scope question
- Thread starter peter223
- Start date
madcratebuilder
New member
Most low cost scopes can do 100 meters with ease. When you start shooting at longer ranges and changing your windage and elevation is when you well see the difference and it's a very significant difference.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
I've never used anything "better" than the Leupold Vari-X II, 3x9x40. Through the decadess I've managed a serious and reliable number of sub-MOA groups.
If the shooting is only at one fixed distance, repeatability of the adjustments of the scope is irrelevant since there's no need to change and then move back to the original setting. "Don't buy what you don't use."
If the shooting is only at one fixed distance, repeatability of the adjustments of the scope is irrelevant since there's no need to change and then move back to the original setting. "Don't buy what you don't use."
There is a difference between cheap scopes and high end scopes. The image you see on the high end scope will be clearer and sharper, especially in low light. The better scope will likely be more waterproof and last much longer.
That said nobody really NEEDS a $2000 scope. There are many scopes in the $200-$400 range that I'd be perfectly happy with. Once you drop below the $200 mark there aren't many I'd recommend.
Generally speaking as price goes up so does quality, but in smaller and smaller increments. There is a huge difference between a $100 scope and a $200 scope. The difference between a $300 scope and a $500 scope is barely noticeable to most people and you would have to really look hard to see the difference between anything over $500 in my experience.
I have one high end scope, a Zeiss Divari that sold for a little over $1,000 new. I bought it used for less than half that. It is a great scope, but is only slightly better than a $400 Leupold VX-3. I wouldn't have spent the money for a new one, and like Art I could be quite content with anything in Leupold's VX-2 lineup.
That said nobody really NEEDS a $2000 scope. There are many scopes in the $200-$400 range that I'd be perfectly happy with. Once you drop below the $200 mark there aren't many I'd recommend.
Generally speaking as price goes up so does quality, but in smaller and smaller increments. There is a huge difference between a $100 scope and a $200 scope. The difference between a $300 scope and a $500 scope is barely noticeable to most people and you would have to really look hard to see the difference between anything over $500 in my experience.
I have one high end scope, a Zeiss Divari that sold for a little over $1,000 new. I bought it used for less than half that. It is a great scope, but is only slightly better than a $400 Leupold VX-3. I wouldn't have spent the money for a new one, and like Art I could be quite content with anything in Leupold's VX-2 lineup.
mapsjanhere
New member
If all you're doing is shooting at brightly lit paper targets at fixed distances, it doesn't matter. If there's 5 min of legal shooting time left and I've just spotted a 300+ point elk in deep shadow, I sure hope I have my Zeiss 8x56 and not 3-9x40 value brand in the rifle.
For pure target shooting you're going to notice the difference at longer distances. Aiming at 600 yards on a 100 F day the difference between a Nightforce and a Leupold I becomes rather obvious.
For pure target shooting you're going to notice the difference at longer distances. Aiming at 600 yards on a 100 F day the difference between a Nightforce and a Leupold I becomes rather obvious.
All of my guns have Leupold, and I just bought a Zeiss 3-9 for my 30-06. Yes, I'm spoiled 
All are excellent scopes. I have shot cheaper scopes, but it seems that I have trouble focusing with cheaper ones.
The reason I just bought the Zeiss, is because it has so much eye relief, which helps me shoot higher grain loads, because of my wearing glasses.
All are excellent scopes. I have shot cheaper scopes, but it seems that I have trouble focusing with cheaper ones.
The reason I just bought the Zeiss, is because it has so much eye relief, which helps me shoot higher grain loads, because of my wearing glasses.
Rifleman1776
New member
A $2000.00 scope smashes up just as easily as a $100.00 scope if dropped on the rocks.
I had a rifle fall when a sling swivle broke. Can happen anytime.
BTW, I won matches, getting sub-.75" groups using a $3.00 garage sale scope. It was probably a $100.00 job when new. Still use for hunting, just fine.
I had a rifle fall when a sling swivle broke. Can happen anytime.
BTW, I won matches, getting sub-.75" groups using a $3.00 garage sale scope. It was probably a $100.00 job when new. Still use for hunting, just fine.
Aside from light gathering ability and clarity, it's about the precision of the reticle/turrets and ability to return to zero.
If you're shooting at 1000 yards, that "1/4 MOA" click needs to be exactly
1/4 MOA.... and if you run the turret 30 clicks from zero, then all the way back, you want to be exactly back to zero. Lower cost scopes lack this mechanical precision, but as noted, it's not always necessary.
Cheaper scopes also sometimes cannot take the beating from high-power centerfires and fail.
There are some scope manufacturers- like Vortex- that offer lifetime warranties even on their low tier scopes. That's a no-brainer in my book.
If you're shooting at 1000 yards, that "1/4 MOA" click needs to be exactly
1/4 MOA.... and if you run the turret 30 clicks from zero, then all the way back, you want to be exactly back to zero. Lower cost scopes lack this mechanical precision, but as noted, it's not always necessary.
Cheaper scopes also sometimes cannot take the beating from high-power centerfires and fail.
There are some scope manufacturers- like Vortex- that offer lifetime warranties even on their low tier scopes. That's a no-brainer in my book.