The high price of good rifle scopes

[hightime]

I can make my choice simple. I've never been able to blame a cheap scope on a missed shot.

If I could afford the best I'd have it, but I have to draw the line somewhere.

In the last few years , I've taken off my scopes, A high buck scope in the drawer works exactly like the cheap one.

Owen

[JohndeFresno]

Levergunners,

Thank you for your outstanding posts. This thread is quite relevant for those who have preferred iron sights, but are now at the age where glass is needed for a good sight picture. And there are several surprises here.

One thing I got out of this is that my preference for Bushnell Elite scopes - based upon features versus pocketbook - is not too bad a decision, considering my shooting profile.

No doubt, many others have been bewildered by the array of rifle scope choices. Should we pin this thread?

[marlinman93]

I've always gone with middle of the road scope, or buy a higher end scope used or a bargain price. I have tried cheap scopes and had mixed results with them. Had a Simpson I bought NIB that the turret unscrewed off the scope when I went to remove the caps to sight it in! Needless to say I never bought another Simmons. I've also had a few Tasco scopes on plinker or range guns that performed exceptionally well, and after some trials I did use them on hunting rifles later.
I do a lot of iron sight shooting and hunting also. If you think scopes are spendy try pricing some good vernier tang sights or globe front sights! They're as much or more than a decent gun too!

[olyinaz]

Glass snobbery.

Oh sign me up! I have thousands of dollars invested in high end glass for telescopes and cameras so I get it - GOOD GLASS MATTERS. But in the case of rifle scopes anything over about $200 has gotten so good these days it's amazing. I look through most scopes these days and can't see any edge color or other aberrations, often even at maximum zoom even out near the edge. The lenses are small and they're just not hard for the Japanese and Taiwanese optics houses to make these days really well. I think what you get in higher end scopes is guaranteed optic performance of course, but mostly extreme ruggedness. Some of the tactical, military type scopes that are seeing duty in Afghanistan are simply incredible. I'd love to have one! Am I going to drop two to four grand on one? NO.

Check a scope at maximum zoom and minimum zoom. Look for problems there and decide if you can live with them if you see them. Options like side focus and illuminated reticles are great - I love those features on modern scopes. And spend as much as you can because more is probably better but one need NOT spend a ton to get perfectly serviceable optics these days. We're fortunate.

Oh and regarding dusk and dawn - that's where large objective aperture really has to matter. Spend the money on a 50mm objective vs. a 40 or 42mm if you can afford it and that's a concern. NOTHING substitutes for aperture - not quality of optics or coatings (way too much hoo hah out there regarding coatings, not that they're not important but they like to use it for marketing far more than reasoable). When it comes to telescopes of any kind (hunting or observing or star gazing), provided you get beyond junk it becomes all about aperture. Proving one again that size matters.

http://www.opticsplanet.net/redfield-re ... ticle.html

http://www.opticsplanet.net/bushnell-tr ... scope.html

Cheers,
Oly

[Ray Newman]

Gents: we set a landmark with this thread!

Not one poster b*tched about and blamed the high price of ‘scopes on “greed” or “price gouging” by the ‘scope manufactures….

[Mescalero]

olyinaz means well, and it is sound advice.............
The larger you go with the objective, the higher the scope sits on the gun.
For you guys used to a certain " cheek weld " some of you might start to lose that " weld ", which causes the head to move around causing sighting problems.

[Udy]

I am quite suprised at the responses here. I guess if a cheap scope works for you then who am I to say. I could go on for some time about my opinion about brands and such, but the bottom line is I don't think you can get a decent scope for under $200.00 and better around $500 with out picking on any particular brand. Above that and I don't personally see much gain in quality. I seen to many cheaper scopes fail and self destruct, wont hold point of aim, blurry, fog up, etc. that I wouldn't even bother.

Oh and about scopes not holding value- it is my opinion that good scopes definatly hold there value quite well on there own. But when you pair it with a rifle it becomes less valuable as a pair. When someone is purchasing a rifle they are looking for the rifle not the scope. On the off chance that you find a rifle you wan't with the exact scope your after well I guess that would be a good deal, but when I look at used rifles I seldom ever see a combo that I would pick, therefore the scope becomes worth very little to me (because I don't want it), and does not add value to the rifle that I want stuck to it. It is better to sell a rifle bare and scopes seperate.

[Old Time Hunter]

Udy, not surprised at all. Have a cousin that is a "glass" grinder, he has been in the business well over thirty years now. He pointed out that thirty years ago, Carl Zeiss lens were in the upper echlon of the lens industry and were priced accordingly. Even though Zeiss still makes a darn good lens, automation has caught up with them. In fact, according to my cousin, some of the down right cheap ones are better than some of the highest price ones. Sure it is a sense of pride to have a skilled "grinder" utilize his/her artistic ability to fabricate a great lens, but a computerized, laser measured, automated CNC glass grinder can actually do a better job by being consistant across the "whole" lens repeatedly. Now, my cousin takes great pride in his work, but when he looked at some scopes that I gave him to rate (five of them, from a $99 special to a $1047.00 high line), he picked a $200 Bushnell over the +$1k Swarovski using his measuring systems. In fact, he picked the $99 special as the second best. The differences were minute, needing precision measuring devices to detect the difference.

Of course this was all optical evaluations, mechanically it might be different.

Personally, I will hang on as long as I can to using "iron" sights as I intend to fight the dying of the light....

[olyinaz]

The larger you go with the objective, the higher the scope sits on the gun.
For you guys used to a certain "cheek weld" some of you might start to lose that "weld", which causes the head to move around causing sighting problems.

That is a very good point. I've had to re-stock rifles because I just could not get comfortable with any scope, much less a tall boy. It's been years since I've owned a "classic" bolt gun with a standard American comb (not counting milsurps) and while I lust after a Winchester Mod 70 classic with high grade wood, every time I look at one I think to myself, "It's probably great on the irons but I wonder how it would scope?" I dunno, but your point is a very good one.

I think Leupold came out with this scope due to this very issue, but it's kinda pricey:

http://www.opticsplanet.net/leupold-vx- ... scope.html

Best,
Oly

[hightime]

Although I can't see my need for a high priced scope, I'm glad we have the choices we do.

Owen

[stew71]

I like the idea of getting up in the crisp, wee Fall hours, setting up on a well used run and then blasting some unsuspecting deer (who's just shaking off the night's sleep) using a rifle with exotic, $1K, computer-designed Japanese optics, all at 89 yards.

Or hiking several miles to a remote ridge on the other side of Adak Island during the rainy season, spotting a herd of caribou at 300 yards, and knowing that the scope isn't going to fog up, it's held it's zero, and sheds rain adequately to take what could be the only shot of the trip.

[El Chivo]

Oh and regarding dusk and dawn - that's where large objective aperture really has to matter. Spend the money on a 50mm objective vs. a 40 or 42mm if you can afford it and that's a concern. NOTHING substitutes for aperture - not quality of optics or coatings (way too much hoo hah out there regarding coatings, not that they're not important but they like to use it for marketing far more than reasoable). When it comes to telescopes of any kind (hunting or observing or star gazing), provided you get beyond junk it becomes all about aperture. Proving one again that size matters.

One point about this; as we age our ability to take advantage of a large exit pupil diminishes. It's a matter of how wide your iris can open in dim light. A young person might get some boost from a 50mm objective but I wouldn't. I'm over 50 and my maximum exit pupil is 5. So if I'm considering two 4x scopes, one with a 20mm objective and one with a 40mm objective, I might as well pick the 20mm and get the lighter weight, since I won't see any difference in brightness (all other things being equal).

To get the exit pupil ratio, you divide the objective diameter by the magnification power - a 20mm 4x scope = 5, a 32mm = 8, and a 40mm = 10. Works for binoculars, too.

Like I mentioned earlier, all this technology and glass and weight make more sense with high mag specialty scopes, there a 50mm objective would really do some good.

One thing I don't know about is the 30mm tube size favored in Europe; I bet that would affect brightness. Any comments on the 30mm tube?

[Mescalero]

I need to dig up that old post, I'm too lazy to re-write it.
Hobie, are there any search tips that would help?

[Shrapnel]

Oh and regarding dusk and dawn - that's where large objective aperture really has to matter. Spend the money on a 50mm objective vs. a 40 or 42mm if you can afford it and that's a concern. NOTHING substitutes for aperture - not quality of optics or coatings (way too much hoo hah out there regarding coatings, not that they're not important but they like to use it for marketing far more than reasonable). When it comes to telescopes of any kind (hunting or observing or star gazing), provided you get beyond junk it becomes all about aperture. Proving one again that size matters.

One point about this; as we age our ability to take advantage of a large exit pupil diminishes. It's a matter of how wide your iris can open in dim light. A young person might get some boost from a 50mm objective but I wouldn't. I'm over 50 and my maximum exit pupil is 5. So if I'm considering two 4x scopes, one with a 20mm objective and one with a 40mm objective, I might as well pick the 20mm and get the lighter weight, since I won't see any difference in brightness (all other things being equal).

To get the exit pupil ratio, you divide the objective diameter by the magnification power - a 20mm 4x scope = 5, a 32mm = 8, and a 40mm = 10. Works for binoculars, too.

Like I mentioned earlier, all this technology and glass and weight make more sense with high mag specialty scopes, there a 50mm objective would really do some good.

One thing I don't know about is the 30mm tube size favored in Europe; I bet that would affect brightness. Any comments on the 30mm tube?

The mathematics are correct in regards to exit pupil, but the lenses and coatings will greatly influence the particular optic as to whether there is more light transference. It is true that the ability for an individual's pupil to expand and contract in relation to available light will diminish with age, but a high quality optic will still produce a better image than another lesser quality optic with the same exit pupil rating.

A 30mm tube allows for more windage and elevation adjustment and has little or nothing to do with light transference.

[Mescalero]

In metric using countries, 30 mm is common off the shelf stuff....
much like 1 inch stuff is here in the U.S.

[pricedo]

Successful luxury/premium commodity marketing is based on several sound operating principles:

1) Something is worth what somebody else is willing to pay for it.
2) The sales pitch is that a premium scope perched on a premium rifle like a luxury car parked in the driveway or wearing a Rolex watch is sending a status message about the owner to others about him.......especially the GIRLS.
3) Good salesmen know how to stroke a customers ego and press the right buttons to convince him that he'll be the envy of his peers if only he'd buy the super duper pooper, ultra expensive product..........he'll have automatic respect !
4) The most important principle relied on by expert salesman of course is - THERE'S ONE BORN EVERY MINUTE.

[BigSky56]

this discussion in reminicant of the chevy cadillac discussion will a chevy with rollup windows and no a/c get you to work and about yes, it would it be nice to drive to work in a caddy but Iam not going to buy one cause everyone says they are so comfy & nice.
A high dollar scope can get broke just as easy as a bushnell, step on some icey bear grass on a side hill or your horse slams into a tree on a tight trail or stepping over blowdowns and goes down it happens. I've never seen elk hunters adjusting their scopes under 300 yds to allow for wind or distance shooting generally you barely have time to get the safety off and get lead at them if they spot you.
High $ scopes might be good for target shooters or snipers where they have to look for mirage but for regular hunting your wasting your money.
Having shot a few elk over the years with iron sights and low x glass I never said I needed better or more glass for a scope, I do put $ in binos though as I use them alot for looking back in the shadows for elk in their day beds or figuring a approach to elk. danny

[Mescalero]

pricido is of course right, which is why I need to find that old post.

[L_Kilkenny]

pricido is of course right, which is why I need to find that old post.

Are you the one that did the test on scopes and peeps vs. light? I couldn't remember.

LK

[Mescalero]

No, it was someone else.
I wrote a long but accurate post about everything that is WRONG about variables,
Dany just mentioned people playing with thier scopes when they really don't have enough time to shoot.

[Shrapnel]

This thread has become a posting board for those that don't like or can't afford a premium scope. All that aside, I have found through use and hunting conditions, that a Schmidt & Bender and Swarovski Z-6 scope will perform in a way that scopes that are optically inferior, cannot attain. Like it or not, under severe, low light conditions these scopes do work. If you don't like the cost, that is too bad. Maybe it is hard to justify the extra expense for the net gain in the optics, but it does exist. If you don't like it, O.K. If you can't afford it O.K. but don't make claims contrary to the quality of those scopes for personal reasons...

[Mescalero]

WHO HAS DONE THAT?

[Shrapnel]

Those 'quality' expensive scopes are to a model and manufacturer, WAY OVERATED.

In my book, the cheapies are equally dependable, just as durable, and usually have optics adequate to the task at hand.

A VAST majority of shooters and hunters don't need glass that cost more than $200. I'd be willing to wager that most of those don't need glass costing $100.

High $ scopes might be good for target shooters or snipers where they have to look for mirage but for regular hunting your wasting your money.

it's just an aiming device so why spend for pristine optics? Medium quality optics are cheap and decent, and as long as the mechanics are solid, that's what you need. If the deer is a little blurry or distorted, you'll still hit it.

[Mescalero]

Those are opinions expressed by individuals, they are reflective of thier own experiences.
Those statements do not rise to the level of your assertion.

[pricedo]

I agree that it's very important to drain your bank account to buy the very best premium equipment because I know how crucial that 1/4" tighter group is when shooting a full grown buck deer, black bear, hog or 1000 pound bull moose.

Seriously:
For most people who aren't Navy Seal snipers the Bushnell Elites, the Burris series, the Nikons, the old or new Redfields, the low to middle cost range Leupolds are just fine for hunting.
Don't throw your money away on marketing hype or keeping ahead of the Jonses.
The optical difference between a Bushnell Elite 3200 & a Schmidt & Bender costing 10X as much (if there really is any) won't kill that White tail or hog any deader.
I have a $150 Bushnell Trophy scope on my favorite deer rifle & I can't remember any time when my freezer has been empty at the end of the season.
If you are rich then the sky's the limit.....go for it.....all the more power to you...... but for the rest of us mortgaged to the hilt "9 to 5 ers" it would be better to take the $2000 or more difference in price & put it in little Johnnie or Joannies college fund.
Building your shooting skill with a little more practice at the range, checking for loose mounts, rings & generally maintaining your gun & equipment in good order, learning basic hunting & stalking skills will do more to ensure your hunting success than mortgaging the house to buy ultra premium guns & scopes.

[BigSky56]

Shrapnel if you ever get north of the divide stop in and we'll drink some coffee grill a porterhouse and swap elk stories. danny

[pricedo]

WHO HAS DONE THAT?

Several of us including ME......and quite legitimately so.....they call it discussion & that's what discussion boards are for........discussing..........that's what the thread is about........the merits & detractors of purchasing good rifle scopes.
The quoted comments were other posters opinions politely expressed which they are entitled to express.......you can agree with them or not.
Somebody else if I recall took the discussion personally.

[Shrapnel]

Shrapnel if you ever get north of the divide stop in and we'll drink some coffee grill a porterhouse and swap elk stories. danny

The offer is good for you as well, should you ever leave a beautiful part of the state to come to Bozeman. It isn't what it used to be, but Montana is only about 30 minutes from here...

[hightime]

'' It's a geographic oddity, it's two weeks from everywhere.''

Owen

[Shrapnel]

'' It's a geographic oddity, it's two weeks from everywhere.''

Owen

I don't want "FOP", I want "Dapper Dan"!