Why spend money on scopes?

[cbmax]

Hi,

Slam fire has it right. The big difference between high dollar scopes and lower end scopes is the repeatabilty of the elevation and windage adjustments. Next is how well the scope adjustments feel. Is it mushy or a nice tactile click. Of course there are differences in optical quality, but most folks can't tell the difference once you get over $300.

Their are other differences, but these are the biggest.

Most hunters zero their rifles and never touch the scope turrets again. If you are shooting over 300 yards, that's when a good scope with repeatable adjustments really shines. You adjust 10 MOA up and than return to zero and the bullet should impact exactly at the zero point.

Hope thus helps!

CB

 

[DM~]

I'm amazed how much better, the "better" scopes are in low light conditions, it can make or break a hunt for me. Then again, i was always amazed when a guy would go out to bush tent camp in Alaska, and after a day or three, his cheaper scope would fog internally!

The huge swings in temp and on/off rain/snow would get quite a few of them. Even worse things happen to bino's!

SO, i only put cheaper scopes on guns that i won't be depending on for serious hunting...

Anyway, make mine a Zeiss Conquest pleeease!

DM

 

[Robert]

I have a 2.5-8x Luepold VXIII on my Mod 70 375H&H. Did I spend too much? I don't think so. I am happy with it. Run what makes you happy, spend what you are comfortable with and don't worry about what the other guy is doing.

 

[targetshooter22]

I really like Robert's comment above. That pretty much sums it up. Personally, I noticed that as I aged, my eyes aren't what they used to be, and that now a higher end scope makes a bigger difference. E.g. a Simmons used to be fine for my hunting; then a Nikon Prostaff became the new standard, and now a Leupold VX-1 is my preference for entry. And yes, I can afford more scope now that I used to be able to, but my eyes have changed more.

 

[hueyville]

All my scopes are decent glass. I use Leupold, Burris, Zeis & Steiner. At long ranges and changing conditions the difference is obvious. Sight in your varmint scope at 1,100 feet of elevation on an 85 degree day with 90% relative humidity in Georgia then take it to the field in the early morning six months later when it is 20 degrees at 60% humidity. If you want the shot to hit where you aim in this circumstance it helps to have spent money.

Put the same rifle on an airplane where atmospheric pressure is going to make fast and dramatic changes. Get off the plane in Denver drive to a prairie dog field at 5,200 ft.elevation, 50 degrees and 35% humidity. Start squeezing rounds. Do the doggies explode like a rotten tomatos dropped off a high rise or do you just kick up dust? First dog is 150 yards out so you adjust to 6x and bust his head. Next dog ranges at 625 yards so you dope your scope and squeeze. Does he laugh at you or die?

Try this with a $200 scope. You will waste much ammo and go home with a wasted trip. Put a +$900 5x to 20x scope from any number of reputable companies and you spend you time killing dogs instead of sighting your scope time and again.

Sight in rifle B for 1.5" high at 150 yards and do your math for a large group of ranges. Go to field and a chipmunk presents himself at 50 yards. First I gotta reach up front and adjust my paralax for 50 yards just so the scope is focused on his beady little eyeballs. Next a crow lights at about 325 yards. I have to refocus the front end to pull the details out then twist the target turrets for the range and 4 mph cross wind. Wanna see an explosion of black feathers or puff of dirt.

Drop 500 bucks on a plane ticket, buy your out of state license and tags. Pay a guide big cash. Take your deer rifle out get in the tree early and settle in. Just light enough to see.your hand and you hear a big deer. Pull the rifle to your cheek and the option is too see total blackness or a crisp view of a Boone & Crocket deer in your illuminated cross hairs. You decide, is that once in a lifetime opportunity going to be blown over a cheap scope or you going to money up for some glass?

 

[lobo9er]

...........

 

[Bobson]

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

I don't get it.

Because most Americans measure success by examing one's material estate and its value. I'm not saying more expensive scopes aren't worth their price for certain applications. I'm just saying we live in a nation of unquenchable consumerism, and that absolutely applies in regards to sportsmen - often more than in other areas.

 

[Andrew Leigh]

Because is is your aiming system, without is your rifle is a stick (assuming no irons).

It therefore stands to reason that one would want an aiming system that would deliver repeatable results time after time;

- You would want no change in settings after dropping a rifle etc.
- You would want to dial in elevation and windage and then return to zero everytime.
- You need low light performance as a lot of hunts are early morning late afternoon. You cannot test scopes with the naked eye. Your eye adjusts and compensates, a bright scope and your pupil will close a less bright scope and your pupil will open to compensate given the impression of near equal brightness and clarity.
- You nee the scope to cope with multiple recoils, the heavier the recoils the more important the quality of the scope becomes.
- The after sales service needs to be excellent and free.
- As it is primarily and optical device the optics must represent the picture being veiwed 100%
- No fogging or fungal growths internally.
- etc.

As average Joe does not have the ability to evaluate a scope other than with subjective means one needs to take cognicience of reviews by respected writes.

As previously stated the whole thing is about diminishing returns, the trick is to buy a scope at the point before returns start diminishing this would mean if you could achieve this that you would buy a scope that is fit for purpose both in quality and price.

Generally you do get what you pay for in my opinion, whether you need to double the purchase price for a 5% increase in quality and clarity is the question only the purchaser can answer.

 

[lefteyedom]

The KISS principle still valid in hunting gear, set it and leave it.

My 300 Win Mag, Savage wears a 15 year old 3x9 Leupold VII, the magnification is set at 6x. (Wyoming). With a 180 grain bullet it is 4" high at 100 yards and zeroed at 300yards. The hold over and drift info out to 800 yards is taped to the stock.The Leupold glass is better than my eyes and the zero has never shifted, for deer and elk this has been a very good setup for shots out to 500 yards...

Ethic aside:
If you want to shoot at ranges greater than 500 yards you really need to open a line of credit and spend some real money on optics. The margins for error are so slim that not having top notch gear makes the exercise folly. Half on the rifle, half on the scope may not be enough....
Just think about how much a simple 1 moa error can effect the point of impact at 1000 yards. At 100 to 300 yards a 1 moa error is meaningless on a deer at 1000 yards it could be a game changer.

A$300-$450 scope is perfect for most hunting, but for other types of shooting $1000-$3500 is not a waste of money.

 

[CraigC]

Optics have improved so much that even cheap glass is very good by the standards of 10-15 years ago.

I disagree. I think the cheap scopes have gotten cheaper. Instead of being made in Japan, now they're all made in China and as cheaply as possible.

Because most Americans measure success by examing one's material estate and its value. I'm not saying more expensive scopes aren't worth their price for certain applications. I'm just saying we live in a nation of unquenchable consumerism, and that absolutely applies in regards to sportsmen - often more than in other areas.

This is a total cop-out. Yes, I'm sure everybody who buys a Leupold instead of a Tasco has done so because it makes them feel better about themselves. Some folks somehow manage to convince themselves that anything more expensive than what they can afford is "just a name".

 

[Bobson]

Yes, I'm sure everybody who buys a Leupold instead of a Tasco has done so because it makes them feel better about themselves.

That's actually not what I said at all, but thanks.

Some folks somehow manage to convince themselves that anything more expensive than what they can afford is "just a name".

I'm applauding for you right now. Very impressive.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

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.

Kind of my thoughts. Plus with the Lepolds if it does crap out its covered for life.

 

[Girodin]

So how many of the folks saying the cheap scopes are just as good have used examples of each over a long period of time, in various and demanding conditions?

Personally, I think Todd Hodnett is right when he talks about how most folks would be better off buying a 500-600 gun and spending the money on quality scope than spending upwards of $3-4K on a rifle with a $400 scope. Or buying one quality scope with quality QD mounts and moving it from rifle to rifle as needed than buying 5-6 $300 scopes.

I've come to see first hand the difference in cheap optics and quality ones. Cheap optics are cheap for a reason. My experience has been that they seem to fail at an unacceptably high (to me anyways) rate, particularly when used in any kind of demanding conditions. You combine that with the fact that even when the aren't broken the difference is apparent. The glass is most often notably better. The adjustments on cheaper scopes are often not well regulated. Meaning you may be putting in 3.5 mils on the scope, but that doesn't mean that's what it is really doing.

I think there is a better argument that many hunters spend way more than they need to on a gun than there is that they do on glass. There are some pretty inexpensive guns out there that are far more accurate than I'd wager most hunters are from the bench let alone field positions. Furthermore the ranges at which most hunters are capable of making shots really doesn't even require as much precision as a lot of pretty inexpensive guns offer. Now I don't blame people for wanting a fancier, a nicer, or even a legitimately better rifle, but a Stevens would probably work just fine for most folks.

 

[redneck2]

Guys that are convinced cheap scopes are the same as expensive ones are confusing the terms "adequate" versus "equal"

I have a neighbor that was shooting his 22-250 just yesterday. Best he had ever done was about 1 1/2" with factory ammo. Always thought that was as good as it would ever do. It was "adequate" for him. Talked him into trying some of my hand loads. Two consecutive one hole groups. He was absolutely astounded.

Once you see how something really good is capable of performing, you'll understand the difference. So, your Barska or Swift may be adequate for your needs, but it's certainly not equal to a VX-3 or Swarovski.

And it wouldn't ruin a several thousand dollar Elk hunting trip to the Rockies if one broke on a hunting trip.

I'm not worried about the scope. I can replace that. It's the $7,500 and time I put into the trip that's lost if equipment fails. May be the only chance I ever get. Go back and read my post about the prairie dog hunt and deer hunt. I had one chance at that deer and the scope cost me the deer.

 

[Jason_W]

I'm considering forsaking scopes in lieu of good peep sights. I'll buy a pair of high-quality binoculars for low light game identification.

I don't typically have access to long range hunting opportunities anyway.

 

[jehu]

I've been thru the evolution from ****ty glass to excellent glass and would I have listened to sound advise from the start I could have saved $$. All my Sako's wear Swarovski scopes for Varmints to Deer and my Bino's are all Swarovski's. Better optics won't make you a better shot but they will allow you to take a better shot. The fact is you can't shoot what you can't see and you should not shoot at what you can't see and identify clearly. High end glass will take you farther in low light conditions and even in the middle of the day the better clarity will allow you to pick out a GH on a ditch bank with his head stuck out of heavy foliage. Buy the best glass you can afford to top your rifle IMO.

 

[tarosean]

This is a total cop-out. Yes, I'm sure everybody who buys a Leupold instead of a Tasco has done so because it makes them feel better about themselves. Some folks somehow manage to convince themselves that anything more expensive than what they can afford is "just a name".

Well stated.

 

[husker]

I'm happy with my 3 older Simmons Aetech's.
Thinking of purchasing one more off of Ebay for my Savage 93r17

 

[dubbleA]

Hi,

Slam fire has it right. The big difference between high dollar scopes and lower end scopes is the repeatabilty of the elevation and windage adjustments. Next is how well the scope adjustments feel. Is it mushy or a nice tactile click. Of course there are differences in optical quality, but most folks can't tell the difference once you get over $300.

Their are other differences, but these are the biggest.

Most hunters zero their rifles and never touch the scope turrets again. If you are shooting over 300 yards, that's when a good scope with repeatable adjustments really shines. You adjust 10 MOA up and than return to zero and the bullet should impact exactly at the zero point.

Hope thus helps!

Agreed,this is what alot of shooters never experince.


Case in point.... I had been shooting a rifle, a 243 Win at 600yds. The scope atop is a Nightforce that I had dialed in for that yardage. The following week I installed a new trigger in the rifle and must have had the barreled action in and out of the stock at least 5 times checking for fit and it working properly.
After I had it put back together and dialing the Nightforce back to 100yd zero from the previous 600yd zero I checked zero with a quick five shot group at 100 yards.

The target below shows what a proper pillar bedding job and a scope that tracks well can do.

 

[Walkalong]

Better clarity. Better color resolution. Better depth. Better tracking. Better low light capability.......

Buy the best you can. Buy so it hurts a little. If you are buying good glass, it is a lifetime plus investment.

 

[Walkalong]

I have a 2.5-8x Luepold VXIII on my Mod 70 375H&H.

My 2.5X8 Vari-X III (Older model than the VXIII) is on a .308. The purchase price hurt a little at the time, but after 20/25 plus years I am still happy I did it.

 

[stubbicatt]

Overspend on scopes so your buddies can admire you. Sorta like a Rolex. LOL.

That said I love my Rolexes, and I love good quality optics. I think a large part of it has to do with buyer satisfaction, maybe more so than any sort of objective qualities a good possesses. At some point on the price ladder the differences become very subtle. Sorta like a $12 bottle of wine versus a $1,000 bottle of wine... it takes a certain palate to distinguish the differences, and a lot of money to acquire that palate.

Enjoy what you have! I love my IOR's, but I guess they don't receive the accolades of a number of higher dollar scopes, and I must say that my Nikon "Coyote Special" scope is surely one of the best I have.

 

[xfyrfiter]

When I had 20/10 vision I had very little use for a scope, good or otherwise, as apeture sights and a good pair of binos were all that were necessary. Now that I am a little older a good scope is pretty necessary.

 

[CraigC]

Enjoy what you have!

Great advice!

 

[Lupinus]

IMO, scopes have a steep return on the value up to a point, but then quickly switch to a quickly diminishing return on investment.

IOW, there's a big difference between a 50 dollar scope and a 150 dollar scope. And a big difference between a 200 scope and a 500 scope. But beyond that, give or take some money, is where I think you start to see a real diminishing value for the dollar unless you are doing something where the small increases in quality make big differences.

Personally, I'm happy with my 200ish Nikon Buckmasters atop my Browning X Bolt. It does everything I need and want it to and was the best my wallet (and wife) would allow for. But that doesn't mean others don't have a very valid reason for dropping 1500 on a scope, those people are just few in my experience.