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

[redneck2]

I had a tasco pronghorn 1.5 x 5 on an Ithica 12 gauge deerslayer for over 20 years. Never lost zero or it’s crosswire.it is on my savage 99 in 308 now.

At one time some of the Tasco scopes were quite good. IIRC those were made in Japan. Later they tried to live off the name and most or all their scopes were made in China which were significantly inferior

Today one can get nice scopes far cheaper relatively than products 40 years ago In actual total dollars and particularly when inflation is figured in

 

[mgmorden]

Look at it a different way... is the rifle itself capable of exploiting the scope?

Money being no object, I would not put a $2000 scope on my Marlin model 60, let alone my $450 Savage, in much the same way I would not put a Bushnell Banner on a $2000 chassis rifle.

To me it just goes back to the purpose of the shooting, and why you bought the expensive rifle in the first place. If you're casually punching paper at 200 yards or less or hunting in close woods, then no matter how expensive or capable the rifle is a budget scope is going to work fine.

Similarly, if you're shooting benchrest competition at 1000 yards, or doing long range hunting on the open prairie, then you might need a scope with more capabilities - even if your rifle itself is cheaper.

And to some degree it comes down to how many rifles you own and want to scope. If you're got 2-3 dozen rifles you want to keep a scope on versus 1 or 2, your optics budget can get expensive. It may be that you keep a "nice" optic on a primary rifle and the others that only come out occasionally get budget scopes.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

My eyesight used to be excellent, well above average as a young man. Since my late 40s it has deteriorated quite markedly, both farsightedness and astigmatism having reared their dual heads. I can drive a car without glasses, and read without my cheaters in outdoor light, but I can't shoot very well anymore with normal open rifle sights -- the front sight won't properly focus without a corrective lens/aperture such as that shown in my avatar at left.

Some telescopic sights present problems for me too. Unless its eyepiece focus has a large enough adjustment range, the reticle doesn't sharply resolve for me.

When I look through an electronic sight, the red dot looks like a nuclear trefoil:



I can still determine the center, but it's hardly optimal.

I recently bought a Primary Arms 1x prism sight with an ACSS reticle that I can just barely focus by positioning the sight very close to my eye and cranking the focus ring all the way in. I like it.

I've also recently been experimenting with a cheap ($100), heavy Monstrum 4x fixed-power compact scope that also features an illuminated ACSS reticle. Rather surprisingly, I can clearly resolve it's reticle very easily within a fairly large eyebox. An optician could probably tell me what's going on here; all that I will say is that a reticle I can clearly resolve is my first priority with any optical sight.

As my eyesight has deteriorated, I've been growing quite fond of older, low-magnification fixed-power telescopic sights. Often the simple post or crosshair reticles resolve quite well with my eyes. The glass and coating quality back in the 1940's-60s doesn't compare to the present state of the art, the W&E adjustment usually isn't as positive and older scopes are notorious for fogging. However, those that have been well-cared for are still a big improvement on iron sights. Plus they don't cost very much on the used market.



I'm not sure what this has to do with money spent on optics, except that unless eye surgery can improve things I'm inclined to stay near the cheap end of the spectrum.

 

[420]

I pick what I want based on features or performance, not price, and Made in USA where possible (or, said differently, less China). With that approach things tend to be on the more expensive end of the spectrum. I've never been disappointented and I know that I'm fortunate.

 

[Charlie98]

To me it just goes back to the purpose of the shooting, and why you bought the expensive rifle in the first place. If you're casually punching paper at 200 yards or less or hunting in close woods, then no matter how expensive or capable the rifle is a budget scope is going to work fine.

Similarly, if you're shooting benchrest competition at 1000 yards, or doing long range hunting on the open prairie, then you might need a scope with more capabilities - even if your rifle itself is cheaper.

Then you are mismatching the purposes. If you bought a $2000 rifle (continuing with the previous example...) and all you are doing is 'casually punching paper at 200yds or less or hunting in close woods' a budget scope would certainly work... it's the $2000 rifle that's a waste of money, per se, just like my example of putting a $2000 Nightforce on a Marlin 60. But if you just like that rifle, and dropped the coin on it, that's fine, too. This is America, buy what you want.

 

[Chuck R.]

I only own 3 brands of scopes:

Vortex PSTs and Razors on TGT rifles
Leupold VX3s and VX6s on hunting rifles
Swarovski's on hunting rifles

Their features are matched to the rifles capabilities and the intended task/purpose. Since I often travel to hunt, I consider the VX3s about my minimum for reliability as I've yet to have an issue with one.

I learned a long time ago, not to go cheap on glass. I might, IF I knew the rifle was only going to be used locally, but since that's not the case, I shy away from budget class.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Expensive scopes are a hard pill to swallow. IMO, for hunting scopes, diminishing returns start around $500 and really level out around $1000. For PRS or other longer range stuff this can be adjusted.

I just bought two $1500 Browning 1885s. One is a 270 and the other is a 454 Casull. I scoped the 270 with a $500 Leupold 2.5-8x36. It is a lightweight svelt looking scope and doesn’t take too much away from the traditional looks of the octagon barrel 1885. I haven’t decided on the 454 yet but will probably use a Leupold VX-Freedom 2-7x33 that I already own. Lightweight and trim like the aforementioned VX-3 but half the cost. The 454 has shorter range than the 270 and IMO just doesn’t need a lot of scope.

There was no way I was going to pay another $3000 to scope these rifles. Maybe another $1500 but as it is I think I will do fine with what I got. Good glass has become marginally less expensive while good rifles have become much much more expensive. The axiom of “pay as much as you paid for your rifle” may have been good advice 30 years ago but today, not so much.

 

[Nuke8401]

Besides appreciating a quality “tool,” I think in terms of what it “could cost me” vs what it did cost me. I traveled about 5 hours to a long-range rifle competition about 10 years ago. My 3-15 SWFA scope failed internally about 1/3 the way into the match. So, I became a spectator. Gas, travel, food for 3 days to be a spectator. If I were going to go on an Elk hunt out west, you can bet all my gear would be appropriate for the task and likely I would use a top tier Leupold scope. If I’m going out in the backyard to hunt deer at 35 yards or so, my Bushnell Trophy TRS-25 ($50) will be fine.

 

[LoonWulf]

Plenty of very valid opinions on optics. My personal opinion is that 100 bucks or 10,000.... the only thing that matters is the scope does what you want and you like it.

I have/had some great scopes and some crappy scopes, that I struggle to find a place for. This means no matter how much or how little I spent on them, or how good they are/arnt......Id have been better served buying something else (which I usually will).

Right now I'm looking for a 1-4x to put on the R95 I just got, I want it as low and light as possible. If I spend 40 bucks on an old tasco/simmons/bushnell, or 500 on a new leupy.....well....we will have to see what I can turn up.

 

[redneck2]

hunting in close woods, then no matter how expensive or capable the rifle is a budget scope is going to work fine.

I felt that way at one time. Then I had my “it’s good enough“ scope fog up when I had my one opportunity at the deer of a lifetime. Later another guy shot that deer, 14 point symmetrical typical, 28” outside spread. At the time I believe it would have been the state record and would score very high in B&C. I could only set in my tree stand and watch him for 45 minutes. Trying to look through the scope was like trying to look through wax paper. I would literally pay $10,000 to go back in time with that rifle and a Leupold scope.

Many years later I was hunting with my best friend on our family farm. Opening morning I set him up in a fence row. He had his .44 mag rifle with Leupold scope. Cloudy, very dark day. About five into legal shooting time a doe, then huge buck jump the fence and stand in the field. It was very likely a descendant of the buck I mentioned earlier. Ended up scoring 183 and is on his wall at his cabin. At that moment a better optic seems a very worthwhile investment. Would a cheap scope have held zero? Would it gather enough light under those conditions?

went on a prairie dog/antelope hunt with some of my friends. One of the guys is a notorious cheap ass even though he makes really good money. So he takes his one varmint rifle which has a blister pack Walmart scope. Good enough for prairie dogs he says. So we get to the dog town. He can‘t hit a barn from the inside. I let him use my Varminter AR with 6.5-20 Leupold so he gets some shooting. When we get back to the cabin as he carries his rifle you can hear glass rattling in the rifle case. When he opens the case some of the lenses fall out. I had taken an extra Leupold and we mounted that so he could finish out the week

in my 73 years I’ve taken thousands of animals. I’ve also missed some really nice ones due to equipment failure. When I get a chance at a trophy animal I want all the odds stacked in my favor. You get very, very few chances at a deer like than. I had one and lost it.

 

[troy fairweather]

Unfortunately burris has disconnected the great ff2 and most look bought up already except there higher power ones, I don't have any trust with the ffiv they maybe fine or even equivalent to the ff2 but still can't get over that made in China on them. I was hoping since burris owns stiner now maybe they will come out with a good replacement for the ff2.

 

[redneck2]

I have no idea if this is the correct scope, but I just took this screen shot. Product appears to have excellent ratings. Amazon is seller, not third party.

 

[LiveLife]

A NIB rifle awaits me (or you) and the old question on how much to spend on a scope rolls around again.

The easy answer is spend more than you can afford because the performance will make you forget how much you paid. You can’t spend money you don’t have, so the price has to come down to meet reality, ergo the scope options shrink too.

Unfortunately burris has disconnected the great ff2 and most look bought up already

While @redneck2 posted Burris FF II 3-9x40mm for $159, if you want to shoot at longer range, there's Burris FF II 6.5-20x 50mm with mil dot for $219 and free shipping - https://www.sportsmans.com/hunting-...-50mm-rifle-scope-ballistic-mil-dot/p/1541193

And if you don't want "Made in China", both are made in the Philippines with "Forever Warranty" - https://www.burrisoptics.com/support/warranty

burris owns [steiner] now

I didn't know ... that's interesting.

Steiner factory tour in Colorado - https://www.huntstand.com/fieldnote...nd-steiner-optics-factory-in-colorado-photos/

From Burris Linked-In page - https://www.linkedin.com/company/burris-company-inc

In 2002, Burris became part of the Beretta family of companies ... Company is the American distributor for all Steiner Optics and eOptics products.​

 

[Hookeye]

Looks and purpose plays into it more for me than budget or some rifle/scope price ratio.

 

[Hookeye]

Yeah I got a Steiner, turns out its US built LOL

 

[mgmorden]

If I were going to go on an Elk hunt out west, you can bet all my gear would be appropriate for the task and likely I would use a top tier Leupold scope.

I probably would too, but I also (and for your competition purposes I would too) would take a second backup rifle and scope. When I shot USPSA a lot I always had a backup gun in my bag, and while I don't bother when hunting close to home, if I'm on a trip where I've travelled more than 2 hours for a hunt you can bet I'm taking 2 rifles.

. So he takes his one varmint rifle which has a blister pack Walmart scope. Good enough for prairie dogs he says.

Yeah but "blister pack Walmart" is a bit below what I was talking about earlier. Like I said I typically recommend $150 and up from Burris, Vortex, Leupold, etc. That's far from expensive but well above those $30 Tasco toy scopes.

in my 73 years I’ve taken thousands of animals. I’ve also missed some really nice ones due to equipment failure

While age imparts wisdom, it may be working against you a bit here. The overall quality of budget optics has improved dramatically as manufacturing has become more automated. I'd trust a $200 scope made today over an $800 (inflation adjusted) scope from 50 years ago. If your impression of the budget optics market is influenced too much by an earlier period you may be harboring a bias that is no longer really valid.

Just personally, I think the most expensive scope I own ran about $300. That $150 to $300 range has always suited me just fine.

 

[Crosshair]

Look at it a different way... is the rifle itself capable of exploiting the scope?

Money being no object, I would not put a $2000 scope on my Marlin model 60, let alone my $450 Savage, in much the same way I would not put a Bushnell Banner on a $2000 chassis rifle.

* Looks at my $300 Savage with a $2,000 NVD on it. *

/It's a clip-on, so I can move it between guns.

 

[mavracer]

The % of what the rifle cost doesn't really make sense to me because purposes can dictate a very different scope and there's a vast difference between a $600 1-4X and a $600 6-24X.

 

[Charlie98]

* Looks at my $300 Savage with a $2,000 NVD on it. *

/It's a clip-on, so I can move it between guns.

I've got a $79 Bushnell Banner that's likely been on everything that I've had that can take a scope at one time or another... including my Savage when I bought it. If that was a hunting rifle, it would probably still be on it.

 

[Varminterror]

Looks and purpose plays into it more for me than budget or some rifle/scope price ratio.

Bingo.

None of my firearms have ever paid for their own scopes, so I've never given any of them the option to choose.

In general, I'd rather have a scope which costs FAR more than most rifles, and I'd hate to have scopes that only cost 1/2 as much as most rifles. What I COULD shoot with and what I'd ENJOY shooting with or what I'd PERFORM WELL with aren't the same. I have a few $50 scopes on firearms and they work - they're garbage, but they work... Kinda... until they don't. But I've also experienced firsthand when $1500 scopes were NOT good enough to deliver what I needed, despite being fantastic among the broad market of scopes.

Tools for tasks. Horses for courses. I buy rifles based on the job they need to do, and I buy scopes to go with them based on the same demands. I have a couple $1,000 rifles with $150-250 scopes on them, and I have a couple $250-300 firearms which have $1200-1500 scopes on top, and each combination is well suited for the job being done by each.

 

[W.E.G.]

The rifle you use often should be equipped with the best glass you can afford.

That's all there is to it.

If you don't use ANY rifle often, you probably don't need a thousand-dollar scope.
Lots of $400 scopes are plenty ROBUST. Only the $400 glass is noticeably inferior to the expensive scopes.
If you derive no useful benefit from superior glass, there is no need to pay for it.

To some folks $400 is a lot of money.
To some folks $4000 is no big deal.

Walk a mile in the other man's shoes before you judge his choices.
The world is not fair.

 

[Heir Kommt Die Sonne]

. I have a couple $1,000 rifles with $150-250 scopes on them,

Glad im not the only one. The 3-9x40s are so available, I think it's the perfect range for .308.

 

[Varminterror]

The 3-9x40s are so available, I think it's the perfect range for .308.

I’m not certain a 3-9x40 does what I want to do with any 308win I have had, let alone a $150-250 3-9x, but if it works for your task, then great!

 

[.308 Norma]

You can’t spend money you don’t have

Sure, I can - I have a credit card.

 

[Robert]

Buy the best you can afford.