BUYER BEWARE! & Scopes on the lower end $

[LRShooting]

Please, for the love of pete, do not type in all caps on the internet. It hurts my eyes!

Use bold. Much nicer to read and is also more calling for attention. Caps just looks like more squiggly lines when your scrolling. Bold says "read me."

 

[GAMEOVER44]

rule of thumb.......stop buying cheap scopes!!!! Just save your money and wait until you have accumulated enough to buy good optics. I cheaped-out and bought crap in the past and ended up throwing said crap in the dumpster. Now I save money until I have enough to buy better equipment. Takes longer, but is worth it.

Even though I have a ZEISS Terra 3x on my custom Ruger GSR rechambered in 358. I completely agree with this comment.

Quality over Quantity ANY day.

 

[JR47]

Funny thing, there is another quote about this. It states that "quantity has a quality of it's own".

Notice that nobody bothers to address people who hunt at closer distances, or target shoot during day-light hours on most ranges. The trouble with that is that there will be MANY more shooters under that description than there are that shoot at 400+ yards.

Tell us again how we need those $500.00+ optics to shoot 40-50 yards at squirrels, or small game. Or at deer under 100 yards away. Wait, let's take a couple of black and white photos of ourselves, and a bad guy, and put them out there at 50 yards, and see how advantageous a $2,000 optic is to us over a lower priced optic.

The point is that not everyone NEEDS to spend a fortune on optics. Circumstances drive needs. If I'm going to be shooting in low-light, at 1000 yards, price of an optic is not a question. You need the best there is. However, shooting at a paper target, in day-light, at 100 yards doesn't require the same optic. You may WANT it, but that isn't even close to NEEDING it.

 

[grter]

Better quality is always better and it usually cost more due to cost of materials, skill required to make them, time as well as intensity of labor, the rigid quality control needed etc...

It's a universal rule that spans into all areas optics or not that some people are unable or refuse to comprehend.

These lower end products may work well if you never pass a certain level of proficiency that requires better equipment but will most certainly hinder anyone that is expanding their skill levels.

Inadequate equipment will arrest further skill developement and blanket statements that high quality equipment is uneeded because it's too expensive and your ancedotal experience using lower end equipment for tasks within their specs that you never intend to exceed is not advice based on sound knowlege.

Good advice is unless you are absolutely positive you are not going expand your skills past a certain point or will ever have a need for high quality then you are well advised to shop for the highest quality you can find be it new or used (in good condition) because in the long run you will not only save the extra money you spent on something that is no good for you after realizing you will have to buy the better quality product to do the things you want or need to do, you will have also saved yourself from a lot of grief and frustration.

Starting out right in the first place by saving up and choosing wisely makes your learning experience faster as well as more fun.

 

[merrill]

A quality scope makes a difference when trying to distinguish between a doe and a spike buck at 200 yds actually even at 100 yds. As to Japanese glass it is as good or better than any other. Minolta (Japanese) used to make glass for many Leica (German) lenses. I've owned Zeiss, Minolta, Nikon, Pentax, and most other camera lenses and would not spit for the difference and yes, I've tested them all. 25 years as a camera technician. As a hunter, I have noticed a big optical difference in rifle scopes especially at much over 100 yds. Simmons scopes are inferior to be polite.
.

 

[jcwit]

I wonder how many here use this same logic when purchasing a vehicle?

 

[Elkins45]

Tell us again how we need those $500.00+ optics to shoot 40-50 yards at squirrels, or small game. Or at deer under 100 yards away.

When the reticle of your Simmons scope is laying crumpled and sideways at the bottom of the scope tube (as happened to me on my 10/22) you won't be shooting anything accurately beyond muzzle contact distance. Or when the internal windage adjustment breaks and your rifle shoots 4 feet to the left at 50 yards, as happened to a Bushnell Sportview on my 308.

You don't need $500+ optics. The only $500+ optics I own are camera lenses. But you do need $100+ optics if you expect any sort of mechanical reliability or repeatability at all.

Ask yourself how much of a bargain a $40 scope is when the buck of a lifetime can't be seen through the fogged up tube. I'll bet you would pony up the extra $100 then, except that at that point it's too late..

 

[jcwit]

When the reticle of your Simmons scope is laying crumpled and sideways at the bottom of the scope tube (as happened to me on my 10/22) you won't be shooting anything accurately beyond muzzle contact distance. Or when the internal windage adjustment breaks and your rifle shoots 4 feet to the left at 50 yards, as happened to a Bushnell Sportview on my 308.

You don't need $500+ optics. The only $500+ optics I own are camera lenses. But you do need $100+ optics if you expect any sort of mechanical reliability or repeatability at all.

Ask yourself how much of a bargain a $40 scope is when the buck of a lifetime can't be seen through the fogged up tube. I'll bet you would pony up the extra $100 then, except that at that point it's too late..

All this is guess work and nothing more, attempting to predict the future whether it be good or bad.

Would you only buy a Range Rover purely on the supposition that a Ford/Chevy or Dodge will give you problems?

I've always purchased what you may well call "cheap" scopes, there value has served me well during my 60+ years of shooting. And yes I have gone on dozens of hunting trips to the western states and usually harvested the game I was after, and never having an equipment failure.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Optical quality glass is expensive and only produced by a few companies worldwide. The last price I saw for it was over $100 per lb

So ask yourself what's in that $30 China special? Pretty much bottle grade glass.

Here's my slightly different take. There are decent cheap scopes. But NONE of them have ever came out of China. If all you do is stick to optics not made by the chicoms you will find yourself in a totally different ball game across the price range spectrum.

I've not found a sub $50 optic from China yet that has even been slightly serviceable, the one I bought for my sons birthday 22 is already a fogged up blurry hot mess inside

 

[HexHead]

Nikon has revamped it's lineup for 2015. They've improved the Prostaff line to the point where the Buckmaster is now the budget entry level scope, and the Prostaff is their mid-grade. They have several grades of a Monarch now too.

 

[jcwit]

I'd think sub $50 dollar scopes is below the line of cheap, more in line with the Daisy BB gun scopes.

 

[Elkins45]

All this is guess work and nothing more, attempting to predict the future whether it be good or bad.

Would you only buy a Range Rover purely on the supposition that a Ford/Chevy or Dodge will give you problems?

I've always purchased what you may well call "cheap" scopes, there value has served me well during my 60+ years of shooting. And yes I have gone on dozens of hunting trips to the western states and usually harvested the game I was after, and never having an equipment failure.

This isn't Range Rover vs. Ford/Chevy: this is Ford/Chevy vs. a bicycle with two flat tires.

30 years ago a cheap Japanese-made Tasco could probably be trusted to stand up to a couple of hundred shots, which is more than a lot of people shoot their deer rifles in 10-15 years. The current crop of Chinese bargain glass might not even survive the boat ride across the Pacific.

 

[thegiff]

Scope cost vs. quality vs. intended use vary so greatly that there isn't one answer for everyone. I have one optic at $2500, it's a Vortex Gen 2 razor on my competition rifle, a Bushnell HDMR tactical that is now on my practice rifle, a Nikon Tactical that doesn't track anymore, a $30 simmons, a free Nikko Sterling on a 10-22, and an old Tasco World Class on a single shot 22. Each has their place.

I wouldn't dream of running the Nikko Sterling on a competition trip that cost more than $1K to attend, it doesn't have the right magnification, clarity, reticle and turret adjustments. But would probably not put a Vortex Gen 2 on a 10-22 even if I had unlimited money, it would make the 10-22 too heavy and unwieldy.

 

[dickydalton]

"30 years ago a cheap Japanese-made Tasco could probably be trusted to stand up to a couple of hundred shots, which is more than a lot of people shoot their deer rifles in 10-15 years."
I had a 4X16 Tasco on my 264 magnum for 26 years and shot it way more than 200 rounds. It got smucked into a tree or it would still be on there. I also have a 8X32 Tasco on my 22-250 and it has over 5000 rounds under it. I have shot prairie dogs at 600 yards with it. The Chinese ones? I don't know.

 

[DHJenkins]

Awesome thread - I just found out that the Monarch 3 I paid $450 for is three times better than the Monarch 3 I got for $150!

Thanks guys!

 

[Savageman25]

A better solution to avoid all this?

Man up and stop using scopes. Learn to walk without a crutch. You'll find it's more rewarding.

I know this post was a ways back, but I have to say this may be the most unintelligent post I've ever read on THR. Even though my amount of posts are low, believe me when I tell you I have spent countless hours on reading posts on this site. I am more of an observer here.

 

[Lord Teapot]

A better solution to avoid all this?

Man up and stop using scopes. Learn to walk without a crutch. You'll find it's more rewarding.

irrelevant, generalist, nonsense post of the year goes to you lol



scopes have their place, and that place is anywhere someone needs a clear sight picture beyond the natural focusing ability of the human eye.

 

[d2wing]

I agree with Elkins about the reliability of cheap scopes. Tried way too many cheap scopes myself. Had a fail on a deer hunt that hurts to this day.
Also I am confused about Nikons. They recently sold a bunch of inferior scopes and changed around the rankings of their scopes. I am leery of buying one now.

 

[Skoghund]

I was in a gun shop this morning and bought a Meopta R1 1-4x22 scope. I always ask for discount and i nearly fell over when i got it for a tad over half price. The Meopta R1 has been replaced by the R2. Anyway they must have had at least a 100 each of Ziess,Sworovski , Meopta, and Kahles. There may have been 6-7 new Leupold scopes on the shelf. Leupold are seen as second class scopes in Europe.
Range rovers are rubbish as well. Had a landrover for years good job the spare parts are cheap

 

[Corn-Picker]

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.

I can afford anything I want, I just can't afford everything I want.

It's all trade offs for sure. Personally, I see no need for anything above low/mid range on a 250 yard hunting rifle that will never have it's zero moved or turrets used, and I'm guessing that's 90%+ of deer hunters. I did buy one more expensive scope (Bushnell Elite 6500) refurbished from opticsplanet for $450. In that case I was after the zoom range (2.5-16x) rather than the clarity or repeatibility of adjustmenst (both of which are good).

My deer rifle wears a 1-4x Bushnell 4500 illuminated reticle that I got on ebay for $250. I've never had an unresolvable image within legal shooting times (30 minutes before or after sunrise/sunset), even in deep woods on cloudy days.

I'm not saying the good glass isn't worth it and I won't deny that it's better, but what I will say is that as a hunter with a 250 yard max I've never encountered a situation where a more expensive scope would have resulted in a better outcome.