Why spend money on scopes?

[FiveInADime]

And if you have a broken tasco, mueller, bushnell or whatever just throw it away.

I cannot speak for the other two, but Mueller has an excellent CS and warranty department. I don't think the scopes are all that great, but if one craps out they will get you a new one. I have first hand experience here.

Someone said that Sightron was the only company selling scopes above their value level. I think Vortex is right there, too. We live in a really good time for optics value, IMHO.

 

[Utryme]

Here's my two cents!

I have harvested around 120 whitetail deer and a black bear. 117 of those deer were with a scope. The first ones were $100 tasco or bushnells. They did "ok". They worked. There were occasional fog issues, clarity issues, glare issues and zero issues. Some resulted in missed opportunities.

I have taken many trophies over the years. My biggest was opening day of 2011's season. This 170" deer was taken down, one shot with a 44 mag carbine at 75 yards with the sun to my back. I used a redfield. Not what I would consider a great scope, but adequate. Had this been evening, the shot would have been very difficult (sun glare).

Last year I also took the black bear at dusk on a dark cloudy day deep in the Canadian woods at the last moment of legal shoot time. I shot that black bear in darkness right in the ear and dropped him without a grunt. I did that with a VXR. I'll guarantee you you won't make that shop with an inexpensive scope, period.

This year, I took a deer at 279 yards with an Indiana wildcat 358 with the sun behind the deer. Another shot where a cheaper scope would have made very difficult. I have compared my scopes, of which I have over 25. Quality matters. Quality follows price. You don't have to spend $1000, but $100 isn't all that great.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

This 170" deer was taken down, one shot with a 44 mag carbine at 75 yards with the sun to my back. I used a redfield. Not what I would consider a great scope, but adequate. Had this been evening, the shot would have been very difficult (sun glare).

Try making a tube of cardboard, of a diameter to fit your objective bell and about 3-" long. Slip the tube on and tape it in place when the sun is low.

 

[allaroundhunter]

I have about 15 rifles with scopes. Three of which have higher dollar optics in the 3-5 hundred range.

That isn't quite "high dollar" in terms of rifle scopes. There are some very good 'hunting' scopes at that price range, but high dollar 'hunting' scopes are upwards of $1k...



"High dollar" target/tactical optics range from $1,500-$3,500....




And yes, there are plenty of reasons for some shooters to pay for scopes in that price range. Some people may not be able to tell the difference between a $250 scope and a $1,000 one, but that is only because they are either; 1. Not experienced enough with optics to know where the differences would be, or 2. Are not using the second scope in the application where it will show its additional features.... But to be honest, if you can't tell the difference between a $250 scope and a $1,000 one, it is most likely the first option.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

"A fool and my money are soon parted."
-- Uncle Herbivore

 

[rayatphonix]

We've got some good shots and rifles here. I've read about a .0625 to .125 MOA combo...

 

[Wylie1]

Scopes and me, I'll just give you the brief run down.

All but one scope under $250 has failed me and at the worst times possible.

Go figure a cheap UTG on a Mosin has outlasted Barskas and Nikons on lesser recoiling rifles.

I just went into a Leupold VX3L, special work on mounting and all the bells and whistles with fingers crossed! Only six payments left now.

 

[hq]

The probability of seeing the target clearly in all situations, scope holding zero no matter what and staying reliable for decades increases in proportion with the price tag. Spending $1000 on a scope may be overkill from one perspective, spending $4000 not at all from another. Hunters who spend way more than that on trophy fees are prime clientele for top end scopes; equipment that's least likely to fail and that gives the absolutely clearest image possible when an opportunity for a game shot of a lifetime presents itself is priceless.

'Saving' thousands of dollars isn't worth it for everybody, no matter how many contradicting subjective testimonies and theories of diminishing returns are out there.

 

[Warp]

Durability. Reliability. Longevity. Toughness. Illuminated reticle. Variable magnification. True 1x on the bottom end. Holds zero.



Those are some of the reasons I spent about $1,000 on a scope and mount for one of my rifles.

The next scope I bought, for another rifle, was only $300.

The one before those was $40.

So far I am happy with all of those purchases.

Depends what you want out of the scope.

 

[frank c]

IMHO you can get a nice darn scope fore $200-$500. I own weaver grand slams B&L elites 3200-4200,nikons and few leupolds all under $500 bucks.I have friends who own the high $$ ones and I can,t tell any difference when I look threw there scopes and mine.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

I'm not sure why people feel so defensive about their scope selection. The same types of arguments pop up on the 1911 or AR15 threads about spending too much/little. The mechanics of a scope for hunting with capped turrets might not be as important as the mechanics for long distance shooting where the repeatability of cycling the elevation target turrets 20 mils and back is critical. How many people here with hunting scopes have done tracking tests and box tests?

People that use rifle scopes are some of the least-critical users of optical quality. If you want people who know what they're talking about, go check out the birdwatching forums.

 

[redneck2]

People that use rifle scopes are some of the least-critical users of optical quality. If you want people who know what they're talking about, go check out the birdwatching forums.

What kind of scopes do they use to shoot their birds???

 

[Warp]

What kind of scopes do they use to shoot their birds???

I'm sure they know plenty about "optical quality".

 

[Cesiumsponge]

I was pretty specific in using the phrase, "optical quality" for good reason.

People using rifle scopes for hunting don't typically discuss field of view, edge-to-edge clarity, light falloff, exit pupil data, eye relief data, chromatic aberration, color rendering, distortion, or contrast. People typically discuss a good reticle they can place on a critter, sharpness, and brightness. That's pretty easy to achieve for any manufacturer because you're not staring through a rifle scope for hours at a time trying to appreciate a critter's plumage.

The discussions on spotting scopes on birdwatching forums encompass all that. The spotting scope discussions here? "Can I see X caliber bullets at Y distance". Two different purposes. We don't require all that superfluous stuff to make good hits. It also makes us less critical to optical quality.

 

[Walkalong]

Spend most of a day looking through poor glass vs good glass and see how it affects the eye.

 

[hueyville]

I could not easily count the scopes I own. A few moderate price stragglers from the 70's and early '80's such as Redfields can be found in boxes of stuff for trade bait. What I have discovered for the most part is to buy Leupolds or Burris in the 600 to 1,000 dollar range with the features you want for the particular rifle and you will be overall pleased without breaking the bank. Now there is the odd custom rifle where.you have to step up a notch. That said, I have three scopes in the 1,800 to 2,300 dollar range and they do their job well. Past 400 yards that extra cash is worth it when your eyes start to tire at age 40.

I have a new rifle I can't shoot as it has no glass. Was able to swing the gun but not the glass at same time. It is the Savage Tactical rifle in .338 Lapua Mag. To do this rifle justice I am going to have to spend over 2,000 bucks on a Nightforce 5x-25x 56mm objective. So meantime, while out of commission it is going to a world record holding f class rifle builder to have a basic tune up before I ever shoot it. He is going to pull the barrel and check the chamber, if need he will shave the rear a tad so that he can recut the chamber to match specs then send it to Blackstar then for cryofreeze. He will rebed the action, work the trigger and put his proprietary muzzle break on it. No custom parts, just fit the factory parts to tightest standards. Amazing what this has done for several of my rifles. Hopefully by time he is done I will have my glass so he can hand lap the rings and mount up the scope. He will then shoot the rifle and make sure it meets his standards for an enhanced factory rifle. Amazing what all has to be done to a new gun for it to be tight and right. I do expect good things from this one. I had never owned a Savage rifle till two weeks ago when I bought a single shot model 40 in .22 hornet. Put 6x to 18x Leupold on it and its a one hole rifle at 100 yards. I shot one of the .338 tacticals a friend bought which changed my entire ideas on Savage rifles. When mine is done, rifle, smith work and glass cracks a 5k bill but if my .50bmg gets to politically incorrect to take to the range, I hope this rifle will do 80% of the big guns job without being.controversial.

 

[Welding Rod]

Personally I see reasonable benefit for dollar up to the VX3 point. After that the returns diminsh faster than I can justify on my pay.

I will probably be buying a 4.5 x 14 x 40 AO CDS VX3 shortly. I currently own a 3.5 x 10 x 40 CDS, along with a dozen or so lesser scopes in the several hundred dollar range, and one Leupold Mark 4.

I don't consider the VX a really expensive scope, but I don't see where I could really benefit from anything beyond it. I appreciate the physical stoutness of the Mark 4s, Nightforces, and so on, but there is something to be said for the light weight of the VX3s when packing a gun around.