Rifle optics: a blue collar spending perspective for cost / benefit

[N555]

If it's not Leupold, ziess, nightforce or burris, Swarovski, trijicon; its good chance it's junk.
I took optical physics, yeah turns out making a good scope is really hard to do. Making a good rifle, that's like Victorian technology.

 

[mac66]

Sometimes good enough is good enough. I usually buy scopes based on what I'm going to use them for. A scope for a plinking rifle will be different than one on a competition rifle. A scope for hunting in the north woods at short ranges will be different than one on a rifle used out west at long ranges.

I put a cheap 1-3x Weaver on my old 94 Marlin 44 mag rifle because it was small and light and I only hunt with it in places where 100 yards is a long shot. It's worked well for a decade. My dads old Savage 99 in 303 Sav made in 1903. has a 60's era 2.5x Weaver on it. I take it out every year during the doe only season and shoot a deer with it. It's good enough for what I use it for. I have a late 60's era Marlin 336 in 30-30, my first centerfire rifle I bought with my paper route money. I put a cheap Bushnell scope on it in the 1970s. I still have it and have killed a lot of deer with it. It's good enough.

On the other hand I have some more expensive scopes on some more expensive rifles but I don't think any were more than $500-600 but all are good enough for what I use them for.

 

[LiveLife]

If it's not Leupold, ziess, nightforce or burris, Swarovski, trijicon; its good chance it's junk.

I agree that Burris FF II 6.5-20x50 and Leupold American Marksman 3-9x40 scopes I used were not "junk".

I disagree that Bushnell Trophy 3-9x40, Vortex Crossfire II 6-24x50/Strike Eagle 4-24x50, Athlon Argos Gen II 10-40x56 and Viridian Serac 6-24x50 scopes I used and still use are "junk". (BTW, Vortex is supplying 8x laser range finding/marking/trajectory calculating optics for Army on $2.7 billion contract)

I would not consider several Minox 3-9x40 I used "junk"

I would not consider Arken EP5 5-25x56 I got to compare with my scopes "junk".

What about Sig Sauer, Meopta, EOTech, US Optics? Are they junk?

 

[N555]

I agree that Burris FF II 6.5-20x50 and Leupold American Marksman 3-9x40 scopes I used were not "junk".

I disagree that Bushnell Trophy 3-9x40, Vortex Crossfire II 6-24x50/Strike Eagle 4-24x50, Athlon Argos Gen II 10-40x56 and Viridian Serac 6-24x50 scopes I used and still use are "junk". (BTW, Vortex is supplying 8x laser range finding/marking/trajectory calculating optics for Army on $2.7 billion contract)

I would not consider several Minox 3-9x40 I used "junk"

I would not consider Arken EP5 5-25x56 I got to compare with my scopes "junk".

What about Sig Sauer, Meopta, EOTech, US Optics? Are they junk?

Never used sig rifle optics. Their handgun stuff seems fine have 2 of them. I heard they're rebranded holosun.
I knew I was forgetting one vortex is fine, if I'm looking at a rifle scope I'll usually have it narrowed down to a ziess or vortex.
I figured Bushnell's are pretty much junk after the recoil of my 30-30 broke 2 internally. We all know of the deviating recoil the 30-30 dishes out. I put a cheap $400 Leupold on there around 2017 and shot it way more than both Bushnell's together, still moves about 1/4moa per click. I probably need to upgrade that 30-30 scope to one with moa dots.
I don't know about arken or meopta. If arken makes stuff with 25x zoom and 56mm lense, of it's in mills I'm probably not even looking at them.
I don't know what a minox is.

 

[LiveLife]

I don't know about arken or meopta. If arken makes stuff with 25x zoom and 56mm lense, of it's in mills I'm probably not even looking at them.
I don't know what a minox is.

Minox is German brand optics manufacturer (US dealers) - https://www.minox.com/us/Products/

And at 25x zoom, Arken EP-5 5-25x56mm available in both MOA/MIL is on sale for $449 for 25% off with SAVE25% code (Normally $599) - https://www.arkenopticsusa.com/ep-5-5-25x56-ffp-illuminated-vpr-zero-stop-34mm-tube/

 

[Hookeye]

I've had a couple dozen Leupolds over the yrs.
Nothing above VX3 though.

 

[mm93]

I used to buy inexpensive scopes and actually still have a couple that are still working great. Many decades ago I bought a new Tasco target model that is a 6x-24x for my varmint rifle, and never had an issue with it. I also bought a Tasco copy of the old Bausch & Lomb Balvar and used it on my Winchester 52 competition rifle in adult smallbore. Sold the rifle later, but kept the scope and it's still in my safe if I need it.
Now I spend most of my available funds buying old target scopes like Unertl, JW Fecker, Lyman Targetspots, Stevens, Winchester, Souther, Sidle, etc. None of them are cheap, and if I find one under $500 it's a miracle! Most run in the $750-$2500 range depending on how rare they are. Just picked up a like new Lyman Targetspot in it's original brown cardboard box from the early 1930's, and getting a like new Fecker 16x target scope this coming Sunday from a friend.

 

[LiveLife]

I agree about the benefits of higher cost scopes but are we still talking about the OP question of "blue collar ... cost / benetif"?

question on how much to spend on a scope ...

blue collar spending perspective for cost / benefit

I mean, do we have a cap on what "blue collar" budget is for a scope?

 

[someguy2800]

I've had $50 scopes and $2000 scopes and I guess I am just not an optics snob. Setting a target to spend on anything is stupid to me. I shop for quality and features, not trying to meet some arbitrary dollar figure that the internet thinks is appropriate. I certainly understand if you only have a certain budget you have available, but why would you set out to spend $1000 on a scope if it doesn't bring some benefit to you and what you use the rifle for over a $200 scope? You can get really really nice 3-9x40 scopes for $200-$300 with excellent optics and lifetime warrantee. There is absolutely no shame in having something like a $300 leupold rifleman or a $200 Burris E1 on a rifle of any value. Going up in magnification to stuff over like 15x or greater power, the difference between cheap and expensive starts to get a little more pronounced, but there are still very serviceable long range optics out there that don't cost $1000. I still honestly can't tell that much difference in optical quality between the high end and mid tier scopes, but sometimes better reticles and and zero stops are worth paying for.

 

[someguy2800]

I used to buy inexpensive scopes and actually still have a couple that are still working great. Many decades ago I bought a new Tasco target model that is a 6x-24x for my varmint rifle, and never had an issue with it. I also bought a Tasco copy of the old Bausch & Lomb Balvar and used it on my Winchester 52 competition rifle in adult smallbore. Sold the rifle later, but kept the scope and it's still in my safe if I need it.
Now I spend most of my available funds buying old target scopes like Unertl, JW Fecker, Lyman Targetspots, Stevens, Winchester, Souther, Sidle, etc. None of them are cheap, and if I find one under $500 it's a miracle! Most run in the $750-$2500 range depending on how rare they are. Just picked up a like new Lyman Targetspot in it's original brown cardboard box from the early 1930's, and getting a like new Fecker 16x target scope this coming Sunday from a friend.

One of my favorite scopes is an old simmons 6.5-20x40 that I paid like $120 for many years ago. It unfortunately lacks target turrets or a moa reticle, which kind of limits its utility, but otherwise I can't really tell any difference between it and some of the $500-1000 varmint scopes I've had. Most of the smallest groups I've ever shot were with that scope because I often use it for load development on a new rifle before I put its forever scope on. Its been on like 15 different rifles. In some cases that meant I had a $120 scope on a $2000 rifle. Luckily rifles can't read price tags.

 

[LiveLife]

I shop for quality and features, not trying to meet some arbitrary dollar figure that the internet thinks is appropriate ... why would you set out to spend $1000 on a scope if it doesn't bring some benefit to you and what you use the rifle for over a $200 scope? You can get really really nice 3-9x40 scopes for $200-$300 with excellent optics and lifetime warrantee. There is absolutely no shame in having something like a $300 leupold rifleman or a $200 Burris E1 on a rifle of any value.

... rifles can't read price tags.

Good post.

 

[shafter]

I always factor the total cost when buying a rifle which means rifle and scope and any other accessories. If I can't afford it I can't afford it.

 

[dranrab]

Whatever you get, make sure it's made in China. They need a little more money for more balloons and the cyber attack they are planning.

 

[maxxhavoc]

If it's not Leupold, ziess, nightforce or burris, Swarovski, trijicon; its good chance it's junk.
I took optical physics, yeah turns out making a good scope is really hard to do. Making a good rifle, that's like Victorian technology.

My most reliable, predictable scopes, and generally usable scopes are SWFA SS 10 or 12x that cost <$300. It is far easier to make a good Prime lens than a variable, and FFP vs SFP is irrelevant on a fixed power optic.

The scopes I like the least (including Sig, Nikons, Hawke, Hammers, Monstrum) are the Leupold Rifleman scopes I picked up on sale. "Meh" optics, no parallax, non-clicking adjustments that are not accurate at all and "walk". Only good for putting on hunting guns before you sell them so people see a gold ring on the scope.

The best way to get a good scope at a decent price is to figure out what features you need, which you don't and buy that. If you only shoot at 100 yard ranges during broad daylight and buy a Zeiss or Swarovski, you are probably just wasting money on bragging rights. Unless maybe you are in a professional gnat-shooting league.

 

[Hookeye]

I appreciate better glass. My eyes good enough to actually see the difference. However I also understand " good enough ".

My 12x SWFA standard didnt stick around long.

Worked fine but even at 100 yards it just lacked in mage. Usable, but was dull.

 

[Hookeye]

My buddy got some 1500 dollar Leupold hunting scope. The color and clarity was amazing. Def could be an advantage on some deer in the shadows

Never needed such for the deer Ive shot.

But yeah, dropping a few grand to go on a hunt, id pay for that performance. Better to have and not need than the other way around.

Oldest scope I have is an old Vari X iii from around 1980. Its still surprisingly good image wise. Its all beat up.on the outside but w good image, holding zero and forgiving eyebox .....it just works well for.me.

My next varmint scope will.probably be a new 6.5-20x VX3HD ( 1 inch tube )or the 6-18x Mark 3HD ( 30mm tube ).

Buddies run NF. Some doing NRL22 are playing the better Chinese scope game. And they do well.

Noticed Ovini Expeditions in latest videos isnt running Swaro anymore. Theyre going w Bushnell Elite Tactical.

 

[d31tc]

The moral of the story is you are indeed better off spending more on good glass. I'd rather buy a bone stock Savage Axis, and put a Nightforce on it than a Seekins or Accuracy International and put a Bushnell Sportview on it.

Came here to humble brag about my Savaga Axis. I was able to get a Savage Axis for $12. I’m putting an Athlon Ares on it (for now) which I see is on sale at Cameraland for $660. I bought it used for $400. So, in my opinion, you need to put on a scope that is somewhere between 33 and 55 times the cost of the rifle to get the full potential out of your rifle.

Seriously though, my scope buying is some what limited so my opinion is not one of an expert. I’ve only bought 12 scopes over time. The value of the scopes have ranged from $200 to $1,600. I looked for scopes with the features that I wanted and at a level of quality that the scope would not be the limiting factor for my intended use. Then I bought what I could afford. Usually these were scopes in the $500 to $1,000. To squeeze more value out of my money, I often look for used scopes from companies with solid repair policies if needed.

 

[Varminterror]

I was able to get a Savage Axis for $12. I’m putting an Athlon Ares on it (for now) which I see is on sale at Cameraland for $660. I bought it used for $400. So, in my opinion, you need to put on a scope that is somewhere between 33 and 55 times the cost of the rifle to get the full potential out of your rifle.

I see your 33-55:1 scope to rifle ratio and raise you NAUGHT!

I have a couple of $0 scopes on top of rifles which would cost $6500 or so, and 0:N where N is a positive integer approaches an infinite ratio - so my rifles literally cost INFINITELY MORE than the scopes riding on top of them.

 

[d31tc]

I see your 33-55:1 scope to rifle ratio and raise you NAUGHT!

I have a couple of $0 scopes on top of rifles which would cost $6500 or so, and 0:N where N is a positive integer approaches an infinite ratio - so my rifles literally cost INFINITELY MORE than the scopes riding on top of them.

What would your calculus be if I had “bought” the synthetic stock Savage Axis Walmart clearance rifles, where after rebate, I would have been paid to “buy” the rifle? I think the math says I would have to find someone to pay me $400 to buy a scope. I now regret not “buying” those rifles even more.