cheap scopes vs expensive ones

I like the Burris FFII line of scopes personally. I have never had an issue with any of the ones I own and all have been fantastic so far. For the money I dont think there is a better scope out there.
Click to expand...
+1 For the price I love these things as I mentioned above. I don't think you can get any better glass quality until you step up to the Conquest at over double the price, and even then I don't think you get much better glass. At least not from what I've seen, although I haven't used every scope in that price range, but I have used several.

To me the biggest benefit I've seen from more expensive scopes has been piece of mind.

Which Tasco model do you have on your muzzle loader? That's also what I have a Tasco on.
 
I also enjoyed Fusion's post.

I've shot and hunted with cheap scopes all my life. The most expensive scopes I own are Leupold VX-1's.

I don't do the "points of the square" thing or whatever it is some folks seem to want to do with scopes. If it holds a repeatable zero, that's all I'm really looking for. I take care of my equipment and if I can see to shoot until the end of legal shooting hours, that's all I need.

I hunt whitetails locally, I don't need a scope that I can parachute in or scuba dive in with and then hunt something that's trying to kill me at 400yds in the dark.

I simply don't need what a very few, in my opinion, need. It does irk me when folks say if you don't have a $500 scope you may as well have a paper-towel tube with butcher's twine as cross-hairs. Also, on the old internets, someone posts "I have a budget of $x dollars", invariably, someone will pop in and say if you want a decent scope, you need to spend "x" more dollars, no matter what the initial price point stated was. That wasn't the question...
 
You don't have to spend $500 to get a quality scope. But anyone who has enough money to pay for a computer and intenet access and has enough spare time to post on gun forums, has enough money to afford a good $200-$400 scope. It is how you choose to spend your money.
 
Never looked through a Vortex before in my life, so I can't comment. I don't know where they get their optics from, but they appear popular in the tactical crowd. I've honestly never seen a Vortex on a hunting rifle.
Click to expand...

Well Now ya have. I have a 4-12x40mm Vortex crossfire on my 30-06. It is holding up just fine. I paid $120 for it and would say it looks as good and shoots as good any any scope that costs TWICE as much.

DSC_0530.jpg




My varmint rifles are a different story. I have a Bushnell Elite 4200 6-24x40mm on my 308, a 6-24x50mm Nikon Monarch SF on my AR-15 and a Nikon 6.5-20x42mm Monarch on my R700 VLS. If I could afford it the 308 would have a 8-32x56mm Leupold MkIV and the other two would have 6.5-20x56mm VX-3 scopes.

Just like rifles you have to match the scope to what you are doing. Don't expect to be winning benchrest matches with a $150 scope. But, I personally don't see a need for a $1500 Nightforce on my 60 year old 30-06 deer rifle that has a spray paint finish and a semi-finished stock. It is just a beater rifle till I get off my butt and buy my next deer rifle.
 
I spend a lot of time shooting targets with .22 LR. That's a lot of hours spent looking through a scope and the more expensive scopes don't give me eyestrain or a headache. A Weaver T-36 is okay, but the glass in a Leupold EFR - the big one or the small one - is better. Guns can come and go, but you can keep the scope and use it for years, or decades.

I feel the same way about binocs. Any binoc is good for a quick glance, but try looking through an inexpensive one for an entire afternoon of watching animals or a football game. Or cheerleaders if you're a Redskin fan. :)

I don't buy cheap eyeglasses either. I learned that lesson 30 or 40 years ago.
 
A little looking will yield you a used Leupold VXII for $150. Why buy Chinese garbage at that point? Ok, Leupolds are trash according to somdood on the internet and yes for my nice gun I'll probably buy a US Optics or March or something when I can. However, you find a nice used VXII, it's made here, works well and they'll fix it for life. I am not a big scope guy mainly because I will not buy cheap. I have a Leupold rimfire special, an East German Zeiss that was a $100 pawnshop find, a mini- ACOG and for now a Leupold Mk4 until someone buys it. I wait until I can buy something decent.

Edit: I guess it's all what you want. Everyone on the internets were all high on how great Mojo iron sights were so I put a set on a K-31. Took it off after two strippers. Great if you want to quickly hit a man at 100 yards away, pretty crappy if your idea of good irons is formed around M-14 NM sights.

You get what you pay for.
 
Call me crazy but I'm tired of replacing cheap scopes. Stuff happens on working guns. Nikon is pretty good for the price, as are the Redfields, but my next rifle will have NICE glass on it.
 
Burris Fullfield II and Nikon Buckmaster are the least expensive, decent, scopes I have used. There may be others . . . but not for my $$$.
 
My two favorite rifles (270 and 220) have Leupold Vari-X3's on them, so they'd be the previous versions of today's VX-3 scope. I've had them both for years and once a year I might change them a click or two, but that's probably me more than the scope. They were rather expensive and they are boringly reliable, and they've been through a lot of dirt, dust, mud, and snow. I have complete trust in each rifle and each scope. As for more recent gun buys, I just didn't have the money for the VX-3s that I would have liked to buy, so I went with other scopes. One of those failed and the other one just wasn't what I wanted. Both of those were from makers that get mentioned a lot on the forum. The replacement scopes were: A VX-II for the 223 (and I'm totally pleased) and a Burris FFII 4.5X14 on the 260. Optically, that Burris is very impressive, even in low light situations, but the POI seems to wander a bit. I checked and slightly adjusted the scope just 2 weeks ago and have since shot 5 pigs and 5 coyotes with it, but when I rechecked the scope 2 days ago, it was 2 inches higher and 1 inch left of where it should have been, and that's not the first time that's happened. The scope that it replaced didn't wander (same gun and same mounts). I really like that Burris scope, and I don't want to have to dig in the pockets for money to upgrade to Leupold, so I'll keep it for now, but it's on probation. If I can't trust the scope, I don't want it on my gun, and I do flrmly believe that the trust factor drops with the price of the scope. There's a big 10 point on the back of my place, and I've been hunting hard to find him. I might get one shot at him, and it'll probably be 200 yards or more, and I've got to be ready to make that shot in a 10 second window. I put the 260 and the FFII back in the safe and brought out the Sako 270 with the Leupold 4.5X14. That's the gun and scope that I trust, and that trust has been earned in over 15 years of hard hunting. So you guys buy what you want to buy, but quality does not come cheap.
 
Cheap scopes, I use them. I generally buy a rifle and mount a scope and it stays on that rifle until it breaks which has only happened once. I used a scope for a number of years that would fog up at times hunting because I could not afford to replace it.

I would buy what you can afford. I would rather spend more money on a rifle than the glass. That is just the way I am built.

If most of the use is hunting and some shooting prior to hunting season, less expensive scopes work just fine in most cases. The scope and rifle only sees limited action. If I was a serious varmint hunter who hunted a lot with a particular rifle, I would have a better scope on it. It relates more to ranges shot, light conditions, and frequency of use.

Expensive scopes do have better optics. No question. Are they worth it to me? No These days I choose middle of the road scopes in general, but I still have a Tasco mounted on a 22 and it works just fine for me. If I replaced it, I'd buy something a bit better. But my priorities have changed a bit over the years.
 
I expect a big part of the problem is people have long memories. It wasn't that long ago that "cheap" really did mean "crap" when it came to optics.

I think quality control and manufacturing capabilities have come a long way in the past ~20 years. The "cheap" scopes of today are hell and gone better than the "cheap" scopes of the 1980s, and are by most accounts pretty decent.
 
I think that in the long run you come out better buying a good scope to begin with. I have had a Simmons Atec,Tasco World Class, and a Bushnell fail me. All the scopes together cost what the Leupold I use now cost. I should have bought a Leupold from the start. JMO
 
All my hunting rifles have Leupold's 2.5x8 up to 4.5x14 and I'll send a scope back for a check-up with Leupold ever so often. I started with a Leupold 3x9 back in the 60's that scope turn that old purple color. Leupold replaced the scope think I was charge for a new tube and that was mid 70's still using that scope.

Varmit rifles again have alot of Leupolds.
 
My dad and I have had the optics debate over the last few years.

After years of scopes with crooked reticles, loss of zero, inability to adjust consistently or "hopping" between adjustments when sighting in, having glass that looks like there's vaseline smeared on it, and other unamusing flaws, he's finally coming around to my view that you need to spend about $100+ to get something decent.
I started upgrading my scopes about 3 years ago. Anything that had failed me got sold off or traded away and replaced with a scope in the $100-$300 range that came with a lifetime warranty. For me, that's the sweet spot of performance vs price.

I just can't see using the $60 Walmart scopes. That's what, 3-4 boxes of ammo?
 
I currently use a Bushnell Banner 3x9x40, I can see rather well with it I hunt in the dark only.

I use a scope mounted spot light to ensure a safe shot, but it don't come on until the animal is already in my sights.
as a matter of fact I took a coyote at midnight this Saturday and I could see it clearly without aid, the moon was a fairly bright waxing crescent.

I have never used an expensive scope so i guess I don't know what I am missing.
 
would probably never spend more on a scope than the gun cost unless it was a really cheap gun but spending 150 to 300 range on a scope can usually get you a decent hunting scope that should last while they are cheaper scopes out there you often are sacrificing clarity and it will usually fail much sooner.
Ive seen cheap tascos last for several years ive also replaced enough of them to know that your lucky if you get one to last that long.
 
I had a BSA platinum 36x40mm "BENCHREST" scope. I wanted to test it to see if it would do any good against a CRAPPY Leupold VX-II (By Crappy I mean JUNK I wouldn't force a VX-II on my exwife).

Anyways back to the BSA. At 36x you can really see bullet holes at 100 yards. I mounted it on my R700 VLS. Took my one load that I know shoots .4" 5 shot 100 yard groups consistently. I warmed it up and went to shooting groups. I could shoot nothing under .75" at 100 yards. 2 shot 3 shot 5 shot didn't matter. That scope would JUMP I would fire a round adjust to bull fire another and it would be dead on. I would then move to a different target and then shoot 5 for a group, High low left right just bounced all over the place. The click were way off I tried the box test and it looked like a rhombus. I would go 4 clicks left and it would more 3" (1/4" clicks) then I would move it up 4 clicks and it would go up 1/2" The right 4 clicks and it would go back 1" Then down 4 clicks and it would drop 3/4" and these would change every time I tried. That BSA cost me $400 in ammo.

Now back to the Leupold VX-II That thing tracked good it held zero like a tank. It was a 6-18x40mm and at 6x I had to be so far back on teh stock I was not on the cheek pad. At 18x I was so close a 12.5# 223 would hit me in the face. It was over 4" of travel from one end to the other. Leupold said the scope was fine and they would not look at it. I traded that JUNK for a Nikon and have been happy ever since. I have 2 Nikon Monarchs and a Nikon D5000 camera with 2 nikon Lenses.

In my eyes there are plenty of scopes that cost less that any Leupold VX-3 or VX-3L and give you just as good or better performance. the Sightron SII Big Sky and SIII, Vortex Vipers, Nikon Monarchs, Bushnell Elite 6500.
 
Without getting into the "brand" thing ( I'm a Vortex die-hard as well), the OP is absolutely correct, IMO, as to his assessment.

I've said it in other posts related to the same topic. For a guy that shoots at the same 100 yard range every time..or let's say very little variation...ANY scope, that will hold his zero, will do just fine.

The difference is in ocular clarity as others have noted, and the precision and repeatability/tracking of the crosshairs. Of course, durability costs, as well.

For a long range shooter, or hunter, if each click is .001 inches of movement of the reticle- it had better be EXACTLY that, and the same every time, whether it's ten clicks to thirty clicks on the turret- and then back to zero.

You're dead on, OP...for many shooters, it just doesn't matter.

For the long range crowd, however, it's a VERY big deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top