The high price of good rifle scopes

getitdone1 · Post by **getitdone1** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:30 pm

See at the Gander Mountain site they are offering a Leupold VX-3 3.5-10X50mm for $949.99.

Of course we are not going to be able to change this, or other high prices, but it seems so 'out-of-balance' when you can buy many outstanding guns for that kind of money, or less. I'm guessing there's a lot of 'mark-up' with these scopes. And yes, I know, there are several brands of scopes a lot more pricey than the Leupold brand.

Sights often costing more than the gun. That's wierd and I'm not sure it warranted.

Don

jnyork · Post by **jnyork** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:41 pm

A perusal of old Gun Digest books from the 50's and 60's showed that you could easily double the cost of a good rifle by putting a good scope on it, it's all relative.

awp101 · Post by **awp101** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:50 pm

jnyork wrote:A perusal of old Gun Digest books from the 50's and 60's showed that you could easily double the cost of a good rifle by putting a good scope on it, it's all relative.

I've always been told "Prepare to spend as much, if not more, for good optics as you did for the whole rifle". And this was for production rifles, not customs.

That's a lot easier to swallow when I stick to $99-$150 rifles...

BigSky56 · Post by **BigSky56** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:52 pm

I use weavers V3 biggame K6 varmits 150$ scopes that break as easy as Kahles when you drop them or a horse goes down on them, scopes are a sight nothing more you want veiwing get some binocs I buy german glass you can veiw all day your eyes dont hurt when your done always put your $ in binocs. danny

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:57 pm

getitdone1 wrote:Sights often costing more than the gun. That's wierd and I'm not sure it warranted.

Always been that way - that's why people used to have the mounts truly 'interchangeable' so they could use one scope on several guns. The 'Leatherwood' and similar mounts even did all the adjustment, so the scope would be sighted-in on whatever gun you transferred it to. (Wish we still used that system, myself...)

El Chivo · Post by **El Chivo** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:30 pm

also you're not supposed to be viewing through your scope; it's just an aiming device so why spend for pristine optics? Medium quality optics are cheap and decent, and as long as the mechanics are solid, that's what you need. If the deer is a little blurry or distorted, you'll still hit it.

You may need the better quality when you use a high power scope due to the light transmission issue. But I think a lot of people use too high a power on the scope. How far are you going to shoot, anyway? For most of us, 300 yards is the absolute max unless you're planning the shot with a calculator. You don't need to count the hairs on a deer at 300 yards, you just need to put the crosshairs on it. A 3x scope gives the same size image at 300 yards as you get with the naked eye at 100 yards. You should have already counted antlers or tines with your 10x binos.

Ok, you may be going for prairie dogs instead of deer. Still they don't have to fill the screen to be hit. A lot of companies make a nice sturdy 4x for a good price.

Personally I don't like high powered scopes because they are too jiggly for me. My scopes are all Weaver 1-3's and I have a 2.5-7 on my .22 - set on 2.5. The optics are just fine for the purpose (maybe too good) and I hear the durability is there. When you need a truly high end scope is with the high magnification models, and those are always expensive whether you're talking about camera lenses, binos, spotting scopes, etc. A lotta glass elements and expensive coatings there.

Technology has something to do with it as well. I mentioned coatings as part of the consideration, new anti-reflective coatings are being developed all the time and the cost is getting to be $100 per pair of lenses, front and back. Multiply that times how many elements are in your scope. I don't know if this applies to scopes but good binos are nitrogen filled which means gaskets and special manufacturing problems. So the scope you are considering may be a very complex thing to make.

At least you can use is as a carry handle when you get tired.

Mescalero · Post by **Mescalero** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:34 pm

Don't get me started.
We used to do it right.
I was part of it.
The marketing MBA's _"RUINED" the whole industry.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:01 pm

There isn't much joy in buying a scope that's for sure. I think it is better to go ahead and find a couple used Leupolds and keep them when you sell rifles than any other strategy. Hunting days are precious and a scope failure can ruin some days you can't get back. Not that you can get any day back.

I have been helping a guy sell some guns since he is in poor health. I ended up with 2 Leupold 1.5-5 Vari X III's for helping him. I also have two Schmidt and Bender scopes he wants to sell but they are so expensive no one will buy them. I don't blame them. They can't be that much better than quality scopes that cost much less.

Once you have your little stable of 4 or so Leupolds you always keep you are in good shape. Then you get a little joy when you see the asking prices 5 years down the road.

jjames · Post by **jjames** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:34 pm

Sad thing is, they don't seem to have a decent resale value and don't seem to do much for the value of the gun they are mounted either.

olyinaz · Post by **olyinaz** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:21 am

I'm sorry, but I think you can buy more scope for reasonable money than ever before and they just work. Nikon's Monarch series is outstanding, the Bushnell Elite series is amazing, Burris still has some great glass that doesn't cost an arm and a leg, and the new Leupold-made Redfield line of scopes are simply wonderful for the dollars spent.

Add to that the new crop of excellent brands like Vortex and many others out there on top of all of the new optional features like various reticles and side focus and illumination and you've never had so many options and such good glass available as today.

Plenty of scope and it aint no thousand bucks: http://www.opticsplanet.net/nikon-monar ... copes.html

I love this scope and I think it's a bargain: http://www.opticsplanet.net/redfield-re ... ticle.html

Lastly, you can spend a thousand bucks on a VX-3 3.5-10 50mm Leupold scope I guess, but why would you? Here: http://www.opticsplanet.net/leupold-vx3 ... scope.html

And don't even get me started on binos! I used to sell Zeiss and Swarovski binoculars and they were stunning at several grand a pair back in the 80's, but now I have an image stabilized set of Canon binos made with flourite ED elements that would blow those things away and they cost half that but it's in 2010 dollars so it's actually a fraction. How cool is it to glass something and push the little button and it just FREEZES and stops jiggling? VERY. Especially when it's Jupiter and you're trying to count the moons etc.

Well anyways - glass away, it's never been this good if you ask me.

Cheers,
Oly

olyinaz · Post by **olyinaz** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:26 am

jjames wrote:Sad thing is, they don't seem to have a decent resale value and don't seem to do much for the value of the gun they are mounted either.

The only exception is known very high quality glass - really high end stuff. And also any of the high-end military scopes from makers like Aimpoint and Trijicon seem to hold their value well and sell for good money on the used market.

I certainly wish that I could find an ACOG cheap used!

Oly

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:46 am

You're paying for good glass, light tranmission, and repeatable adjustments.

Most of which don't get used whacking a deer at rock throwing distance off a stand, but if you're shooting at 800-1,000 meters against paper, steel or people, those do come into use.

I've shot $100 scopes and $3,000 scopes. They all have their purpose.

My Mauser has a $200 Burris on it, because it's about a 100-200m rifle, period (nowhere around here further i'd ever take a shot on an animal).

I've shot a SCAR-H with a 3.5X ACOG (rifle, $2500, scope, $1100) and was making first round hits at 500m on steel silhouettes.

That scope has excellent clarity in all weather conditions including fairly dark conditions, and it can be thrown off a truck or bodyslammed and keep it's zero. Which is WHY it costs so much. A little extra power might have been nice but for a 'hit' (not a tiny group) a 3 or 4X ACOG certainly gets it done out to 400-500+m. Because they have excellent quality glass and construction.

If I was shooting thousand yard stuff, I'd have absolutely no qualms paying $3k for a US Optics front focal plane in something like a 4.5-14 or 5.5-20X.

El Chivo · Post by **El Chivo** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:11 am

I did see a good quote on Calguns that wasn't about scopes but is appropriate:

"Ammo's not expensive; it's your money that's worthless"

rjohns94 · Post by **rjohns94** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:15 am

El Chivo. Ain't that the truth!!!

Mescalero · Post by **Mescalero** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:12 am

Well,
I gave olyinaz a chance.
Not impressed, we have had this discussion before.
I do not intend to be rude, I have just had it with the state of the industry; notice they were all variables ( a pet peeve of mine ).
Someone who is more adept at cruising the forum than I am should look up that LONG dissertation I wrote on scopes and the state of the industry.
Old guys will remember Terry Murbach wrote in agreeing with me.
It is only germain insomuch that there are lot of people who accept the condition of todays optics industry as the norm, and who do not know that we once enjoyed larger options and choices.

Old Time Hunter · Post by **Old Time Hunter** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:33 am

Will have to agree with El Chivo's first post. Then again, not really a big fan of optical enhancers anyways. Still capable of hitting most things out to a couple of hundred yards with peeps and open sights, even nailed cans at 300 yards without a problem a couple of weeks ago. Then we tried using a pile of weaponry with the optical enhancers...yes you could see the object with quite a bit more clarity. But boy did it mess you up when you went back to "real" shooting with the irons.

AND, the zillion dollar scopes were no better than the cheap K-Mart ones at hitting the oscillating, moving targets migrating from 70 to 190 yards in zig-zag fashion...kinda like a spooked deer bounding through the brush and woodlands. The peep type sights were head and shoulders above all the other optical enhancers.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:29 pm

You know me & my general view on Iron vs Glass.

I have glass "on" one gun and available on 2 more.

Only one piece of glass is "decent" and that's my 3x9 Burris Timberline Ballistic Plex.

Oddly enough, at an EBR shoot this weekend the guys there (lots of AGOG) were suitably impressed with the $35 "FM" 4x that I have on Erma as a 400+ aid. I suppose if I really need it putting the ballistic plex on it would be a good idea, but when 300+ with the stock HK irons is no real problem I'm not sweating it.

getitdone1 · Post by **getitdone1** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:38 pm

Not a scope but the Canon binocs with stablizer button is a dandy--as mentioned by Olyinaz. I have a pair and they are priced very reasonable for what you get. If you have not done so--give these a look.

As someone mentioned, the resale value of scopes is very poor while not so with a quality gun that's been well cared for and this makes the high price for a new scope harder to take.

My first post was 'a little off base' in that I did not mention a lot of the very good less expensive scopes so when looking at today's whole picture we're not in bad shape at all. Too, you may have to pay a lot but there are some great sights--not just regular scopes--available now. Aimpoint and the better holographic sights. Also the Trijicon 'glow in the dark' open sights I have on my Glock are outstanding.

Do any of you know of any present day lower priced scopes that are just as durable as the expensive ones? Not as good optically but just as strong? Like someone said, when a horse falls on them the expensive ones will break about as easy as the cheap ones.

Someone mentioned they were not a fan of variable scopes. We've probably all read that the fixed-power scope is more reliable. Is it?

Don

jeepnik · Post by **jeepnik** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:52 pm

Frankly, I'm surprised at the cost of a good scope. Back when things were machined by hand, and then considerable hand fitting was needed during assembly, I could understand. But, the parts tha come out of a CNC machine rarely need hand fitting if the program is done right. Hand assembly is likely still done, but it should be much less time consuming than in yesteryear.

And I will grant you that the optics themselves are superior, but I'm quite sure no one grinds and polishes by hand. Coatings too are an automated process. Now I'm sure that considerable quality control inspections take place (then again, I imagine a machine could do a fair amout of that), but still, even after considering the cost of the machinery, I'd think that the price today when adjusted for inflation should be lower.

I see this in a considerable amount of the electronics I use in my business. I will grant that manufacturers have to get the R&D expenses back, but when I loook at the cost of the individual components as opposed to the cost of the complete unit, I'm amazed.

Of course, I shouldn't be. I know one individual that had a line of equipment that he developed. He had made a nice sized fortune "before" he sold his company to a conglomerate and retired. His kids and grandkids have nothing to worry about, as long as they don't loose it doing something stupid.

Mescalero · Post by **Mescalero** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:59 pm

I googled up Weaver scopes, and they still make fixed power scopes 4,6,8, power thats a good sign.
They are now made of aluminum, but aluminum foundries have progressed quite a bit.
They have the micro-trac adjustments ( good thing )
They are more expensive than I would like to see.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:07 pm

My buddies and I have opined that with Asian CNC the less expensive scopes are about as good and the high priced ones of 50 years ago. Having said that, I only have a few scopes, and presently have two scoped rifles: an old Ruger -06 with an older Redfield, and my 1895GS with a bought new Leupold Scout Scope. I'm satisfied with both. I only require a clear, bright view, good eye relief, no fogging, and adjustments that hold. The '06 and the 1895GS were sighted in when I got them, and the scopes have held their POI since then (12 and 4 years, respectively) I think my inclination would be to buy used Leupold, and then send them to the factory for a rebuild if they are not doing their job...they do that for free for life

3leggedturtle · Post by **3leggedturtle** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:18 pm

I buy Leupold and Burris scopes exclusively. Never had one lose POI from a bump or drop. Aimpoint is the other one I'll buy, and maybe a Trijicon soon. There isn't much that confuses me more than a cheap $50 scope on $400 to $800 rifle. Probably part of the reason why i see so many Mags and Short mags that dont have a box of ammo thru them on the used gun rack.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:27 pm

3leggedturtle wrote:I buy Leupold and Burris scopes exclusively. Never had one lose POI from a bump or drop. Aimpoint is the other one I'll buy, and maybe a Trijicon soon. There isn't much that confuses me more than a cheap $50 scope on $400 to $800 rifle. Probably part of the reason why i see so many Mags and Short mags that dont have a box of ammo thru them on the used gun rack.

I got a like new 336 a few years ago from a neighbor for a very cheap amount. It was a BigBox package with the cheap Bushnell Banner on it. With the scope, you were lucky to get a 3 or 4" POI at hunting range, but when I took that junker off, and installed a 5D, I later shot a .6" in the RanchDog Postal Match, and that was with a medium sized HiViz front and a six O'Clock hold.

Shrapnel · Post by **Shrapnel** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:38 pm

The high price of scopes is all relative. If you don't want to spend money and just look through a tube with a crosshair, don't spend a lot of money. If you use a rifle a lot and shoot it regularly, the better the scope the more pleased you will be. I put the most scope on a rifle that I can justify money vs the value of the quality of the scope and the purpose of the rifle.

I have talked to plenty of people that say they won't put high dollar scopes on their guns because they want to save money. When I ask them what they did with the money they saved, they have no answer. I would also bet that if all scopes were priced the same, you would see people with nothing but Swarovski, Zeiss, (good ones, not Conquest) and Schmidt and Bender scopes on their guns...

olyinaz · Post by **olyinaz** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:52 pm

Mescalero wrote:Well,
I gave olyinaz a chance.
Not impressed, we have had this discussion before.
I do not intend to be rude, I have just had it with the state of the industry; notice they were all variables ( a pet peeve of mine ).
Someone who is more adept at cruising the forum than I am should look up that LONG dissertation I wrote on scopes and the state of the industry.
Old guys will remember Terry Murbach wrote in agreeing with me.
It is only germain insomuch that there are lot of people who accept the condition of todays optics industry as the norm, and who do not know that we once enjoyed larger options and choices.

Hey no worries bother, there's nothing says we all have to agree. And do bear in mind that my recollections only go back to about the mid-70s due to my age so there might be a golden age that I just don't know anything about.

But as far as my experiences are concerned, and I started buying rifle scopes about 35 years ago, it seems to me like the industry went through a down turn and now it's back up to where we're blessed with quality (one guy referred to it as Asian CNC and I think that's exactly it) and choices aplenty. Just my opinion - aint no one got to agree.

And regarding fixed power scopes YES - I just don't see how they could not be more robust than a variable. Still, I will not buy one unless it's for a dangerous game rifle and I don't need one of those. Variables today are just too good for me not to use them, and again that's my experience of years so I'm sticking to it.

Here are some great fixed power scopes for not a lot dough however, so I think a person does have a choice, but clearly the market favors variables and that's what I was talking about so if a guy is a fixed power only scope guy it's definitely not the bonanza days as I feel they are:

Weaver K-4 in steel: http://www.opticsplanet.net/weaver-rifl ... scope.html

Aluminum: http://www.opticsplanet.net/weaver-rifl ... -4x38.html

Leupold: http://www.opticsplanet.net/leupold-m8- ... scope.html

A few others:

http://www.opticsplanet.net/sightron-42 ... scope.html

http://www.opticsplanet.net/weaver-rifl ... -6x38.html

http://www.opticsplanet.net/bushnell-el ... scope.html

http://www.opticsplanet.net/nikon-p-223 ... scope.html

jd45 · Post by **jd45** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:23 am

I wonder if the scope getitdone1 mentioned has a 30MM tube rather than a 1" to allow for more windage & elevation adjustment, causing them to demand so much more for it. Just curious, jd45

1894c · Post by **1894c** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:28 am

I recently bought a Redfield 2x7 which is made by Leupold--not the best--but works for me... :)

buckeyeshooter · Post by **buckeyeshooter** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:02 am

I think big part of the high price of the leupold is where he was shopping. Leupolds certainly are not inexpensive, but like most things--- you get what you pay for.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:40 am

Biggest thing I've seen on cheap scopes is that the reticles are usually significantly thicker than on expensive scopes. I think the reticle in my 4x cheapie is something like 3 mils...

L_Kilkenny · Post by **L_Kilkenny** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:06 am

I'm in the group that says that 50 years ago it may of been necessary to spend as much on a scope as you did on a gun just to get something even remotely usable but not today. I've never looked thru $1000 glass, never looked thru $500 glass, heck I don't even think I've looked thru $300 glass but none of that keeps me from counting the whiskers on a 200 yard fox and having glass that holds POA. A VAST majority of shooters and hunters don't need glass that cost more than $200. I'd be willing to wager that most of those don't need glass costing $100. Note the word "need" in both of those sentences, wanting is a whole nother matter. The Leupold that the OP posted is definitely way outta the need class for 99.99% of shooters and hunters.

LK

hightime · Post by **hightime** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:18 am

My eight year old granson shot a buck with one shot with a Simmons. I can't believe it.

Owen

O.S.O.K. · Post by **O.S.O.K.** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 2:33 pm

Everybody has their "standards" and this includes scopes. I personally have settled on the medium to even what many would consider inexpensive scopes for general hunting. My Nikon prostaff scopes have never let me down. I've never had them fail or missed a shot because of the scope. Ditto for Weaver and Burris. I used to buy Leupold's and still like them and use the ones that I bought - but they are VXII level scopes, not the high dollar ones. The new Redfields look really good to me...

The way I look at it is this: when I hunt, it's never a high dollar afair. It's never life and death.

If I were purchasing a scope to use to defend my life, it would be a very good scope and I'd spend the high dollar on it to squeeze every bit of advantage. But for hunting, the ones listed above have worked just fine.

And I personally think that the optics that you can buy for $150-$200 now are excellent and we are getting more value and quality per dollar now than we ever have before.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:09 pm

Personally, I will not hesitate to increase the value of a fine hunting arm by putting a $30 scope on a $1000 rifle.

Those 'quality' expensive scopes are to a model and manufacturer, WAY OVERATED.

In my book, the cheapies are equally dependable, just as durable, and usually have optics adequate to the task at hand.

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:21 pm

Well F, go throw a cheapy on a dedicated thousand yard gun compared to a US Optics (which run about $2k) and you'll see the difference.

For the average 100-150 yard deerwhacker most cheap scopes will do fine.

When it's dim, murky, sun's going down, etc or other weather conditions, or the range gets out there, or the target is obscured somewhat.....that's where the big money comes into play.

The Burris i stuck on my Mauser is, for the $200 (on sale) I paid, excellent glass for the price, and entirely adequate for what it'll be used for.

But I don't kid myself into thinking it's equal to a Leupold Mark IV, Nightforce or similar.

That's like comparing a Rossi .38 to a Python.

stew71 · Post by **stew71** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:30 pm

I'm in the process of building a new hunting rifle using a re-barreled Mauser 98 action that I found last month. My choice of scope will be either a new Redfield 2x7 or one of the Leupold Rifleman or VX-1 3x9's, depending on what I can find locally. I don't mind spending some extra dough on an American-made scope, and I can't bring myself to top it with a bargain-priced Simmons or Tasco or BSA scope. Sure, I'll top one one of my plinkers with one, but not something that has to make it through a week-long hunt in the Alaskan bush or Nevada desert.

Old Time Hunter · Post by **Old Time Hunter** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:47 pm

FWiedner wrote:Personally, I will not hesitate to increase the value of a fine hunting arm by putting a $30 scope on a $1000 rifle.

Those 'quality' expensive scopes are to a model and manufacturer, WAY OVERATED.

In my book, the cheapies are equally dependable, just as durable, and usually have optics adequate to the task at hand.

My feelings exactly...then again, rather not use the enhancer at all as it mess's with my irons. Hard to get my ladder up over the top of 'em.

Mescalero · Post by **Mescalero** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:08 pm

I have " fixed " the POI problem Blaine experiencd with his Burris on cheap as well as not cheap scopes before.
When you have this condition, take a plastic handle screwdriver and gently tap the turret fore or aft, this will nudge the inverter into proper position, the turret is the piece in which the adjusting scres are housed.
Scopes were saved, rifles were suddenly accurate and I was proclaimed to be near genius.
The genius part is of course nonsense.

stinson · Post by **stinson** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:57 pm

New is too much? Well, I think that there are a lot of good new scope values out there, but I seldom buy a new scope, when I can buy a perfectly functioning model (mostly Leupold) used for half the price. Even better: buy a quality used rifle with the scope that you want, keep the scope and sell the rifle. Medium-priced scopes don't add much to the value of the rifle.

JB · Post by JB » Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:37 am

getitdone1 wrote:See at the Gander Mountain site they are offering a Leupold VX-3 3.5-10X50mm for $949.99.

A lot depends upon the details, but if that's the standard duplex, they've got it marked up close to $300. Maybe more than that since I'm assuming Gander buys in enough volume to get it cheaper than most small time dealers.

2571 · Post by **2571** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:17 am

I like the idea of getting up in the crisp, wee Fall hours, setting up on a well used run and then blasting some unsuspecting deer (who's just shaking off the night's sleep) using a rifle with exotic, $1K, computer-designed Japanese optics, all at 89 yards.

Mescalero · Post by **Mescalero** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:19 am

2571

well said!

hightime · Post by **hightime** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:59 pm

Cheap or high priced, I'm not usally thinking of the scope as I'm putting the cross hairs on the rib cage.
I've never thought to myself '' those are really great optics'' I'm sure glad I spent a grand on this black tube.
You probably do get what you pay for, but if you can't see the differance then don't waste your money.
I like to buy Nikon. It's middle of the road and for my buck just fine.
As far as putting a cheap scope on a high buck rifle, they come off if you want.

Owen

JB · Post by JB » Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:34 pm

I'm not into $1,000 scopes, but you often don't see the difference between a $100 scope and a $400 to $500 scope until the cheap scope won't hold zero or it fogs up at a critical time. Just holding them up beside each other in the gun shop doesn't always show the difference in quality.

Post by **Old Savage** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:35 pm

Mesc - what about an antelope standing on a ridge in the morning light on the last day of the hunt at 285 yds? I suppose you can unjustify anything especially attorneys but should you be prepared for at least what might happen - and thus - attorneys, Oh and good scopes on rifles that can shoot flat.

Mescalero · Post by **Mescalero** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:42 pm

I think the only real problem there for me would be the light, the mesa where the antelope hang out is known for killer light at sunup and sundown.

Shrapnel · Post by **Shrapnel** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:27 pm

Mescalero wrote:I think the only real problem there for me would be the light, the mesa where the antelope hang out is known for killer light at sunup and sundown.

It is true that a cheap scope will perform to most acceptable standards most of the time. I have hunted all my life with both cheap scopes and scopes that cost over $2,000.00. I can say at this point I don't have a cheap scope on anything I would hunt seriously with. Daylight to dusk in good conditions will allow the use of the cheap scope. When it comes time to shoot the deer, elk, or antelope you have been wanting and with the worst conditions during legal shooting light, a high dollar Alpha scope will perform when the cheaper one won't...Been there, done that.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:34 pm

Glass snobbery.

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:00 pm

O.S.O.K. wrote:The way I look at it is this: when I hunt, it's never a high dollar afair. It's never life and death. If I were purchasing a scope to use to defend my life, it would be a very good scope and I'd spend the high dollar on it to squeeze every bit of advantage. But for hunting, the ones listed above have worked just fine.

And I personally think that the optics that you can buy for $150-$200 now are excellent and we are getting more value and quality per dollar now than we ever have before.

I agree with all that. When I go on a $10,000 hunting trip someday (yeah, right), or if I am drafted as a sniper for defense of my nation (about as likely as the $10k hunting trip), I'll go with the best scope and gun and ammo and rangefinder and clothing and jockstrap I can get... For filling my freezer with deer-meat out on the back-40, I'll use whatever scope I get hold of, or use peeps, or if needed, 'factory open sights' < yuck

>.

L_Kilkenny · Post by **L_Kilkenny** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:34 am

JB wrote:I'm not into $1,000 scopes, but you often don't see the difference between a $100 scope and a $400 to $500 scope until the cheap scope won't hold zero or it fogs up at a critical time. Just holding them up beside each other in the gun shop doesn't always show the difference in quality.

Not holding zero would be of great concern but I've only had issue with one scope shifting POI/POA and that was outta the box. Returned it and the second worked fine. Until this last year I had only spent more than $100 on a scope once and that was $110. And my scopes have taken some hard knocks. Were talking a dozen or so below $100 with never an issue in the field.

Light transmission: A couple years ago one of the forum members did a study on the effects of different glass and peep sights on shooting/hunting light. Sorry, can't remember who. But the end results were that a scope extended shooting light a substantial amount over peeps but the difference in a varying price range of scopes measured less than 5 minutes. Also, most if not all states have big game hunting hours of sunrise to sunset or 1/2 hour before/after and pretty much any 1" scope will transmit light more than good enough for those shooting hours.

I do think that $150 scopes are better than $75 scopes and imagine a $400 scope is better than a $150 one. But it's more in the features not the usability.

LK

stretch · Post by **stretch** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:26 am

Most modern scopes are really pretty good. I tend to shy
away from the really inexpensive ones. I've had good luck with
medium-priced Leupold, Bushnell, and Nikon. One fairly
inexpensive BSA scope has worked out quite well for me on
a 22 mag rifle.

One problem modern shooters have is that they buy too
many features in a riflescope. Most folks don't need variable
power, objective lenses greater than 32 mm or so, or
lighted reticles to hunt deer. Fun to have, to be sure - but
I'd rather a 4x scope and put my money into the actual optics.
I can't hold anything greater than 6X steady enough to not be a
distraction from a field position anyway.

All of that said, really good optics are a joy to use. I have a set
of Steiner binos that are terrific - and they aren't the absolute
top-of-the-line. My brother-in-law has a Swarovski spotting
scope that is really terrific. Much better than my Simmons. The
Simmons is really not very good beyond about 50 yards, but okay
for indoor bullseye range work. That's actually a good "cheap" vs.
"really expensive" comparison!

-Stretch