CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I thought we were here to have "discussions". How old are you?
should scope equal rifle value?
- Thread starter sansone
- Start date
- Status
jimmyraythomason
Member
Very good advice CraigC.
Hangingrock
Member
My optics comfort level is Vari-X II/III Leupold series scope. For the quality, value, and warranty I’m satisfied. It’s fair to say there is better optics in the market place but at substantial cost differential.
As for the cost differential between the firearm and the optics that is dependent on the application. I’m of the opinion that in the market place of optics there is a substantial mark up/profit margin for the manufactures/distributors/retailers.
As for the cost differential between the firearm and the optics that is dependent on the application. I’m of the opinion that in the market place of optics there is a substantial mark up/profit margin for the manufactures/distributors/retailers.
Rembrandt
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2003
- Messages
- 4,657
There are some things in life that defy explanation.....like wearing tennis shoes with a tux, putting black wall retread tires on a Rolls Royce, and ketchup on prime rib. Cheap scopes should be reserved for cheap guns....it's how nature intended it to be.
wsm
Member
scope
sansone, the only answer you need to read is Post #2, from ColtPythonElite. If it works for you and you are happy with it, that's all that counts.
sansone, the only answer you need to read is Post #2, from ColtPythonElite. If it works for you and you are happy with it, that's all that counts.
timbertoes
Member
I find Nikon buckmasters to be a good value. Esp when you find a clean used one.
have had several, should have never let of the 6-18 I had... oh well.
Have a Weaver GS on the way, used. looking forward to using it.
have had several, should have never let of the 6-18 I had... oh well.
Have a Weaver GS on the way, used. looking forward to using it.
snake284
Member
I have read nearly all the responses to this thread and one thing I'm seeing is some seem to be missing MY point. For one thing. I don't buy any what call CHEAP scopes, such as $40-$100 Simmons and similar junk for centerfire rifles. I have a Simmons 3-9x40 8 Point on my 10/22 and am happy with it. But there's no recoil and I'm not shooting at 300+yards with a 22LR.
What I consider my bottom line cheap scopes that I will buy and put on centerfire rifles are the entry level scopes from companies like Leupold and Nikon. They are solid, well built, quality scopes. The reason these are cheap is not because of mechanical construction, but rather they don't have as expensive optics as their higher level brothers. Like I have said, I have a Nikon Prostaff 3-9x40 on my 30-06 and it has a pretty good whollup to it when shooting some of the heavier bullets. I also own 4 entry level Leupolds that are also well built. The only problem with these Leupolds is they don't have click adjustments like the VX-2s and VX-3s. But they hold their zero just the same. And besides, the clicks are mainly useful when target shooting when you need a good repeatable zero change of a certain degree. It should give it to you where the friction adjustment may not. But for hunting that's a moot point. Once I sight a hunting rifle in I don't usually mess with the settings unless I drop the rifle which is rare for me because I concentrate on NOT doing those things. Anyway, that's my take on it and my idea of a CHEAP scope. That's as far down the ladder I'll go.
What I consider my bottom line cheap scopes that I will buy and put on centerfire rifles are the entry level scopes from companies like Leupold and Nikon. They are solid, well built, quality scopes. The reason these are cheap is not because of mechanical construction, but rather they don't have as expensive optics as their higher level brothers. Like I have said, I have a Nikon Prostaff 3-9x40 on my 30-06 and it has a pretty good whollup to it when shooting some of the heavier bullets. I also own 4 entry level Leupolds that are also well built. The only problem with these Leupolds is they don't have click adjustments like the VX-2s and VX-3s. But they hold their zero just the same. And besides, the clicks are mainly useful when target shooting when you need a good repeatable zero change of a certain degree. It should give it to you where the friction adjustment may not. But for hunting that's a moot point. Once I sight a hunting rifle in I don't usually mess with the settings unless I drop the rifle which is rare for me because I concentrate on NOT doing those things. Anyway, that's my take on it and my idea of a CHEAP scope. That's as far down the ladder I'll go.
Last edited:
Welding Rod
Member
VX II is generally my minimum comfort level.
Sniderman
Member
Took me some time to talk myself into some good glass,,Then,,,
Remington 700 in .243,, $570.00 NIB
Leupold VX3, 4 1/2x14 50mm bell,, $795.00 NIB
Coyotes,,100+ yds out at dusk, dropped like hot rocks,, PRICELESS!
Remington 700 in .243,, $570.00 NIB
Leupold VX3, 4 1/2x14 50mm bell,, $795.00 NIB
Coyotes,,100+ yds out at dusk, dropped like hot rocks,, PRICELESS!
chaser_2332
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 516
I think it's a good idea to buy the scope first that way you buy the best you can afford and then buy a rifle, most rifles today will out shoot their owners but all glass is not made equal.
snake284
Member
Sniderman, I got one of those coming on a new build. But it's the 56 MM Obj. and 30mm Tube. WHY??? I have no idea, I just flipped out. I usually don't spend near that much on glass. So far $309 on a Nikon 6x18 Buckmaster has been the most I've ever spent. Usually I don't spend over about $230-$250, you know, VX-1s, Prostaffs, stuff like that. This Leupold VX-3L SF 4.5 -14X56 with 30mm tube is the most expensive scope I've ever bought. But, on the other hand, I won't put a $100 or less scope on a decent centerfire rifle either. I do NOT like scope OR rifle failure.
snake284
Member
Craig C, I agree about buying a spotting scope. Also, here's an old Hunter Safety point about scopes. Some people rant about needing high end optics for low light. I know that they think they need them to identify game correctly. Only one problem here. It's unsafe if you want to really get down to it, to use a rifle and scope to look for and identify game, even more especially in low light. A rifle scope is a sighting sistem, not a binocular. Get some good binoculars to look for and identify game. Once you've identified the game animal you want to shoot, then put the scope on it and pull the trigger.
But when you are looking through your rifle's scope you are pointing a gun at things you may not intend to shoot. This is one of the 10 commandments of Hunter Education. and one of the big three of gun safety rules; never point a firearm at anything you do not intend to shoot. So therefore some of the argument for expensive first class optics is going against safety. I would rather buy a medium priced scope from one of the better scope companies and invest bigger money in a good set of binoculars. JMHO. But it's all about safety. And once you've identified the game, a lesser optic can be used as a sight.
But when you are looking through your rifle's scope you are pointing a gun at things you may not intend to shoot. This is one of the 10 commandments of Hunter Education. and one of the big three of gun safety rules; never point a firearm at anything you do not intend to shoot. So therefore some of the argument for expensive first class optics is going against safety. I would rather buy a medium priced scope from one of the better scope companies and invest bigger money in a good set of binoculars. JMHO. But it's all about safety. And once you've identified the game, a lesser optic can be used as a sight.
A lot of the scopes I own see different rifles depending on the time of year and my interests. There really isn't a set rule or anything similar for me. I personally have topped out in the $300-$400 range as the use I put a scope through typically won't benefit from a more rugged design and I have troubles justifying nicer glass than what comes on most scopes in the $300-$400 range as well. I don't own any rifles worth multiple thousands of dollars that are intended to be abused in a way that would require a similarly priced scope.
Find your point of diminishing returns and enjoy the scopes you end up with at that point. For me it is the VXII, Elite 3200, Buckmaster range that seem to be the best value.
Find your point of diminishing returns and enjoy the scopes you end up with at that point. For me it is the VXII, Elite 3200, Buckmaster range that seem to be the best value.
mljdeckard
Member
There is a point at which it seems foolish, to put together a sub-MOA varmint rifle, and then top it with a junk scope. You went to the expense to make a tack-driving rifle, and then put on a scope that isn't capable of the same accuracy. You might as well have just used a basic Walmart rifle.
It doesn't always need to be the very best you can buy, but it doesn't help you much to go with the rock bottom cheapest either. My dad has a Remington 700 VSSF in 22-250, he splurged and bought it from a pawn shop. Then he topped it with the rock bottom cheapest Simmons scope he could find. We were out shooting it at targets 100 yards away one afternoon, and it was putting them in the dirt at about 50 yards. We gave it a closer look, and the tube had bent. We don't know if it was from rough handling or the rings had been torqued too tight, but he grumbled and decided to worry about it later. He eventually went and bought......the same scope. I bit it off and didn't say anything.
A couple of years later, we went out to the desert to look for coyotes, and we lined up a shot, that song dog just sat there 100 yards away, my dad took all the time in the world, squeezed one with the safety still on, clicked it off, it still didn't move, he shot and missed. I ran out to look for fur or blood, there was nothing. We were driving away, and I asked him the last time he had shot and zeroed that rifle, he said it had been a couple of years. Some scopes I would expect to hold a zero for a couple of years or much longer. Not that one I guess.
It doesn't always need to be the very best you can buy, but it doesn't help you much to go with the rock bottom cheapest either. My dad has a Remington 700 VSSF in 22-250, he splurged and bought it from a pawn shop. Then he topped it with the rock bottom cheapest Simmons scope he could find. We were out shooting it at targets 100 yards away one afternoon, and it was putting them in the dirt at about 50 yards. We gave it a closer look, and the tube had bent. We don't know if it was from rough handling or the rings had been torqued too tight, but he grumbled and decided to worry about it later. He eventually went and bought......the same scope. I bit it off and didn't say anything.
A couple of years later, we went out to the desert to look for coyotes, and we lined up a shot, that song dog just sat there 100 yards away, my dad took all the time in the world, squeezed one with the safety still on, clicked it off, it still didn't move, he shot and missed. I ran out to look for fur or blood, there was nothing. We were driving away, and I asked him the last time he had shot and zeroed that rifle, he said it had been a couple of years. Some scopes I would expect to hold a zero for a couple of years or much longer. Not that one I guess.
My guns are primarily for deer hunting. I do not have a ton of money for high end guns and scopes. My two favorite rifles are a Winchester model 70 in 7mm rem mag and a Remington model 700 in .243. Both guns where purchased at Wal-Mart. Both are topped with a 55 dollar Simmons cheapo scope.
I practice with these guns as often as I can and as often as my budget allows me to buy ammo. Both guns shoot half inch groups.
I have shot plenty of times with friends who are shooting scopes and guns that cost 5 to 10 times what I paid for mine that are not shooting the groups that my Wal-mart guns with my store bought ammo are shooting. Maybe I just got lucky. Maybe I am fortunate enough to be able to walk out my back door and shoot my rifles. All I am saying is a thousand dollar scope is never going to take the place of a lot of practice.
I practice with these guns as often as I can and as often as my budget allows me to buy ammo. Both guns shoot half inch groups.
I have shot plenty of times with friends who are shooting scopes and guns that cost 5 to 10 times what I paid for mine that are not shooting the groups that my Wal-mart guns with my store bought ammo are shooting. Maybe I just got lucky. Maybe I am fortunate enough to be able to walk out my back door and shoot my rifles. All I am saying is a thousand dollar scope is never going to take the place of a lot of practice.
A $1,000 scope probably won't help you shoot any better but when those $50 scopes crap out on you again, and again, and again you will eventually figure out it would have been less expensive in the long run to have bought a decent $200-$300 scope.
Lots of justification for some really weak reasoning.
It's about balance, and getting the utility for money spent.
Specifying the quality of parts for the job needing done, the caliber and barrel come first. How the optic mounts is very much a part of the upper receiver design - then the optic has to complement the actual accuracy intended.
Sure, a $3,500 16x36 sniper scope is a bit overkill on a 10/22, the same could be said of an Aimpoint on it, too. There's no balance between the barrels accuracy and intended target, and the price.
60-75 million hunters in America buy game licenses every year, since it's without doubt a major use of optics, I'll use hunting live game as an example. If it's prairie dogs, a 1/2 MOA barrel is desireable to get hits out to 500m, just because the target is so small. Something with 4X12 variable power, easily adjustable turrets, and bullet drop compensation would fill the bill. Price? $250 up.
The question is, would a scope costing $1,200 do the job, sure, but how much better per dollar? You get diminishing returns on every extra dollar you spend, guaranteed and a rule of thumb in life, much less rifle scopes. Jump up to a $450 scope, there will be some obvious visible improvement in glass and performance. Double that again to a $900 scope, and it's going to take optical instruments and a crate of ammo to see any significant difference. It will be there, but honestly, the average guy planning a trip to Western Kansas once a year could save the money for gas and get the same results.
Bluntly, cost no object spending for optics is marketing blather. Please note the phrasing in ads, with wingless flies crawling on barn siding, and heavy emphasis on "you deserve" and hunters attired in expensive custom fitted clothing. What part of selling status and lifestyle is really being done?
Spend the extra money on shooting, dope out the bullet drop, get reloading equipment and make the effort to find the most accurate load. You will get more return on that in actual hits than blowing the difference on a higher price scope.
It's the fine tuning that makes it work, not the Edelbrock sticker on the fender.
It's about balance, and getting the utility for money spent.
Specifying the quality of parts for the job needing done, the caliber and barrel come first. How the optic mounts is very much a part of the upper receiver design - then the optic has to complement the actual accuracy intended.
Sure, a $3,500 16x36 sniper scope is a bit overkill on a 10/22, the same could be said of an Aimpoint on it, too. There's no balance between the barrels accuracy and intended target, and the price.
60-75 million hunters in America buy game licenses every year, since it's without doubt a major use of optics, I'll use hunting live game as an example. If it's prairie dogs, a 1/2 MOA barrel is desireable to get hits out to 500m, just because the target is so small. Something with 4X12 variable power, easily adjustable turrets, and bullet drop compensation would fill the bill. Price? $250 up.
The question is, would a scope costing $1,200 do the job, sure, but how much better per dollar? You get diminishing returns on every extra dollar you spend, guaranteed and a rule of thumb in life, much less rifle scopes. Jump up to a $450 scope, there will be some obvious visible improvement in glass and performance. Double that again to a $900 scope, and it's going to take optical instruments and a crate of ammo to see any significant difference. It will be there, but honestly, the average guy planning a trip to Western Kansas once a year could save the money for gas and get the same results.
Bluntly, cost no object spending for optics is marketing blather. Please note the phrasing in ads, with wingless flies crawling on barn siding, and heavy emphasis on "you deserve" and hunters attired in expensive custom fitted clothing. What part of selling status and lifestyle is really being done?
Spend the extra money on shooting, dope out the bullet drop, get reloading equipment and make the effort to find the most accurate load. You will get more return on that in actual hits than blowing the difference on a higher price scope.
It's the fine tuning that makes it work, not the Edelbrock sticker on the fender.
gdcpony
Member
I have used expensive scopes and have used cheap scopes. In the end I have used more cheap ones.
On my $900 AR sits a $70 KonusPro 1.4-5x32. I fell in love with the reticle on my 20ga and it put up with all the abuse I have heaped on it so far. The same sits on the 20ga, My daughter's .223 and my .257Roberts. It's pros? Super fast target aquisition, just center a close surprise target in the diamond and squeeze. For distance it is the super fine crosshairs that don't block out targets. For anything out to 300yds or but beyond it is all I need.
For my past shooting I loved the Swift line. For under $400 I had about has good a scope as I will ever need. Once my 7x57Ackley is done it will wear one of them.
More expensive scopes? I am sure if my shooting demanded the modest increase in quality (as compared to the price increases), I would use them. I just have never needed them. I am betting 95% of shooters fall into that catagory.
On my $900 AR sits a $70 KonusPro 1.4-5x32. I fell in love with the reticle on my 20ga and it put up with all the abuse I have heaped on it so far. The same sits on the 20ga, My daughter's .223 and my .257Roberts. It's pros? Super fast target aquisition, just center a close surprise target in the diamond and squeeze. For distance it is the super fine crosshairs that don't block out targets. For anything out to 300yds or but beyond it is all I need.
For my past shooting I loved the Swift line. For under $400 I had about has good a scope as I will ever need. Once my 7x57Ackley is done it will wear one of them.
More expensive scopes? I am sure if my shooting demanded the modest increase in quality (as compared to the price increases), I would use them. I just have never needed them. I am betting 95% of shooters fall into that catagory.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Why is anybody even mentioning scopes which are "cheap" or "junk"? They have no bearing on the subject of the thread.
The issue is the apparent belief on the part of some people that if you buy a $500 rifle, you NEED a $500 scope. $1,000 rifle? $1,000 scope. Based on a bunch of years of experience with all sorts of scopes and many different purposes, my opinion of that idea is that it's just plain silly.
But "cheap" or "junk" has nothing to do with much of anything other than a different sort of silliness: Once noted as "penny wise, pound foolish".
The issue is the apparent belief on the part of some people that if you buy a $500 rifle, you NEED a $500 scope. $1,000 rifle? $1,000 scope. Based on a bunch of years of experience with all sorts of scopes and many different purposes, my opinion of that idea is that it's just plain silly.
But "cheap" or "junk" has nothing to do with much of anything other than a different sort of silliness: Once noted as "penny wise, pound foolish".
stubbicatt
Member
This is one of those questions each must answer for himself I guess.
As a trade in, rifle scopes are a poor investment, no matter what the initial price. So the way I see it, I've tried to determine the best choice in my price bracket. I only buy new, especially with optics, as if something goes haywire, a warranty is a nice thing. Then if I decide to trade of the rifle, I keep the glass for installation on my new purchase.
Good glass isn't something that typically wears out, and if it is good today, it will remain good for a lifetime.
So figure your price point, and figure the features that you will use, and buy the best available to you. For my money, I've determined that the IOR line of scopes presents probably the best value for the uses I have for it.
YMMV.
As a trade in, rifle scopes are a poor investment, no matter what the initial price. So the way I see it, I've tried to determine the best choice in my price bracket. I only buy new, especially with optics, as if something goes haywire, a warranty is a nice thing. Then if I decide to trade of the rifle, I keep the glass for installation on my new purchase.
Good glass isn't something that typically wears out, and if it is good today, it will remain good for a lifetime.
So figure your price point, and figure the features that you will use, and buy the best available to you. For my money, I've determined that the IOR line of scopes presents probably the best value for the uses I have for it.
YMMV.
jimmyraythomason
Member
Not true! Everything has a breaking point regardless of initial cost. Even high dollar scopes/guns are subject to breakage at any time. Too many people are confusing "value" with "price". I have many lesser priced scopes that represent good to great value for the money spent. I don't choose a scope based on how much I paid for the rifle (that would be silly indeed) but on the intended use and recoil potential of the rifle.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Breaking point? From falling off a mountain, maybe? So far, all my Leupold scopes of more than thirty years of age seem to do fine. And a couple have bounced off floors or fallen down mountains. Never had a K4 break, nor the Vari-X IIs, either.
The world seems to be full of problems beyond my understanding...
The world seems to be full of problems beyond my understanding...
scythefwd
Member
sooner, have you done much long rang shooting with peep sights. At 1k yards, you can't see the bull, but I'll bet there are people out the that can hit it fairly consistently. I can't se the heart of a deer, but I know where it is in relation to the rest od it's body and can hit it without seeing much more than the outline of the deer. If I can't see the deer, true that I can't hit it. But there is no scope with 100% light transmission, so shooting with myy naked eye is better in that regard.
jimmyraythomason
Member
Yes,a breaking point. All products are subject to having weaknesses that can present themselves at ANY time. I bought a Browning A bolt because it had "lost it's accuracy" after all it had a Leupold VX-111 on it so it couldn't possibly be the scope. The leupold was several years old and had ALWAYS performed well. It wasn't dropped or abused in any way. The owner condemned the Browning and sold it to me for $300 but sent the VX-111 to the factory "just in case". I put a Bushnell Banner on the A bolt and got 1"-1.5" groups consistantly. Leupold,on the other hand,made up the VX-111 at no cost.
- Status
