Magnuumpwr
Member
They are both clear as crystal, but in very low light conditions the IOR wins. Also the IOR has windage comp in the hold over area of the cross hairs. Here is the best pic I could get of it. You can Google it, it's the MP8 reticle.
How can you justify a 2-3000 dollar scope?
- Thread starter ZDriver96
- Start date
- Status
The general advise over the years has been to buy the best glass you can afford, even make it hurt a little for an important rifle. Another common theme is spend as much for the scope as the rifle. Makes sense. I have scopes ranging in cost from $150 to just under a grand. I simply cannot afford the 3K rifles and the 3K scopes, with the majority of my scopes being under the $600 mark. 90% of the scopes I have bought in the last two years have been 25% to 40% or 50% off closeouts or sales.
Thankfully a $400 scope can be quite nice and plenty good enough for most applications.
Thankfully a $400 scope can be quite nice and plenty good enough for most applications.
AKElroy
Member
I do think we need to admit just a smidgen of status is built into the price of the really high-end stuff. For the typical hunter, in the type of woods I hunt, I don't see the need for some of the gear I see proudly displayed in camp. I like their stuff, don't get me wrong, but the last "butcher" we had in camp, the one setting records for maimed and lost game, had the nicest rig. Nosler rifle, S&B glass, could not hit crap with it. He also had the nicest truck, all decked out with a lift, armor on everything, noisy swampers, never left the road with it. Put down plastic bags to keep from getting blood on the BEDLINER.
He also face-painted with camo. To sit in a blind.
He also face-painted with camo. To sit in a blind.
Last edited:
centurion20000
Member
Can't really justify that kind of $$$ on a scope. Friends rave about a SWFA scope and it's not too expensive.
I have a couple of other ideas on that too. If it's a meat/game animal, I'll just keep engagement within a few hundred yards. If it's two legged? (God forbid) I'll just take extra shots.
But that's just me.
I have a couple of other ideas on that too. If it's a meat/game animal, I'll just keep engagement within a few hundred yards. If it's two legged? (God forbid) I'll just take extra shots.
But that's just me.
jstein650
Member
AKElroy: "Put down plastic bags to keep from getting blood on the BEDLINER...."
Yeah, I've seen the same kind of stuff. Kinda funny!
Yeah, I've seen the same kind of stuff. Kinda funny!
AKElroy
Member
The good thing is, the guy didn't take himself to serious so we could have some fun with it. As for the purpose of the thread, I have four rifles wearing Leupold glass, two wearing Nikon glass. I have complete confidence in these optics. Never had one break or lose zero., so I guess I'm in the $300-$500 range being good enough. Less than $200 for the Nikons, actually.
As far as clarity goes, the best optics I have in the safe, at least to my eye, is a Bushnell Elite 3200 5x15x50. Super bright, super clear. I think it was $300-$400, can't remember. Folks discount the Bushnell name, but the elite series is made in Japan, very high quality. I have no issue comparing it to Leupold. Of course, it is comparable in cost, so it should be decent quality.
As far as clarity goes, the best optics I have in the safe, at least to my eye, is a Bushnell Elite 3200 5x15x50. Super bright, super clear. I think it was $300-$400, can't remember. Folks discount the Bushnell name, but the elite series is made in Japan, very high quality. I have no issue comparing it to Leupold. Of course, it is comparable in cost, so it should be decent quality.
I still say a SWFA distributed Super Sniper fixed 10x will do what ever you need a scope to do for $300. Kick it, drop it, beat it, heat it, rain on it, snow on it, let it freeze and thaw. I It will not fog, and it will go back to zero, and will repeat your firing solutions.
I am impressed by super glass, but I am a working man. I shoot a Marlin XL7 with a Boyd replacement stock and a Bushnell 4200. That will be going on my Marlin Model 60 very soon, and I will be buying a SWFA Super Sniper 10x. It is govt tested and approved. I have buddies that shoot 1000 yards with them on anything from .243 to .300 Win Mag.
It is just an awesome scope, and it will be going on my .25-06 very soon after I get my rifle conversion completed.
I have a Bushnell 3200 1.5-4.5x32 on a 30-30 that is repeatable, and the 4200 is a great scope. I think it will be an awesome addition to my Marlin Model 60. That rifle is so accurate to 100 yards it is a money maker for sure, and that is with a $30 Simmons. The addition of the Bushnell 4200 will just make it all the more easy to shoot.
I'll never buy a scope over $500.00. I just can't justify the cost knowing what I know works for a 1/4 of the cost.
I am impressed by super glass, but I am a working man. I shoot a Marlin XL7 with a Boyd replacement stock and a Bushnell 4200. That will be going on my Marlin Model 60 very soon, and I will be buying a SWFA Super Sniper 10x. It is govt tested and approved. I have buddies that shoot 1000 yards with them on anything from .243 to .300 Win Mag.
It is just an awesome scope, and it will be going on my .25-06 very soon after I get my rifle conversion completed.
I have a Bushnell 3200 1.5-4.5x32 on a 30-30 that is repeatable, and the 4200 is a great scope. I think it will be an awesome addition to my Marlin Model 60. That rifle is so accurate to 100 yards it is a money maker for sure, and that is with a $30 Simmons. The addition of the Bushnell 4200 will just make it all the more easy to shoot.
I'll never buy a scope over $500.00. I just can't justify the cost knowing what I know works for a 1/4 of the cost.
buckhorn_cortez
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 532
Good optics cost a lot of money, it doesn't matter if it's a camera lens, binoculars, spotting scope, or rifle scope. What you are buying with an expensive scope are features, materials, and construction. If you want an illuminated, first focal plane, MIL reticle - there's a cost associated with that. If you want high light transmission - that's a combination of: glass type, coatings, and objective size which, in turn, requires a larger tube size. All of that costs money. Then you get into finer points like zoom range, amount of adjustment available, tube rigidity, mechanical construction, etc.
Does every rifle need a $3K scope? No. I have an AR15 with a $900 scope. I have a 30-338 with a $700 scope, and a 6mm with a $600 scope. I also have an AR style .308 with a $3200 scope.
You pick the scope by what you're going to do with the rifle and the optics required to accomplish the task. In the case of the .308, I shoot precision tactical rifle at ranges to 800+ meters. That's difficult to do without a scope that has: wide zoom range, large objective, high contrast, FFP MIL reticle, precision rapid adjusting elevation control that's repeatable, good eye relief, good off-axis sighting capability, etc. - you end up paying for all of those features as there are no inexpensive scopes with that kind of performance.
If you don't need those features - you don't pay for them. If you do, then you suck it up and pay for it.
Does every rifle need a $3K scope? No. I have an AR15 with a $900 scope. I have a 30-338 with a $700 scope, and a 6mm with a $600 scope. I also have an AR style .308 with a $3200 scope.
You pick the scope by what you're going to do with the rifle and the optics required to accomplish the task. In the case of the .308, I shoot precision tactical rifle at ranges to 800+ meters. That's difficult to do without a scope that has: wide zoom range, large objective, high contrast, FFP MIL reticle, precision rapid adjusting elevation control that's repeatable, good eye relief, good off-axis sighting capability, etc. - you end up paying for all of those features as there are no inexpensive scopes with that kind of performance.
If you don't need those features - you don't pay for them. If you do, then you suck it up and pay for it.
Would not a SWFA 10x Super Sniper not do the same for $299? I think it would, and has been proven to be a very nice scope. Durable always goes to zero, and easily dials in a repeatable firing solution.
Just sayin'. Everybody spend your money the way you want. Please!
BoilerUP
Member
You don't know what you are missing until you get behind good glass. And you'll never regret buying the best optics you can afford...never.
I have two Vortex Viper HS 5-15x44 scopes on a 223AI and 260. They primarily are used for paper & steel inside 650yd, but both have been shot to 100yd and both are used to hunt a hardwoods river bottom for whitetail. As such, this optic suits my needs perfectly, giving repeatable mil/mil adjustments and good clarity even on MOA-sized targets at 1000yd. For the <$450 I paid for each, I'm stoked.
But then I got behind a Bushnell HDMR 3.5-21x50. 34mm tube, FFP, 50% heavier, very rugged, ~$1300 but substantially brighter & clearer than my Vortexes with a much better reticle for unknown distance shooting (G2DMR). No zero stop and only 5mil/rev turrets, both of which were "resolved" with the Gen2 ERS.
Is it worth the extra $$$ beyond the Vortex? IMO yes, if you desire those features. But do I own one? No...because I don't need FFP or "Tier One" ruggedness on a range toy. If i were competing in PRS, I'd absolutely get it or something similar. The March 3-24x FFP has caught my eye of late...
For most, a VX3 or Nikon Monarch is the nicest optic they'll ever use; for some, a VX1 or ProStaff. All are fine but all have various limitations...and only an end user can decide if a high end optic is worth the $$$.
For "the rest of us" its all about value...and I find Vortex & Bushnell Elite to both provide a fantastic value.
I have two Vortex Viper HS 5-15x44 scopes on a 223AI and 260. They primarily are used for paper & steel inside 650yd, but both have been shot to 100yd and both are used to hunt a hardwoods river bottom for whitetail. As such, this optic suits my needs perfectly, giving repeatable mil/mil adjustments and good clarity even on MOA-sized targets at 1000yd. For the <$450 I paid for each, I'm stoked.
But then I got behind a Bushnell HDMR 3.5-21x50. 34mm tube, FFP, 50% heavier, very rugged, ~$1300 but substantially brighter & clearer than my Vortexes with a much better reticle for unknown distance shooting (G2DMR). No zero stop and only 5mil/rev turrets, both of which were "resolved" with the Gen2 ERS.
Is it worth the extra $$$ beyond the Vortex? IMO yes, if you desire those features. But do I own one? No...because I don't need FFP or "Tier One" ruggedness on a range toy. If i were competing in PRS, I'd absolutely get it or something similar. The March 3-24x FFP has caught my eye of late...
For most, a VX3 or Nikon Monarch is the nicest optic they'll ever use; for some, a VX1 or ProStaff. All are fine but all have various limitations...and only an end user can decide if a high end optic is worth the $$$.
For "the rest of us" its all about value...and I find Vortex & Bushnell Elite to both provide a fantastic value.
BoilerUP
Member
Its a good scope...at its price point. Which is why it gets recommended so much as a good intro budget tactical optic.
Rugged, repeatable, lots o' elevation.
Its also fixed power scope with optical clarity that lags other optics that are a bit more money, but offer more features. And until last year they were mil/MOA only but now offer the mil-quad reticle with 1/10 mil adjustments.
On a range shooting MOA or larger targets, a fixed 10x is fine. In the field (especially hunting woods), shooting groups or competing in tactical/practical competitions, give me a variable that has more field of view on the low end, and more magnification on the high end.
Sunray
Member
"...justify a 2-3000 dollar scope..." If you have the bucks for a scope of that value, you don't need to justify it. Mind you, high cost doesn't always equate with high quality.
"...use what they are issued and Depts are cheap..." Yep. And the cop bosses know little or nothing about firearms either. Lowest bidder gets the contract. Used to be(and may well still be) that the ETF(SWAT) guys in Toronto had one scoped rifle for three shooters. Apparently, individuals needing to sight in never occured to the bosses.
"...use what they are issued and Depts are cheap..." Yep. And the cop bosses know little or nothing about firearms either. Lowest bidder gets the contract. Used to be(and may well still be) that the ETF(SWAT) guys in Toronto had one scoped rifle for three shooters. Apparently, individuals needing to sight in never occured to the bosses.
@ BoilerUP
Good response. I rarely shoot past 600 yards. I have a .25-06 that has killed at 300 yards with a Bushnell 4200 3-9x40.
But for my mid-long range shooting I just use the A2 sights on my AR-15. I am going to be putting the 4200 on my Marlin Model 60, and buying a SWFA 10x SS for my .25-06 which is used for open field hunts mostly anyway.
I'd sure like to have a 338 Lapua that could utilize one of those $2000 scopes. I'd like to be able to try it out that way if it wasn't the Beeznez then I could return it.
Good response. I rarely shoot past 600 yards. I have a .25-06 that has killed at 300 yards with a Bushnell 4200 3-9x40.
But for my mid-long range shooting I just use the A2 sights on my AR-15. I am going to be putting the 4200 on my Marlin Model 60, and buying a SWFA 10x SS for my .25-06 which is used for open field hunts mostly anyway.
I'd sure like to have a 338 Lapua that could utilize one of those $2000 scopes. I'd like to be able to try it out that way if it wasn't the Beeznez then I could return it.
Magnuumpwr
Member
EB1, where are you located? Would be more than happy to let you try out a 338 Lapua mag with an IOR mounted on it!
Kerf
Member
From my perspective…
I have a fixed 8x50 scope that you can clearly see .22 cal holes in the target at 200 yds with; see clearly, not just make out. I think they call that resolution. And, it didn’t cost anywhere in the world near $3000. I sure hope those 3k scopes can do that. At that price they should. I always use that as a standard when looking through a scope.
B&L used their scopes to hammer nails into boards with. There was very little marring of the tube, and the optics remained perfect. I think you could call that rugged. (Much like Buck Knives hammering their blades through a bolt) Ready to multi-task and hammer some 16d with any particular brand of 3k scope? I doubt there will be many takers there. And, in your heart of hearts, you know why.
Keep in mind shooters, that the same people who brought you the 3k+ scope also brought you the $850 toilet seat and the $200 claw hammer. Having used one of those toilet seats quite extensively, I can say that it is in every way just as good as the one I have at home.
kerf
I have a fixed 8x50 scope that you can clearly see .22 cal holes in the target at 200 yds with; see clearly, not just make out. I think they call that resolution. And, it didn’t cost anywhere in the world near $3000. I sure hope those 3k scopes can do that. At that price they should. I always use that as a standard when looking through a scope.
B&L used their scopes to hammer nails into boards with. There was very little marring of the tube, and the optics remained perfect. I think you could call that rugged. (Much like Buck Knives hammering their blades through a bolt) Ready to multi-task and hammer some 16d with any particular brand of 3k scope? I doubt there will be many takers there. And, in your heart of hearts, you know why.
Keep in mind shooters, that the same people who brought you the 3k+ scope also brought you the $850 toilet seat and the $200 claw hammer. Having used one of those toilet seats quite extensively, I can say that it is in every way just as good as the one I have at home.
kerf
mike.h
Member
You guys can bash the high end scopes all you want. I've spent years behind low grade grass and and have seen failures of all types; poor focus, won't hold zero, cross hairs falling out of 'em, fogged glass, poor sight picture at critical (low light) times.
As for me these old eyes enjoy the clarity and dependability of nice glass. And the function of such features as zero stop, audible, positive turret clicks and side focus is something that I find very desirable. How about the Burris units that have the built in lazer range finders, pretty sweet.
And before you start on "you don't need these features", I didn't need the last rifle that I bought and I bet neither did you.
There is a very real reason why a Cadillac cost more then a Ford, (with no offense to ford owners). If you are happy with your glass, then good for you. If not, step up your game, pretty sure you'll be glad you did.
As for me these old eyes enjoy the clarity and dependability of nice glass. And the function of such features as zero stop, audible, positive turret clicks and side focus is something that I find very desirable. How about the Burris units that have the built in lazer range finders, pretty sweet.
And before you start on "you don't need these features", I didn't need the last rifle that I bought and I bet neither did you.
There is a very real reason why a Cadillac cost more then a Ford, (with no offense to ford owners). If you are happy with your glass, then good for you. If not, step up your game, pretty sure you'll be glad you did.
smalltruck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 4
From Kerf- "I have a fixed 8x50 scope that you can clearly see .22 cal holes in the target at 200 yds with; see clearly, not just make out. I think they call that resolution. And, it didn’t cost anywhere in the world near $3000. I sure hope those 3k scopes can do that. At that price they should. I always use that as a standard when looking through a scope."
If you go to the accurateshooter.com web forum and read what people are posting about how well the new nightforce scope works, many owners are saying on good days that they can see 6mm holes at 600 yards. Thats resolution!
Anyone buying a new scope really, yes you really, need to take a chart to the store and post it a known distance from the door and then take the scope outside and look at that chart. Resolution is not magnifying a largeish animal into a better view, ie magnifying a deer broad side at 200 yards is pointless. Any scope should handle that task. Read quarter inch high letters at 200 yards while changing the angle the sun is at to the scope. And check that ability to handle sunlight up and down as well as left to right.
What I've found is that a sunshade may not be the whole answer for the scope going blind in bright conditions. By blind I mean that it transmits enough light that any image you see is like looking at a snowstorm white. I've started to add a polarizer filter for a camera to my scopes. Last one cost me $33 at a high end camera store. That filter is stackable, meaning I can add more than 1 filter to it or I can screw my sunshade on as well
If you go to the accurateshooter.com web forum and read what people are posting about how well the new nightforce scope works, many owners are saying on good days that they can see 6mm holes at 600 yards. Thats resolution!
Anyone buying a new scope really, yes you really, need to take a chart to the store and post it a known distance from the door and then take the scope outside and look at that chart. Resolution is not magnifying a largeish animal into a better view, ie magnifying a deer broad side at 200 yards is pointless. Any scope should handle that task. Read quarter inch high letters at 200 yards while changing the angle the sun is at to the scope. And check that ability to handle sunlight up and down as well as left to right.
What I've found is that a sunshade may not be the whole answer for the scope going blind in bright conditions. By blind I mean that it transmits enough light that any image you see is like looking at a snowstorm white. I've started to add a polarizer filter for a camera to my scopes. Last one cost me $33 at a high end camera store. That filter is stackable, meaning I can add more than 1 filter to it or I can screw my sunshade on as well
I would have disagreed with all the supporters of $2,000 plus scopes before i had the privlege of using one. If the scope Im using is powerful enough to reduce 300 yards to 5, I'd like my view to be like Im sitting 5 yards away, not a blurry, hazy image that only offers a pathetic attempt at hitting the spot I'm aiming at and a larger investment gives me that. The clarity, focus and consistent zero is what you pay for and I'm certainly willing.
eb1, it is a good scope, but there is a lot it doesn't do as well as other scopes. obviously, if I can dial down to 5 power to hit large moving targets fast, and dial up to 25x power to hit really small targets (or more importantly, positively identify my target) i have an advantage that is worth the price of a variable scope.
in the match I shot (horribly) this weekend, we had a lot of paper stages. they included things like a rack of pool balls where you had a few seconds to shoot exactly 5 balls and the numbers had to add up to 17. in other matches you sometimes have to pick your target out of a group of cartoon faces that all look alike except for small details like mustache or smile/frown. in these cases, extra power helps a lot.
the other things to think about are the knobs. in the match this weekend, we had a lot of stages where we had to shoot 6 targets in 60 seconds, and the yardages would be something like 50, 212, 387, 580, 971, 538. So you have to dial 6 times up and back down very quickly. the knobs on $3000 scopes like S&B, USO, hensoldt, premier, steiner, etc are usually able to go the full revolution in 2 turns, so you don't get lost. the clicks are crisp and easy to not get lost in. and there are usually several other niceties that just make it a little more ergonomic and to make it less likely for you to make human errors when dialing quickly.
just a couple examples
lightman
Member
I can justify expensive scopes because my children are grown and out of school. My debts are paid, and I'm nearing the end of my career. I can finally afford a rifle (rifles) that shoot good enough that you can see a 1/4 inch click move the group 1/4 inch. I have not always been able to do this. There were not very many expensive rifles or scopes in my safe when I was paying for college, apartments, cars, ect. If you can, treat yourself to a really nice scope! The first one is the hardest!
Its hard to express the feeling that you get when you give your scope a couple of clicks and know for sure that that is what it will move. And what it will move back to.
I'm not trying to come across as a snob. Just trying to honestly answer the original posters question. Lightman
Its hard to express the feeling that you get when you give your scope a couple of clicks and know for sure that that is what it will move. And what it will move back to.
I'm not trying to come across as a snob. Just trying to honestly answer the original posters question. Lightman
Lloyd Smale
Member
kind of reminds me of the guys on ar forums that stick there nose up in the air unless you paid 2k for an ar15 or 400 dollars for a forearm for one. Who are they trying to kid. You learn accuracy you dont buy it.
spectralman
Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2013
- Messages
- 11
When I owned my single shot 50BMG, I put a Nightforce on it. It cost about half of what the rifle did. That was far and away the clearest scope I've ever looked through but I also bought it to take the pounding of that caliber.
I have bought my share of $700-900 scopes for LR shooting up to 600 yards, but am out of that game now. For hunting at shorter distances (under 200 yards), I don't find the need to spend more than $300 on a scope anymore. I'm only hunting in relatively decent light. You can get a darn good scope for that amount of money now compared to even as little as 10 years ago.
I have bought my share of $700-900 scopes for LR shooting up to 600 yards, but am out of that game now. For hunting at shorter distances (under 200 yards), I don't find the need to spend more than $300 on a scope anymore. I'm only hunting in relatively decent light. You can get a darn good scope for that amount of money now compared to even as little as 10 years ago.
- Status
