Do you ever just stop and bang your head against the wall?

[4runnerman]

Sevens- Your points are all Valid, But lets look at all the $100.00 and less Tasco scopes that have been mounted on 308's,7MM's and such for 30 plus years and are still holding zero and are still shooting deer. Tell one of these Guys that he needs to spend $300.00 or more on a scope if he wants to hunt deer. You might get a ear full.

Bigfats- 6-24 is not a crazy power. I have a 22 with a 20 power on it. That is my lowest power scope I have. I can shoot at all distances possable with that scope.

[skizzums]

i am vey happy with my 3-9 bushnell i have now on ar15, it was just shy over a hundred bucks. i have at least 2000 rounds under it, with 6-700 being highpower. i have a nice mount for it, and the zero hasnt budged. i dont think you HAVE to spend 300$, but not syaing it isn't nice to.

[Picher]

The best "inexpensive" nice scope that I have is a Mueller 4-14X that I paid about $168 for, about 4 years ago. It has great glass and adjustments, helping me shoot tiny groups with my .223 Rem Tikka 595.

(I'm a Leupold believer, especially the VX2 and VXII. They're bright, exceptionally clear, lightweight, and tough. More expensive scopes I've used don't compare for value.)

[1stmar]

There are decent scopes that are cheap, both red dot and optical. I wouldn't put them on anything with heavy recoil. I have a BSA red dot on a 22a and it's perfect, paid $19 at cabelas for it. I also have a Simmons whitetail 6-20x50 I bought at midway. The glass is very clear and bright. It tracks perfectly and holds zero but it's on a 22-250 that weighs 9lbs. I'll buy another one of these in heartbeat. Barska optics I have seen are horrible, nc red dots I have seen are junk. But you can find some decent cheap stuff.

[Bucksnort1]

Blindstitch has a good point. Fifteen years ago, I began applying for my rocky mountain goat license (that's the white one) in Colorado. As a side note, it takes most people at least ten years to draw; however, I was lucky, I drew in seven. So what does this have to do with cheap scopes, you ask?

A couple of years before I drew my license, I purchased a used Savage 110 in 30-06. It came with a fixed 4X scope with no brand name. I checked the zero; it was dead on where I wanted it at 100 yards. I used this rifle and the no brand name scope to harvest (that's the politically correct way to say it, these days) my goat, opening morning. Of course, I had my Weatherby 300 as a back up gun stowed in the truck.

[Bucksnort1]

ok

[Bucksnort1]

Sorry for duplicate.

[Sevens]

Sevens- Your points are all Valid, But lets look at all the $100.00 and less Tasco scopes that have been mounted on 308's,7MM's and such for 30 plus years and are still holding zero and are still shooting deer. Tell one of these Guys that he needs to spend $300.00 or more on a scope if he wants to hunt deer. You might get a ear full.

I believe that my point and your point can BOTH exist happily together in the real world.

First, if you have a guy that has had a cheap scope mounted on a gun for THIRTY YEARS and it's been working, then of course, there's no way to sell him a $300 piece of glass. Frankly, it wouldn't be a stretch to suggest that if he's been running a Tasco for -30- years, he might be one of the (many) folks who shoots four cartridges a year... 3 to check zero and one to cull his deer. He may be one of guys that produces those cool old cartridge boxes you see at gun shows, you know the ones I mean-- 20 round box, 3 rounds missing, 16 rounds look like they've never been pulled from the box and one round is all tarnished. This gentleman could also be quite satisfied with a rifle that gives him a 3-inch, 5-shot group at 100 yards, as this rig will probably still harvest deer depending on where in the country you hunt.

If it works for him, he should stick with it. But I also might suggest that a 30-year old Tasco (especially one that's been working all this time) is probably a finer rig than a new $79 Xiangdog Amazon SuperZhoom.

And if his $100 Tasco didn't work in the first two years he had it (I'm sure that happened a good bit...) then he'd be running something else over the last 28 years.

And finally...
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
$100 spent on a Tasco scope 30 years ago (1984) is:
$228.97 spent today.
$228.97 in 2014 dollars buys better glass than the $79 Xiangdog Amazon SuperZhoom.

[Bigfatts]

4runnerman- You're right, 24x isn't a crazy power. But in a $59 scope it's ridiculous.

I agree there are plenty of inexpensive scopes that will get the job done. Bushnell, Tasco, etc, I'm a big fan of Mueller myself. But these are all companies that you can contact for warranty issues and they will likely stand behind their products. But who do you call when the scope doesn't have a name?

[5whiskey]

A riflescope under $200 cannot be made.

Not true. There are a number of useable scopes to be had for under 200 bucks.


To everyone else... I'm a believer in good glass most of the time. With that being said, there is a time and a place for a 50 dollar scope if you buy the "right" 50 dollar scope. Fixed power scopes are easier to make... hence out of two scopes, one fixed and one variable power, of equal quality the fixed power should be cheaper. Target turrets, parallax adjustment, fancy reticles, and the like are more bells and whistles that are harder to pull off within a budget. So... moral of the story, I have a leapers 4x fixed scope that holds zero quite well. The glass isn't super quality, but it works for all I needed it for (really just bought it to try and see how good of a group a couple of different rifles with crappy iron sights would hold without having to remove a scope from one of my nice rigs). There are some good red dots that are decent and can be had for under 100 bucks, too. If you use a gun as part of your job, you need to drop more money on optics than 50 or 60 bucks. I would even dare say if you're hunting with it, though I wouldn't be afraid for a minute to hunt with my 4x leapers. I don't... I have Bushnell Elites for that... but I would if I had to. Just remember, though, that inexpensive is not ALWAYS cheap. Look at what it's being used for. I have a $10 uncle mikes holster for my duty P227. My firearms coordinator talks junk to me for having it, but all I use it for is to wear it at the range without having to wear my duty belt. It's never used for carry, and it serves the purpose I need it for.

To the OP, I know what you're talking about with your friend. You're talking about him buying a super tacticool 8-24 power, target turrets, mil-reticle, laser pointers, and "shock-proof" for 70 bucks to plop on a nice rifle. That is, in fact, a waste of money.

[Jim243]

simply don't sell any rifle scopes under three hundred bucks, and they sell so many over $600.

You answered your own question. By having a 2,000% markup on their products and having them made overseas.

Jim

[Brotherbadger]

A riflescope under $200 cannot be made.

I disagree. I bought an old Leupold off my friend for $75 a few years back. Best $75 scope i ever bought.

I get what you mean. There are plenty of scopes for under $200 that are quality. Someone mentioned the Nikon Prostaff. That is a wonderful scope for the money, and i would put one on a rifle and have zero doubts about it's ability to do it's job.

[skoro]

Life is just too short to tolerate crappy optics.

[Picher]

Hate to admit that almost any scope is better than NO Scope. The national benchrest champ years ago, used a Tasco on his BR rifle. Yes it was a Japan model, but had good optics and tracking.

I also have an 8-32x Japanese Tasco that has been on several rifles. It still works fine and goes to the range with me sometimes.

A no-name 4X scope came on a used rifle a few years ago and though the optics aren't the best, it holds zero and is on a grandson's rifle now.

As we get older and more affluent, we forget how it is when folks just get into shooting. They may not have much money, but have enthusiasm. My start was like that, young family, not much money, but a love of shooting/hunting. So long ago. Still, I have very few expensive rifles costing over $800, and the most I've paid for a scope is about $300.

[NickySantoro]

OP,
I know what you mean. My son-in-law's father has a Sauer 200 in 30-06 with a Barska 3X9 from Sportsman's Guide. He's never zeroed the scope or even fired the rifle.

[TB9]

I have a tasco 2.5 x bantam black powder scope on my 50 cal. cva for 13 yrs. and its held zero just fine and ive fired a lot of rounds through that old BP rifle. having said that. to the OP I have a close uh relative who knows the price of every thing and the value of nothing and you cant tell him nothing so when he starts his roll just change the subject . cause they never will.

[Unlicensed Dremel]

Life is just too short to tolerate crappy optics.

Hear hear and Amen. But the hard part is drawing the line between crappy and non-crappy.

Are there exception-to-the-general-rule (that you get what you pay for) bargains to be found sub-$150 new / sub-$100 used? I think the answer is yes, but I'd always limit them to rimfires, and stay with low-powered configs. I've used Millets, Bushnell Banners, Bushnell Legend, Muellers, and some others, and in the end, they're just not worthy for any centerfire that might be relied upon for either self-defense or a trophy animal. Now don't get me wrong, this is due *primarily* due to low-light clarity/resolution, not fear of failure to hold zero, but still - resolution is very important for hunting, since game move most in low light.

In fact, I don't even go that low any more - divested of all those. Now the lowest I go - even on rimfires - is Nikon Omega (which is a very good scope), or Bushnell Elite 3200, or Burris Fullfield II, or Leupold Rifleman.

Obviously the number 1 priority (key feature) of a scope, by far, is holding zero (i.e. not breaking), which is worth noting that this has zero to do with glass & coatings quality. But glass quality and general quality & durability pretty much go hand in hand. And the other aspects are important too - turret features, glass quality & coatings quality, magnif. options, on and on. The problem with many cheap scopes is, they may break on the LAST shot at the range before you leave when sighting in, or the ONE/LAST shot you took last season - then you don't realize this until you miss the B&C buck the next season due to the scope, and it's too late.

And yeah though, due to glass quality, you've GOT to stick to no more magnif than 3-9s on real cheap scopes (sub-$100), and no more than 4-12 on sub-$200ers. Even though I eventually divested of them, I had good results with 1-4s and 1.5-4.5s and such from Bushnell Banner back when.

[Slamfire]

Enough competitive shooters have told me, even the expensive scopes become unreliable. At some round count in the future the darn things stop tracking reliably and you can’t trust what is going on down range on the paper target. This includes those “Red Dot” handgun sights. A Bullseye Pistol bud of mine was describing all the problems he had with a $300.00 version till he sent it back to the factory and they sent him back a new one. The first sight worked well for a while, then groups went wonky, new sight attached, nice tight groups in the middle.

My lament, why can’t sight makers build a scope that if you put a click on it, it moves a click, and does so, forever?

[Unlicensed Dremel]

Slamfire, that's very interesting, and I think the right question. What if you buy SOLELY US Optics, Schmidt & Bender, Premier, Hensoldt, March, IOR/Valdada, & Nightforce.... same rule still applies or not? I'd like to know the answer. What about the mid-highs, like Swaro, Zeiss, Leica, Trijicon, & high-end Loopys? What about Aimpoint?

[Slamfire]

Slamfire, that's very interesting, and I think the right question. What if you buy SOLELY US Optics, Schmidt & Bender, Premier, Hensoldt, March, IOR/Valdada, & Nightforce.... same rule still applies or not? I'd like to know the answer. What about the mid-highs, like Swaro, Zeiss, Leica, Trijicon, & high-end Loopys? What about Aimpoint?

I am aware of F Class competitors whose March scopes stopped tracking on elevation. Those scopes are $4,000 apiece!

[WV_gunner]

Nothing wrong with buying cheap when its all you can afford, but buying something that promises the world that's very cheap should be a no brainer. However, money isn't everything. Let your friend learn a valuable life lesson, not everything is what it appears.

[reynolds357]

I can see putting a $100 scope on a $300 rifle. I can not see putting a $100 scope on a$1000 rifle. If you have $1100 to spend, put $600 in the rifle and $500 in the scope. Having said that, my current favorite hunting rifle cost $325 and is wearing $825 glass. If I have to choose where I am going to skimp, it will not be on the glass. My cheap, ugly, TC Venture shoots as good as some of my customs. Look at a $75 scope in low light and look through a $800 scope in low light; there is a HUGE difference.
To those who mentioned Tasco, Tasco is not what it used to be. I used to like Tasco. When Tasco first came out, they were as good as Burris and Redfield. They were a Japanese optic that rivaled the high end U.S. hunting optics. Their custom shop scopes were as good a B.R. scope as you could buy. Now, they are Chinese junk. The Tasco of today is not the Tasco of a generation ago.

[Willie Lowman]

All this talk of cheap scopes...

I love my Leupold mark 4.

[Deja vu]

I actually thought for many years that I did not like scopes. It wasn't until I got a leupold that I decided than optics are a good thing. All of my previous scopes where cheep $50-$75 scopes.

[madmo44mag]

tahunua001 - for the record... I have a leapers red/green dot from amazon... it's a great little dot which has been passed to a number of different guns... always easy to zero, hold zero and is relatively nice, even in low light... not all amazon purchases are all bad

I have one of those as well on an AR platform and it has proven to be a great product.

I also have a Leapers 4x16x44 on an AR platform and has been mounted now 3 years and never lost “0”.

Can’t judge a book by its cover or a scope by its price.

With that said if these rifles were is a severe duty applications then I would be looking to a more substantial and time tested product but for basic range use and light field duty they have served well.