Buy the most expensive scope you can afford?

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Scope makers have stepped up their game in the last 5 to 10 years--the Leupold VX-1 for $200 is a really good scope.

[std7mag]

Wow, I guess all things are relative... $300-400 to me is not a cheap scope!!!

And for not hunting, nor shooting past 200 yards, pretty much any scope will do ya.

I put a 4-12x42 Vortex Crossfire II on my wife's 243 Win. Cost is about $169.
Great scope!!

I have mostly 4-12 power on all my rifles. Some Vortex, Redfield, BSA, Swift.

[CDR_Glock]

Higher end scopes are really for much longer distances (300 yards and up) and for lower light conditions for hunting. For paper, Or steel, up to 250 yards, I personally do not see the difference.

I've tried a UTG from Amazon dot com that wasn't bad for the money for my Mosin Nagant Archangel. For $180, it is a damn good scope. It has Held up to some heavy recoil so far. It even has a dual lighted reticle.

However, I prefer FFP scopes when it comes to zoom, since it doesn't change my point of impact when changing magnification. I did find a Primary Arms scope for $350 though. I've been happy with everything I've bought from them. They only have a 3 year warranty but they're good enough if you don't abuse them. Even if I have to buy three over a lifetime, I'd still be ok considering it's not a daily use rifle.

If you're hunting, then the abuses of climate, moisture, rain, snow, or temperature changes could affect the scope somehow, so Vortex, Leuopold or Redfield all have lifetime warranties so I choose from one of them.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Art Eatman]

Punching paper in daylight at 200 yards or less? Many features of top-of-the-line scopes are not needed.

Don't need a variable power scope. Don't need a 50mm objective lens. Don't need repeatability in the adjustments.

Decent quality, sure. Avoid ell-cheapo stuff.

Magnification for a fixed-power scope? I'll stay out of that part of the discussion.

[Sevens]

All these posts and nobody has yet mentioned one of the biggest reasons to skip the cheapest scopes -- the junk optics simply strain your eyes. You may not notice it right away but do a range day with one and you'll find that you have a tough time getting and keeping a clear sight picture because your eye gets fatigued in dealing with the cheap optics.

If you are running Barska or BSA or one of the many junk names, maybe you aren't shooting a long enough session to notice or perhaps you are blessed with fantastic eyesight.

[tahunua001]

when I was a teen, and sporting 20/45 vision, I used a barska scope mounted on a marlin 60. one of my favorite memories is lining up empty 22 casings on the wood pile and shooting them off, my best was 7 out of 10. never felt any more fatigued with it than any other scope. just staring down scopes in general fatigues my eyes, really no getting around it.

[natman]

I saw the light after a Simmons that I had taken on a Colorado hunting trip lost zero. That gun now wears a Leupold. I've had a few other inexpensive scopes fail as well.

Leupold offers a lifetime warranty. I've owned a lot of Leupolds, new and used (and believe me some of them were used.). I've heard their customer service is good, but I can't comment on it directly because I've never had a problem with any of my Leupold scopes.

Optical quality is important. It's a lot easier to shoot accurately if your target is a sharp black dot rather than a fuzzy black ball.

[SerenityNetworks]

My thoughts, reinforcing what I've found important:

• No need to purchase quality above what's required for the purpose. For example, I have no issue putting a Vortex Crossfire on my favorite plinker, a Marlin 795. But even with the lifetime warranty, I would not put a Crossfire on a 30.06 or a varmint rifle.)
• Get a scope with a lifetime, no questions asked, warranty (e.g., Vortex, Leupold). I believe this is critical, especially with the lesser expensive scopes. If they start to loose a repeatable zero then send them back.
• Try it before you buy it, especially with the lesser expensive scopes. You may find the eye relief is too restrictive for your eyes.
• Once you find a scope you want, try to find a dealer that will let you go through boxes and peer through a good number of the same scopes. Even with modern manufacturing quality control there are allowed quality variances within lens runs and a scope's quality is dependent on the cumulative quality (or lack of it) of several lenses. Some times you can find a scope where all the lenses in the scope happen to be top quality. The image you get through such as scope will be distinctly better than all the others. Buy it. (Of course, most times they will all be indistinguishable.) But this is a good practice to use, and again the differences are the most distinguishable with inexpensive scopes. (Note: This is good advice for binoculars and camera lenses as well.)

[g.willikers]

One is none and two are one.
Old adage suggesting two affordable scopes might be better than one break-the-bank version.
Betcha most scope failures are the result of damage rather than lack of quality.
You know the ones that get run over, dropped, fall off the back, 'etc.
Just a thought.

[mikejonestkd]

I have a shelf with a half a dozen inexpensive scopes that I bought over the years, and that were replaced with more appropriate optics once I could afford it.
I now shop by the intended purpose for the rifle/ scope combo. Quality and clarity are my two top considerations when choosing a new scope.

Time and again I end up with scopes in the range of the Leupold vx-II and VX-III, and I have yet to be disappointed
They are not cheap, nor are they outrageously expensive, IMO they are the best bang for the buck for most of my intended uses.

[Dragline45]

The most I have ever spent on a scope is about $300. Though my father is a regional manager for Zeiss and is going to try and get me a steep discount on some of their optics which can get very pricey.

[603Country]

I have a couple of scopes that cost about $1000 (Vortex and Leupold) and some for about half that (Leupold VX3 and Vari-X III), and a couple of Burris FFII's that cost $300. I've been hunting for decades (half century, to be a bit more specific) and have had a lot of scopes of different makers and magnification. What I don't need is a top of the line scope that costs $2k, $3k, or $4k. I have come to believe that a Leupold VX3 is about as much scope as most hunters will ever need. Great quality and, unless they changed it, a great warranty.

If you are a long range shooter however, the price of your scopes will start about $1k and rise from there.

[FrankenMauser]

Originally Posted by g.willikers

Betcha most scope failures are the result of damage rather than lack of quality.

I'm sure there are plenty out there.
I, however, can't recall a personal scope failure from abuse, neglect, or misuse; unless I was actually trying to kill it. ...Because I don't abuse my tools.
Some family members have had incidents (knocking rifles over, dropping scopes, etc.). But I have not.

A lot of failures that I can recall were simply from recoil or parts failure.
Many developed wandering/jumping zeroes or suffered some kind of breakage in the erector assembly. (Most common failure, by far, with my Bushnells.)
A few had the reticle break (wire), or come loose (wire/etched).
I had one (Beaverton) Redfield, over the course of about 4 rounds of .30 WCF, somehow jam the erector hard left and down. (Repaired by Leupold.)
At least half a dozen Bushnells and Tascos lost their gas charge and seal, and fogged internally. (I think I had a Weaver that suffered the same fate.)
A handful of cheap/cheaper scopes - I recall at least one each Burris, Bushnell, and Weaver - had lens or tube coatings peel, chip, or flake off inside the scope.
There were a Weaver and a Burris that suffered chipped internal lenses. Still held zero and functioned, but the image quality was ... shall we say, compromised.

Two of the most spectacular and frightening failures I've seen (not my scopes) were lenses that broke loose internally and shattered the ocular lens in front of the shooter's eye during recoil. One was a Weaver. I believe the other was a Nikon. It seems counter-intuitive for the rear lens to be the one to shatter under recoil, but that was the result in both cases.
Luckily, both shooters had eye protection and the rifles were being tested, rather than in the field on a hunting trip.

Originally Posted by dahermit

Any more questionable than a statement from someone who says he has owned and wrecked more scopes than the average person has seen in a gun store?


If you are wrecking that many scopes one can legitimately wonder if it is a matter of abuse rather than use. Aside from that, you seem to have taken an inordinately long time to "learn your lesson"...or were you just exaggerating on the number of cheap scopes you wrecked?

Underhanded assumptions and insinuation, my friend.
It's of no value here.

Don't bother discussing what was actually said, or asking in a friendly manner that might prompt me to explain why I have had so many scopes. Just attack the character.

[TXAZ]

Cheap scopes don't generally last on .50 BMG weapons. Some last only a few shots.
But with Bushnells new guarantee, I'm aware of someone who is trying to use a $500 bushnell instead of a $2-3000 high end product, then keep returning it if required.
We will see.

[603Country]

I've had a Weaver fog up; a Redfield (pre-Leupold) fogged up; Nikon broke; Leupold VX2 with wandering zero; old Leupold F6 had a lens fall loose. None were due to abuse of any kind.

I was climbing into a stand when the handgrip broke loose. I fell backwards on my Sako and Leupold VariX-III on some rocks. Painful, but rifle wasn't scratched up and the scope never lost zero. That was abuse, though not on purpose, but no damage done.

[Pathfinder45]

Maybe having iron sights as a back-up in case of scope failure was the right idea the whole time after all......

[alaskabushman]

My blood boils when I read gun magazines that tout "affordable" optics in the $700-1k range. UAHHHH! Thankfully nobody seems to be suggesting that.

I've been pleased with my Nikon pro-staff, I threw it on a heavy barreled Ruger M77 in .260. The gun deserves much more glass, but even with a sub $300 scope its does better than I can shoot.

My Model Seven wears a Redfield, 2-7x, and its dropped several deer with no issues at all.

My dad recently picked up a Bushnell monocular, I was extremely impressed with the clarity of glass for a $150 deal. Plus lifetime warranty? Nice.

A friend of mine put a Zeiss Terra on his Ruger American and has been raving about it. I realize some dislike these but they have great ratings on Amazon and Cabelas.

I've seen for years the recommendation to buy a scope that was the same value as the gun its being put on. A good rule of thumb maybe, but as others have said, the low-end optics we have today would blow high end scopes from decades ago out of the water.

[alaskabushman]

I've had a Weaver fog up

My dad had an old Weaver K-6 mounted on his Winchester M100, it always fogged up terribly in our damp pacific northwest marine climate. He finally broke down and got a Burris 3-9x and he actually likes hunting with it now.

[Art Eatman]

Too much off-topic wandering, folks.

To recap: The subject has to do with a scope for paper punching at no more than 200 yards.

[603Country]

Yup, we were wandering off-topic. Regarding a good scope for the money, I have been impressed by Burris Fullfield II 4.5-14 scopes. For $300 you get a lot of scope. And, for a long time I had a Bushnell 4-12 that I paid $150 for, and it was a fine scope. It isn't necessary to spend a lot of money.

[Jeff2222]

Thanks for all the replies everyone. I think I'm still just as confused but I made a decision. After looking at a couple different brands and prices I decided to go with the leupold vx1 for $200.

The lenses seem nice and clear. I like the reticle. The adjustments don't seem as nice as some others but I don't think I'll be adjusting the turrets much, if at all after I get it sighted in.

This has been interesting please keep discussing if there is more to add.

[Don Fischer]

I've got two very old Denver Redfield's, 1-4x and 2 3/4x. Have two Nikons 3-9X and 4 1/2-14. One Banner in 3-9x and two new 2-7x Leupold/Redfield's. I really like the Redfield's in 2-7x but they don't work all that well on 30-06 length actions. Need extension rings to get them on. I think the only scope I have right now that cost me over $200 was the 4 1/2-14 Nikon. For myself, I think if your putting this scope on something to hunt with, scope's like my 4 1/2-14x should stay on the dealer's shelf. I got mine to put on a rifle I like for target's out to 500 yds and have never had it over 8x to shoot. Hunted with the rifle a few time's but took off that one and put on a 3-9x.

I read the same thing, get all you can afford. Well those high dollar scope's are fine for guy's willing to spend the kind of money they cost and I'm sure they can justify the cost, I can't. To many really good scopes out there anymore for well under $400! A lot under $300! I'd look at Leupolds, Redfields, Nikons, higher end Bushnells, ect. Burris is supposed to be a good one but I've never used one. I have had so much luck with the scope under $300 that I don't even look at more expensive. Also, Leupold, Redfield, and Nikon all have life time warranty's! There are scope's for under $100 that I would avoid. Had a Tasco years ago the my 25-06 just took apart in a few months. At the same time I had a Tasco World Class that did survive that 25-06 and the 6.5x06 for several years, under $100 but I'd suggest avoining them.

General rule as far as price goes is anything from around $150 and up to $300 is normally worth looking at. I don't go look at some that are supposed to be good scope's like the Vortex. Suppose to be nice scopes but I have my own list of proven proformer's over the past 50 yrs that i stick to.

[jackstrawIII]

I don't buy the "best scope you can afford" argument either. It's called the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns. Basically, at each increased price point, the improvements are smaller and smaller. At some point, the increased price isn't worth the increased benefit.

For me (another guy who shoots less than 200 yards 98% of the time) I don't ever feel like my $200-$300 Leupold and Vortex scopes are insufficient. Scope quality is going up across the industry. You just don't have to pay as much to get a great quality scope anymore.

[T. O'Heir]

High prices do not always mean high quality. Any more than low prices mean junk. Mind you, some brands are well known for being junk at any price. Tasco and Simmons(Not on Savage packages any more), for example. Had a Tasco that cost me $40Cdn.(was on sale.), years ago. Laughed, as I watched the reticle bounce back and forth every time I opened and closed the bolt through a bore sighter several years later. The rifle still wears a Scopechief, 40 years later.
"...gun magazines that tout..." Yep, but the gun rags are about marketing the stuff they're writing about and not much else.
Anyway, what calibre is your rifle? This time of year has varmint and rimfire rifle stuff being 'on sale'. You might still find deer rifle stuff on as end of year sales. And don't forget the rings and bases.

[Huffmanite]

Like Eatman's reply and many others too. I must own 30 scopes and a very large majority of them are over 18X. Most I've ever paid was for a Weaver Super Slam 5-20 and it was on sale for around $370. Own lots of scopes in various brands that cost in the $100 to $200 price range that have served me well for my paper shooting with anything from a 22 hornet to a 30-06, with about 9 cartridges in between them. Have had maybe two scopes have a problem, holding zero and etc and they were replaced by the manufacturer.

Have almost always been satisfied to very satisfied with the optics in my lower priced scopes for my target shooting....up to 400 yds, but 80% of it is 100 and 200 yds. Heck, you'd be surprised by the number of my fellow range members with the $900 plus scopes that have sat down with one of my cheapo scopes and been impressed with the optics.

Most common problem I encounter is the windage/elevation adjustments. I often go to range with at least three scoped rifles to shoot and do this two or three days a week, weather permitting. I seldom shoot the same reloads I'd shot the previous time before in a rifle......so, am cranking on the windage/elevation adjustments fairly regularly. While I always get the scope adjusted, may take a few more shots than it would with a scope with more reliable adjustments, like my Weaver Super Slam scopes.