The Cheap riflescope debate
hello all, I know that this topic has been debated here before and the most popular response is that "you get what you pay for in a riflescope" and for YEARS i have lived by that by owning strictly Leupolds and a few burris/nikon scopes aswell But now I have been rethinking the whole idea of spending at least $200.00 on a good scope. over the years of going to public rifle ranges and meeting up with hunters in the field I have noticed that MOST average guys have Bushnell,simmons and tasco scopes on thier deer rifles.....the amount of scopes that would be labeled "good quality" by most are in the minority in the real world it seems, Heck...my closest hunting buddies have had Bushnell/simmons scopes on thier deer rifles for years, some over 15 years old and never an issue with them. My question is what is the REAL differences in the manufacturing process of a riflescopes such as the material of the internal adjustments and how the crosshairs are made and secured to the scope and an overall comparison of what makes a "hi-Price" scope
different from an average guys bushnell or simmons that comands the price? Is it just the fact that they are imported and made by cheap labor as oposed to a leupold or burris that are made Here and command higher labor costs? I know now that low cost scopes are not
Junk as most put it (myself included until recently) or MOST hunters/shooters would Not have them on thier rifles, your thoughts?
different from an average guys bushnell or simmons that comands the price? Is it just the fact that they are imported and made by cheap labor as oposed to a leupold or burris that are made Here and command higher labor costs? I know now that low cost scopes are not
Junk as most put it (myself included until recently) or MOST hunters/shooters would Not have them on thier rifles, your thoughts?
0
-
I used SIMMONS scopes all of my life until I decided I was going to buy a "good" scope. I did my research and ended up buying a BUSHNELL ELITE 4200. All I can really say is get a 30 mm tube and good glass. 0 -
You do have a point. But, how much do those guys shoot? And do they hunt in really bad weather? If you don't really use it much and only hunt in clear weather, you can get away with a cheap scope. 0 -
I think that you do get what you pay for, but that in lower priced scopes you can sometimes find a high quality scope at a good price.
The only scope that I buy right now is the Bushnell Trophy 3-9x40. Great all-around scope and only about $100.0 -
I've been shooting for over 45 years, so far as I have been able to determine; Tasco makes a good red dot, Simmons used to make really clear, repeatable adjustment scopes before they went away from the matte granite finished Whitetail series and started charging more for a similar line with cheaper optics, Weaver has always made a scope worth using, Burris scopes are good for silhouette (never had one lose the reticle, unlike a certain Tasco and another Bushnell), and I'm sure they would hold up under hunting conditions, Leupold makes a very clear, very accurate scope in the Vari-X II line if you can find one gently used, and their VX-III line is comparable to them, Zeiss makes some really expensive scopes with the best glass out there (they used to make surveying instrument glass, and it was really easy to see clearly over very long distances), but if money were no object; I'd opt for a Nightforce 4-18 or so just to see what you've been missing.
The only difference between most scopes you see on hunting rifles is the particular preferences between Jap makers' prices when the owners go to buy a scope. It's a little different when you're shooting for keeps or for a World Record-no Simmons or Tascos there!0 -
I just can't see spending a ton of money on scopes for deer hunting. If your only shooting 10 times a year including sighting in. Just not worth the money. I inherited a model 7 with a Zeiss Scope and a pair of Leica binocs from my dad and to be honest I can't tell the difference in those from my Nikon Pro Staff at 150.00... I am going to stick with the pro staff. To me it is a great middle ground on cost and clarity.. 0 -
I've been on both sides of the fence on this issue in the last two years. In fact, we were discussing it in the gun shop last night.
I like the Bushnell Trophy series, and I've had good luck with them on everything from a .17 HMR to a 30-06. Before last deer season, I bought a Nikon Buckmaster for my BAR in 30-06. I was in the market for a Leupold, but when I compared the two, I couldn't find a couple hundred dollars difference in the clarity. Both were a dramatic improvement over the Bushnell, however.
I recently purchased an Encore Pro Hunter in 460 S&W Mag, and it's wearing a Leupold VX-III. My gun shop buddies are really giving me hell over my $1100 rifle wearing a $250 scope, while my $700 rifle has a $600 scope on it.
My reasoning in doing it this way was that the Nikon is a sufficient scope for the BAR, it's better than what I had, and it will likely survive as long as the rifle with it's low recoil and careful handling. It's a pretty rifle, and I don't beat it around through the brush. On the other hand, the 460 is an all weather rifle in stainless, with synthetic furniture, and will likely see time on a horse, on the four wheeler, up a tree, and it might even find it's way to the bottom of a creek or two along the way. I bought one high quality scope for it, with a no-questions-asked warranty, and I never have to worry much about what happens to that rifle.
Short of the warranty, I have to say that you get what you see, literally. Stop spending when you don't see enough difference to justify the cost, and try to buy at least one step above the bottom priced line from any manufacturer.0 -
In optics, more than most things, you do indeed get what you pay for. While it is true that a $100 scope made outside China is probably a better scope than you could buy for twice that in 1964, it is also true that a $100 scope, no mattter who it is made by will never equal a $500 scope. Coatings cost money. BAK-4 Glass costs money. quality construction costs money. One could argue that your rifle is only as good as the sighting device on it. A fifty dollar scope gives you a $50 rifle. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
In optics, more than most things, you do indeed get what you pay for. While it is true that a $100 scope made outside China is probably a better scope than you could buy for twice that in 1964, it is also true that a $100 scope, no mattter who it is made by will never equal a $500 scope. Coatings cost money. BAK-4 Glass costs money. quality construction costs money. One could argue that your rifle is only as good as the sighting device on it. A fifty dollar scope gives you a $50 rifle.
Well said. I would rather have a used $200.00 Savage with a good $400.00 scope on it, than an expensive rifle with a $50.00 scope on it.0 -
you have to watch what you are buying i went to bass pro shop to look for new bino i look at nikon and wanted to look at the leupolds but the guy working there said that the leupolds that they seal are made in china or one of them countrys so make sure you ask where they were made 0 -
I have that same problem, you get a nice rifle, you dont what junk on it, but you cant afford, the nice scopes. I was just looking at Sportsmanguide.com, Black Hawkr 3 to 12 x 50 mm IR Scope hits the mark or BSAr 8 to 32 x 40 mm ContenderT Scope. 0 -
Barska's are the best value in scopes today.
www.barska.com
I have two and love em. I have a Nikon on my Muzzleloader. It's just a bit clearer that my Barskas. For an inexpensive rifle, they're the way to go.
That said, I'm soon going to swith to all Burris or Nikon, mainly because of the prices I can get them for.0 -
YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!!!! I have been there and done that,...good scopes demand a premium.
To answere some questions:
yes better machined gears cost more money
yes better integrity will add weight
yes cost comes with glass quality and coatings
The reason a Nightforce or IOR weigh so much is because they are so well built and tough.0 -
Another thing to consider is all though you may not be able to see much difference in clarity if you sit down at the bench for a little target practice you will know what eye strain is at the end of the session I always said if I could not see the difference I would not pay the difference until I shot a buddy's rifle with a good scope on it for the money and the quality Burris fullfeild II and the nikon monarch's are the cheapest scopes I will ever buy again
but I shoot my guns so I benefit from better glass[^]0 -
Bushnell and Simmons and the likes are about the highest cost ones that I have.
I have no complaints about them at all.0 -
I have one cheap Barska. No great affection for it.
I also have one Nikon Monarch Series. It is awesome!0 -
I like the Redfield on my 17HMR. Don 0 -
I put cheap scopes on my plinking rifles. On a hunting rifle I put only quality glass (Leupold or Zeiss) . I would think that the range would make a difference in hunting scopes. If a long shot in your area is 150 yards any scope will do. Shooting across canyons in the west at longer ranges clarity becomes more important. Just my .02 0 -
I like old, Redfield Widefield acopes.
Doug0 -
I've been a gun nut for a most of my life, but only started buying "better" scopes in the past 7 or 8 years. I was one of the worst about buying a $600-$800 deer rifle or varmint rifle and topping it off with a $59-$79 scope. I can't honestly say that practice ever cost me a deer or coyote...but it could have. A couple of things changed my opinion of cheap scopes. One, I actually had a Tasco World Class 3-9X40 (My former favorite cheapo scope) come loose inside while mounted on a .257 Roberts[:0] Luckily I noticed it before season started. The second thing that done me in on cheap scopes was getting some actual range time with some good scopes that belonged to friends. Now, my bare minimum is a Nikon Pro-Staff which is a heck a lot of scope for the money, but I also have a couple of Leupolds and a Swarovski. Will I rush out and put Swarovski's on everything? No. Do I think everyone needs an expensive scope? No, but I can guarantee you I won't ever return to the cheapys either...
The more you shoot the better optics you need. That why I have a $350 scope on my CZ-452 .22LR0 -
they all do the same job to a point, i used all of the 'mid class scope' tasco,blazer.simmonds,bsa' , i find ok on rimmy's etc.. if you want clarity, from 4-32+ mag ,& use ya guns regular, imo 223cal + deserve a Burris...as for lupold, s&bender, B&lomb,docter,Swar etc etc well over priced manufacturing process, stick to Burris.
Great value & solid reliability[^]0 -
Last year i bought a simmon's and put it on an Ruger 35 whelon, Cheap scope, but is very good I can see holes at 100 yards and have shot a lot no problem with shifting, Now mind you this is a NEW model not the old one. I have just bought another one to replace the Leupole on my 300 win mag, the leupole went bad AGAIN. 0 -
If you shoot with plenty of daylight, baby your scope, and never take it out in the rain you can get away with a Tasco, BSA, Simmons or what ever else you want. If you want a light gathering, long term ajustibality, rugged scope with edge to edge clarity you need to spend a little bite more. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by dbain99
If you shoot with plenty of daylight, baby your scope, and never take it out in the rain you can get away with a Tasco, BSA, Simmons or what ever else you want. If you want a light gathering, long term ajustibality, rugged scope with edge to edge clarity you need to spend a little bite more.
+10 -
O.K. , here we go ...I have used and sold several various scopes over the last several years ... and there is a definant(sp)difference in the elcheapo and exspensive scopes , not only can I bet on the cheaper scopes not being as clear and bright , they Do Not hold up as well under recoil and or heavy use/abuse ...The simmons/bushnell/tasco do just fine (generaly speaking) on rimfires,but we always recommend better (higher priced) scopes on all centerfire and shotgun applications , these also stay zeroed much better . and if you do a side by side comparision of $29.95 scope and a 299.95 scope , its a difference like daylite and dark ...
Thanks !!!
d.a.stearns
Gunsmith / LEO
Niota , Tn0 -
My first, favorite and most used deer rifle has had the same Bushnell "Sportview" scope on it since 1976. My Dad bought me the rifle for Christmas and later, before the next deer season, the scope.
The combo has hunted through heat, extreme cold, rain and everything in between and has accounted for quite a number of Whitetails, Mulies and a couple Elk. No fogging, no loss of zero, shoots great and is there to do the job year after year.
Two years ago, I gifted the rifle/scope combo to my adult son. He's carried it while deer hunting with me both years.[;)][^]
Almost all my vintage rifles, have period scopes on them. I have several with steel-tube Weavers, a couple steel-tube Lymans and some with old Redfields. I even have a Kolmorgan.
No problems with any, but, in fairness, I won't buy one of the new cheesy, low end products from Bushnell, Simmons, Tasco etc...
I just can't bring myself to spend $300, or more for a scope, when my experience with those "lower priced" ones has been so good, albeit the ones I have were made many years ago, from better quality materials and with better workmanship than modern "affordable" scopes.
I have however, spent over $300 on AR_15 optics, e.g, one Trijicon Reflex and one Trijicon TriPower.[:I]0 -
Early morning/late evening, the high end scopes allow you to see better earlier or later. I was deer hunting this past fall. Got into the stand about 0600. Got settled and looked toward the feeder. Was a black mass under it that looked like shadow. A look thru my Zeiss Divari showed It was a mess of hogs. They showed up indiviually and clearly. 0 -
If it is made in China, it is junk. No if, ands, or butts.
All my riffles have old steel tube Weavers on them. The are built like a safe. I recently took the eyepiece from 2 of them and repurged them with nitrogen. I've had these 2 scopes for better than 20 years. Come back in 20 years with your ChiCom scope and lets see if it is still functioning.
The Japanese make the best "cheap" riffle scopes. Their work ethic and pride is still worth something to them. Some of the higher end scopes even use Jap glass, it is that good.
I recently took apart a Redfield 2-7 Widefield that I had run over with my truck (don't ask). I could see why they are such a good scope and still command good prices nowadays. There wasn't one piece of plastic in or on it. So, I took aprt the Traschco 3-9 that was laying on the other side of the bench that no longer held zero on my .22. Freakin' garbage. Plasctic POS.
What I'm saying is that if you seriously use your riffle/slugun, the minimum I would use is Nikon, Weaver, or Sightron. These are good scopes that the average workin' man can afford if he uses his dollars right. Anything less is a throwaway scope.0 -
quote:Bushnell and Simmons and the likes are about the highest cost ones that I have.
I have no complaints about them at all.
And as long as you never work behind a quality scope to see what you are missing it will stay that way.
Bushnell certainly makes a decent scope for the price range. I have owned them and hunted with them, and still use a 1970's Bushnell spotting scope at the range. But, the orginal statement stands: No $100 scope produced by anyone, anywhere in the world will equal a $500 scope.
If you think you cannot afford to buy a good scope after buying a fine rifle, I again say, you just turned a $700 rifle into a $79 rifle. Save longer. Not all of us using quality scopes are rich. I don't write checks every week for $500 scopes (there are fly rods to buy, Tennessee whiskey, other important things like paying the utilities too), nor do I pull our the charge card and pay interest for months will I pay it off. I save it up, a little each payday and then pay cash (actually, I use a credit card that gives a rebate, and pay it every month).0 -
$50 scope on a 1500 dollar gun.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=766061370 -
The scope will be a throw-away, or put on a rim-fire. Good illustration Cartod.[^] 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
43 comments