spend as much on a scope as the rifle?

[eflyguy]

Originally Posted by Bart B.

Please explain why they cannot focus exactly at target range.

It has nothing to do with focus, but I'd argue people buying cheap optics aren't shooting 200yds or more so it's not much of an issue. My cheap Amazon scopes work just as well as my Nikons at 50-100yds.

If you're unsure about parallax, there is plenty of info online.

[Txhillbilly]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Interesting. I wish they were marketed better. Show me why I can’t hit something with your competitors inferior product. They never do. They never explain why one scope is $3k and another $300.

I actually think you could make quite a bit of money selling a x brand 3-9x extreme made to high spec for a year, then keep the name and cut quality drastically....with no change to price! People just don’t know.

That's pretty much what Vortex has done.
They made high quality lower end scopes for the first few years, then their quality seemed to really take a hit.
Scope series that once were great buy's for the money, are now total crap. Their failure rate since they first came out is very high.

[JustJake]

Heard an old adage years back. Something to the effect that you should spend as much on your scope as on the rifle.

True that.

Most rifles will shoot well enough out of the box, and even more will shoot great (i.e., MOA to sub-MOA) with just a bit of basic "tweaking," such as bedding the action, channeling the barrel in the stock, and a decent trigger job.

Scopes are different, being made to hit a certain price-point in the "optics consumer market," which means they will vary drastically in quality.

Having spent good money on a decent rifle, that's where guys start to go cheap when looking for a "budget" scope. Worse, they tend to go even cheaper on mounts and rings, usually settling on buying thin, flimsy Chi-Com junk with soft metal out-of-spec screws that never stay tight and often snap when torqued.

[Bart B.]

Originally Posted by eflyguy

It has nothing to do with focus, but I'd argue people buying cheap optics aren't shooting 200yds or more so it's not much of an issue. My cheap Amazon scopes work just as well as my Nikons at 50-100yds.

If you're unsure about parallax, there is plenty of info online.

Please read post 7 in

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...t=scope+patent

The link to a scope patent may help you learn why focusing the scope at target range eliminates parallax errors.

I've used cheap Weaver T20 and T16 scopes winning 1000 yard matches and shooting half MOA 20 shot test groups that far away.

[MarkCO]

Originally Posted by Bart B.

Please explain why they cannot focus exactly at target range.

Because they lack parallax adjustment, or the ability to focus at the target range. Some of the cheap scopes can never be brought into correction. Surely you understand that.

[Bart B.]

Originally Posted by MarkCO

Because they lack parallax adjustment, or the ability to focus at the target range. Some of the cheap scopes can never be brought into correction. Surely you understand that.

I've adjusted the objective lens on several cheap fixed power scopes so they're focused and parallax free at 100 or 50 yards. Same way as the factory does with all scopes moving the objective lens back and forth.

Made a spanner wrench to remove the lens lock ring and lens then adjust the stop ring so the lens would correctly focus target on the reticle.

[T. O'Heir]

It was true long ago. Not as many low end scope makers around now. Some stuff that was higher end long ago has suffered from MBAs wrecking the QC dept. too.
There are a lot of grossly over priced names around now. High prices do not always mean high quality. Lotta shops will put stuff on sale too.
In any case, the sights you use really need to be according to what you're doing with the rifle. High magnification is rarely required for a deer rifle. Might be for a target or varmint rifle.

[MarkCO]

^Agree totally.

Bart, that will work for 1000 yard Benchrest, totally impractical for the majority of shooters and conditions. If an optic does not have adjustable parallax, one can pretty much guarantee it won't be useful for shooting long range under field conditions. Inside 400 yards on deer, sure, won't matter enough to even think about it. Shooting 6" plates at 600, 2" plates at 200 and 12" plates at 1000 with a 3 or 4 minute time allowance...not going to even be close.

[Brian Pfleuger]

This never made sense, from a purely logical standpoint.

Why is it, exactly, that a $500 scope on a $500 gun is perfectly sufficient.... but that same $500 scope on a $700 gun is not?

I have learned more and more over the years to appreciate good glass, perhaps more from failing eyes than any direct fault of the "cheap" scopes.

I am currently building an AR-15 that is going to end up in the $1,400 range... I promise you it WILL NOT be wearing a $1,400 scope. In fact, it will either be a Sig BDX Sierra 3 ($550 with the range finder) or a Minox ZA5 5-20x, for which I paid exactly $489.93 delivered.

A lot of times I think you'd be better off with a $700 scope and a $300 gun, but that's another discussion.

[Bart B.]

Anyone besides me notice the term "adjustable parallax" was never used until the range focus knob showed up on the scope's left side?

All the scope's technical documents refer to the focus knob on its left side.

[MarkCO]

I don't care if they call it the assault rifle clip range adjuster. Irrelevant what they call it. Less wrap around the axle results in more fun.

[pete2]

Folks, it really depends on what you're gonna do with the rifle. It is sorta true that your rifle is no better than the scope you put on it but for most of us the scope does not have to cost as much as the rifle. I'm totally happy with my Leupold scopes. Couple VX1s and a VX2 and an old Vari-X 2. The VX2 cost as much as the rifle, 400.00 plus. It's a .22 cause I want to shoot little bitty things with it. For a deer rifle or squirrel rifle the VX1 is totally suitable for me, I ain't shooting over 400 yards and they are good, clear scopes. For me brightness and clarity are the most important things, I've not had a scope that wouldn't hold zero, even the 15.00 .22 scopes worked, just couldn't see thru them very well. I also have an old Burris Compact that's a good hunting scope.
My longest shot on a deer is 400 yds, almost dark with a 4X Leupold, Died in his tracks. I use binos to check him out, couldn't see his antlers with the 4X.
Now days if I had to use a fixed power I'd get a 6X.

[Bart B.]

Originally Posted by pete2

Folks, it really depends on what you're gonna do with the rifle. It is sorta true that your rifle is no better than the scope you put on it but for most of us the scope does not have to cost as much as the rifle.

Rifles with metallic sights will shoot as accurate as those with scopes.

[TXAZ]

To the OP’s actual question on $scope / $rifle ratio:

It depends on what you want, but in general the optics costs the gun and intended use.
If you want to shoot 2-legged intruders across a room at 3 yards (> 100 MOA desired impact area), no scope / iron sights can yield excellent and precise results.
As the target moves further away the MOA of the desired impact area decreases. At some point in distance iron sights become substantially less effective compared to a low power fixed scope. At greater ranges of distances (many hundreds of yards) variable scopes at higher powers ***THAT TRACK PRECISELY*** are important.
All these features cost $$$ in precision optics.
So a 100 yard shooting event may even the table for many, shooting at 200-1700 yards at unevenly spaced targets requires Uber clear optics, precise tracking and all the other parameters.
Hope that helps. I have a Barrett .50 with a (new at the time) $3.5k scope.
I also have a $9k Tracking Point 6.5 CM where 75% of the Rem700 based platform cost is the scope.
So it depends.

[Bart B.]

The NRA 1000-yard prone records for both scope and metallic sights are 19 out of 20 shots inside 10 inches, 200-19X.

[stagpanther]

Some of my all-time favorite scopes are SWFA fixed-magnification in 10x, 12X and 16x, all of which I bought for $275 a piece. The glass is fair+, but it has a nice reticle, but most of all it's built like a tank with large positive click turrets. Many is the name-brand scope that has bitten the dust while these just keep on keeping on, no matter what I put them on. Unfortunately I haven't seen them available during the pandemic.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by Txhillbilly

That's pretty much what Vortex has done.
They made high quality lower end scopes for the first few years, then their quality seemed to really take a hit.
Scope series that once were great buy's for the money, are now total crap. Their failure rate since they first came out is very high.

Very true. I have 2 vortex scopes. One I bought, one came bundles on a rifle. a Diamondback and a crossfire. I am not satisfied with either. the crossfire has been replaced. The diamondback is next on the list. Wont be buying vortex again...

My dad has a vortex spotting scope. It is a nice piece of glass. but it was $500...

[MarkCO]

Originally Posted by Bart B.

The NRA 1000-yard prone records for both scope and metallic sights are 19 out of 20 shots inside 10 inches, 200-19X.

Another irrelevant post. At least they are getting shorter.

Some of my all-time favorite scopes are SWFA fixed-magnification in 10x, 12X and 16x

I have similar affection for them, they just work well for not a lot of coin.

[HiBC]

Unconfirmed hearsay rumor:

The origin of the SWFA Super Sniper 10 X scope may have been a serious effort by Tasco to become a government contractor to provide Navy SEAL sniper scopes.

Allegedly they won bid and produced scopes. The US Gubmint does it,too!!

Apparently,the Navy SEAL Sniperish folks took exception to going to war with Tasco scopes.

Tasco's best effort was actually a pretty good scope without customers.

If so,SWFA,to this day,has made a lot of folks happy. I have never used this scope,but I'd try one

[jackstrawIII]

Not for me. For shooting deer at 300 yards... a big dollar scope isn't necessary. I've found the $300 mark is plenty for my needs. Leupold, Burris are the favs.

[Bart B.]

Originally Posted by MarkCO

I don't care if they call it the assault rifle clip range adjuster. Irrelevant what they call it. Less wrap around the axle results in more fun.

What do you adjust to change parallax with metallic aperture sights?

[HiBC]

What do you adjust to change parallax with metallic aperture sights?

Seems like center the eye behind the aperture via aperture size and spot weld,aided by adjusting stock geometry.??

And,yes,it does seem like that would benefit a scoped rifle.

I have a vague recall,it might be wrong..but seems like about 1963 a Woman shot a new 1000 yd record group with a 7mm Rem Mag ,something over 7 inches.
The remarkable part is the 1000 yd record that had stood till that time ,IIRC,was fired with iron sights. Or so my fuzzy memory says.

There are not too many manufacturers of scopes in the world. There are fewer manufacturers of scope lenses. I don't know the answers,but in many cases it may be "Same scope,different box"

[cjwils]

Bart B said, "Rifles with metallic sights will shoot as accurate as those with scopes."

Yes, the accuracy of a rifle does not change when the sights change. If you have perfect vision or close to it, you might shoot as well with metallic sights as with a scope. But most of us do not have perfect vision, and we can shoot better with a scope.

[HiBC]

But most of us do not have perfect vision, and we can shoot better with a scope.

I agree with you. But doggone,I have seen some Olde Guys who can tear up the 10 ring of an NRA target with a rack M-1 Garand and Greek surplus ammo.

I've also seen some amazing shooting done with open sighted muzzle loaders.

No matter how much money gets spent on fancy rifles and scopes.a lot comes down to holding and squeezing.
I'd guess the regular CMP Garand shooter with iron sights,a sling,and an unmodified M-1 Garand can outshoot half of the folks with scoped rifles,especially if you remove sandbags,lead sleds,and bench rests from he occasion.
I do NOT mean to imply that I'm one of those Olde Guys who can Shoot.

I'm just respecting them.

[Bart B.]

Originally Posted by cjwils

Bart B said, "Rifles with metallic sights will shoot as accurate as those with scopes."

Yes, the accuracy of a rifle does not change when the sights change. If you have perfect vision or close to it, you might shoot as well with metallic sights as with a scope. But most of us do not have perfect vision, and we can shoot better with a scope.

People with imperfect vision have worn glasses with corrective lenses in aperture sights winning matches and setting records.