Difference in Scopes

L'derry · December 10, 2008, 01:25 AM

I've had a couple of nice shooting rifles with low cost scopes on them for several years. I've dropped deer with them and never had a problem related to the scopes, but I'm getting scope guilt. Every season my buddies bug me about having "cheap" scopes, and that I need to buy something from at least the 20th century (if not the 21st!). I have one 4x32 Universal that I bought used back in 1980. It's been on the same Rem 760 ever since. And a Bushnell dawn/dusk 3-9x40 about 5 years old (~$79) on a single shot .270.

So my question is.....since scopes will range from $30 (usually shotgun or muzzleloader models) to upwards of $2000, where the heck is the practical range...The optics look good to me on all these. They all claim to be waterproof, shockproof, and fogproof. What's important to me once I have a clear crisp picture is, how shock proof is the scope really? Will it really move the reticle 1/4" at 100 yards accurately and repeat that accurately?

It seems I can get that for less than $2000, but how about $150? Any recommendations? Not sure I'm going to spring for new scopes, since I seem to see and kill deer in front of me anyway.

kametc · December 10, 2008, 01:36 AM

I would change scopes the minute you start missing what your shooting at because of the scope. That may never happen. That aside I prefer the $200 to $300 Leupolds. (VX-II) but I also have a Burris Fullfield 3X9 I like and they are about $199 and come with a silly spotting scope or binoc for free. My buddy just bought a Nikon Monarch 3X9 on sale for $135 that seems to be a pretty good deal.

Ken

Big Caliber · December 12, 2008, 01:13 AM

If your current scopes are doing the job, why waste $$$ on something you already have? After all the deer doesn't know or care what you paid for a scope.

Doyle · December 12, 2008, 06:48 PM

The "price" of a scope does not define its useful range. It helps to determine how it will hold up in actual use. If you are talking about a very light recoiling .223 then you can get buy with much less internal quality than if you are putting the scope on a hard recoiling caliber.

mes228 · December 12, 2008, 07:25 PM

Some older scopes are outstanding. I have read that you would have to spend over $1,000 to equal the optics of the old (ie 1970's era) Bushnell Banner Japanese scopes. I know I've always been impressed with the several I've owned. I do like Leupold for the eye relief, they also hold their value much better than others.

December 10, 2008, 01:25 AM	#1
L'derry Member Join Date: November 6, 2008 Location: NH Posts: 63	Difference in Scopes I've had a couple of nice shooting rifles with low cost scopes on them for several years. I've dropped deer with them and never had a problem related to the scopes, but I'm getting scope guilt. Every season my buddies bug me about having "cheap" scopes, and that I need to buy something from at least the 20th century (if not the 21st!). I have one 4x32 Universal that I bought used back in 1980. It's been on the same Rem 760 ever since. And a Bushnell dawn/dusk 3-9x40 about 5 years old (~$79) on a single shot .270. So my question is.....since scopes will range from $30 (usually shotgun or muzzleloader models) to upwards of $2000, where the heck is the practical range...The optics look good to me on all these. They all claim to be waterproof, shockproof, and fogproof. What's important to me once I have a clear crisp picture is, how shock proof is the scope really? Will it really move the reticle 1/4" at 100 yards accurately and repeat that accurately? It seems I can get that for less than $2000, but how about $150? Any recommendations? Not sure I'm going to spring for new scopes, since I seem to see and kill deer in front of me anyway.

December 10, 2008, 01:36 AM	#2
kametc Senior Member Join Date: April 18, 2007 Location: S W , Montana Posts: 206	I would change scopes the minute you start missing what your shooting at because of the scope. That may never happen. That aside I prefer the $200 to $300 Leupolds. (VX-II) but I also have a Burris Fullfield 3X9 I like and they are about $199 and come with a silly spotting scope or binoc for free. My buddy just bought a Nikon Monarch 3X9 on sale for $135 that seems to be a pretty good deal. Ken __________________ "Allons" Blackhorse Troopers !

December 12, 2008, 07:25 PM	#5
mes228 Senior Member Join Date: July 19, 2005 Posts: 628	scopes Some older scopes are outstanding. I have read that you would have to spend over $1,000 to equal the optics of the old (ie 1970's era) Bushnell Banner Japanese scopes. I know I've always been impressed with the several I've owned. I do like Leupold for the eye relief, they also hold their value much better than others.

December 12, 2008, 01:13 AM	#3
Big Caliber Senior Member Join Date: October 10, 2006 Location: S. CA Posts: 421	If your current scopes are doing the job, why waste $$$ on something you already have? After all the deer doesn't know or care what you paid for a scope.

December 12, 2008, 06:48 PM	#4
Doyle Senior Member Join Date: June 20, 2007 Location: Rainbow City, Alabama Posts: 7,167	The "price" of a scope does not define its useful range. It helps to determine how it will hold up in actual use. If you are talking about a very light recoiling .223 then you can get buy with much less internal quality than if you are putting the scope on a hard recoiling caliber.