super expensive scopes, are they worth it?

Are they worth it?

  • yes

    Votes: 33 64.7%

  • no

    Votes: 18 35.3%
  • Total voters
    51
  • Poll closed .
Depends on what you are doing with the scope.
- twilight performance
- tracking to zero quickly(1 shot zero techniques)
- tracking to get on target at extreme range
- FFP which is clear and usable for ranging or holding off
- high magnification which is clear and doesn't shift POI
- hunting(picking a brownish gray deer out from a brownish gray background)
- Advanced turret features - 0 - 1000yds in one turn
- Use it as a hammer durability
- Brand which will fix your scope(some brands just give you another low spec scope when you break your low spec scope)

If any of the features above sound useful to you, you need to pay some serious money($700+) for your scope.

If you just want to zero at some point blank range zero, shoot some high recoil 300 Rem Ultra Mag out to like 400 yards max, hunt during normal lighting(accept lower performance at dawn and dusk), a $200 - $300 scope will work fine. Actually, if still made a 6x fixed scope would be ideal.

BTW
My hunting rifle is a $650 scope on a $600 rifle with a $150 scope mount.

My AR is a $200 scope on a $200 mount on a $1200 AR. As you can see, I devalued the scope because it is a point and shoot scope. If it breaks, I can discard and go to back up sights quick.
 
Reading comments from a lot of guys on this forum about optics are pretty humorous and it's obvious that they don't do any long range shooting. That said, there are also lots of guys on here that know what they are talking about, but you have to wade through the bs.

Now, it all depends on what you are doing with a scope. If you are going to go sight your gun in, and go hunting and shoot a deer or other animal from 0-300 yards, and you just need a scope with good glass, that is durable, etc., you can get plenty of scopes in the $2-400 range that will do more than you ever need. Heck, many cheaper Simmons will probably do what most people ask of them as well, but I'd prefer to have the piece of mind and slightly better glass of the $2-400 scopes.

People on here seem to argue quite often that low light performance is a reason to spend extra. I don't know where they hunt, but where I hunt, while some scopes may be better than others, even cheapo Simmons and Tasco's will let me see well past legal hunting hours. Scopes like the Burris FFII, Zeiss Conquest, Nikon Monarch, etc will all also let me see well past the legal hunting hours. In a hunting situation there is no reason that you have to spend more on the scope than the gun, unless your gun is a $75 gun.

Where you start gaining performance past those scopes is in the accuracy and repeatability of the tracking. It's obvious from most of the posts that 98% of the guys on here that tout Leupold scopes, 3-9 power scopes, etc., don't shoot long range, and don't adjust their scope very often. If you are shooting long range you need a scope that tracks accurately and this is what you pay for. So if you are looking for a scope for a long range rifle, it is definitely worth the extra money. As mentioned before, keep in mind that just because you have a $2,000 scope doesn't give you skill to shoot 1,000 yards.
 
I voted "yes" but its more complex than that, so a simple yes/no isn't really telling the tale.

If you only shoot in nice weather on a 100yd target range then no.
If you're never going to shoot in adverse conditions, no.
If you're never going to shoot after banging the setup around humping through brush & over rough country, no.

However, if you might depend on the scope to give you a great image, remaining precisely on target, after dragging up hill & down dale, & clambering through tree branches at sunset, into the setting sun when it's been blowing rain all day then yes.:)
 
im a huge fan of vortex. has everything that leupold has, and a better warranty to boot.
Click to expand...

I have a great pair of Vortex binoculars. Bought a couple of their scopes because of the great binoculars. Quickly sold them. A few things to remember. Vortex has some of the clearest glass for the money, but.... A Vortex Diamondback is comparable to a Leupold VX-1 and only $10 cheaper. The Vortex Vipers are comparable to the VX-3's and about the same price.

I'll take the Leupold any day over the Vortex. The Leupold is 4-6 oz lighter and up to 2" shorter depending on the model. The Leupold has almost 5" of eye relief compared to only 3-3.5" on the Vortex scopes.

And the deal killer. The Vortex scopes had a thick black ring around the outside edge of the scope obstructing a large part of the image. Leupolds have only a tiny thin black ring that is barely noticeable when viewing through them.

I don't know howmuch better Vortex's warranty could be. Send any Leupold back, no matter how old, no matter who originally bought it and they'll fix it. No questions asked.
 
i picked my vortex viper up for $459 last december. i had originally planned on a vx3 until i compared them. and at $500 less than the vx3 i was sold. it does have less eye relife, but it had never been an issue on my 308.
 
wpsdlrg said:
...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...
Click to expand...
I totally agree, up to this point, which I'm not sure is correct. This is why...

Back in the late 60's and early 70's I was quite involved with photography. At that time it was also common practice for one manufacturer to make lenses for several companies. The quality of the lens was determined by placing the finished lens in a mold that 'perfectly' matched the shape of the lens. Where the lens did not perfectly conform to the mold, the defects could be detected by curved shadows &/or rings that appeared when light was shown on the glass from the correct angle. A lens that had less than three defects might go to Leitz (who paid a premium for the extra quality), a lens with less than five defects might go to Pentax (who paid less), a lens with less than seven defects might go to Kodak who paid the least, and anything more would be recycled. With multiple lenses being incorporated into any given optic, an increase in the number of defects rapidly impacted the quality of the final product. (This is a simplified, yet essentially correct, explanation of the process and how different manufacturers got different lots of lenses from the same manufacturer. The numbers and companies are purely arbitrary and are only for illustration of the concept. I've long forgotten the real numbers and company relationships.) But this very process also allowed for some lesser cost optics to come out great. For example, a Leitz optic with seven elements might have a total of say 18 defects. But if Leitz already had their lot fulfilled, some of those three-defects-or-less lenses might go into a Pentax. A 'lucky' Pentax optic might end up with less defects than an 'unlucky' Leitz optic. This process also meant that there would be variations of quality for any given model of optic for a given company.

Once I had made the decision to purchase a lens (optic) that would cost me several hundred dollars (a lot of money in the 60's/70's), then I would go to a camera store that had at least 1/2 dozen of that lens in stock. I would promise the owner/manager that I would be buying one of his lenses. Then I would go during slow or off hours with my camera and take two or three pictures of the same scene in the same light conditions (each having a note or something in the scene that would identify which lens was being used). Then I would have the film quickly developed and without any corrections being made to the prints. With just a simple examination, it was almost always evident that one or two of the lenses were optically superior to the others. That is the one I would buy. - One time I got a difference with a single lens that was just WOW! That was the 'lucky' Pentax lens that had the Leitz quality; and you bet I bought it!

I suspect the quality techniques used today are much more sophisticated and automated than laying a lens in a mold and counting defects. But I would be surprised if the distribution of quality has changed. It may even be exact to the point that if a company doesn't pay for the quality then they just don't ever get it. That is, no 'lucky' optics any more.

So to wrap up a long story, I highly suspect that Leupold pays for higher quality lenses than Nikon. Therefore even though Nikkor makes lenses for both companies, a Nikon scope is likely not of the same quality as a Leupold scope.

This is of course speculation, but it is based upon what I have known to be true in the past.

Unfortunately, given all the sealed packages, I doubt if any store is going to let me open a half dozen scope boxes and pick the one where the image 'jumps out' at me. I just have to buy from the manufacturer whose quality meets my need (and hope I get a good one).

Regards,
Andrew

NRA Life Member
------------------------
"There are some ideas so preposterous that only an intellectual will believe them." - Malcolm Muggeridge
 
I've slowly been converted to Leupold scopes. I carried a LR/T on an M14 during a rather interesting deployment, beat it up pretty badly, and it always held its zero. I now have the same scope sitting on a .243 that I built. Even with the 40% military discount I got from them, the rifle is the single most expensive thing on this rifle, and I would not change that. Looking through good glass then looking through cheap glass will really open your eyes. I can dial the adjustments all the way up, down, left and right on this scope and when I turn the back to 0 the rifle will shoot exactly where it is supposed to. Repeatability is TREMENDOUS with a scope and the cheaper ones are severely lacking here.

I apologize for the grainy cellphone pic.

photo.jpg
 
how do you like me now?

I shoot handguns only; none wear glass.

Of course we balance cost with need, but good glass is a given.
Isn't it?
 
Are they worth it? Depends. If I am in a combat situation then a big money scope is definitely worth it! Otherwise I think I can get by with one that holds zero and has good glass. A good scope won't make you a good shooter. I've visited a number of websites and read posts that suggest otherwise though. I'll take a skilled shooter with a $400 setup any day over one with a big money rig and limited ability/skills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top