Actual "economy" scope tests

If this comparison had come out last year, I would have been shocked to see Vortex beat out Burris and Bushnell. Over the summer I picked up a Vortex Viper 2-7x32 scope for one of my AR's and all I can say is WOW! Very very nice glass, crisp repeatable clicks on the turrets and overall quality construction. Vortex makes some great scopes that wont break the bank.
 
Their results are pretty close to what I've noticed. I have felt the new Redfield's are a good bargain for a while and have felt the Burrris was the best buy in that price range. I don't care for some of the Bushnell features, and while the Prostaff is a good scope, I've always felt the Buckmaster was a lot better for just a little more money. I've tried some Vortex binoculars, but never their scopes. Sounds like I may need to give one a try.
 
I own the Vortex Diamondback, actuall cost was 220.00 delivered. My oldest Son has the new Redfield Revolution, and my #2 son has one of the new 40-44 Weaver scopes. While in the field deer hunting, we compared the three, we found that, Hands-down, the Vortex had much more to offer than the other scopes,(which are all in the same price range)better magnification, better field of view, even gathered light better.

Having said all of that the best thing Vortex has going for it is the quality and the accurate adjustments.
My next scope purchase will be for a .243 win, and the rifle will be used for deer and coyote, so the 4x12x40 AO Diamondback will get the nod.

On "youtube" there is a test, that this fella does on all new scopes he sells at his sporting goods store, "Todds Tundra Test" is the name of it and he test the Vortex and another brand, watch it and you'll appreciate how well these are made.:)
 
Good review but "to each their own" is what I say. I have two of those older ProStaff scopes and they are by far the best I have. I failed to keep anything else still or true on my rifles. They are camera glass, and Nikon have the corner on glass IMO, and probably make the glass for some of the other scopes.

I do not consider them an economy scope, I bought them because I liked them and because they work.

I chose them specifically for the fact that they lack "features". I do not like features, and dialing out parallax in any scope is moving things about. I like things to be exactly where I left them last year. I never adjust my scopes and they have held zero for a looong time.

-SS-
 
I thought that the article's comparison of scopes was very interesting. Next scope I buy, if and when I need another one, might be a Vortex. Mostly I have Leupolds, But I did get the one Burris FFII in 4.5X14, which has been quite an impressive scope in the one hunting season that I've had it. That Burris has been quite a big step up from the Weaver V10 that was on the rifle previously. The Weaver was Ok and certainly serviceable, but just does not measure up to the Burris (or any of the Leupolds).
 
You can get into the Vortex Viper V-Plex for not much more than the scopes tested above. Last fall I bought a 6.5-20X50PA and the glass quality and clarity at full magnification is really good. This is a area the most lower cost scopes start to show limitations. The Vortex PA has replaced the Mueller TAC II as my favorite "affordable" scope. I know, "affordable" is subjective. The Mueller runs about $300 and the Vortex around $350.

The only negative I have with the Vortex is the "eye box" is small at full magnification.
 
I've got the Redfield Revolution 3-9x40, and for dang sure it won't be the reason you miss a shot. I will admit that I bought it largely because of Leupold's warrantee, and was really surprised at how good the optics really are for a "typical hunting scope." That there are "better" performers in the price range doesn't surprise me at all.

Jimro
 
I bought my Daughtor a Redfield Revoloution Too

Just like Jimro, my reason for purchasing this scope was because of my respect for Leupold, and to support the American Working Man/Woman.
Not to mention that It has very generous eye relief, I cant stand a scope that has less than four inches, regardless how clear.
So far we are satisfied with it, We just bought another Leupold VX 2 over the hollidays, wrapped it up, and gave it as a gift also, I hope Leupold is able to hold on, despite the fierce competiton from these Dang Chinese manufactured scopes. God Bless America. :)
 
Don't worry TXhunter, those Chinese fellas can't seem to produce anything of quality, I tend to think they'll be behind for a few more century's. ;)
 
I haven't tried the Diamondback scope but I have two 2-7 Vipers that are pretty darn good. I own as well a Burris FFII in 2-7 power and I like it the least of all my budget scopes. I've got a Redfield Revolution as well in 4-12, and a 2-7 on the way. I don't have any 3200 scopes but I have an older B&L 3000 and the Bushnell 4200 Elite.

The thing I don't like about the Burris it the rotation eye piece and 1/2 MOA adjustments. The eyepiece doesn't allow the use of flip up scope covers. Not much of a reason to dislike a scope I know but that is why I don't like the 2-7 FFII.

I haven't found the Redfield to change POI as power changes like the author of the test. I didn't buy any of the Redfields when they first came out but waited about a year to allow them to get the bugs worked out. I've been very satisfied with the performance of the scope.

The Vipers I bought when they were discontinued, and boy I wish they hadn't dropped these little scopes. I can see .204 diameter holes in targets at 100 yards with this scope. I know it is wierd to have a low power scope on .204 Ruger, but it was a scope I had on hand at the time.

I'd say the B&L Elite 3000 2-7 power is comparable to the Redfields and the 4200 Bushnell is comparable to the Viper scopes. I've been very satisfied with these scopes as well but after reading some of the comments of people sending them in for Warranty, I doubt I'd invest in another. Out of all the budget scopes I have I consider these to be throw aways when they break.
 
The thing I don't like about the Burris it the rotation eye piece and 1/2 MOA adjustments. The eyepiece doesn't allow the use of flip up scope covers. Not much of a reason to dislike a scope I know but that is why I don't like the 2-7 FFII.
Click to expand...

New Burris scopes no longer require you to rotate the whole eyepiece and they have gone to an etched reticle that is supposed to be better. I understand why this was a problem for some, but I've never cared for the flip up lense caps so it was a non-factor.

If you like the older scopes they are being discounted. I see them at several online sites for $179 in 3-9X40 and $139 in 2-7X35. The new E-1 versions as they are called are still $179 for 2-7X35 and $199 for 3-9X40.
 
I have three of the scopes tested, Redfield 4-12x40 with Accurange, Burris FFII in 3-9 and 4.5-14 both with Ballistic Plex, and several Pro Staffs in 3-9 and 4-12 with Nikon Plex, BDC and Mildot.
Only one of them ever had a problem. The reticle in the FFII in 3-9 came loose and started to rotate. I sent it in (my cost) and it was returned 2 weeks later fixed (no charge and their cost on return shipping).

Out of all of the scopes, if I had to pick one I would pick the FFII in 4.5-14. It is clearly above the rest in my book in clarity. It also cost the most.

If I had to give one up, it would be the Redfield. It's a great scope with nice clarity and holds zero, but the Accurange reticle is just too busy for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top