Optic to rifle value ratio annoyance

[Noclutch]

Not so much a thing for me with my pistols, be sometimes it’s a tough pill to swallow when the scope/magnifier/dot/hologram costs a large fraction of, or more than the host rifle.

Not that they aren’t appreciated once installed and used, but there is just something that bugs me about it.

As such, I’ve often “cheaped out” on the optics, often to regret it at a later date….

Same to a degree with suppressors, but at least I can blame ATF on part of that, and at least they are easier to swap around without re zeroing.

Who else has a mental issue with the ratio?

 

[TimRB]

Not an optic, but when I put a diopter sight on my K31 it cost about twice what the rifle set me back:

SWISS PRODUCTS P11 DIOPTER & FRONT SIGHT - Graf & Sons

This P11 Diopter System is intended for use with both the Swiss G11 Long Rifle and the K11, and MUST be used in conjunction with the Swiss Products 1911 Clamp On Scope Mount. Loosen the Diopter Rail Clamp screws and slide the clamp on the rear of the 1911 Scope Mount. Tighten the two Allen...

www.grafs.com

These days I guess even the rifles are expensive. Go figure.

Tim

 

[Barmcd]

I don't pay attention to it. I bought the gun I wanted, at least from what I can tell from doing research on-line and maybe fondling it at a gun store, and so I buy the optic I think I want to put on it. A good gun and bad optic and vice versa made a bad combo.

 

[.38 Special]

For the most part, I haven't worried about it. But then, for the most part, I haven't gone with top-end stuff - I personally just don't get any benefit from $2000 scopes.

Like @TimRB, I was shocked and disappointed to learn how much competition-level iron sights cost, especially after having shelled out big bucks for the competition-level rifles!

I did have to laugh at myself a few months back when I put together a "dream" rifle for myself. I have always wanted a set of Conetrol rings and mounts, and as I was assembling the rifle I realized that I had spent more for them than I originally did on the Leupold scope! Granted, that was 2025 dollars vs. 1989 dollars, but it still struck me as kind of funny.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Not so much a thing for me with my pistols, be sometimes it’s a tough pill to swallow when the scope/magnifier/dot/hologram costs a large fraction of, or more than the host rifle.

Not that they aren’t appreciated once installed and used, but there is just something that bugs me about it.

As such, I’ve often “cheaped out” on the optics, often to regret it at a later date….

Same to a degree with suppressors, but at least I can blame ATF on part of that, and at least they are easier to swap around without re zeroing.

Who else has a mental issue with the ratio?

So you are asking who has a mental issue with an artificial construct ratio that is meaningful of nothing?

You know the most expensive part of a JDAM isn't the bomb. It is the guidance system that straps to it. Let that sink in for a moment.

 

[s4s4u]

Who else has a mental issue with the ratio?

I never have given it a thought. I buy the optic that best works for the platform/caliber, at a cost that I can afford.

 

[someguy2800]

I don't care what the ratio is at all. The scope just needs to do what I want it to do. I have no problem putting a $200 3-9x40 on a $1200 hunting rifle, and no problem putting a $1200 target scope on a $200 varmint rifle. I have lots of cheap scopes that have been doing an excellent job for many many years. $200 or even less will buy you a perfectly serviceable 3-9 with decent glass. When you get into the high magnification scopes with turrets you definitely get what you pay for.

 

[MacAR]

This "ratio" is a new one to me, I guess. Myself, I'm quite satisfied with a $300 Leupold on my $500 Remington 700, and just as satisfied with a $50 Bushnell 3-9x32 on my $300 Savage 222. They all do what they need to do and I've honestly never given much thought to the cost of the scopes vs. rifles. A friend of mine has a $2000 thermal scope on a $300 AR build; it's sole purpose is knocking off the critters getting in his cattle at night. Another bud has a $900 scope on a $1200 rifle and so far, hasn't actually taken it hunting because, and I quote "its so expensive I'd hate to damage it"... what's the point of that?

Mac

 

[dieselchief]

when you leave the satisfied with a gallon milk jug hit stage of life, lookout. good guns can be found in the cheapest ones every now and then... not so with optics.

 

[sarduy]

First I get the rifle for the job then I get the optic for said job and called it a day. A $100 3-9x40 from a somewhat reputable brand will do the same thing a $1000 2-10x44 if you are only shooting at targets within 200 yards. Same way a $100 Red Dot will outperform a $1300 6-25x50 magnification scope at CQB.

Always get the right tool for the job first then get the best tool for said job you can afford. The ratio means nothing.

 

[shafter]

I'd rather have a cheap rifle than a cheap optic.

 

[LoonWulf]

I decide on what im willing to accept and buy just enough optic (cost, features,glass are all balanced) to get there. Im not brand dependent and i buy used and new as availability and cost fluctuate. Ive generally been quite happy with my optics purchases and most of the time they are 25-50 percent of the total package cost.......most of the time.
The holosun on my keltech is 75% of the package cost......

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

I've got one rig with a $1200 scope on top of a $400 rifle.....

How about those Marlin M99M1 rimfires that go for $200 tops, but you can sell the rear sight on ebay for $150!

 

[Walkalong]

I have never figured the ratio on any rifle. I get a scope that will do the job to my satisfaction for the rifle it's going on, then I'm done.

 

[I6turbo]

The gun that the optic is mounted on has nothing to do with the quality of scope that my eye enjoys looking through. Scope quality is for my eye to enjoy, not my gun. So I put my best and favorite scopes -- the ones with clearest, highest-resolution optics that are pleasant for my eye to sight through -- on the guns that I shoot the most.

 

[Jim Watson]

Old wisdom: Get a good scope, you are not going to wear it out looking through it.

 

[S.Crockett]

IDK, …. In a Precision Rifle course I took some years back the chief instructor told us you should never go cheap and put something like a $150.00 ChiCom Tasco scope on a $3K rifle. The mounts and rings too. Don’t go cheap.

The Fuddleys at deer camp might get by with them on the once-a-year hunt, he said. But any serious long-range riflery requires a high-grade optic for consistent accuracy beyond 200-yards.

 

[Hokkmike]

Not so much a thing for me with my pistols, be sometimes it’s a tough pill to swallow when the scope/magnifier/dot/hologram costs a large fraction of, or more than the host rifle.

Not that they aren’t appreciated once installed and used, but there is just something that bugs me about it.

As such, I’ve often “cheaped out” on the optics, often to regret it at a later date….

Same to a degree with suppressors, but at least I can blame ATF on part of that, and at least they are easier to swap around without re zeroing.

Who else has a mental issue with the ratio?

One of the BEST scopes I ever used was a cheap TASC0 6x24 variable. It cost about $150. Shot 2 groundhogs at a range of 500ish feet with my Winchester Model 70 in 6.5x55. Currently use a Leupold 3.5x10 which cost about half of what my CZ rifle did. Either way I have been happy. The thing for me is that if I spend a lot on quality scope it belongs to me and I improves my shooting. So, that's all good - right?

 

[horsemen61]

Buy once cry once

 

[ECVMatt]

For the most part, the cost of manufacturing a hunting quality bolt action has become ridiculously low. Growing up, we basically had the Remington 700, the Winchester Model 70, the Ruger M77 series and the Weatherby MK series. There were obviously a few others out there but those were the big ones. The manufacturers made base models of these rifles, like the ADL from Remington, but they were still very expensive. Now with rifles like the Ruger American and the Savage Axis, it becomes very easy to spend twice the price of the rifle for a quality optic. On hunts, I have only been let down by optics, never rifles, so I am more inclined to put a piece of quality glass on a rifle to ensure my hunt won't go south. We are very fortunate to live in a time when you can buy an accurate and reliable rifle for around 500 bucks.

I do understand the frustration, but also see the value and purpose of spending more on the optic.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

The one thing about optics that I do know is that as my eyesight has deteriorated with age, they have assumed greater importance.

I think about my scopes this way:

Firstly, brand names matter because of customer support. A brand that has a lengthy history and good rep for treating customers right is likely to be around if/when something goes wrong.

Qualities I want in my scopes include good resistance to fogging, a reticle I can see clearly, preferably with some kind of range indexing, and solid, repeatable zeroing adjustments.

I'm low tech, and as I've gotten older I've become more of a collector/accumulator than a serious shooter. At the relatively short ranges I usually shoot, my scopes typically get zeroed once and then I leave the turrets alone and use the reticle to hold off for windage and elevation.

I'm not shooting at 1K yards, hunting at twilight or jumping out of airplanes and landing in water. This means I can generally get by with lower-end Leupold or Burris scopes. By preference, many of my older rifles have older scopes like US-made Weavers.

Your needs and wants will probably be very different from mine.

BTW, I think Mike Branson offers a lot of common sense about choosing a suitable scope in this video interview:

Fundamentals of LPVOs: Cheap vs Expensive

All the best firearms history channels streaming to all major devices:weaponsandwar.tvAt SHOT Show this year I took some time to speak with Mike Branson of G...

youtu.be

 

[adcoch1]

I may be in the minority here, but I also have a little hangup on optic to firearm value. I know that mine comes from inexperience, the only deer I've killed with an optic on the gun is my last on this last year hunting season. I am an open sight guy mostly because my shots are short around here, but ive been playing with optics a lot more lately. It always seems when I put together a decent rifle for longer range shooting I end up selling it before I get really familiar with it. I have the same problem with red dot sights. My experience with optics is all with cheap optics frankly, so my experience doesn't allow me to spend REAL money on optics, i haven't grown accustomed to the value or necessity. So I haven't yet spent as much or more on an optic than the gun it sets on. Yet.

the most expensive scope other than night vision has been Leopold vari x2 models. I've shot through a tract optics, and one nightforce, and I really liked them, so maybe my hang up is just that I'm cheap or poor... I will admit though, that my eye actually likes the tract more than the nightforce, and it cost about half for comparable features.

 

[Steve S.]

Most would not mount a Tasco on a Rigby double; most would not mount a Nightforce on a Western Auto rifle. A rifle/ scope cost ratio will usually reflect the buyers financial means - usually the best of both within the limits of the wallet will be the target purchase.

 

[lightman]

I guess I never gave it much thought. I buy/build a rifle for a purpose. Then I buy the optic necessary for the job. But I will say that I like nice things.

 

[Varminterror]

I have never figured the ratio on any rifle. I get a scope that will do the job to my satisfaction for the rifle it's going on, then I'm done.

Bingo.

I have a handful of rifles with demanding jobs which also mean the scopes have demanding jobs - both rifle and scope are expensive. I have a couple $1k+ scopes on firearms less than $300. I have $50 scopes on a few rifles which cost over $1k… the ratio doesn’t matter, at all, for any of them.