What makes a $1000 scope better than a $500 scope???

[ACES&8S]

QUESTIONS ! !
Isn't a parallax adjustment a necessary addition to an expensive scope?
I have been stuck in the 3X9X50 world so long I just wanted to see what else is out there & not just buying a lot
of worthless bells & whistles instead of higher quality & yet = What is higher quality? Glass ? Why can it be harder
to make high quality glass if you are already making glass in the first place, unless it is in China.
The long range shooting is ok but I usually don't have to shoot that far because I can get close enough to keep
shots within reason, but target shooting is what I really want to get better at-today anyhow---.
The reason for expensive better quality scope is getting older & my eyes are going downhill slowly.
Then sometimes the ethical shot can be thru a small space at a relatively good distance which an actually
better scope should help, shouldn't it?
So then 3X9X50 is ok but wouldn't a 16X or14X do better?
Sorry for babbling.

 

[Walkalong]

Isn't a parallax adjustment a necessary addition to an expensive scope?

Depends on the use IMHO.

So then 3X9X50 is ok but wouldn't a 16X or14X do better?

I like high magnification as much as anyone, but...........

Shot this pig a few months ago with a .458 Win Mag at around 125 yards using a shooting stick. I used a 2-7 and shot it on 2x.



Last year I replaced the scope on my .308 hunting rifle. It's a 2-10x50 with parallax adjustment.
After sighting it in I put up a fresh target at 100 yards and shot two shots at 2x. This is what it did.

 

[cdb1]

Depends on the use IMHO.

Gotta agree. I find AO useful on a rimfire scope, have never felt lacking by not having it on a centerfire scope and don’t feel an expensive scope needs it.

So then 3X9X50 is ok but wouldn't a 16X or14X do better?

I find with nicer scopes I can see just as well or better at say, 10x, than I can with a lesser quality scope at say, 14x.
YMMV of course.

 

[LoonWulf]

Depends on the use IMHO.



I like high magnification as much as anyone, but...........

Shot this pig a few months ago with a .458 Win Mag at around 125 yards using a shooting stick. I used a 2-7 and shot it on 2x.
View attachment 841346


Last year I replaced the scope on my .308 hunting rifle. It's a 2-10x50 with parallax adjustment.
After sighting it in I put up a fresh target at 100 yards and shot two shots at 2x. This is what it did.
View attachment 841335

Good shooting!

The only time I think more magnification REALY matters is when you don't have any way to reference your target, and your crosshairs obscure it.
Try shooting a bottle cap at 100yds with a 2-4x scope that's dialed dead on. Then put that bottle cap in the center of a piece of paper, or some other object you can use as a reference. Doesn't even need to be centered actually, but that easier.

When hunting medium game you almost never have a target that you can't reference to some degree.

 

[Varminterror]

Why can it be harder
to make high quality glass if you are already making glass in the first place

Why can’t you run faster if you are already running fast? Why can’t you lift more weight if you are already lifting weight? Why can’t you run farther if you have already ran as far as you can?

It’s even more complex than that in the manufacturing world - just because you have the knowledge and ability to make something better, it doesn’t mean you can do so at the same margins as targeted by your business. If more quality control measures have to be implemented, or higher cost input materials have to be used, or more processing steps, or greater precision processing must be used, the production costs rise.

Also, labor and technology costs aren’t the only contributor to a product price. If you make a better product, it has a greater value, so why would you not capitalize upon that value in your revenue stream?

You see this very clearly within product brands - for example, the Leupold line. The VX3 line took a price reduction a handful of years ago. Their position was that they had depreciated the technology and had found an ability to reduce costs, so they correspondingly reduced prices on the line too. However, they still retained their lower cost, lower quality product lines, and their higher quality, higher cost lines. Why? Because better quality is worth more, and consumers won’t always pay the extra cost it takes to make a better product. Bushnell is another example: they are very open about their coating technologies. Multicoated optics are less expensive than “fully multicoated,” which have the coatings applied to both sides of the lenses instead of just one. You might expect, coating both sides has more production cost and takes longer than only doing one side. The product quality is improved, and the price rises commensurately.

To the other conversation string: magnification doesn’t equate quality. There are absolute turds produced in the market at 6-24x, and phenomenal scopes produced at 1-4x. Their price points typically reflect that quality difference, not just their zoom range.

 

[ACES&8S]

Magnification, what I would only need it for in hunting is to tell if it is a legal buck or whatever but so many TV hunters use their
binoculars instead which is to measure the bucks antlers & that to me is stupid because like my favorite video hunter at one time
said, if you see it is a deer for sure, don't waste time get the scope on it, that can tell you all you need to know. Besides I have an
opinion on Antler Hunters on TV that they don't want to hear.
Better glass, my point is, if my 3X9X50 Leupolds & Nikons are as clear as they are with no complaints on my part then in reality,
how much clearer can it become to where I will spend $500 to $800 more for better glass & a couple of whistles.
I guess I'm saying the Leupolds I have run & lift good enough as they are in the $500 to $600 range.

 

[LoonWulf]

Magnification, what I would only need it for in hunting is to tell if it is a legal buck or whatever but so many TV hunters use their
binoculars instead which is to measure the bucks antlers & that to me is stupid because like my favorite video hunter at one time
said, if you see it is a deer for sure, don't waste time get the scope on it, that can tell you all you need to know. Besides I have an
opinion on Antler Hunters on TV that they don't want to hear.
Better glass, my point is, if my 3X9X50 Leupolds & Nikons are as clear as they are with no complaints on my part then in reality,
how much clearer can it become to where I will spend $500 to $800 more for better glass & a couple of whistles.
I guess I'm saying the Leupolds I have run & lift good enough as they are in the $500 to $600 range.

As long as they do what you want, they are "good enough"
If you don't feel the need to change, no reason to.

Personally my "good enough" scopes cost less than 1/2 of what yours do, and I was/am still perfectly happy with them.

I've also decided that I ENJOY shooting slightly better optics, even if i don't need them. Ill eventually probably end up buying a few top shelf optics, but my wants, and wallet, have not yet reached that far............yet.....

As to using your scope to look at stuff.
I've personally never been comfortable with pointing my gun at stuff I'm not at least fairly sure I'm gonna shoot, even tho I've done it. For me all I need to do is identify if it's safe to shoot, the right species, and MAYBE male or female.
I don't carry binos, so my first exam is with my range finder. I'll set up and shoot if that looks good and I'm within comfortable range.

Oh ment to say earlier that I WANT AO or SP on all of my scopes, but under 10x I do fine without. Quality of scope dosent seem to matter to my eyes, if focus is set at 150yds, 9+ will be blurry at 200ish+, I dun like that.

 

[Walkalong]

Picked up this 2-10x50 Leica last year at the closeout price of $500. Superb scope and much better than the $300 to $500 scopes I have had or looked through.

I think 10x is more than enough with that quality sight picture for defining what you are looking at at 300 yards and in, maybe more. Around here I won't be in a hunting situation where it is longer and will almost always be shorter.

As Loonwulf mentioned, an AO is very helpful to my old eyes these days, so while a decade ago I could care less, today I want one on anything for serious use.

I am not sure what extra you are looking for will be there if you go from $500 to $1000 in a scope, as it is very subjective, and as I believe a good choice in the $500 range will do what you want, especially if you catch a deal.

You get a lot for $500 in a hunting scope these days.

 

[Mowgli Terry]

There is a scope ritual. Bubba gotta have the latest thing in scopes. The major guru has put his stamp of approval in this new offering. He has spoken. It's a wonderment and makes all other scopes into junk. Bubba gets his new scope. What does he do with the old scope? He sells it or trades it in. In truth, the old scope is excellent. The next buyer comes in and considers this scope a bargain. This next guy puts his old scope on the market etc. The very last guy ends up with, happily, with a Tasco. So guys keep dumping these perfectly usable scopes on a downward spiral. No telling how how many times this cycle will repeat. I love it unless last in line!. Keep dumping those useless Leupold's and the like to us second tier buyers. Maintain the ritual.

 

[rbernie]

The ritual starts when Bubba has finally gotten the rifle to be of adequate quality - instead of buying more farkles or different guns, he upgrades the optics. Buying nicer stuff when you can and selling the older stuff Is Not A Bad Thing.

 

[Mowgli Terry]

The ritual starts when Bubba has finally gotten the rifle to be of adequate quality

I see what you are saying. However, there is a notion that the scope, no matter what the scope, makes the rifle. Also, makes owner a much better shot.

 

[ACES&8S]

Bubba gets his new scope. What does he do with the old scope?

What I see at our local gun shop is a LOT of rifles with -some- good scopes still attached like they were supposed to let the scope
go with the rifle. Then you see a lesser number of rifles with OBVIOUS low quality scopes just attached to improve their trade or sell
deal. So many sellers think the scope you have on it has to go with it, so many of my friends have let their best scope go like that ! !
I see rifles here with Leupolds on them like [Mowgli Terry] says which are high quality & the used combo of rifle & scope are well worth
the price as long as the bore is good , the machine functions, & scope is clear & functions.
[Sometimes] I can get a good scope off a rifle at a decent price here. Doing that can end up with several good scopes valued $300 to $500
which would be perfect on lots of rifles. [ A problem the younger -Mini Me- never had.]
Love having the problem of which rifle gets what scope, BUT as most know here, once you use the entire wheeler scope equipment step by
step you have dedicated the mounts to the scope you have chosen you would be hard pressed to start over. At least that's how I understand it.

 

[Mowgli Terry]

The flips side is if a fair price is put on rifle with scope together customer says that's sure a bunch for the rifle. Right!

It has worked reverse sometimes. A fried of mine called me about buying a dinged up Browning A Bolt for $500.00. I winced. The guy continued that the rifle came with a Ziess Conquest scope. The rifle was sold cheap due to the missing extractor.

 

[Hookeye]

If I'm gonna shoot small varmints yes, I want AO.
Coyotes............maybe.
Deer out to 400 yards........I don't need it.
One less thing to mess with.
I don't hunt out of a shooting house/blind.
Often I'm still hunting, and then check a field.
Shots could be up close and fast, or enough time to go prone and wait for them.
For a general all around scope, big game..........I think the Leupold 2.5-8X is about perfect.
Had one w ring marks (bought used). Sold it to a bud.
So I might buy a new one, or maybe 3.5-10X VX3i.

 

[Hookeye]

My CZ 455 wears an AO scope.

Don't laugh, I thought about an SWFA 6X SS for the .30-06.
If it didn't work out, could move to the CZ .22rf

 

[lightman]

I can't add much that has not been said in the 5 previous pages except that when buying an expensive scope, " the first time is the hardest"!

 

[ACES&8S]

I can't add much that has not been said in the 5 previous pages except that when buying an expensive scope, " the first time is the hardest"!

Perfect comment, that applies to dollars & sense & cents .
Another way to look at who needs the $1000 dollar scope & who needs the $500 scope it directly related to how much the high dollar
scope will be used if the person is a serious hunter or shooter. Or they could be -like has been said here,- the deer season hunter
& occasional shooter doesn't need the $1000 scope.
I relate it to common sense more than anything like who needs a $50,000 truck & who just wants a $50,000 truck.
Some people don't need it but they just want it. Some people want it they just can't afford it. Then some people like
myself, CAN afford it but just don't want it.
I guess that sums up how I have come to this answer that I just don't want a $1000 scope, I was leaning toward
getting one then -as warned- just trying one will start a never ending addiction to them.
I got into reloading like that which is a riddle that never can stop.

WHAT IS IT THAT THE MORE YOU TAKE AWAY FROM IT THE BIGGER IT GETS ???






A HOLE.

 

[rbernie]

The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten. - Ben Franklin

In this case, the analogy doesn't imply that a $500 scope has to be 'poor quality'. It's just that once you've used better glass, it's hard to be happy with lesser quality products. There *is* a difference, if you know what to shop for.

 

[cdb1]

“You can never really put too much scope on your gun, but you can put too little.”

 

[Mowgli Terry]

What's wrong with spending some time to decide what scope does meet needs? For example, my most recent scope s a VX II 2.5-10x50. Do I need more scope? I doubt it. Why spend an additional $500.00 for a super powerful long range scope? Picked up one of those long range Leupold's used with side focus, knobs and the like with 30mm tube. What did I use this scope for? The scope was mounted on a heavy barrel Savage for 100 yard lead bullet matches. It's all about picking an appropriate reliable scope for the needs. What if I wanted to shoot a deer at 600 yards? Sorry, I could care less.

 

[Walkalong]

It's all about picking an appropriate reliable scope for the needs.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that, it's just about what can you get for the extra dough, what do you need in a scope for your application, and can a jump from $500 to $1K be worth it for better glass or tracking or whatever your needs are. Money for extra features you don't need could be considered wasted, while more money for better glass/coatings etc can be worthwhile if you need, can see, and/or want the difference.

 

[rbernie]

What's wrong with spending some time to decide what scope does meet needs? For example, my most recent scope s a VX II 2.5-10x50. Do I need more scope? I doubt it. Why spend an additional $500.00 for a super powerful long range scope? Picked up one of those long range Leupold's used with side focus, knobs and the like with 30mm tube. What did I use this scope for? The scope was mounted on a heavy barrel Savage for 100 yard lead bullet matches. It's all about picking an appropriate reliable scope for the needs. What if I wanted to shoot a deer at 600 yards? Sorry, I could care less.

Because a Steiner GS3 2x-10x, for example, is simply a better optic. It accomplishes the exact same job as your VXII, but does it better. That doesn't make the VXII bad. It just means that -if- you can afford the GS3 -and- you can justify the extra expense, then buying the Steiner instead of the Leupold will get you a better product. That's what I thought that this thread was all about, no?

Spending more money doesn't have to mean getting more magnification. It often means getting better glass, better reticles, better eyebox forgiveness, better adjustment repeatability, and so forth. All of those things are incremental, but observable and measurable.

 

[Mowgli Terry]

Because a Steiner GS3 2x-10x, for example, is simply a better optic - it accomplishes the exact same job as your VXII, but does it better

This makes my point. What's "better". Rather have the money than play this vanity game. Does the VX scope meet my needs? Is the VX-2 a dependable scope that will do my job. Would a Nightforce or Steiner scope do the 100 yard lead bullet match better. I'd make the cover of "Gun&Ammo" with a Steiner on an older heavy barrel stock as a door knob Savage 110 FP..

 

[rbernie]

Rather have the money than play this vanity game.

Why insist that spending more on an optic than you would is a 'vanity game', when there have been five pages of back-n-forth to try to illustrate how spending more money can result in getting a better (more clear, more durable, more reliable) product.

Your posts remind me of an old George Carlin routine, in which he observed than folk often consider anyone driving slower then they are to be a moron and anyone driving faster to be an idiot. This sort of 'the only correct perspective is mine' mindset leaves no room for learning and seems to me to be intellectually impoverished, but feel free to enjoy all that.

 

[Nature Boy]

Buy used fellas. I normally don't recommend this, but take a gander at the Snipers Hide for sale section. Those guys change high end scopes like some folks change underwear and they list them for really good prices