Why do people chintz out on scopes?

[CraigC]

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.

That mentality has got me a surplus of optics. I've bought quite a few just because they were either on sale or had been discontinued. I've got another VX3 on the way right now that I ordered just to have, because it was on sale. I also discovered the local used scope market to be worth keeping an eye on. Right now, I have more scopes than rifles and I guess that's a good problem to have.

 

[hq]

That's one disconnect between Americans and Europeans. In the US, it is almost universal that the hunting ends 30mins after official sunset.

I know. I'd like to get away with mid-priced quality optics, but when the whole culture has evolved around driven daytime hunts and late night blind hunting, they've become mainstream. It gets old quickly to return to the camp at 7pm when you've run out of scope after dark and see your buddies arrive at 10 or 11pm with big, nocturnal bucks on a trailer.

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.

A great piece of advice. Upgrading existing scopes with even better ones has its benefits even when they're already quite decent. I've handed a few retired scopes down to my son but now that he has realized the difference first hand, he has started bargain hunting Meoptas and Schmidt & Benders too. And stopping by to borrow my rifles because they still have better glass than his.

 

[TheWarhammer]

Why are there 3 grades of gas sold at pumps?

Some people buy the best because they need it, some buy it because it’s the best besides not being able to discern any difference.

Some buy the cheapest, because it works, some buy it because they can’t tell any difference.

Some buy the middle grade, not sure why, maybe they can’t tell the difference but don’t want to over indulge their engine but don’t want to feel cheap either...

I guess, I just don’t understand why some people make the decisions they do. Doesn’t make them wrong or me right though.

The three grades of gas refer to the octane rating, not the quality of the gas. Putting high octane gas in a car that doesn't require it is a waste of money and best, and can damage the engine at worst. Using low octane in a high-compression engine will save a few dollars per tank, but degrade performance and MPG enough to offset any small savings. You need to buy the right gas for your car.

Likewise, buy the right glass for your rifle and purpose. A $2000 scope on a $300 gun used for 50-100 yard shots is likely a waste of money. Neither will a $200 scope on a $3000 rifle make for a high-performance package. Different tools for different jobs.

 

[hq]

Putting high octane gas in a car that doesn't require it is a waste of money and best, and can damage the engine at worst.

This has absolutely nothing to do with guns or gun accessories, but I'll chime in anyway. Since the early-mid 90's most/all ECU:s have had built-in feature to adjust themselves on the fly according to sensor data, primarily knock sensor. Higher octane gas resists detonation better, which in turn allows the ECU to utilize its closed loop mode to optimize ignition advance accordingly, closer to the detected knock threshold, and product more power, more torque and higher efficiency (BSFC; lower fuel consumption) as a result. I've personally observed this repeatable, common effect in a controlled environment with dozens, maybe hundreds of different engine/ECU combinations.

So no. Higher octane fuel has no adverse effects, quite the opposite. If the ECU isn't really ancient and "dumb", it'll most likely improve your power, torque and gas mileage. Sometimes to a degree that it's actually cheaper to use more expensive, higher octane fuel.

Phew. Off-topic rant over. Sorry about that but I just had to. Carry on.

 

[jmorris]

I have never seen any damage from high octane fuel in any engine that didn’t need it and I have ran C16 (117 octane) in 6:1 compression engines before.

I have also seen low octane fuel melt pistons and cause other damage even in engines equipped with knock sensors and flex fuel sensors.

The point being that many people make buying decisions based on feelings vs what they really need.

You can tell me you need a $2000 scope on a $4000 rifle to get the most out of it and I could take you to a benchrest match where there are lots of folks out there with <$400 weaver T series scopes shooting tiny one hole groups. That’s just a fact.

So, the cost of the scope doesn’t directly correlate to group size, the same can be said for cost of the firearm as well.

To me where more expensive optics begin to really gain ground on lower cost ones are in low light and at distances most don’t shoot to.

That said, you don’t have to need or even ever want to drive 200 mph to buy a new SF90, use it as a grocery getter. Would be about the same as a Schmidt & Bender on a Marlin model 60. Your money is yours to spend how you like.

 

[hq]

To me where more expensive optics begin to really gain ground on lower cost ones are in low light and at distances most don’t shoot to.

To me is that they have an excellent probability to work as intended when they're supposed to.
Cue in this classic gag, which wouldn't be funny if it didn't hold some truth to it:

 

[redneck2]

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.

My cheapie scope on my muzzle loader failed before a 150 yard shot on what would have been the state record deer. Shot could have been 40 yards. Wouldn’t have mattered. The scope was fogged solid. Try looking through an ice cube. Same thing

What you fail to understand is that it works until it doesn’t work. Distance has no meaning

Let me ask you a question. When are you going to get a shot at the animal of a lifetime? Waiting for your answer.......

Don’t know? Then why gamble? It could be next week, it could be ten years. It could be on a casual one hour hunt, could be on the plains of Africa.

Murphy says it will happen when you’re least prepared

 

[rabid wombat]

Optics!....just short of caliber wars

I have been blessed in many ways, the ability to have what I can - while understanding much is out of my reach. My first centerfire rifle is a Marlin 30-30 with a fixed power Leupold. I got the gun used at a gun show, and the scope at the Sporting Goods store I used to work at. It is still a getter!

A lot later in life (and married), I had a chance to buy a Swarovski 80mm spotting scope at Cabelas in the “Black Hole”. I got what I thought was a deal. It was, but the eye piece was “full boat” - OUCH! I knew it was good glass. Finally assembled, I set up on the porch and started glassing bushes, birds, leaves...anything. I finally settled on a bird on a power wire. Cute bird...entertaining to read the embossing on the wire... I was reading the black on black embossing of the power wire! I realized the glass was doing what it was supposed to do.

I get a lot of latitude from the wife, as she is a professional photographer. Her rifle got a Swarovski scope at the time I only had Leupold’s (easier to explain my toys, when she gets good toys, too). I would like to find a pair of S&B Klassic fixed 6’s.

Like others have commented on earlier...some get what they can afford, some get what they need, some (like me) have much better than what they deserve. Just as I cannot justify Proto tools (I am no where near being a pro), I do know there is a time and place for them. Likewise, if I need a big crescent to use as a hammer - Harbor Freight is fine ...The right tool for the right job.

 

[Old Dog]

@redneck2
I think you just nailed it and that's always been a big part of my reasoning.

 

[redneck2]

To me where more expensive optics begin to really gain ground on lower cost ones are in low light and at distances most don’t shoot to.

To me, better glass is not only clearer, has less optical “wobble”, and is more repeatable settings. They are far less likely to fail internally.

Your low end scope is good enough until it isn’t good enough.

If you’ve got a dozen guns, don’t tell me you can’t afford decent scopes

 

[PWC]

On industrial mfg, we found that in many onstances mfg had to wrest a product from engineering to get it to market.

Engineering "birthed" the prpduct, but it could always ne made a little better...change this..add that..move this... does the product do what it was designed to do at the price point needed, and does the test market show customer acceptance?

Yeah, but we can make it better...

Time to get it to market and pay for the engineering and research costs.

This is why you can set 3 scopes next to each other and they look the same, but internals are good, better, best. The market will determine ultimate use.

 

[Oldschool shooter]

My cheapie scope on my muzzle loader failed before a 150 yard shot on what would have been the state record deer. Shot could have been 40 yards. Wouldn’t have mattered. The scope was fogged solid. Try looking through an ice cube. Same thing

What you fail to understand is that it works until it doesn’t work. Distance has no meaning

Let me ask you a question. When are you going to get a shot at the animal of a lifetime? Waiting for your answer.......

Don’t know? Then why gamble? It could be next week, it could be ten years. It could be on a casual one hour hunt, could be on the plains of Africa.

Murphy says it will happen when you’re least prepared

Not saying it can't happen, but in 45 years of hunting, and not spending more than $200 and often less than 1/2 that on scopes for hunting rifles, I have never had a scope fog up on me. Have never had an inexpensive scope lose zero either. Hunting in Africa, where dangerous game could be encountered is a hell of a lot different situation than deer hunting in the woods of northern Michigan. I would make the argument that if one could afford to hunt the African plains, dropping $2000 on a scope would not put a crimp on one's budget.

 

[CraigC]

To me, better glass is not only clearer, has less optical “wobble”, and is more repeatable settings. They are far less likely to fail internally.

Your low end scope is good enough until it isn’t good enough.

Exactly!

 

[Oldschool shooter]

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

Neither does expensive. Even a Bentley can leave the factory with a problem not evident at the time.

 

[CraigC]

Not saying it can't happen, but in 45 years of hunting, and not spending more than $200 and often less than 1/2 that on scopes for hunting rifles, I have never had a scope fog up on me. Have never had an inexpensive scope lose zero either. Hunting in Africa, where dangerous game could be encountered is a hell of a lot different situation than deer hunting in the woods of northern Michigan. I would make the argument that if one could afford to hunt the African plains, dropping $2000 on a scope would not put a crimp on one's budget.

A lot of dangerous game rifles have $400 Leupolds.

I guess a Zeiss or Swarovski 1-6x might be considered an upgrade in durability but it will also weigh twice as much.

 

[Oldschool shooter]

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.

And if one can afford a 5 figure African safari, I doubt seriously the cost of a high end scope would mean anything. Your argument would not apply to probably 99.5% of us.

 

[CraigC]

Plenty of folks spending tons of money hunting stateside as well. A guided elk or mule deer hunt ain't exactly free. The elk hunts I've looked at are 10k. Grizzly and moose in Alaska, figure more than double. That said, having a spare Leupold is great insurance at a fraction of the cost of a German premium.

 

[MCMXI]

IMHO there is a point of diminishing returns achieved pretty early with glass.

Folks competing in the shooting sports don't seem to agree with you on this.

https://precisionrifleblog.com/2020/09/05/best-elr-scope-and-scope-mount-and-rings/

I've owned more than a few scopes over the years and currently have a fairly high end assortment of optics from Nightforce, Vortex, Premier Reticles, Zeiss, Leupold and Aimpoint. I've used Nightforce, Premier Reticles and Zeiss on hunts in some nasty conditions without any issues. I've had few failures over the years and only catastrophic failures with the cheap AR stuff from Vortex. I had a new Burris show up with a cracked ocular lens and a Leupold Mark 4 had to go back twice for flakes of anodizing on the reticle.

When I get into optics discussions with coworkers, friends, folks at the gun counter etc., I generally ask them what they currently use, what have they used in the past and what have they tried. It gives a good sense of their level of experience.

 

[cdb1]

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

Neither does expensive. Even a Bentley can leave the factory with a problem not evident at the time.

Yea but when it comes to optics I’ll put my money on the one that’s more expensive.

 

[redneck2]

And if one can afford a 5 figure African safari, I doubt seriously the cost of a high end scope would mean anything. Your argument would not apply to probably 99.5% of us.

The trophy of a lifetime doesn’t have to be from Africa. When I missed the chance at my state record deer, I was a dirt poor farm kid. Deer don’t care.

Failure rate declines as quality increases. Nobody says an expensive scope won’t fail. Even the best product in the world has a warranty.

 

[hq]

And if one can afford a 5 figure African safari, I doubt seriously the cost of a high end scope would mean anything. Your argument would not apply to probably 99.5% of us.

I still can't understand why the "if you can afford X, spending more money to Y on top of that doesn't matter" -fallacy is so common and presented as a valid argument frequently. As if anyone who spends money on something expensive would automatically be a prodigal multimillionaire. Don't the people who use it ever save money themselves for something special they couldn't otherwise afford? What's the reasoning behind the argument, if there is one at all?

I've been to Africa by prioritizing my budget because I love hunting and chose it over lots of other things people usually spend money on. Most of my buddies on these trips did too. I saved for quite a while for safaris by being frugal, being finally able to bring my teenage son with me on one, and thought that the scope on my big game rifle would be a good opportunity to spend just $300 instead of three or four times that.

What a massive mistake that almost ruined the whole trip. Not the first or only scope that has crapped on me, not by far, but it did at the worst possible time. I went from "nah, good enough, it'll do" to realizing and appreciating the meaning of quality and workmanship and the inevitable cost involved in one missed shot. Africa doesn't make a difference, just steepens the learning curve when you can't just come back the next week and try again. Like missing or not being able to shoot any trophy animal you only have one chance to down.

Sometimes in a lifetime.

 

[Oldschool shooter]

Yea but when it comes to optics I’ll put my money on the one that’s more expensive.

And I'm not telling anyone how to spend their money. For my purposes, a less expensive scope has gotten the job done for over 40 years.

 

[mavracer]

I know. I'd like to get away with mid-priced quality optics, but when the whole culture has evolved around driven daytime hunts and late night blind hunting, they've become mainstream. It gets old quickly to return to the camp at 7pm when you've run out of scope after dark and see your buddies arrive at 10 or 11pm with big, nocturnal bucks on a trailer.

There's really 2 different arguments that seem to be getting convoluted here.
Really cheap that fail vs good glass and
Good glass vs really good glass.
Where I live it's 30min before sunrise to sunset mid level Leupold, Vortex and upper Bushnell have plenty good glass for me.
I've even hunted without a scope at all Lord have mercy.

 

[rkittine]

The scopes on many of my rifles cost way more than the rifle did.

Bob

 

[hq]

Where I live it's 30min before sunrise to sunset mid level Leupold, Vortex and upper Bushnell have plenty good glass for me.
I've even hunted without a scope at all Lord have mercy.

Good for you. Enjoy.