should scope equal rifle value?

[natman]

How good a scope to buy depends on how I intend to use the rifle. I have several inexpensive scopes - on my range toys. If the scope goes belly up, I'll have to shoot a different gun that day.

OTOH, my hunting rifles get good scopes - Leupold, Burris, Bushnell Elite, etc. If my hunting rifle scope goes belly up, it could ruin a hunt that I've worked all year on, including transportation, tags, etc, etc. Worse yet it could cause me to wound an animal. Buy a good scope for your hunting rifle.

 

[BullfrogKen]

That's why I said "most people". Most people hunt deer.

I didn't see sansone mention using it for hunting deer.

I don't know what most people do anymore. But when I look at hunting license sales over the past 20 years, hunting is on the decline. Gun dealers are selling the crap out of rifles that are prohibited by law for hunting in my state.

I don't assume that people use a rifle for deer hunting anymore.


Figure out what sort of shooting you're going to be doing with your rifle, and get a scope to match. It might just be a fixed power is a good fit. I don't know.

 

[jmr40]

For my money a decent scope starts at $300. I haven't found anything cheaper that did everything I needed a scope to do that would hold up long term. Anything over $500 and I'm paying for features and I simply don't need. Not that they are not better.

I have found several $300 rifles that work just fine, so I wouldn't have a problem with a $300-$400 scope on a $300-$400 rifle. I have rifles costing much more, that have features that I like and am willing to pay for. But many of the $300 guns shoot just as well as my more expensive guns. I think it is a better plan to pick the scope first, then the rifle to match.

 

[CraigC]

The "ratio" is irrelevant and silly to say the least. Buy the scope you want, the best you can afford and one that fills your needs without regard for what the rifle cost. Don't scrimp on your mounts either.

 

[Geno]

CraigC:

Well-said!

Geno

 

[BrocLuno]

OK Geno - but what scope can we recommend for a guy that wants to shoot tiny groups with hand loads and see his hits(?) and have really reliable adjustable turrets - all in the $300 range? Mueller sneaks into the back of my head, but I don't know how hard his biggest canon kicks?

 

[joed]

I expect to pay good money for a good quality scope, usually as much as the rifle itself. Bought one rifle that came with a Simmons, I sold that scope after the first time out.

I now use nothing but Leupold and Weaver Target scopes.

 

[CraigC]

OK Geno - but what scope can we recommend for a guy that wants to shoot tiny groups with hand loads and see his hits(?)

I'd suggest anybody who wants to see their hits to invest in an el cheapo spotting scope before outfitting their every rifle with an oversized scope that may be unfit for its "real" task.

 

[blackops]

It really depends on the application. If you're in competition you obviously should buy the best glass you can afford and not give your opponents any advantage you can control. For hunting it depends on the range and size of the animal. Ultimately a good shot with an accurate rifle can do just about anything with 12x.

 

[sig220mw]

sasone......I used to be the same way and all of the scopes I had in the past worked fairly well for a few years but they all either wore out or my aging eyes changed. Then I spent some money and got a Leupold. That scope made a big difference and kept on working until I sold it with the gun it was on. I got another Leupold later for another gun and my aging eyes work well with it. In other words, I don't buy CHEAP scopes anymore. No, Leupolds aren't the most expensive or the best but they are quite a step up from the ones I had in the past and they have always worked well and they last. I would like to get a Zeiss next. I looked through one at the range the other day and the clarity was great.

For a 22 lr you can buy down and get away with it but for a big game rifle, I bit the bullet and laid out the cash.

 

[chrome_austex]

No, actual scope cost and actual rifle cost are ridiculous to compare. both need to do their jobs in the environment they're going to be used, and that leaves a lot of room for disagreement with the old rule of thumb.

The main point is to not be held back by cheap / poor quality sights on an high quality expensive gun.

With the modern internet and a good amount of comparative shopping, I generally spend 50% of the cost of the rifle on my optics. ($400 rimfire w/ $200 scope, or $1500 rifle with $800 glass).

 

[snake284]

There's a lot of hoopla about scopes and low light situations. Most deer I have ever seen have been in good light. In fact if it's too dark to see with your Nikon Prostaff or Leupold Rifleman, maybe you are hunting past legal shooting time. I have two Leupold VX-1s, One 3-9x40 and one 4-12x40, a Leupold 3-9X40 Vari X II (Which btw is the same thing as a VX-1, just renamed a few years back) a Leupold 3-9x40 Rifleman, a Nikon 3x9x40 Prostaff, an old made in El Paso Steel Weaver K-6, an old 1966 model Redfield 4x and now a Nikon Buckmaster side focus 6-18X40 BDC Reticle. If I can't see it and hit it with those optics I need to go home. Then there's a lot of talk about, well you hunt hogs at night. Yes I do and it is legal to use a spotlight here for feral hogs. They are a pest. So I have gotten by with cheaper optics for a long time without any handicap. You don't have to spend $300 and up on a scope. There are plenty with a bit lesser optics that will work in a hunting situation. Now I'll be the first to say long range target shooting is a different story. But if you're involved in that sport you will be spending bigger bucks than most hunters on equipment. It goes with the territory.
Saying all that, I am getting a Leupold VX-3L 4.5-14X56 with 30mm tube installed on my build that is now in progress. This is the most expensive scope I have ever ordered and I just wanted one on this particular classic build, which is a Yugo Mauser Action, barreled in .257 Roberts Ackley Improved, with a Model 70 style 3 position swing safety, Timney Trigger, in a Boyd's laminant stock. I just wanted one really custom job so I went all out. Will it kill anybetter than my 45 year old push feed Model 70 .270? No. Will I use it more than my other rifles? Maybe for the first couple of years. But my .270 always tags along and once I bloody a new rifle I revert back to using it. Anyway, I hope that settled your mind on scopes a little.

 

[wingman]

In our global market scopes are a mixed bag from month to month, outsourcing,various brands in one factory, not positive price guarantees a quality scope while certainly it lowers the odds of a total junker. All I do is buy with a lifetime warranty and hope for the best.

 

[CraigC]

Ultimately a good shot with an accurate rifle can do just about anything with 12x.

Huh??? A 12x for big game hunting???

 

[frankenstein406]

I've seen people buy a rifle just for the scope. So it depends. I really like hunting with iron sights when I'm walking and scope for when I'm sitting. The real question is how, the big name brands entry level scope compares to the lower brands top of the line scope. But in the end, it has to work for you. If it doesn't then its worthless.

 

[deacon8]

I am not sure what the "rifle to scope price-ratio" is all about, as some people have said here. So if I get a $1000 rifle, I get a $333 scope and if I get a $300 rifle, I get a $100 scope? I'm not sure where people get this stuff, but do yourself a favor and don't listen to it.

Much more is involved with a good scope than a little extra light gathering. Actually, that doesn't really have anything to do with the quality of the scope. A variable scope has a set of lenses that move when the zoom is adjusted. Furthermore, that set of lenses move in a manner that requires extreme precision to keep the reticle "zeroed" when zooming in and out. For example, if I zero a poor scope at 2X, at 7X, the reticle may move slightly. The impact of this is obvious and it's something a good scope will not do.

A good scope will generally be a 1-piece design, thus maximizing the strength of the scope. Reticle strength is another attribute a good scope will have. For obvious reasons, you don't what anything to happen to the reticle. Clarity (which a good scope will have) will help with accuracy. It may be difficult to determine something like reticle strength (and various other "good-scope attributes), but trust me, a $50 scope won't cut it.

The point I am getting at is that you really have to do some research to understand what a quality scope is, what it does, and why you should choose one over an inferior one. There are always going to be those who say things like, "There is no difference between a $50 scope and $500 scope...all you're paying for is a name." My advice: don't listen to those people because they are not knowledable. Poor marksman are not affected as much with a poor scope, but they won't get much better with one either. Furthermore, any semi-serious hunter should know what a good scope is worth to them in the field when compared to a poor one.

Personally, I think one should get the best scope one can afford, no matter what rifle it is to be put on. If $300 is too much, then save a little longer. It will be worth it versus settling with a cheap Tasco or something like that. Just keep in mind that "light-gathering" is inherant by design not quality (besides lense clarity). With that in mind, go do some scope-research. Scopes are complex and you should really get to know what to look for. Once you know what to look for, besides the price tag, you will be able to find a pretty good scope. Furthermore, you will understand why you are paying what you are paying. Price ratio does not matter at all. What matters is having a strong, reliable, and accurate scope that will maximize your marksmanship, not limit it.

 

[Geno]

BrocLuno:

I tired of paying $1,350.00 to $1,850.00 for Nightforce scope by the time I had three of them. I even found the Leupolds at $599.00 to be too much. My next varmint scope was the SWFA 10X for $299.00 Link follows: http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-10x42-Tactical-Riflescope-P499.aspx

The SWFA also is available in 16X and 20X. I still like my three Nightforce scopes. Also, do not overlook the Weavers for very accurate adjustments. JMHO.

Geno

 

[scythefwd]

if your rifle can only shoot 1.5 inches from a mechanical rest, is there a point in getting a scope that has 1/8 moa adjustments?

that said, if you are shooting for group size and or score... Get the best you can afford.

 

[snake284]

I think the big name scopes entry level products help make or break their reputation as much as their top of the line products because more people are buying them.

I've had great luck with both Leupold and Nikon entry level scopes. Up until very recently I used them both exclusively for reasons I noted in my other post here.

 

[Sooner1911]

FWIW, if you can't see it, you can't hit it. Light gathering capability is huge at the edge of the legal time for beginning and ending your hunt. When it is legal to hunt, there may be lots of light left in the sky, but there will likely be much less in a wooded area where most people hunt. If you hunt open fields, that is unlikely to be important to you. Also, if your reticle moves when adjusting the magnification, your POI moves also. When trying to shoot tight groups this is a big deal. When hunting, this may make the difference between a clean kill and tracking a wounded animal for god knows how far. That doesn't even address the sick feeling you will have in your gut because you made the animal suffer. I have no moral objection to hunting, but it is unnecessary to make an animal suffer to put food on the table. The Zeiss scope on my Weatherby Mark V Deluxe was more than the rifle. If I get that once in a lifetime elk shot, I have confidence that I have the best possible optics. Most of my varmint rifles have Leupold VXIII 6x24x40s on them. I can see long distances and the scopes are more than adequate for my purposes, including target shooting. They cost about the same as or a little more than most of the rifles on which they are mounted. My primary hunting rifle has a Nikon Prostaff 3x9x40 that was much cheaper than my rifle. I have purchased one cheap Chinese scope and have nothing but regrets. Buy the best you can afford appropriate for your purposes and you will never regret it. Buy cheap and you are likely to regret the decision and spend money later replacing an inadequate scope. If there was no difference between a $50 scope and a $500 scope, Leupold would have gone out of business decades ago and we would all be mounting Simmons or Tasco or whatever other inexpensive brand that everyone swears by. If I have one shot on a once in a lifetime hunt and I miss, it will be my error. I will never have to ask myself what if I had had a better scope. My $.02. Good luck in deciding what works for you.

 

[snake284]

JMR, what is it you are looking for in a scope that costs $300 and up? Clarity, Quality? Ruggedness? I have a Nikon Prostaff that cost me $160 and some change after tax. It has 90% light transmission, BDC Reticle (Which I happen to like very much) and it handles the recoil of my Rem. 700 SPS 30-06 with a hot 200 grain bullet with no sweat. I can see plenty good with it too. I'm just curious.

 

[stsimons]

I would strongly suggest you take a jaunt over to the optics talk forums and read this:

http://www.opticstalk.com/riflescope-school_topic5027.html

and this:

http://www.opticstalk.com/topic847&KW=scjason.html

and this:

http://www.opticstalk.com/exit-pupil-light-transmission-30mm-vs_topic5023.html

also... there is no such thing as "light gathering" It is all a function of the magnification of the optic in relation to the objective lens. The human eye can only discern so much... Everyone has their "pet" brands and wants to think that their optic is the best thing since sliced bread. I am a photographer by trade and I can tell you that 10 people can look through the same optic and have 10 different opinions on everything from the color of the image even down to the resolution they can discern from the lenses. Its a matter of preference once you get to a certain level of quality.

 

[jerkface11]

Dzelenka... Not wanting to start anything, but a cheap rifle with excelent glass with still shoot kike a cheap rifle. A $1000.00 scope will not make a $150.00 stevens 200 shoot like an $1000.00 savage palma rifle. Nor vice-versa.

Stick a Ncstar or BSA on that palma gun and see what size your groups are.

As for the OP's question buy the scope according to the intended use. And stay away from Chinese junk that includes Mueller.

 

[BrocLuno]

most of my shooting is testing handloads. Always tweaking the recipe in search of the perfect one. Although my target can't turn and kill me, accuracy matters a great deal. I've been using a scope that holds zero as long as I don't touch it. Fine for producing tight groups but I would like a scope that is repeatable with changes in magnification and elevation/windage changes

This is a pretty well stated set of parameters and the only scope I've ever owned that would meet your requirements is a Weaver steel tube T (target) model. I've also owned and used Weaver steel tube K-8 and K-10 scopes with adjustable objective lenses. Both were outstanding for repeatability and reliability. Over the years, I had both of them serviced by the Weaver Scope Service and they trucked along for 20 plus years.

My current Bushnell Elite seems to be very reliable (about 6 years old), but I can't say it will hold up as well as those old Weavers. All the Weavers I have sold have gone for more than $100, so return on investment makes them quite affordable. The same should hold true for Leupold. I suspect that Burris will fall into the same category.

Can I get $100 bucks back on my used Nikons? No- I don't think so? I'm just not sure anymore on where the best price/performance ratio is for repeatability and longest turret life? I know that if I were in your shoes, I'd be buying a used Weaver T model with Micro-Trac and sending it in for service. I have faith in those old scopes and there is a reason they bring big bucks used. But if you don't have experience with them, I'm sure more modern glass will be appealing

 

[blackops]

Huh??? A 12x for big game hunting???

Yeah, what's the problem with that?