The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Any Way to Increase a Budget Optic's Ability to Hold Zero?

FloridaVeteran · November 6, 2012, 11:25 PM

Chaz 88 and Alex0535 dredged up some old memories for me. There is something about getting old that makes a lot of folks (me) think of prices, relative to the “old days,” differently. For example, a decent .243 at $500-800 sounds very reasonable today, to me, but $350-600 for a scope for that rifle does not. Remembering back to 1974, though, a name-brand .243 was about $125 and a Redfield 3x9 was about $85-90. So the ratio is correct, but my reaction is faulty.

As for Alex’s comment about Redfield, I believe they hibernated for a number of years, but the 3x9 I have mounted on my grand old .270 BDL still performs as well as when I bought it. It might not have the light-gathering ability of the latest and greatest, and it has just the old thin crosshairs of its day, but it still functions perfectly and is enough for a pair of very old eyes.

This post was a good reminder to me that optics should not be “cheaped,” at least for hunting with centerfire weapons. Pretty much, only older folks and young preachers will recognize the analogy of how much to put in the basket at church, relative to people who are growing old.

November 6, 2012, 11:25 PM	#11
FloridaVeteran Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2012 Location: Central Florida Posts: 399	Chaz 88 and Alex0535 dredged up some old memories for me. There is something about getting old that makes a lot of folks (me) think of prices, relative to the “old days,” differently. For example, a decent .243 at $500-800 sounds very reasonable today, to me, but $350-600 for a scope for that rifle does not. Remembering back to 1974, though, a name-brand .243 was about $125 and a Redfield 3x9 was about $85-90. So the ratio is correct, but my reaction is faulty. As for Alex’s comment about Redfield, I believe they hibernated for a number of years, but the 3x9 I have mounted on my grand old .270 BDL still performs as well as when I bought it. It might not have the light-gathering ability of the latest and greatest, and it has just the old thin crosshairs of its day, but it still functions perfectly and is enough for a pair of very old eyes. This post was a good reminder to me that optics should not be “cheaped,” at least for hunting with centerfire weapons. Pretty much, only older folks and young preachers will recognize the analogy of how much to put in the basket at church, relative to people who are growing old.