should scope equal rifle value?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sansone

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Messages
2,173
Location
north florida USA
I know this has been discussed before but I would like to hear new opinions with current economics in mind..

I NEVER owned a scope to be proud of. I have wanted a Nikon Monarch for many years but could not pry the wallet open. Sure there are many other choices but my question is:

How foolish is it to install a scope on a rifle of equal value ? THANKS fellas :)
 
That question reminds me of the line jewelry store clerks lay on guys saying an engagement ring should cost 3 months salary....As long as the scope works and you are happy with it all that really counts, IMO.
 
very subjective question. really depends on what kind of rifle you're dealing with and what you wanna do with it.

for example, my first deer rifle was a $200 .30-06 from walmart. i put a $750 leupold on it because i knew that where i hunted i was gonna have a lot of "edge of dark" shot opportunities. the combo served me well and in low light, i could see better through the scope than with the naked eye.

now, my 10/22 cost me about $250 iirc and i put a $50 scope on it. there's no heavy recoil and no need for a $250+ scope on it for my plinking and squirrel hunting uses. that money is better spent on ammo.

just use some sense and put some forethought into your purchases and you'll be fine.
 
If you have to choose one, spend your money on the scope, not the rifle. You can only shoot as well as you can see. Good glass makes a difference and unfortunately costs money.
 
Get a scope that works for your intended use. If it is a cheap tasco, a nightforce or whatever in between as long as it works for you then what more do you need?
 
I think Colt Python Elite nailed it, but I've always heard you should spend 1/3rd of the rifle cost on optics. So, a rifle for 1k, you should spend at least 300 on optics.

Although with optics today you could spend significantly less and still do quite well.
 
So thinking the scope should be half the rifle's value might be flawed you say? For some reason I feel the rifle's value should be much higher than the scope's value. I really want a Monarch but the rifle is an inexpensive Marlin. Kinda like putting jewels on the dog's collar.
 
The idea seems to be an Internet thing. If you really need the max performance of a high-end scope, all well and good. For 90+ percent of all use, however, the $150 to $200 range of scopes seems to work quite well.

Out to 400 yards on critters bigger than prairie dogs, and not considering first or last light (see Post #3), a Weaver K4 or equivalent will do as good as anything else on the market.

Example: I paid $150 for a good used Leupold Vari-X II 3x9x40. It's on top of a 700 Ti. Am I "under-scoped"? Me, I don't think so.
 
My scopes have to do the job i need done, i don't go by what the cost ratio is. I bought a Zeiss for my "go to gun", because it was the best low light level scope i could find that was still affordable, as i need that gun to work for me at low light levels. Yet, i have much cheaper scopes on 22's, because they do just fine for what i use that 22 for.

I have always been willing to pay for a good scope, as i have spent weeks at a time in the Alaskan bush, many times alone, sometimes in the winter in a tent, "depending on my firearm and scope" for food and safety. I'm just not willing to take cheapo unproven equipment into situations like that.

DM
 
I certainly don't pick out a scope by what my gun cost. I pick out my gun and my scope based on
1) Intended use
2) Quality gleaned from reading many many reviews and first hand accounts
3) Reputation of manufacturer
4) If it is a rifle, the aesthetics
5) What I can fit in my budget.
 
sure Art, a used Leupold is still a great scope, I'm getting tired of buying cheap chinese scopes only to waste expensive ammo watching POI wander around the paper. Not bashing the fine people of china, just would like to own a scope made in Japan or USA for around $300
 
Dzelenka... Not wanting to start anything, but a cheap rifle with excelent glass with still shoot kike a cheap rifle. A $1000.00 scope will not make a $150.00 stevens 200 shoot like an $1000.00 savage palma rifle. Nor vice-versa. I like to spend my money on quality rifles, and if I need glass for them, ill use a cheaper scope untill I can afford a quality scope. So far though, every time I go to get that quality scope, I caome home with a new rifle, so... My way of thought dosent seem to pan out perfectly either ;) With redfield coming back on the scene, and the ecomomy in shambles, higher end scope manufaturers are starting to make good quality "low end" rifle scopes for the average american shooter. This I sgood news.right now, I have a tru-glo, $119.00 scope on my savage 110 308. It shoot tiny groups with factory and handloaded ammo. I think that scope is on par with other $120 scopes from nikon and leupold (if you can find em)
 
Well, in part it just comes down to the individual scope. It's like eye glasses. It needs to fit you and the work environment. If either is not right, you will have problems. Cost is not really relevant.

I use old steel tube Weaver scopes on a number of my rifles. A stronger scope is hard to find. But, they were built before some of the modern lens coatings, so they will not transmit that last 2% of light as dusk falls. I also have some Bushnell Elites because rain and fog are issues on the north coast in Cali and Rainguard does work, they are aluminum tubes and the Weavers would rust :(

I also have some Nikon scopes and they are great - but so is an older Kassnar made in Japan. I don't own a US Optical or a Swarovski, Zeiss or Schmidt & Bender - but if there was a job that needed one I'm sure I would.

Would I put a Schmidt & Bender on a Marlin XS7S - sure if that what was needed to do the job. That's like a scope that costs 7X the rifle. So what - if you have to see into the dark on the edge of night you have to see. The cost of the rifle vs the sights is sort of a bogus argument?

Gen III night vision costs many thousands of dollars and it will work on a $100 Mosin. What job are you thinking this "nice" scope will have to do?
 
In my case the rifle is a good shooter so I want a good scope for it. I have seen cheap scopes that can do well provided you don't adjust the power or turn the elevation knob. Since reading these responses, I'm leaning towards a good scope in the $300 range. This is double what I normally spend on a scope. When I change rifles later, I can keep the scope. My tired old eyes can't see the irons anymore
 
The quality of the glass isn't the only factor that makes a good scope cost money.

Reliable and repeatable adjustments don't come cheaply.


If you just zero your scope and use some "hold-over" method, that consideration might not matter as much. But it does cost money to set up a scope that has turrents a shooter can use easily and rely upon.

Equal the value of a rifle? Not necessarily. Sometimes it will. It just depends on how much things like that matter to you.
 
IMO there is no reason the cost a rifle and the cost of the scope should have anything to do with each other. Doesn't make sense to me.
If you want a nice scope, get one.

Nikon Monarch 2-8 costs less than $300. Monarchs are made in the Philippines.
Bushnell 4200 is a direct competitor to the Monarch. Made in Japan. You can get one for less than $300.
Leupold VXII is $300.
Natchezss has a USA made Burris Signature Select for $300.
Natchezss also has the Nitrex TR-1, made in Japan, for $100.
 
I've had and seen very bad luck with the cheapest brands of scope. Such as people paying thousands for an Alaska hunt and sticking a Tasco or Bushnell or whatever on their rifle and having the seals blow out when transported in a bush plane due to the drop in air pressure. End of hunt, money wasted.

With that said, most people would be perfectly well served by a $200 fixed 4 power scope from Leupold or Burris or some other reputable maker.

You don't need $800 worth of 4x12 with mil-dots and illuminated whoozits and built in wind vanes and all that. Just get within 300 yards, put the fixed power scope crosshairs on the critter and pull the trigger.
 
KodiakBeer said:
Just get within 300 yards, put the fixed power scope crosshairs on the critter and pull the trigger.
Click to expand...

KD, that method might work for larger game, but not so much for varmint hunting. Or for a competitive shooter in rifle matches.
 
Define your requirements:

1. What is is going on? (IE, Air rifle, .22 bolt action, magnum centerfire, . . . . very different scopes needed in each case)

2. How will I use it? (Punching paper in the sun, picking up a charging lion inside 20 yards, popping prairie dogs at extreme range)

The standard 3-9X price point scopes that flood the market are often far less (or more) than what you need for a specific application.
 
most of my shooting is testing handloads. Always tweaking the recipe in search of the perfect one. Although my target can't turn and kill me, accuracy matters a great deal. I've been using a scope that holds zero as long as I don't touch it. Fine for producing tight groups but I would like a scope that is repeatable with changes in magnification and elevation/windage changes
 
OK, new equation. If you are going to punch paper for the foreseeable future, you need a good repeatable and adjustable scope. Won't be night vision. So turrets are at the top of your list.

This is not the same list as average hunter scopes. And, it is one you will move from rifle to rifle. I don't feel competent to answer your question as I adjust for zero and leave it alone mostly. But, I am interested in the list of recommended scopes :)
 
Quote; Art Eatman, Posted Today, 10:56 AM Administrator
The idea seems to be an Internet thing. If you really need the max performance of a high-end scope, all well and good. For 90+ percent of all use, however, the $150 to $200 range of scopes seems to work quite well.

Out to 400 yards on critters bigger than prairie dogs, and not considering first or last light (see Post #3), a Weaver K4 or equivalent will do as good as anything else on the market.

Example: I paid $150 for a good used Leupold Vari-X II 3x9x40. It's on top of a 700 Ti. Am I "under-scoped"? Me, I don't think so.


A big +1.
I've bought a many a USED Leupold and put them on rifles that cost 5 times or more than the scopes.

Art and I will never be "under-scoped" with our USED Leupolds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
Scope Advice
Replies
3
Views
297
hueyville
H
Z
  • Locked
Detachable Scope Mounts?
Replies
3
Views
525
444
4
T
  • Locked
Rifle/Scope help
Replies
4
Views
345
Skylerbone
Skylerbone
K
  • Locked
Finally got my long range rifle!!!
Replies
12
Views
914
Kachok
K
T
  • Locked
I think that I might have scope envy... Help with choice, please.
Replies
5
Views
527
Darkside852003
D
Back
Top