spend as much on a scope as the rifle?

If I may piggy back on what Bart just said

Think of your scope as being similar (in some ways) to a receiver peep sight.

Your "spot weld" and centered eye have a lot to do with how they perform.

Some scopes have a very forgiving optical window. The field is easy to find. Thats a lot like a ghost ring aperture. Fast and friendly,but maybe less precise.

A tiny aperture demands your eye to center,or you cannot see through it.

Ditto the scopes window.

Thats one good reason a scope selection should be in balance with the overall rifle.

A conventional sporting rifle with a moderate comb height may not allow the face to find a consistant spot weld on the stock to work with a high mounted 56 mm obj scope.

One of my criteria is,when I shoulder a rifle in shooting position with my eyes closed, I MUST see the full field scope window when I open my eyes.

If that does not happen,either the comb must be adjusted or the scope repositioned. That MIGHT require abandoning the 50 + MM obj for a 40 mm obj. that can use lower rings.
And that might require (IMO) a max power of 9 or 10 X to get a decent size exit pupil.(Ball park rule of thumb,dayligh eye pupil is about 5mm ,max,and a 8x by 40 mm will deliver that. A 10x by 40mm is slightly compromised..

A 20x by 40 mm has a 2mm exit pupil. That restricts light.

Back to the OP.its been a few years back,but my M-70 Classic Laredo 7mm Rem Mag(Winchester's version of the Sendero) was about $600 closeout. I found an online deal for a Leupold 30 mm tube long range,target turrets,side focus,mildot, 50mm obj for IIRC about $800.Mounted in Nightforce 20 minute rings.It fits me fine,and IMO,its a balance pkg for my purposes.

Lifting my face and turkey necking around trying to find a scope window is just unacceptable. The magnification is not worth it. IMO.Its slow,awkward,and pretty tough to shoot well.
 
Last edited:
My 10/22 cost $200 and my used 4x Simmons scope was $24 on EBay. By forgoing a zoom feature I don’t need, a huge amount of optical complexity and moving parts are eliminated. For shooting bunnies, squirrels and pine cones from my “bad weather” .22, it’s perfect for me.

I have a fixed 6x Burris on my 30-06. I consider it a rugged “bottom of the top tier” scope. Again, fixed power makes it a relatively simple design less expensive than a zoom scope.

Hunting grounds are 30 minutes from my house. If we are talking about a western mountain hunt where scope failure meant retiring the trip, I might feel differently.

Price is not an absolute indicator of quality.

I agree that low quality scopes are a waste of money.
 
Generally speaking my not so good eyes can't tell any difference from a $800 Sightron vs. a $2300 Steiner . However my eyes can differentiate turret click consistency from a $800 Sightron vs a $2300 Nightforce . Glass is glass for the typical short range recreational shooter, the long range competition guys lean towards high end optics that produce the highest level of repeatable tracking precision.
 
Heard an old adage years back. Something to the effect that you should spend as much on your scope as on the rifle.
Click to expand...

I have heard similar. I have a feeling it has a history in optics sales, sort of like deBeers suggesting you spend 2 months salary on an engagement ring. It is an arbitrary marketing thing. I don't think here has every been a relationship between scope cost and capability that corresponded in any sort of direct manner with rifle cost and capability.

They was I see it, there is no relationship between the cost of the rifle and the cost of the scope. I buy the scope based on what I need it to do, not how much the rifle costs.

As I get older, I have found that I need better optics to get the same job done that I did with cheaper optics years ago. In many cases, my optics cost a lot more than my rifles.

A similar adage I often here is to not shoot cheap ammo in an expensive gun. Again, nobody has ever shown there to be any sort of relationship issue - just another way to get you to spend more money than you may need to spend.

The bottom line is that you should spend as much or as little money as you need on the optics to get the job done that you want done with the rifle.
 
Bart B. said:
Please explain why they cannot focus exactly at target range.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with focus, but I'd argue people buying cheap optics aren't shooting 200yds or more so it's not much of an issue. My cheap Amazon scopes work just as well as my Nikons at 50-100yds.

If you're unsure about parallax, there is plenty of info online.
 
Nathan said:
Interesting. I wish they were marketed better. Show me why I can’t hit something with your competitors inferior product. They never do. They never explain why one scope is $3k and another $300.

I actually think you could make quite a bit of money selling a x brand 3-9x extreme made to high spec for a year, then keep the name and cut quality drastically....with no change to price! People just don’t know.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much what Vortex has done.
They made high quality lower end scopes for the first few years, then their quality seemed to really take a hit.
Scope series that once were great buy's for the money, are now total crap. Their failure rate since they first came out is very high.
 
Heard an old adage years back. Something to the effect that you should spend as much on your scope as on the rifle.
Click to expand...
True that.

Most rifles will shoot well enough out of the box, and even more will shoot great (i.e., MOA to sub-MOA) with just a bit of basic "tweaking," such as bedding the action, channeling the barrel in the stock, and a decent trigger job.

Scopes are different, being made to hit a certain price-point in the "optics consumer market," which means they will vary drastically in quality.

Having spent good money on a decent rifle, that's where guys start to go cheap when looking for a "budget" scope. Worse, they tend to go even cheaper on mounts and rings, usually settling on buying thin, flimsy Chi-Com junk with soft metal out-of-spec screws that never stay tight and often snap when torqued. :rolleyes:
 
eflyguy said:
It has nothing to do with focus, but I'd argue people buying cheap optics aren't shooting 200yds or more so it's not much of an issue. My cheap Amazon scopes work just as well as my Nikons at 50-100yds.

If you're unsure about parallax, there is plenty of info online.
Click to expand...
Please read post 7 in

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=609289&highlight=scope+patent

The link to a scope patent may help you learn why focusing the scope at target range eliminates parallax errors.

I've used cheap Weaver T20 and T16 scopes winning 1000 yard matches and shooting half MOA 20 shot test groups that far away.
 
Last edited:
Bart B. said:
Please explain why they cannot focus exactly at target range.
Click to expand...
Because they lack parallax adjustment, or the ability to focus at the target range. Some of the cheap scopes can never be brought into correction. Surely you understand that.
 
MarkCO said:
Because they lack parallax adjustment, or the ability to focus at the target range. Some of the cheap scopes can never be brought into correction. Surely you understand that.
Click to expand...
I've adjusted the objective lens on several cheap fixed power scopes so they're focused and parallax free at 100 or 50 yards. Same way as the factory does with all scopes moving the objective lens back and forth.

Made a spanner wrench to remove the lens lock ring and lens then adjust the stop ring so the lens would correctly focus target on the reticle.
 
Last edited:
It was true long ago. Not as many low end scope makers around now. Some stuff that was higher end long ago has suffered from MBAs wrecking the QC dept. too.
There are a lot of grossly over priced names around now. High prices do not always mean high quality. Lotta shops will put stuff on sale too.
In any case, the sights you use really need to be according to what you're doing with the rifle. High magnification is rarely required for a deer rifle. Might be for a target or varmint rifle.
 
^Agree totally.

Bart, that will work for 1000 yard Benchrest, totally impractical for the majority of shooters and conditions. If an optic does not have adjustable parallax, one can pretty much guarantee it won't be useful for shooting long range under field conditions. Inside 400 yards on deer, sure, won't matter enough to even think about it. Shooting 6" plates at 600, 2" plates at 200 and 12" plates at 1000 with a 3 or 4 minute time allowance...not going to even be close.
 
This never made sense, from a purely logical standpoint.

Why is it, exactly, that a $500 scope on a $500 gun is perfectly sufficient.... but that same $500 scope on a $700 gun is not?

I have learned more and more over the years to appreciate good glass, perhaps more from failing eyes than any direct fault of the "cheap" scopes.

I am currently building an AR-15 that is going to end up in the $1,400 range... I promise you it WILL NOT be wearing a $1,400 scope. In fact, it will either be a Sig BDX Sierra 3 ($550 with the range finder) or a Minox ZA5 5-20x, for which I paid exactly $489.93 delivered.

A lot of times I think you'd be better off with a $700 scope and a $300 gun, but that's another discussion.
 
Anyone besides me notice the term "adjustable parallax" was never used until the range focus knob showed up on the scope's left side?

All the scope's technical documents refer to the focus knob on its left side.
 
Last edited:
I don't care if they call it the assault rifle clip range adjuster. Irrelevant what they call it. Less wrap around the axle results in more fun. :)
 
Folks, it really depends on what you're gonna do with the rifle. It is sorta true that your rifle is no better than the scope you put on it but for most of us the scope does not have to cost as much as the rifle. I'm totally happy with my Leupold scopes. Couple VX1s and a VX2 and an old Vari-X 2. The VX2 cost as much as the rifle, 400.00 plus. It's a .22 cause I want to shoot little bitty things with it. For a deer rifle or squirrel rifle the VX1 is totally suitable for me, I ain't shooting over 400 yards and they are good, clear scopes. For me brightness and clarity are the most important things, I've not had a scope that wouldn't hold zero, even the 15.00 .22 scopes worked, just couldn't see thru them very well. I also have an old Burris Compact that's a good hunting scope.
My longest shot on a deer is 400 yds, almost dark with a 4X Leupold, Died in his tracks. I use binos to check him out, couldn't see his antlers with the 4X.
Now days if I had to use a fixed power I'd get a 6X.
 
pete2 said:
Folks, it really depends on what you're gonna do with the rifle. It is sorta true that your rifle is no better than the scope you put on it but for most of us the scope does not have to cost as much as the rifle.
Click to expand...
Rifles with metallic sights will shoot as accurate as those with scopes.
 
To the OP’s actual question on $scope / $rifle ratio:

It depends on what you want, but in general the optics costs the gun and intended use.
If you want to shoot 2-legged intruders across a room at 3 yards (> 100 MOA desired impact area), no scope / iron sights can yield excellent and precise results.
As the target moves further away the MOA of the desired impact area decreases. At some point in distance iron sights become substantially less effective compared to a low power fixed scope. At greater ranges of distances (many hundreds of yards) variable scopes at higher powers ***THAT TRACK PRECISELY*** are important.
All these features cost $$$ in precision optics.
So a 100 yard shooting event may even the table for many, shooting at 200-1700 yards at unevenly spaced targets requires Uber clear optics, precise tracking and all the other parameters.
Hope that helps. I have a Barrett .50 with a (new at the time) $3.5k scope.
I also have a $9k Tracking Point 6.5 CM where 75% of the Rem700 based platform cost is the scope.
So it depends.
 
The NRA 1000-yard prone records for both scope and metallic sights are 19 out of 20 shots inside 10 inches, 200-19X.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top