Optics-To-Rifle-Cost Ratio

[General Geoff]

For serious applications, my rule of thumb is $100 of scope per 100 yards of intended range..

If it's just for plinking fun and other non-critical applications, $100 or less for rimfire scopes, $400 or less for centerfire.

 

[ArmedBear]

Price ratios are just bull**** promulgated by people who want to sell you something.

I mean, yes, Swarovski optics are incredible. But on a high-end hunting rifle that might shoot 1/2 MOA, a scope that lets you shoot that comfortably and accurately without eyestrain is sufficient. 500 bucks, 1000 bucks, 2000 bucks, you pick. Just don't go really cheap.

As a shotgunner, I think more about geometry, weight, and balance than about how much it costs. And the picture through the scope has to be nice. That can be had for under $300. A lot of really expensive scopes are bigger, heavier, more complex. None of these things are positive qualities in a hunting scope. I'd look at these things first, THEN look at what you can get in various price ranges, and what you think of the scopes when you look through them.

 

[hksw]

For instance, clearly you'd not mount a $500 scope on a couple thousand $ worth of rifle,...?

Why?

As others have mention that I agree with, scope options/price should be based on performance of the gun and/or what you plan on doing with it, not its price.

 

[brekneb]

Thanks for the information everyone.

 

[Rembrandt]

Most of the previous comments here are from "price shoppers"....an indication they don't know why a higher priced scope costs more. If they were fortunate to own a Rolls Royce, they'd probably have black wall retreads installed....."after all, they're just as good and cheaper!"

Put a scope on that's worthy of the quality of the rifle.

 

[inherentical]

Most of the previous comments here are from "price shoppers"....an indication they don't know why a higher priced scope costs more. If they were fortunate to own a Rolls Royce, they'd probably have black wall retreads installed....."after all, they're just as good and cheaper!"

And the rest of them advocate spending as much on the tires as you would on the car, even if it's a Rolls. After all, the car is only as good as the tires it rides on, right?

Couldn't be that the driver has something to do with it.

 

[Ash]

A Rolls don't get you there any faster or more reliably. Trying to impress others isn't something I need to do.

Ash

 

[R.W.Dale]

Trying to impress others isn't something I need to do.

So I guess being so back to basics that you drive a KIA with the base engine and a manual transmission then?

For serious applications, my rule of thumb is $100 of scope per 100 yards of intended range..

I never really thought of it in such a linear fashion, that's actually a pretty good rule of thumb.

 

[MachIVshooter]

After all, the car is only as good as the tires it rides on, right?

Bad analogy if you're trying to argue that good (expensive) scopes don't make or break the rifle. There is a lot of truth to the tire statement, and a lot of injured and dead folks because they took it lightly.

 

[Harve Curry]

My experience has been limited to Weaver K series, Redfield, and Leopold. They all break down at some point and don't hold their zero.
I did put a $850 Burris Black Diamond on a 50bmg rifle and it is still going, but haven't shot it enough or packed it around.
Now I have a $100 Tasco where the Redfield Illuminator use to be and it works as good or better then the Redfield. I'm not sure anymore if more money buys you a more solid scope.

 

[Ash]

No, I drive a Jeep Cherokee which takes me off road in my job and allows me to take my kid to day care. It also costs half the price that the big 4x4's that most timber guys drive while allowing me to drive just about anywhere, including firelanes, where the bigger trucks can't go.

In other words, I use what works and have no need to impress anybody. But I mount FFII's and Nikon Monarchs on my four hunting rifles. They are rugged, reliable, and very clear in their optics. I don't need to waste money on a Shepherd or Zeiss as neither will provide me with a scope any more rugged and frankly I'm not worried about another 3 minutes on a stand in the evening or morning.

I have owned expensive rifles (I owned a Czech VZ-54/57 sniper rifle among others) but realized they did nothing for me. I have also ridden in a police-led motorcade in which all intersections as well as the entire west bound lanes of Interstate 10 were stopped so that we would not have to deal with traffic in New Orleans. Yeah, I was in one of the two limos. I slept in the corner suite with really quite a nice sitting room of a very nice hotel in downtown New Orleans.

I'm not impressed with these kind of things. If you show up with an expensive rifle with an expensive scope, I will not envy you. I won't scoff, either. I'll expect you to be able to shoot a deer or be competent on paper, of course, but that is all.

Ash

 

[R.W.Dale]

No, I drive a Jeep Cherokee which takes me off road in my job and allows me to take my kid to day care.

But wouldn't a regular Cherokee do the same job? After all no one needs all those creature comforts other than to show them off? You probably even bought the V8

See my point, where does it stop. We're all guilty of the same thing it's just a matter of degrees.

BTW I'm guilty too, as one of my Jeep's may not be a grand Cherokee but it is a Limited

 

[Ash]

No, I have the straight six with manual locks and hand-cranks for the windows. It has AC, but that is important in south Mississippi and Louisiana. Mine is the regular Cherokee, not the Grand. My work Jeep currently has 234,000 miles on it and still runs great without burning oil. I kept it when I realized it had no resale value and planned to drive it until it fell apart in the woods. That was 50,000 miles ago and it still shows no sign of giving up the ghost.

Ash

 

[22-rimfire]

I'm doing the same thing with a Toyota.

I don't buy a scope based on the price of the rifle. No formulas. That said, if I had a $1200 rifle, I doubt I'd mount a $50 scope. I actually am faced with the quandary at the moment. I have two rifles to scope; Both are 22LR and both are fairly expensive. One is the Remington 547 and the other is the new Weatherby Mark XXII. I have made my decision to mount the same model scope on both rifles; namely the Weaver 3-9x AO rimfire. Why not a 14x scope or a $500 Nikon or Leupold? Anwser. The selected scope is pretty good quality and it accomplishes exactly what I want the scope to do as far as I know. If I discover that one of these is the ultimate tack driver, I may yank off one of the scopes and mount something with more substantial power for longer range target shooting, but probably not. The 9x is about all I need and the Weaver rimfire scopes are excellent. I have one more of these to buy. If these work out well, I'll mount another one on my Remington 541-S and it shoots real well.

For you rimfire boys, yes I have a Mueller APV 4.5-14x for my CZ 452 Varmint 22LR, but that is only a $120 scope. That is about 30% of the price of the rifle.

The moral of the story is that I buy a scope based on my own experience and my perceived use and need. Quality matters too. If I made the choice based on the price of the rifle, it would have something in the $500 area in Leupold or Nikon. Oh my; the Weavers are 20% or less the price of the rifle.

 

[elmerfudd]

The $100 for every 100 yards is bunk as well. It would be stupid to put a really cheap scope on a sub MOA rimfire just because you don't intend on shooting it past 100 yards. Likewise, there's no point in shelling out big bucks to scope an AK that gets shot at 3-400 yards.

 

[Girodin]

You probably even bought the V8

In your effort to be argumentative you failed to realize cherokees dont come with V-8s grand cherokees do.

After all no one needs all those creature comforts other than to show them off?

What about simply to be more comfortable?

 

[Zouave Rifle]

I'm a cheap scope user. I have several chinese manufactured scopes (NCStar or Red Star) that work quite well, and didn't break the bank. That said, they aren't quite as clear as my Simmons or Bushnell scopes, but I can still hit with them quite well at 100+ meters. I live in South Carolina and we don't have many ranges here that allow for 300m target shooting or 300m shots on deer.

 

[3pairs12]

1to.5. I don't know that I could justify a $3000 scope for an equally priced firearm. However there can always be exceptions such as a nice ACOG on run of the mill AR. It is really a matter of personal preference and the duty these optics will serve.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

For serious applications, my rule of thumb is $100 of scope per 100 yards of intended range.

That's interesting.....not a bad way to look at it- I'd imagine that a $125-$150/100 yards would work, too.

 

[TX1911fan]

I would not go so far as to say that everyone who buys an expensive scope does so just to impress other people. In all seriousness, most expensive scopes do perform better, even if it is just creature comforts. They are a little brighter, a little clearer, a little better to keep their zero, etc. Whether that LITTLE bit better is enough to justify their MUCH higher cost is the question. I say no, but that is because I choose to spend my money elsewhere. If an extra $500 was not a big deal to me, you can bet I'd buy the more expensive scope. It's like buying premium ammo. I can't remember who said it, but the gist of the quote is: "How much sense does it make to spend $5000 on an African safari to cheap out on ammo and have it possibly affect the trip." If you can afford more expensive glass, by all means go for it. My point is just that you don't always get that much more for the money. It seems to me that after about $500 for a scope, your returns start to drop off.

 

[Ash]

The Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns is very definitely demonstrated with scopes. Quality increases with cost (depending on manufacturer, of course), but at a certain point, each additional dollar brings a lower increase in performance, until you reach a point that an additional $200 buys almost no increase in performance.

In long-distance target shooting, the more expensive scopes have greater value and can make the difference between victory and loss. In hunting, though, the minute increases for major bucks are not worth it to me.

Ash

 

[taliv]

i don't agree with much of the above conversation. my $3000 USO isn't brighter or clearer or even arguably better quality than the $1200 nightforce benchrest model I use for 1000 yrd competition. it does have a lot of features that aren't on the cheaper scope.

looking at diminishing returns is always a smart thing to do, but it's trickier when you're comparing features as opposed to just general quality.

 

[Ash]

Talking about features, they do drive up the cost of a scope. A $100 fixed power might actually be an aboslutely great, rugged, and clear scope. Add variable power and the price goes up to $200, or so, for the same quality. Add an illuminated reticle and to get one that actually works without being too bright at the wrong time, while at the same time being rugged, clear, and ajustable, the price goes up even more.

There would be nothing to gain in spending $500 for a fixed-power scope. There is little gained in spending $150 for an illuminated reticle scope that isn't a POSP scope.

Ash

 

[R.W.Dale]

There would be nothing to gain in spending $500 for a fixed-power scope.

Have you tried looking through a $200 36X scope lately? Being so dark as to not be able to see bullet holes kinda defeats the purpose of a 36x

 

[Harve Curry]

What we need to know is hard to find out. The nuts and bolts of the different makers scopes:
1).Differences in lens manufacturing?

2).how are cross hairs attached and what are they made of?

3).How do the cross hairs adjust?

4).The tube itself?