Why spend money on scopes?

[idcurrie]

I have been hunting for a while now with a variety of scopes.

I have been viewing them on my property looking at detailed signs about 200 yards away and looking at a tree line about 1000 yards away.

You know what? There's just not that much difference between the scopes...

My eye doctor tells me I have 20/10 vision which is excellent so if there were any differences, you'd think I would be able to see them.

The only thing that I do notice is that scopes with better/more coatings tend to do better when looking at that tree line while the sun sets behind it. I notice that on the Bushnell Elite 3200 there is a bit of a reflection or 'repetition' inside the scope tube and it's distracting. I find it absent on the new series Elite which is more like a 4200. I also find it absent on the Leupold.

In terms of detail while looking at that sign or the tree line, there seems to be no difference. They all let in plenty of light and can resolve all those details just fine.

My wife's rifle sports a humble Weaver Kasper scope and it seems to present very well in this informal tests too, even 1/2 hour after sunset.

It seems to me that my $279 Elite or $300 Leupold are all I would ever need in a hunting scope.

I find that the Elite 3200 does have that weakness which I mentioned and the Weaver may or may not hold up to heavy use and recoil but the scopes above these seem quite fine.

Could someone please explain to me why I would ever practically need or want something more expensive than that $279-$300 range for Elite and Leupold scopes?

Why do I need to spend as much on the scope as I do on the rifle?

I don't get it.

 

[jmr40]

I actually agree with you, at least up to a point. The under $200 scopes can be a little iffy, but once you get into the $250-$350 range most scopes are good enough. I have no doubt that the high end scopes are better, but I'll never be able to take advantage of it. And technology has made it possible to get a better scope, cheaper than ever.

I cannot imagine ever needing anything better than the $300 VX-2. I actually have a few VX-3's and Zeiss. I would not pay the difference again. I also wouldn't buy anything cheaper.

 

[hq]

A rule of the thumb: If you're not hunting in low light conditions or need extreme magnification for long range competition shooting, a mediocre scope is all you need and you'll never notice a difference to top of the line models.

 

[Grassman]

I just bought a Nikon 3-9x50 for around $240 and another $69 on Burris rings, and it's all I need. There is no way in hell I'm spending 4-5-6-7-$800 on a scope, not happening.

 

[herkyguy]

I have a Leupold MK4 2.5-8X that, while at a significant discount, I still paid a lot of money for. It sits atop my Remington 700 that I've also spruced up a bit. I don't have a good answer for you other than I wanted "top end" optics on that rifle. I shoot it out to 500 yards and it has never failed me. There is no way to know if a VX3 would have perfomed the same way and I'm not sure how we could quantify that. I hunted with a Nikon Buckmaster this year and noted some difficulty with a setting sun so I've also purchased a Zeiss Conquest to go with that. It may be overspending for my purposes, but I value having a high end optic on the top of my rifles.

You make a good point though.

 

[CraigC]

Optical clarity is not the only thing you're buying. Standing in a field and looking through a scope in broad daylight isn't much of a test. Of even greater importance is a scope's ability to sit atop a hard recoiling rifle, travel across the country, go through baggage handling at the airport, ride in a scabbard on a horse or bang around in a truck in the back country, get bumped and banged around while hunting AND to do so for year after year, all the while maintaining its zero, not fogging and with no parts falling off.

 

[Jasper1573]

Optical clarity is not the only thing you're buying.

For long range shooters who often dial their windage and elevation up and down 20, 30, and 40 minutes of angle, the cost of consistently returning to the original zero is important. If I am shooting out to 300 yds, then 500 yds, then 1000 yds, then back down to my original zero of 100 yds, after I have dialed that scope up and down that much, I need it to return to the original zero, not near it, but to it. So in many scopes such as Nightforce, Leupold, US Optics, Zeiss, Swarovski, and others who charge seemingly excessive amounts, the guarantee to consistently return to zero is worth the $$.

Does one need this for everyday hunting? I would say, "No."

 

[col_temp]

Interesting Discussion.
Thanks for starting the thread and the answer the rest of you gave.

 

[chas08]

I tend to agree with you also! My higest end scope is a Leupold VX-III that seems to do no more for me than the several VX-II's that I own! I guess they are plenty good enough for the parameters I use them for! I do cringe though when I see a $600 rifle wearing a $39 scope!

 

[idcurrie]

FYI, the reason that I chose 1/2 hour after sunset to stop testing the scopes is that is the end of legal shooting light here.

Up until that point, there is no difference as far as I can see, even with the Chinese made Weaver scope unless looking toward a setting sun.

 

[762gunr]

For long range shooters who often dial their windage and elevation up and down 20, 30, and 40 minutes of angle, the cost of consistently returning to the original zero is important. If I am shooting out to 300 yds, then 500 yds, then 1000 yds, then back down to my original zero of 100 yds, after I have dialed that scope up and down that much, I need it to return to the original zero, not near it, but to it. So in many scopes such as Nightforce, Leupold, US Optics, Zeiss, Swarovski, and others who charge seemingly excessive amounts, the guarantee to consistently return to zero is worth the $$.

Does one need this for everyday hunting? I would say, "No."

^What he said.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It depends on what you intend to use the scope for. If all you're doing is shooting over sandbags at a range, get a cheap scope. What's the worst thing that can happen? -- it might break and you'd have to replace it.

But when you've climbed several thousand feet into the Rockies, and the elk of a lifetime is in your crosshairs, you want a quality scope.

 

[lobo9er]

all the while maintaining its zero, not fogging and with no parts falling off.

The loopy 2x has been a top my grandfathers deer slayer since the 70's still going strong. Not knocking the leupolds 8-1200 dollar stuff but there 200 range dont exactly fall apart easy and carry the "gold ring" warranty. so... I can agree with the OP too.

 

[rcmodel]

+1

I have Tasco World class scopes on a couple of my coyote/varmint rifles.
Buth rifles shoot well under MOA with the Tasco scopes.
Neither one has been adjusted again in the 10 years or so since I first mounted them on the rifles and sighted them in.

They are perfectly fine for what I use them for, as I coyote hunt within a 15-30 minute drive of my house.
And it wouldn't ruin a several thousand dollar Elk hunting trip to the Rockies if one broke on a hunting trip.

rc

 

[lobo9er]

I do cringe though when I see a $600 rifle wearing a $39 scope!

I can also agree with that. I shot my friends 7mm Mag and it still had the, I hate to use the term, crappy scope that came with it. Terrible eye relief and clarity on a gun that is could have some serious range.

 

[Slamfire]

Optically mid priced scopes are fantastic compared to scopes from the 60’s, 70’s, and up to the 80’s. I got to look through a WW2 era Zeiss, it was OK.

Top target shooters pay out the ying-yang for scopes. I was talking to a F Class champ, she had bought some $3,000 scope and claimed the optics were incredible. I may have to pay just to look through the thing when she finally mounts it. Perhaps the most important criteria for target shooters is repeatable elevation and windage adjustments, which apparently, from the complaints I have heard, even the best scopes are not 100%.

I am using a Redfield 3200 on my Small Bore Prone rifle and shooting cleans, so good scopes from the 70’s are fine.

At some point, optically, you need a teenager to tell you the difference between scopes. Our club President ran a test of a modern Zeiss and compared against all his other scopes. He called over a teenager and the kid saw stuff that he could not.

 

[Abel]

I tend to agree with you also! My higest end scope is a Leupold VX-III that seems to do no more for me than the several VX-II's that I own! I guess they are plenty good enough for the parameters I use them for! I do cringe though when I see a $600 rifle wearing a $39 scope!

This ^

 

[mljdeckard]

Sometimes.

My dad was a serious cheapskate. He would do things like tie fishing flies at the local sporting goods store to trade for guns. A few years before he died, he bought a used, very good condition varmint rifle. Then he bought a Simmons scope @ Walmart, the rock bottom 5x20 you can get, I believe. One afternoon we were out shooting, I wanted to try it, so I laid it across the hood and shot it at a rock about 200 yards away. I hit the ground about 40 yards away. I scratched my head and tried again. Then he tried it. We took it home and pulled it off, I rolled it around and saw the tube was bent. Oh well. I told him that's how it goes, and maybe he needed to upgrade. So he......went back to Walmart and bought the same scope again.

If you're a guy who only shoots three shots a year under predictable conditions, no, you don't need pricey glass. But if you buy cheap glass, and hammer it, bounce it around in the back of the truck, leave it in your vehicle hot and cold, stack stuff on top of it, etc, then no, you can't expect it to hold up as well as better tubes.

Still deciding what to replace that glass with, probably a Nikon Monarch with the varmint reticle.

 

[hq]

FYI, the reason that I chose 1/2 hour after sunset to stop testing the scopes is that is the end of legal shooting light here.

Up until that point, there is no difference as far as I can see, even with the Chinese made Weaver scope unless looking toward a setting sun.

Legalities aside, things are way, WAY different when you hunt in moonlight, sometimes without even snow on the ground to improve contrast. That's why I keep one or two Zeiss Diavari / Swaro Z6i / etc. scope(s) at hand, and no, there's virtually no difference between them and VX3:s as long as there's a reasonable amount of light.

But when there isn't, you might as well call it a day (or a night) unless you have a serious scope.

 

[joed]

Not sure if I agree or not. I've always spent as much on a scope as I did on the rifle. I have lots of Leupold scopes. But I bought 2 Weaver target scopes that I'm amazed with.

But as Jasper1573 posted, there is more than the glass. Use the windage on a cheap scope sometime and you'll see why that scope was inexpensive. I once bought a rifle off a friend that came with a Simmons scope. After an hour at the range I had a headache. No more Simmons for me.

But I'm in the market for another scope for a Featherweight, I'm not sure what I'm going to buy.

 

[Damon555]

Repeatability, durability, eye relief, clarity and light gathering capability just to name a few things....I couldn't imagine sitting in a prairie dog town cranking on the nobs of a scope that won't return to zero while jamming my eye into the scope that has no eye relief. No sense in ruining a trip that cost a couple grand because of a $99 scope.

I will say this....I have a couple of Simmons whitetail classic 6.5x20 scopes that are pretty good for the money....but I don't move the knobs unless it changes rifles. My main target/prairie dog scope is a Leupold VX-III 6.5-20 that is a dream look through all day.

 

[stsimons]

Scopes are a perfect example of the law of diminishing returns. There is a serious difference in quality and reliability between a 100 dollar scope and a 300 dollar scope. After the 500 dollar mark, in my opinion, it starts to get a bit subjective. I wear glasses and my eyesight is atrocious. My corrected vision is great, but its another set of lenses into the equation and for the life of me I can not discern a difference past a certain quality level - not that there is not a difference mind you, but I just can't tell. What I do notice is that the different brands of scopes render color differently or have different fields of view, etc. Your eyesight, night vision ability and your perception of color is really the only factor when you get past a certain optical quality. I would try and look through as many scopes in your price range as you can get your hands on - then look through scopes costing $100 more and see if one stands out above the rest. I have found that there is maybe a 10% difference between a $500 scope and a $1000 scope - and maybe only a 5% difference between a $1000 scope and a $1500 scope... only you can decide if its worth the money.

 

[wally]

Optics have improved so much that even cheap glass is very good by the standards of 10-15 years ago. So I agree that if you zero your scope at the range of interest and then use Kentucky windage and elevation any decent scope will be way better than iron sights and you won't get much if any benefit from paying 3-10X more for "better"

It is when you use range estimation and scope adjustments that the modestly priced scopes will come up short.

 

[urbaneruralite]

There's quite a difference betwixt a 30 minutes after sunset in the open and in the woods. Being able to resolve small limbs between the rifle and a deer costs more than $300.

 

[redneck2]

Back a number of years ago we had a huge, and I mean huge deer on our farm. Inline muzzle loaders were just being introduced. This deer would hang at a particular fence row during the rut. In the middle of a wide open area, and he had perfect visibility all around. No way to get close.

I bought the of the very first in line muzzle loaders that came out specifically for this situation. Scope was a Simmons 44 Mag. I had practiced and could make the shot from the closest cover, a little less than 190 yards.

Saw the deer opening week-end on a cold, drizzly day. Pulled up to look and the scope was fogged internally.

A neighbor poached that deer the next week end. 14 points, 28" outside spread.

We went on a prairie dog/antelope hunt in Montana last year. One of my friends never has money for good equipment (but always has beer money). Had a piece of crap scope on the cheapest 17HMR he could buy. Reticule came loose the first day. Swapped on another scope, and the firing pin broke the second day.

Don't tell me that cheap scopes are just as good as expensive ones. I worked in a gun shop and saw all kinds come thru. Failure rate on the cheapest was maybe 1 of 4. Better scopes maybe 1 in 10. High end Leupolds, etc. maybe 1 in 100.

And, I'm having a hard time buying into the low light test. I spend a LOT of time in the field during deer season. The difference between even a Nikon BDC or Redfield versus a VX-3 is easy to see, particularly at first and last light. Cheap scopes look plenty fine until you've used a good one extensively. Looking thru them in a show room isn't much of a test.