PDA

View Full Version : WHY NOT TO SPEND A LOT ON A SCOPE



canman
01-11-2015, 10:12 AM
Few years back, dropped $1,300 on a nice Leupold M4 Mk3 fixed 10 power 30 mm tube with mil dots.

After some years started checking a lot of other's scopes at ranges. Noticed other
people's $ 200 Nikons scopes were (JUST AS GOOD).

Sold my Leupold, got a cheaper scope, saved a lot of money…. Hopefully my experience is of benefit to someone….

The end result was the same… excellent clear view.

Canman (Michigan)

crankythunder
01-11-2015, 10:30 AM
Not sure I agree with you or disagree but I think I should state my experiences as well.

While I have never spent $1,300.00 on a scope I do have a couple $600 leupolds that are a pleasure to use and a joy to own. I also have a old 16 power unertl on my position rifle which current prices are through the roof. And then that trijicon on my deer rifle.

Those are my top dollar scopes and they are on either competition firearms or my cherished deer rifle, I get great pleasure using each and every one of them and have long forgotten the pain when purchasing them.

On the other hand, I have a number of knock about rifles, fun guns, the deer rifles I take out when its raining, etc. These scopes typically cost less then half my top dollar ones and were selected for the specific job at hand with respect to the optical quality, magnification, and intended use. typically these do not have the warrenties of the leupolds but they have served me well over the years. examples are sightrons, Nikons, burris, bushnell, a swift, and some of the old japan tascos. do not underestimate the Japanese tascos by the way.

and then there are the disappointments. first is a simmons that while it was not cheap, the optics are just not there. I also have a leupold 2x7x33 that while it is compact, I am not thrilled with the optical clarity on that one either. and the other simmons with the busted reticle that had a lifetime warranty when I got it and they went into receivership and its would cost half the replacement cost to get it fixed in shipping and inspection fees and I do not like it that much to begin with.

Currently, Leupold warranties are worth their weight in gold although that could change. It costs too much to get the simmons people to honor their warranty and I do not know how the others are.

So, in response to your post, I offer a very definite "It Depends"

Regards,
Cranky

bolonytony24
01-11-2015, 10:40 AM
I will agree to an extent.
i have a few Vortex optics that i paid much less for than my Leupold gold 8-25x55 that are nice for the money. i have yet to shoot the Leupold out to the distance i want so jury is out on it still. i will say when you get into 16+power and clarity you will be looking at +/-1g on any brand.
for most shooting/hunting here in MI the $200-$500 scopes are great.
last deer i took was with my Rem 710 in 30-06 with the Bushnell 3-9x30 that came with it as a $350 combo. the deer was at 275 yards and dropped in its tracks.

JDG
01-11-2015, 11:00 AM
Expensive scopes are more rugged, with thicker tubes. Turrets that are 100% repeatable are also good if you dial up your elevation. If the scope is on a rifle to save your, or someone else's ass, it needs to be dependable, indestructible. Hunting glass that you set the zero, and dont touch again, don't need to cost 2K, and I agree that people like the tacticool super expensive scopes , and don't really need them.

canman
01-11-2015, 11:39 AM
I hear you. I just think the cost-benefit-ratio for spending tons of cash to get a sight-picture is not necessary.

Today's companies have modern manufacturing plants / companies, like Leupold and Nikon (Nikon is not a new company), have modern machine shops
and engineers working all their respective product.
I just tend to think some shooting products today are over-priced for what they are.

detacbob
01-11-2015, 01:17 PM
100 meters on a benchrest is different then 800 meters. It all depends on what you are doing with glass.

sjcootie
01-11-2015, 01:56 PM
It's not that hard with todays technology to make a scope seem good quality. slap some decent glass in a tube and someone might think it is a good scope. I once acquired a UTG (japan) 3x9x40mm grn/red recticle that seemed really clear once mounted on a ruger takedown .22. I got it boresighted and had it shooting decent for a few months. Then it went to pots and became garbage. Green lit quit working, crosshairs moving, etc. Glad I didn't pay for it as it is now a backup hammer in the reloading room.

I buy Leupold for 1 main reason and a bunch of secondary reasons. I love the screwed in, magnetic scope caps that they make for almost all model. Much more robust then butler creek. Expensive but I don't care. Then I like leupold for all the other reasons as stated previously

canman
01-11-2015, 03:20 PM
You know what is funny…

WWII Russians used (by today's standards pieces of junk) PSO scopes on their Mosin Nagant rifles.
The Russians used them with extreme success against the Germans.
A $100 Burris today is higher quality than a WWII Russian PSO which I see at gun shows for dirt cheap, as over
time engineering and manufacturing improves.

Canman (Michigan)

MJssr
01-11-2015, 04:18 PM
your experience might be more helpful if you explained the context in which your Leupold M4 served. If it was for a 200 yard deer rifle? were you shooting benchrest? were you shooting 1000m? etc.

nrich1979
01-11-2015, 07:46 PM
I rarely get to shoot anything further away than 100 yards or so..

So most of my scopes are the sale priced bushells/burris/leopould/vortex..

I'll probably save for one acog not because I need it but because I want it..

Though I was reading about the new Mepro 4x and I may have to get one of those as well.

It's a hobby and if I really needed to justify owning an ACOG or something in that price range I could write it off to, "well if the SHTF at least I know my scope wouldn't break"

bolonytony24
01-11-2015, 08:10 PM
most of us here in MI will rarely get a shot hunting at 200 yards or over . we will most likely not be going in to battle with them either so it really could seem excessive to spend over $100-$200 on an optic.
at the same time I like quality and its my money to spend how i wish. if i wish to head south or west and do some distance shooting or SHTF i have what i want and works. to each there own i say.

Ol` Joe
01-11-2015, 08:10 PM
You'll never see a $200 Nikon on the equipment list of the winners gear at a top benchrest match..
The lower priced scopes, Nikon, Weaver, Burris etc are great for everyday use, and transmit usable light as well as pricier ones, but are not going to perform overall as well as their top of the line brothers.
Edge to edge clarity, reliability/repeatability of the adjustments, costlier glass coatings that much improve true colors and resolution, usually less parallax and often greater eye relief are just some places the pricier scopes out shine the lower cost offerings. A Nikon ProHunter is a good scope for the Michigan deer woods but won't cut it in a F-Class competition or varmint hunt on the grassy prairie when ranges get out there

Your 30mm tubed Mk 4 likely had much more adjustment range, more accurate "click adjustments" better resolution then the replacement you bought for it. You just don't shoot at ranges or under conditions that allow you to easily see the improvements

JDG
01-11-2015, 08:14 PM
I've seen more problems with Nikon scopes, then any other brand. They get fixed for free with the warranty, but a lot of ammo gets wasted figuring it out.... I'll stick with my Leupolds:)

Corpsie
01-12-2015, 05:12 PM
Here's my view.

My time is worth $XXX per hour. Spending Y hours actively researching the features, specs and reviews for a high value scope (low cost per features and quality) puts me within $100-$200 of a higher-end scope (Think Leupold, not Swarovski). If I have to waste 1 hour to find out that the scope I bought sucks just reinforces I should have bought a higher-end scope. The amount of ammo wasted just compounds the costs.

Now, if I'm goofing off on the internet and get enough information during that allocated goof-off time, then there is value to buying a high value scope

Shyster
01-12-2015, 06:36 PM
My philosophy is simple: buy once, cry once.

My hunting rifle has a Trijicon 3x9 and I'm satisfied with that for "minute of deer" accuracy out to 250-300yds. If I'm going for distance I pull out the Steyr SSG with the Vortex Razor HD 5x20. ARs get Aimpoints or Eotechs.

Langford
01-12-2015, 08:21 PM
You get what you pay for...period.

There is NO comparison between the nightforce on my deer rifle, and the Nikon Monarch that came on a rifle I bought recently (and the nikon is a $500+ scope new). Eye relief, contrast in low light conditions, reticle, adjustments, everything about the NF is better. The Nikon will be replaced with a better scope as soon as I can swing it.

I bought a .243 from a member here a while back, the previous owner said it had a really nice Barska scope on it...I knew nothing about barska, but I figured I'd give it a shot. 1 trip to the range was more than enough...at anything over 10 power, it was horrible. I can't say a single good thing about that scope, but with the $89 price tag that was on the box...I should have known.

Scopes are like cars...yes, a $20,000 Kia will get you from point A to point B. It may even have some nice options, air conditioning, power seats, radio, etc. But is it really comparable to a $80,000 Mercedes, or a $300,000 Bentley? No...again, you get what you pay for. They both may perform the same function, both may have some of the same options...but they aren't the same.

Some mid range scopes are great for the money...I've got a Zeiss Terra on a 10/22, great little scope. It doesn't have all the options and features of a high dollar scope, but it's extremely clear and bright, and fits the bill for a plinker perfectly. But is it as good as a Nightforce, a Schmidt and Bender, Vortex Razor, etc,? Not even close. (Ford Taurus vs a BMW 7 series).

Shyster
01-12-2015, 10:58 PM
A scope does more than present an aiming pount for your eye. A high quality scope will gather enough light to significantly extend your hunt. My Trijicon gives me an extra 10-15 minutes in the morning and evening.

DarksideSix
01-13-2015, 09:07 AM
It depends on what it's purpose is for. If you're a once of year hunter and you're probably shooting no more than 200yds then those lower end scope may suffice but if you shoot monthly or weekly in sort of longer range envirnment then there may be a need for a higher end optic. I've often had other shooters approach me at the range and ask about my optic. When i tell them how much it costs $3800 most of them crap their pants but the more serious shooters understand and can relate. I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I shoot regularly.......4-5 times a month and probably 200+ rounds a month of precision rifle. If you've eve looked through a $3800 Schmidt & Bender such as the one I have then you'd be able to see what the difference is. Like someone daid above.....buy once, cry once. I have 2 higher end optics. My schmidt & Bender 5-25 that ran me $3800 and the new Gen 2 Votex 4.5-27 that ran me $2500. Both of them have a lifetime warranty which is nice, but the best warranty is the one you never have to use.

Leupolds are decent scopes but there are better ones out there for the money. Leupold is not what they use to be and have relied upon there government contracts to keep their reputation. The newer Mark 8's are good scopes but for the high price tag you can have much better. in that medium range of $1200-$2000 you can't beat some of the Nighforces.

DP425
01-14-2015, 07:44 PM
I hear you. I just think the cost-benefit-ratio for spending tons of cash to get a sight-picture is not necessary.

Today's companies have modern manufacturing plants / companies, like Leupold and Nikon (Nikon is not a new company), have modern machine shops
and engineers working all their respective product.
I just tend to think some shooting products today are over-priced for what they are.


You need to understand a couple important things. First, in general, your opinions are just that. They are not facts, they are not universal truth.

Second point, specific to this topic- you clearly do not shoot long range. There is nothing wrong with that, but the fact that someone not shooting long range would buy a tactical scope with un-covered turrets has never made sense to me.

Third point, specific to the bold text... You're not paying for a sight picture.
You're paying for:
Increased durability
Increased adjustment range
Highly accurate adjustments
Repeatable adjustments
Reticle options
Parallax adjustment
Optical quality

Some scopes will have additional features such as locking turrets or zero stops. By and large, none of this is very important to someone who takes a 300yd shot at a deer once every five years (and I automatically knock off 30% of a range estimation by someone who is not a long range shooter; most who say they shot at about 300yd are actually shooting closer to 200). Your typical hunter or close range plinker will do fine with a $300 hunting optic. But just because that's all you need, doesn't mean its all I need as well.

There is the law of diminishing returns- the more expensive something becomes in a product category, the less return on investment. So many long range shooters will stick with scopes that sell for around $800-$1000. At that price point, you get most of the features all of the optics two to three times as expensive provide; they just are not as refined.


In the end, it isn't about what you think about the optics I choose... it's about what suits you best.

DP425
01-14-2015, 07:50 PM
You know what is funny…

WWII Russians used (by today's standards pieces of junk) PSO scopes on their Mosin Nagant rifles.
The Russians used them with extreme success against the Germans.
A $100 Burris today is higher quality than a WWII Russian PSO which I see at gun shows for dirt cheap, as over
time engineering and manufacturing improves.

Canman (Michigan)

1000-1500 yard shots on soft targets were unheard of in WWII. The lower end of that spectrum is now within the effective range of every sniper the US trains...

But you're still shooting at man size targets (deer) at 300yds and in... just like was common on the russian front.

So what's your point?

DP425
01-14-2015, 07:54 PM
It depends on what it's purpose is for. If you're a once of year hunter and you're probably shooting no more than 200yds then those lower end scope may suffice but if you shoot monthly or weekly in sort of longer range envirnment then there may be a need for a higher end optic. I've often had other shooters approach me at the range and ask about my optic. When i tell them how much it costs $3800 most of them crap their pants but the more serious shooters understand and can relate. I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I shoot regularly.......4-5 times a month and probably 200+ rounds a month of precision rifle. If you've eve looked through a $3800 Schmidt & Bender such as the one I have then you'd be able to see what the difference is. Like someone daid above.....buy once, cry once. I have 2 higher end optics. My schmidt & Bender 5-25 that ran me $3800 and the new Gen 2 Votex 4.5-27 that ran me $2500. Both of them have a lifetime warranty which is nice, but the best warranty is the one you never have to use.

Leupolds are decent scopes but there are better ones out there for the money. Leupold is not what they use to be and have relied upon there government contracts to keep their reputation. The newer Mark 8's are good scopes but for the high price tag you can have much better. in that medium range of $1200-$2000 you can't beat some of the Nighforces.

I'm pretty sure S&B only have a two year warranty

DarksideSix
01-15-2015, 08:44 AM
I'm pretty sure S&B only have a two year warranty

They do now but not when i bought mine. they use to have a lifetime warranty and still honor those who had it.

DP425
01-15-2015, 04:42 PM
They do now but not when i bought mine. they use to have a lifetime warranty and still honor those who had it.

Lucky for you! I think for what their scopes cost, it's pretty ludicrous that they come with a two year warranty when new. Granted, i've heard they almost always cover repairs on their PMii's at least, no matter what the original warranty is, but if they decided to stop doing that, people are left out in the cold. Given there are equally good options in the same price range WITH lifetime warranties, I'd be hard pressed to spring for an S&B.

If I could, I'd have a USO on every rifle I own. I'll get there eventually, but for now I'm pretty heavy with bushnell DMR series. They are kind of hard to beat on bang for the buck after military discount.

chosos
01-16-2015, 09:04 AM
I tend to think more expensive glass is generally worth the price. I used to claim that budget glass was great, but that was when I couldn't justify the expense for high dollar glass and only had one or two scopes that were $500+. Once you start getting more higher end scopes a couple of tiers above what you have now, you'll start to notice the differences. They might not be earth shattering, but they do make a difference.

Can a low cost scope get the job done just as well? Absolutely.

I tend to think Primary Arms has a pretty good offering on some reasonably priced scopes and red dots that will get the job done for 99% of us. It won't have tritium, it'll require battery changes more frequently, and we might have to RMA at some point, but for the average Joe, they work perfectly fine. A broken $150 scope for the Average Joe might cost him a prize buck, or a coyote.

If you spend your life hunting more sophisticated species, you really don't want to lose because you cheaped out on $150 glass. As for my favorite scopes? I've been giving Trijicon a lot of my money, because they are local here in Michigan, but I'm guilty of tossing a few bucks at USO and NF, too. Still want to get a Swarovski Z6i... some day. I just need to move past my Night Vision addiction so I can afford a new scope.

OP, this thread is worse than your Marky Mark thread in the NFA Suppressor forum. lol.

DarksideSix
01-16-2015, 10:51 AM
Lucky for you! I think for what their scopes cost, it's pretty ludicrous that they come with a two year warranty when new. Granted, i've heard they almost always cover repairs on their PMii's at least, no matter what the original warranty is, but if they decided to stop doing that, people are left out in the cold. Given there are equally good options in the same price range WITH lifetime warranties, I'd be hard pressed to spring for an S&B.

If I could, I'd have a USO on every rifle I own. I'll get there eventually, but for now I'm pretty heavy with bushnell DMR series. They are kind of hard to beat on bang for the buck after military discount.

Bushnell has really come around in the last few years. Their ERS and XRS series put out some really nice glass, and for that price point are hard to beat. I considered picking up an XRS 4.5-30 but instead went with the Vortex gen2 Razor which is a fabulous optic. I'll agree with what you said in that i haven't heard of anyone getting turned down for waranty work through S&B. My thought is that the best warranty is one you don't have to use. I used S&B's in the Corps. and have saw how ruggesed they are, not to mention the quality of the glass. I also understand why they did away with their lifetime warranty as their margins are much lower than some of the less expensive optics.

Companies like Vortex have really stepped up with their no questions asked warranty but how often you need to use that warranty is also a concernc of mine. I was never presonaly impressed with the first generation of Razor HD's but I will admit that the Gen2's are leaps and bounds above the previous models. I wouldn't go so far as to say it has better quality than my S&B but it is better than most of the nightforces i have looked through and it has everything you need in a tactical optic and a reasonable price tag ($2500).

DP425
01-16-2015, 01:27 PM
Bushnell has really come around in the last few years. Their ERS and XRS series put out some really nice glass, and for that price point are hard to beat. I considered picking up an XRS 4.5-30 but instead went with the Vortex gen2 Razor which is a fabulous optic. I'll agree with what you said in that i haven't heard of anyone getting turned down for waranty work through S&B. My thought is that the best warranty is one you don't have to use. I used S&B's in the Corps. and have saw how ruggesed they are, not to mention the quality of the glass. I also understand why they did away with their lifetime warranty as their margins are much lower than some of the less expensive optics.

Companies like Vortex have really stepped up with their no questions asked warranty but how often you need to use that warranty is also a concernc of mine. I was never presonaly impressed with the first generation of Razor HD's but I will admit that the Gen2's are leaps and bounds above the previous models. I wouldn't go so far as to say it has better quality than my S&B but it is better than most of the nightforces i have looked through and it has everything you need in a tactical optic and a reasonable price tag ($2500).

Yeah, I've always been envious that you guys got quality optics while we got Leupold. Not that they are crap... But when three mk4 M2's are bad out of the box out of the 11 M110's at initial issue... that's kind of telling.

Yes, Bushnell took a giant leap forward when they first introduced the HDMR/DMR line- the optics that have came from that line (like you mentioned, the ERS and XRS) have only help to solidify their standing as a quality upper mid-level optic. And like I said- when I can get a DMR for roughly have the price of an NSX ZS using military discount; it's a no-brainer.

I agree, the best warranty is the one never used. But, no product is infallible; so I'd prefer to have the best of both warranty and quality.