Sub $200 Optic for my new Sport 2?

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I went with a cheap(er) red dot. It crapped out after two years so I went with an Aimpoint Pro. You may be fine with a 200 red dot, but they are made in China so don't be surprised if it craps out on you at some point.

A rifle is only as good as its sights. I don't understand people spending the money for a quality rifle only to turn around and save money on optics. Not saying you need to go with a a Leupold, but why not spend a little more to know you are buying a quality product? Buy once cry once.

Right. But it's also about the role/expectations of the rifle. If the rifle is designated for recreation, then a recreational optic is well enough suited.

The economic argument is a bit different. Buy a $200 Chinese optic and what's it value used? About zero. By an Aimpoint and it will hold a significant portion of its purchase price. So the real cost of buying cheap isn't so cheap compared to quality. But outfitting all my .22s with Aimpoints would get me divorced.

 

[TheMaineEvent]

Right. But it's also about the role/expectations of the rifle. If the rifle is designated for recreation, then a recreational optic is well enough suited.

The economic argument is a bit different. Buy a $200 Chinese optic and what's it value used? About zero. By an Aimpoint and it will hold a significant portion of its purchase price. So the real cost of buying cheap isn't so cheap compared to quality. But outfitting all my .22s with Aimpoints would get me divorced.

I can see factoring the use of the rifle when considering optics, but I think a lot of buyers are simply using the "what can I get away with for the least amount of money" philosophy. I know I did, and when my cheap red dot crapped out I said no more to cheap optics.

I liken it to buying a nice stereo receiver and then settling for cheap speakers or a nice TV with a cheap surround sound system. It may work, for a while, but in the end, it's almost always worth spending just a little bit more to get a lot more in terms of quality.

 

[mbliss57]

It all depends on what level of gun /shooting you are doing. I use my long guns a few times a year for fun. Why would I spend alot of money on the rifle or the optic? I won't. If that use /need changes then I would shell out $600-$1000 for battle ready optics. Not planning to go to battle though.. And if I happened to need battle sights... the ones it comes with.. that I used in the 1970s on my M16A1 work fine. Iron peeps.

 

[Rastoff]

I liken it to buying a nice stereo receiver and then settling for cheap speakers or a nice TV with a cheap surround sound system. It may work, for a while, but in the end, it's almost always worth spending just a little bit more to get a lot more in terms of quality.

Yep, it's just like tires and high performance vehicles.

You can put cheap tires on a Hayabusa, but don't try to find the top speed. Conversely, you can put really good tires on a mediocre motorcycle and improve the performance. The same goes for guns. Put on cheap optics and you'll get cheap performance.

I was talking with a guy just the other day. He was complaining that the ammo he had was no good. When I asked him what he set up was, he told me it was the cheapest rifle on the market with an $80 scope. He was shooting off a wobbly platform while sitting on a chair that was sinking in the mud. Yeah, it's the ammo.

 

[Kadonny]

For the money, hard to beat Primary Arms.