The hundred dollar snake

[Picknlittle]

This is a lesson to all who are trying to save a buck. The buck you save may be four legged.

Once upon a time I bought a Rem 700 30-06. It had shoot thru mounts but no scope. I went to Bass Pro Shops scope shopping. I had my eye on a Nikon for about $150 because money was thin. I needed a scope to get thru deer season. I planned to buy a better scope for the next season.
Anyway,...the fella at the counter asked if I knew anything about BSA scopes. I said I'd never heard of them and he proceeded to tell me how great this contender series scope was and that I could save fifty or more dollars buying it instead of the Nikon.

I got it sighted in,...shot about thirty rounds through it and was satisfied that the last three rounds made a nickel sized group 1 1/2 inches high at 100 yds. Off to the woods I go.
About 7:00 a.m. three does stepped out into the field at about 125 yds. I picked the largest who just happened to be standing broadside to me. I aim,...confidently squeeze the trigger,...boom!,....the doe looks at me. I'm thinking, "no stinkin way I missed that deer! Chamber round 2,.....aim,....breath,.....squeeze,....booooom! the doe continues looking at me.
Now I'm thinking my eyes are playing tricks on me and this deer is farther than I think,....I raise my aim point to just below the back,....boom! she walks toward me,...100 yds,....75 yds,....she stops facing me. One more round in the gun,......aim center of the chest/ neck area,....boom!,....she and her friends walk calmly back into the woods.

I reload and walk out to check for blood,.....none,...I step out to where the doe was at first,....120 yds,....I'm shaking my head, cursing under my breath.

Back to the range,...1st shot was 18" low,8' right. 2nd shot 18" low, 10 " right. 3rd shot was 15 " low 12" left. This $100 snake had shaken apart inside.

I took the scope back,...was not surprised to find the jerk on the desk no longer worked there,...added some money and bought a Leupold.

Went back,....that doe and two friends are in the freezer now. Bubba comes next year!

 

[jeffsig220]

BSA scopes

I know a guy who put a BSA target scope on a .50 CAL single shot rifle and was all excited to head to the range and sight in his "Sniper Rifle". I told him that he was insane to put a $70 scope on a $1500 rifle(a .50 BMG at that!) and expect it to perform. I told him it would probably blow the glass right out of it with the first round. needless to say,after the first round,he was out $70

 

[Grumulkin]

I missed a couple of easy shots with a Tasco scope. It turned out, the elevation was migrating after a few days to shoot high. I still have some Tasco scopes that work fine but I'm not buying any more. From now on for rifle scopes, it's Leupold.

 

[hagar]

I have had my share of bad luck with cheap scopes. Worst of all was Simmons, followed by BSA, even though I have a $150 made in Japan BSA that is an amazing scope. Always been happy with Tasco, but then I don't have one on my 340 Weatherby, that baby has a Leupold, the only one I own! The best cheap scope in my book is a Weaver. I own at least 10 of them, seriously hunted coyotes with them for more than 10 years, and they never lost zero on me, fogged up, or caused problems. I have not shot my 223 VS with Weaver V16 in 5 years, but I will bet $100 that I can hit a half dollar at 100 yards first shot.

 

['Card]

I have a 3x9x50mm BSA scope on my 'beater' rifle. A Remington 7400 Weathermaster .30-06 that gets hauled up and down rock cliffs, through thickets, tied into kayaks, dunked in water, and generally taken into areas where I fall down a lot.

Buying that BSA was probably the best $75 I ever spent. For four years now that little scope has taken every bit of abuse I've dumped on it, and it just keeps going. I shoot that gun a lot - it's one of my favorite range toys, and the BSA holds zero as well or better than any of my more expensive scopes, and because it was so cheap I never think twice about abusing it.

Sorry you had a negative experience, but my BSA has been a trooper. It has two of my favorite qualities when it comes to hunting equipment - it's cheap enough to abuse, and tough enough to take it.

 

[Mornard]

BSA has been real iffy in my experience. The same for Simmons - cheap Simmons are to stay away from; good (higher priced) Simmons are good scopes. However, after 30 years of trying, I've settled on two - Leupold for when I can afford it, and older Weavers for everytime else. It's still hard to beat a Weaver El Paso K3 or K4 for an all-around general hunting scope...

 

[marksman13]

Never owned a BSA, and have never heard much good about them. I've got a cheap Simmons 3x9x40 on my Ruger 10/22. It has been dropped, dunked, banged, bumped and otherwise abused and never missed a beat. Never even los its zero except one time when it got dropped about 6 feet onto concrete. It was only about 2 1/2 inches to the right then. I guess everybody gets lucky now and then. But my high powered rifles all have a Nikon or Leupold mounted on them, and all future rifles will mount a Nikon.

 

[lawson]

my 336 wears a Burris Fullfield 2. i paid about $175 for it new, and it's held up great. i haven't been drawn for deer in far too long, but there's a couple javelina and more than a few coyotes that don't know it's not a Leupold.

 

[Tbu61]

I can't agree more on getting quality Optics for a firearm.
In Europe it's not uncommon to see an expensive Scope mounted to a fairly cheap rifle.

Yeah a cheap rifle will only hold a 3" or 4" group at 100 yards, but if that group is 20 inches off, it's not worth pulling the trigger.

While working at a dealership in the 80's, we got a shipment of complimentary Simmons scopes. I immediately saw the cheap workmanship and decided to give them away to Customers with a verbal warning that they were junk and only meant for target trial and evaluation. Not for use in the field.

Every one of those scopes came back and rattled like a pocketful of loose change. Eventually we stopped giving them away.... Threw the rest in the garbage.

 

[SUBMOAS]

Optics and $$$

You firearm is only as good as your optic........

But a $500.00 dollar rifle, put a $70.00 scope.

Rifle=$70.00.........

 

[wolf_from_wv]

.I raise my aim point to just below the back,....boom! she walks toward me,...100 yds,....75 yds,....she stops facing me. One more round in the gun,......aim center of the chest/ neck area,....boom!,....she and her friends walk calmly back into the woods.

Deer: "Would it help if I come closer?"

later

Deer: "Well, this is as close as I'm coming... If you can't hit me from here, we'll leave."

walking away, to others

Deer: "Don't bother running, he can't hit us anyway. Maybe his scope is bad, or he didn't sight it in. Oh well..."

 

[The Rifleman]

Just my two cents.

The first scope you wanted to buy would have been good enough for probably anything that you wanted to hunt. Would have probably lasted you the rest of your life.

The BSA - Boy Scouts of America scope you bought - probably at Wal Mart - isn't any better than the box it came in. You would have been better off to use a paper towel tube and two pieces of string.

Weaver scopes are good and bad. I have a 3 x 9 x 38 with adjustable objective that I will sell anyone for $50. It came apart after just 5 shots out of my 300 Win Mag Browning Pump Rifle.

I gave away a 4x Weaver that I tore apart with my hunting knife out in the woods one cold day in doe season. Missed 3 deer that day because it fogged up.

Had one Weaver scope that was a 2 x 7 x 38? that was sent back to El Paso 3 times. When I tore it apart - there was bread crumbs inside of it.. Probably the technician fixed it on his lunch break.

I have two 3 x 9 x 40 Simmons scopes that have never moved - even with Weaver see thru mounts. One on a Rem 760 - .270 and the other on a Rem 760 30/06

I gave away a Rem 760 .270 BDL Delux to my father for a Christmas present one year that has a Simmons 4 x 12 x 40 scope that will put two bullets in the same hole at 200 yds. I did it the last two times we went to the range. 2 years apart. It's never been out of the gun cabinet since. I wonder how many bolt action rifles can boast about that.

My .270 Win Short Mag has a Leupold Vari X 1 ( 3 x 9 ) scope on it and it has no clicks inside of it and the rifle patterns like a shotgun. The rifle is a Browning A Bolt Medallion. You can't really blame it on the gun.

I have two Rem 760 Gamemaster 30 / 06's that has "see thru" Weaver mounts and one shot 3 deer and the other shot 1 deer with Redfield Widefield Scopes this year.

My point is - unless you are confident in what you are using. You shouldn't buy it and you shouldn't hunt with it. I sight in several rifles before the season begins and if something happens to one of them - it goes into the gun rack till next year. I don't let one bad apple ruin the whole barrel..

A really funny story I tell is about the first Saturday of rifle season this year when it was too warm outside to keep a deer without refridgeration. I had a doe standing 80 yards below my tree stand in a almost a clear field of view. I was hunting with my Browning Pump Rifle - 300 Win Mag with a Bushnell 5 x 15 x 50 scope that I had sighted in 1 1/2 inches high at 100 yards, it shot nice bulls eye's at 200 yards. The tree was swaying a little bit and I really didn't want to shoot it. But I figured if I could hit it in the eye, I would tag it and call it a day.
I forgot that I had raised the scope since the years prior I always had it right on at 100 yards, and I aimed right for the eye. All I got was a good ribbing when I got back to the house for missing that deer. I went back out that afternoon and lowered the scope 6 clicks. I saw 5 deer and fired 3 rounds while they were running down a hill toward me and also as they were running away from me. I never got a single one that day.

I knew I hit one in the buttox but couldnt find it. No snow and no blood trail to go on. It got dark and there is no Sunday hunting here.

The following Friday afternoon, I went back to the same location and a friend of mine harvested the one shot in the buttox and I harvested one that had the lower part of it's left front leg blown off. I had shot low the week before, mainly in fustration and partly because I didn't have a nice steady bench to shoot off. They were running like h3ll..

Out of all the hunting rifles I own - 7, I picked the one for long range shooting to shoot less than 70 yards. Out of all the rifles I own, I used the one I trusted the most on the last day to fill the freezer.

 

[BIGR]

The cheaper scopes just can't take that recoil of some rifles. If it is dirt cheap you will get cheap performance out of it. There is no substitute for good optics that gather maximum light.

 

[Picknlittle]

Yes, the Nikon I wanted would probably have been fine had the store clerk left me to my choices instead of selling me on this piece of junk BSA (British Small Arms) scope. And yes, it was only slightly better than the box it came in. The scope was heavy enough to make a pretty good paper weight,..the box wasn't.

The scope came from Bass Pro Shops,...not Wallyworld.

Yes some folks have fair luck with cheap scopes on heavy recoil rifles, but most of them are better used on sub 30 cal. rifles. They just won't take the abuse. In time most will fail. You can put nearly anything on a 30-30, 270, 243 etc, and have a reasonable shot at surviving for a reasonable time if reasonably cared for. On the other hand,....even a blind hog finds an acorn from time to time. Sometimes ya gets lucky. I didn't.

I was at the time trying to get by cheap for a short time and got bit in the process. I wound up with a Leupold and went back to harvest three does, including the one I missed.

There is much to be said for the old addage "ya gets whatcha pay for".

The 30-06 and a 50 cal CVA were the first rifles I bought following a fairly long absence from hunting. The CVA actually has a BSA scope on it that is some five years old and works well on that gun. I have also bought and fallen head over heels fond of a 35 Whelen that shoots a 200 to 225 gr bullet like a 30-06 shoots a 165 gr bullet,...only better. Ain't no way the BSA would survive the Whelen. It currently has a higher end Bushnell on it, but will soon be sporting a new Leupold.

 

[marksman13]

Picknlittle, just curious as to why you are going with the Leupold over the Nikon? Not that either scope is bad. And they are about the same price. I've just noticed that my Nikon scopes seem to be much clearer than my Leupolds. May just be a bias on my part.

 

[pedaldude]

very good example,

and even $$$scopes can break or become unusable at last in the short term through various methods of poor handling.

Irons should still be available at least as an option IMO.

 

['Card]

Of course, there's an economic factor to consider here as well.

Even if, say for example, only 1 out of every 3 BSA scopes is any good, it still makes sense to use them - because I can buy 5 or 6 of them before I've matched the price of buying 1 Leupold.

 

[Picknlittle]

I haven't learned to use the "quote" box, but I'll try to respond from memory. My memory of written words sucks like a hoover on steriods!

I liked the Nikon glass the best. What spoked me was the Nikon warranty. It appeared the act of installing the scope by anyone other than an authorized Nikon repair center could void the warranty. Leupold's warranty seemed much clearer. It seems the clerk I was working with had witnessed Nikon's refusal to repair scopes based on this clause. I don't know if there's truth to it, but I didn't need the learning curve <G>. The Leupold is a Rifleman series which in the lower end of Leupold's line and was fifty dollars more than the Nikon. Time will tell if I chose wisely.

The only fault I find in the 1 in 3 scopes being good rational is that I learned of my bad scope with a very nice doe in the cross hairs, a good walk from the truck. even though I had shoot thru scope mounts, I had not verified that the iron sites were properly adjusted and reliable. I didn't want to risk wounding and not an animal to find out. Taking risky shots that don't offer some reasonable assurance of a clean kill is just plain foolish.

BTW,..... the three rifles I own not are the first scoped rifles I've ever owned. I can only speak from the lessons I've learned and the experiences my friends relay to me.

With iron sites I've always been comfortable to about 200 yds. Now with my newfound understanding of point blank sighting I feel very comfortable to 400 yds on stationary deer size critters,...wild dogs and ground hogs get a break after 300 <G> I'm 53,..my eyes ain't all that anymore <G>

 

[langenc]

Should investigate SWIFT--90 percent as good as Leopold at 50 percent the cost!!

 

[one-shot-one]

$0.02

not to say that i would never own a nikon, but given the choice of buying a product from a usa company that makes rifle scopes ( Leupold) or one from a japanese co. that makes cameras..............

 

[North Texan]

I have owned and had trouble with every brand of low-end optics I have purchased: Bushnell, Tasco, Simmons, and BSA.

My minimum now is a Nikon or Leupold. Haven't had problems with either, and both are worlds ahead as far as light transmission.

Of course, there's an economic factor to consider here as well.

Even if, say for example, only 1 out of every 3 BSA scopes is any good, it still makes sense to use them - because I can buy 5 or 6 of them before I've matched the price of buying 1 Leupold.

Theory might work O.K. if you shoot everything in broad daylight under ideal conditions. But the cheap scopes are just that: CHEAP, and they just don't perform well when facing bad weather or fading light. Like was said earlier, putting a $70 scope on a $500 gun makes your $500 gun perform like a $70 one.

 

[SUBMOAS]

one-shot-one

one-shot-one
"not to say that i would never own a nikon, but given the choice of buying a product from a usa company that makes rifle scopes ( Leupold) or one from a japanese co. that makes cameras.............."

Just curious, Do you think Leupold is made in the USA?

 

[marksman13]

Nikon is honestly the best mid grade scope I have ever owned. Leupold is pretty close, but the light transmission on the Nikon is much better. I own two Nikons and two Leupolds. A 40 millimeter and a 50 millimeter of each brand. I also like the Nikon reticles better. Other than that they are pretty much equal.

 

[B.D. Turner]

It had shoot thru mounts but no scope

So like why didn't you use the iron sights when you figured out something may be wrong with your scope?

 

[Picknlittle]

So like why didn't you use the iron sights when you figured out something may be wrong with your scope?

There are actually two answers,...
1. Since I was scoping the gun I didn't verify the iron sites. I'll concede that was a bad decision on my part, but I won't risk wounding an animal with an unsure shot (I fully expected a kill using the scope.

2. At the time I wasn't absolutely sure I'd missed, I just knew something wasn't right, so while obsessing over current circumstances I just didn't think of it. Had I thought of it, #1 would have applied anyway.

It's a moot point now. The Leupold mounts on the gun now are not shoot thru.