Buy the most expensive scope you can afford?

Buying an expensive, high end scope pretty much guarantees you will get a quality product and dependable service if you ever need it.
Moderately priced scopes are a gamble, I have good ones and worthless ones. I have a couple $200ish Nikons that have been very good.

Is "Konus" the Latin word for "crap"?
 
I have none to offer. Such research doesn't exist. Even asking such a question is, itself, questionable.
Click to expand...
Any more questionable than a statement from someone who says he has owned and wrecked more scopes than the average person has seen in a gun store?


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...
Click to expand...
If you are wrecking that many scopes one can legitimately wonder if it is a matter of abuse rather than use. Aside from that, you seem to have taken an inordinately long time to "learn your lesson"...or were you just exaggerating on the number of cheap scopes you wrecked?
 
I've had some expensive scopes in the $1000 range (bought used at considerably less). In my opinion the difference in a $1000 scope and a $300-$400 scope is too small to justify the expense. At least as a hunter. There are some features on some of the high end target scopes that run the costs up and may be needed.

In my experience the $300-$400 range is the sweet spot where you get about all the quality you can use. Going more expensive does get a better scope, but it isn't really worth the cost.

The good news is that in the $200 range there are some VERY good options. I really like the Burris FF-II in that price range. It would be my top choice if I wanted to stay under $300. Some other options I like are the Leupold VX-1 and Redfield Revolution.

I can afford more expensive scopes, but for my money the VX-2 in a 3-9X40 scope is my go-to scope. You can get the standard duplex for about $300 and the long range duplex is about $350.

But to be perfectly honest I'm not convinced it is all that much better than the Burris that comes with the same long range reticle for $200. I'd certainly not feel handicapped hunting with either the Burris, VX-1 or the Redfield.

I would however feel that anything of less quality is probably a waste of money. Decent scopes start at about $200 MSRP. There are a couple of exceptions in 2-7X priced closer to $150 and if you can find one discounted all the better. But as a rule right around $200 is as low as you want to go.
 
Good news for the budget minded scope shopper is that most quality makers have great warranties on their products. That why I try to buy used scopes, especially Leupolds. I've saved some dollars & have never had a regret!
 
Wow, I guess all things are relative... $300-400 to me is not a cheap scope!!!

And for not hunting, nor shooting past 200 yards, pretty much any scope will do ya.

I put a 4-12x42 Vortex Crossfire II on my wife's 243 Win. Cost is about $169.
Great scope!!

I have mostly 4-12 power on all my rifles. Some Vortex, Redfield, BSA, Swift.
 
Higher end scopes are really for much longer distances (300 yards and up) and for lower light conditions for hunting. For paper, Or steel, up to 250 yards, I personally do not see the difference.

I've tried a UTG from Amazon dot com that wasn't bad for the money for my Mosin Nagant Archangel. For $180, it is a damn good scope. It has Held up to some heavy recoil so far. It even has a dual lighted reticle.

However, I prefer FFP scopes when it comes to zoom, since it doesn't change my point of impact when changing magnification. I did find a Primary Arms scope for $350 though. I've been happy with everything I've bought from them. They only have a 3 year warranty but they're good enough if you don't abuse them. Even if I have to buy three over a lifetime, I'd still be ok considering it's not a daily use rifle.

If you're hunting, then the abuses of climate, moisture, rain, snow, or temperature changes could affect the scope somehow, so Vortex, Leuopold or Redfield all have lifetime warranties so I choose from one of them.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Punching paper in daylight at 200 yards or less? Many features of top-of-the-line scopes are not needed.

Don't need a variable power scope. Don't need a 50mm objective lens. Don't need repeatability in the adjustments.

Decent quality, sure. Avoid ell-cheapo stuff.

Magnification for a fixed-power scope? I'll stay out of that part of the discussion. :)
 
All these posts and nobody has yet mentioned one of the biggest reasons to skip the cheapest scopes -- the junk optics simply strain your eyes. You may not notice it right away but do a range day with one and you'll find that you have a tough time getting and keeping a clear sight picture because your eye gets fatigued in dealing with the cheap optics.

If you are running Barska or BSA or one of the many junk names, maybe you aren't shooting a long enough session to notice or perhaps you are blessed with fantastic eyesight.
 
when I was a teen, and sporting 20/45 vision, I used a barska scope mounted on a marlin 60. one of my favorite memories is lining up empty 22 casings on the wood pile and shooting them off, my best was 7 out of 10. never felt any more fatigued with it than any other scope. just staring down scopes in general fatigues my eyes, really no getting around it.
 
I saw the light after a Simmons that I had taken on a Colorado hunting trip lost zero. That gun now wears a Leupold. I've had a few other inexpensive scopes fail as well.

Leupold offers a lifetime warranty. I've owned a lot of Leupolds, new and used (and believe me some of them were used.). I've heard their customer service is good, but I can't comment on it directly because I've never had a problem with any of my Leupold scopes.

Optical quality is important. It's a lot easier to shoot accurately if your target is a sharp black dot rather than a fuzzy black ball.
 
My thoughts, reinforcing what I've found important:
  • No need to purchase quality above what's required for the purpose. For example, I have no issue putting a Vortex Crossfire on my favorite plinker, a Marlin 795. But even with the lifetime warranty, I would not put a Crossfire on a 30.06 or a varmint rifle.)
  • Get a scope with a lifetime, no questions asked, warranty (e.g., Vortex, Leupold). I believe this is critical, especially with the lesser expensive scopes. If they start to loose a repeatable zero then send them back.
  • Try it before you buy it, especially with the lesser expensive scopes. You may find the eye relief is too restrictive for your eyes.
  • Once you find a scope you want, try to find a dealer that will let you go through boxes and peer through a good number of the same scopes. Even with modern manufacturing quality control there are allowed quality variances within lens runs and a scope's quality is dependent on the cumulative quality (or lack of it) of several lenses. Some times you can find a scope where all the lenses in the scope happen to be top quality. The image you get through such as scope will be distinctly better than all the others. Buy it. (Of course, most times they will all be indistinguishable.) But this is a good practice to use, and again the differences are the most distinguishable with inexpensive scopes. (Note: This is good advice for binoculars and camera lenses as well.)
 
One is none and two are one.
Old adage suggesting two affordable scopes might be better than one break-the-bank version.
Betcha most scope failures are the result of damage rather than lack of quality.
You know the ones that get run over, dropped, fall off the back, 'etc.
Just a thought.
 
I have a shelf with a half a dozen inexpensive scopes that I bought over the years, and that were replaced with more appropriate optics once I could afford it.
I now shop by the intended purpose for the rifle/ scope combo. Quality and clarity are my two top considerations when choosing a new scope.

Time and again I end up with scopes in the range of the Leupold vx-II and VX-III, and I have yet to be disappointed
They are not cheap, nor are they outrageously expensive, IMO they are the best bang for the buck for most of my intended uses.
 
The most I have ever spent on a scope is about $300. Though my father is a regional manager for Zeiss and is going to try and get me a steep discount on some of their optics which can get very pricey.
 
I have a couple of scopes that cost about $1000 (Vortex and Leupold) and some for about half that (Leupold VX3 and Vari-X III), and a couple of Burris FFII's that cost $300. I've been hunting for decades (half century, to be a bit more specific) and have had a lot of scopes of different makers and magnification. What I don't need is a top of the line scope that costs $2k, $3k, or $4k. I have come to believe that a Leupold VX3 is about as much scope as most hunters will ever need. Great quality and, unless they changed it, a great warranty.

If you are a long range shooter however, the price of your scopes will start about $1k and rise from there.
 
g.willikers said:
Betcha most scope failures are the result of damage rather than lack of quality.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there are plenty out there.
I, however, can't recall a personal scope failure from abuse, neglect, or misuse; unless I was actually trying to kill it. ...Because I don't abuse my tools.
Some family members have had incidents (knocking rifles over, dropping scopes, etc.). But I have not.

A lot of failures that I can recall were simply from recoil or parts failure.
Many developed wandering/jumping zeroes or suffered some kind of breakage in the erector assembly. (Most common failure, by far, with my Bushnells.)
A few had the reticle break (wire), or come loose (wire/etched).
I had one (Beaverton) Redfield, over the course of about 4 rounds of .30 WCF, somehow jam the erector hard left and down. (Repaired by Leupold.)
At least half a dozen Bushnells and Tascos lost their gas charge and seal, and fogged internally. (I think I had a Weaver that suffered the same fate.)
A handful of cheap/cheaper scopes - I recall at least one each Burris, Bushnell, and Weaver - had lens or tube coatings peel, chip, or flake off inside the scope.
There were a Weaver and a Burris that suffered chipped internal lenses. Still held zero and functioned, but the image quality was ... shall we say, compromised.

Two of the most spectacular and frightening failures I've seen (not my scopes) were lenses that broke loose internally and shattered the ocular lens in front of the shooter's eye during recoil. One was a Weaver. I believe the other was a Nikon. It seems counter-intuitive for the rear lens to be the one to shatter under recoil, but that was the result in both cases.
Luckily, both shooters had eye protection and the rifles were being tested, rather than in the field on a hunting trip.



dahermit said:
Any more questionable than a statement from someone who says he has owned and wrecked more scopes than the average person has seen in a gun store?


If you are wrecking that many scopes one can legitimately wonder if it is a matter of abuse rather than use. Aside from that, you seem to have taken an inordinately long time to "learn your lesson"...or were you just exaggerating on the number of cheap scopes you wrecked?
Click to expand...
Underhanded assumptions and insinuation, my friend.
It's of no value here.

Don't bother discussing what was actually said, or asking in a friendly manner that might prompt me to explain why I have had so many scopes. Just attack the character. :rolleyes:
 
Cheap scopes don't generally last on .50 BMG weapons. Some last only a few shots.
But with Bushnells new guarantee, I'm aware of someone who is trying to use a $500 bushnell instead of a $2-3000 high end product, then keep returning it if required.
We will see.
 
I've had a Weaver fog up; a Redfield (pre-Leupold) fogged up; Nikon broke; Leupold VX2 with wandering zero; old Leupold F6 had a lens fall loose. None were due to abuse of any kind.

I was climbing into a stand when the handgrip broke loose. I fell backwards on my Sako and Leupold VariX-III on some rocks. Painful, but rifle wasn't scratched up and the scope never lost zero. That was abuse, though not on purpose, but no damage done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top