super expensive scopes, are they worth it?
- Thread starter TheBear
- Start date
Double Naught Spy
New member
It isn't a simple yes-no question. They are worth it if you need a high quality glass. They are worth it if you enjoy looking through your scope or need to look through your scope for extended periods of time. Most folks probably don't shoot exceptionally long range or care too much about the difference in a function scope sight picture and a beautiful scope sight picture. I have a $1200 Leupold scope that still manages to impress me every time I use it, especially if I get a chance to look through a cheap scope during the same trip.
I also have a $300 Super Sniper scope that is functionally a great scope that I have used on several guns and shot well out to 1000 yards, but there is a marked difference in the quality of the image. Both are well built scopes, but the glass in the Leupold is superb compared to the SS.
It is easier to properly identify targets when looking for a specific target when the glass is better. Or, it is easier to place a shot more precisely on a busy patterned target when the glass is really good.
If you are hunting deer at 25-150 yards, you probably don't 'need' a scope that costs you a grand and can get by with a $100-200 scoope just fine. There is nothing wrong with that. However, if you are trying to count points at 300 yards, you might want the better scope.
As ever, each of the high end brands make some scopes that may not be fully amazing. It is best to do as much side-by-side comparison as you can when buying to find out which really looks best to you.
I also have a $300 Super Sniper scope that is functionally a great scope that I have used on several guns and shot well out to 1000 yards, but there is a marked difference in the quality of the image. Both are well built scopes, but the glass in the Leupold is superb compared to the SS.
It is easier to properly identify targets when looking for a specific target when the glass is better. Or, it is easier to place a shot more precisely on a busy patterned target when the glass is really good.
If you are hunting deer at 25-150 yards, you probably don't 'need' a scope that costs you a grand and can get by with a $100-200 scoope just fine. There is nothing wrong with that. However, if you are trying to count points at 300 yards, you might want the better scope.
As ever, each of the high end brands make some scopes that may not be fully amazing. It is best to do as much side-by-side comparison as you can when buying to find out which really looks best to you.
jaguarxk120
New member
It did, years ago when I bought my Remington 22-250 Model 700 Varment rifle the Leupold scope cost more than the rifle.
Was it worth it you betcha it was. When your shooing at PD's at 400 yards+ you want every advantage there is
Was it worth it you betcha it was. When your shooing at PD's at 400 yards+ you want every advantage there is
Depends on your needs. Also you're lumping together some $200 scopes with $2000 scopes and calling all of them super expensive. Not sure of your definition of super expensive.
Here is my take. I cannot think of a single sub-$200 scope that is a good value. There are a few that are acceptable, but there are options costing only a little more that are significanlty better and I think it foolish to spend $150-$175 when only a few dollars more gets you a significantly better scope. At this price range $50 makes a huge difference.
The most scope for the money falls into the $300-$500 price range. Less expensive scopes may get the job done, but once you get up to the $300 range you get much clearer, sharper glass. Images that are in focus all the way to the edge, not just in the middle of the image. Better eye relief. Precise adjustments. Many cheaper scopes may move the POI in unreliable incements making zeroing the scope difficult. Better weatherproofness, more durability, especially on heavy recoiling rifles. And much better light transmission in low light.
As you go up in price the quality comes in smaller and smaller increments. If you need it, it is worth it. For my needs a $300-$400 scope will do everything I need a scope to do. I'd be perfecty happy with my $330 Leupold VX-2. But there are others who need, or want more performance. I have more expensive VX-3's and a couple of Zeiss scopes. Yes they are better, but not enough for me to spend the extra. Wouldn't do it again.
I have heard scope building compared to race car building. A mechanic can put together a 180 mph car for only few thousand dollars. To get one that will run over 200 mph might cost close to a million That last 20mph is extremely expensive. Same with scopes.
Here is my take. I cannot think of a single sub-$200 scope that is a good value. There are a few that are acceptable, but there are options costing only a little more that are significanlty better and I think it foolish to spend $150-$175 when only a few dollars more gets you a significantly better scope. At this price range $50 makes a huge difference.
The most scope for the money falls into the $300-$500 price range. Less expensive scopes may get the job done, but once you get up to the $300 range you get much clearer, sharper glass. Images that are in focus all the way to the edge, not just in the middle of the image. Better eye relief. Precise adjustments. Many cheaper scopes may move the POI in unreliable incements making zeroing the scope difficult. Better weatherproofness, more durability, especially on heavy recoiling rifles. And much better light transmission in low light.
As you go up in price the quality comes in smaller and smaller increments. If you need it, it is worth it. For my needs a $300-$400 scope will do everything I need a scope to do. I'd be perfecty happy with my $330 Leupold VX-2. But there are others who need, or want more performance. I have more expensive VX-3's and a couple of Zeiss scopes. Yes they are better, but not enough for me to spend the extra. Wouldn't do it again.
I have heard scope building compared to race car building. A mechanic can put together a 180 mph car for only few thousand dollars. To get one that will run over 200 mph might cost close to a million That last 20mph is extremely expensive. Same with scopes.
riggins_83
New member
Too vague a survey to really give any constructive feedback. For example the least expensive Swarovski from Midway is $750, least expensive Leupold is $183. Big difference! If your're comparing the higher end of Swarovski or Leupold to low end scopes then there's a big difference in clarity, light throughput and often eye relief. I think scopes, like so many things can often be graded on a curve. The difference between a $60 Simmons and a $150 Redfield is quite noticeable in clarity, eye relief and light gathering in low light. I will never again use Barska, BSA, Tasco or Simmons. At the same time I'm not likely to spend 10x the cost of Simmons ($600) on a scope.
Most scopes I have are around $300-350 such as the Leupold VX-II, Nikon Monarch. I have a couple $150 Redfields which work quite well and are great for the money; that being said to me the difference with the Monarch is huge. Eye relief is better, range of eye relief and low light clarity.
Most scopes I have are around $300-350 such as the Leupold VX-II, Nikon Monarch. I have a couple $150 Redfields which work quite well and are great for the money; that being said to me the difference with the Monarch is huge. Eye relief is better, range of eye relief and low light clarity.
As I wrote on a similar thread recently:
In my opinion a hunter should spend what he/she is willing to spend on a scope while realizing higher prices get higher quality optics. And has been noted, higher quality tends to offset the perceived need/desire for higher magnification. In my case, that means Leupold VX-III 2.5 X 8 scopes on my .270 Win, 7mm Rem Mag, and .300 Win Mag are fine for shots to 400 yards and somewhat longer.
In my opinion a hunter should spend what he/she is willing to spend on a scope while realizing higher prices get higher quality optics. And has been noted, higher quality tends to offset the perceived need/desire for higher magnification. In my case, that means Leupold VX-III 2.5 X 8 scopes on my .270 Win, 7mm Rem Mag, and .300 Win Mag are fine for shots to 400 yards and somewhat longer.
This old hillbilly in the mountains sees it a little differently. I consider my rifles and scopes more as tools than expensive toys. I see no reason to buy a tool more expensive than one that will do the job properly. Groundhogs, squirrels, coyotes, skunks and other pests drop dead just as well with my Marlin 60 or Marlin 25 magnum with a Barska scope(on both). I don't have high powered rifles because of the rough terrain and undergrowth. 00 buckshot in a shotgun works well for deer.
No argument from me....regarding quality glass. Depending on the use, it tends to be worth the investment. However, one thing to keep in mind. Like other products in this day and age, much depends on marketing. Some expensive scopes are not quite what they seem. Not necessarily junk masquerading as diamonds....I don't mean that. I just mean that everyone should take the various claims made by scope manufacturers with a grain of salt.
An excellent example of this are the Leupold scopes. Leupold, FYI, does NOT manufacture their own glass. They also don't make many other parts that go into their scopes. The glass they get from NIKON - (the Nikkor division, which makes all of Nikon's glass). So, a Leupold scope, despite their extravagant claims, has no better glass in it than a Nikon Monarch. It's the SAME glass.
My only point to make is - don't take everything at face value. Look carefully at the scope/ brand you are considering. Consider all aspects, the clarity, the solidness of construction, the warranty, etc. It is best to ignore most of the advertising hype.
An excellent example of this are the Leupold scopes. Leupold, FYI, does NOT manufacture their own glass. They also don't make many other parts that go into their scopes. The glass they get from NIKON - (the Nikkor division, which makes all of Nikon's glass). So, a Leupold scope, despite their extravagant claims, has no better glass in it than a Nikon Monarch. It's the SAME glass.
My only point to make is - don't take everything at face value. Look carefully at the scope/ brand you are considering. Consider all aspects, the clarity, the solidness of construction, the warranty, etc. It is best to ignore most of the advertising hype.
Not for me, and not for the majority of people out there: the difference between a $1,500 scope and a $500 scope can not be appreciated by someone that spends less than $1000 on ammo for that gun in a year.
I'll go further out on that limb: the difference in accuracy between a $1.5K scope and a $35 used Deerfield won't put your average one-boxer on target on a milk jug at 300 yards from a sitting position ..... "it's the man, not the machine". Without a bipod/sandbags and a bench, most of the guys that talk the "Spend more on your glass than your gun" stuff, can't hit an 8x10 target past 300.
"Spend more on glass than the gun"? How 'bout spend more on gun fodder than both of 'em together?
I'll go further out on that limb: the difference in accuracy between a $1.5K scope and a $35 used Deerfield won't put your average one-boxer on target on a milk jug at 300 yards from a sitting position ..... "it's the man, not the machine". Without a bipod/sandbags and a bench, most of the guys that talk the "Spend more on your glass than your gun" stuff, can't hit an 8x10 target past 300.
"Spend more on glass than the gun"? How 'bout spend more on gun fodder than both of 'em together?
Last edited:
4runnerman
New member
My 2 cents worth. I was ( and you can check ) one of those guys that said BS on a high dollar scope for years. I now own one and i can tell you one thing for sure. It is only worth it depending on what your going to do with it.
The main difference you get is tracking ability. Clarity and Glass ( hog wash)
If you buy a low power scope,even the cheap ones are as crisp as a whistle on low power,so don't buy into that hype. If you sight your rifle in at say 200 yards and use hold over from there,go with a cheap scope as it will serve you more than good enough. Tracking is the main difference in scopes. Take your cheap scope ,zeroed at say 200 yards,count the clicks to say 400 yards and chances are you will be way to the left or right,then when you click back it will probebly need to be re-zeroed again. A good scope. click up,you go up click back and your right back to zero again. My 223 ( Yote rifle) has been sporting a cheap NCStar scope for 4 years now and has never failed me yet. Never have had to re zero it,never have to do any thing with it. It is zeroed at 200 yards ( And never gets Moved ) and i use hold over from there. My 6MMBR ( 8-32 x 56 Sightron ) zeroed at 300 and 32 clicks,dead on at 600 back 32 clicks and dead on at 300 again.
The main difference you get is tracking ability. Clarity and Glass ( hog wash)
If you buy a low power scope,even the cheap ones are as crisp as a whistle on low power,so don't buy into that hype. If you sight your rifle in at say 200 yards and use hold over from there,go with a cheap scope as it will serve you more than good enough. Tracking is the main difference in scopes. Take your cheap scope ,zeroed at say 200 yards,count the clicks to say 400 yards and chances are you will be way to the left or right,then when you click back it will probebly need to be re-zeroed again. A good scope. click up,you go up click back and your right back to zero again. My 223 ( Yote rifle) has been sporting a cheap NCStar scope for 4 years now and has never failed me yet. Never have had to re zero it,never have to do any thing with it. It is zeroed at 200 yards ( And never gets Moved ) and i use hold over from there. My 6MMBR ( 8-32 x 56 Sightron ) zeroed at 300 and 32 clicks,dead on at 600 back 32 clicks and dead on at 300 again.
Double Naught Spy
New member
I have heard that you should spend more on the scope than the rifle for years, but never figured out why this was said. It just doesn't make sense as it presupposes that there is some sort of direct and real relationship between what you spend (not value, but actually spend) relative to the performance of the two components and the wants or needs of the shooter. There is no such relationship.
Last edited:
Rifleman1776
New member
I don't do long range shooting so cannot comment on that aspect.
But, I shot competitively for years, and won consistently, using a $3.00 garage sale discard. I think it was a Tasco.
I bought a Simmons new (only scope I have ever bought new) for my wife's .243. Excellent, I can't see why more than $100.00 should be spent on a scope.
My first hunting trip ever with a scoped rifle, the sling swivel broke and the scope smashed on rocks. That can happen to a $50.00 scope or a $5,000.00 one.
My current scopes are all garage sale discards and they suit me just fine.
But, I shot competitively for years, and won consistently, using a $3.00 garage sale discard. I think it was a Tasco.
I bought a Simmons new (only scope I have ever bought new) for my wife's .243. Excellent, I can't see why more than $100.00 should be spent on a scope.
My first hunting trip ever with a scoped rifle, the sling swivel broke and the scope smashed on rocks. That can happen to a $50.00 scope or a $5,000.00 one.
My current scopes are all garage sale discards and they suit me just fine.
Jim Watson
New member
I remember the old gunzine article about The Upside Down Rifle, a .35 Marlin lever action with Zeiss scope. The owner said its brightness got him shots very early and very late in the hunting day.
A friend says the difference Leupold to Nightforce to March is discernable.
The price nearly doubles at each step. He says the Nightforce is worth it to him, a Long Range competitor, but while the March is very nice, it is not worth $2800 to him. It was to his neighbor on the firing line, though.
I am only now going through the stuff salvaged from my burned house after The Incident. The Leupolds are sooty and stained outside, clear inside. Other makes, mostly not. So you do get what you pay for, to some extent at least.
That said, my next scope will likely be a Sightron III or Vortex Viper. That is where the current prices balance out against my expectations.
A friend says the difference Leupold to Nightforce to March is discernable.
The price nearly doubles at each step. He says the Nightforce is worth it to him, a Long Range competitor, but while the March is very nice, it is not worth $2800 to him. It was to his neighbor on the firing line, though.
I am only now going through the stuff salvaged from my burned house after The Incident. The Leupolds are sooty and stained outside, clear inside. Other makes, mostly not. So you do get what you pay for, to some extent at least.
That said, my next scope will likely be a Sightron III or Vortex Viper. That is where the current prices balance out against my expectations.