How much do you spend on a scope for quality?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MCgunner

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Messages
26,423
Location
The end of the road between Sodom and Gomorrah Tex
I ask this because everyone always says spend 300 on a Savage, but put the best scope available on it. Well, that's all fine and good, but some scopes top 2K dollars. I don't think it takes two grand to get a good scope. In fact, one of my favorite of favorite all time scopes is the 200 dollar Weaver 2x10KV I have on my .308. It took top honors in a "Gun Tests" comparo with a lot of higher dollar stuff from Burris, Leupold, etc. Very rugged scope and decent optics. I've fired shots using friend's leupolds, even know a guy who've I've fired rounds through his Kleingunther/Schmit and Bender. Great combo for a rich man. This old boy is retired and does nothing else, but shoot rifles. He's got several nice rifles with nothing, but Schmit and Bender scopes. I out shot him once at a club shoot with my Bushnell/Remington M722. ROFLMAO! He was miffed. He's quite up there in age and he's not as steady as he once was. His guns are more accurate, but he does real good with 'em considering his age and lack of steadiness.

Those Schmit and Benders have MARVELOUS optics, so I KNOW how good it CAN be with high dollar stuff. I just don't feel my Weaver is THAT much less useful afield. It has decent optics and is very rugged, never fogs, bright as any 40mm scope I've used. I just can't see that I need to spend more on a scope. Yeah, more money, a LOT more money, will get you better optics, but I doubt any scope could be much more rugged than that Weaver. It's a much better scope optically than the VariX 2s I've shot and costs less.

I don't think you need to spend the retirement IRA on a scope is all I'm saying. There is a level out there at which quality is plenty good and the scope will do the job without larger influxes of money. Oh, I totally agree about not buying a cheap scope, you know, those Walmart 40 dollar wonders. Simmons, in particular, will never get a dime of my money. Bushnell seems serviceable for a 100 dollar scope, just the optics ain't always up to a Weaver, usually not, and they aren't as rugged, either. I think the Weaver is an incredibly good scope, frankly, and I just can't see spending more on a hunting scope.

None of this has anything to do with competition. Money buys trophies in competition. I'm just talking hunting scopes here.
 
I agree. Personally I think you need to spend around the $200 mark for very good optics.
This includes the Leupold VX1s, Bushnell 3200, Weaver Classics, etc.

I think once you pass the $4-500 mark then more money buys the average person nothing.
 
My thinking is that the optic price should be 60% or more of the rifle cost.

For example, if I spend $200 on a 10/22. I would spend at least $120 on a scope.

This means either I get a good scope, or stick with iron-sight till I can afford one. :)
 
The price of the rifle has nothing to do with the quality of the scope that sits on it

A nice walnut stock can be $3000. Does that mean a $400 scope isn't good enough for the $450 barreled action sitting in that walnut? (I'm thinking of a particular rifle owned by a hunting friend with some extra cash, and the right connections, and who likes classics. It's a one-hole-group prairie dog gun done up to look like a fine sporter. It succeeds on both counts.)
 
I've been very pleased with my Bushnell Elite 3200, which I pretty much got for free. It's in the $200 range, which seems reasonable to me for the kind of hunting I do.
 
I look at this a few ways:

* For most hunting and recreational shooting, a $200-400 low power variable scope will do the job and not fail. These have not changed much in several decades. My dad has a couple Leupolds and Redfields from 20+ years ago that still do today what they did then.

* A scope that will not hold zero or otherwise fails catastrophically at an inopportune time is a complete waste of money.

* The needs of different shooting types vary dramatically. There are some features you pretty much can't get in a sub-$1500 scope.

The best advice I can give is to carefully define what YOU want to accomplish, figure out the features and quality needed to do it, and spend your money wisely, considering the lifetime use of the scope.

-z
 
A lot of people seem to think highly of the bushnell banner, which can be had for what, 80 or $90? I don't have any personal experience with them though.

My experience has taught me that I can miss just as often with a $50 tasco as with a $300 leupold, and I feel better about missing with the tasco :)
 
It's all relative.
A hunting scope for most of us can be a Tasco World Class if it gets the job done.

That is, adjust properly, hold zero, not fog up, and be clear & bright enough to see through at dawn & dusk.

What is needed to kill a deer here in Kansas, or many other places in the U.S., is to walk out the door, drive five miles, get in a stand, and kill a deer.

If the scope fails, what have you lost?

If I was going to go to Alaska, or Africa, or even Wyoming on a once in a lifetime hunt, I'd take the Tasco off and put a Leupold on.

If I was going to Iraq, and the government was buying my scope, I'd probably insist on a Nightforce or Schmidt & Bender.

1224.jpg
rcmodel
 
The law of diminishing marginal returns on investment holds true for guns and scopes.

The price axis of the curve gets real steep past $400 or so, but if your thing is putting bullets through a quarter-sized hole at 300 yards, you gotta pay for it.

Like Zak said, you have to figure out what you want to do and what it takes to do it. For some uses, you have to pony up or forget it.

Ever seen an ARA competition? .22LR doesn't always mean "cheap." .22LR benchrest rifles can get really expensive. You can get a Marlin or CZ boltie that will shoot almost as well for 1/10 the price. But almost isn't good enough. If your gun can't shoot 1-hole groups at 50 yards, you simply can't be competitive, and for that, you have to pay.:)

But for rabbit hunting, practice, even some pretty serious shooting, a decent production .22 will do fine. You probably won't be able to tell the difference, because inherent accuracy will be buried beneath other variables.
 
For your standard run-of-the-mill deer rifle----Ziess Conquest 3x9x40 for $399----don't waste your time and money on anything else--------to get anything better with a minimal gain you'll be looking to spend at least $1000.
 
I got an aimpoint compc3 for my M1A for $435 including the ring and lens covers. I should have gotten the CompM3. It would have been about $75 more but it is submersible to 115 feet whereas the C3 will only do 15 feet. What if I'm on the boat that I don't own on the lake I don't live by and I drop my rifle overboard in a place deeper than 15 feet?

What then? Hmmm???:D This is a good lesson for the newbies here>>>ALWAYS BUY THE MOST EXPENSIVE MODEL AN OPTICS COMPANY OFFERS!



Seriously though, my hunting rifle has a Leupold 3.5-10 that has been on it since 1991. It still works quite nicely.
 
It all depends on what your looking for in a scope. I have 3 different scopes. My 223 wears a Leupold VX-II 6-18x40mm Bright clear and all movements are fluid and percise.

My 308 wears a Weaver KT-15 possabily the best weaver scope ever. It is a stright 15x with a 40mm objective. This scope set me back $155 on Ebay 4 years ago.

My 22 wears a 4-16x40mm BSA platnium. It does what i need it to do .6" 50 yard groups is good enough for a 22lr with bulk ammo.

I have a 36x42mm BSA Platnium target scope that is junk. I tried it out and about pulled my hair out because if would shoot the first shot right where it should then it shot like a shot gun.

There are a lot of good quality scopes out there. Weaver, Swift, Truglo, Bushnell, Burris, Leupold are but a few.

I would say that $150 on up will give you a good scope.

Granted you get a much better scope when spend $500+ on it.

It will cost more if you want a scope with side focus vs one with an Adjustable Objective. multicoated lenses also add to the price and you never really see the differance untill you look threw a low quality scope with little or no lens coatings.

For leupold I would not drop below the VX-II line. the VX-I and rifleman series are not worth the money. You would be better off to go with a Mid range Bushnell.

I had bought a Bushnell elite 4200 6-24x40 and man was it a nice clear bright scope. Infact I might buy another one for my 308 put the weaver back on the 223 and put the leupold on the my 22lr. That is how much I think of the bushnell 4200.
 
More folks seem to be sane about scopes than not, sorta surprises me. :D

Yeah, I don't think the price of the gun has a thing to do with the glass, totally irrelevant. Of course, the gun I put that Weaver on cost me a dollar, won in a raffle, gun show door prize. I put a Weatherby Supreme 3x9x44 on my Savage, a 200 dollar gun at the time. Got the Weatherby for 150 on a sell out. I'd rank it with most 400 dollar scopes for optical quality and it's a very tough piece of glass. For me, quality is quality and I agree with most here who say once you get over 400 bucks, you're on the steep portion of the curve. I'd love to be able to buy a Schmidt and Bender, but hey, it ain't like I'd spend the money even if I was filthy rich. I mean, a 200 dollar Weaver or a 200-400 dollar Leupold is PLENTY good 'nuf for me, even if I'm taking a trip to Alaska, frankly. I really have a lot of respect and confidence for that Weaver. Every year I take it out, fire a couple of rounds at 100 yards, hits right where it's supposed to. I sighted it in when I bought it about 10 years ago. It's been on 4 hour boat trips, bouncing over rough terrain in a 4x4 Toyota, on dirt bikes, generally everywhere I hunt and experience the wild and I've never had to touch the scope on my yearly sight in. Says something right there, I think.
 
Personally I like Bushnell 3200's and Burris FFII's for the bottom end of hunting scopes, with a slight edge to the FFII. I have some cheaper Bushnells, and while they work in low power models (1.5-4.5) they don't compare well at all to 3200's in the 3-9 range.

The 4200 is a much better piece of glass, as are the EuroDiamond/Black Diamond series from Burris. That's about as much as I will spend on a scope. The 3-9x40 Conquest I could see buying at $400 also.
 
Leupold and Ziess sell some good fixed power scopes. i have the Leupold 6x42 FX III on three rifles. It is a really superior scope for about $400. One of my rifles has a 6X Ziess. This was a $500 scope when it bought it in Germany a few years ago. Both of these scopes are really good in low light.
 
If I'm going to go on a big expensive trip to a harsh place, I think my money would be better spent on two decent, rugged rifles and two durable scopes, and a couple of really good aluminum cases, than on one really fancy rifle and one really expensive scope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Z
  • Locked
How can you justify a 2-3000 dollar scope?
2 3 4
Replies
82
Views
8K
B!ngo
B
C
  • Locked
Bushnell scopes quality?
Replies
8
Views
1K
DNS
D
B
  • Locked
Scopes
Replies
0
Views
419
black bear
B
B
  • Locked
Sightron SIII 10-50 or Nightforce BR 12-42?
Replies
0
Views
461
benzy2
B
M
  • Locked
Leupold Sequoia Spotting Scope
Replies
3
Views
800
ocabj
O
Back
Top