Crap Scope?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I own 3 and they do what I need. Your choice, if your going to make a living with it, I would go with a Nikon, if it's for hunting once a year or just shooting for fun, Barska's are fine or you could spend $300 upto $2,400 on a different one.

Like I said your choice. They are on a 223, 243, 270 holds up well, is clear and accurate and holds zero with out a problem.

Jim

http://www.opticsplanet.net/barska-rifle-scopes.html
 
When it comes to optics, you get what you pay for. If it were me i would have to think long and hard about trying something like that and it would all depend on the rifle it was going on. It is all dependent on what you want to do. I Have a Nikon, and Two Bushnells. I Put a Buckmaster on a .300 win. and it does great, i doubt the barska could hold zero with that kind of recoil.
 
The biggest question is what are you going to be doing with it? I would say if you are just plinking or varmint hunting it would probably work for you. I have a big problem putting a scope on a gun when the scope costs more then the gun. My own little personal hangup.
 
I hate scopes that require batteries...just something else to go wrong. When it ends up sitting up for a year or three eventually and the batteries corrode, what then? Rifles, no matter how much we love them, tend to eventually sit idle for long periods. If you do go this route, make a habit of taking the batteries out when you are through with it.
 
As far as what I am going to be doing with it goes, I am just going to be range shooting. I am purchasing a Savage AXIS .308 rifle and I assume that the scope on it sucks ass just like the one on my Remington 770 7mm did. Of course I won't really know until I have actually taken out enough. I am not looking for anything crazy. I just want a decently priced scope that would look cool on my rifle and as well do the job i need it to do. Which is work!
 
Like someone said above; you get what you pay for. Anything less than $300 is probably going to be little more than garbage.

I know what it's like to be on a budget. The minimum I'd put on any of my rifles would be a Super Sniper from SWFA.com. Lousy name, great scope. Take a look at those, and it'll save you the money that you'd throw at a Barska and then have to replace.
 
I've got a Barska IIRC 6.5-20X50 AO with target dot reticle that sits on my H&R Ultra Varmint in .223. Kills small varmint’s just fine out to about 300 yards. Tried running the knobs on it to reach further but it doesn't have repeatable adjustments. So now I just leave it zeroed for MPBR and practice Kentucky windage. Plus the image is fuzzy on any power above 14 or 15X.

I paid like $50 for the scope six years ago when the cheap BSA 6-24X50 AO broke that I got almost 10 years of service from. This rifle gets beat up and rides a lot in the front seat or behind it in our ranch pickup. It has maintained zero for all this time, so I have no complaints as it isn’t a serious hunting or shooting rifle. I don’t hunt anything larger than vermin with it so I will not miss that shot of a lifetime by having a cheap scope on my rifle.
 
Bird dog, I have several scopes at or just below 300.00 that are not garbage. Have you looked at the new Redfield Revolution scopes that are between two and three hundred dollars and work well. I have a leupold 3x9, I do not remember the model but it has been a very good scope for over six years now and it was only 199.00, if I am remembering correctly. In addition, I have a Zeiss 3x9 conquest which has also been a good scope, but not any better than those mentioned previously, and it was 399.99. I have no experience with Barska, simmons or Tasco scopes, but the only Bushnell I have ever had was blurry and would not hold zero.
 
I tested 2 Barska varmint scopes. One a 6-24X with 46mm objective and the other 6-24 with 50mm objective. The test gun was an older all weather Ruger M77 in 300 Win Mag.
These scopes never lost their zero and I never had issues with adjustments. They both came with scope covers.
What I did notice was in low light conditions, the image was much darker at 18x or above with the 46mm objective. The 50mm experienced the same problem at 20X.
In bright light conditions, the scopes were acceptable.
When, I obtained these scopes, I never heard of Barska before and at the time, I had no idea they were low budget scopes.
IMHO, I had no problems with these scopes and I am sure they will find a place the low budget niche of the shooting spectrum.
 
I had a Barska Tactical 3-9x40 on my AK, then on my son's .243. While I've had no issues with the scope holding zero or it's adjustments, the light and clarity (quality) was really poor-to-average. For $99, SWFA or Academy Sports may still have the Nikon Pro Staff still in stock, which I now own three of- for a good reason.

-7-
 
It might be decent but you get what you pay for. In that range, I'd spend a bit more and good with a Bushnell Banner series or even a Nikon Prostaff.
 
I have three Barska scopes on a .22, 7.62x54r, and a 45-70. All of these scopes have performed beautifully. Even on the monstrous recoil of the 45-70 Barska scopes hold their own with scopes costing much much more(Nikon,Leapold,ect). You simply have to buy the scope that is right for your gun and your situation. The scope you showed really should not be on anything bigger that a .270cal.
 
I too subscribe to the thought that the scope shouldn't cost as much as a rifle as long as it holds zero and fits your intended purpose.

Some features are more desirable than others, but, they don't warrant the additional cost, IMO

the exception would be like a competition shooter or something
 
If I were you Id get a BSA or a prostaff if you dont want to spend too much. I have a BSA on my .308 and had it on my 30-06 Ive had it for around 4 years and once sighted in I havent had to rezero it. The Nikon prostaff I have had for about 7 months but the whole time Ive had it its been in the back of the truck getting bounched around nonstop and so far it hasnt lost its zero.
 
I went and looked at the scope on the site you added and I have the exact same scope, right down to
“the Green dot exterior windage and elevation adjustments, military standard Mil-Dot reticle which can be turn on from a normal black reticle to a highly visiable green illuminated reticle for low light shooting.”
Same power and diameter. The only difference is that mine has Star written on it.
And I paid 100$ for it when it was normally priced for 147$
I will make you one suggestion.
Take your money and put it in a pile and set fire to it. You will get more return.
I’m not saying that they are the same scope, but they sure look a lot alike including markings and controls.
The one Barska scope that I looked at this winter at a gun show the glass was poor and the fit was worse. When a good scope with the same options normally go for 4 times or much more, it says you’re getting what you pay for.
Just make sure you look through one before you buy one.
 
paid like $50 for the scope six years ago when the cheap BSA 6-24X50 AO broke that I got almost 10 years of service from. This rifle gets beat up and rides a lot in the front seat or behind it in our ranch pickup. It has maintained zero for all this time, so I have no complaints
Click to expand...

I too am of this frame of mind. Even though my inclination is to not use optical enhancers, they do make good carrying handles. Have five or six...ok, maybe ten, with scopes, most of them have cheap ones. The "cheap" ones have never let me down, beat 'em up, drop them out of trees, you name I've done it, they still hit what I was aiming for. Listened to the nose in the air snots on forums about getting what you paid for, so I bought a $3000 scope. The gun accidentally fell over when leaning against a tree, the scope was junk! Replaced it with a Bushnell Banner for a $100, works like a charm, even kicked it over at the same tree to see what would happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top