Why spend money on scopes?
- Thread starter idcurrie
- Start date
- Status
I've looked through more scopes than most folks here, including some expensive target models and, except for a very slight difference in brightness, can't see any reason to buy any scope for hunting better than a Leupold VX2. That doesn't mean others won't wish for more expensive scopes, but do they REALLY need it to shoot a deer within legal shooting times? I think not.
Anyway, I've shot very few deer at first or last light. Many are shot mid-day, which I used to feel was impossible. Maybe it's the area in Maine that I hunt.
Anyway, I've shot very few deer at first or last light. Many are shot mid-day, which I used to feel was impossible. Maybe it's the area in Maine that I hunt.
Lloyd Smale
Member
im kind of in the middle here. I dont like cheap scopes and cant afford or see much advantage to the really expensive ones. most of my rifles wear 300-500 dollar scopes. Vx2 and vx3 leupolds, nikon monarchs, 4200 bushnells and ziess conquests. Scopes in that price range havent let me down and although they may not compete with top end ziess, swarovskis, kahles ect they probably at most loose a minute of two of low light time to them and there for the most part, lighter and more compact.
redneck2
Member
, Dealer and I both looked thru the Leupold VX-R side by side against a Z3 Swarovski. Same objective size, same magnification. Leupold was actually very slightly clearer. Difference was extremely slight with the edge going to the Leo. Price of the Swaro was $300 higher.
In vibration tests I am told that the Leupolds exceed Swarovski.
So, at least to that extent I have to agree with the guys in that case that say more money doesn't always buy more scope.
Hokkmike
Member
There is a line of thinking from gun writers and pro shooters that you should spend 3Xs more on a scope than the rifle you put it on. Their experience and expertise must count for something.
Elkins45
Member
Yeah, but you left out an important one IMO. Greater mechanical durability under recoil and handling stresses. I rarely find myself needing the Nth degree of optical quality, but I need recoil resistance every time I pull the trigger and vibration resistance every time I drive to the woods or the range. Saving $150 isn't a bargain when you've gotten up before dawn and frozen your butt off all morning only to find that your scope is broken when the trophy of a lifetime walks by.
I've owned my share of Tasco, Bushnell and Simmons but as I've gotten the funds I have gradually thrown them all into a box and replaced them with Burris, Leupold or Sightron. Rifles that I had concluded were mediocre shooters suddenly became real tack drivers once they were wearing decent glass!
In the past 25 years I've probably sold or traded at least one centerfire rifle per year, but I have never sold or traded a Leupold. Guns come and go but quality glass is an investment.
I know many shooters (myself included) who started out with cheap brand X and upgraded to mid brand Y and finally to top brand Z. I don't know any shooters who have intentionally or happily done that in reverse.
Another thing, there's a world of difference between owning and using a product regularly versus handling or looking at a product in a store. You will learn next to nothing simply looking through a scope for a few minutes. You only start to appreciate a scope (or learn about its shortcomings) after extended periods of use whether it's hunting, load development, competition etc. If you've only owned/used cheap scopes then you have no point of reference. I've owned scopes from Tasco and Bushnell in the past but now choose to own hunting or tactical scopes from Zeiss, Leupold, Aimpoint, Premier and Nightforce.
Another thing, there's a world of difference between owning and using a product regularly versus handling or looking at a product in a store. You will learn next to nothing simply looking through a scope for a few minutes. You only start to appreciate a scope (or learn about its shortcomings) after extended periods of use whether it's hunting, load development, competition etc. If you've only owned/used cheap scopes then you have no point of reference. I've owned scopes from Tasco and Bushnell in the past but now choose to own hunting or tactical scopes from Zeiss, Leupold, Aimpoint, Premier and Nightforce.
Now when we have a plethora of subjective "cheap scopes are nearly as good" -testimonies, I'll write mine, which some may brush off as bad luck.
Back in 2010 I booked a VERY expensive hunting trip to Africa. In the morning of third day, I took a fairly easy shot at one of the game animals I've been after, a Duiker. Miss, at 100yd. Chambered another round as quickly as I could, miss. Before the third shot, the Duiker took off. Something was really wrong, we headed back to the camp and I shot a couple of rounds at a paper target. 15"@100yd. Adjusted the scope, 20" "group". Reticle plane had come loose and it was moving all over the place in recoil.
The scope was a Bushnell I had hunted with for a few years. Not a really cheap one, a solid $300+ model and it decided to quit at the worst possible moment. To add insult to injury, Bushnell customer service basically told me to get stuffed and recommended Elite 6500 "for your next trip, sir". That was absolutely, positively the last non-Zeiss/Swarovski/Meopta/Leica/Nightforce/etc. or any other sub-$1000 rifle scope I'm EVER going to use on an overseas hunting trip.
Back in 2010 I booked a VERY expensive hunting trip to Africa. In the morning of third day, I took a fairly easy shot at one of the game animals I've been after, a Duiker. Miss, at 100yd. Chambered another round as quickly as I could, miss. Before the third shot, the Duiker took off. Something was really wrong, we headed back to the camp and I shot a couple of rounds at a paper target. 15"@100yd. Adjusted the scope, 20" "group". Reticle plane had come loose and it was moving all over the place in recoil.
The scope was a Bushnell I had hunted with for a few years. Not a really cheap one, a solid $300+ model and it decided to quit at the worst possible moment. To add insult to injury, Bushnell customer service basically told me to get stuffed and recommended Elite 6500 "for your next trip, sir". That was absolutely, positively the last non-Zeiss/Swarovski/Meopta/Leica/Nightforce/etc. or any other sub-$1000 rifle scope I'm EVER going to use on an overseas hunting trip.
Kachok
Member
My $150 Nikon Prostaff is as clear as anything and it has never lost it's zero, why I ever spent any more money on one is a mystery to me.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I'm of the opinion that if you can't out shoot the scope you have, what's the point in getting a "better" or more expensive one?
There is a lot to be said, however, for durability and reliability, a couple factors which go beyond the optics of just being able to hit what the crosshairs are sitting on.
There is a lot to be said, however, for durability and reliability, a couple factors which go beyond the optics of just being able to hit what the crosshairs are sitting on.
i'm not a hunter, and i'm not a fan of people who take long shots on big game, so this isn't strictly speaking applicable to the OP topic, but i pay for features and while i need a scope that has good optical qualities, i don't obsess about how "clear" scopes are.
the features that make a high dollar scope worth the $ to me are:
first focal plane reticle
a reticle that is quick and easy to use and correct
ergonomic target knobs that track repeatably and are labeled clearly and usable in dark
a generous eye relief and exit pupil
zero stop
a large amount of elevation travel that is accessible in 2 or less turns
detents that are precise, not mushy and not too hard
(some people like locking turrets too, but i only like it on windage)
a wide magnification range that is ergonomic to set
durability
and of course optical features such as resolution, light transmission, minimal distortion, etc
yesterday, i got a 1st rnd hit on a head-sized steel target at about 985 yards, followed by a 1st rnd hit on a 6" diamond at 1080 yards. to make the latter, i had to dial 84 'clicks' of elevation, and hold .7 mil of wind. (using a cheater caliber. it would have probably been 110+ clicks with a 308) i would love to be mistaken, but i don't believe there are any $100 scopes on the market with the level of precision required to track to calculated dope that far out, much less that have most of those features in the list. in fact, the cheapest scopes i know of that come close are $1300 (that one compromises on eyebox and some optical qualities)
all that said, if i were hunting a deer at 200 yards, with a 8"ish (i'm totally guessing as i've never really cared enough to look it up) vital area, would i need or even want most of those features? no. i'd want a lightweight scope with covered turrets, a simple reticle, a decent eyebox and probably fixed power and fixed parallax. and yeah, i'd expect that to be cheap, because it doesn't matter how it tracks as it's not even adjustable. and the glass only needs to be good enough for me to make sure it really is a deer and not the neighbor's dog, and maybe good enough to count the antlers or something.
so then price to me for a hunting scope (again with the caveat that i know nothing about hunting) would come down to the mfg's reputation for not crapping the bed at the worst possible moment, combined with the impact of crapping the bed. i.e. if i missed a deer, i'm not going to get moist about it. but if i paid $100k for an african trip, what's an extra $1000 in piece of mind that my scope isn't going to lay down?
the features that make a high dollar scope worth the $ to me are:
first focal plane reticle
a reticle that is quick and easy to use and correct
ergonomic target knobs that track repeatably and are labeled clearly and usable in dark
a generous eye relief and exit pupil
zero stop
a large amount of elevation travel that is accessible in 2 or less turns
detents that are precise, not mushy and not too hard
(some people like locking turrets too, but i only like it on windage)
a wide magnification range that is ergonomic to set
durability
and of course optical features such as resolution, light transmission, minimal distortion, etc
yesterday, i got a 1st rnd hit on a head-sized steel target at about 985 yards, followed by a 1st rnd hit on a 6" diamond at 1080 yards. to make the latter, i had to dial 84 'clicks' of elevation, and hold .7 mil of wind. (using a cheater caliber. it would have probably been 110+ clicks with a 308) i would love to be mistaken, but i don't believe there are any $100 scopes on the market with the level of precision required to track to calculated dope that far out, much less that have most of those features in the list. in fact, the cheapest scopes i know of that come close are $1300 (that one compromises on eyebox and some optical qualities)
all that said, if i were hunting a deer at 200 yards, with a 8"ish (i'm totally guessing as i've never really cared enough to look it up) vital area, would i need or even want most of those features? no. i'd want a lightweight scope with covered turrets, a simple reticle, a decent eyebox and probably fixed power and fixed parallax. and yeah, i'd expect that to be cheap, because it doesn't matter how it tracks as it's not even adjustable. and the glass only needs to be good enough for me to make sure it really is a deer and not the neighbor's dog, and maybe good enough to count the antlers or something.
so then price to me for a hunting scope (again with the caveat that i know nothing about hunting) would come down to the mfg's reputation for not crapping the bed at the worst possible moment, combined with the impact of crapping the bed. i.e. if i missed a deer, i'm not going to get moist about it. but if i paid $100k for an african trip, what's an extra $1000 in piece of mind that my scope isn't going to lay down?
well... if the scope is inhibiting your learning by throwing its own variables into your shooting solution, then your learning curve will be extended dramatically, which means, you'll spend a lot more in ammo trying to become a better marksman
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
No, you'd want different features but you do not necessarily want less quality. Target scopes get babied back and forth between the range and home. Hunting scopes do not. Rugged durability is paramount, as is optical clarity and light transmission. You need more than to just be able to make sure it's not the neighbor's dog.
Some folks have to pay a lot of money to deer hunt. IMHO, a good scope for any type of hunting is cheap insurance.
I have a whole box of cheap scopes that "crap the bed". None of them did so on a hard recoiling centerfire, all on rimfires. None of them did so during or after hard use and abuse. If you put your trust in cheap scopes, it's only a matter of time before it bites you.
The OP couldn't be more incorrect, however it is a free Country and he has every right to be wrong for most of the reasons mentioned above. You absolutely "can" tell the difference between a $100 Tasco and a $600 Leupold at twilight. If you can't you're only fooling yourself. Been there and done that......
redneck2
Member
Depends on which deer. All boils down to priorities. Guys spend $2,000+ to shoot fixed targets that never move. I'm not a tactical shooter, so I can see putting that into a hunting scope. You can always shoot another match, but I'll never see another deer that big in ten lifetimes.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Point taken.
I wasn't thinking about that...I was thinking about lots of other factors involved in accurate shooting, mostly involving physical handling/dexterity with the weapon.
If you can't hold the weapon steady enough on target in the first place, then there isn't much point in investing in top end scopes.
But, like you said, if the scope itself is hampering the effort...
RainDodger
Member
I'll tell you ONE of the reasons why I have a safe full of Leupold scopes and ONE Simmons scope.
When I adjust the reticle up, down, right or left in my Leupold scopes, I know the point of impact is going to go up, down, right or left.
When I adjust the reticle in my Simmons scope, God only knows where the POI is going to be. It is literally a guessing game. Once I got it sighted in okay at 100 yards, I decided to never consider adjusting tbe "target turret" for elevation when shooting different ranges. I do better to guesstimate it and simply hold over the intended target.
Okay.... a second reason... I like fine things and something like a Leupold or one of the other top-tier scopes is a joy to own.
When I adjust the reticle up, down, right or left in my Leupold scopes, I know the point of impact is going to go up, down, right or left.
When I adjust the reticle in my Simmons scope, God only knows where the POI is going to be. It is literally a guessing game. Once I got it sighted in okay at 100 yards, I decided to never consider adjusting tbe "target turret" for elevation when shooting different ranges. I do better to guesstimate it and simply hold over the intended target.
Okay.... a second reason... I like fine things and something like a Leupold or one of the other top-tier scopes is a joy to own.
maskedman504
Member
I have a Leupold VX-3 on a .300 WSM and it is a very nice scope.
I recently got a 4x32 Nikon Prostaff for the 10/22 for $109 and I must say that it is also a very nice scope.
I recently got a 4x32 Nikon Prostaff for the 10/22 for $109 and I must say that it is also a very nice scope.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
What does that even mean???
DenverNova
Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 3
New Member with Two Cents
Hey, I'm recently back into shooting after a long time off since I got out of the marines in the late nineties. I Just like to shoot paper.
But to add to the thread, I'm a photographer. While I have a good pro camera, It's more important to have good glass. A moderate prosumer camera like a canon 60d will take great photos in good light as long as you put good glass on it. I'd rather have the moderate body (less than $800) with $3500 glass on it than have a $3500 body with cheap glass.
In good light the difference is more about sharpness, but in anything approaching moderate conditions the glass will quickly limit what you can do if it's not top end stuff.
With that said, I have a millett TRS-1 (about $360) on my .223 700 SPS Varmint with a BC medalist stock. I'm very happy with it. But I'm not a pro shooter. If I wasn't a pro photographer, I wouldn't have pro glass on my camera. I don't have pro glass on my rifle, and I can't justify the expense for it when I'm just having fun at the range.
Good canon glass has fluorite lens elements to reduce chromatic aberration, and it costs a lot to get that. i wonder if scope lens elements need the same types of treatments? Good camera glass is also not just about the glass itself, but the quality of the build, use of metals instead of plastics, precision of the alignment in the lens elements, weather sealing, coatings, ability to withstand shock, etc. I'm guessing riflescopes probably incorporate more of these things in them the more expensive they get.
Anyway, I just found the topic interesting coming from a photography perspective. Thanks for all the great info on the forums here!
Hey, I'm recently back into shooting after a long time off since I got out of the marines in the late nineties. I Just like to shoot paper.
But to add to the thread, I'm a photographer. While I have a good pro camera, It's more important to have good glass. A moderate prosumer camera like a canon 60d will take great photos in good light as long as you put good glass on it. I'd rather have the moderate body (less than $800) with $3500 glass on it than have a $3500 body with cheap glass.
In good light the difference is more about sharpness, but in anything approaching moderate conditions the glass will quickly limit what you can do if it's not top end stuff.
With that said, I have a millett TRS-1 (about $360) on my .223 700 SPS Varmint with a BC medalist stock. I'm very happy with it. But I'm not a pro shooter. If I wasn't a pro photographer, I wouldn't have pro glass on my camera. I don't have pro glass on my rifle, and I can't justify the expense for it when I'm just having fun at the range.
Good canon glass has fluorite lens elements to reduce chromatic aberration, and it costs a lot to get that. i wonder if scope lens elements need the same types of treatments? Good camera glass is also not just about the glass itself, but the quality of the build, use of metals instead of plastics, precision of the alignment in the lens elements, weather sealing, coatings, ability to withstand shock, etc. I'm guessing riflescopes probably incorporate more of these things in them the more expensive they get.
Anyway, I just found the topic interesting coming from a photography perspective. Thanks for all the great info on the forums here!
I was out coyote hunting the other day. As we sat their as dusk came, I was reminded of what a difference good optics make over OK optics (and I don't mean the real junk scopes) as the light fades.
I guess that depends on what you expect from the scope and what things you are measuring. The precision of adjustments is typically much better with expensive scopes. It does no good to know how many mils to dial if that is not what is really getting dialed in. I initially typed out a list of features, but saw Taliv covered it that typically come with more expensive scopes. Are these little differences or big ones? They can really matter.
My guess is many of the people saying a cheap scope is "just as good" probably don't use their scopes the same way. If you aren't miling targets then whether you have a first focal plane scope doesn't really matter as much. You you aren't making adjustments for wind and distance then the precision of the adjustments on the scope may not matter. My guess is that a number of the people that ho hum the need for an expensive scope likely couldn't use one that well if the did have one. They would still benefit from the glass quality as well as quality of construction and durability.
I think that is a pretty good way of putting it.
I guess that depends on what you expect from the scope and what things you are measuring. The precision of adjustments is typically much better with expensive scopes. It does no good to know how many mils to dial if that is not what is really getting dialed in. I initially typed out a list of features, but saw Taliv covered it that typically come with more expensive scopes. Are these little differences or big ones? They can really matter.
My guess is many of the people saying a cheap scope is "just as good" probably don't use their scopes the same way. If you aren't miling targets then whether you have a first focal plane scope doesn't really matter as much. You you aren't making adjustments for wind and distance then the precision of the adjustments on the scope may not matter. My guess is that a number of the people that ho hum the need for an expensive scope likely couldn't use one that well if the did have one. They would still benefit from the glass quality as well as quality of construction and durability.
I think that is a pretty good way of putting it.
This conversation seems to be going nowhere. It vividly reminds me of people telling me that their Dacia Duster SUV is just as good as my G-wagen and it retails for 85% less; the only socially responsible response is trying hard not to roll my eyes while smiling and verbally agreeing with them. As far as they can (and are willing to) understand it, it's the truth.
mcdonl
Member
It is all about money to me (And I would guess most people....)
I have a little more money now, so my last scope was a nikon and I am looking to get another nice scope. Someday, I will get very nice scopes.
If I had a lot of disposable income or nothing else to spend money on and I needed a scope, I would spend all that I had.
I have a little more money now, so my last scope was a nikon and I am looking to get another nice scope. Someday, I will get very nice scopes.
If I had a lot of disposable income or nothing else to spend money on and I needed a scope, I would spend all that I had.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Take it for what it's worth and don't get bent out of shape by it. It was a comment made from my point of view, and I explained more about what I was thinking when I replied to taliv's comment in #67.
- Status
