why are Swarovski Riflescopes so expensive?
- Thread starter noob_shooter
- Start date
- Status
i haven't looked through many models of the high end euroglass at kids dressed in camo. i have seen where absolutely true color rendition does help, but only somewhat, for that. it will be of little benefit if they chose their colors/cover/backdrop well.
luckily, game animals don't wear TRUE camo. but after living in alaska for 14 years, i can tell you they can be VERY hard to see at certain times of the year.
still, even dirt cheap optix will find your target, if it moves. same is ~usually~ how a target that isn't a white sheet of paper with a black circle in it is located.
i fail to see where true color capable optix would benefit people who shoot at night.
all that said, the last scope i bought runs near 2K these days, so i'm not a big name basher. or a big name dropper. i do think that joe average would spend his hard earned american inflationary notes more wisely on ammo. that way he will be able to hit the targets he sees with whatever glass he puts on top.
for those who feel the need for top notch optix, if the heart is willing, and the bank account is strong, GO FOR IT!!
gunnie
luckily, game animals don't wear TRUE camo. but after living in alaska for 14 years, i can tell you they can be VERY hard to see at certain times of the year.
still, even dirt cheap optix will find your target, if it moves. same is ~usually~ how a target that isn't a white sheet of paper with a black circle in it is located.
i fail to see where true color capable optix would benefit people who shoot at night.
all that said, the last scope i bought runs near 2K these days, so i'm not a big name basher. or a big name dropper. i do think that joe average would spend his hard earned american inflationary notes more wisely on ammo. that way he will be able to hit the targets he sees with whatever glass he puts on top.
for those who feel the need for top notch optix, if the heart is willing, and the bank account is strong, GO FOR IT!!
gunnie
Swarovski uses Ziess lens technology and in some cases, actual Ziess lenses.
Their lens manufacture equipment is Ziess patented hardware from Ziess, so that's going to drive the price WAY up...
Ziess isn't going to let some company undercut it's prices.
Another thing is Swarovski is in a country that has to pay full price for labor, fuel, ect,
There is no artificial fuel pricing... The Swiss government isn't subsidizing the energy companies there with tax dollars like they are here.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I have, or have had, Ziess, Swarovski, Leica, ect. optics down through the years
(Sights, Binoculars, Range Finders, Spotting scopes, Camera Lenses)
And they ARE top notch pieces! No If's And's Or's or Butt's about it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I buy from THIS SIDE of the big blue waters...
If you go to a long range shoot sometime, and see what the TOP COMPETITORS are using,
(no the guys that are always out on the first round or two)
You will find about a 50/50 mix,
50% Leupold,
50% 'Other Stuff', including Euro, Japan, stuff like Burris, Springfield Armory, Night Force and a dozen other USA brands....
Even the guys with factory optics sponsors will often run a Leupold and stick someone else's stickers to the rifle/optic!
-------------------------------------------------------------
By far and away, if you are on the AMERICAN CONTINENT,
The best deal in optics is from Leupold.
I've used Leupold optics for everything from handguns to .50 BMG rifles,
From shooting grasshoppers in the 'Back 40' with air guns to military combat, to 100 yard & long range (1,000+) paper punching, and I've NEVER been let down by Leupold...
--------------------------------------------------------------
One reason I'm REAL into USA made optics...
If you take a look at all those 'Euro' and 'Japan' makers,
You will QUICKLY find out two things,
1. It's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to get warranty work done in under 6 months, and that's if the company even exists anymore!
And unless your rifle hangs in a rack somewhere, eventually the adjustments are going to malfunction, gas seals let go and fog things up, ect... It's just a matter of time with ALL optics!
And Leupold has been in the same place longer than I've been on the planet, and I've NEVER had one second of 'Static' from them.
The lifetime warranty STANDS no matter what the 'Issue' is!
2. I shoot YARDS, My bullet drops in INCHES...
Virtually ALL the Euro/Japan optics, range finders, ect. are set up in METERS, not YARDS!
------------------------------------------------------------------
The ONLY thing I like about European optics is...
The mounts they USED to use.
The windage and elevation was adjusted into the MOUNT,
You could swap the optic from rifle to rifle, mount to mount and not have to change zero since the 'Zero' wasn't internal in the optic...
I like the idea of only having to buy two or three optics, and move them around on different rifles for different types of shooting!
They don't even do THAT much anymore!
Their lens manufacture equipment is Ziess patented hardware from Ziess, so that's going to drive the price WAY up...
Ziess isn't going to let some company undercut it's prices.
Another thing is Swarovski is in a country that has to pay full price for labor, fuel, ect,
There is no artificial fuel pricing... The Swiss government isn't subsidizing the energy companies there with tax dollars like they are here.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I have, or have had, Ziess, Swarovski, Leica, ect. optics down through the years
(Sights, Binoculars, Range Finders, Spotting scopes, Camera Lenses)
And they ARE top notch pieces! No If's And's Or's or Butt's about it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I buy from THIS SIDE of the big blue waters...
If you go to a long range shoot sometime, and see what the TOP COMPETITORS are using,
(no the guys that are always out on the first round or two)
You will find about a 50/50 mix,
50% Leupold,
50% 'Other Stuff', including Euro, Japan, stuff like Burris, Springfield Armory, Night Force and a dozen other USA brands....
Even the guys with factory optics sponsors will often run a Leupold and stick someone else's stickers to the rifle/optic!
-------------------------------------------------------------
By far and away, if you are on the AMERICAN CONTINENT,
The best deal in optics is from Leupold.
I've used Leupold optics for everything from handguns to .50 BMG rifles,
From shooting grasshoppers in the 'Back 40' with air guns to military combat, to 100 yard & long range (1,000+) paper punching, and I've NEVER been let down by Leupold...
--------------------------------------------------------------
One reason I'm REAL into USA made optics...
If you take a look at all those 'Euro' and 'Japan' makers,
You will QUICKLY find out two things,
1. It's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to get warranty work done in under 6 months, and that's if the company even exists anymore!
And unless your rifle hangs in a rack somewhere, eventually the adjustments are going to malfunction, gas seals let go and fog things up, ect... It's just a matter of time with ALL optics!
And Leupold has been in the same place longer than I've been on the planet, and I've NEVER had one second of 'Static' from them.
The lifetime warranty STANDS no matter what the 'Issue' is!
2. I shoot YARDS, My bullet drops in INCHES...
Virtually ALL the Euro/Japan optics, range finders, ect. are set up in METERS, not YARDS!
------------------------------------------------------------------
The ONLY thing I like about European optics is...
The mounts they USED to use.
The windage and elevation was adjusted into the MOUNT,
You could swap the optic from rifle to rifle, mount to mount and not have to change zero since the 'Zero' wasn't internal in the optic...
I like the idea of only having to buy two or three optics, and move them around on different rifles for different types of shooting!
They don't even do THAT much anymore!
.38 Special
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 7,388
Well, ArmedBear and others basically answered the question: a lot of it is simply the fact that you have to pay Austrians a lot more than you have to pay most other folks.
There is also the fact that a lot of shooters equate Swarovski and other Euro scopes to diamonds mounted in platinum and are willing to pay for the name. The argument that they are head and shoulders above top scopes from other parts of the world is pure bunkum. IMO one of the ways you can tell when folks have drunk the Kool-Aid is when you hear things like "I looked through it and could see forever!" The basic fact is that it takes sophisticated equipment to tell the difference between top scopes from around the world. At the very least, a demanding test like trying to read labels located in some dark corner of the shop may begin to show some mild differences, but even that can involve some guesswork. Anyone looking out the window at a stop sign across the street, in broad daylight, and thinking he is seeing a difference is kidding himself. He's already read the price tag, so he "knows" he's seeing better.
The bottom line is that independent testing -- including testing done by European optics labs -- shows that top Leupold scopes are essentially in the same class as top Euro scopes. It may indeed be that the very best Swarovski has slightly better color rendition than the best Leupold, but as others have pointed out, so what? It's an aiming device. Your seeing device is hanging around your neck, and so is probably where you should have spent that two grand. By the time the price tag on the scope has gotten to $500, you've already got clear optics, perfect reliability, and repeatable adjustments. Spend the rest on your binocular, if you ask me.
There is also the fact that a lot of shooters equate Swarovski and other Euro scopes to diamonds mounted in platinum and are willing to pay for the name. The argument that they are head and shoulders above top scopes from other parts of the world is pure bunkum. IMO one of the ways you can tell when folks have drunk the Kool-Aid is when you hear things like "I looked through it and could see forever!" The basic fact is that it takes sophisticated equipment to tell the difference between top scopes from around the world. At the very least, a demanding test like trying to read labels located in some dark corner of the shop may begin to show some mild differences, but even that can involve some guesswork. Anyone looking out the window at a stop sign across the street, in broad daylight, and thinking he is seeing a difference is kidding himself. He's already read the price tag, so he "knows" he's seeing better.
The bottom line is that independent testing -- including testing done by European optics labs -- shows that top Leupold scopes are essentially in the same class as top Euro scopes. It may indeed be that the very best Swarovski has slightly better color rendition than the best Leupold, but as others have pointed out, so what? It's an aiming device. Your seeing device is hanging around your neck, and so is probably where you should have spent that two grand. By the time the price tag on the scope has gotten to $500, you've already got clear optics, perfect reliability, and repeatable adjustments. Spend the rest on your binocular, if you ask me.
Rembrandt
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2003
- Messages
- 4,657
Lot of self proclaimed optic experts here that have no experience in owning a Swarovski....their skill seems limited to reading price tags. Stick to reading price tags and leave the finer optics to those who appreciate them.
Try fox hunting during the winter with your budget glass....pelts will look dull brown compared to the brilliant red color viewed from a Swarovski. Color and clarity are second to none.
Try fox hunting during the winter with your budget glass....pelts will look dull brown compared to the brilliant red color viewed from a Swarovski. Color and clarity are second to none.
MCgunner
Member
That's the answer that makes the most sense to me, actually.
But then, Swarovski ain't squat. Junk. If it ain't Schmidt and Bender, it's crap. And, if I was Bill Gates, I would have one! BWAAAAAA, ha, ha, ha!
Optics? I don't need no stinkin' optics, anyway! By GAWD Jim Bridger didn't use no dayumed scope!
They're in the same price class, too.
I have been in one situation where Swarovski color rendition mattered. And it made a HUGE difference.
However, these were binoculars. I suspect that the best "bang for the buck" would be a mid-range, quality scope, and a set of really good binos.
The riflescope is for aiming at what you have already seen.
I'm tempted to spend the money, if I should have it again, on Swarovski binoculars. Real-world use made a believer out of me. A set of $1200 binos will be put to a LOT of good use. A $500 riflescope should be plenty to back them up (and with a bit of willingness to look around and look through some, one can find a surprisingly good scope for $200-250) I was shooting with a Burris yesterday and it was MUCH clearer than the air I was looking through at 300 yards when the sun came out and warmed up the dirt a little. I never noticed any distortion, lack of clarity, dim image, eyestrain or any such thing, and I do notice the small details in life.
I'm not sure that a hunting riflescope needs the same optical quality as binos for "glassing". 98% as good is probably good enough.
But that's an economic decision; 100% is still better than 98%. What's it worth to you?
.38 Special
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 7,388
Really? I haven't seen anyone here proclaim themselves "experts". Some of us have done quite a bit of reading on the subject, though (not to mention a great deal of open-minded experimentation) and understand that when optics testing equipment -- manyfold more sensitive than the human eye -- can't tell a difference between a Swarovski and a Leupold, there isn't a difference between a Swarovski and a Leupold.
If you're really interested in the truth you will invest some time performing double blind studies with various scopes. Much like the wine label snobs who have done the same thing with their booze, you may be in for a rude surprise.
I agree that they are second to none. But they're no better than several others, and the whole thing still begs the point: as long as your scope allows you to see your aiming point, you will soon be viewing that pelt through the optical equipment you were born with. The slight -- and almost certainly imaginary -- improvement in color rendition (over other top scopes, not the "budget" scope the Euro snobs are always bringing up) made no difference whatsoever.
FWIW, I have nothing against Swarovski or any of the other top European names. They are as good as any scopes on the planet, and if they are worth the money to a particular individual, then fantastic. I just take issue with the folks who walk around with their noses in the air because they dropped a couple of grand on a fancy name.
MCgunner
Member
Well, when you can't see any farther than 200 yards, what do BINOS matter? All depends on how you're hunting and the terrain. Heck, I'm going to probably spend most of next season with my iron sighted Hawken .50 with a 385 grain Hornady great plains Minie stuffed in it. I'm getting tired of cheating with my .308/Weaver...yes...I said WEAVER scope. Take that, you optics snobs!!!! Scoped rifles are just too easy. It's CHEATING, I tell you.
Yeah, I'm getting better with my Hoyt, too.
Scoped rifles are just too easy. It's CHEATING, I tell you.Yeah, I'm getting better with my Hoyt, too.
.38 Special
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 7,388
Well, with all due respect, I'm going to trust the independent professional optics testing labs over your reports of foxes in wintertime.
dubbleA
Member
That's funny, I have had many people, that after comparing and actually using Leupold and Swarosvski 's head to head in a hunting situation beg to differ. Most feel they have wasted their money on the Loopy's.:banghead: It's out in the real world, not in a store, not in a magazine, not in a thread on the net that higher end glass shines
.....pun intened 
Actually, if you get right down to it, no matter WHO screwed the optic together,
It's limited by the optical glass used,
It's clarity and ability to transmit the spectrum of light through the lenses.
And I also argee, when you have gone beyond the limits of the HUMAN EYE to identify any differences,
Then the point is MOOT...
And now the point is MOOT, because about anyone can purchase optical glass lenses in about any size, style, grind configuration since CNC machining has taken the 'Glass Smith' out of the loop,
Seeing as how the US, Japan, and virtually ALL industrialized countries can produce optical glass that will transmit more than the human eye can process...
Just a few years ago,
Nikon really knocked the optics world on it's butt!
They had GREAT lenses, just as good as Ziess, but manufactured MUCH CHEAPER...
Then Leupold pioneered the coatings that would transmit full color though the lenses...
Leupold, being Leupold, released it to Ziess for MEDICAL EQUIPMENT for cheap so it would benefit the world,
(Ziess makes a large portion of the worlds medical optics),
But Ziess actually released the process to the world, so it wasn't long until Japan had gun sight optics that could/would rival Ziess in all ways...
Leupold still makes the best optics I've ever used,
Bar none.
I sit next to guys shooting just as well as I do using Burris, Nikon, Unertl, Shmidt & Bender, Ziess, Swarovski, ect...
When they make 'Eyeball, Mk 2.0' so I don't have to use eyes that have seen chemical damage, foreign object damage, ultraviolet and white light damage, ect,
And I can get them so they aren't 50 years old,
Then I'll worry about buying 'Euro' optics or whatever...
It's limited by the optical glass used,
It's clarity and ability to transmit the spectrum of light through the lenses.
And I also argee, when you have gone beyond the limits of the HUMAN EYE to identify any differences,
Then the point is MOOT...
And now the point is MOOT, because about anyone can purchase optical glass lenses in about any size, style, grind configuration since CNC machining has taken the 'Glass Smith' out of the loop,
Seeing as how the US, Japan, and virtually ALL industrialized countries can produce optical glass that will transmit more than the human eye can process...
Just a few years ago,
Nikon really knocked the optics world on it's butt!
They had GREAT lenses, just as good as Ziess, but manufactured MUCH CHEAPER...
Then Leupold pioneered the coatings that would transmit full color though the lenses...
Leupold, being Leupold, released it to Ziess for MEDICAL EQUIPMENT for cheap so it would benefit the world,
(Ziess makes a large portion of the worlds medical optics),
But Ziess actually released the process to the world, so it wasn't long until Japan had gun sight optics that could/would rival Ziess in all ways...
Leupold still makes the best optics I've ever used,
Bar none.
I sit next to guys shooting just as well as I do using Burris, Nikon, Unertl, Shmidt & Bender, Ziess, Swarovski, ect...
When they make 'Eyeball, Mk 2.0' so I don't have to use eyes that have seen chemical damage, foreign object damage, ultraviolet and white light damage, ect,
And I can get them so they aren't 50 years old,
Then I'll worry about buying 'Euro' optics or whatever...
Rembrandt
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2003
- Messages
- 4,657
TeamRush said:
Correct me if I'm reading your comment wrong.....If your premise is that all scopes are equal, and equipment makes no difference. What about poor shooters with good equipment-vs- good shooters with poor equipment?
To equate your results with shooters using more expensive glass is a false conclusion.
Absolutely true.
These guys are often first spotted a LONG distance away.
These guys can disappear at 50 yards.
Both live in Idaho.
Like I said, though, I'm happy with my Burris riflescope. Doesn't mean I can't tell the difference; I just like the price/performance of the thing.
.38 Special
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 7,388
Most people I know -- even strangers I have seen in the gun store -- look through a high dollar European scope and make noises like "OhMyGod, it's AMAZING!!!". But I once had a friend who owned a gun shop wrap a half dozen scopes -- including Swarovski, Zeiss, Leupold, Nikon, and Tasco -- in newspaper, so that we could test them "blind". None of us could tell the difference between any of them except the Tasco, which had some pretty severe chromatic aberration, in bright light. Setting up a contrast resolution page in a dark corner of the shop actually showed the Zeiss wasn't quite as good as the Swaro, Nikon, and Leupold, but it was very close, and not fair because the Zeiss had several millimeters less objective diameter than the rest. Looking at anything but the test pattern again rendered all but the Tasco equivalent, as far as we could see.
We even encouraged some customers to try, and they all gave us the same reports. Yet later in the day, when we unwrapped all the scopes, the customers again reported "OMG!!!" when they looked through the Euro scopes.
That, more than anything else, convinced me that the name and the price tag make a lot more difference to folks than do the actual optics. I know that's not going to convince the Kool-Aid drinkers, but whatever...
Harve Curry
Member
why are Swarovski Riflescopes so expensive?
I don't think the O.P question is fully answered yet.
If I may, I have a few questions:
1). How are reticles etched vs others?
2). How are adjustments made vs others?
3). I have noticed that Lieca has true color side by side compared to Swarovski. Why is that?
4). Near dark the outside edges of the lenses are clear on Swarovski, Leica, Ziess, but not on most others I've been able to look through.
Why is that, what is done differently?
5). What makes a scope change point of impact when you adjust the magnification power? Does that happen on high dollar scopes?
I don't think the O.P question is fully answered yet.
If I may, I have a few questions:
1). How are reticles etched vs others?
2). How are adjustments made vs others?
3). I have noticed that Lieca has true color side by side compared to Swarovski. Why is that?
4). Near dark the outside edges of the lenses are clear on Swarovski, Leica, Ziess, but not on most others I've been able to look through.
Why is that, what is done differently?
5). What makes a scope change point of impact when you adjust the magnification power? Does that happen on high dollar scopes?
federalfarmer
Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2008
- Messages
- 312
TeamRush if you can look thrue them side by side and NOT see a difference you may not be safe to be near at the range! And NO Zeiss does not make any Swarovski glass. I am one of the top salesman in the country for sport optics and my company just dropped Zeiss because they have fallen so far behind we don't sell enough to stock them.
Todd1700
Member
That is funny as hell and like most good comedy also true.
Amen. This is what I was talking about when I posed the question about what a 2000 dollar scope can do for me that a 500 dollar one cannot. All I'm hearing is that the color quality is better? Seriously? 1500 more for that? I'm not taking photographs for National Geographic. I'm just using a scope as an aiming device.
"Hey Todd you kill that big buck that you were after?" "Naa, had him my crosshairs but....." "But what" "Well something about the color of his hide just seemed wrong." " Looked more reddish brown than amber brown." "Distracted me so badly I just couldn't even take the shot."
Tune in next week for more of Todd1700's "Stuff That Never Happened in Real Life Theater"
Last edited:
noob_shooter
member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 348
thanks for all the awesome inputs. I'm a noob who has never touched a scope quality pass barska and tasco. But anyways, I'm sure those Swarovski scopes are just as good as Leupolds, Zeiss, and Nikon and not all that better... I feel they only cost that much because most people think more $$$ = better quality. While that may be true in most cases, I'm sure if no one was willing to shell out $1500+ for a Swarovski scope, it will come down in price..
The customers are the ultimate decision makers as to how much something should cost. the MSRP could be $2000, but if no one buys it, it ain't worth $2000.
A lambo Gallardo = $150K range and a Corvette C6 Z06 = $70k range. Is a Lambo Gallardo that much better? No..i know for sure a c6 z06 is faster
The customers are the ultimate decision makers as to how much something should cost. the MSRP could be $2000, but if no one buys it, it ain't worth $2000.
A lambo Gallardo = $150K range and a Corvette C6 Z06 = $70k range. Is a Lambo Gallardo that much better? No..i know for sure a c6 z06 is faster
noob_shooter
member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 348
since we're talking about scopes, can someone recommend me a nice scope such as Burris, leupolds, etc.. for my Savage 17HMR BTVS. 150yds max.
under $200.
under $200.
Rembrandt said:
OK, you are taking that wrong...
Taken out of context.
The point I was making is all of the better optics makers can produce optics that outstrip the capabilities of the human eye...
As my eyes get older, and progressively worse for fine shooting,
The more I rely on optics for my 'Crutch'...
There are guys shooting just as well as I do on every rifle range I go to,
And on every hunt I go on,
BUT,
I usually finish 'Up There' in overall competitions and bag my limits every time we go where the guys with the 'Latest & Greatest' often don't score as high as me or get their tags filled...
You can look at that one of two ways,
The old guy has more 'Practice' so he makes up for diminishing capabilities,
OR,
The younger guys aren't as smart/good as they think they are!...
I'm shooting Leupold with REALLY OLD/BAD eyes,
And they are shooting whatever from wherever, and I'm NEVER the one buying drinks afterwards...
I've won or bought enough high end optics down through the years, but I keep coming back to Leupold even though I have to pay retail for them.
There is a reason for that!
If you want to argue semantics, then part that $2,000 on top of a BIG magnum and see how long it lasts!
Lot's of the 'SUPER DUPER' optics can't take magnum abuse without failing (and NONE of the cheap ones can!)....
Then try and get warranty for the Euro or Japan optics...
-------------------------------------------
I was trying to avoid this, but my honest opinion of Swarovski is they are a Schmidt & Bender or Ziess Wanna be company.
I REALLY don't think they have had anything innovative since WW II, and all their 'Features' are old hat by the time they show up on Swarovski's lineup.
I've owned 3 or 4 of them in the past 15 years, and I trade them off for new guns or whatever.
You get what you pay for. You may not need what you get. To some people it doesn't matter if the colors are true or not, to others it only matters if they are close, and others yet have the funds and the desire to see things exactly as they are. No right or wrong in any of those opinions. If you have the money and want the edge, as slim as it may be, by all means go for it.
There is no reason for this to be much of a debate. The scopes are made with quality materials to top quality standards with top quality labor. Maybe you pay a premium for the name but part of that premium is exclusivity (which to some does have value) and peace of mind. A lot of us may not notice the difference between a top tier $2000 scope and a $1000 scope. Those of us that can may not care enough to spend the extra cash. Some do care which is all the justification needed. While brand image may hold a bit of the price it certainly isn't enough to push a Nikon prostaff into the $2000 price range. There IS a difference, though the further up the price ladder you go the thinner it gets. When you start comparing all the $2000 scopes it may or may not be the best scope but it isn't far off.
A $2000 scope is inexpensive relative to a lot of things. As much as I can't personally justify the price it isn't like $2000 is going to push most people into bankruptcy. Things may get a little tighter for a while but $2k for something you love isn't that over the top. Look at what a lot of hobbies cost. Its all in what you like and how close to perfect your budget allows.
There is no reason for this to be much of a debate. The scopes are made with quality materials to top quality standards with top quality labor. Maybe you pay a premium for the name but part of that premium is exclusivity (which to some does have value) and peace of mind. A lot of us may not notice the difference between a top tier $2000 scope and a $1000 scope. Those of us that can may not care enough to spend the extra cash. Some do care which is all the justification needed. While brand image may hold a bit of the price it certainly isn't enough to push a Nikon prostaff into the $2000 price range. There IS a difference, though the further up the price ladder you go the thinner it gets. When you start comparing all the $2000 scopes it may or may not be the best scope but it isn't far off.
A $2000 scope is inexpensive relative to a lot of things. As much as I can't personally justify the price it isn't like $2000 is going to push most people into bankruptcy. Things may get a little tighter for a while but $2k for something you love isn't that over the top. Look at what a lot of hobbies cost. Its all in what you like and how close to perfect your budget allows.
Similar to what I wrote in the ".30-30 on elk" thread, not everybody is hunting deer in Alabama. That assessment may be 100% valid for one hunter, but completely wrong for another person in another situation.
Ever try to count the bighorns standing against a boulder outcrop at dusk?
But, like I said, I'd much rather spend the money on high-end binos for glassing, and use a reliable, decent scope (Leupold, Nikon, Burris, etc.) for aiming. If I had blah binos and a Swaro scope, It'd be far too tempting to use the riflescope for glassing, a big no-no, as well as a misdemeanor in Idaho if there's another hunter or hiker downrange.
- Status
