Are your preferences in scopes changing?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sniper66

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
3,467
Location
NE Kansas
I initiated another post awhile back asking for opinions about 'dot' scopes. In the process of searching for answers, I looked through a lot of scopes. I own and have owned dozens of scopes over the years. Most of my changes gave been to upgrade and get rid of lower priced, less desirable scopes in exchange for better scopes. Also affecting my decisions has been my shooting activities. Last few years has been dominated by prairie dogs and varmint rifles. As I looked through lots of scopes I was struck by the amazing quality of glass now available and the many reticle options. So now I'm wondering if it makes sense to go through another round of upgrades. My initial search was for a good scope for my future AR style dedicated coyote rifle....found a good Burris 1-6X red dot scope for $260 (thanks THR). Will have to resist the temptation to buy the Bushnell 1-6X at the Bushnell Outlet in KC that was marked down from $1600 to $900....ouch. But, WOW was it ever a beauty. This journey has made me wonder about the journey of others. Would love to hear your stories.
 
I always try to hold out for high end scopes and generally spend more on the optics than on the rifle. I would have snatched that Bushnell 1-8x up in a heartbeat :)

I am partial to 3 kinds of optics, red dots, scout scopes and higher power variables with mil-dot reticles. But all need to have very good to excellent optics. Not NightForce or Swarovski mind you but upper mid-range or so, just a bit more than the rifles they go on. Also Mil-Dot reticles are fine with me, I don't need the various dedicated long range reticles (but they do look interesting).
 
For what I do a $200-$500 scope is all I need. And a $200 scope made today is a better scope than one that sold for $800 years ago.

But the type of scopes I use has changed. I used to be a 2-7X fan, but today find a 1-4X or 1-6X is much better on the low end and a 3-9X gives me all the magnification I can use for long range work while not being significantly larger than a 2-7X. I like 30mm tubes on the 1-4X scopes and most of mine now have multiple aiming points for longer range work.

I've never been a huge fan of fixed powers, but I've gotten a chance to fool around with s SWFA 6X42 on a 30mm tube. Price is $299 and I'm thinking about buying one.
 
The biggest change for me over the past few years is that I've come to like side focus much, much better than A/O. I just find it sooo much more convenient when shooting in situations where I need to change the focus distance from time to time. I don't care at all for the crazy-busy reticles that are so popular nowadays.
 
I'm a recreational shooter, so my preferences change with the type of shooting I do -- fast action multiple steel plates at 100 yards or less its dot optics or 1-4X. For 300+ yards its a 6x24X FPP MilDot scope. I find 3x9X and 4-12X has a lot of good inexpensive options and generally are what I use on my guns that aren't my favorite six.

I like having a wide variety of guns to shoot. Except for the long range shooting, I'd not have a scope at all, and in fact, only owned one (3-9X bottom of the line Leupold, which let me get good hits out to 300 yards) until age mid 40s when my ability to use iron sights started to deteriorate badly.

I'm probably a small minority here but I don't need $1000+ optics to make these old eyes hit instead of miss as they would with iron sights these days, so I don't spend the money on them. My optics budget goes to lenses for my cameras.

Some people here may think it stupid to have an ~$250 Primary Arms 5X prismatic scope on my 10X more expensive SCAR 17S but I make good hits with it on steel plates out to 400 yards (furthest I've access to) so "better optics" basically gets me little but a drained bank account. I'd rather use the "savings" for ammo or put towards another gun I want to try.
 
All I really need are scopes to hunt with and so I rarely cross the 3-9x duplex threshold. For the hunting I do parallax correction is more of a hindrance than benefit and BDCs for the most part slow my eyes down.

No might be the solid answer though I have considered building a few semi-custom rifles for longer range where a Christmas Tree or side focus would be fitting. There’s little I own at this time that would pair well with such a rifle and so I’ll never say never to change.
 
Yes. Initially started out shooting in the 80’s and 90’s using Bushnell and Redfield.

Then went on to Nikon and Burris in the 00’s.

Now I’m onto Trijicon, Aimpoint and Zeiss.

I may buy fewer optics, but they’re better quality and much clearer.
 
I started ~30yrs ago with mil-dot reticles in MOA based scopes with capped dials, and adjustable objectives. Then around 20yrs ago, side focus scopes started becoming more prevalent, so I converted, and also converted to mil-hash reticles instead of mil-dot, and exposed turrets - especially in consistent mil-mil or MOA-MOA. About 10yrs ago, I started getting reticles with Christmas trees.

I buy cheap scopes for toys and tests, buy good scopes for real use. HD/UHD/ED glass, fully multicoated optics, and brands I know will track consistently without lash.
 
I’m a hunter and a Luddite about scopes. I don’t do long range.

VXIII 2.5-8x36 is my max and I own mostly VXIII 1.5-5x20s. I like the FXII 2.5x20 as well. There is a 1-4x20 VX2 in there as well.

I despise any reticle that is not simple. Duplex, post, German No 3 are my favorites.
 
I strictly hunt and don’t take shots past 350 yards. The older I get I spend more money on better glass with less magnification.
 
Thanks for all the responses to my OP. I'm learning more all the time. As a retired guy with many years of experience, I continue to be amazed by the complexity of people and the never ending willingness to try another way of doing things. It gives me courage to try different alternatives.
 
I like to tinker with everything, scopes included. I've never had the cash to play with scopes of decent enough quality to use stuff like target turrets untill recently.

Thus I'm just getting into dial and shoot, longer ranges, and better glass.

Still tho for a go out and use it scope, my preference is a 2-4 low end 9-16 top end variable with a sub 50mm objective, ao/sf and capped turrets.
besides having the adjustable focus that exactly what I started with in highschool.
Another change is that most of my scopes have some kinda marked reticle which im begining to really like.
 
Mine hasn't really changed, generally on everything I own the glass cost at least if not more than the rifle.

I only own 3 brands, Swarovski, Leupold and Vortex. I prefer mid-range magnification, except for precision and varmint rigs. To me, hunting = capped turrets, possibly a BDC reticle, depending on use; 1-6X on the low end 4.5-14X on the high end. Bought a Leupold VX6Hd 2-12X last year that just might be the sweat spot for "all around".

I try to match the glass (power & weight) to the expected range & environment.
 
A person's perspective and preferences depend on what they want to do with the optic. That varies not only in application, but time also.

There have been so many improvements, but also fad things in scopes and other optics.
So much has changed, especially in glass acquisition and quality. Now, brand still matters, but not as much as it used to, considering that a previously thought lower tier manufacturer can make a high quality, expensive scope.

Gun preferences really determine taste and optic acquisition.

Forgive the dates if they are slightly off or if I forgot your favorite, but generally:

In the mid 90's, we are talking about large, 50mm Leupold Vari-X III and other heavy hunting scopes for heavy magnum rifles.
Availability is mail order or in store. Internet commerce is fledgling.
By late 90's early 2000's, optics for handgun hunting have better availability.
Nightforce NXS debuts

In the mid 2000's:
Many go to the store to test, but order online.
What optic for my AR? Trijicon ACOG (with a piggyback RMR) vs Aimpoint vs Eotech vs inexpensive chinese optics
Can't forget the magnifiers. How are you supposed to shoot 100 yards without a 3x? hahaha. I can solve that "problem" for $500.
Zeiss entering the American hunting market and making Leupold make a better scope
The quality increase of Bushnell; Burris (acquired by Beretta.)
Rangefinding scopes

By the late 2000's it's Aimpoint vs Eotech vs every manufacturer ever since literally everyone has a LED powered RDS.
The RDS battery life question finally dies. The answer is a bajillion hours if you leave it on in the corner for your HD AR.
The coming of age of Vortex not only competing but being a market force.

In the 20-teens:
Selling back Eotechs for another optic
Trijicon MRO vs Aimpoint
1-6X leapfrogs the fixed magnified + piggybacked micro RDS
Handgun slides milled for micro RDS's
Trijicon's patent on prism scopes expired - so now that segment increases
Monstrous scopes for your PRS rifle


That's without naming / placing these:

The conglomeration of which ownership group bought which optic company when and did their quality change?
The outright licensing of optics. It's literally the same or similar optic, just with different brand or slight changes.
Scout scopes
SWFA SS fixed
Side focus
Huge turrets
every recticle imaginable, including caliber specific that "work" to varying degrees
Illumination going from luxury to normal
SFP to FFP to SFP to FFP to SFP to FFP
Increased quality of the chinese RDS
The CNC manufacture of high quality mounts
 
Now that laser-etched reticles are widely available, I have come to favor simple (i.e., not overly busy) MOA reticles. A good number of my hunting rifles still have simple duplex reticles, but I really like the SWFA MOA-Q, the Vortex VMR-1, and Leupold TMOA reticles. I tried a BDC, but it was more of a hassle than it was worth. A simple range card lets me use an MOA reticle for holdovers if I'm not dialing in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top