This scope?
- Thread starter Greell
- Start date
- Status
I've bought tons of cheaper optics-- so I'll comment.
While you can get an affordable lower-priced scope, when you get into the sub-$100 range, you get LESS than you pay for in many cases.
NcSTAR is pretty much one of the agreed upon worst choices for having a scope continually doing what it is designed to do: Keep a Zero.
I'm now in the camp of "Pay cheap & Pay Twice."
But there ARE good lower priced scopes out there. I put a Nikon Prostaff on my mother's Remington 700 not all that long ago, and am VERY impressed with the quality and lens quality.
That brings up another thing. The quality of the lens will be how much light it transmits. The first step is buying the best glass you can...the rest falls into line.
-- John
While you can get an affordable lower-priced scope, when you get into the sub-$100 range, you get LESS than you pay for in many cases.
NcSTAR is pretty much one of the agreed upon worst choices for having a scope continually doing what it is designed to do: Keep a Zero.
I'm now in the camp of "Pay cheap & Pay Twice."
But there ARE good lower priced scopes out there. I put a Nikon Prostaff on my mother's Remington 700 not all that long ago, and am VERY impressed with the quality and lens quality.
That brings up another thing. The quality of the lens will be how much light it transmits. The first step is buying the best glass you can...the rest falls into line.
-- John
rero360
Member
the cheapest scope that I've bought that I like is the super sniper 10 power fixed 40mm objective lens. so far I've only used it out to 100 meters with my AR, but i like the results so far. 300 bucks, not too bad
a few of the guys I deployed with had some NcStar scopes on their M4s, I think they had the fixed power models, I checked them out, not impressed, fine for something you don't care about getting broken when you toss it in the back of a truck, I think they all survived, the year but I could be wrong.
a few of the guys I deployed with had some NcStar scopes on their M4s, I think they had the fixed power models, I checked them out, not impressed, fine for something you don't care about getting broken when you toss it in the back of a truck, I think they all survived, the year but I could be wrong.
1200 meters
Member
Guys, I have a few scopes and they all do fine but I will once again state that the TASCO World Class 3x9 mil dot is one of the best I shoot. I have some that are more expensive But the TASCO has been shooting well for seven years on an 8MM Mauser with heavy loads. It has never lost Zero. I shoot out 800 meters with it. I also have a relatively inexpensive BSA on a 30-06 also shooting very well for 5 years. The TASCO cost less than $100 and the BSA was about $155. I've got 2 Leatherwood ARTs anM-600 and an M-1200 these have to be shot to be appreciated. They are the only External Ballistic Cammed ranging scopes in the world. Basically you zere at 300 meters and are able to shoot anything you range between 15 inch stadia lines and it's CROSSHAIRS on 300 to 1200 meters nothing else will do this. Blitz
HM2PAC
Member
I have an NcStar on my 10/22. It does great. I don't think I would put one on a centerfire of any sort though. I'm not inspired by the supplied information with numerous misspellings.
I personally prefer Swift scopes. I have one on a .444Marlin that has not lost zero in 10 years. My.30-06 has a Swift that looks beat to hades, but remains crystal clear and zeroed. My PTR-91 also has a new Swift that needs to be zeroed for the 1st time. They get labeled as a cheap scope, but they are anything but.
I personally prefer Swift scopes. I have one on a .444Marlin that has not lost zero in 10 years. My.30-06 has a Swift that looks beat to hades, but remains crystal clear and zeroed. My PTR-91 also has a new Swift that needs to be zeroed for the 1st time. They get labeled as a cheap scope, but they are anything but.
Any suggestions particularly for an ar-15?
basically it's a custom build, designed as a sniper rifle (don't give me the ar-15 sniper rifle speech please!)
just looking for a really good scope, decently priced that can go out 800 meters and can hold zero
basically it's a custom build, designed as a sniper rifle (don't give me the ar-15 sniper rifle speech please!)
just looking for a really good scope, decently priced that can go out 800 meters and can hold zero
W.E.G.
Member
Some of the cheap scopes are great (for the money).
Some truly suck.
How do you know which one you will get?
The one that rocks and the one that sucks look exactly alike.
$90 for a scope that takes a dump, and spoils your range trip is no bargain at all.
Some truly suck.
How do you know which one you will get?
The one that rocks and the one that sucks look exactly alike.
$90 for a scope that takes a dump, and spoils your range trip is no bargain at all.
rc109a
Member
I think you need to provide a piece of information that is missing. What price are you willing to pay? You can get some scopes at what some people might consider bargin prices, but these prices might be out of your budget. Give some more info and you will get a lot of great responses from these guys...
pretty much looking to spend upto about 500 dollars. I don't need it to be 100%...im not so experienced with long range rifles, so I want something I can learn to use (scope wise) and something that will consistently perform after I get use to seeing through a scope.
jonboynumba1
Member
Everything you need to know about optics buying-
My take...
I've been around the block a few times and owned a LOT of guns and a lot of glass. Most of it has been in the lower end to mid level with a few exceptions. My bosses stuff all has Leupold in the $400-800 range. I use pretty exclusively Nikon scopes. The prostaff line is "OK +" it doesn't look nearly as good as the buckmasters line. Fewer bells and whistles...it's like Nikons equivalent to Tasco "World Class or world class plus" which used to be decent scopes to years ago in the sub $200 range..about $89 for the 3-9x40 I put 1400+ rounds through my .30-06 with before it had any issues (dunno how they are today) Bushnell stuff...junk It's the line I see the most complete failures and regularly see failure to hold a zero. The B&L elite series 3200 and up -those where good. I believe they call them Bushnell now which seems kind of a shame to me. BSA stuff runs the gammit from decent to poorly designs junk and quallity control is a lot better these days but still not on par with the better scopes (like Nikon buckmaster and up) If you want something dirt cheap until you can buy a real scope that you can throw on a .22 later they are a decent econo scope...I personally wouldn't hunt with one but I've seen some rimfire guys that use em all the time with good results.
If you can buy a Nikon...prefferably a buckmasters 3-9x40 IMHO I've owned the monarch scopes...dang good but the buckmasters adjust and hold just as well with 95% of the optical quallity for about half the price. It's well worth the $40-60 more than the same scope in the prostaff line. I have a team realtree 3-9x50 that is essentially just a camo prostaff on my 7 mag It is "adequate" dusk to dawn. If it's light enough to see and ID a deer you can get the shot. It adjusts and holds precisely. It's alos less clear and bright than my 3-9x40 Buckmasters on my Rem700 .270 or a burris FF II for comparison. I bought it for $75 off a bud that used it a few hunting trips after I mounted it until he upgraded to $1200 glass on his browning...I wouldn't have paid asking prioce for it over a buckmasters but for $75 in the box with free leupold rings I couldn't pass it up so I used it. I REALLY like the buckmasters better...the crosshairs show up better and it's brighter and clearer with better contrast and color. I also like the re-zeroable compact turrets under the dust covers as I can setup a rangcard for a given rifle at various ranges. Very handy. The buckmasters and up adjust and "shoot the box" just as well as a leupold does (varX III is what I test against)
The monarch line in even better but quite a jump in price. The leupold VXIII is brighter and you get 5 minutes more for it. However unless you have the heavy duplex option you won't be seeing your crosshairs for those 5 minutes without a lot of luck. The nikon BM and monarch crosshairs seem easier to find at "dark:30" The color balance and contrast to me looks much better on the monarch than the VXIII line -They look like a Sony Trinitron TV vs. a magnavox or GE. The leupold looks like a trinitron with the brightness pegged on 98% and you get less natural color and contrast for it but sometimes it pays off...assuming you can see the crosshairs...the heavy duplex really does work better IMHO in that line. For the money I like the monarch better...but I'm not sure it's worth the increased price from a buckmaster unless you only own one rifle or this is for your "favorite rifle" in which case....
Zeis conqueest...
It's the best of the Leupold and Nikon Monarch attributes together in one scope. It has great natural color and contrast with amazing clarity (far better than either of the other two) AND is VERY bright but without looking "washed out" for it. For what they go for if I was going to spend more than $200-300 I'd DEFFINATELY save my pennies and buy a Zeis Conquest...over my favorite Nikons or any of the bosses expensive Leupold stuff (which is honestly medium quallity dependable optics when you cut through the name-brand hype...most high end European glass and some Japanese glass bests it by far and sometimes for the same or only a few hundred more depending where in the line you are shopping...sometimes less if you shop hard on some of the japanese stuff).
Summary- Nikon buckmasters and Burris fullfield II lines are the best bang for the buck in the $200-350 range (depending on the type of scope you are hunting for...a 3-9x40 runs you about $200 in either line with options available up from there to the moon. I like Nikons look better but the Burris is certainly a fine scope and several guys at the club preffer them in that price range. Don't spend less but don't spend more unless you buy a conquest. Nothing Leupold makes lower than the VXIII would be something I'd buy...some II's look better than others...some go back a few times others work 100% for decades. The III seems to be most Americans "gold standard" for quallity reliable optics. They are dang good scopes...I just don't personally think they represent a good bargain.
Everything I use right now or would buy this year including scopes & binocculars to range finders is Nikon. I've never had a failure or lost a shot opertunity that a variX III would have got me in the field. However the boss has traveled extensively with Leupold and can say the same...only failures he's had have been from damaged mounts (sad story on a hunt out west...took 9 shots to get his deer...not the one he was AIMING at but...LOL)
One thing I have learned from brother Larry who has spent tiome with some great hunters and great guides is if you are going to spend insane money on optics for hunting make it your binocculars My nikons are "OK" kinda like "Steiners ar OK" and Leupold stuff is "OK" you can count on all of them and they look way better than cheap stuff and have way better quallity throughout. Until you pickup a set of Swarovski's GOOD LORD!! I've sat on the powerlines at the club off seaon watching deer at 400-700 yards with them in my truck I couldn't even see in the steiners or Nikons and couldn't tell they were deer witha Leupold gold spotting scope! Larry's seen a LOT of deer and other animals he'd have NEVER picked out or seen without them. So my advice is buy buckmasters or a conquest and be done with it and start saving for REALLY good binocculars. Because THAT is where the big money nets you real rewards in the field.
Does size matter? 40mm....50mm....56mm??-
Generally a scope of the same quallity with a correctly designed and matched set of lenses in 50 will pass on more light at the small end than the same in 40mm. In reallity I don't generally see the net gain. Especially in sub $400 scopes. It's harder to get a high quallity lense as perfect as you want it in larger sizes...it takes more attempts and there is a higher reject rate...that is why it costs more to move up. A very good to excellent quallity scope is going to be plenty bright clear and balanced whether it's a 32mm or a 50mm. I like to mount a scope as low to the bore as possible. Truth be told a high quallity 2-7x32mm is probably all any deer hunter really needs. But I plink quite a bit and do some longer range jug shooting a few times a year...and while I'm not willing to lug around a heavier bulkier 4.5-14x40AO the other 98% of the time I do seem to like the classic 3-9x40mm just about beter than all other setups.
I like the fast focus eyepiece and I like compact turrets thet can be re-zeroed (I hate TALL varminter/wanna be sniper turets. Most of my rifles hunt 3-4 months of the year. If I shot rodents all day I might like the latter...just not my thing...for yotes my deer rifles do just as well...no need for a crazy 12-15 pound beanfield rifle IMHO. I've also noticed not all Nikon or Burris scopes are created equal reguardless of size but especially in 50mm. If you look through half a dozen you will almost always see one that just doesn't look "quite as good" and one or two that seem to be "better somehow". It pays to hand-pick in this price range. That can make more difference by far than 40mm vs. 50mm I started noticing this a few years agon when our pre hunting season scope shipments came in. It pays to pick the beter ones as floor models (so I can buy them cheap at the end of season when it's the last one left...I mean to help me sell more scopes!-LOL) Seriously though...not a HUGE difference but a noticable one...A/B enough and you'll see it. Once you get to fine European optics they just all kick butt...at that price they dang well ought to though.
As Forrest Gump would say....that's all I have to say about that!
My take...
I've been around the block a few times and owned a LOT of guns and a lot of glass. Most of it has been in the lower end to mid level with a few exceptions. My bosses stuff all has Leupold in the $400-800 range. I use pretty exclusively Nikon scopes. The prostaff line is "OK +" it doesn't look nearly as good as the buckmasters line. Fewer bells and whistles...it's like Nikons equivalent to Tasco "World Class or world class plus" which used to be decent scopes to years ago in the sub $200 range..about $89 for the 3-9x40 I put 1400+ rounds through my .30-06 with before it had any issues (dunno how they are today) Bushnell stuff...junk It's the line I see the most complete failures and regularly see failure to hold a zero. The B&L elite series 3200 and up -those where good. I believe they call them Bushnell now which seems kind of a shame to me. BSA stuff runs the gammit from decent to poorly designs junk and quallity control is a lot better these days but still not on par with the better scopes (like Nikon buckmaster and up) If you want something dirt cheap until you can buy a real scope that you can throw on a .22 later they are a decent econo scope...I personally wouldn't hunt with one but I've seen some rimfire guys that use em all the time with good results.
If you can buy a Nikon...prefferably a buckmasters 3-9x40 IMHO I've owned the monarch scopes...dang good but the buckmasters adjust and hold just as well with 95% of the optical quallity for about half the price. It's well worth the $40-60 more than the same scope in the prostaff line. I have a team realtree 3-9x50 that is essentially just a camo prostaff on my 7 mag It is "adequate" dusk to dawn. If it's light enough to see and ID a deer you can get the shot. It adjusts and holds precisely. It's alos less clear and bright than my 3-9x40 Buckmasters on my Rem700 .270 or a burris FF II for comparison. I bought it for $75 off a bud that used it a few hunting trips after I mounted it until he upgraded to $1200 glass on his browning...I wouldn't have paid asking prioce for it over a buckmasters but for $75 in the box with free leupold rings I couldn't pass it up so I used it. I REALLY like the buckmasters better...the crosshairs show up better and it's brighter and clearer with better contrast and color. I also like the re-zeroable compact turrets under the dust covers as I can setup a rangcard for a given rifle at various ranges. Very handy. The buckmasters and up adjust and "shoot the box" just as well as a leupold does (varX III is what I test against)
The monarch line in even better but quite a jump in price. The leupold VXIII is brighter and you get 5 minutes more for it. However unless you have the heavy duplex option you won't be seeing your crosshairs for those 5 minutes without a lot of luck. The nikon BM and monarch crosshairs seem easier to find at "dark:30" The color balance and contrast to me looks much better on the monarch than the VXIII line -They look like a Sony Trinitron TV vs. a magnavox or GE. The leupold looks like a trinitron with the brightness pegged on 98% and you get less natural color and contrast for it but sometimes it pays off...assuming you can see the crosshairs...the heavy duplex really does work better IMHO in that line. For the money I like the monarch better...but I'm not sure it's worth the increased price from a buckmaster unless you only own one rifle or this is for your "favorite rifle" in which case....
Zeis conqueest...
It's the best of the Leupold and Nikon Monarch attributes together in one scope. It has great natural color and contrast with amazing clarity (far better than either of the other two) AND is VERY bright but without looking "washed out" for it. For what they go for if I was going to spend more than $200-300 I'd DEFFINATELY save my pennies and buy a Zeis Conquest...over my favorite Nikons or any of the bosses expensive Leupold stuff (which is honestly medium quallity dependable optics when you cut through the name-brand hype...most high end European glass and some Japanese glass bests it by far and sometimes for the same or only a few hundred more depending where in the line you are shopping...sometimes less if you shop hard on some of the japanese stuff).
Summary- Nikon buckmasters and Burris fullfield II lines are the best bang for the buck in the $200-350 range (depending on the type of scope you are hunting for...a 3-9x40 runs you about $200 in either line with options available up from there to the moon. I like Nikons look better but the Burris is certainly a fine scope and several guys at the club preffer them in that price range. Don't spend less but don't spend more unless you buy a conquest. Nothing Leupold makes lower than the VXIII would be something I'd buy...some II's look better than others...some go back a few times others work 100% for decades. The III seems to be most Americans "gold standard" for quallity reliable optics. They are dang good scopes...I just don't personally think they represent a good bargain.
Everything I use right now or would buy this year including scopes & binocculars to range finders is Nikon. I've never had a failure or lost a shot opertunity that a variX III would have got me in the field. However the boss has traveled extensively with Leupold and can say the same...only failures he's had have been from damaged mounts (sad story on a hunt out west...took 9 shots to get his deer...not the one he was AIMING at but...LOL)
One thing I have learned from brother Larry who has spent tiome with some great hunters and great guides is if you are going to spend insane money on optics for hunting make it your binocculars My nikons are "OK" kinda like "Steiners ar OK" and Leupold stuff is "OK" you can count on all of them and they look way better than cheap stuff and have way better quallity throughout. Until you pickup a set of Swarovski's GOOD LORD!! I've sat on the powerlines at the club off seaon watching deer at 400-700 yards with them in my truck I couldn't even see in the steiners or Nikons and couldn't tell they were deer witha Leupold gold spotting scope! Larry's seen a LOT of deer and other animals he'd have NEVER picked out or seen without them. So my advice is buy buckmasters or a conquest and be done with it and start saving for REALLY good binocculars. Because THAT is where the big money nets you real rewards in the field.
Does size matter? 40mm....50mm....56mm??-
Generally a scope of the same quallity with a correctly designed and matched set of lenses in 50 will pass on more light at the small end than the same in 40mm. In reallity I don't generally see the net gain. Especially in sub $400 scopes. It's harder to get a high quallity lense as perfect as you want it in larger sizes...it takes more attempts and there is a higher reject rate...that is why it costs more to move up. A very good to excellent quallity scope is going to be plenty bright clear and balanced whether it's a 32mm or a 50mm. I like to mount a scope as low to the bore as possible. Truth be told a high quallity 2-7x32mm is probably all any deer hunter really needs. But I plink quite a bit and do some longer range jug shooting a few times a year...and while I'm not willing to lug around a heavier bulkier 4.5-14x40AO the other 98% of the time I do seem to like the classic 3-9x40mm just about beter than all other setups.
I like the fast focus eyepiece and I like compact turrets thet can be re-zeroed (I hate TALL varminter/wanna be sniper turets. Most of my rifles hunt 3-4 months of the year. If I shot rodents all day I might like the latter...just not my thing...for yotes my deer rifles do just as well...no need for a crazy 12-15 pound beanfield rifle IMHO. I've also noticed not all Nikon or Burris scopes are created equal reguardless of size but especially in 50mm. If you look through half a dozen you will almost always see one that just doesn't look "quite as good" and one or two that seem to be "better somehow". It pays to hand-pick in this price range. That can make more difference by far than 40mm vs. 50mm I started noticing this a few years agon when our pre hunting season scope shipments came in. It pays to pick the beter ones as floor models (so I can buy them cheap at the end of season when it's the last one left...I mean to help me sell more scopes!-LOL) Seriously though...not a HUGE difference but a noticable one...A/B enough and you'll see it. Once you get to fine European optics they just all kick butt...at that price they dang well ought to though.
As Forrest Gump would say....that's all I have to say about that!
Last edited:
MIL-DOT
member
Very interesting & informative post from jonboy, so i'm just throwing this into the mix. I'm no scope guru,by any means, but back when i was intently researching scopes for my new Rem. 700 PSS ( and ended up with a Leupold MK IV PR 4.5x14 mil-dot ) one that really caught my eye was the Bushnell Elite 3200 10X mil-dot. If i was scoping a rifle on any kind of budget at all, this is what i'd be looking hard at. From what i read, bushnells elite line is actually a left-over of the more highly regarded Bausch & Lomb stuff that Bushnell bought out.I never did find a bad word about this scope, and lots of knowledgable folks, on several forums, said it was one of the best bangs for the buck. Again, i don't know from nuthin', but if i buy another scope, it'll likely be one of these. Here's a link,at a decent price, but i'm not familiar with this operation......
http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=80479
http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=80479
gotta give a thumbs up to the bushnell elite 3200.
put one on my rem 7600 '06 hunting rifle a while back.
dropped it from 4' onto a concrete floor. watched it hit the ground right on the scope. crushed teh top turret cover and put a little ding in the ao bell. after it hit, the gun bounced off the concrete and cane down again on the front site. broke it right off.
it hit hard. i was pissed. expected my season to be over.
tried it out- right on, no change in zero, no fogging, no problems!!
i was truly impressed!!
put one on my rem 7600 '06 hunting rifle a while back.
dropped it from 4' onto a concrete floor. watched it hit the ground right on the scope. crushed teh top turret cover and put a little ding in the ao bell. after it hit, the gun bounced off the concrete and cane down again on the front site. broke it right off.
it hit hard. i was pissed. expected my season to be over.
tried it out- right on, no change in zero, no fogging, no problems!!
i was truly impressed!!
geronimo13
Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 38
I've got a keltec su16 so kind of like an ar15. The guys at the ktog (keltec owners) site have had bad luck with some (not all) nc stars. I have a Mueller 8x25X-44mm objective scope with mil dots that I like a lot. Had it 3 years now problem free, put 2500 rounds of .223 with it on. I think high power is way overkill for the .223 but I don't need a spotting scope as I can see .223 holes in white computer paper out at 200 yards easily begining at 15 power. The glass is very clear and has parralax adjustment, and eye objective adjustment. I bought it at http://www.muelleroptics.com/products/MT852544.html or ea brown's . It is $180. It is a bit heavy for my ultra light 4 lb. gun but the clarity is all there if you want to see clearly. I've heard good things about bushnell 3200's, nikons and swifts also.
gbran
Member
I generally spend $200-$400 for scopes. I can see a real difference in quality between a $100 scope and a $300 scope, but I've yet to see how a $800+ scope is all thet better than a $300 scope. Just My Humble Opinion.
To a large degree I think you get what you pay for in scopes. For $500 you can get a pretty darn nice scope. I've had several different kinds. Leupold is perhaps not the best of the best but they are rock solid. Recently I took a chance and bought Millett tactical type. 4 to 16 power, side focus, 56 mm objective with mil-dot reticle. Very nice looking scope. I put it on my national match M1A. I've shot a few hundred rds. using it. At my range we hang a gong (top 18 inches of an actylene tank) hung by chain at 600 yrds. With the Millett scope one day I hit the gong 14 times consecutively and 24 out of 27 tries. So far I'm pleased with it. It's a $300 scope. Down side I think it's made in China. I may not have bought it if I knew that before my purchase.
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/7387/img2932hv8.jpg
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/7387/img2932hv8.jpg
Don't Tread On Me
Member
I've had every brand of cheap scope.
I can say that the absolute best "cheap" scope is the Nikon Prostaff 4x. For $99, it has excellent optical quality. After that, some Simmons are decent, and there is Weaver.
Of the sub-$80 scopes, they are all junk. Better to shoot irons. Really. They are grainy and blurry, and you are better off with irons.
I've had midrange stuff too. Now I just go higher mid-range, low-high range (if that makes sense). Not S&B or Swarofsky, but decent stuff. You do get what you pay for.
There are a few good price/performance scopes out there.
I believe Midway has a Nikon Monarch fixed 4x for $225. That is very good glass, bright scope for dirt cheap. You will not beat the optical quality at that price.
You can find Burris Fullfield's in the $130-$170 range. Some models are new in the $170, but you can get a barely used or never mounted 3-9x for $140. These are good.
It is true, you have to spend more and more for smaller increases in quality. BUT, a $1,600 Zeiss IS ABSOLUTELY better than a $500 Leupold. You can see a difference. So don't take that to mean that a lower priced scope is just a few % points worse than a high end scope. I have experience with the high dollar stuff, and it is indeed better.
I can say that the absolute best "cheap" scope is the Nikon Prostaff 4x. For $99, it has excellent optical quality. After that, some Simmons are decent, and there is Weaver.
Of the sub-$80 scopes, they are all junk. Better to shoot irons. Really. They are grainy and blurry, and you are better off with irons.
I've had midrange stuff too. Now I just go higher mid-range, low-high range (if that makes sense). Not S&B or Swarofsky, but decent stuff. You do get what you pay for.
There are a few good price/performance scopes out there.
I believe Midway has a Nikon Monarch fixed 4x for $225. That is very good glass, bright scope for dirt cheap. You will not beat the optical quality at that price.
You can find Burris Fullfield's in the $130-$170 range. Some models are new in the $170, but you can get a barely used or never mounted 3-9x for $140. These are good.
It is true, you have to spend more and more for smaller increases in quality. BUT, a $1,600 Zeiss IS ABSOLUTELY better than a $500 Leupold. You can see a difference. So don't take that to mean that a lower priced scope is just a few % points worse than a high end scope. I have experience with the high dollar stuff, and it is indeed better.
rc109a
Member
I have not invested in the higher end scopes. I have shot rifles with them though. I did notice that the higher end scopes did not help me shoot any better on paper then the lower ones. My ranges only went to 300 yards. I have bought burris for the last few years (I now have 4 of them)and have taken one to South America and tried it on my issued weapon just for the heck of it. It was a Burris Signature 4x16. It handled the jungles down there just fine. I have never had one malfuntion or have to be sent in for repairs. The Signature scope did a 180 day tour down there and it still is a great shooter. The only thing I had to do was repaint it a few times since I dropped in the river bottem. It still held its zero and never fogged. Do I like the more expensive ones, heck yes. They are great and if I had the money I would love to have one. Will it help me shoot better? Probably not. I have to agree that the binoculars in the higher price range were more helpful and I would never skimp on that. Good luck in what ever you buy...
rangerruck
Member
... NC star??? RUNNNNNNNNNNNNNN............
TRULY they epitomize anyone that has ever said, " cheap chinese junk"...
TRULY they epitomize anyone that has ever said, " cheap chinese junk"...
- Status