Scopes, you get what you pay for.

[model70hunter]

I traded into an FN 300 MAg. Bought a Redfield Revenge scope for it. Opening day of Ks deer season it was very overcast. Saw 2 deer with 10 minutes of legal shooting time left. I could not make out heads or tails. My Wife was using my Kimber 84 in 7mm-08 with a midrange nikon on it. She was using my rifle because we were busy and did not get zero checked on her Kimber.

She urged me to shoot it, I repeated I can't make an ethical shot. She looked thru my other gun and said I can see him clearly. I said shoot. It went 4 steps and collapsed. It is sitting at the taxidermist now, super monster buck.

I'll do whatever to get pics on here later. Wife is the Scrapbook internet pic whiz.

My son gave his nephew a Mossberg 270. IT has a store brand scope, Bass Pro on it, supposed to be nice. My Grandson shot one time and killed his 1st deer this year. My son wanted the scope back. I bought a scope and we left the gun/scope with my Son who lives 30 minutes from the grandson.

Son calls, did you look thru the scope? Yes I did, when we checked zero before season and a few times during deer season to fine tune the focus. Why? The cross hairs are now sitting in the scope like an X, they have turned. He is getting it repaired under warranty.

The big time gun writers always write, your scope needs to cost more than your rifle. On these 2 scopes I now believe so.

I love and own many Leupold scopes, several binocs, spotting scope, Nikon products and until I could not see anything more than a fuzzy blur I did not believe there was that much difference. Murphys law, it'll fail when you most need it.

The Redfield Revenge will get changed out to a 22 or something. The parent company Leupold brand will end up on the FN.

I hold no angst with my wife and her second wall hanger, nope it was all on me, did not have my 270 with the Leupold, did not have her 7mm-08 zero checked. Here is the down fall, many of you might try this, shoot the gun at the end of legal shooting time on a range with very overcast skies. Or as it turns to darkness.

 

[rburg]

I generally agree with your posts and conclusion. Here, I'm not so sure. Any brand scope can be a lemon. Its just your chances are much greater with a cheap scope. Or almost non-existent with a major brand. I'm not an expert, but I've got some experience. That and modern scopes seem much better, usually. I've got a 2nd year M70 that came with a BalVar 8 and its only about 80 years old now. Its still sharp and clear, good enough for me.

I think the gun writers get kickbacks for promoting top of the line optics. OK, I've never seen a bad Leupold scope that was new. I've seen a few abused that weren't so hot. Similarly, I've got nearly new Zeiss that is great. Hope it stays that way. Over the last decade or so I've been experimenting with 30mm scopes. They do seem to be heavy, but really clear and bright.

But your post proves the old point. Test the gun and scope before you go hunting. Don't trust how its always been, make sure its right now.

 

[rwsmith]

I remember cheap camera lenses......

I remember when they started making cheap camera lenses, especially zoom lenses. In bright light with the aperture pinched down it was hard to tell them from much more expensive lenses. But let it get a little dark, or cloudy and you open the aperture up, the flaws really start to show.

The moral of this story is, if you are going to be hunting in dim light, get a scope that is up to the task in the worst conditions.

 

[Rule3]

Redfield makes good scopes, The carry the same warranty as Leupold. If not happy with it, call them, they will take care of you,

 

[Skeet 028]

I am somewhat brand conscious and after many years pretty much stick with Leupold. In years past I also used Redfield. Not saying they are all crummy but I leave Nikon, the new Redfield, the new geewhiz lifetime warrantee wonders that are coming out. I use the Leupold and Bushnell Elite 6500s and some of the Signature Burris scopes. The US made ones. Although probably very good scopes I refuse to buy European 2-3000 dollar scopes. I have a Leupold 1x4 on a shotgun that has at least 700 rounds through it. That is a lot of recoil punishment. My daughter still uses it in Md. Hard to beat a Loopy though.

 

[Ivan the Butcher]

I have scopes, & I have SCOPES! I have several rifles I shoot at Longer ranges, and for the sake of argument we will call that 500+ yards. It isn't about power. It isn't about cost. A fellow shooter bought a 60x for the bargain price of $4000 and put it on a $6000 custom Long Range gun. It did not make him a better shot! At 800 and 1000 yards, he missed just as many steel plates as he did with a $2000 Nightforce on a $2000 Remington reworked 700. Don't get me wrong he is a better shot than I am, or at least he scores beat me. But you CANNOT buy your way to the blue ribbon! It takes pretty good equipment, it takes extremely good ammo, but in the end you have to put in time on the range.

I haven't upgraded scopes or rifles in 6 years, I haven't spent as much time on the range as before my stroke. And my scores reflect that. Buying $4000 or $6000 scopes instead of $2000 (NightForce NFX 5.5-22 x 56) won't change that!

The better hardware make it easier to see the things and do the things you need to hit a 5" plate at 1000 yards. But if you don't read the wind correctly and figure the in ALL the environmentals (Altitude, Temperature, Barometric pressure, distance within about 15 yards, Angle of approach and earth's rotation and direction) having the best of everything won't get you on target!

Now I've talked about the big money, the medium money is where most people get into the game. I have a Leopold 8-25x50 Veri-X III ($1250+/-). It is as clear and crisp as scopes that cost 2 or 3 times as much! However the reticles are good for fixed distance shooting at 500 yards or a little more, mine has "Target" as opposed to "Hunting" reticles. I still shoot out to 1000 with it but it is lacking. I have a pile of 6.5-20x40 or 50. ($1000 but often can be found for much less) These are fantastic groundhog hunting scopes! But they just don't do what is needed (or at least what I need for 800+ yards).

On the inexpensive end. I have a 1960ish Bushnell "Banner" 3-9x32 I bought used. I have it on a Ruger No. 1 in 7 Mauser. That individual scope is more than that gun will ever need! A 1980 version of the same scope and power, is a worthless paper weight! I once bought a 20x Chinese scope that on a cloudy day I could barely see a target at 100 yards on a tree shaded range!

I can't say what anyone else will need, but I can say that prices are going up, often the quality is going down. And what is actually the best? We don't even get a chance to see it. I saw a scope at the NRA convention several years ago. A company I never heard of, but they were trying to get into the police and civilian markets. Their main product was a scope without a name but was specified to standards by the Defense Dept. and not allowed to be sold to anybody but them! (Like the Vietnam era Leatherwood II's) I looked through one inside the exhibition hall, the clarity was unbelievable! I ask what the government paid for them. It is classified! but between $10,000 and $15,000! I would want a different recital also! The same company made a laser range finder that ranged 4000 meters and was the size of binoculars, price; $19,000 (Not for sale to anybody but the government) and they couldn't make them fast enough!

Maybe I am all wrong! If I got the government to buy me a $10,000 rifle that shoots $25-50 a round ammo, with a $12,500 scope in $800 rings and a $19,000 range finder; Maybe I could hit something then! All I need to come up with is a 40 year younger body and eyes to use it! Oh, and time to practice with it! Probably NOT!

Ivan

 

[tops]

I know and understand that all broad statements are false including this one BUT good things ain't cheap and cheap things ain't good. Larry

 

[steamloco76]

I understand quality optics and their true value quite well as I spent nearly 15 years as a photojournalist. An $300 camera with a $1000 lens will serve you much better than a $5000 camera with a $100 lens, especially in low light where the glass and coatings in a good lens show their stuff.

I don't use my rifles for serious uses, so most of the scopes on them a the best inexpensive ones I have found. I have five .22's with the original, all metal BSA Sweet 17, 4-12X scopes. They are clear, hold zero extremely well and were $49 each on close out. I would not want to trust a trophy hunt to one of them, but for the intended use, they are the bees knees. BTW, the new models of the BSA Sweet series are loaded with plastic and do not have the same lens coatings.

My model 94 in .44 Mag. wears a 25 year old Redfield Lo Pro, which is a superb scope, wish they still made them.

There are some good private brand scopes. Several years ago Cabelas sold a Pro line, made in Europe. I bought a 3-9X by 40MM, originally price at, I think $499, for $175 when they closed them out. Very good optics. It rides on my Remington 700 CDL .30-06. I would trust this scope on a trophy hunt.

 

[da gimp]

compared to a lesser grade/brand of scope, my Leupold VXIII gives me about an extra 1/2 hour of shooting time (at dawn/dusk) due to its light gathering coatings/optics.

 

[ky wonder]

I have never spent more than $250.00 on a scope and have taken many deer, bobcats and one Colorado 5x5 bull elk at times of low light,

while I will not say anything negative about the high dollar scopes, I don't buy into the hype.

I have four target grade heavy barrel rifles with scopes such as BSA contenders, Tasco world class and have no problems being competitive at the range shooting long range competition

I did have a BSA go bad on me once when it went black on a bitter cold day at the range, and they replaced the scope with their newer model.

but that scope had seen at least a 800 rounds of 7mm rem mag through the savage tactical it was on

I have had guys with higher dollar scopes hunt here in the hollow, and I will admit that they do have nice rigs, but my old 700 with a Nikon buck master 3x9x40 has yet to fail me.

in fact I have a old Burris 4x28 on a marlin 30-30 that has taken many deer.

I will never hunt the big 4 in Africa, but if I did I would consider a more expensive scope because they can kill you,

however that is not an issue I am to concerned with here in the us

 

[Farmer17]

I have a Redfield Revenge 2x-7x that I bought on sale at Optics Planet for about $135 and it works wonderfully. I have a $140 Weaver 1-3X on a Marlin 30/30 and have several Leupolds and I can't tell any difference in brightness and clarity between them and the cheaper Redfield and Weaver scopes. I also have a $70 Hawke 4x AO mildot scope on my RWS Diana M34 pellet rifle and it's perfectly clear and spring pellet guns are supposed to be really hard on scopes. It keeps on working perfectly so I won't be buying any $1000 scopes in the near future unless something changes.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

While you may not always get what you pay for, I think the overriding point in the OP that there's no free lunch when it comes to light transmission is spot-on. I sometimes chuckle when I read enthusiastic buyer reviews of a $159 XYZ optic on sale at Goobers Glass Depot that is just as bright as his buddy's $1,200 Leupold. Honest... it really is!

That said, for those of us who are budget minded the trick is to choose an optic that wells serves the intended purpose without paying for that which isn't required. And... avoid paying a ton of money for an optic that isn't even as well suited as a lesser priced optic. That's a lot easier said than done. It takes a fair amount of homework.

It's been my observation that the quality of opitc isn't necessarily the issue for a lot of buyers, but rather selecting the right optic.

 

[df06]

I have hunted with guys that have $1000 rifles and $129 or less scopes. The results are were mixed but overall poor.
Two days before the Ks gun opener, I watched some guys try to sight in a rifle with one of those cheap scopes. They never did get it sighted in at 50 yards. They gave up and got another gun with a mid range scope.
I am a died in the wool Leupold user. I have had dozens of them. One did fail on a TC Contender handgun with a hard kicking cartridge. The scope went literally black inside, you couldn't see through it at all. In about three weeks, Leupold had it repaired and back in my hands.
I will continue to buy the better "glass" and skimp somewhere else.

 

[Skeet 028]

When I had my shop I sold a fellow a nice Varmint rifle. He wanted a Leupold VX II 6x18 on it. I did not have it in stock. In the interim I mounted a 6x18 BSA on it..a used one I had. Took 3 rounds to sight it. When I got the Leopold in, I called him and he came and got it... with another rifle he had. He left the crappy BSA on the varminter and put the new scope on a Rem custom shop 700 in 6mm. Talked with him 3 months ago and that BSA is still on the Varminter and still working fine after almost 800 groundhogs. No great scope.but it is adequate for his purpose.

I still buy the better scopes

 

[kthom]

I've still got a few older less than great scopes, especially as far as light transmission is concerned. I usta could see well enough to make them work for me fairly well, especially if it was not a low light kind of day or early or late. These days, when I pick up one of those, I wonder how I ever got by with them! I can't see much good with a good scope, but there surely is a difference if the scope or binocs have very good light transmission. Pretty much night and day for me!!

 

[chief38]

I have always had great luck and trouble free performance with Leupold Scopes so that is what is what I stick to. I am very impressed with their performance and EFR parallax adjustments too. If you are looking for a cheaper scope, the Nikon brand is OK, although if I were ever to try a less expensive scope in the future I'd probably go with a Redfield as I have heard only good things about them and IIRC they are owned by Leupold which I hold in high regard.

 

[model70hunter]

Follow up;

I'd have to physically count the number of Leupolds I have. Quite a few.
I have an old Redfield wide field 3x9 from the mid 60's on my Weatherby MK V in 300 WBY. The scope was put on the gun when both were new. It still works great.

The new Redfield Revenge I bought does not have the light gathering capability of a Leupold or some Zeiss scopes I've owned.

I have a pair of Kahles Binoculars, My Leupold binocs seem as clear. There is a huge difference in price on these 2.

The Revenge was the last one in stock at Academy, it was on sale due to someone had pilfered a scope adjustment cap. I called Redfield/Leupold and asked to purchase one, it was not their fault, they sent me not one but 2 at no cost, i again reminded them it was not a product fault but they said nope it's on us. I've dealt with Leupold for years. I have had only a few issues. Leupold treated me like they appreciate my business. They recognized me by caller ID when I called in. Great Folks.

There are several other makers and you would recognize the names, 3 to be exact, that treated me like a thief in the night, I was only able to get one to honor the warranty. I told the service manager to put his boss on the phone, he finally said we'll honor the warranty but if this one breaks we won't replace it. I said don't worry about it, if it is bad out of the box like this one I'll be sending it back, I'll put the replacement on a cheap 22 and never buy another of your scopes. The scope had floating Paint or something inside, it settled over the cross hairs, no ring marks and he thought I abused it.

I have a Leupold VX III 2.5x8 that would be perfect on this gun but, I am yet unsure where I'm going with it. A serviceable scope was what I wanted. I was swayed by the sale price.....

I do not hold the scope at fault, I knew I should have had my pre 64 with a Leupold on it. Just want to hear the FN 300 Win mag bark. Didn't happen, just it's current caretaker howling at the moon is all the barking here.

Did I learn anything? Yes, until I err again......

 

[Ivan the Butcher]

In the Mid 60's through the 70's Burris mad a very good scope! I was given a 8x32 Signature. It rivals Leopold of the day in clarity and repeatability. I have it on a 500 yard or less varmint rifle.

When Ruger brought out the 77 International, I bought the first 308 to hit Central Ohio, and put a Burris 6x compact on it. It was an absolutely beautiful looking combination. It wasn't the scopes fault that the rifle wouldn't hit a barn from inside! Which makes me wonder, How many rifles were condemned because of bad scopes? and How many scopes were condemned because of bad rifles? Back in the early 80's I had 3 different Ruger 77, and all shot so bad it was absolutely ridicules! 77's were suppose to be good! I've had 5 different No. 1's that have all been great, and they are the one with a bad reputation!

So now when buying a new scope I test it on a proven rifle, and new rifles are tested with a proven scope. (I have an old Leopold M-8, 30X. It will prove the gun's abilities very quickly! And a Customized Rem 700 in 22 BR that is hard to shoot bad from a rest!)

I buy every used Leopold Veri-X III in 4.5-14 and 6.5-20 I see! (As long as the adjustments have clicks, there are some that have Friction Adjustments, I avoid them like the plague!) I used to buy all the Compact models also but my eyes just don't like the small glass any more! I see used Leopold scopes as an investment for the future. I will need it for a gun someday and save 3 or 4 hundred dollars, or I'll sell and make a few hundred! I only have 4 Veri-X III and 2 or 3 M-8's not on guns at the time. At one time there were about 20 on the shelf! But the times required selling off a few, and the sons bought rifles requiring one of my scopes (I still haven't figures out how that works!)

You can't beat a Leopold for the money, and no matter how old or how many people have owned it; IT IS STILL UNDER WARRENTY!

Ivan

 

[Jessie]

For what I can justify and afford to spend on optics, Leupold is my top choice. I also use and like Burris and have had good service earlier with Bushnell.
I realize that the last two are probably looked down upon by the optics pros, but I can't afford thousands for glass that may get me 15 more minutes of shooting light.
I need that money for gas to get to the hunting grounds.
I guess it's a matter of priorities with me.
The most I've ever spent or will spend was $725 for a 6x24 Leupold.
It is the best one I own, I will admit, but the others have not failed me yet.

 

[Pete from Perth]

I shoot a lot of Kangaroos (70-100 a night) When they are in wheat crops which is done at night with a spotlight & by law must be shot in the head, hence a quality scope is a must. I have used many (8X56 is what we use) over the years & the only 2 i will use is the Zeiss 8X56 or Doctor 8X56 which gather heaps of light & crystal clear out to the range of spotlight (200 or so Mts) Rifle is a Win mdl70 in 22/250!