Why do people chintz out on scopes?

[GBExpat]

Some people really can’t tell great glass from good glass, so are not likely tobpay for it. Some people can see it, but don’t appreciate it enough to pay for it. Some simply cannot afford the higher end stuff. ...

I like that, well stated ... Walkalong the Wordsmith.

And some folks <hand raised> may have never even looked thru good glass ... mostly because the cheap glass is adequate for their purposes. O'course, only in the last decade, or so, have I glassed one of my longguns due to my presbyopia. I have always much preferred using irons over glass.

After being around hunters all of my life I also know that there is often an aspect of an Urge to Impress tied to the scope selection by some.

=====
A couple of decades ago, I came to work one day (while the stock price was UP) and mentioned that I had finally bought a new car. Many of the people in the office were disappointed that, rather than a Mercedes even a BMW, I had only gotten a Volkswagen Jetta (not even a Passat, for crap sake). I tried to explain to them that it perfectly fit my needs (and did so for years) for my 70+mile-round-trip 5-day-a-week commute but they were disappointed that boss chose to drive a VW. <sigh>

Hahaha ...

 

[brasscollector]

The nicer the rifle, the nicer they look, generally speaking. Sure some of the beauty and craftsmanship is inside, where it counts, but also where you cannot see it.
For a scope there is little to tell from the outside, the magic is almost all on the inside. I will go out on a limb and say that most people buying cheaper scopes just do not understand the difference. A lot of them simply do not spend the time behind the glass where it matters. I spend a TON of time looking through my scopes. I got tired of sore eyes long ago from struggling to focus through poor quality glass. Again, most people who zero a few shots a week before deer season and might take a few deer aren't going to spend even a combined 10 minutes looking through the scope all season.

 

[P89DCSS]

To avoid being potentially outperformed by a $500 rifle with a $600 scope in real-world situations, perhaps?

Like I've described before, it's not fun to have a $300 scope crap on you on a five figure, two-week African safari. Been there, unfortunately. Once bitten, twice shy, possibly, but that was the last cheap(ish) scope I've bought since. By a good margin.

Now I get it.. I don't have the means for a several thousand dollar vacation. Anything I own would be considered chintzy by your standards. Like people that own $80000 trucks and sneer at my 12 year old, hail damaged truck with 160kmiles and no nav system.

 

[cdb1]

I’m not a scope snob, a scope whore maybe but not a snob. I grew up deer hunting with unsporterized, stock milsurp bolt action rifles. The first time I looked through a scope was a revelation, I was around 12. Been hooked on scopes ever since.

If I have a $1000.00 total to spend then I’ll spend $500.00 to $600.00 on the rifle and $500.00 to $400.00 on the scope. If I could afford it I’d buy Leica Magnus class scopes but I can’t.

For a lot of folk they see value buying a rifle for $800, but cannot tell the difference between a $300 scope and a $900 scope.

My opinion is they refuse to see the difference, because the difference is there and I believe apparent.

Below is a good example of how I spend my firearms dollar. $400.00 scope on a $400.00 rifle. I do believe like others there is a point of diminishing returns with scopes that starts around $600.00-$700.00.

 

[IdaD]

A lot of it boils down to priorities. I'm 42 and have been a gun enthusiast and hunter since I was a kid following my dad around. I still enjoy guns and hunting, and I indulge myself every year to a degree. At the same time I have a wife and three kids to go along with a mortgage, retirement accounts, 529's for college and just trying save where we can to set ourselves up for the future and hopefully leave something behind for our kids to give them a boost after we're gone. I'm currently shopping for a red dot to throw on a recent AR build and I'm looking in the $200 and under price range. Will that get me the best? Nope. But in light of the other priorities I have I can't justify dropping $900 on an Aimpoint either. When I've checked off more life goals I may be a little more liberal with spending on myself.

Name your topic and there's a price point where 95% of folks will be satisfied. For the other 5% where that particular thing is really their main jam, it can be worth spending a lot more on pretty rapidly diminishing returns because it really matters to them. Most of us are pretty satisfied with that medium level Leupold or Vortex or whatever.

 

[Nature Boy]

Once you have owned and used glass on the higher end of the scale it's almost impossible to go back. I have one exception to that. I really like my Leupold VX3. Is it as nice as my Swarovski? Of course not. However, it is a nice scope for the rifle it sits on and I don't feel like I'm giving anything up when I hunt with it.

Good glass will spoil you though. That's a fact

 

[WestKentucky]

Agreed on this point.

If I were spending $20,000+ (travel, tags, PH fees, room and board) on an African Safari my rifle and glass combo probably would be in the $5,000+ range

But in reality if I were going that route my gun would probably be of lesser accuracy, more power, and traditional to the task. A double rifle would be preferred but likely would exceed the budget unless a used one was bought. And double rifles are known for African safari, but are NOT known for incredible accuracy. Of the ones I recall off top of my head I honestly don’t recall any having scopes. Admittedly, a bolt action rifle in a safari setup would be as good if not better with the caveat that a second shot would not be as quick, and if it were a scoped rifle then shots would likely be better placed minimizing the need for a second shot. However, point remains that if NO optic is good enough then ANY durable optic is functionally better. Why do we need to spend a grand on a scope for a rifle that is known to not be super accurate and that we are going to beat up in the bush? Or why would we spend as much on a scope as we do on a rifle when we are close enough that iron sights work?

I get the point being made by others, buy a quality optic, but people have in large part swapped to the Chevy rather than the Caddy because it’s the same stinkin thing just costs half as much and isn’t quite as fancy. My point being, when it comes to a rifle scope, do you actually need the equivalent to the factory DVD player, heated and cooled seats, or Glass roof, or are you just paying extra money to be fancy.

 

[BreechFace]

Once you have owned and used glass on the higher end of the scale it's almost impossible to go back. I have one exception to that. I really like my Leupold VX3. Is it as nice as my Swarovski? Of course not. However, it is a nice scope for the rifle it sits on and I don't feel like I'm giving anything up when I hunt with it.

Good glass will spoil you though. That's a fact

My Leupold VX6 hasn't spoiled me on VX3i glass. But for a lower cost rifle I'm very selective on a sub $300 scope because I guess good glass has ruined me to a degree. But in all honesty to my eyes there isn't $1,000 difference in performance between my VX6 and VX3i glass, $500 difference in performance I can buy with the features, glass quality, light transmission and such but in my mind that's about it.

Which is why I think and have said to lots of friends and family and on here that I think there is a significant amount of diminishing returns past the $500-600 scope cost.

But I bet @Nature Boy you would agree that the VX3i glass is "good" glass.

 

[Old Dog]

I get that there are a lot of Americans on pretty tight budgets. I certainly didn't mean to come across as an elitist gear snob. I'm not the greatest rifleman in the world, just a once or twice a year deer hunter who has learned the hard way about cheap optics. I do 99% of my rifle shooting at the club these days... What spurred my original post and questions was basically three individuals I've been around in the past few weeks -- who can all easily afford higher-end gear (these guys put $2500 worth of crap on $750 ARs) -- with budget optics on pretty decent rifles.

One guy at the range was trying to sight in a rifle with a scope, apparently a bad seal, fogged up on the inside. Couldn't get on the paper. Cheap scope on a decent Tikka rifle. Last year's hunt -- guy who could certainly afford better, really nice classic Remington 700 with a freakin' Tasco -- in Northeastern Washington weather. Then a buddy who picked up a top-end Kimber 8400... and put a $200 Burris scope on it. This guy makes way more than I do, and just bought a new $70K truck.

I dunno. I've got a couple mid-level Leupolds that are actually pretty worthy, but, but my questions came up again after I spent two hours yesterday waiting for my number to be called at the Cabela's gun counter watching guys shopping for scopes. It was kind of entertaining.

 

[chicharrones]

A lot of it boils down to priorities. I'm 42 and have been a gun enthusiast and hunter since I was a kid following my dad around. I still enjoy guns and hunting, and I indulge myself every year to a degree. At the same time I have a wife and three kids to go along with a mortgage, retirement accounts, 529's for college and just trying save where we can to set ourselves up for the future and hopefully leave something behind for our kids to give them a boost after we're gone. I'm currently shopping for a red dot to throw on a recent AR build and I'm looking in the $200 and under price range. Will that get me the best? Nope. But in light of the other priorities I have I can't justify dropping $900 on an Aimpoint either. When I've checked off more life goals I may be a little more liberal with spending on myself.

Name your topic and there's a price point where 95% of folks will be satisfied. For the other 5% where that particular thing is really their main jam, it can be worth spending a lot more on pretty rapidly diminishing returns because it really matters to them. Most of us are pretty satisfied with that medium level Leupold or Vortex or whatever.

Maybe 7 years ago I sprung for a brand new EOTech 517 for a winning bid of $415.00, if I remember correctly. Then around year 4 of very light usage, that EOTech lost its brightness. Thankfully, the EOTech recall came along and I got my money back, which ultimately led me to install a $250 Leupold 1-4x20 on a $80 mount. (Prices at the time.)

Funny thing is that the two cheapo Bushnell TRS-25 red dots that I bought years before the EOTech still work great, no matter the guns I've put them on.

 

[.38 Special]

I've used some pretty high-dollar Euro scopes. They were very nice, with the exception that they often did not have enough eye relief for American style shooting (this was years ago, and I've been told that is no longer the case). But I didn't find them any more reliable or any more repeatable than a mid-level Leupold, for example. They certainly didn't point my rifles any more accurately. They did have slightly better color rendition and edge-to-edge clarity, but I never saw how that would improve my shooting.

Now, I do like top notch optics in a binocular, especially one used for birding, and I've spent obscene amounts of money on such things. No one has ever been able to explain to me why I personally should feel the need to do that for a rifle scope, though.

Having said that, the low-end stuff is obviously low-end. I have used such things and would do it again if needed, but they obviously lack compared to mid-level stuff. Once you hit the $500 or so mark, though, I struggle to see the benefit of going up from there, at least for my purposes.

 

[.38 Special]

Funny thing is that the two cheapo Bushnell TRS-25 red dots that I bought years before the EOTech still work great, no matter the guns I've put them on.

I bought a blister pack Tasco 3x9 for something like $29, decades ago. It's been mounted on a dozen or so rifles over the years and has seen some fairly unpleasant recoil. It has some obvious optical aberrations, and you never quite know what one click is going to get you compared to the previous one, but once zeroed it stays zeroed and at this point I'd honestly be a bit surprised if it ever broke. I wouldn't take it on an expensive hunt by choice, but if forced to I suspect it would do the job.

 

[Nature Boy]

But I bet @Nature Boy you would agree that the VX3i glass is "good" glass.

Yes, I would

 

[chicharrones]

I bought a blister pack Tasco 3x9 for something like $29, decades ago. It's been mounted on a dozen or so rifles over the years and has seen some fairly unpleasant recoil. It has some obvious optical aberrations, and you never quite know what one click is going to get you compared to the previous one, but once zeroed it stays zeroed and at this point I'd honestly be a bit surprised if it ever broke. I wouldn't take it on an expensive hunt by choice, but if forced to I suspect it would do the job.

Those old Japanese made Tascos are decently built scopes. They lack good anti-reflective lens coatings, but still decent scopes for the era.

 

[CraigC]

Everybody prioritizes and spends their money their own way. What one spends on a vehicle or a cell phone often has little to do what they spend on guns and glass. I learned my lesson on cheap scopes years ago. Had to have half a dozen of them fail before I figured it all out though. Some folks have been lucky with cheap scopes and never had a reason to doubt them. Those of us who have had them go tits-up just can't trust them. Money spent on better optics is cheap insurance. A wise man once said, "cheap is too expensive".

That said, I never understood choosing a scope according to price tag, relative to the gun it's going on. I choose according to application and features. I'd put a $350-$400 Leupold VX3 on ANY rifle extant, even a five figure British best grade.

Though I must say I didn't buy my $80,000 truck to sneer at anybody. I bought it because I wanted it and I could. Other people never factored into the decision.

 

[Nature Boy]

A scope has to hold zero. For this reason I don't own any Nikons and not lamenting their exit from the scope market.

 

[hq]

If I were spending $20,000+ (travel, tags, PH fees, room and board) on an African Safari my rifle and glass combo probably would be in the $5,000+ range.

I refuse to use anything less than upper echelon glass on any hunts these days. Or pretty much anywhere for that matter. And it's not about the cost but having the hunt ruined, at least to a degree. Hiking a half a day from moose camp to the road, driving hours to the nearest town and buying whatever the LGS might have in stock for an emergency replacement is just as annoying. Or missing a deer quite literally on my back yard - or even worse, having to track a wounded one isn't what I have in mind either.

Mid-priced and even cheap scopes work. Most of the time. I've had a few fail, mostly in non-mission-critical situations like on the range. I'm probably old enough by now to pay gladly for extra peace of mind and minimizing the risk of having to waste time in very unnecessary clowning around a few hundred $ could've prevented in the first place.

I've done just fine on my trips to Africa with an off the shelf $1027.42 rifle. Scope, however, is a different story nowadays.

 

[Hookeye]

I kill chucks, yotes and deer just fine w Leupold glass.
And not even VX3 quality.

Finally bought one for my Steyr Prohunter. Rifle was on sale for 600, got the scope on sale for 300.
Half the rifle's cost.

Paid 300 for a used gloss Leupold, to stick on my used Ruger #1. 300 dollar old scope, on a 900 dollar old rifle.

My Sako Forester, neat old rifle, wears a new Leupold Freedom VX 3-9X. Why? Because I had it laying around.
It proly needs a VX3 2.5-8X but gloss scopes are silly priced and hey, the Freedom was sitting unused.

I don't need a 1500 dollar Swaro on my rigs. Wouldn't mind it.
Might even upgrade across all w Meopta or Steiner.
But stuff shoots well, and critters die, w my junky old gold ring crap.

 

[Hookeye]

500 dollar beater rifle from the 60's.
Used Leupold from early 80's..........175 bucks.
Worked fine.
Humid, cold and right at legal light, in timber. Due to cover, 75 yards about it there.
And while he was shot much closer than that, I could have smoked him at 75 had he hung up.
Scope held zero (old friction adj turret) and had enough exit pupil.
Biggie was...........good eye relief.
My neck is becoming more problematic.
Actually changed to a VX1 2-7X for longer tube, scope sits back a half inch more now.

Now, if I get a Merkel Helix Alpinist, yeah, it'll proly wear alpha glass.

View attachment 961766

 

[Robbins290]

I hunt at short ranges. I used a 30 dollar symmons scope on a remington 700 BDL for the first 10 years I hunted. Now I run a ruger american wit ha 100 dollar vortex and a Savage axis with what ever the rifle came with. Whole rifle was under $100 after a rebate.

If I were shooting 400-500 yards, I would upgrade. But all I need to use a scope for is to see antlers at a small buck at 80-100 yards. and a coyote at night with the same range. A 100 dollar scope works fine for me.

 

[Hookeye]

I have been looking at Trijicon. Had a used one, kinda cool. Image quality wasn't as good as hyped, but certainly usable.
Wonder if the newer stuff better.
Think a 1-4x w amber triangle would be pretty sweet on that old .35 rem.
List is a K, see em a little over 700.
Cool factor is up there, but cmon, on that rifle?
Only if I score a Grice 7600 carbine in .35 rem...........then I'll do it.

 

[Hookeye]

I have looked through a Steiner and Leupold VX6 glass.........stunning.
Outside.
Have not shot or glassed outside w any Swaro stuff.

Am not a fan of the euro looking scopes on classic rifles.
Why I paid 300 for a used 40 yr old Leupold for my #1.
Eventually a gloss 3.5-10X VXIII or 3 will sit atop.

But for around here, the old Vari XII (not a C either).........is fine.
Took it in the woods and it was not a worry.

 

[LoonWulf]

I get the point being made by others, buy a quality optic, but people have in large part swapped to the Chevy rather than the Caddy because it’s the same stinkin thing just costs half as much and isn’t quite as fancy. My point being, when it comes to a rifle scope, do you actually need the equivalent to the factory DVD player, heated and cooled seats, or Glass roof, or are you just paying extra money to be fancy.

I agree, but once you get used to the amenities, how hard is it to go back to the box stock chevy....
Im the guy who DOES drive an old beat up truck, so i can afford to buy fancy (ok fancy for me) gun crap. Im also the guy who would sell one of his guns to replace the hot/cold water cooler he has in his kitchen....freaking love that thing.
So while I 100% agree with you, I think its also has to be asked "what do you WANT to spend your money on?"

Ive gone round and round In my head about wants and needs. What I need from a rifle could be handled completely by 350 dollar Ruger American, topped with a 200-250 dollar Burris FF, bushnell 3200, Atholn Argos, or any number of other better than price point optics.
But Ive also used enough guns and optics now to know there are specific features and esthetics that I WANT to own at some point, and im going to have to pay out the nose to get them.

I figure ill probably still be driving the old toyota then too....well maybe not, toyota rot may claim it unless i can find a donor body.

 

[Hookeye]

Hopped on another forum just a bit ago....
saw Swaro Z3 3-10X for $730....

might have to get one for my Steyr, move the junky VX3i to my 700

After xmas.

 

[jmorris]

If I were spending $20,000+ (travel, tags, PH fees, room and board) on an African Safari my rifle and glass combo probably would be in the $5,000+ range.

I’d expect them to have all the firearms and ammunition I need ready to go when I arrive and my sheets turned down when I get back to my room after the hunt.