Rifle scope quality question(s)

[john l]

First, I generally think that you get what you pay for.
I do know that a lot of people like Leupold and I think that I am going to get one for one of my rifles. I am thinking about getting a 1x4 Leupold Vari-X II for one of my ARs. Does anyone have anything negative to say about Leupold?

Here's my questions:
I am real sceptical about all these inexpensive scopes out there, but the prices seem too good to be true, and you know what they say about that.

1) There are a lot of cheap scopes out there in the 50 dollar plus/minus range for centerfire rifles. What is the difference between a $50 3x9x40 and a really nice Nikon or Leupold $500 3x9x40 scope?
2) If the cheapy brands are really that crappy, how come there are so many out there? Do they have any redeeming qualities?
thanks,
john l

 

[Coltdriver]

I just bought a Leupold VX II 1X4 20 compact for a Ruger #1. I was also thinking it would work nicely on my AR.

My first scope was a tasco 3X9 40. Then I bought a Bausch and Lomb Elite 3200 in 3X9 40.

The difference is almost all in clarity. It is easy to detect a huge difference if you try one then the other.

I put a Simmons 6X20 32 with an adjustable paralax on a .17HMR rifle. Nice scope but the difference in the amount of light it passes and the way it behaves with a little sun on the front lens is just plain not up to the way the B&L scope works. Not even close.

I never thought I'd have a scope that cost in some cases more than the rifle it is mounted on. But I will never buy another cheap scope.

My tasco is now broken. The threaded portion of the eye piece stripped. The leupold could be returned to the factory for a fix. The tasco is not worth wasting the postage on.

Leupold is about to discontinue a lot if not all of the VX II and III's and release a new theoretically superior coated lens version. This means you can pick up a II or a III at excellent discounts. I got my Leupold for under $200 new.

 

[hksw]

1. IMO, the biggest difference between the $30-$70 scopes (overwhelmingly made in China) and the regular $200+ makes and models is optical quality. There will be much much more parallex, distortion, discoloration, etc. than say the Leupold you're considering. It may be difficult to notice this unless you have a sample of a low end and a high end scope to look through side-by-side.

2. IMO again, this is how some of the mass marketers like Wal·Mart, et al, get away with selling some of those inexpensive scopes. There aren't any goods ones around at the time of purchase to compare against. The low cost of course is also a big selling point. The low cost scopes do work for the most part, they are just not as good as the mid to higher end stuff in optics. To get around the parallex and distortion issue, just make sure your eye is centered on the scope. You'd have to just live through any other imperfections like quality of glass, excessive play in the crosshair adjustment turrets/screws, poor finish, etc. but this isn't too difficult to do. Some folks only look through the scope maybe a handfull of times a year at most so a $30 is 'good enough'. Generally, though, these folks feel 3"-6" groups at 100 yds is OK. 'Good enough' for deer or slapping atop an AK/AR fungun.


There is also build quality but his is not as readily observable than the optics. For that, all you have to do is to just look through the scope.

 

[Art Eatman]

Omitting "junk" which is too easily broken by recoil: The primary differences in cost are due to the quality of the coatings of the lenses and the quality of the internal adjustments.

If one merely plinks during midday hours, and pretty much stays within some 100 yards or so, lesser-cost scopes may well suffice.

Repeatability of internal adjustments is of lesser importance to hunters, who commonly sight in and "set it and forget it".

Target shooters have higher requirements as to the amount of and repeatability of adjustments, and light transmission. Those who hunt in conditions of low light and/or are likely to shoot at longer ranges also need the better coatings and larger lenses which enable better light transmission. This is where such as the Nikon and Leupold scopes are decent-quality "entry level". Swarovski, etc., are of course the higher-end.

While I believe one can do well with a scope specifically oriented toward the type of shooting one does, a better scope is still..."better". Wait a little longer, save a little more, and don't worry whether the scope costs more than the rifle. One can always upgrade one's rifle, right?

Art

 

[BillL223]

After trying a variety of scopes and red-dot sights on my 3-Gun AR, I've settled on the Leupold 1-4 x 20 VX2 in an Armalite mount. This is a good all around combination. At 4 power I can easily hit steel at 300 yds and at 1 power, its almost as fast as a dot for close range targets.

 

[JohnBT]

"Do they have any redeeming qualities?"

Sure, cheap scopes convince people to spend a lot more money on a scope that will last a lifetime and not give them a headache after a few minutes of looking through it. My eyes are bad enough even with $500 titanium-framed Varilux glasses that I don't need to blur my vision with a cheap scope.

I put a Leupold 6.5-20x40EFR on a used CZ American WMR last night.
That's a $535 scope on a $285 rifle.

I'll probably end up with a Weaver 6-24x on it, but it's on another gun right now. That's still a $300+ scope.

Remember you can always trade the guns and keep the scopes.

John

 

[Dave R]

I have had good & bad luck with inexpensive scopes. I have had good luck with Tasco Pronghorns on .22's. I have had bad luck with a cheap Simmons 3X9 X 40. Real dim.