Why do people chintz out on scopes?

[jmorris]

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.

I have had my 50 BMG turn a really expensive piece of glass into a kaleidoscope (it had a fantastic warranty and was replaced) we finished out the afternoon using a 30 year old Japanese made Tasco that didn’t fail. So I understand cost and even age doesn’t equal reliability.

If I put even a $1000 scope on every gun I had, it would cost me more than I spent on my first house. I do own some and it’s not uncommon for them to move around to where they are needed. I just know they are not necessary under all conditions and there are less expensive options that will do most jobs I need done.

Even my best low power large objective glass can’t see in the dark as well as the cheapest NVD for example. Just have to know what you need or at least expect.

 

[hq]

So I understand cost and even age doesn’t equal reliability.

Nothing is ever certain. It's all about probabilities. Everyone loves a fantastic tale about an underdog coming out on top in the end, but it's easy to forget that for every success story there are hundreds of underdogs that have failed miserably and never heard about because the outcome could be expected.

 

[BreechFace]

Nothing is ever certain. It's all about probabilities. Everyone loves a fantastic tale about an underdog coming out on top in the end, but it's easy to forget that for every success story there are hundreds of underdogs that have failed miserably and never heard about because the outcome could be expected.

I bet there are a vast more stories of people each year going out with sub-$400 scopes and bringing home food for the family.

I'm not disagreeing that its always a good investment into paying a bit more for a scope, but trying to keep some perspective here.

I bet there is a whole magnitude more hunters out there using pretty base grade to mid grade optics harvesting game than that of people spending $1,000 or more on their hunting scope. Just look at the sheer amount of scoped rifle packages people buy to go hunt with, no doubt there are instances where the scope craps out but there are a lot of hunters out there using such a platform, at least here in America. I'm sure its much different in Europe.

It would be an interesting poll to take in a different venue of hunters and their cost of optic, animals taken and how many scope failures they've had. THR would definitely be a skewed sample I would imagine.

And I'm not talking about any new purchase sub $100 scopes, that's in a whole other realm of you get what you pay for, and one would be better off using irons.

 

[jmorris]

...it's easy to forget that for every success story there are hundreds of underdogs that have failed miserably...

This is absolutely true. I run new optics through some simple tracking tests then see how they hold up on a Marlin 45-70 that recoils harder than my 50 BMG. Last time I messed with the newest China tasco’s I went through 6 to find a keeper.

That said, I’d trust that one more than a NIB VX-III, I hadn’t had a chance to test yet.

 

[CraigC]

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.

That and the assumption that they are frivolous and throw money around without thought.

 

[cdb1]

Just look at the sheer amount of scoped rifle packages people buy to go hunt with, no doubt there are instances where the scope craps out but there are a lot of hunters out there using such a platform, at least here in America.

I some people who’ve bought package rifles. I recall many wanting to replace the package scope very soon after shooting their rifle. I don’t recall any expressing satisfaction with the scope.

 

[Garandimal]

When I was coming up, the wise old dudes always told me, spend the same on a scope as you spent on the rifle. I bought cheap when I was young, got cheap, had a couple hunts ruined.

Cheaper optics are just that: cheap. There's so much good glass available now, I don't understand why the constant requests from guys asking for "what's the best bargain scope out there?" or "best inexpensive optic on the market?...

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

Why the insistence from those wanting to know what the best cheap scopes are? I'm seeing guys buy $900 (or even more expensive) rifles and putting $299 scopes on them. What's up with this? (I just put a $1200 scope on a $950 rifle, and felt guilty that I hadn't sprung for a better scope.)

Is it the "good enough" culture?

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?

Convince me that a $900 scope - will work any better, and kill more game at hunting ranges and conditions, than a $3-400 Leupold VX-3i 2.5-8x36mm.

... or a $150-200 Vortex Crossfire II 3-9x40mm for that matter.




GR

 

[Garandimal]

I some people who’ve bought package rifles. I recall many wanting to replace the package scope very soon after shooting their rifle. I don’t recall any expressing satisfaction with the scope.

The Mossberg Patriot - Vortex Scoped Combos are outstanding.




GR

 

[MCMXI]

That and the assumption that they are frivolous and throw money around without thought.

Yes, it's interesting that we don't see this same mindset in real estate. I have no interest in buying a 10,000 sq.ft. home, or even a 5,000 sq.ft home but I don't assume that those in big, expensive houses are idiots for buying them. Is someone who paid $500K for a 2,000 sq.ft. home on an acre up against 600 acres of USF land the smart one, and the person that paid $5M for a 5,000 sq.ft. home on 600 acres of forested land a moron?

As for scopes and hunting, is most hunting in the US that high of a bar when it comes to optics or rifles? I don't think so.

 

[BreechFace]

That and the assumption that they are frivolous and throw money around without thought.

Yes, it's interesting that we don't see this same mindset in real estate. I have no interest in buying a 10,000 sq.ft. home, or even a 5,000 sq.ft home but I don't assume that those in big houses are idiots for buying them.

As for scopes and hunting, is most hunting in the US that high of a bar when it comes to optics or rifles? I don't think so.

There are a lot of varying degrees of means on this board, so its easy for someone with greater discretionary income to not understand why someone would put a $200 scope on a $700 rifle. Just like it's easy for someone with little means to not understand why someone who makes good money feels the need to hunt with a $2,000 rifle and a $2,500 scope, when they can achieve the same end result. Neither is wrong, just different in terms of thinking and/or life circumstances.

I know that probably each of us has a person in our lives that just seems to get "IT" done with less, and by "it" I mean in various duties in life. Well, I know I have friends that get hunting, target shooting done with less than a lot of folks with the Gucci equipment, so it's not cut and dry.

Which is why I tried to bring a little perspective to the conversation, but it was probably lost.

Personally, when I was a college student with little means, I was "guilty" or had the "foresight" (when purchasing a hunting rifle and then outfitting it with a scope in a separate purchase) of slanting my spending heavily in favor of the rifle rather than the scope and looking back I'm very glad that I did, because the scope is long gone, replaced with one of better features and quality, but the rifle is still in the safe as it was where I placed my emphasis with my meager means at the time. But that scope did it's job admirably, and probably still would be to this day.

I just try and take the whole, "walk a mile in another's shoes," to heart in discussions.

 

[LoonWulf]

I some people who’ve bought package rifles. I recall many wanting to replace the package scope very soon after shooting their rifle. I don’t recall any expressing satisfaction with the scope.

Any Savage guns with the Nikon BDCs?
Ive always thought those were some of the best packages offered....still came with crap rings tho.

 

[BreechFace]

Any Savage guns with the Nikon BDCs?
Ive always thought those were some of the best packages offered....still came with crap rings tho.

I never was a Nikon fan more personal to me than the product, but I would agree those packages were good deals for someone looking for an affordable hunting setup.

 

[CraigC]

I've been on both sides. In my younger days, a $30 Tasco was all I could hope for. For me, it has nothing to do with Gucci, image or buying whatever optic we deem the rifle is "worthy" of. It's more about avoiding failure than anything else. It's a lesson I learned the hard way. Just as I couldn't afford more than a $30 Tasco in my late teens, I also couldn't afford the money I wasted on cheap scopes either. Would've been better off spending more on something good, than wasting less on something that failed. Because in my case, I was replacing something that failed, not just upgrading to something better. Which is the lesson I try to share with others, though most seem determined to learn the hard way. Even right here in this thread, there are many who have had good luck with cheap scopes and continue to roll the dice with them. I just can't do it. Not with a squirrel rifle, deer rifle or one that makes the trip to Africa.

One thing I think is missing in this discussion is exactly what our individual scales look like. For me, my bottom tier and what I'd call a "good" scope is $150-$250. Maybe a little more. A much better one around $400-$500. I've only got two beyond that. One a FFP SIG that I found a good deal on used. The other the Vortex Razor I got for my ill-fated venture into PRS. Business has been very good the last few years and I've been adding more Leupolds to the stable but I'm still a long way from Zeiss, Swarovski or Schmidt & Bender. Leupolds prove bombproof on the hardest kicking handguns so I really think the super-premium Germans are really best suited to European style hunting in the dark. As I posted above, a 30mm straight tube 1-6x weighs double that of a VX3 1.5-5x and I don't think that's insignificant. Same for red dots. I'm comfortable in the $150-$500 range and so far see no need for a $900 Aimpoint.

 

[Izzy77]

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.

You can get Schmidt and Bender fixed 6X42 Hungaria (made in Hungary) same optics as assembled in Germany from their optics factory in Hungary where ALL the lenses are made. The cost will be around 600 ( six Hundred) dollars.

We got ours at: https://www.optics-trade.eu/int/man...e_series-schmidt_bender_klassik_hungaria.html Just a little more for 8X and a little over a thousand Euro for a 3-12 X 50

Great scope ( 6x42). And no you dont need to go bankrupt getting quality scopes...but it takes some homework ( or sheer luck).

 

[Nature Boy]

Convince me that a $900 scope - will work any better, and kill more game at hunting ranges and conditions, than a $3-400 Leupold VX-3i 2.5-8x36mm.

... or a $150-200 Vortex Crossfire II 3-9x40mm for that matter.

I like my Leupolds, so no argument there.

I've had 2 of those Crossfire IIs, both fell apart.

 

[Garandimal]

I like my Leupolds, so no argument there.

I've had 2 of those Crossfire IIs, both fell apart.

What were they mounted on?

The Mossberg/Vortex Combo .270 WIN's are holdin' up fine.

Best < $400/pop I ever spent on a rifle.




GR

 

[LoonWulf]

For me, my bottom tier and what I'd call a "good" scope is $150-$250. Maybe a little more. A much better one around $400-$500. I've only got two beyond that. One a FFP SIG that I found a good deal on used. The other the Vortex Razor I got for my ill-fated venture into PRS

Thats a good point!

Going by actual dollaz spent

A "functional" scope for me starts at 100bucks, usually a bushnell or older used, simmons WTE/Aetec, or Nikon/Weaver C or CV etc.

200-500 are low middling, mostly comprised of Bushys, and Athlons

600-1000ish id call middling. I have my Zeiss

1100 and were in high middling territory which is as far as im likely to go....dont have any

After that i cant really say what i think.
Ive used some more expensive scopes, but they dont even show on my radar when looking. If i spend 1200 on a scope and have money left over, im probably gonna go buy the next rifle, or pistol, i want to tinker with..... I've tinkered scopes, neither they nor the manufacturer really appreciates it......

And again, one has to view how a scopes being used. IF your concerned about taking specific animals (trophy etc) at specific times (your times ars limited) then your view is likely to be different than mine.
I can literally wander home, grab another gun and wander back out to hunt. Im as likely to pass on a trophy animal as shoot it. My shooting conditions are clear and sunny for the most part.... So you could say my uses are non-critical.

I bend my budget hard on gun related stuff otherwise id probably only own 150-200 dollar used leupolds, and just suck up thr fact i cant see well thru the glass.

 

[hq]

I bet there are a vast more stories of people each year going out with sub-$400 scopes and bringing home food for the family.

Probably. The sheer number of them out there may give a clue why that's the case. Heck, I'VE shot more game with fairly cheap scopes than I have with quality ones and still I'm not convinced they're the smartest choice out there. Well, not anymore, to be precise.

A trillion flies and so on...

 

[JFrank]

I like my Leupolds, so no argument there.

I've had 2 of those Crossfire IIs, both fell apart.

Same here, the damn thing fell apart.
I stopped wasting time with junk scopes

 

[mavracer]

One thing I think is missing in this discussion is exactly what our individual scales look like. For me, my bottom tier and what I'd call a "good" scope is $150-$250. Maybe a little more. A much better one around $400-$500.

Hence the reason I said there are two different convoluted arguments going on.
There are some here calling your $400-$500 cheap junk.
As an aside I have a friend who's killed a lot of game and he thinks $300 on a Leupold is too much to spend.

 

[hq]

That and the assumption that they are frivolous and throw money around without thought.

Psychological projection. People who are well off are likely to be framed as financially irresponsible morons because so many who aren't are desperate to feel better about themselves.

In reality it's quite the opposite mindset that leads to financial independence.

 

[LoonWulf]

Same here, the damn thing fell apart.
I stopped wasting time with junk scopes

Buddy had two Vipers with seal failures the one he bought and the replacement. vortex replaced the replacement, and he gave it away.

He now shoots a night force shv 4-14......

My experience with Vortex has been that i dont see well thru the Crossfire, and that diamond backs are ok, but a little critical in eye position.
Ive used vipers, but like Athlons better, and Id buy a Razor (including the hunting ones) if i got a good enough deal.

Im a financial moron....ask my wife LOL!

 

[BreechFace]

Psychological projection. People who are well off are likely to be framed as financially irresponsible morons because so many who aren't are desperate to feel better about themselves.

In reality it's quite the opposite mindset that leads to financial independence.

Yes, class warfare is real and is a tool to divide. One should not have to apologize or take heat for successes in one's financial situation ethics withstanding.

 

[BreechFace]

I'm not a fan of anything Vortex beneath the Viper line.

 

[JFrank]

For myself quality is where I find it, here on the ranch we have many scopes on many rifles.
My target rifles have different requirements than the hunting rifles and cost a heck of a lot more so I won't discuss them.
In all fairness my son in law has goodluck with his crossfire scope, grandson has a 3-9 Nikon that's a real nice little scope , I have an old school Bushel 4x that is solid with a good sight picture, vortex diamond back on my Daughter s rifle is a joke and got replaced with a viper that seems fine - well see
After vortex trouble 3 times my 308 is wearing a swfa 3-15x 42 that is indestructible. No particular Alliance