Win1892
Member
I checked my AR15, and amazingly it is still an autoloader, yet shoots .5 MOA every time I squeeze the trigger. Although it is a very nice trigger.
Why putting expensive glass on semi-auto?
- Thread starter Retro
- Start date
- Status
jhansman
Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,113
All the above said, you want to match the glass to the gun, right? I put a sharp, clear $40 4x32 scope on my Saiga .223 and can consistently ring the 300 yd. gong at my local range. "Substandard"? Not that scope on that gun. Now, on my target rifle, I will spend more to get more, but going down that road you hit the point of diminishing returns pretty quickly. One factor to consider is that if we all had megabucks to spend, none of the more affordable offerings would even get so much as a look. It's because we don't have unlimited funds that the less expensive alternatives thrive, and among them some very nice glass can be had.
I have a nice tactical scope on the 700 and a 3rd gen. Springfield Armory waiting to replace it. On everything else sits mostly Bushnells, Tascos, BSAs, and forgot what else. They work fine for the job needed. Put on what you want and let everyone else do the same-what difference does it make to you?????
I have a bit of a problem thinking of a $300 scope as "cheap". 
I take the meaning of the OP's question as having to do with the wisdom from an investment standpoint, and the use of money.
There are beaucoup scopes in the general vicinity of $300--and even $100 less--which give excellent service. So why spend more when it's going on a relatively mediocre firearm?
I take the meaning of the OP's question as having to do with the wisdom from an investment standpoint, and the use of money.
There are beaucoup scopes in the general vicinity of $300--and even $100 less--which give excellent service. So why spend more when it's going on a relatively mediocre firearm?
I must agree, I am a poor college student and after dropping 600 bucks on an m77, 300 bucks on a bushnell elite 3200 (which by the way is awesome) is a pretty big chunk o change,
I would be willing to bet that a HUGE majority of the shooting/ hunting community uses the $300 range of scopes for most applications
besides
I dont undertand the big deal of getting .5 MOA vs 1.5 moa
These bughole groups are shot of sandbags and whatever other solid rests
i could never even dream of acheiving even 3 moa at 100yds in (insert real world shooting position ie offhand)
Ill be happy if my rifle gets MOD (minute of deer)
Are we really getting into a thread where we have to justify what we buy? Honestly how many firearms or scopes are a necessity? Its never been about why, more why not?
Retro/OP:
I agree with Texas Rifleman.
You seem to hammer the point (so I'll take the bait) that semi-autos can never be as accurate as bolt guns. That may be true in the extreme but it is becoming less and less true. You can get an out-of-the-box 1 MOA semi-auto in .308 for $1400, the FNAR, and FNH USA can, will and has taken a few back then returned them within 3 weeks shooting 1 MOA. Here is an example. But as Texas Rifleman implies, this is beside the point. What he said.
I would also add that, with some wind and at longer ranges, neither the scope nor the rifle is as important as the computer that sits on top of your neck - witness military sniper schools. A premium scope just reduces the uncertainty in the calculated results due to the scope itself, so that it can be ignored to lower MOA of the rifle or farther ranges.
I agree with Texas Rifleman.
You seem to hammer the point (so I'll take the bait) that semi-autos can never be as accurate as bolt guns. That may be true in the extreme but it is becoming less and less true. You can get an out-of-the-box 1 MOA semi-auto in .308 for $1400, the FNAR, and FNH USA can, will and has taken a few back then returned them within 3 weeks shooting 1 MOA. Here is an example. But as Texas Rifleman implies, this is beside the point. What he said.
I would also add that, with some wind and at longer ranges, neither the scope nor the rifle is as important as the computer that sits on top of your neck - witness military sniper schools. A premium scope just reduces the uncertainty in the calculated results due to the scope itself, so that it can be ignored to lower MOA of the rifle or farther ranges.
Retro said:
To me, what justifies paying more for one scope than another are optical clarity, tracking and durability. Durability speaks for itself.
Optical clarity extends the range I can see with a given magnification, and the amount of daylight needed. It doesn't matter if I am shooting a .5 MOA gun or a 2 MOA gun, I can't hit what I can't see. Shooting 100 yards at noon, optical clarity between an okay scope and a nice scope doesn't matter much. But at 300 yards at twilight, you bet it matters. I can still kill a coyote or bang a gong with a .5 MOA gun or a 2 MOA gun at 300 yards, but I can't do it with either gun at twilight with cheap glass.
Good tracking is the ability to adjust a turret, take it back to zero, and have the gun group in the same place. It doesn't matter if those adjustments are 1/2 MOA or 1/8 MOA, or if the gun shoots .5 MOA or 2 MOA, the reticle should to track back to the same place. If you never adjust your windage or elevation for shooting conditions, then reliable tracking may not be important to you, but that depends more on the shooter's preferences than the gun.
Things like turret click values, reticle patterns, magnification ranges are options that have no bearing on the QUALITY of an optic. 1/8 MOA turrets only mean finer resolution of adjustment, not higher quality. And finer resolution is not a "plus" for everybody. All other things being equal, I would take a 1/2 MOA adjustment scope over a 1/8 MOA adjustment scope any day, no matter what rifle I am putting it on. To me, the ability to move the cross-hairs quicker, and without counting all those clicks is more important than the ability to move my groups 1/8" downrange.
"These threads extolling the magnificent virtues of low cost rifle scopes.....is simply someone looking for justification why to own substandard products."
Rembrandt - don't think so. Could you honestly justify putting a $2000 dollar scope on a 2MOA capable .30-30 hunting rifle where your shots will be less than 100y? There comes a point in time when the added clarity, light transmission, and durability of a scope exceed the requirements by such a large margin that a less expensive scope will suffice just fine. For target work.. fine. I understand needing the best scope you can afford when punching paper for score or money. For a short range hunting rifle... no so much. There isn't a need to be able to identify what type of tick is on the side of the deer to put a bullet through its heart. Short range hunting doesn't require target precision. It doesn't require more than 2 MOA realistically. Now if someone is hunting 600y... yeah, get a better scope. For someone hunting up to 100y, that Monarch will perform well enough to make that nightforce not needed. There is a difference in clarity and light transmission between the two scopes, but is the difference really large enough to make you miss a kill shot.
I'd say more that people who won't look at a 300 dollar scope for a non target rifle aren't realistically looking at the requirements and what is needed to fulfill them. Happy shooting. Kinda like refusing to look at anything less than a lotus when you will be using the car for commuting 85 miles each way to work. Yeah, it'll do the job superbly but there is a cheaper car out there that will fit your needs just as well.
Rembrandt - don't think so. Could you honestly justify putting a $2000 dollar scope on a 2MOA capable .30-30 hunting rifle where your shots will be less than 100y? There comes a point in time when the added clarity, light transmission, and durability of a scope exceed the requirements by such a large margin that a less expensive scope will suffice just fine. For target work.. fine. I understand needing the best scope you can afford when punching paper for score or money. For a short range hunting rifle... no so much. There isn't a need to be able to identify what type of tick is on the side of the deer to put a bullet through its heart. Short range hunting doesn't require target precision. It doesn't require more than 2 MOA realistically. Now if someone is hunting 600y... yeah, get a better scope. For someone hunting up to 100y, that Monarch will perform well enough to make that nightforce not needed. There is a difference in clarity and light transmission between the two scopes, but is the difference really large enough to make you miss a kill shot.
I'd say more that people who won't look at a 300 dollar scope for a non target rifle aren't realistically looking at the requirements and what is needed to fulfill them. Happy shooting. Kinda like refusing to look at anything less than a lotus when you will be using the car for commuting 85 miles each way to work. Yeah, it'll do the job superbly but there is a cheaper car out there that will fit your needs just as well.
Rembrandt said:
What an elitist point of view.
I've seen more than one man with your so called substandard scope out shoot guys with 2k glass on their custom built rifles. The cost of the glass was little to do with the skill behind it.
Me either. I will not spend less then $40 for a scope. Period. Of course, I would never spend more then $50 either.
I guess I don't get it. I have never used any scope in my life that was not the cheapest one I could find and not one of them have ever failed me. Granted, I am a target shooter primarily, NOT competition... and NOT a sniper and I do not even use a scope when I hunt deer so I do not think a $2000 scope would get me anything except a divorce.
Maybe someone here in Maine could let me look through your $2000 scope so I can see what I am missing
(Pun intended.....)
For $300 you can get a very nice scope good for most of the average rifle shooters needs. I put a Nikon Omega on my 30.30 (less than $300), and could not be happier. My son uses that rifle and the scope is nicer than probably 75 to 80% of the folks he hunts with. One fellow has a Nikon Monarch, which my son was duly impressed with, but he still likes the Omega.
No real need in much better glass than that for a 150 yard and in deer rifle. I like good glass as much as anyone, but don't like to waste money either. I would rather save that cash for a really nice scope on a target rifle or varmint gun, and maybe a good hunting rifle if I would be getting long shots with it.
If I could afford it, I would put the best glass on everything, but I can't, and niether can most folks.
No real need in much better glass than that for a 150 yard and in deer rifle. I like good glass as much as anyone, but don't like to waste money either. I would rather save that cash for a really nice scope on a target rifle or varmint gun, and maybe a good hunting rifle if I would be getting long shots with it.
If I could afford it, I would put the best glass on everything, but I can't, and niether can most folks.
Arkansas Paul
Member
That's pretty funny mcdonl. Look guys, there's nothing wrong with getting a cheap scope if that's what you can afford. I'd rather be in the woods with a $50 scope than sitting at home. But don't make the mistake of thinking there's not a difference. By the way, this is coming from someone who's most expensive glass was just over $200.
Whether or not a semi-auto CAN be vey accurate is outside this thread's topic.
The OP said nothing whatsoever about using a cheap scope.
Either stay somewhere near the topic, or let's shut this sucker down.
The OP said nothing whatsoever about using a cheap scope.
Either stay somewhere near the topic, or let's shut this sucker down.
Exactly, if it came to that I guess I'd be down to about four guns, .22, shotgun, deer rifle and maybe a varmint caliber
Guess I should sell the other 45-50 that I have stashed away?
There's a vast difference between a 50.00 scope and a 300.00 scope. Between 300/400-1,000 not so much, although anyone that's ever owned real high end glass will have a hard time going back to the lower end.
Personally I feel sorry for someone who thinks that a 50.00 scope is every bit as good as a mid/upper range scope.
I used to do that, but after breaking them, I have found it was more worth it to invest a bit more in them. I have broken Tascos, Leapers, Nstar, Redfield and Super Sniper among others. One of my 50 caliber rifles even damaged the magnification adjustment on a Leupold VX3.
I have had the opportunity to compare cheap, good and excellent glass side by side at the range and I really appreciate how much better some of the more expensive scopes are. I have only paid the price for two good scopes so far though. I still have a few cheap ones left as well as several medium grade.
Ranb
I vote for the latter. The OP has not asked a question that has a real answer other than a personal opinion and a financial decision for each individual shooter.
If I want to spend $3000 on an optic for a semi auto rifle that's my business.
To be told that a feature is worth it for a bolt action shooter but some other feature isn't worth it for a semi shooter doesn't even make sense to me.
The OP claims he "needs" a feature because his rifle is capable of shooting .5MOA and he wants smaller POI adjustments. I'll buy that.
If I decide I "need" some other feature for my semi capable of 1 MOA then why am I told I am wrong because it's a semi auto rifle? I don't even see what there is here to talk about.
Last edited:
Ranb, how did you break your Supersniper? Did the reticle move upon recoil? or did something else happen to it? Please let me know.
TexasRifleman, isn't THR a forum where people share their personal opinions regarding firearms? If you want to spend $3000 on a scope for semiautos, that is absolutely your business, and your business alone. If my post did not make any sense to you, perhaps it DID make some sense to other people, and there is no need to flame my post. Please simply state your opinion in a non-belligerent way, and there is no need to belittle other people even if you fail to share the same sentiment.
TexasRifleman, isn't THR a forum where people share their personal opinions regarding firearms? If you want to spend $3000 on a scope for semiautos, that is absolutely your business, and your business alone. If my post did not make any sense to you, perhaps it DID make some sense to other people, and there is no need to flame my post. Please simply state your opinion in a non-belligerent way, and there is no need to belittle other people even if you fail to share the same sentiment.
If you get a quality scope, then you can use it long after you've traded the rifle you once had it mounted on.
I have not flamed you at all, I've rebutted your statements and you didn't really like that.
From your first post:
Where do you get the idea that the average semi only shoots 1-2 MOA and that the average bolt gun does much better? I don't think that is true and I don't think most semi shooters would agree with it either.
Then you say this:
But the same is true with any rifle, glass NEVER changes the accuracy of a rifle. Features of optics only allow for repeatability or ease of use, durability etc. Which of course would be exactly the same on a semi. But you say that's not true, which i questioned, and you didn't like that. In fact many features of high end glass have nothing at all to do with shooting, they have to do with things like ruggedness, big turrets for fingers in gloves, things like that. You could argue that a "combat" style semi has MORE need of that kind of optic because of the potential abuse rifles like that might take. The premise is that accuracy is the only measure of a quality rifle, and that doesn't necessarily ring true.
Then...
Which again makes the assumption that all bolt actions are accurate and all semi's are not and makes the assumption that accuracy is all there is to the equation.
The Leupold CQ/T for example is a VERY expensive piece of glass. And it only has 1/2 MOA adjustments. You can drop it from shoulder height and the POI won't move though. Might get the same from cheaper optics, but sometimes it's worth it to have a known variable.
Many semi autos sold today shoot in the 1-1.5MOA range, many less than that.
And again, you don't "need" it, you want that feature. Your rifle does not shoot any better with that feature. That feature allows you to have better control over the point of impact, that's all. It's a feature you want and are willing to pay for. And it makes sense.
I'm not flaming you but you clearly posted this with an agenda, and when confronted with things that didn't line up with your agenda you were not very happy.
You shared your personal opinion and I didn't disagree with you at all, you said you felt you needed a feature of high end glass, and in fact I agreed with you.
I certainly didn't intend to flame your post and I apologize if it came off that way. I just questioned your assumptions about semi rifles and the people that shoot them.
Last edited:
I don't quite understand why a 0.5 MOA rifle is worth putting $2000 glass on, but a 1 MOA rifle is only good enough for $300 glass. Do you shoot better groups with your bolt gun when you mount the Nightforce on it vs the Supersniper? If not, why would you put anything on a bolt gun that costs more than the Supersniper? Is the difference between 0.25 MOA and 0.167 MOA enough to ruin your day?
I wouldn't hesitate to put $2000 scopes on all my rifles that I wanted to scope, semi auto or bolt, if I had the money to buy $2000 scopes for them. But it wouldn't be because I want smaller adjustments.
I wouldn't hesitate to put $2000 scopes on all my rifles that I wanted to scope, semi auto or bolt, if I had the money to buy $2000 scopes for them. But it wouldn't be because I want smaller adjustments.
The better scope will help you see your target more clearly. You can get a better field of view, see in poorer light. You don't shoot what you can't ID.
Glass isn't there to make the rifle more accurate. It's to make the shooter more accurate. And hey, if you never leave the range you probably won't see a difference. If you're in a dense wood (like out here in western WA) you're not taking very long shots anyway. And it's true, many people buy overly expensive hardware (glass) to solve a software problem (the shooter). But the pairing of a semi-auto and high-end glass isn't strange at all. They almost don't have anything at all to do with one another.
Glass isn't there to make the rifle more accurate. It's to make the shooter more accurate. And hey, if you never leave the range you probably won't see a difference. If you're in a dense wood (like out here in western WA) you're not taking very long shots anyway. And it's true, many people buy overly expensive hardware (glass) to solve a software problem (the shooter). But the pairing of a semi-auto and high-end glass isn't strange at all. They almost don't have anything at all to do with one another.
There are semi-autos that are accurate say KAC-SR25. OR Larue Stealth. Maybe not as good as the best bolt action rifles. But put your shoes in the owner of a fine semi-automatic rifle and you want to squeeze the accuracy capability of your rifle? Then a very good scope can be the right answer.
Also most of the rifles are more accurate than the shooter. A good optics is a very good tool for any operator.
Also most of the rifles are more accurate than the shooter. A good optics is a very good tool for any operator.
TexasRifleman, may I ask you this:
What "agenda" of mine were you referring to?
Was it my "agenda" to belittle high-end optics? Or was it my "agenda" to promote Supersniper fixed power scope?
If those were the presumed "agenda" of mine from your perspective, then please allow me to clarify that I have nothing against high-end optics, and I don't work for SWFA.com.
Perhaps the "agenda" you were referring to relates to the notion, that because of posts of such nature, the sales of high-end optics may be adversely affected, which "inadvertently" will hurt certain interest groups. If that is what you are referring to, please let me assure you that it is not my intention at all.
As a long-term rifle enthusiast and a veteran, I have simply stated an opinion of mine on this forum which I was a member for almost 5 years, and because of it, I have read many other constructive posts which brought up several good points which I have overlooked.
I appreciate your explanation but I do not appreciate your notion of an "agenda", which I have none. Plus, it is not that I don't like what you have to say... I simply did not like your ways of saying it. There is no need for an air of superiority, and there is certainly no need to imply of any hidden "agenda".
Thank you.
Retro
What "agenda" of mine were you referring to?
Was it my "agenda" to belittle high-end optics? Or was it my "agenda" to promote Supersniper fixed power scope?
If those were the presumed "agenda" of mine from your perspective, then please allow me to clarify that I have nothing against high-end optics, and I don't work for SWFA.com.
Perhaps the "agenda" you were referring to relates to the notion, that because of posts of such nature, the sales of high-end optics may be adversely affected, which "inadvertently" will hurt certain interest groups. If that is what you are referring to, please let me assure you that it is not my intention at all.
As a long-term rifle enthusiast and a veteran, I have simply stated an opinion of mine on this forum which I was a member for almost 5 years, and because of it, I have read many other constructive posts which brought up several good points which I have overlooked.
I appreciate your explanation but I do not appreciate your notion of an "agenda", which I have none. Plus, it is not that I don't like what you have to say... I simply did not like your ways of saying it. There is no need for an air of superiority, and there is certainly no need to imply of any hidden "agenda".
Thank you.
Retro
- Status
