I have mostly Leupold and Nikon. I did, however, put a 3-9 Bushnell with stadia lines on my AR and have been very pleased.
Expensive rifle scopes - worth the money?
- Thread starter Joewisc
- Start date
As has been said above good optics make the difference of hitting or not at long range with heavy recoiling calibers as well as extending the daylight. If you have never used great optics at distance ,there is no way that I could convince you that the cheaper lesser cost optics that may work at 100yds. will be found wanting at a 1000yds or farther and will come apart with 300 win or 338 lapua recoil let alone firing 50BMG. I realize cost is a factor for many of us but if youcan afford the better optics you will never be sorry you bought quality.
I've structured my life to get what I want, within reason. My #1 scope choice for a hunting rifle or .22 is a Zeiss Conquest. For $400, it is very hard to beat. I'm single with no kids and no wife. Pretty much sums it up. A $40 scope may work and work fine. Just not my cup of tea. I'd just as soon spend good money one time.
Depends on how much
Depends on how much you want to limit problems like parallax and maximize factors like durability, brightness, sharpness and fine adjustments measured in minutes of angles. Another factor is how much you depend on it and what you use it for. Most any scope will do a good job in fine conditions and close up, but you may end up in a situation that's not so fine or close up.
Depends on how much you want to limit problems like parallax and maximize factors like durability, brightness, sharpness and fine adjustments measured in minutes of angles. Another factor is how much you depend on it and what you use it for. Most any scope will do a good job in fine conditions and close up, but you may end up in a situation that's not so fine or close up.
LVSteve
Member
I have done quite a lot of photography and my wallet will tell you that decent glass can cost a lot of money. When it comes to rifle scopes the game is a little different for these reasons.
1) It must be able to maintain zero despite recoil.
2) It must have the minimum of parallax.
3) If it has a self contained/quick release mount, it must be able to cope with recoil.
Unless those conditions are met, the best glass in the world is no good to you. How do I know? I got a cheap 6x42 from CDNN some years ago with simply wonderful optics but it acted like it had a bent tube and would not zero. I kept the scope thinking I would get brave one day and take it apart just in case there is something dumb gone wrong inside. Broke my heat to look through it because the image was like seeing HD TV for the first time when compared with other cheap scopes. I think I chucked it eventually.
Once the points above are nailed down the glass requirement is set by:-
1) How far do you want to shoot? If the optic cannot focus properly you will find it frustrating to use at distance. Bad distortion across the view with high magnification scopes is off-putting, too.
2) What time of day are you going to shoot? You don't need a "bucket of light" type scope if you only target shoot in good light. If you regularly hunt deer in the deep woods, you need all the light and contrast you can get.
1) It must be able to maintain zero despite recoil.
2) It must have the minimum of parallax.
3) If it has a self contained/quick release mount, it must be able to cope with recoil.
Unless those conditions are met, the best glass in the world is no good to you. How do I know? I got a cheap 6x42 from CDNN some years ago with simply wonderful optics but it acted like it had a bent tube and would not zero. I kept the scope thinking I would get brave one day and take it apart just in case there is something dumb gone wrong inside. Broke my heat to look through it because the image was like seeing HD TV for the first time when compared with other cheap scopes. I think I chucked it eventually.
Once the points above are nailed down the glass requirement is set by:-
1) How far do you want to shoot? If the optic cannot focus properly you will find it frustrating to use at distance. Bad distortion across the view with high magnification scopes is off-putting, too.
2) What time of day are you going to shoot? You don't need a "bucket of light" type scope if you only target shoot in good light. If you regularly hunt deer in the deep woods, you need all the light and contrast you can get.
Ivan the Butcher
Member
I shoot a couple of Nightforce scopes at long range. A 8x32x56BR and an 5.5x22x56 NFX. At the October shoot there were 3 guys shooting big Schmidt & Bender scopes. Mine are in the the $1700-$2200 range, pretty much the next real step up is around is around 4 grand give or take $500. At 1000 to 1200Yards a black or cammo target in the weeds and srubs plus the shadows of a tree line, 2 grand scopes pretty much the are minimum and the 4 grand scopes give the compident shooter an advantage. The companies selling scopes are the ones charging MSRP on high end scopes and discounting the lower end scopes, I have friends who do group purchases and get about 1/3 off the big dollar stuff. The Russian and German snipers at Stalingrad (as seen in "Enemy at the Gates") were only shooting 80 to 150 Meters. In Vietnam, Carlos Hethcock was normally shooting 400-800 yards. In the current war, snipers are needing 800 yards all the time and are engageing the enemy at as far as 2200yards (with the bigger guns). It takes better scopes at those distances! By the way, I have a 1956 Bushnell 3x9x32 on a deer rifle. The quality of the glass from the 50's is surprisingly good, but they make $40 scopes of that quality anymore. I have a Unirtel 15x Varmint (2" glass, 1" tube) from late 60's or early 70's, this is the same family of scope used by Hethcock for his famous 2500 yard shot (he used 20x) these are in the $800 range in good condition now. They are great scopes, but don't hold a candel to the modern long range scopes. When top of the line, after improvments for several genorations, cost $$$; the next genoration is going to cost alot more & the improvment won't be that big. Sorry to say it but, first class costs, and sad to say won't be the first class for long. It costs alot to keep up with the Jones, it is impossible to keep upwith Uncle Sam(he print his own money). Ivan
Hofstet
Member
If you can't see it, you can't place an accurate shot, no matter how good the rifle and ammo is. Most of my scopes cost much more than my rifles.
Leupold scopes have met my needs pretty well for many years the vx3 models in particular.You can spend two to three times as much on better scopes but the gains in clarity, brightness, durability, etc. are minimal in my opinion.
labworm
US Veteran
Only the individual shooter knows why that expensive scope sits on top of that quality firearm..
I'm not included, Marlin 60, scope Bushnell 4 X 32 ($39.99
)
I'm not included, Marlin 60, scope Bushnell 4 X 32 ($39.99
)
lonejacklarry
US Veteran
I agree with this-you have to be able to see it. I bought a Nightforce NXS 3.5-15x50 HS Zero Stop F1 for a Remington 5R .308 several months ago. (Yes, Phil, it has a threaded barrel) As with many higher end items this scope is way better than am I. The hope is that my skills will improve to match that of the scope.
The first thing I figured out is that dropping a little dirt to check the wind does not work as well as it does in the movies. The skill involved in long range shooting may be beyond my capabilities but there is improvement most every time out.
The real point is that the $59 Walmart scopes will not work for long range shooting but they do have their place. And, no, I didn't spend that much money to punch holes in a B27 at 25 yards. Is it "worth" the extra money? It is to me.
By the way, I've flown helicopters w/ fewer dials, numbers, etc., than this scope has! And you have to count the "gee whiz" factor, too.
Similar threads
