Leu, NF.
Almost everyone goes through a process of buying the wrong thing and then buying the right thing later. Some of these guys have been shooting the same Leupold and Nightforce scopes for 6-10+ years (since before I met them); some of them have upgraded to USO/SB; some of them started with USO/SB.
Very few people have shot more than one match with anything "less than" a Leupold M1/M2/M3. Those that try to invariable come better prepared the next match... with a Leupold, NF, USO, or S&B.
Keep in mind that I am talking specifically about field-style "practical" long-range rifle matches. There are different qualities someone wants in a Bench-Rest, F-Class, etc scope vs. this criteria.
If you think about it, it's cheaper to buy the right thing (or one of the right things) from the get-go. Upgrading loses money at every step. If you buy a $300 scope, and then a $600 scope, and then a $1300, and then finally a $2400 scope, even if you get 65% when you resell them used, you've still wasted $2200 x 35% = $770.. which means you could have used that money on training, ammunition, or to get a $3170 scope. Bottom line, it's wasted time and money.
I don't have an answer to your last question. However, I can run down the 2008 SS winners and tell you what people ran, places 1-10: Leu, Leu, Leu, NF, S&B, x, USO, USO, Leu, x. (x= I can't remember.) For the 07 match, places 1-3: Leu, S&B, Leu. For 06, I believe it was S&B, Leu, NF.
- Status
