cheap scopes vs expensive ones
- Thread starter jwilson48
- Start date
603Country
New member
I guess that I have to be fair and say that I'm a Leupold fan because one has never failed on me or anyone that I know. I do have an old 2X7 that is rather purple, but as long as it isn't pink it'll stay on the gun. If one ever fails, then my opinion might change. And I've never owned a Sightron or a Vortex (or March or Swift or Nightforce), so I can't really make any comparisons from a personal knowledge perspective. I've had Weaver, Redfield, Tasco, and Nikon fail me, though all but the Nikon were in the previous century, so those failures don't represent today's product. The Nikon however, was really a shock. I expected more of a Monarch. I might still try one again sometime, but the truth is that I'll probably put up a few more bucks and get another Leupold. It's more money, but to me it's a proven product that I trust, and to me trust is a big thing when the shot comes that you have to make. God forbid that I should miss when hunting with cousins and brothers. Blaming it on the scope would just get em to whooping that much louder.
I'm quoting a reply I had a couple weeks ago about someone asking if their 65 dollar scope was a sleeper.. My answer pretty much answers what your asking as well, so most of it applies. I even point out everything you pointed out about why cheap scopes are good, but then went on to explain why I think expensive scopes may be worth it..
thinkingman
New member
Fusion pretty much nailed it.
I have two Burris FFII's, both on hard-recoiling rifles.
They're clear, sharp, very good in low light and have an excellent warranty(WHICH I HAVE NOT HAD TO USE!)and can be had for around $150(think less than two tanks of gas)
I can't count how many Leupold fans have had to send their favorites back for repair.
Why would you buy something with such a high failure rate?
I have two Burris FFII's, both on hard-recoiling rifles.
They're clear, sharp, very good in low light and have an excellent warranty(WHICH I HAVE NOT HAD TO USE!)and can be had for around $150(think less than two tanks of gas)
I can't count how many Leupold fans have had to send their favorites back for repair.
Why would you buy something with such a high failure rate?
fusion,
the tasco i have on the muzzy now is a 6-24x42mm i got a dirt cheap deal on. granted that is way too much scope for that gun, i just don't use the higher magnifications. it's a good thing too, because they are so blurry you can't see for crap past 14x. anyways i liked the scope until now because i am starting to get a little worried about it. probably my own fault. putting a varmit scope on a muzzleloader probably wasn't the best idea, but i only shoot 100 grains of powder and 250 grain bullets so it is very mild recoiling. sometime before next deer season, it will probably have a viper or diamondback on it in the 4-12x range.
yes i hate how everyone on forums always say i have x dollars to spend and someone always has to post spend x more dollars. not all of us are rich! i am just now doing well enough in my life to even consider a scope around $2-500. i mean i'm only 23 and just got married. i am taking my brother's advice though, buy all the toys i can now, before kids come along lol.
the tasco i have on the muzzy now is a 6-24x42mm i got a dirt cheap deal on. granted that is way too much scope for that gun, i just don't use the higher magnifications. it's a good thing too, because they are so blurry you can't see for crap past 14x. anyways i liked the scope until now because i am starting to get a little worried about it. probably my own fault. putting a varmit scope on a muzzleloader probably wasn't the best idea, but i only shoot 100 grains of powder and 250 grain bullets so it is very mild recoiling. sometime before next deer season, it will probably have a viper or diamondback on it in the 4-12x range.
yes i hate how everyone on forums always say i have x dollars to spend and someone always has to post spend x more dollars. not all of us are rich! i am just now doing well enough in my life to even consider a scope around $2-500. i mean i'm only 23 and just got married. i am taking my brother's advice though, buy all the toys i can now, before kids come along lol.
I don't believe in spending more than you have to for a scope, and I believe there are many very good pieces of glass out there for good prices. Fact is, most of us will never need a high end scope to do what we need to do. I would love very much to have a Nightforce on my .308 Remy, but I chose a Vortex Viper 6.5-20 and have been more than pleased with it. My Savage .223 Precision Carbine has a Super Sniper 10x42 on it and it has been an excellent scope on that rifle, doing all I have asked of it and more. It is tough as nails. I have Weavers on my .222 700 and my Savage .22 TR and they fit very well on those particular rifles and I have been more than pleased with their performance. Ironically the "cheap" scopes I have have also performed admirably. The $99 Vortex Crossfire from SWFA has proven to be an excellent match to the .270 700 and, into it's second full season, it has held up very well. I believe the glass it in would compare very well to some scopes in the $500 range. The Tasco 2.5x10 that I have had for about 15 years still holds zero and is mounted on a Ruger M77 in.223. Maybe I've just been lucky, but except for the Tasco, I did my homework before buying and I haven't been dissappointed yet.
CPTMurdoc30
New member
Yes I know it is normal to have "SOME" movement in the eye relief. But, If on 6x I had to hang my head on the butt pad then at 18x I had to move my eye to almost touching the scope there is something wrong. This is a gun that they way it is used I can't have that. I called Leupold and they said the same thing as you do SOME movement is normal. they wouldn't look at the problem. So I traded it and I am happy. ANYTHING Leupold under a VX-III/3 I wouldn't own. Redfields are cheap because they are a 2 piece scope and over time that rubber gasket seal is going to start to crack and leak. Then you end up with a fogged scope.
As for why are there so many refurbed Nikon's out there I don't know. Normally they don't take customer send backs and refurb them they take Factory Demo scopes and refurb them. I do know at least 20 people shooting refurbed Nikon's and they love them.
I personally think you get the most scope for your money in the $200 to $500 range.
Lloyd Smale
Moderator
my take is for the most part you get what you pay for. In the 150-300 dollar range where most buy and shouldnt consider less Ill say this.
Redfield revolutions ive owned two and dumped both of them. One a 2x7 and one a 4x12 both hand good optics for the money but the elevation and windage ajustments are mushy and not even close to being consistant. Bushnell 3200, very reliable but opticaly not great. 4200 good scope. One thing about the bushnells though is if your experience is anything like mine you will be shafted by them if you ever have problems with it. Burris fullfields decent optics but ive had more burris scopes fail then all the others combined. Nikon. prostaff, reliable poor glass in low light. Buckmaster, reliable glass isnt much better. Monarch good scope. Leupold. vx1 poor glass and i hate the friction ajustments. Vx2 good glass but not great and very reliable. vx3 good scope but a bit expensive. Most of my rifles anymore either wear nikon monarchs or vx2 leupolds. Looking in my safe thers a few old vari x2s and vari x3s on bush elite 4200 one burris full field and one overpriced ziess conquest. But in my opinion the monarchs and vx2s are about the best bang for the buck in a scope that is both reliable and has decent glass. One previous poster made the comment that there are so many nikon refirbs out there and no leupolds. theres a reason for that. If you send a scope or binocs back to nikon to get fixed they usually just send you a new one and probably fix yours later and sell it cheap to distributor. Send one to leupold and youll allways get the same one back. Im a big fan of leupold but will be the first to say they can break and go bad too. Maybe not as often as many of the others but it does happen.
Redfield revolutions ive owned two and dumped both of them. One a 2x7 and one a 4x12 both hand good optics for the money but the elevation and windage ajustments are mushy and not even close to being consistant. Bushnell 3200, very reliable but opticaly not great. 4200 good scope. One thing about the bushnells though is if your experience is anything like mine you will be shafted by them if you ever have problems with it. Burris fullfields decent optics but ive had more burris scopes fail then all the others combined. Nikon. prostaff, reliable poor glass in low light. Buckmaster, reliable glass isnt much better. Monarch good scope. Leupold. vx1 poor glass and i hate the friction ajustments. Vx2 good glass but not great and very reliable. vx3 good scope but a bit expensive. Most of my rifles anymore either wear nikon monarchs or vx2 leupolds. Looking in my safe thers a few old vari x2s and vari x3s on bush elite 4200 one burris full field and one overpriced ziess conquest. But in my opinion the monarchs and vx2s are about the best bang for the buck in a scope that is both reliable and has decent glass. One previous poster made the comment that there are so many nikon refirbs out there and no leupolds. theres a reason for that. If you send a scope or binocs back to nikon to get fixed they usually just send you a new one and probably fix yours later and sell it cheap to distributor. Send one to leupold and youll allways get the same one back. Im a big fan of leupold but will be the first to say they can break and go bad too. Maybe not as often as many of the others but it does happen.
I enjoyed Fusions post as well, and I’ve shot a lot of game with old Bushnell Sportview scopes and Tasco Pronghorns. I’ve used Leupold’s, Nikon’s, B&L/Bushnell Elites and Burris scopes as well. I can tell you one thing all scopes will fail to work properly sooner or later. I’ve had cheap scopes that have given me mere days of service and sometimes a decade or better. Buying a scope with a good warranty is far more important to me than saving a few dollars up front it tells me that a manufacture is confident in their product and is willing to back it up.
These two paragraphs are the only things that I think was a little misleading in his post.
Depending on the sights I’d sure take them over a cheap scope. The sights on an AR-15 are pretty accurate and I can shoot better groups with them than the cheap scopes you mentioned so far. A good aperture sight will allow you precision accuracy far better than any scope you can buy at Wal-Mart. Now a cheap scope will usually outperform the rough buckhorn sights installed on most factory rifles, as long as the internals will hold up to the rifle you put it on. Once the internal mechanisms start to fail your zero starts to shift and you would be better off using the buckhorn sights.
I don’t know what you mean by marginal scopes being recommend? I’ve hunted Alaska twice for bear and used Leupold both times. I used a VX-III 2.5-8X36 and Vari-XII 3-9X40, they have both held up to the rough treatment of the baggage handlers and bouncing around in a small boat on rough water. I have a buddy who has hunted Africa twice with a Nikon Monarch for plains game and the scope has been nothing but reliable.
You pick the scope for the style of hunting you’ll be doing Nightforce is a great scope but not always ideal for hunting situations you might encounter. Sometimes a quick pointing rifle with open sights will be far superior to that of scoped rifle. There will be far more Leupold, Zeiss, and Nikon scopes being used in AK and Africa than Nightforce, ask the guys who make a living hunting and find out what equipment that they will stake their lives or livelihood on and it will not be $30-100 optics.
These two paragraphs are the only things that I think was a little misleading in his post.
Depending on the sights I’d sure take them over a cheap scope. The sights on an AR-15 are pretty accurate and I can shoot better groups with them than the cheap scopes you mentioned so far. A good aperture sight will allow you precision accuracy far better than any scope you can buy at Wal-Mart. Now a cheap scope will usually outperform the rough buckhorn sights installed on most factory rifles, as long as the internals will hold up to the rifle you put it on. Once the internal mechanisms start to fail your zero starts to shift and you would be better off using the buckhorn sights.
I don’t know what you mean by marginal scopes being recommend? I’ve hunted Alaska twice for bear and used Leupold both times. I used a VX-III 2.5-8X36 and Vari-XII 3-9X40, they have both held up to the rough treatment of the baggage handlers and bouncing around in a small boat on rough water. I have a buddy who has hunted Africa twice with a Nikon Monarch for plains game and the scope has been nothing but reliable.
You pick the scope for the style of hunting you’ll be doing Nightforce is a great scope but not always ideal for hunting situations you might encounter. Sometimes a quick pointing rifle with open sights will be far superior to that of scoped rifle. There will be far more Leupold, Zeiss, and Nikon scopes being used in AK and Africa than Nightforce, ask the guys who make a living hunting and find out what equipment that they will stake their lives or livelihood on and it will not be $30-100 optics.
All the scopes I have used have had optics that pemitted me to take shots at all legal shooting times, and to see in light that was not within legal shooting times.
My only problems were that some of the less expensive variable scopes fogged. I had a couple of Weaver variables that fogged. I never had any other scope fog or fail. I did settle on Leupold scopes and have never had a problem when hunting in any weather from Alaska to southern NM.
I won't argue the brightness of the German scopes, as I have never used one, but I do not need anything better than a Leupold. I have a friend who hunts sheep and goats, and has taken all the worlds sheep and major goat species, and uses Leupold scopes. He can afford anything he wants, and is pleased with Leupold.
I would not buy what I consider cheap scopes. If one gets the chance to hunt the trophy of a lifetime, and his scope fails he will regret saving a few bucks on a scope. However, I am not convinced that the expensive German scopes are any better than Leupold as far as real life hunting is concerned.
I do not believe that every $100 gives you additional minutes of shooting time. When you can easily shoot at all legal shooting times you are just wasting your money to spend more as long as you have a rugged scope.
Many years ago when Leica binoculars came out they were touted as greatly superior to other brands. At the tme I had a pair of Bushnell 8X30s. Three of us were hunting in Alaska and one had a pair of Leica binocs. All of us agreed that my Bushnell binocs were just as good as the Leicas.
Although not rich, hunting was always important to me and I was willing to pay whatever it cost to get first class equipment. But I always knew that "A fool and his money are soon parted."
To each his own.
Jerry
My only problems were that some of the less expensive variable scopes fogged. I had a couple of Weaver variables that fogged. I never had any other scope fog or fail. I did settle on Leupold scopes and have never had a problem when hunting in any weather from Alaska to southern NM.
I won't argue the brightness of the German scopes, as I have never used one, but I do not need anything better than a Leupold. I have a friend who hunts sheep and goats, and has taken all the worlds sheep and major goat species, and uses Leupold scopes. He can afford anything he wants, and is pleased with Leupold.
I would not buy what I consider cheap scopes. If one gets the chance to hunt the trophy of a lifetime, and his scope fails he will regret saving a few bucks on a scope. However, I am not convinced that the expensive German scopes are any better than Leupold as far as real life hunting is concerned.
I do not believe that every $100 gives you additional minutes of shooting time. When you can easily shoot at all legal shooting times you are just wasting your money to spend more as long as you have a rugged scope.
Many years ago when Leica binoculars came out they were touted as greatly superior to other brands. At the tme I had a pair of Bushnell 8X30s. Three of us were hunting in Alaska and one had a pair of Leica binocs. All of us agreed that my Bushnell binocs were just as good as the Leicas.
Although not rich, hunting was always important to me and I was willing to pay whatever it cost to get first class equipment. But I always knew that "A fool and his money are soon parted."
To each his own.
Jerry
Last edited:
All I can say is Wow! So many people who have an opinion not backed by facts.
Quick reasoning check: most people will spend $1000 on a hunting trip and not bat an eye (gas, food, licenses, lodging, etc). Reality check: for a 1-week trip to eastern Washington, I spent $230 for gas, $350 for food, $100 for license/tags, $35 for propane, and $80 for meat processing, $50 for tanning a hide = $845, close enough to $1000 for argument's sake. My brother brought the tent, that covered the lodging, but even that wasn't free. If you stop and figure it out, would you stake the success of a $1,000 hunting trip on a $100 scope?
I am not a proponent of expensive scopes, but my definition of an expensive scope is one that costs more than the rifle it is mounted on. Buy a $300 Savage, go ahead and put a $300 scope on it. Buy a $1500 Remington Sendero, buy a good scope for it to get the maximum performance. For your Marlin 60 or Savage Edge, yeah sure, go ahead and buy the $100 scope. But for repeatability, ruggedness, recoil resistance, optical clarity, and zero retention, my bottom end is a Leupold VX-II or comparable quality scope, so about $400 worth of scope at retail (of course, I don't buy at retail, but that's another story).
And as far as there not being any visible difference between the cheap scopes and the expensive scope, take a side-by-side look through a Barska and a Swarovski and then tell me there is no difference. Heck, take look through a Nikon Prostaff and a Swarovski! Bottom line is you buy what you can afford. If I could afford Swarovskis on all my rifles, I would get them. I can't, but I don't justify it by lying to myself and others by saying there is no difference between the affordable and the best. Man up!
Quick reasoning check: most people will spend $1000 on a hunting trip and not bat an eye (gas, food, licenses, lodging, etc). Reality check: for a 1-week trip to eastern Washington, I spent $230 for gas, $350 for food, $100 for license/tags, $35 for propane, and $80 for meat processing, $50 for tanning a hide = $845, close enough to $1000 for argument's sake. My brother brought the tent, that covered the lodging, but even that wasn't free. If you stop and figure it out, would you stake the success of a $1,000 hunting trip on a $100 scope?
I am not a proponent of expensive scopes, but my definition of an expensive scope is one that costs more than the rifle it is mounted on. Buy a $300 Savage, go ahead and put a $300 scope on it. Buy a $1500 Remington Sendero, buy a good scope for it to get the maximum performance. For your Marlin 60 or Savage Edge, yeah sure, go ahead and buy the $100 scope. But for repeatability, ruggedness, recoil resistance, optical clarity, and zero retention, my bottom end is a Leupold VX-II or comparable quality scope, so about $400 worth of scope at retail (of course, I don't buy at retail, but that's another story).
And as far as there not being any visible difference between the cheap scopes and the expensive scope, take a side-by-side look through a Barska and a Swarovski and then tell me there is no difference. Heck, take look through a Nikon Prostaff and a Swarovski! Bottom line is you buy what you can afford. If I could afford Swarovskis on all my rifles, I would get them. I can't, but I don't justify it by lying to myself and others by saying there is no difference between the affordable and the best. Man up!
I have broken really cheap scopes on .22 rifles. I wiased up and put a steel tube Weaver K4 on two of them and have never had a problem.
I have several Weavers, a couple of Leupolds, a couple of Nikons and one Nightforce.
The Nightforce was expensive. The optical clarity is remarkable.
There is quite a bit of difference in the outside edge clarity between the Leupolds/Nikons and the Nightforce.
For most of my shooting ( daylight ) probably no issue at all.
Would I buy them again. . .yep. They all serve a purpose and do it well.
I am afraid to look through a really expensive scope. . .know what I mean?
The ones I have work pretty good for my use and I will leave it at that.
I was concerned that some of my Nikons came from the Philippines and others from China. I can find nothing wrong with either.
Geetarman
I have several Weavers, a couple of Leupolds, a couple of Nikons and one Nightforce.
The Nightforce was expensive. The optical clarity is remarkable.
There is quite a bit of difference in the outside edge clarity between the Leupolds/Nikons and the Nightforce.
For most of my shooting ( daylight ) probably no issue at all.
Would I buy them again. . .yep. They all serve a purpose and do it well.
I am afraid to look through a really expensive scope. . .know what I mean?
The ones I have work pretty good for my use and I will leave it at that.
I was concerned that some of my Nikons came from the Philippines and others from China. I can find nothing wrong with either.
Geetarman
Jack O'Conner
New member
I've bought inexpensive scopes my whole life and had very good luck with them. SIMMONS is a favorite.
Jack
Jack
Double Naught Spy
New member
For those of you considering the Vortex Crossfire, you might consider something else...
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=459433&highlight=vortex+crossfire
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=459433&highlight=vortex+crossfire
L_Killkenny
New member
The "spend more on a scope than you do a gun" is a leftover from the days when guns were cheaper and scopes were new, less reliable, less popular, harder to get and harder to make.
IMO, 99.9% of shooters will never need a scope costing more than $200 and a lot of those can get by with a scope costing half that much. The need for really good or great glass just isn't there for most shooters. Is a $100 scope as good as a $200 scope? Hardly. But many $100 scopes today are better than most of the expensive ones from days gone by and $200 is light years ahead of what our fathers and grandfathers had.
LK
IMO, 99.9% of shooters will never need a scope costing more than $200 and a lot of those can get by with a scope costing half that much. The need for really good or great glass just isn't there for most shooters. Is a $100 scope as good as a $200 scope? Hardly. But many $100 scopes today are better than most of the expensive ones from days gone by and $200 is light years ahead of what our fathers and grandfathers had.
LK
VeryOldDog
New member
This is an interesting subject. I have been following the thoughts presented everyday and have learned alot. Thank you and I personally appreciate that.
My opinion for whatever it is worth:
It is likely that the "cheap" or inexpensive scopes of today are technologically ahead of the "cheap" scopes of 20 years ago. In addition, due to mergers and acquisitions, many of the leading scope companies like Bushnell have diversified and acquired many other companies in the hunting and shooting industries. Bushnel Outdoor Products own:
Bushnell®
Bollé®
Bushnell Golf®
Butler Creek®
Final Approach®
Hoppes®
Millett Sights®
Serengeti®
Simmons Optics®
Stoney Point®
Tasco®
Uncle Mike's®
Uncle Mikes's Law Enforcement®
Because of this economic situation, Bushnell, in order to derive economies of scale in the manufacturing, assembly, design, and distribution processes has consolidated and cross fertilized the technology and related processes. So today, many of the "cheap" scopes can retain technology of the "expensive" scopes with definitive cuts in quality and function to appeal to a wide market of buyers in the hunting an shooting industry. The same is true of Leupold with respect to it's acquisition of Redfield. I have seen posts by individuals claiming that they purchased a Redfield Revolution scope with Leupold technology and the Leupold warrantee and customer service.
Be that as it may, every individual has a price point. I am retired and certainly do not have the income that I had when I was working. And no one is rolling up to the door with a wheel barrel filled with money every month. I will not spend $1000, 500, or 300.00 on a scope. Not now. My wife and I have other priorities. And that is true for all of us. If your price point due to your economic situation is $1500, then go for it. But, I would submit that there is a law of diminishing returns. That there is a point at which the dollars you put into a product provide you very little in return for those dollars. So at some point you have to determine that if you purchase a scope for $1000.00 could you have purchased 90 per cent of that quality and technology for $300.00.
And, I would submit that this is also true in purchasing all products including a firearm and qualifying your needs and requirements with respect to that firearm. I am not saying that a cheap firearm or any product is the way to go, but again everyone has a price point directly related to income, need and emotional satisfaction.
In so far as I am concerned, I have purchased Simmons, and Burris Products. They were reasonably priced for what I wanted to accomplish. The reason I purchased the Burris Fullfield II product was because it was on sale and included a nice pair of binoculars.
Right now, I am in the market for a quality 17 HMR Rifle. I would like a CZ but I am going to buy a Savage. Price point is the determining factor and I still want quality. So I will purchase a 93R17 something. And, I will only do it when I am convinced that I have an on sale lowest price.
This is a great subject and is so important in these economic times. And, I submit that it is an individual decision.
Regards.
My opinion for whatever it is worth:
It is likely that the "cheap" or inexpensive scopes of today are technologically ahead of the "cheap" scopes of 20 years ago. In addition, due to mergers and acquisitions, many of the leading scope companies like Bushnell have diversified and acquired many other companies in the hunting and shooting industries. Bushnel Outdoor Products own:
Bushnell®
Bollé®
Bushnell Golf®
Butler Creek®
Final Approach®
Hoppes®
Millett Sights®
Serengeti®
Simmons Optics®
Stoney Point®
Tasco®
Uncle Mike's®
Uncle Mikes's Law Enforcement®
Because of this economic situation, Bushnell, in order to derive economies of scale in the manufacturing, assembly, design, and distribution processes has consolidated and cross fertilized the technology and related processes. So today, many of the "cheap" scopes can retain technology of the "expensive" scopes with definitive cuts in quality and function to appeal to a wide market of buyers in the hunting an shooting industry. The same is true of Leupold with respect to it's acquisition of Redfield. I have seen posts by individuals claiming that they purchased a Redfield Revolution scope with Leupold technology and the Leupold warrantee and customer service.
Be that as it may, every individual has a price point. I am retired and certainly do not have the income that I had when I was working. And no one is rolling up to the door with a wheel barrel filled with money every month. I will not spend $1000, 500, or 300.00 on a scope. Not now. My wife and I have other priorities. And that is true for all of us. If your price point due to your economic situation is $1500, then go for it. But, I would submit that there is a law of diminishing returns. That there is a point at which the dollars you put into a product provide you very little in return for those dollars. So at some point you have to determine that if you purchase a scope for $1000.00 could you have purchased 90 per cent of that quality and technology for $300.00.
And, I would submit that this is also true in purchasing all products including a firearm and qualifying your needs and requirements with respect to that firearm. I am not saying that a cheap firearm or any product is the way to go, but again everyone has a price point directly related to income, need and emotional satisfaction.
In so far as I am concerned, I have purchased Simmons, and Burris Products. They were reasonably priced for what I wanted to accomplish. The reason I purchased the Burris Fullfield II product was because it was on sale and included a nice pair of binoculars.
Right now, I am in the market for a quality 17 HMR Rifle. I would like a CZ but I am going to buy a Savage. Price point is the determining factor and I still want quality. So I will purchase a 93R17 something. And, I will only do it when I am convinced that I have an on sale lowest price.
This is a great subject and is so important in these economic times. And, I submit that it is an individual decision.
Regards.