Buy the most expensive scope you can afford?

J

Jeff2222

New member
I've been looking to buy a scope for a rifle I've recently purchased. Almost everything I've read essentially says buy the most expensive one you can afford. But I am having a hard time figuring exactly why this is true.

I don't hunt and will never shoot more than 200 yards. Max budget is $350-$400 but would rather spend half that unless it's really worth it to spend more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I usually match the intended use of the rifle to the scope, and how well it shoots.
I have simmons,bushnell, bsa, nikon,leupold,vortex,sightron, and IOR.

In otherwords, I wont put the same scope on a marlin camp 9 as I will on a f class rig, target or varmint rifle.

Cheaper scopes usually don't have as good repeatibility or tracking, or clarity.and light transmission.
The eye relief is usually less forgiving as well.
 
Last edited:
I have inexpensive scopes and moderately expensive scopes. The inexpensive scope go on range toys. My hunting rifles get good scopes, mid range Leupold and Burris. Too much time, effort and money go into a hunting trip to have it all go bad because of a scope that's decided to loose zero.

If you don't hunt, then I'd get at least a decent scope because of the improved optics. A Leupold VX-2 Rifle Scope 4-12x 40mm would be about $350 and would be fine choice.
 
I do not follow the buy the best you can afford argument. the main reason people say this is that the more expensive ones will generally be more durable and have higher quality sight picture, better quality control and more features. however there are problems with name brands releasing inferior product lines and selling them for more than they are really worth simply because they know people will pay for the name brand.

if I'm using a cheap plinker, I have no problem going with a cheap optic like leapers, truglo, barska, or so forth.

if it's something I'll actually be taking to 100 yards or more, I'll want a little bit better glass, usually Nikon Prostaffs, or Vortex Diamondbacks.(sub $200) another I've been considering lately is the Athlon Talos Line which is supposedly similar quality to the afforementioned scope lines.

if I envision any need to take it beyond 200 yards, I spring for the best optics I can afford which generally speaking is about $400 including mounts.
 
Hunting rifles, especially those that go into the deep timber and middle-of-nowhere in the desert, get the best glass I can afford.

Everything else is judged based on intended uses, contingency uses, quality and reliability of the rifle, etc...

A Marlin X7, for example, is not going to get a $1,600 Leupold scope. The rifle just isn't worthy. Those that I own, and have owned, never got anything better than a Redfield Revolution.
My beloved Ruger M77 Mk II ("old reliable" in the mountains), however, wears a Leupold VX-3.
My "pile o' parts" AR-15 (built from spare parts for $88) will get a left-over, recycled 1970s-vintage Tasco 4x or 3-9x from the parts box.
The Dumoulin Mauser is going to run me about $1,800 before it's finish. I already have a scope on the shelf for it: A Leupold VX-3 4.5-14x40mm CDS (~$500).
My 6x45mm varmint rig just has a Redfield Revenge on it. (Do not buy -- lower quality than the Revolution!).
At the same time, my ".243" varmint rig has an old Leupold Vari-X III 6-20x50mm (or 6.5-24x). 40 year old scope, but still well made with good glass. ...And guaranteed forever.
 
Rather than get into specifics of the rifle I'd like to discuss purpose.

For the ranges around here 200 yards is the max.

For target shooting at 200 yard or less I'm wondering if a $200 leupold vx1 is good enough or will I be wishing I had upgraded to a $400 some other option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm NOT a "scope snob" and generally use mid-priced (maybe even considered economy) scopes. I see absolutely no need to spend $200-300 if 1/2 that will do just as well.
I carry rifles with $80-125 scopes year round and seldom feel "optic deprived" in the process. I can see my target in low light and the scopes hold zero so what more do I really need?
 
Is there any scientific data that indicates that an expensive scopes have had fewer failures in the field than cheaper scopes?
 
Scopes

I generally get a scope to match how I intend to use it. If I will be looking thru it a lot, varmint shooting, I get as good as I can afford. Hate the cheap glass headache cutting short my shooting. I have 60 year old eyes, YMMV
 
Ancient advise. With today's modern computer driven manufacturing technology, moderate, or even budget priced scopes can be as good as many high end scopes were decades ago.
I have scopes from Simmons, Bushnell, Weaver, Burris, Leupold, and others. All work quite acceptably over a wide range of distances, and light conditions.
The important part is to take a good look through any scope before you buy it to see if it provides a bright enough image for your purpose.
 
Is there any scientific data that indicates that an expensive scopes have had fewer failures in the field than cheaper scopes?
Click to expand...
There's no practical way to do "scientific" testing on scope failures, but I do know all of my scopes that have failed were the cheaper ones, and all my Leupolds still work fine.

Some of them are approaching 30 years old so they are really not "expensive" if you pro-rate them based on life expectancy.

Most could be sold for more than I paid for them.
 
About this:
Rather than get into specifics of the rifle I'd like to discuss purpose.
Click to expand...
It makes it hard to be helpful, but I'll try: I have a Leupold 3-9x40 on my bolt action Winchester model 70. I feel like it is as good as I need. $150.00, 2nd-hand at the gun-show, completely satisfied.
 
data

Not scientific, but here's some data: I have a drawer full of inexpensive scopes, mostly Tasco's and 80's era Bushnells, with a few Simmons thrown in, that have quit over the years in some fashion or another. I have sent one Leupold back for service, twice, just recently. The other dozen or so Leupolds in my stable (all fixed power or moderate Vari-X-II and IIc's of the same era) have been fine, some for a very long time.
 
Is there any scientific data that indicates that an expensive scopes have had fewer failures in the field than cheaper scopes?
Click to expand...
I have none to offer. Such research doesn't exist. Even asking such a question is, itself, questionable.

But I can offer two(-ish) quick examples, from a sea of Leupold:
1. The only Leupold to ever fail in my family was run over by a truck.
Leupold replaced the scope, for free.


2. My father sent six scopes to Leupold last year (mostly because he was bored).
The newest one was 23 years old.
Five were cleaned, "tuned", "tweaked", and upgraded to the latest o-rings, coatings (where lenses were available), and gas mixtures, free of charge.
The sixth was replaced, free of charge, due to a part no longer available, with the latest-and-greatest equivalent model (~$1,300).


Try any of that with your Tasco, Simmons, Burris, or Bushnell budget scope...
Heck... try that with a Nikon, Swarovski, or Zeiss. Basically the same problems.

I know I have. The responses were, essentially: "Here's some fresh dog poop. Would you like to taste it?"

(The only exception being a [rather expensive] Bushnell where they wouldn't replace or repair it, but let me fight until I got a partial refund... :rolleyes:)


I used to use cheap scopes. I learned my lessons the hard way.

Every Bushnell I have ever owned has failed.
Every Simmons I have ever owned has failed.
Every Burris I have ever owned has failed (except for a Red-dot ... but that's not a scope).
And the list goes on...

Surprisingly, most Tascos that I have owned have held up -- even if overall quality, clarity, and light transmission is/was absolute garbage. Even so... I don't trust them in applications that really matter.

Regardless of quality, clarity, light transmission, and warranty... If you're shooting deer straight-down, from 20 feet, you have a very different set of (lower) demands than I do when I'm out beating feet up and down the Rockies.
 
I would disagree with the statement, "....buy the best scope you can afford."

I would agree with buy the best scope you will use.

Things like glass quality, turret functionality and reticle designs all need considered.


To shoot 0-200 yards with a 1" at 100yd rifle, I think you could spend under $300 on a plex or other bargain reticle with std low turrets and decent glass in something like a Burris Fullfield II 3-9x40 or Nikon Prostaff 5 or a Vortex Crossfire II.

Now, if I misunderstood and you want to hit bugs at 100 yds, then you need a Weaver T36.
 
I've had about the same PERCENTAGE of scope failures based on brand. In the past I had a lower scope budget and used more Simmons, lower end Bushnell, and others VS Redfield, etc. I had more failures from the $50 scopes than from the higher priced Redfield BUT I also had 3X the number of those cheaper scopes.
As mentioned, the "mid-range" scopes are good value. The "el-cheapo" scopes are iffy and quite often disappointing. I have a couple of $300 scopes(didn't pay that much for them) and truthfully can't see a significant advantage over a couple of under $200 scopes in actual field use.
I'll name some brands that turn in decent results providing adequate clarity, adjustment tracking, and zero retention: Sightron, Vortex, Burris, and Bushnell Banner.
Until last winter, I used Bushnell Banners on my EDC AR's and normally never have to re-zero unless I change ammo. Keep in mind these carbines spend weeks/months outside being bounced around in pickups and UTVs and being carried, banged, bumped, and subjected to whatever the environment dishes out. I replaced one of the Banners with a Burris e-1(terrific sale price-couldn't resist) in 2016 and it hasn't disappointed me although has not been subjected to the amount/type of use I normally do.
 
I used bushnell banners fir years . A few years back elite. 3200s were discounted so I replaced 3 of the banners . The banners were great till I lined them up side by side with the 3200s . What a difference !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I have everything from a VX3 to cheapo simmons, a weaver V16 and several tascos, nikons etc. On a clear, sunny day, moderate temps (50s-60s) the untrained eye would have a hard time telling the difference between a tasco and the Leupold. Get into any type of compromised situation such as a darker overcast day, fog, etc and the light transmission difference becomes quite a bit more obvious. I like to target shoot quite a bit and usually have the magnification cranked up. At 14x I can tell quite a bit of difference between my mid-range V16 and my VX3, even on a good day. For my hunting rifles I usually mount a prostaff or vortex mid-range scope but then again most shots here in WI are taken at 250 yds or less. If I had an opportunity at longer ranges (and did more hunting in general) I would likely step up to a VX2 at a minimum. I have a couple older 4x tasco scopes mounted on my ARs and they get bounced around and dinged up, they just won't die..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top