Why do people chintz out on scopes?
- Thread starter Old Dog
- Start date
- Status
Quite self-explanatory when you just read again the post you quoted. In slightly more detail, on about a dozen separate occasions I simply couldn't see with the Leupold and had to call it a night well before I had originally planned. That particular Meopta is one of my current reference scopes and handles identical conditions with relative ease, not just for placing a shot but identifying gender if need be.
I also sometimes carry a 56mm Diavari separately (QD rings) to compare scopes side by side. A good way to be disappointed in almost any glass.
I have an old Tasco target scope 4×32 just love it have had it several years on several different rifles. Also have Leopold and vortex scopes and a Burris eliminator 3. Eliminator is on a 243 marlin I'm taking praire dog hunting this June hoping to make a 500+ yard shot with.
Were you responding to me with this post? You quoted my post in your post before this one.
I'm late to the discussion but will answer the original question from my experience.
I started with $200 scopes, mostly Nikon's. Back then, around ten years ago, I could afford a $1000 scope, but I believed in the advertising. I wanted to believe that I could get the same performance for much less money. I had heard of the saying about buying the highest quality glass that you can afford, but I thought that was just a something people said to justify buying something nice that had bragging rights. Again, I wanted to believe I could save money.
After a couple $200 scopes failed to keep zero, I slowly learned my lesson. At first, I thought there were gremlins in my gun safe turning scope knobs just before hunts. Then I finally learned that a common failure for inexpensive scopes is the inability to hold zero. Made more sense than gremlins, and made me feel foolish. But at least I finally learned.
So that's why I bought inexpensive scopes even though I could afford better quality.
I started with $200 scopes, mostly Nikon's. Back then, around ten years ago, I could afford a $1000 scope, but I believed in the advertising. I wanted to believe that I could get the same performance for much less money. I had heard of the saying about buying the highest quality glass that you can afford, but I thought that was just a something people said to justify buying something nice that had bragging rights. Again, I wanted to believe I could save money.
After a couple $200 scopes failed to keep zero, I slowly learned my lesson. At first, I thought there were gremlins in my gun safe turning scope knobs just before hunts. Then I finally learned that a common failure for inexpensive scopes is the inability to hold zero. Made more sense than gremlins, and made me feel foolish. But at least I finally learned.
So that's why I bought inexpensive scopes even though I could afford better quality.
All these posts are bringing back bad memories of shooting cheap rifles with cheap scopes. It's a miracle that I ever killed anything. I bought a J.C.Higgins "short-throw" lever action .22, a POS if I ever saw one. But, the worst part was the mounting bracket for the scope. It was a straight bracket held on by two screws, then slide the scope on the bracket like dove tail groves and tighten the ring mount. The rings were permanently attached to the scope. After zeroing the thing, it would hold zero for a few shots, then I would have to remove the scope and retighten the bracket and zero it all over again. After wasting a couple boxes of shells, which I could not afford to waste, I took the "scope" off and beat it to death with a hammer. I had saved money for months to buy that abysmal excuse for a rifle and scope. I was15 at the time and had no idea what I was doing and had no one in my life who could teach me. Actually my later purchase of Tasco and other cheapies was a step up from that first fiasco. Eventually I did learn to buy good scopes and today I'm buying even better ones. DO NOT CHEAP-OUT ON SCOPES!!!
Nature Boy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 8,228
I’ll add to that sage advice and say that buying a used high end scope is a good way to get more for less. Takes a bit of the sting out of the purchase
dranrab
Member
Today's $200 scopes are better than the very best of scopes from not so long ago. Most shooters can expect a $200 scope to give a lifetime of satisfying service for how they use their scopes. As with all things the laws of diminishing returns apply. In practical terms what should I expect a $1000 scope to do that a $200 scope won't do? For the way I see 95% of people use a scope, that answer is "nothing." I have had one scope fail in my lifetime, and it was a $49 Simmons 22 magnum. The real question isn't why "chintz" out, but why spend any more?
Really? If the 1950's weren't so long ago that might well be the case. Like I've mentioned before, if there really is a scope that can even remotely match the performance of my 30-year-old Victory Diavari 3-12x56* in, say, price bracket of $500 or less, I'll order a half a dozen of them right away.
Similar performance for $200 is... ahem, let's say "optimistic" to keep the perspective civilized and realistic.
dranrab
Member
Lens coatings are far superior today to what they were 30 years ago. Did you know it wasn't until the mid 90's that most European manufacturers started sealing their scopes? Is your Victory sealed? What objective performance standards does your scope deliver that you cannot find in a similarly priced scope today? What would that scope do for me that my $150 Redfield Revolution won't do?
The Victory is sealed and nitrogen filled like its predecessors had been for over a decade before it was manufactured. The very same exact coating that it uses is currently used in modern Meopta Meostar, Meopro and Optika 6 -series scopes that still wipe the floor with pretty much any sub-$1000 scope on market today.
I've been contemplating an upgrade and more or less the only scopes on market that can improve upon it (not much but still) are current Zeiss High Transmission (HT) scopes with Schott glass, Schmidt & Bender Polar96 series and Swarovski Z6i/Z8i series scopes.
Lens coating technologies are proprietary and even though they keep gradually improving across all manufacturers, the really good ones trickle down to budget scopes reaaaallly slowly and are often handed down to subcontractor brands like in Zeiss/Meopta case.
Last edited:
BreechFace
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
- Messages
- 3,506
Succinct, accurate and to the point.
dranrab
Member
dranrab
Member
Had you read the rest of that particular sentence, "[...] and are often handed down to subcontractor brands like in Zeiss/Meopta case", we wouldn't be having this conversation.
In terms of overall clarity in visible light spectrum and light transmission a baseline Meopro outperforms even VX-5HHD by a substantial margin, so if you really are confident that your Monarch 5, VX-2 and Droptine (?) are that much better, congratulations. Your just saved a substantial amount of money.
I really wish I had eyes like that. It would make my life so much cheaper.
My Diavari isn't installed on a rimfire of any kind.
dranrab
Member
Had you read my comment "subjectively it's essentially indistinguishable from the others" I wouldn't need to remind you, I didn't say they are better. Only that for all practical purposes, and that includes shooting right up until 30 minutes after sunset, they are indistinguishable.
In a nutshell, that summarizes my thoughts on this topic. Spending a lot more on a scope doesn't get a lot of ROI for the overwhelming majority of shooters that I know and encounter.
Can you quantify the way the Meopro outperforms the VX-5HD by a substantial margin?
Yes. Subjectively I can't distinguish most brandies from most cognacs, which also boils down to my far insufficient perspective on the subject.
As a matter of fact I can. When a calibrated narrow angle lightmeter pointed at the center of FOV fell below 0.70lx, VX5-HD lost resolution to distinguish black/white contrast on 1-2° objects in field of view. At approximately 2.0mlx it lost all resolution whatsoever. Meopro has adequate resolution for black/white and even some black/gray and gray/gray contrast at 1.5mlx.
Approximately 45 minutes after sunset I could've substituted the VX-5HD with a wooden potato masher installed in the rings and it would've made no difference in the ability to see even a silhouette through one. Time to start packing and head home when you can easily pull an all-nighter in the same treestand with said Meopta. Or Diavari for that matter.
This is by no means a small difference. As a defence to Leupold it must be said that they punch well below their weight whenever conditions are less than ideal. As fantastic and durable daylight scopes they are, light transmission performance is their well-known Achilles' heel.
Because functionality is a requirement, a base line. While going beyond that isnt necessary, it can improve enjoyment......tho thats really dependent on the user snd what they want.
Ive got mostly 300-500 dollar scopes now, and only a couple years ago most of mine were 100-300dollar scopes. I dont kill any more animals with my more expensive scopes, but i do enjoy using them more. Ive got a couple 7-1100 dollar msrp scopes, and again they dont do anything PRACTICAL for me, im a non-critical use shooter.
Heck i know ive killed more animals with sub 150dollar scopes than +150 dollar scopes. Simply because of usage and available opportunity.
Id love to be able to own all highend scopes, but the very best tend to get heavy quick, and cost more than im WILLING/ABLE to spend.
Im personally of the opinion that you should spend as much as you want to get what you want.
Absolutely, as well as closeout models. I love closeout models.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
