BUYER BEWARE! & Scopes on the lower end $

Somebody need to tell my older Leupold scopes how cheap and crappy they are as they just can't seem to let go.
Or the old Bushnell Banner sitting on a Savage 30-06 that has killed more deer than many people have ever had the pleasure to see in the wild.
Optics have come a long way in the past 20 years or so but theses old scopes are still excellent quality. Asserting that a $150 scope is junk or a waste of money stinks of elitism. Sure there are "better" scopes but that doesn't mean everything below YOUR dignity is junk.

^^^ While I agree with you about Leupold, and to a lesser extent the $150 benchmark, I disagree with calling a desire to avoid low end scopes elitist. That's like saying "my Lorcin (or Jiminez, or Raven, or...) has always worked, so you guys carrying Glocks and S&W are elitists."

I have a box full of broken scopes. There are Bushnell, Simmons, Tasco, Nikon in the box. There are no Leupold or Burris in the box. One really good way to 'get lucky' with buying a scope is to buy a good one to start with.

Get a b/w photo of yourself and a similar b/w photo of a "bad guy" .

Place both photos at approx 700 to 1000 yards and see if you can detect the good guy target versus the bad guy.

Budget scopes tend to resolve poorly at further distances and particularly at higher magnification.

If you are shooting deer at 200 yards or less, then perhaps a budget scope is adequate. Ymmv.

Nikon is in now way in the same league as Simmons, Tasco, or low end Bushnell. To say so is absurd. And while there are junk Bushnells, the Bushnell Elites are pretty good scopes. Their Prostaff is in league with a Burris FFII.

And a Nikon Monarch goes toe-to-toe with Leupold in scopes both in durability as well as clarity. And while my Sworovski is outstanding, it is not so much better than my Monarchs that I replaced my Nikons.

In binoculars, Monarch 7's beats Leupold and ranks up there with the best of the best. Sure, a half-step behind Sworovski, Leica, Zeiss, but better than Steiner. It competes well with the Burris Signature Select binocs I have.

Brand loyalty? Perhaps, but I'm not wedded to Nikon. As I said, I have optics from numerous manufacturers. Have owned Simmons and Bushnell low-ends, plus an NcStar - all were junk I'll agree.

However, the Bushnell Elite I have on my 22 is an excellent scope. The Burris FFII's I have are great, as well as the two Monarchs. They all rank well above Tasco, Simmons, Barska, etc.

When I take my rifle with the Leupold VX-3 to the range, I also take one with a VX-2 so I have something to shoot while the first one cools. Going back and forth between the two scopes, it's easy to see the difference between them. And my Zeiss scopes are better still.

I've always considered a Nikon Monarch in the past when looking for a scope. I hold the two finalists next to one another and just move my eye from eyepiece to eyepiece. The Nikon has never made the cut, the Leupold always won. Doing the same between Leupold and Zeiss, the Zeiss wins. And I don't do this looking outside, everything looks good in great light. I find a dark corner in the store, and look for detail.

Most people don't know how to shop for a scope.

Over 1k for a scope? It better be at least gen 2 NV...

Hammer,
May interest you to know that most of my rifles bear iron sights as I collect old milsurps.

But, if I was a hunter or a long distance precision shooter, then I would want good glass--both are pretty expensive pursuits and the necessity to have humane kills requires precision for hunting. Glass is simply more precise way out beyond Fort Mudge.

That being said, for paper punching, even the walmart specials do a pretty decent job at 100-200 yards.

Never buy "used" scopes. New and know quality ones for me. Just my 2 cents.

Sav .250 Never buy "used" scopes. New and know quality ones for me. Just my 2 cents.

Click to expand...

This is one of the "absolute" statements that should be dismissed IMO.

Two of my very best buys were used Leupold products. One was a 2-7 Vari X III that was thirty plus years old. Wouldn't hold zero. Sent it back and in return got a 4-14 x40 VX-3. Had to add a couple hundred dollars, but the new scope is far superior. It's a $500 plus scope.

Second were some binoculars that had been returned to Cabelas. They were in the Bargain Cave. Eye cup threads were stripped. I paid considerably less than half price. Sent them back and they sent a brand new pair of considerably better quality at no charge

Also got a Burris Black Diamond 3-12 x 50 on a used rifle. $375 for the whole thing. Sold the rifle and ended up with the scope for $50. Incredible scope

redneck2 said:

This is one of the "absolute" statements that should be dismissed IMO.

Two of my very best buys were used Leupold products. One was a 2-7 Vari X III that was thirty plus years old. Wouldn't hold zero. Sent it back and in return got a 4-14 x40 VX-3. Had to add a couple hundred dollars, but the new scope is far superior. It's a $500 plus scope.

Second were some binoculars that had been returned to Cabelas. They were in the Bargain Cave. Eye cup threads were stripped. I paid considerably less than half price. Sent them back and they sent a brand new pair of considerably better quality at no charge

Also got a Burris Black Diamond 3-12 x 50 on a used rifle. $375 for the whole thing. Sold the rifle and ended up with the scope for $50. Incredible scope

Click to expand...

I agree.
I've bought 4 used scopes that were listed as like new, barely used etc...(all would have passed for new)
I've never had an issue with any of them and saved over $100 on each.
Just buy a quality manufacturer that stands behind it's product and you're covered regardless.

I literally started tossing the budget glass that comes on package deals in the garbage back in the mid 80's. My wife and I both got injured pretty badly using junk glass, short eye relief. Since then, we won't use anything except Leupold or better.

I'm not trying to offend anyone, but Nikon will not make it's way to my rifles. And as of recent, I have sworn off Vortex as well. They're fixed glass isn't bad, but if I want a decent and inexpensive fixed power, I'll just go with a Leupold 3x9 Hunter.

Leupold or Zeiss for me, and I ain't wealthy, just picky!

The best deal I ever got on good glass was in a pawn shop. They have a pair of 10x42 Leupold's from the early 90's that I got for $8 in totally beat up condition. I sent them to Leupold to be refurbished, didn't cost me a dime to have them completely rebuilt. They even sent them back with a new strap and case. My son did the same thing with a pair of Leupold 10x40 IF's he got for $50 from the early 80's or so, they did the same exact thing for him. That's what I consider a top notch optic company!

GS

I have 2 Leupolds for my 44 mag handguns and they are good. When I bought my 460 XVR I researched all the scopes out there and chose the Bushnell 2X6 because there isn't any change at all in eye relief when changing power. Every review of this scope rates it way above Burris and Leupold, and I rate it better also. I also saved enough money to buy a top of the line mount and ring set.
Most of my loads are 300 to 360 grain bullets at near maximum and the scope is fine.

And game, I've not even considered a Leupold as while they make good scopes, like anything else you get name and glass - and sometimes the name is better than the glass, sometimes the glass is better. Perhaps it's because I came to scopes from binoculars, and Leupold frankly is second class to better Nikons - and that ain't my personal ranking system.

But, you should use what you like and are comfortable with. Since I own high end, I know how well a Nikon stacks up. No, I'm not doing a prostaff, but I have two Monarchs and there's nothing in eye relief that a Leupold supplies that a Nikon doesn't. Ditto for light transmission save perhaps at the margins. That is a generalization, of course, because you could compare top-of-the-line Leupold and bottom-of-the-line Nikon, or vice versa, and skew the data all sorts of ways.

Leupolds are good scopes no doubt about it. Zeiss, Sworovski, Leica are better. On your rifles you should mount exactly what floats your boat. That is to say, pick the scopes that work best for you. If you find you are a Zeiss and Leupold shooter, then shoot away. You'll be well served. Nikon Monarch, Sworovski, Burris (Full Field II and Signature Select), and Bushnell Elites are my go to glass and nary a Leupold. To each his own.

Fatdaddy said:

I'm no scope expert by far but could you elaborate on this? I've looked through some low price junk (mostly in the sub $100 range) and the "junk" was obvious but when looking through lower end Leupold or Nikon compared to higher end Leupold or Zeiss it doesn't look like you're getting a lot more for your money. Other than being able to say "yep, that's a $1000+ scope there", what does the extra money get you? Marketing hype?
All of the above are %95 light transmission.

Click to expand...

The glass quality in Nikon scopes are good, not great, but good. Light transmission is relatively good too. Remember too, that the 95%-98% light transmission is per lens element, and not an over all transmission percentage, so if one scope has 12 lens elements, and the other has 10, both at 98% light transmission per lens element, the scope with 10 lens elements will have better light transmission over all, as less light is lost by the system as a whole. Where they fall short compared to higher end scopes is in things such as image resolution, internal mechanics and weight. A Leupold VX-3 in a comparable magnification range is about 1/2 lb lighter than the Nikon, for example. The Nikons aren't bad scopes by any measure, but I do think they're over-hyped for what they are, which is a decent low-mid priced scope.

Every man is entitled to his opinion, of course.

Ash said:

Every man is entitled to his opinion, of course.

Click to expand...

Any specific objections?

Yeah, the Nikon is no low end. I have Swarovoski and Nikon Monarch. In comparison, the Nikon is a solid, high-quality product. I also have Burris Signature Select. Now, Prostaff is a big step down, but so is a Leupold VX-2 and Rifleman.

Ash said:

Yeah, the Nikon is no low end. I have Swarovoski and Nikon Monarch. In comparison, the Nikon is a solid, high-quality product. I also have Burris Signature Select. Now, Prostaff is a big step down, but so is a Leupold VX-2 and Rifleman.

Click to expand...

Nikons are low to mid range scopes. They are decent scopes, even for the money the Prostaff isn't bad, but they're definitely not high end. For most shooters, they're more than good enough. That doesn't mean they don't fall short when compared to other scopes outside their price range. In addition to Nikon, I've owned Leupold (including Mark 4 series), Trijicon (ACOG), Swarovski, Kahles, Zeiss, Steiner, Burris, Bushnell Elite, Vortex (Razor HD), Vomz and Weaver scopes/optics, so I have tons of practical experience with scopes.

Yeah, but you are still talking brand as a whole. I don't claim a Monarch is high-end. It simply isn't low end. Mid range? Yep. But mid range scopes are excellent scopes. The price-to-performance at the high end falls off and is not linear - the higher the price the increase in performance does not increase the same.

But it remains that there are Nikon scopes better than Leuopold scopes. Vice versa plays here of course. But sweeping generalizations are in themselves wrong.

Owning Burris Signature Select, Sworovski, Burris FFII, Bushnell Elite, and Nikon Monarchs, the Monarchs compare well with the best. Not the best, but the best don't offer vast improvements over the Monarch. A FFII is vastly better than a Barska, NcStar, Simmons, etc. A Monarch is better than a Full Field II, but not to the extent the FFII is better than Barska. A Zeiss is better than a Monarch, but not to the extent the Monarch is better than a FFII. The law of diminishing marginal returns at its best.

As to weight? Weight doesn't bother me. A refined, ultra light scope is neat and a tribute to craft. But an excellent scope that is a few ounces heavier isn't going to break my heart nor my back.

Owning the best and mid-range has shown me that mid-range scopes (the $400-$600 range) offers outstanding performance and price - the figurative sweet spot. A Nikon Monarch sits comfortably in that spot.

I believe when it comes to scopes and rifles there three factors in determining how to spend your money. 1. Budget 2. Use 3. Want vs Need. I have 2 Redfield scopes both on 30-30s. Those guns will probly never see use beyond 150yds. Neither of those scopes were over $220 with tax. They do just fine for intended use. I have 3 scopes in the $300-500 range. Those scopes are the (Leupy vx2, 2 Nikons PS5 and Buckmaster) Those scopes sit atop bolt actions and will reach out to 300yds easily on paper or deer, maybe even further if I was confident in the shot. My point is if I am looking to pick pepper out of fly poo, I would probably look at spending north of 1k, especially if I had to do it at 500+ yds. However, for most people the $300-500 is probably best bang for your buck. IMHO.

It is all in the lens coating....

That is one of the most highly-guarded industrial secrets today. Glass is glass, optical blanks are just about all the same. Anyone with the knowledge can grind them to perfection.

What makes a great scope is that coating. A sputtering of metals and other elementl. Highly researched and difficult to formulate.

So far, the best comes from Germany or Austria. Japan is second. The rest are also ran. We used to make good ones domestically, but not anymore.

To wit, you can get one Zeiss camera lens or a whole slew of Nikon for the same $$.

'Course, with my old crappy eyesight, even a WallyWorld scope is better than nothing....but my old Schmidt & Bender makes it happen.

DDG

"Glass is glass, optical blanks are just about all the same. Anyone with the knowledge can grind them to perfection."

Absolute nonsense. Not only are optical blanks available in a wide range of quality, but the inherent cost of refining them to a particular degree is responsible for huge variances in retail pricing.

For you fans of medium-price, fixed-power scopes, consider IOR-Valdada; I assume they are still using exceptionally-clear Schott glass. Never failed to sell one of their scopes to anyone who stepped out into the foyer of the gunshop and read signs hundreds of yards away on the other side of I-40.

The strong dollar lately has impressed importers; buy a superior product at a very competitive price.

And my recommendation has nothing to do with the quality of Leupold and like American products with fantastic guarantees; I'm a big fan of their products, too...but still like to buy the very best product for the money.

There are counterfeit Leupolds out there. Friend called Leupold to see when his variable was made he had inherited and when he gave Leupold the s/n they told him it was a counterfeit scope. If Rolex can be counterfeited why not everything else? I have a counterfeit Gerber sheath knife. Bought it second hand .

I have to agree that budget and use are far more important than "high-end" or "low-end" arguments. Here, a "long shot" in hunting maxes out at 200 yards. Usual ranges are around 100 yards, or less. Accordingly, nobody hunting here could care less about discriminating between "good guy" and "bad guy" targets at 1000 yards. The furthest shot available is on a range, and that's just under 300 yards.

Far too often, the cost of equipment is used as a sop for lacking skills. Truly, if you want to spend $2000 on a scope for the possibility that, one day, you might become a Military Sniper, go for it. Just don't act like everyone should emulate that wish.

I shoot, plink, and hunt small game with a variety of .22 caliber rifles. There, spending $500.00 on a scope to target game that isn't going to be much more than 40-50 yards away is, again, a CHOICE, not a necessity.

As we age, optics can extend our shooting capabilities for longer. However, spending more and more money beyond what is necessary is simply a waste.

Use the best glass you can afford. If I could afford a $1,200 scope on my hunting rifle, I would buy and use it over the less-expensive glass I use now.

There is a difference in quality. The high end glass will Allow you to see a lot more with more detail, especially at dusk or low light conditions. The low light clarity is the advantage of the better glass, IMO.

But we do the best with what we can afford; ya shoot what ya brung.