This is going to be a super long post, so read it if you are interested, if you aren't that's fine too.
I'm more of a fan of cheap scopes that most guys online seem to be. That said, the majority of the scopes I have aren't cheap in the sense you are talking about, but I'm not so much against Wally World specials.
I'd also like to point out that the two biggest deer I've ever shot, and the only two I've ever gotten mounted, one of which is arguably the largest that's been taking in this area that anyone can remember including many of the old timers, have both been killed by the same gun, and a $30 Tasco that I bought from Walmart in a blister pack.
I also want to point out that 98% of the guys I hunt with use scopes $150 and under, and very rarely do any of them have a problem. I say $150 and under as a few of them have Simmons and Tasco's that were over $100, but in reality most of them are Bushnell Banner 3-9x40's or cheaper.
Now, onto my personal experiences and opinion. I personally think the "you get what you pay for" that goes around online is partially true when it comes to scopes, but not the extent that many people would like you to think. I feel a lot of it is prestige. It really just depends on what you are going to be doing. I've also found in other instances that while there are many knowledgeable guys online, that many also post false information, some on purpose, but most just because they don't know better. This also makes me wonder if some of their cheap scopes stories are really true or not. If you are shooting 5-600 yards on a regular basis and are constantly cranking on the turrets, you will not be able to get by with a $30-100 Simmons or similar. This is where you pay, and that's the only reason I own one of the scopes I do. If you are like many hunters, this doesn't matter to you so much, and you can get buy with a much much cheaper scope. So you just have to decide what you are doing.
Now onto the glass quality. While I've seen some pretty crappy glass in some scopes, (the Bushnell Banners) come to mind, I've also seen many pretty good scopes under $50 that I'd be willing to be if someone looked through that and a $200-300 Leupold, or the Redfields many on here claim to like that they wouldn't be able to tell which is which unless they were told, or were able to see the identifiable markings on each scope. Optically, many of the cheaper scopes just aren't that bad.
Let me start by saying,
My favorite scope for the price that I've used is the Burris FFII. Optically it's superior to most of the cheap scopes, and most everything else I've tried in the $400 and under price range. The only scope I've seen much if any of an improvement in is the Zeiss Conquest for $400 and even then the difference isn't huge. You could kill most anything in legal hunting hours most anywhere with a FFII. I've had a couple cheaper Simmons, and while stuff like the Burris FFII is optically better, you wouldn't be crippled much with one of the other cheaper scopes. I've also got several other $200-300 scopes, and the Burris FFII is the only one that is much better glass wise than many cheaper scopes. I've previously had a Prostaff, and honestly side by side I couldn't see a bit of a difference in low light from it and my Simmons Blazer. In the daytime the Simmons was better to me, but only because I saw a lot of chromatic aberration with the Nikon for some reason, and didn't with the Simmons, but this is is how my eyes worked with that glass. It may not be the same for everyone. The Simmons and Leupold VX-I I have were nearly identical in the daylight, and the Simmons edged out the VX-I in low light. The Tasco I had was nearly identical to the VX-I in every way, and not quite as good as the Simmons in low light. The Nikon Monarch's I have to me have nearly identical glass to the cheaper Prostaffs. The differences are very small, and you have to look hard to see them. I don't get quite as much chromatic aberration, but it's still there. The Burris FFII is a decent bit better in daylight and low light than all of them, but it seems to be the exception not the rule, and like I said I wouldn't be crippled glass wise with the cheaper scopes.
As for durability, this is the thing that matters most to me. On my hunting rifles, I don't need a perfect tracking scope, and If I can't see something to shoot with one of the cheaper scopes it's well past the legal hunting hours and I'm not going to be shooting anyway. However, I do need one that will hold zero. I've read countless stories online about horrible experiences and I'm going to be honest. This gets to me, and it scares me away from using cheaper optics on my hunting rifles, which is why I mostly have scopes in the $2-300 range. I've not personally not experienced all of these issues, nor have many of my friends, so I almost doubt some of these stories, but the thought is still always there in my mind. As I said, 98% of the guys I hunt with use cheap optics. A few of them have had issues, but the large majority of them haven't, and most of them have quite a few guns all with cheaper scopes. Almost all of them are pretty rough on them. Up until recently the only scopes I'd had fail in any way were all Leupolds with the exception of one FFII that had a very minor issue of a spec in the glass right out of the box, and one other thing I wasn't sure if was an issue that turned out not to be. I found this odd, but the truth is I've owned 3 Leupolds that have had to go in for repair. Two of them were VX-I's and one of them went in twice. The first time for one of them, the insides appeared to be shaking when I shot it. The second time it wouldn't hold zero. The other one also stopped holding zero. The third Leupold was a Vari X IIc made in 1998 that had a large piece of dirt, or coating or something inside of the scope that obstructed your vision somewhat and was really annoying. They sent it back with that piece gone, but with tons of tiny specs of dirt or something all over the inside of the scope that weren't there before, so it had to go back again.
Recently I did have my first issue with a cheaper scope which was a Simmons 8 Point. I got it in a trade with another scope. It looked new, but I think it was used as it didn't have the box. The seller didn't clarify and I didn't really care. I put it on a hard kicking rifle and it lasted 6 shots before some large chunk of paint or something started floating around inside of the scope. It still held zero though. This is the only one I've ever had fail on me to my knowledge and I've used quite a few.
The only other questionable one is a $30 Tasco I still have on a muzzle loader. I've had it for 5 years and it's always worked perfect. Just this year, I sighted in during the summer, and when I shot it right before hunting season it was shooting about 1.5" right. It wasn't far off, but it was slightly off. I have no idea what happened, but I adjusted it back and it was shooting small groups like normal and shoots great groups all day long. So I can't say this scope has failed, but I have no idea why it shot right. I'm going to have to check it some more, but I still have faith in it as it's held up great.
Every other cheap scope I've used has held up great, and never given me the least hint of trouble.
So would I use a cheap scope? Sure would if it's all I could afford. I've often heard online that open sights are better than cheap scopes. Would I choose open sights over a cheap scope? Heck no, and anyone that says they would is crazy in my opinion. I'd bet Tasco or Simmons, or even Bushnell (by far my least favorite of the cheap scopes I've owned, and unfortunately they now own the other two), sell 10x if not more scopes for every 1 a company like Leupold or Nikon sells although I don't know that for sure. I suspect this is also the reason why we hear more complaints.
Now, would I take a $30 scope on a trip to Alaska, Africa, or anywhere else that I'd paid thousands of dollars to go? Not only no, but heck no, but I would have no reservations about taking it into the woods here. I would also not take one on a dangerous game hunt just for piece of mind, but really how many people are going on those hunts? If I was, I wouldn't be taking a Leupold, or any of the other marginal scopes that are usually recommended on here. I'd probably be taking a Nightforce at minimum.
