Why do people chintz out on scopes?

[I6turbo]

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.

I've had three that I recall.

One was a fixed power 24x back in the day. I thought it was good at the time, but I didn't have the scope background experience that I have today. I SUSPECT that I wouldn't think much of it today because some of the other scopes that I thought were pretty good back then are actually not very good at all by today's standards (some Leupold M8 and Bushnell models that I still have, or have sold in the past 4 or 5 years).

I have a Japan Tasco 4x32 in my safe that I've compared to other 4x scopes and to several variables while on the 4x setting. It is nothing special at all. Not nearly as clear and pleasant to sight through as a China-built 3-9x32 Bushnell that I expect was built in the 1990s or so, nor a Japan-built Red Arrow (the latter is among the clearest scopes I own at 4x).

A couple years ago I bought a pristine-looking Japan-built World Class 8-32x44 Target scope because the 8-32 power range would have a lot of utility for me, I'd heard how great the old Japan Tasco scopes were, and I tend to like older stuff if it's good quality. I have no way to know if something was off about that particular scope, or if it was a typical example, but when I compared it to a Weaver V-24 and a Sightron SII 6-24x42, it wasn't even in the league with those two ~$400 scopes. I sold it, and my curiosity about the old Japan Tasco scopes has ended.

 

[CraigC]

I remember three failures off the top of my head. One was a low end Pronghorn that the reticle broke on the first shot. I guess it was the earth shattering recoil of the 10/22 it was mounted on. Then I had a middle of the road High Country 4-16x that wouldn't hold zero. The other a World Class with a rattling loose objective lens. I have a handful of the ProClass pistol scopes, one of which I've had for over 20yrs. I still think they are pretty good. Certainly a tier or two above the rest of their handgun optics. I also have a fixed 24x that I still occasionally use for testing on rimfires. It's serviceable but only in broad daylight.

 

[mokin]

This has been an interesting read. I agree with those who say the rifle and scope are a system. As to the OP's question, I don't know. If I had to guess, as someone suggested, many don't understand how the system works, or can't tell the difference. Most of my scopes consist of Leupolds in the $200-300 range. Then again not many of my rifles were that expensive and I seldom take shots over 200 yards. The one rifle I have that I know could make a hit in the vitals out to 400 yards has a $600 scope on it. I'm not an expert but I think I've got a pretty good system down. While thinking about this topic, it occurred to my that my most expensive guns don't have scopes.

 

[hq]

Japan-built World Class 8-32x44 Target scope because the 8-32 power range would have a lot of utility for me

Ouch. I had a WC (what a fabulous abbreviation) 10-40x50 for a while for 300-600m range work. Great reviews all over and I bought one despite already having bad experiences with Tasco. Words can't describe my disappointment. Dim is not the word. Distorted can't even begin to describe the image. Even worse that the Konus 8-32x56 I gave my then-teenage son for airsoft games or pounding nails, whichever he'd choose to do with it.

Fortunately I had kept the box, manual, caps and accessories. Sold it as LNIB for half the price and I still think the guy who bought it got a profoundly bad deal.

 

[cdb1]

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.

I get the vapors and the fantods.

 

[cdb1]

I sold scopes part time for two years. The older guys pretty much pushed Leupold and Swarovski exclusively. The young guys pushed Vortex and Nikon. None of them had the remotest idea of what they were talking about. They were even worse about having any knowledge of rings and bases.

 

[LoonWulf]

Ive had a few of the old WCs and thought they were damn fine scopes.....for the 75-100 bucks I spent on them. Never bought any of the higher power or target ones tho.

 

[chicharrones]

Gotta admit, back when I had younger eyes and my heat seeking vision still worked, Japanese Tascos sure seemed like a good scope for someone in their 20s. I even liked their binoculars back then.

Compare that to this morning when I'm trying to pour black coffee into a white mug with only the stove top light turned on behind me. I could barely see that the cup was filling up. Then my 49 y.o. wife with "vampire vision" pointed out the ring of spilled coffee on the white counter top that I didn't know I left there.

I have only one Tasco now and it's an old 2x22 ProClass pistol scope. It's still usable with that fine crosshair that disappears into a dot, but the glass inside sure is harder for me to see through these days with my 55 y.o. eyes that have never been the equal to my wife's eyes.

 

[mavracer]

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.

If you think you need to spend $2500 on a scope to pass a box test I'm afraid you might be the one paying a taylor for your birthday suit.

 

[hq]

If you think you need to spend $2500 on a scope to pass a box test

Which box test? For instance, game animals have a bad habit of not showing up in well-lit optometrists' offices 20ft in front of you.

 

[Sniper66]

OK....my brother hunted with a guy who had Schmidt and Bender scopes on his rifles...several of them; each costing $3000-$4000. My brother spent some time looking through them and marveled at the detail he could see as he sighted in on some pigeons on a utility pole about 200 yds away. He could see the different feathers and colors vividly. The down side was of course the cost, but secondly it ruined him for looking through his scopes even though his scopes run $300-$700. Though nothing is guaranteed, money can buy really fine products. And to be honest, I'd give them a try if I had the dough. Yes indeed, I surely would.

 

[Hookeye]

My buds VX6 is pretty sweet for high def and color, can see stuff in the shadows crisply.
Think he got his for around $1500, dunno what model exactly.
Too rich for my blood, at the moment.

But if I get a higher end rifle, yeah it'll get higher end glass.
For me, a VX3i is good enough for my state side, mostly local, critter blastin.

But I did see a Mark AR 4-12X AO and wondered if it was worth a hoot (posted in a new thread).
That be for yotes/chucks.

 

[cdb1]

I'd give them a try if I had the dough.

I would too.

 

[hq]

it ruined him for looking through his scopes even though his scopes run $300-$700.

I think it just gave him perspective on what's the difference in glass quality. Not that I didn't put a few thousand rounds through a suppressed 10/22 w/ a Bushnell Trophy 3-9x40 each year, but can't help noticing by how bad the glass is all the time. I've been waiting for it to fail like a few of my other Trophy-series scopes but there's no recoil to speak of and as a dedicated plinker it doesn't get banged around like hunting rifles inevitably do. I also don't want to recycle a black scope to replace it because it's silver and matches the stainless rifle nicely; sheer vanity from my part.

I may be running out of metaphors by now, but it still feels like guzzling a bottle of malt liquor in one go when you've accustomed to sipping nice single malt every now and then. If malt liquor is all you've ever had you'll never know the difference.

 

[GBExpat]

... Compare that to this morning when I'm trying to pour black coffee into a white mug with only the stove top light turned on behind me. I could barely see that the cup was filling up. Then my 49 y.o. wife with "vampire vision" pointed out the ring of spilled coffee on the white counter top that I didn't know I left there. ...

Hahahahaha ... thanks for that.

 

[mavracer]

Which box test? For instance, game animals have a bad habit of not showing up in well-lit optometrists' offices 20ft in front of you.

Wow trying a ad hominem attack and you don't know what a box test is. Fantastic

 

[LoonWulf]

So I was going thru some old photos and it made me remember something.
I got ribbed for owning a super expensive scope (my Zeiss.....700 bucks.....) but no one ever made fun of my way more expensive rifle.......

Dosent really add anything, but I thought it was funny.


Anyway were going round and round....heres my take. YOU go spend exactly what YOU WANT on a scope. If you want to spend more go for it, if you wanna spend less go for it.
Ya aint gonna die if it breaks (usually) and the only person ya gotta answer to is yourself(usually). If you can afford it, and it makes you feel better/happy then definitely buy better optics, I would like to even if I dont need em.
Personally im super happy with my low middling scopes, and they work fine. Even tho ive used some fantastic optics, i cant (or more correctly WONT) find the money to buy the best....thats my choice.

 

[entropy]

I sold scopes part time for two years. The older guys pretty much pushed Leupold and Swarovski exclusively. The young guys pushed Vortex and Nikon. None of them had the remotest idea of what they were talking about. They were even worse about having any knowledge of rings and bases.

At 57, as of today, I qualify as old. I did however know optics, having been an optical lab tech, and enough about rings and bases to know what went where on what.

 

[cdb1]

Okay????

 

[redneck2]

It still cracks me up that the same guy that posts about the 20-30 (mostly duplicate) center fire rifles he owns is the same guy that only has $150 for a scope. That seems too similar to the hillbilly that has eight junk cars in his yard rather than one decent car

I have one really nice big game rifle that would work for 95% of anything anyone here would hunt. And it has a $1,200 (IIRC) scope. I would have no qualms about taking it in an elk hunt, to Alaska for moose or caribou, or to Africa for plains game. If I were to ever get heavily into hunting again, I might get a second.

I’ll take quality over quantity any day. YMMV

The other thing I find amusing are the guys in this thread that argue with someone who evaluates scopes as a business.

 

[Oldschool shooter]

For most guys using a rifle for hunting, where shots will be 200 yards or less, an inexpensive scope is probably adequate. It has been for me. Not true for glass on a target rifle, cheap won't get the job done, nor for someone that is hunting where long shots are the norm. Not to mention a persons budget comes into play.

 

[CraigC]

Cheap doesn't get the job done for any purpose if it fails.

 

[hq]

What is this recurring distance thing all about? Most game shots I take are between 40 and 80 yards and I still prefer quality glass. I missed a duiker completely at 70 yards when the Bushnell started suddenly acting up. In the most common conditions I hunt (pitch black) a high end scope is mandatory in order to see even a silhouette.

 

[CraigC]

What is this recurring distance thing all about? Most game shots I take are between 40 and 80 yards and I still prefer quality glass. I missed a duiker completely at 70 yards when the Bushnell started suddenly acting up.

I hear a lot of comments (not just here) regarding justifications used for cheaper scopes on some guns but not others. Such as "only a .22", recoil, range, etc.. I guess they seem relevant to those who've never experienced a failure but they are wholly unrelated to the failures I've experienced with cheap scopes. My broken reticle was on a .22LR. My loose objective lens was on a .22Mag. My wildly shifting zero was on a .22Mag.

In the most common conditions I hunt (pitch black) a high end scope is mandatory in order to see even a silhouette.

That's one disconnect between Americans and Europeans. In the US, it is almost universal that the hunting ends 30mins after official sunset. In which case a $400 Leupold gives you all the shooting light you can legally use. Europeans who are able to hunt later can take advantage of huge objectives and top tier German glass.

 

[Txhillbilly]

A lot of people that praise their low cost scopes have never used or owned a higher priced quality optic. I know that I grew up shooting lower priced scopes because it was all I could afford, and the scopes on my families rifles were the same quality. For the hunting that we did, the scopes worked out just fine.

I started wanting to shoot long range in late 80's - early 90's and found out real quick that my scopes weren't up to the task. That forced me to save $$$ and buy better optics that would allow me to have the clarity and adjustment capability to shoot at longer ranges accurately. I don't want to think about the money I wasted on scopes trying to not buy the highest quality that I actually needed to buy. Once I learned the Buy Once - Cry Once motto, I've never looked back!

That's not saying that I don't still have and use cheaper scopes, it all depends on the gun's purpose. But on my hunting and long range gun's, I don't skimp on a scope because I know that in general, they won't let me down and they are worth every penny they cost me.
I do like to spend as little as I can on them, so I try to find a lot of them used or on close out sales. If you can find a $1k - $3k scope used or on sale for 30% - 50% off the original price, buy it!