cheap scopes vs expensive ones

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.
Click to expand...

There's that 'need' word again. Funny how many people know what is needed by folks they don't know.

When it comes to scopes, it is hard to err on the side of getting something that is better than what you need, but easy to err on the side of getting something that doesn't meet your needs.

Maybe if we had a few more hunters with better glass, we would have a few less hunters shooting one another in the field.
 
I been on a couple of hunt's where Leupold's failed (not mine), one guy had a back up rifle but the other did not (2 different hunts), so lifetime warranty is no problem, but when you are out in the woods for a week, nothing he could do(no iron sights on rifle), he borrowed a rifle for rest of the hunt, and filled his tag. After the scope was returned by Leupold he sold it. He bought a Pentax, I had a middle of the road Simmons 4.5x14 that fogged up on the biggest blacktail I've ever seen, now I have a Pentax(3 of them). when a scope breaks you loose faith, that's all there is to it!
 
Oh ya, like people getting shot in the woods can be attributed to $100-$200 glass. Good thinkin.

The facts are that shooters miss because of themselves not because they have a $150 Redfeild, Nikon or Weaver instead of a $300 Leupold or $600 Ziess.

LK
 
I been on a couple of hunt's where Leupold's failed (not mine), one guy had a back up rifle but the other did not (2 different hunts), so lifetime warranty is no problem, but when you are out in the woods for a week, nothing he could do(no iron sights on rifle), he borrowed a rifle for rest of the hunt, and filled his tag. After the scope was returned by Leupold he sold it. He bought a Pentax, I had a middle of the road Simmons 4.5x14 that fogged up on the biggest blacktail I've ever seen, now I have a Pentax(3 of them). when a scope breaks you loose faith, that's all there is to it!
Click to expand...

Again scopes rarely fail when it is convenient for you. I've had just about every brand of scope fail on me and it usually isn't at the range. I don’t care what brand you buy they will all eventually fail to work properly at some time or other. Right now I’ve got a Leupold scope that I think has failed to hold zero for me it is my Vari-XII that has already been in for repair once before. I bought it used without turret caps and sent it in because it had a scratched lens, Leupold replaced the lens, and turret caps, but during the inspection they found it needed an erector and replaced it as well. Cost me $11 in a flat rate box, and that was all I paid to have it fixed.

I’ve had it on some pretty heavy recoiling rifles, and it has been banged around a bit flying. I’ll send it back and see if it is me or the scope. If it is the scope I’ll put it on a rifle that doesn’t start with .358 or .375 and see how it does. If it fails again I’ll send it back and ask to be upgraded to a VX-II scope.

I’ve had just about every scope brand that I own fail. Right now I’ve got an old Weaver K4 and Denver Redfield that needs repair reticles have rotated on me. I’ve got a Simmons Whitetail Classic that patterns like a shotgun on a .204 Ruger right out of the box, and a Vortex Viper that seems to be doing the same thing on a .300 Savage but I need to swap that one out with a different scope to make sure. Then broke Tasco, Bushnell’s and several other cheap brands that gave me decent service on small bore rifles, just out of riding around in the truck and being abused.
 
My favorite scope of the 3 I own is a tasco pronghorn 4x 32mm I think. I have it on an ancient Marlin model 70. I believe this scope retails for around 40 bucks. I've had it for quite a while and the rifle holds zero great, in and out of the rifle case, trips to the range, stashed in the closet, whatever.

On an inexpensive rifle I think it's ok to use an inexpensive bare bones scope. Buy a brand you've heard of and I think you'll probably be fine.
 
Oh ya, like people getting shot in the woods can be attributed to $100-$200 glass. Good thinkin.
Click to expand...

If you read the IHEA incident reports, there are numerous reports over the years where the shooter claims to not have been able to see the target clearly.

Yep, hunters miss for all sorts of reasons can can miss with good optics, but it is much easier to miss with poor optics.

I have yet to meet a hunter that complained about being able to see the target too clearly, but several who have complained about not being able to see it well enough.
 
The facts are that shooters miss because of themselves not because they have a $150 Redfeild, Nikon or Weaver instead of a $300 Leupold or $600 Ziess.

LK
Click to expand...
I have in my posession a Leupold that looks like it's filled with milk.
Cost my buddy his easy shot on a whitetail.
Back for that great warranty experience!
At least we have memories...
 
All brands have failures, it just happens more often with the less expensive scopes. It appears that the more you spend, the less problems you have. You pays your money, etc.
 
If you read the IHEA incident reports, there are numerous reports over the years where the shooter claims to not have been able to see the target clearly.
Click to expand...
I think most of these claims are BS. If they aren't, it's because someone saw something move and they couldn't actually see what it was and fired. Not because they couldn't see clearly through their cheap scope. Thinking back to the unclearest scope I've ever used, you could still very much tell what you were aiming at. In any legal shooting situation you could definitely tell the difference between an animal and a person. There are no if's ands or but's about it. Cheap glass is not why these accidents happen. Anyone that says they are is just trying to justify their latest purchase.
 
Fusion is right. If a fellow can't see what he's looking at (or trying to look at) in the scope, there's no excuse for pulling the trigger. So don't blame it on a cheap scope. As for that, as I've mentioned I prefer to avoid the low priced scopes, which I'd put at less than $125 or so for a variable, but over the years I had some less than top dollar scopes and I really don't remember a miss that I could blame on a cheap scope. I do remember a couple of mid-dollar scopes that fogged up, which kept me from taking a shot. I guess it all comes down to our hunting with what we trust to do the job. It's not so much that I trust Leupold, but it's more that I trust the Leupold scopes that I have on my guns now and have used for years. Trust is earned, and the ones on my go-to rifles have earned my trust. And I guess I do have somewhat of a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that if one does break, Leupold will fix it for me at little to no cost, and if it breaks when one of my grandkids owns it, they'll fix it then too. Scope companies come and go (Weaver and Redfield being two examples), but Leupold is going to be around long after I'm gone.
 
Great thread for me right now. I am attempting to decide between buying new glass for a longer range rifle (thinking about pushing out to between 400 and 1000 yards this Winter with a rifle that I purchased in the last year or so) and a new rifle; I know, do both, but I really want to concentrate on one project at a time.)

Either way I am looking for new glass in the long run. Anyone have suggestions on higher vari scopes? Thinking in terms of out to 1000 yards. .222 and .308 would be the cartridges.
 
I have a 6 x 20 x 56 on my 308 and was shooting 800 yards this summer with it. Got a 10 x 40 x50 on my 223. Shooting prairie dogs at 500 yards is fun. Later scope gets blury at anything over 32 power as any scope would,
 
Maybe they truly can't see the difference when looking through two scopes when one costs 2x, 3x or 4x as much as the other. Hey, some people think McDonalds sells wonderful hamburgers, too. Whatever makes them happy.


"it's because someone saw something move and they couldn't actually see what it was and fired. "

See? Half of them probably shot at a sound coming from a clump of bushes. Idiots.
 
We might as well be discussing if matte, glossy, silver or camo affects scope performance. Spend and choose what you want. Provide a review on the scope ($25 or $2500), and help others decide instead of convincing the bulge in your pants (wallet) is bigger/smaller than others.

BTW, I vote silver.
 
IMO Burris makes a very good line of scopes with a good warranty and customer service for the price. I own 7 Signiture series and have had no issuse with them and they are great light gatherers with excellent clarity. That being said I also own two Swarovski Z6's mounted on 223 Varmint rifles,a Sako Deluxe Vixen and a Weatherby mark V Super Predator Master. The two Swaro's both 3-12X50 Plex are far superior to any other scope I have owned.
 
dont you know that silver will reflect light into the scope barrel ;) Id vote matte but everyone knows that the shinnier something is the better it is. Thats why those top end ziess and swaravoskis are no good.
 
Lloyd,

I'm in the "if you're not good at what you do, at least look good while doing it" camp. And a "ooohhh, shiny things, I like shiny things" admirer.
 
If you read the IHEA incident reports, there are numerous reports over the years where the shooter claims to not have been able to see the target clearly.
Click to expand...

Gun Safety 101, wait, better make that Basic Gun Safety 099 (remedial), would tell us all NOT TO TAKE THE SHOT IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE. This makes it the shooters fault. Not the scope.

Scopes don't kill people. People kill people.
 
Gun Safety 101, wait, better make that Basic Gun Safety 099 (remedial), would tell us all NOT TO TAKE THE SHOT IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE. This makes it the shooters fault. Not the scope

BIG DITTO Lawmboy..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top