Bartkowski
Member
Thats probably the most logical thing that has been said on this thread.
How much do you spend on a scope for quality?
- Thread starter MCgunner
- Start date
- Status
Thats probably the most logical thing that has been said on this thread.
Ash
Member
"MSRP on the FFII is around $200, that puts it in the same class as the VXI or 3200"
Hmm, must have gotten the bargain on my two. That said, SWFA has 2-7x35 FFII's for $159 right now, and 3-9x40 for $189.00.
Ash
Hmm, must have gotten the bargain on my two. That said, SWFA has 2-7x35 FFII's for $159 right now, and 3-9x40 for $189.00.
Ash
W.E.G.
Member
Some of the el cheapo scopes are incredibly rugged. The only problem is, you have no way of knowing whether YOUR el cheapo is one of the rugged or one of the ragged.
Buy a Leupold and sleep well.
Buy a Leupold and sleep well.
I should have qualified my statement. Firearms are tools, they need to work 100%. Hunting, predators or self defense. I will not put a Schmidt & Bender on a 10/22 & I won't put a Burris on an AI. I use the retail price of the stock gun to narrow the selection in scope options, also based on retail price. You can get away with with a lot but where I hunt has a 20% sucess rate. It might be 5 more years before I get a shot again. Logistics & money don't allow most of us to have 2 of anything in the field, when that pilot jumps out of the cockpit and asks "How much do you weigh?" half your gear goes back home. You only need to have a scope go bad once when you really need it to cure you forever.
Nikon makes the prostaff, 3x9 for $140, great deal on a good scope, for a 22, I put a 3x9 Tasco world class on it, great scope for the money....
I think if shop around, you can find bargains, look through the scopes at the store and judge yourself...and how much quality you want to spend, and if it is worth it....
I think if shop around, you can find bargains, look through the scopes at the store and judge yourself...and how much quality you want to spend, and if it is worth it....
The Annoyed Man
Member
Don't you hate it when someone answers a question with a question?
Seriously though, I would ask, "What do you want to do with it?" (That's answering with two questions, which has to be some kind of record....)
I don't claim to be an expert, but my observation is that you can get a pretty decent, basic scope for about $200-$300. Above that, and $400-$600 will give you a larger objective and tube diameter, increased magnification, and a noticeably brighter image. Beyond that, as someone above said, I think that you start getting into features that most people will never be able or inclined to use.
My Leupold VX-III 4.5-14x50mm is the first brand new scope I've ever purchased, and I think I probably let my enthusiasm at buying new get in the way of buying more wisely. Don't get me wrong. It is a GREAT scope, and I like it very much, but even though I got it for considerably under MSRP, it was still over $500.00. What I've since learned about other scopes, like the Super Snipers, for instance, is that they are probably better suited for what I do with this rifle, and actually cost considerably less than what I paid for the Leupold.
Oh well, I'm not really unhappy about it. But someday, when I buy a lighter rifle more appropriate to hunting than my 700 VSF, I will probably transfer the Leupold to the new rifle, and put one of the other better suited scopes on the Remmy.
You live and you learn, and I wish I had been aware of this website before I started the whole process. I've learned a ton by reading the posts of all the wise heads here.
glockman19
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2007
- Messages
- 3,700
+1 to everything Zack Said
shootinstudent
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 786
I spent 38 dollars for one of the best scopes I have: an old Weaver K4. Holds a zero, has a cool post reticle, and is made of steel.
Used weavers or used Leupolds-good bargains.
Used weavers or used Leupolds-good bargains.
islandphish
Member
Pretty happy with my Sightron SII. Clearer than a VX-1 or Burriss in the price range. Picked it up at right around 200.
In the 300 range, Nikon optics are super clear.
In the 300 range, Nikon optics are super clear.
MCgunner
Member
You pay for the name with Leupold, why I've never owned one. A 200 dollar Weaver KV is a better, clearer scope than a VariX2 at more money. "Gun Tests" says so and so do I. Actually, I gave $189 for mine IIRC.
I had an old Weaver KV steel 3-5X variable on my old 722 for 30 years. It was installed around 1957 by my grandpa when he got the rifle. Eventually, it lost its nitrogen and I sent it to El Paso and they repaired it free! However, it fogged up again in a few years, so I retired it. But, that old KV was one tough scope for a 1950s vintage and killed a LOT of whitetail over the years including the first one I shot in 1963 at age 11.
I still have it. I plan to install a new Weaver on that rifle in the future, just from sentiment, but the new Weavers are great scopes for the money, just like the old ones. Don't know what I'll do with that Bushnell that's on it now. It's a 4x12 and while it's held up well, it isn't the best optics especially at higher powers. I'll put another 2x10KV on it like the one I have on my .308.skinewmexico
Member
You know, they guy who ran the repair department for Weaver in El Paso is still in business, and will rebuild your grandpa's old scope for you. Otherwise, as long as a scope holds zero, it's good enough. It amazes me what people think they have to have on their rifle to shoot a deer at 100 yards. The statement "spend as much on your scope as you do on the rifle" was probably formed by a marketing company, for a scope manufacturer's ad campaign. Face it, elitism works when you're trying to sell rifles and scopes.
WRT spending as much...
There are many reasons that a rifle might cost a lot that don't have any impact on how much an appropriate scope would cost. Take these two hunting rifles from Remington:
This 700 Custom C Grade costs around $2000.
It probably shoots about like this 700 SPS for $500.
Maybe the C Grade is a hair more accurate because of how it's bedded, but for deer hunting, or even the target shooting you'd do with a sporter, you'll never know the difference.
You might want a gloss-finish scope on the shiny gun, and matte on the SPS, so the scope might be $20 more or less, but all else being equal, the same model scope, in the same price range, would make sense on both rifles.
Now if you're admonishing someone not to buy a $30 scope and put it on a $700 rifle, I'd agree. Spend more. But "as much as the rifle" is silly. In some cases, you need to spend MORE than the rifle costs, on a scope, to get the performance you want. Figure out what you want and need, save your pennies, and buy it.
There are many reasons that a rifle might cost a lot that don't have any impact on how much an appropriate scope would cost. Take these two hunting rifles from Remington:
This 700 Custom C Grade costs around $2000.
It probably shoots about like this 700 SPS for $500.
Maybe the C Grade is a hair more accurate because of how it's bedded, but for deer hunting, or even the target shooting you'd do with a sporter, you'll never know the difference.
You might want a gloss-finish scope on the shiny gun, and matte on the SPS, so the scope might be $20 more or less, but all else being equal, the same model scope, in the same price range, would make sense on both rifles.
Now if you're admonishing someone not to buy a $30 scope and put it on a $700 rifle, I'd agree. Spend more. But "as much as the rifle" is silly. In some cases, you need to spend MORE than the rifle costs, on a scope, to get the performance you want. Figure out what you want and need, save your pennies, and buy it.
phoglund
Member
I'm not an optics expert by any means and don't use my scoped rifles enough to really test the durability of their scopes. I had a Savage 30.06 that I hunted with for years with a low end Weaver scope on it that never failed to keep zero for over 20 years but the optical quality was pretty bad. I don't think that scope was ever responsible for a missed shot though. Lately I've been buying Mueller scopes. As I've said I'm no optics expert but I think they have wonderful optical clarity, repeatable finger adjustable windage and elevation adjustments, and useful features such a lighted reticles on all models save one. I have two of these scopes, a "Sportdot" 3x9x40 I paid $169 for and an 4.5-14x40AO APV for which I paid the princely sum of $129. I have no complaints.
They can be found here: http://www.muelleroptics.com/
They can be found here: http://www.muelleroptics.com/
Rembrandt
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2003
- Messages
- 4,657
Hearing a lot of "my scope is just as good as the higher quality"....tells me you probably have never owned an upper end scope or don't know what you're talking about.
No mention that the big differences in price and quality is the lens polishing & coating process and how well they perform in low light hunting situations. Look at a fox through a cheap scope and the colors are dull and hazy, view the same fox through a quality scope and the colors are vivid and brilliant.
To illustrate the point, cheap glass is like looking through a lens that has been sanded with 320 grit sand paper scratches in it, top end glass has been highly polished & coated to a point where there is no light diffusion by the scratches put there in the manufacturing process....thus higher clarity and better color.
My personal rule of thumb is to spend about the same for the scope as you have in the rifle. Putting a $300-$400 scope on a $1500 rifle is like putting implement tires on a Rolls Royce. The rifle deserves to have a quality scope befitting the quality of the firearm.
No mention that the big differences in price and quality is the lens polishing & coating process and how well they perform in low light hunting situations. Look at a fox through a cheap scope and the colors are dull and hazy, view the same fox through a quality scope and the colors are vivid and brilliant.
To illustrate the point, cheap glass is like looking through a lens that has been sanded with 320 grit sand paper scratches in it, top end glass has been highly polished & coated to a point where there is no light diffusion by the scratches put there in the manufacturing process....thus higher clarity and better color.
My personal rule of thumb is to spend about the same for the scope as you have in the rifle. Putting a $300-$400 scope on a $1500 rifle is like putting implement tires on a Rolls Royce. The rifle deserves to have a quality scope befitting the quality of the firearm.
redneck2
Member
Had a cheapie Simmons fog up when I finally should have had the shot at a buck of a lifetime. 14 point, 28" outside spread. I sat and watched him for 45 minutes because looking thru my scope was like trying to look thru a white sheet.
You're a fool if you think a $75 Tasco, BSA, or Swift is equal to a Swarovski. Now, not everybody needs or could even appreciate a $1,500 scope, but there is definitely a difference.
IMO, Laws of Diminishing Returns start to kick in at the mid range of the Leupold/Burris price range.
For years I hunted with a 4x Bushnell Sportview on my 870. Never fogged and worked fine. Held zero. Still isn't the same as the B&L I've got on it now.
I worked part-time in a gun shop. I'd have idiots that had booked 3-5k elk hunts come in and buy an expensive rifle, then buy the cheapest ammo and cheapest scope they could. Fools and their money.
In any event, these threads always seem degrade into the "I kicked the crap out of some rich dude and his Perazzi with my H&R Topper" or "my Hi-Point 9mm outshot some guy with an AI sniper rifle". This one just happens to be "my $50 scope is just as good as a Schmidt & Bender"
skinewmexico
Member
Kind of subjective there, aren't you? Quality is a nebulous term. That's kind of like saying if someone puts a Bushnell Elite 4200 on their $1500 rifle, the deer won't die. If you're not competing at distance, I can't see why the scope has to match some magical price. I'd love to hear an actual story of when a guy with a 4200 couldn't see something to take a shot, but his buddy with a Schmidt & Bender next to him could. Too bad no one tests rifle scopes like they test camera lenses, then you could have some real data to use.
Zak Smith
Member
I have done some optical test using Snellen optical charts at various distance with multiple observers, however, we only tested 4 scopes.
Rembrandt
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2003
- Messages
- 4,657
As I said before, those who poo-poo upper end quality scopes probably have never owned one or used one in low light hunting senarios.
I've been at the range many times at dusk (Swarovski Rifle scope & spotting scope, 200 yards) easily viewing bullet holes when other shooters had to pack it up because they didn't have adequate light for their cheaper optics.
I've been at the range many times at dusk (Swarovski Rifle scope & spotting scope, 200 yards) easily viewing bullet holes when other shooters had to pack it up because they didn't have adequate light for their cheaper optics.
redneck2
Member
There was a real nice test for scopes some years back on TFL, before THR came into existence. Wish I had the link, but I never could come up with it.
In any event, I think the reference
In any event, I think the reference
is that it's kinda foolish to put that kind of money into a quality rifle and them compromise on the glass. Would a $300 scope work most of the time? Yeah. Would a $300 rifle work most of the time? Yeah.
Chipperman
Member
So if I want to get a flat-top upper for my M16, I need to spend $10k for a scope?
I agree with the other post:
The scope can cost more than or less than the rifle. Get good quality for its intended purpose, and you'll be fine.
jpwilly
Member
Sounds like your a Weaver man just go get another one.
- Status