Why do people chintz out on scopes?

[mavracer]

IMHO there is a point of diminishing returns achieved pretty early with glass.
There's a lot of pretty good glass in the 200-600 class.
I just recently replaced a 6-18 Leupold mod 1 AR on my Valkyrie with a Bushnell 4.5-18 AR optics and put almost $300 in my pocket in the deal. The glass is as good and the adjustments track perfect.

 

[Nature Boy]

I do like to keep an eye out for sales on scopes, it can really help you bump up in quality at a price you can live with, like the Leica I bought 50% off.

so do I, and I’ll also buy used (I have a Nightforce and a Kahles that I saved a lot on going the used route)

how do you like the Leica? I’m think about getting one for my current Mauser project

 

[Taurus 617 CCW]

I have two Leupold VX-1 scopes on top of my hunting rifles. They both cost me right around $200 each and are excellent glass for the money. No complaints.

 

[aaronu]

Just because a scope is inexpensive doesn't mean it is garbage.

Just because a scope is expensive doesn't mean it is worth a damn.

One would hope that spending more will get a better product, or at least a better warranty.

But not always.

 

[Sniper66]

It is a proven fact that if you spend more money you get better stuff...my wife lives by this creed and I dare you to disagree with her. God help you if you do!

 

[Walkalong]

how do you like the Leica?

It is really nice.

 

[mjsdwash]

uuuhhhhh the "new" gun culture is all about fun, not hunting, or target shooting, so thats how people are introduced to all of it. So when they get into more focused subsets, they still have the "its for fun" mentality going. Most people age into this around rent, car payments, through the roof insurance and everything else and don't have the money.

For 4 years you could buy a working AR rifle for under $600 easily. Hard to justify a scope that costs more. Of course, when you look at a $350 AR, or $600 AK, or $400 1911, the idea of an extruded tube with lenses costing $1200 its hard to justify. I have had a few cheap scopes under this mentality. 1, a Bushnell 3-9-40 lasted long enough, and held its zero enough that I don't look down on cheap scopes. Another, a Barska, failed almost immediately. I currently have 1 scope, a low level Leupold, and it was well below $300. For the rimfire its on its more than adequate. If I need to go out past 100, I would need stronger. If I wanted to target shoot past 200, I would need to spend significantly more.

It doesn't help that liars on the internet tell people that 1" iron site off hand 100 yards groups are common, or that 9X is good enough at 1000 yards. I don't see people at the range going under 3" much at 1000 with hi-end scopes, and can definitely see newer target shooters thinking the "its the shooter, not the equipment" tag line of all the fake champions making people think better equipment isn't worth it..... Why spend $1000 on a scope when the "Force recon delta seal with SWAT training" sitting on the permanent stool at the shop can outshoot you 10X anyway?

Everyone ignores the 55 year old who "fought Charlie in the jungle", but seeing every jackass on the internet basically talk themselves up has a reinforcing effect, the effect is.... Its not worth it, I'm not even close to good enough.

 

[Old Dog]

Everyone ignores the 55 year old who "fought Charlie in the jungle", but seeing every jackass on the internet basically talk themselves up has a reinforcing effect, the effect is.... Its not worth it, I'm not even close to good enough.

Well, as of this year, you'd better be at least 66 to have fought Charlie in the jungle (if you joined the Corps at 17).

But, interestingly enough, I do wonder about where all these 20-somethings who do the YouTube gun videos got their experience, and why I should listen to one of them tell me which AR and which optic is the new greatest weapons system in the world...

 

[mjsdwash]

Well, as of this year, you'd better be at least 66 to have fought Charlie in the jungle (if you joined the Corps at 17).

But, interestingly enough, I do wonder about where all these 20-somethings who do the YouTube gun videos got their experience, and why I should listen to one of them tell me which AR and which optic is the new greatest weapons system in the world...

exactly my point, I remember people that age in the 90's telling their stories, real and fake, but you occasionally hear the worlds greatest hero rant.... and when you ask where the glory was won, and you get a panic answer, something stupid like "the Nam" from a guy who was 10 when it ended. As far as modern expertise, some are machinists, some are engineers, some are just really smart, most however, are gamers, fantasizers and obsessive on the topic. The last group tends to have all the facts, lots of answers, but no depth of knowledge when pushed. Also tend to get the detail wrong. I personally use grease on slides, because I occasionally shoot a few hundred rounds at a time, but presenting this leads these people to tell me know grease will jam/bind/slowdown my pistol... nevermind I have 4K through that pistol in all kinds of condition, he read something on the internet. But there are many experienced people with good advice, but outmatched by the vocal fools. Just my thoughts on the subject.


As for my line, maybe I should have wrote "everyone KNOWS to ignore the 55 year old who 'fought Charlie in the jungle", I didn't mean to make the gunshop stool hero/self appointed range master sound like a credible source. Not that I haven't met interesting, credible people in these environments, but not quite as many as the no-it-all's with fake stories.

 

[entropy]

I've learned the hard way: buy once, cry once.

Not only with optics. Guns that will see hard use, vehicles, etc.

I've told this story before on THR, but it illustrates this so well, once more won't hurt:
In 1991, a guy came into the shop with $1100 of overtime in an envelope and a mission: Buy a Weatherby 7mm magnum and scope (yes, 7mm Wby. Mag.) because that's what the 'gun guy' in his hunting camp had, and he dropped his deer DRT right there every time.

OK, I said, I have one in stock, (It had been in stock so long it had the 70's style stock with polyurethane finish, rose wood grip cap, and foregrip tip, with maple accent strips in between them, and a maple diamond on the grip cap.) but before I bring it out, tell me about where you hunt; what kind of terrain, longest expected shot, and also do you plan on hunting out west with it? The answers were wooded North Central Minnesota, 100 yards max, and no, but my buddy who has one goes muley and antelope hunting every year. I said OK, what have you been hunting with until now? He had been borrowing a Winchester .30-30 from Magnum man. Fine, I then ask how he shoots with it. OK, he says, I hit a paper plate at 50 yards. I then ask if he'd ever shot that 7mm Wby. Magnum. No, he hadn't. I then said what if I can put you in a rifle that will get your deer if you do your part, with a scope, case, 10 boxes of ammo and rings, mounts, and I'll boresight it for you, for less than the gun alone would cost you.

He said, Go on. First I pointed out that the 7mm Wby. Mag, is a hard recoiling rifle, and probably what would have happened if he bought it was he'd go to the range, and develop such a flinch, he'd never hit a deer anyway. Next I pointed out the the rifle he wanted was $950, which would leave him enough money for a low-end scope (Ah-ha, the crux of the story!), and maybe one box of ammo. (even then it was $2 a round or more!, and he did not reload)

So I then took an WInchester 94 AE off the rack, grabbed a Leupold VxII 2-7 out of the case, 5 boxes of the basic Federal 150gr. 30-30 ammo, 5 boxes of the Federal Premium 150 Partition ammo, bases, Burris Zee rings, a Boyt padded case, and went through why I chose each item for him, and what he was to do after he got it. He did hem and haw a little about the Weatherby, how he'd really wanted one, etc. (and I totally understand wanting a particular gun; I waited 40 years to get a Ljutic trap gun) but yeah, maybe a better scope (I had him look through a Bushnell Sportview and the Leupold while we were talking) is a good idea, and maybe the 7mm was a bit overpowered for the Minnesota woods.

Then I had him handle the Winchester, showed him why it was better than the one he was using because of the scope mounting system, and explained why the Federal Partition load was a better hunting round than the basic Winchester round he had been handed with the borrowed rifle.

I then told him to look at the case and rounds for a minute while I mounted and boresighted the Leupold, tossed in a pair of the see-thru storm scope caps, and explained to him as I put it in the case he needed to clean it to get all the preservatives out, added a cleaning kit, some Redfield targets, told him where some good ranges were. (his sight in was literally a paper plate tacked to a pine tree behind the deer camp!)

I wrote up the order and it was just over $700. I told him to take some of the money I'd just saved him and take his wife out to dinner in the next two weeks before opener. (She'd reluctantly agreed to him spending the $1100 on a gun)

Well, he did take her out, and also got out to the range, started at 25 yards like I told him to, got sighted in at 100 after only 2 of the 5 boxes of practice ammo, verified zero with the Partitions (not surprisingly, they shot about the same), and got his buck opening morning. He came in after the season and showed me pictures, (nice 6 or 8 pointer, it was 25 years ago) and thanked me profusely for keeping him from making a big mistake (he did try his buddy's Weatherby, and didn't like it) and said he was a customer for life. I hope they kept treating him well.

The gun shop manager was actually mad at me for not selling that guy (as he put it 'dumping it on him') the Weatherby the had been in the back room forever. I reminded him their slogan was "The Outdoor Experts".

But, interestingly enough, I do wonder about where all these 20-somethings who do the YouTube gun videos got their experience, and why I should listen to one of them tell me which AR and which optic is the new greatest weapons system in the world...

Fallujah, Mosul, Tikrit, Tora Bora, Route Irish, Kandahar, and many other smaller battles that will be forgotten by all who did not fight in them. And some pew pew types and Airsoft types, too, sadly.

 

[CraigC]

IMHO, when the word "snob" gets tossed around as an insult on gun forums, it usually says more about the person throwing the insult than its intended target.

 

[Dibbs]

I used to worry I was spending too much, on a scope. After hunting for a few years, I began to worry i was not spending enough on a scope...

 

[Miami_JBT]

Tasco used to be headquartered in Miami, FL right off the Palmetto Expressway. They had their glass made in Japan back then. It was good stuff for the price, especially when you bought directly from them. My mindset was always if a rifle costs X, you divide that by half and that's the amount you pay for a scope. Well, for a $300 rifle, Tasco did the job and guess what. After all these past few decades, the Tasco scopes I have are still going strong and holding a zero.



My stainless Ruger M77 in the photo is still wearing the same Tasco brand scope after all these years. Still going strong and still doing the job.

Sure, there are better scopes out there. But for what I used it for, it does the job fine. The future isn't old school telescopic glass anyways.



Night Vision and Thermal is what you should be investing in anyways.

 

[hq]

Do we just have a culture now where there's a lot of folks who don't understand, or can't see, the difference between substandard glass and good optics? Are we (our generations) failing to teach those who follow just what constitutes acceptability and quality?

Or is it simply that our economy -- or the job market -- is so bad, a lot of hunters can't save up to buy decent scopes?

Now that we have gone through a full circle and have a whole thread of different anecdotes to work with, I return to the OP's open question by concluding: Yes. All of the above.

Come to think of it, there's nothing personal to be gained in explaining anyone why a high end product is usually so much better. It doesn't even need to be explained. Or can't. Using one even briefly for first hand experience reveals why. Using or even abusing one for years, even decades makes it obvious. Everyone has to take the leap of faith for themselves if they really want to find out.

Like several years ago when I decided to sell my Chevy, which was good enough of a compromise as a hunting truck, and get a MB G, which was good, period. This may not be a perfect analogy as both can be (and were) tricked out, which can't really be done with optics.

Personally I'm getting tired of explaining why or why not. After dozens of scopes of varying quality I much rather let them speak for themselves if anything needs to be said at all. Nothing I - or anyone else - say(s) can change the facts.

 

[cdb1]

Now that we have gone through a full circle and have a whole thread of different anecdotes to work with, I return to the OP's open question by concluding: Yes. All of the above.

Come to think of it, there's nothing personal to be gained in explaining anyone why a high end product is usually so much better. It doesn't even need to be explained. Or can't. Using one even briefly for first hand experience reveals why. Using or even abusing one for years, even decades makes it obvious. Everyone has to take the leap of faith for themselves if they really want to find out.

Like several years ago when I decided to sell my Chevy, which was good enough of a compromise as a hunting truck, and get a MB G, which was good, period. This may not be a perfect analogy as both can be (and were) tricked out, which can't really be done with optics.

Personally I'm getting tired of explaining why or why not. After dozens of scopes of varying quality I much rather let them speak for themselves if anything needs to be said at all. Nothing I - or anyone else - say(s) can change the facts.

I agree that you shouldn’t have to explain the benefits of high quality scopes, they are self-evident.

 

[shafter]

A $300 scope is hardly junk nowadays and will be more than adequate for what most people need on a rifle. I'm on board with getting the best you can afford but there's only so much money in a person's pocket.

 

[Old Dog]

Fallujah, Mosul, Tikrit, Tora Bora, Route Irish, Kandahar, and many other smaller battles that will be forgotten by all who did not fight in them.

Yep, lotsa guys who made one or two trips downrange in four years and are now experts at every weapon system under the sun. I was not referring to those who've some hard-earned experience on what optics work on the guns they were issued on deployments and used under extreme conditions, rather those who are popping up like weeds on YouTube to pontificate about every new gun being produced, based on their taking a sample of one, some buddies with a video camera and some free ammo on a trip out to a desert range for some plinking ("testing and evaluating"). Met a few of these guys over the last few years. Not too awful impressed.

A $300 scope is hardly junk nowadays

Some $300 scopes are not junk nowadays. A lot of them are. But, I have a couple of lower-end Leupolds that have provided great service, and one of my longest lasting scopes that took a few whitetail was an old Redfield 3x9 from the late 80s that was the best I could afford at the time.

One of my questions (that was really the one that spurred the thread) is why would someone buy a more expensive rifle and put a budget optic on it? (I get budget scopes on budget rifles, although there are some really inexpensive rifles I'm seeing these days that can really shoot.) The rifle with scope is a system, and performance depends on both components working really well-- why handicap a rifle by using a scope that will not allow the best possible shooting results?

Kind of like the guy who goes out and picks up a $1500 pistol and then carries it in a floppy $24 nylon Uncle Mike's holster...

But, I got a lot of answers I expected.

-- Will (Anbar Province Junior College, '04-'05)

 

[Sniper66]

Not only with optics. Guns that will see hard use, vehicles, etc.

I've told this story before on THR, but it illustrates this so well, once more won't hurt:
In 1991, a guy came into the shop with $1100 of overtime in an envelope and a mission: Buy a Weatherby 7mm magnum and scope (yes, 7mm Wby. Mag.) because that's what the 'gun guy' in his hunting camp had, and he dropped his deer DRT right there every time.

OK, I said, I have one in stock, (It had been in stock so long it had the 70's style stock with polyurethane finish, rose wood grip cap, and foregrip tip, with maple accent strips in between them, and a maple diamond on the grip cap.) but before I bring it out, tell me about where you hunt; what kind of terrain, longest expected shot, and also do you plan on hunting out west with it? The answers were wooded North Central Minnesota, 100 yards max, and no, but my buddy who has one goes muley and antelope hunting every year. I said OK, what have you been hunting with until now? He had been borrowing a Winchester .30-30 from Magnum man. Fine, I then ask how he shoots with it. OK, he says, I hit a paper plate at 50 yards. I then ask if he'd ever shot that 7mm Wby. Magnum. No, he hadn't. I then said what if I can put you in a rifle that will get your deer if you do your part, with a scope, case, 10 boxes of ammo and rings, mounts, and I'll boresight it for you, for less than the gun alone would cost you.

He said, Go on. First I pointed out that the 7mm Wby. Mag, is a hard recoiling rifle, and probably what would have happened if he bought it was he'd go to the range, and develop such a flinch, he'd never hit a deer anyway. Next I pointed out the the rifle he wanted was $950, which would leave him enough money for a low-end scope (Ah-ha, the crux of the story!), and maybe one box of ammo. (even then it was $2 a round or more!, and he did not reload)

So I then took an WInchester 94 AE off the rack, grabbed a Leupold VxII 2-7 out of the case, 5 boxes of the basic Federal 150gr. 30-30 ammo, 5 boxes of the Federal Premium 150 Partition ammo, bases, Burris Zee rings, a Boyt padded case, and went through why I chose each item for him, and what he was to do after he got it. He did hem and haw a little about the Weatherby, how he'd really wanted one, etc. (and I totally understand wanting a particular gun; I waited 40 years to get a Ljutic trap gun) but yeah, maybe a better scope (I had him look through a Bushnell Sportview and the Leupold while we were talking) is a good idea, and maybe the 7mm was a bit overpowered for the Minnesota woods.

Then I had him handle the Winchester, showed him why it was better than the one he was using because of the scope mounting system, and explained why the Federal Partition load was a better hunting round than the basic Winchester round he had been handed with the borrowed rifle.

I then told him to look at the case and rounds for a minute while I mounted and boresighted the Leupold, tossed in a pair of the see-thru storm scope caps, and explained to him as I put it in the case he needed to clean it to get all the preservatives out, added a cleaning kit, some Redfield targets, told him where some good ranges were. (his sight in was literally a paper plate tacked to a pine tree behind the deer camp!)

I wrote up the order and it was just over $700. I told him to take some of the money I'd just saved him and take his wife out to dinner in the next two weeks before opener. (She'd reluctantly agreed to him spending the $1100 on a gun)

Well, he did take her out, and also got out to the range, started at 25 yards like I told him to, got sighted in at 100 after only 2 of the 5 boxes of practice ammo, verified zero with the Partitions (not surprisingly, they shot about the same), and got his buck opening morning. He came in after the season and showed me pictures, (nice 6 or 8 pointer, it was 25 years ago) and thanked me profusely for keeping him from making a big mistake (he did try his buddy's Weatherby, and didn't like it) and said he was a customer for life. I hope they kept treating him well.

The gun shop manager was actually mad at me for not selling that guy (as he put it 'dumping it on him') the Weatherby the had been in the back room forever. I reminded him their slogan was "The Outdoor Experts".

And, I'll bet this guy kept your number forever. You made a friend along with a loyal customer. Good on ya.!!!

 

[hq]

I've told this story before on THR, but it illustrates this so well, once more won't hurt:

Thanks. A great story. However, it seems to illustrate the importance of the right tool for the job and fantastic customer service, not the quality difference that's the subject of this thread.

As an analogy, a comparable higher quality alternative to, say, Bushnell Trophy 1.5-6x42 isn't a Swarovski Z5i 5-25x56P but a Schmidt & Bender Zenith 1.5-6x42 just as examples. Steering a seemingly ignorant customer away from purchasing something that's ill-suited to his intended purpose has its own merits, of course. Or if we forget about equipment and shooting altogether, wining and dining his wife, too.

 

[I6turbo]

IMHO there is a point of diminishing returns achieved pretty early with glass.
There's a lot of pretty good glass in the 200-600 class.
I just recently replaced a 6-18 Leupold mod 1 AR on my Valkyrie with a Bushnell 4.5-18 AR optics and put almost $300 in my pocket in the deal. The glass is as good and the adjustments track perfect.

I've written about it several times, but one of my hobbies is comparing scopes systematically, side-by-side in my real-world shooting conditions using targets designed for evaluating optical performance. I'll say, again, that people who haven't done this, people who are just going from memory of last time they had one of their scopes out looking at a deer or a red dot on paper, to this time when they have a different scope out, are very likely to not even know how their own scopes compare. IME, there's a lot of instances of "the emperor has no clothes" in the scope world.

 

[CraigC]

I get the fidgets when folks wax poetic about the older Japanese Tascos. I had several of them fail on me, back in the mid 1990's.

 

[Hookeye]

When my Estwing framing hammer gives up the ghost I might sub in a Tasco.
Have seen some really bad ones over the years.
All of em in the non World Class series though.
Used to recommend Bushnell as a low cost serviceable optic.
The Banners worked well for me. Then they moved production and saw a bunch come in w warranty issues.
So now the cheapest scope I'll recommend, right or wrong, is a Redfield Revolution.

 

[Hookeye]

Actually, checking social media about a shop...........might head up and see if I can score a deal on a VX3i 3.5-10X.

 

[entropy]

Thanks. A great story. However, it seems to illustrate the importance of the right tool for the job and fantastic customer service, not the quality difference that's the subject of this thread.

As an analogy, a comparable higher quality alternative to, say, Bushnell Trophy 1.5-6x42 isn't a Swarovski Z5i 5-25x56P but a Schmidt & Bender Zenith 1.5-6x42 just as examples. Steering a seemingly ignorant customer away from purchasing something that's ill-suited to his intended purpose has its own merits, of course. Or if we forget about equipment and shooting altogether, wining and dining his wife, too.

True, it does. I did try to slip in there that he would have had about $75 left for a scope after the Weatherby, bases, rings, and at least one box of ammo. No case, cleaning kit, or sling. (I forgot to mention the sling he got.) The best available at the store in that range was the Bushnell Sportview, they were $60. (which is why I chose one to compare to the Leupold. I had been an optical lab tech before the gun shop, and pointed out the better optics of the Leupold.) None of the Swarovskis (which we did carry) or S&B's (which we didn't) would have left him money left for not much more more than a well used Savage 340. These went for a song then, they were only considered suitable for a kid too stupid too operate a Winchester or Marlin .30-30 back then, in our area. If Dad got you a 340, you got laughed at....I did not get a 340.

16Turbo, I totally agree. The Swarovski rep let me mount one of his demo scopes for deer hunting one year, and even after he shot me a great price if I wanted to buy it, (of course I wanted to buy it!), I just could not afford it. I was a newlywed, working at a low paying job. But it was great experience with a top quality scope that did help me sell several of them. The nice thing about that experience was I learned I didn't have to knock others scopes to sell them. just extoll the benefits that top quality glass brings to the shooting, and especially, hunting experience. Doing as you have done helps one to know what the best scopes at each price point are. And with apologies to coondogger, it isn't BSA at any price point.

 

[hq]

If budget is a strictly limiting factor the honest thing to do is to admit that the product is the best effort that could be achieved with the resources at hand, be content, keep the expectations realistic and make do with it. It doesn't get any better by praising it oneself, or any worse by reading critical comments written by others. It is what it is and that's it.

Trying to make an already purchased product seem like a better deal than it actually is is human. We all like to believe we got more than our money's worth and prove it to ourselves afterwards. The same psychological effect why people search for reviews of products AFTER they've bought them. I do that too sometimes, even to the point of returning a product and buying something else instead.