Has a cheap scope ever cost you an animal?

[christcorp]

Most people here seem to know the truths. The first BMW I bought, had issues within 200 miles of owning it. I had to take it back 4 times. Finally, I got my money back. Do I think all BMW suck because i had one? No; that would be stupid.

As mentioned by many, it depends on what you are going to do with the weapon/scope. If you're in combat, you probably want something a little sturdier and can handle more stress. Guess what? I'm no longer in the military. If you have a scope on a truck gun, and throw the rifle around a lot, then you probably need a sturdier scope. Guess what? I don't intentionally abuse my weapons. If you transport your weapons often, then you probably want a sturdier scope. Well; I don't transport my weapons often; but the 2 times I did for hunting trips, I removed the scope from the rifle. I put it back on when I got there, and did a quick resighting. "Leaving the scope on the rings when I removed it from the rifle, actually kept it really close when I put the scope back on. Only took 5 shots to be back on at 200 yards".

For the average paper puncher and hunter, there are plenty of quality sub $150 scopes out there. Most people have no need or reason to be spending $500 on a scope for their rifle. That's simple rationalization. But it's their money, they can spend whatever they want. A Zeiss or a Tasco will both get screwed up if you drop the rifle and the scope hits hard. And I've NEVER had ANY scope fog up.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I have never had a (cheap) scope fail.
I have never had an expensive scope fail.
But, I have never had an expensive scope.
I shot competitively for years with my 30-06 fitted with an ancient $3.00 garage sale scope. Consistently made sub-.75" five shot groups. Would a $1,000.00 scope have done better?
I have had an Aimpoint fail. Just quit.
I have a theory that an expensive scope will get damaged just as quickly and badly when dropped on the rocks as an inexpensive one.
That happened to me once when a sling swivel broke. It happens. I would rather lose a $100.00 scope than a $1,000.00+ one.
Hurray for Tasco's and other similar.
I doubt anyone could tell the difference just by looking through them without seeing the price tag first.

While I have long sung the praises of low dollar scopes for those on a budget, even I would have to challenge several of those assertions.

The "dropped on rocks"... Some scopes are certainly more rugged than others and may sustain less or no damage. For an extreme example, check out USOptics. I have seen a video where the guy removed the scope and THREW IT down a concrete tunnel before placing it back on the gun... the POI didn't even shift. Besides that, many companies would replace their scopes no questions asked, dropped on rocks or whatever.

On "tell the difference", there is a pretty dramatic difference in clarity and light transmission between many low end and high end scopes. My uncle has a Bushnell Rlite 8-32 on his 22-250 and I had a Tasco 10-40. The Tasco was just as accurate but was also essentially unusable above 30x except in all but the brightest, direct sunlight. The Bushnell also had a "crispness" of image that was like you weren't looking through lenses while the Tasco seemed less "real", colors were muted and the like.

I'm not one to declare that your scope should cost as much as your rifle, or anything under $750 is junk, but there are certainly advantages to high-quality optics from a reputable company.

I am glad for the Tascos of the world though. They served me well for many years when a high-dollar scope would have still been on the shelf at the store and I would have not been hunting.

 

[603Country]

I did miss out on one big whitetail buck, though I didn't actually miss. The Weaver V9 fogged up in the 20ish degree weather, and no matter how desperate I was to find him in the scope, it was not possible to do so. This was about 3 decades ago. Since then I've had a Redfield fail (just 2 decades ago), and a Nikon Monarch (this year). Scopes have failed, but surprisingly none of them were cheap scopes. My BSA's are all on rimfires, and those are the only cheap scopes I have these days, unless you count the Weaver V10 on my Ruger in 260 Remington. It's a nice scope but I keep finding myself making up reasons to replace it. I think my ranch neighbor will buy it and I'll use the money toward a Weaver V16. I want to try something new and to keep it under $300, so I think it'll be either the Weaver V16 or the Burris FFII in 4.5X14. I'm tempted to try the Nikon Buckmaster, but I haven't fully gotten over my recent Nikon problem. And as for truly cheap scopes, shooting holes in paper is Ok, but I'll never trust the happiness of a serious hunt to a $100 scope.

 

[taylorce1]

Recommending a new shooter to shell out 600-1000 on a scope seems a bit irresponsible to me, but thats what happens all the time in threads.

There is nothing wrong or irresponsible with recommending a scope in that price range if the new shooter has the budget to afford it and it fits the application he/she is trying to accomplish for the rifle. If it is hunting I say to budget around $200-250 for optics and mounts. You can pick up a lot of decent 2-7 and 3-9 power scopes in $150 price range, and then some quality rings and bases can add $50+ to the price of the scope. You can't hardly get into long range/tactical style shooting without spending at least $500+ on optics and mounts.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

There is nothing wrong or irresponsible with recommending a scope in that price range if the new shooter has the budget to afford it and it fits the application he/she is trying to accomplish for the rifle. If it is hunting I say to budget around $200-250 for optics and mounts. You can pick up a lot of decent 2-7 and 3-9 power scopes in $150 price range, and then some quality rings and bases can add $50+ to the price of the scope. You can't hardly get into long range/tactical style shooting without spending at least $500+ on optics and mounts.

I agree that there's nothing wrong with making the recommendation. The problem, all too often, is that it's not "You should consider XYZ. It has this feature and great optics and it's really worth the money" but instead "You're a moron if you buy that scope. Everyone knows those things are crap. Save your money and buy XYZ or you'll be sorry!"

 

[Hydrostatic Shock]

I agree with others that you can get a decent scope for around $250 or so. I don't have any over $400 and the ONLY gun I have a crap scope on is my .22 marlin that I hardly ever use.

I think you can't go wrong with any of the lifetime warrantied scopes from a respected manufacturer. If you do have a problem you will have a company to replace or repair it and you aren't out anything but shipping at most.

 

[hunter52]

I bought a couple dozen Tasco scopes to sell back in 1985 they were all the World Class 3x9 and 6x24 ,I did not sell all of them so I put several on my personal rifles, I have a Remington 700 270 and a Rem 700 7mm08 still wearing the 3x9's and a Ruger 77V 22-250 wearing the 6x24,they have all been used and abused (fact I use the 6x24 as a carry handle on the 22- 250),still hold zero and have never fogged,sure they might be a little fuzzy around the edges and the 6x24 a little dark at 24x but I am honest enough that if I miss I don't blame it on the scope. I also own Burris and Weaver scopes ,and yes they are clearer and brighter than the old Tascos,but they don't necessarily mean I shoot any better because of it

 

[timelinex]

To back track, I guess I wasnt talking about the 29.99 dollar scopes at walmart. I had one of those and it wouldn't hold zero, so I returned it. But actually I never confirmed if it wouldn't hold zero or it was my fault with scope walk, so I can't put the blame on it for sure.

Anyways, I was referring more towards 100-200 dollar scopes.

I think you can't go wrong with any of the lifetime warrantied scopes from a respected manufacturer. If you do have a problem you will have a company to replace or repair it and you aren't out anything but shipping at most.

EXACTLY! My bsa has a lifetime warranty. I don't know how strict they are with it or not, but if its their defect I would expect them to take care of it.

I agree that there's nothing wrong with making the recommendation. The problem, all too often, is that it's not "You should consider XYZ. It has this feature and great optics and it's really worth the money" but instead "You're a moron if you buy that scope. Everyone knows those things are crap. Save your money and buy XYZ or you'll be sorry!"

Thats more what I was reffering to as well. If I tell you my budget is 8 grand and Im a new shooter, obviously there is nothing wrong with recommending to me everything top of the line. But 95% of the time it starts off with them saying they are on a budget.

 

[taylorce1]

EXACTLY! My bsa has a lifetime warranty. I don't know how strict they are with it or not, but if its their defect I would expect them to take care of it.

That is the problem with warranties like the one you just stated. I'll bet the burden of proof is on you that it was a defect in the scope and something you did to it. It would be pretty easy for them to say "not our fault". I'm a Leupold slut so all I can say is regardless of how the scope failed, my fault or their defect they will repair or replace it on their "Gold Ring" optics at no charge other than my shipping cost one way. Other companies out there now offer similar warranties, but the ones that only warranty manufacturer defects are ones I avoid.

I'm even a little put off by Bushnell's Elite series 1 year bullet proof warranty they offer on there scopes. IIRC Lloyd Smale couldn't get them to warranty a scope that was possibly damaged by the shipper. That warranty doesn't sound very bullet proof to me.

timelinex, I hope your BSA works out for you. However, I had a 6-24X40 BSA on a .223 varmint rifle for a few years. It got knocked over one day out shooting prairie dogs, not a hard fall but it did land on the windage turret. It never would hold zero after that, until that happened it had been an ok scope. Magnification really wasn't useable over 14X but it got the job done. That said I wouldn't buy another BSA scope again.

 

[timelinex]

That is the problem with warranties like the one you just stated. I'll bet the burden of proof is on you that it was a defect in the scope and something you did to it. It would be pretty easy for them to say "not our fault". I'm a Leupold slut so all I can say is regardless of how the scope failed, my fault or their defect they will repair or replace it on their "Gold Ring" optics at no charge other than my shipping cost one way. Other companies out there now offer similar warranties, but the ones that only warranty manufacturer defects are ones I avoid.

I'm even a little put off by Bushnell's Elite series 1 year bullet proof warranty they offer on there scopes. IIRC Lloyd Smale couldn't get them to warranty a scope that was possibly damaged by the shipper. That warranty doesn't sound very bullet proof to me.

timelinex, I hope your BSA works out for you. However, I had a 6-24X40 BSA on a .223 varmint rifle for a few years. It got knocked over one day out shooting prairie dogs, not a hard fall but it did land on the windage turret. It never would hold zero after that, until that happened it had been an ok scope. Magnification really wasn't useable over 14X but it got the job done. That said I wouldn't buy another BSA scope again.

I agree its not the best warranty, but the other side of it is its 3-4 times cheaper than the expensive scopes that have the same features. So I can just buy a new one and still be ahead.

Thanks though, I hope it stays in tact too. My next scope will be a 400-500 dollar one(probably a vortex, warranty is as good as leupolds). Now that I've been shooting for a little and know I want to stick with it, I agree that a good scope is a big plus. Even with the simple advantages of never having to worry about anything since its warrantied and the fact that resale value holds so well, that you barely lose much money if you needed to sell it. I've been waiting for a good deal on a vortex viper, or even better a lightly used vortex viper. That one the original owner took the 'used vs new' depreciation hit and Ill be using it almost for free! (Can't stop the business mind from leaking into personal life haha)

 

[Rob3]

I have found that there is a big quality gap between a $50 scope and a $150 scope. I have also found there is a much smaller gap between a $150 scope and an $800 scope.

All of my hunting rifles have iron sights and scope mounts that can be detached with a Leatherman tool. If a scope fails the hunt is not over. I have often removed scopes if I find my shooting lanes are less than 100 yards, which is often the case in NC.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I have found that there is a big quality gap between a $50 scope and a $150 scope. I have also found there is a much smaller gap between a $150 scope and an $800 scope.

I agree with this. Even less of a gap between the $150 and the ~$450 range where so many seem to believe that quality "starts".

 

[mdd]

Nevermind. Not worth it.

 

[tmas]

Even less of a gap between the $150 and the ~$450 range where so many seem to believe that quality "starts".

A good buddy of mine was coyote hunting on christmas eve 3 years ago just north of Clayton, Idaho. After calling didin't pay off he was driving along a rail road dike and driving up onto the dike to peek over every half mile or so and shoot at dogs if they saw some. He got stuck on top...long story short, less than 2 minutes later he watched his 1993 toyota pickup get tossed into the air and complete several flips...by a train. His 18 year old leupold scope of his dads was on his .220 swift. Toast. If i remember right he said if you looked into the scope you couldn't see out of it 100% true to the last word.

Sent it in, WITH THE STORY, leupold notified him that that model was no longer made, and gave him a choice of 4 he could pick from brand new.

THATS on reason why i choose to pay an extra couple bucks for my leups or vortex scopes....maybe you could get that kind of service with a good quality $100 scope, but I tried with what i believed to be a factory defect and bushnell wouldn't.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Well, maybe, but if your $150 scope gets destroyed and they won't replace it and you have to buy another $150 scope... You're still $150 ahead of the $450 and you're not real likely to get hit by a train twice.

Besides, most of us would spend "a couple extra dollars"... We're not talking "a couple". We're talking double, triple the price or more... money that could be a weeks pay or more for a lot of guys.

I mean, sure, you COULD buy a $150,000 house but do you realize how much MORE you get for $450,000? Don't much matter if you don't have the money, eh?

 

[fatwhiteboy]

My son and I have had Buckmasters on our Model 70's. Mine is in .270Win, his is a .300 Winmag. They have been on the rifles for 6 years with no problems. He took a 250 pound hog at 300 yards last month. I put a Weaver K4 on my Rem 700 in .308 last Summer. I haven't put enough rounds through it to test its durability but I am happy with it so far. My .22-250 has a Leupold VXII that has also been excellent...

 

[Deja vu]

I have to say yes but the reason is not here. I Went out hunting and saw a deer about 200 yards away and pulled up the gun and the I could no focus on any thing. It turns out that some where during the long walk the front lens poped out of place and was in the scope semi sideways.

 

[tmas]

Sure, i'm not saying that a $150 scope isn't less money than a $450, i can do simple math...and comparing it to a home isn't realistic either. But i'm not going to sit and argue it won't make any difference to me what scope the next guy uses.
I'd have to save up for a while to buy a new $150 if my old one broke anyway, i'm just the kinda guy who would rather save up for a clearer, crisper, nicer, more accurate scope the first time and be done with it!

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Sure, i'm not saying that a $150 scope isn't less money than a $450, i can do simple math...and comparing it to a home isn't realistic either. But i'm not going to sit and argue it won't make any difference to me what scope the next guy uses.
I'd have to save up for a while to buy a new $150 if my old one broke anyway, i'm just the kinda guy who would rather save up for a clearer, crisper, nicer, more accurate scope the first time and be done with it!

So, while you're saving you... Do what? Don't hunt? Some guns don't have sights afterall.

And the point of the house analogy is that there are always people who have more money than you who don't understand how you can be foolish enough to spend less money on something than they do. It doesn't matter if it's a rifle scope, a car or a house. There's always "something" you can get for "just" double or triple the price that's an absolute "must have". Except, when you don't HAVE the money, you realize that they're NOT "must have".

It's pretty silly, I think, to suggest that a guy who can't afford a $450 scope should not hunt for 2 or 3 years while he saves money... and even $450 isn't expensive enough to be "good" for a lot of people.

 

[603Country]

It has been my experience that they are all good scopes until they break. I bought the best I could afford, until I could afford better. My 6x24 Tasco did just fine for maybe 10 years, but isn't in the same quality galaxy as the 6.5x20 VX3 Leupold that's on the gun now. Quality costs money, no matter what it is you're spending the money on - cars, houses, medical attention, scopes, or the two 'oldest' professions (lawyers and uhhh...that other one). There's just no way around it.