Cheap vs. Expensive Rifle Scopes

[mpolans]

I was looking on ebay at the difference in price between some the 6x-24x variable power (and similar power) scopes and was wondering what's the difference between some of the high-end $1000+ Zeiss stuff and the $100 No Name brand stuff?

For the casual rifle shooter (probably less than a couple hundred rounds per year) planning on non-serious target shooting at 200-300 yards and maybe occasionally going hunting, does it really matter?

Rifle is a Remington 700 in .30-06.

[George]

Cheap glass is just cheap glass. Clarity, eye relief, little to no parralax error and repeatable accuracy are what you get for the extra bucks. Leupold is usually the best choice for the price. A 6-16+ power scope will not be the best choice for hunting unless you are shooting at real long distances (400+). Take a look at 3.5-10X variables with a huge objective (low light useability). The Leupold Vari-X II & III models are a good choice for a bolt action sporting rifle.. Everytime I have scrimped on glass I have found the result to be less than OK by a whole lot.

--

Regards,

[TBF]

A cheap scope can be a gamble.

I got a 6-20X scope from midway on sale for about 89 bucks a few years ago, Simmons whitetail 50 MM. The adjustments are not very precise. The optical quality is actually pretty good, and it holds zero on a 300WSM.

As long as I dial it in and leave it alone, all is well.

I leave it at 16X and do not ever adjust anything except the paralax adjustment.

Not all cheap scopes are built to take any recoil and may drift and shift zero every few shots, been there and done that too.

The repeatability of adjustment is generally lacking in a cheap scope.

Travis F.

[Bruce]

I think it depends what you want from it. If you just get the rifle out a few time per year and kill at deer with it, except for light gain, it probably won't matter much. If you are using it, twisting knobs and really needing to see *out there*, top quality manufacturing (and higher cost) is inevitable.

I recall the time I mounted a NightForce scope in place of a Tasco SSniper scope---it was as though God had replaced the lightbulbs. And, I think the Tasco SupSniper is a fine piece for the money.

[JFD]

I've got the same Simmons Whitetail as TBF and it has been a good one. Any other attempts at cheap glass have been a failure.

[rhino]

I think it would be helpful if some of the more experience shooters could try to assemble a list of brands and sort of "group" them in terms of overall quality, clarity, light gathering, ruggedness, repeatable adjustments, etc.

If we had some kind of tiered system, it would help a lot of us make our choices based on the best combination of price vs. performance.

For instance, at the top we'd have some of the really expensive German stuff, then we'd have the better Leupold stuff, mid range Leupold, mid level stuff like Nikon, Pentax, Bushnell Elite, etc., lower end buy usable like the better Tasco stuff, and then junk.

I know it would be a daunting task ... and maybe someone has already done it?

[JD45]

The most important quality of any scope is usually the ability to hold zero. Leaving scopes for dangerous game out, I would say that durability and standing up to recoil would come in second.

Cheap scopes these days have glass plenty good enough for the average hunter, but the guts can sometimes be total junk.

On a rifle with around 7mm Rem. Mag./ 30-06 type recoil or less I have seen many people do alright with the under $100 scope. I wouldn't try to mount one on a hard kicker though.

I don't see anything wrong with a $40 scope on a .22 rimfire. What gets me is Leupold sells a 2-7X for 189.99, and I have watched guys go and spend 119.99 on a scope that is junk by comparison.

If you must have repeatability in the adjustments, the choice won't be so easy. But, for a scope to set and leave alone, there are many good makes and models out there. And don't think that because you spend a few dollars that all pricey scopes hold zero. Some might not. I have had great luck with Leupold.

[Chriss Grube]

Basically you have your top shelf stuff like S&B, USO

Then the 2nd tier like NF, Leupold, Zeiss, Swarovski

Then you get to the normal hunting type. Leupold Vari x's, Bushnell elites 3200 and 4200, Weaver, Redfields.

Then you have the bargain stuff like the lower end Bushnell, Tasco, Simmons. They will be ok most of the time.

Avoid BSA and the import no name junk like you would "Somebody that we don't need to talk about on the SHOOTING forum".

[EricW]

I might buy a gun magazine again if they'd do something useful: like take apart scopes in various price ranges and show you the guts and what kind of coatings are used. I don't mind paying for quality, but I'd like to know just exactly what I'm buying, thank you very much.

[kimel]

FWIW...

I bought a Sightron 1.5-6x42 last spring. Money was tight-ish and I needed a scope. I figured I would replace it with good glass later on.

Well...I've kept it and haven't been motivated to replace it. It has held zero through temp extremes (zero'd it at around 80 degrees and it was still right on near freezing) and the glass isn't too bad for the price. I got it on sale at Graff's. Forget what I paid for it but it was in the $200 range which I would put at the high end of the cheap glass or the low end of the mid-range glass.

About my only complaint with it is that eye relief isn't what I was used to. I grew up with Leupold scopes on all of Dad's rifles. The Sightron is a fair bit tighter on eye relief. But this hasn't been enough to motivate me to change scopes...yet. But then I saw the Horus stuff and the USO stuff...uh oh....

Still haven't had my eyes on one yet though.

[smokshwn]

Rhino,

From reading many postings and asking a lot of q's on the precision rifle forums lately I would have to give a +1 to Chris' post. I would add that on the lower end the gamble becomes bigger. By that I mean, what one guy thinks is ok may not be worth a crap with your eyesight etc. Also you tend to start getting a lot of variability scope to scope. In all things you get what you pay for and it is very very evident in optics.

Craig

[Chriss Grube]

Ok who doesn't have a sense of humor and edited my funny?

[DJPoLo]

Ok who doesn't have a sense of humor and edited my funny?

No one. The forum is set up to replace "Somebody that we don't need to talk about on the SHOOTING forum" with that phrase any time the words "Somebody that we don't need to talk about on the SHOOTING forum" are entered. See?

"Somebody that we don't need to talk about on the SHOOTING forum"

"Somebody that we don't need to talk about on the SHOOTING forum"

"Somebody that we don't need to talk about on the SHOOTING forum"

"Somebody that we don't need to talk about on the SHOOTING forum".

-Chet

[Chriss Grube]

Dude you need some serious help.

[Chills1994]

You necro-posted a 10 and half year old thread?

[Steve RA]

People dig up 3,000 year old mummies !!

[Youngeyes]

"Somebody that we don't need to talk about on the SHOOTING forum"

After 10 years, that still works!

[TonytheTiger]

Didn't work for me.

Edited June 20, 2015 by TonytheTiger

[Youngeyes]

Didn't work for me.

:roflol:

[RevoWood123]

Rhino,

From reading many postings and asking a lot of q's on the precision rifle forums lately I would have to give a +1 to Chris' post. I would add that on the lower end the gamble becomes bigger. By that I mean, what one guy thinks is ok may not be worth a crap with your eyesight etc. Also you tend to start getting a lot of variability scope to scope. In all things you get what you pay for and it is very very evident in optics.

Craig

Craig took the words out of my mouth. It has been my experience that you get exactly what you pay for when it comes to optics. The hard part is determining how much you have to pay to get the job done. I have had inexpensive glass that crapped out on me after no time at all, and other more expensive glass that has taken absolute beatings.

Then again I am one of Murphy's favorite subjects with regards to his law. Ocean won the battle of who keeps the sunglasses last week.

[JohnRodriguez]

Mirage is the great equalizer. Your $2000 scope will perform the same as a $100 bargain in long distance, high ambient temp condition. What you want is a scope that is repeatable. 10 up, 10 left, 10 down, 10 right and place your shot where you started from

[ysued]

OK, someone please PM me and tell me who is "Somebody that we don't need to talk about on the SHOOTING forum"??

On the Low end Scope conversation, I did a review on the Kel-Tec RFB Rifle and I used a Tru-Glo 3-9 Scope, our groups with Hornady TAP Ammo at 100 yards were impressive, I wish we had better rings for the scope.

I have the photos from the Test to prove what we shot!!

[Watermelonassassin]

I have had many debates with people about this before. I find that you get what you pay for with most optics from reputable brands. I built a loaner rifle a while back because I started a shooting group on facebook and kept having people that don't own guns want to shoot and go hunting with me. I used a Tikka T3 lite SS in .308 with a Ziess conquest 3-9 (with target turrets added) and I can tell you it is a sweet set up. It only gets used maybe 4-5 times a year and that is it, so pretty much the same usage level you are talking about. The Ziess is a nice scope for what it is, but if I set it next to my SWFA 3-15, or my Vortex Viper HD 1-4, or my Bushnell Tactical Elite 1-6.5. It is no contest. The other scopes are built much nicer, the glass on the more expensive optics is so much clearer, and adjustments are more tactile with clicks that are less mushy. For what you are doing do I think you need a Schmidt Bender? No. But I would spend at least $300-400.

[PWSLMT]

When it comes to optics this is one area you indeed get what you pay for. The top tier stuff is very expensive but they are that good. The midrange ones are worth looking at. The low priced optics you need to stay away from. The clarity of the optic goes up with the price. Ziess, Schmidt & Bender, Swarovski, and Hensoldt are all top tier glass. Do you have to have tier, only if you can afford it. The Vortex Razor line is a good value. The Ziess contender series also a good value.

[Graham Smith]

Since this topic has been resurrected... There's no one right answer to the basic question because people's needs, want's, and budget vary too much.

As many have noted, glass differences will effect how well you see. This includes the coatings that help stop glare and the form factors which effect how well it gathers light. As important as glass is, the reticle controls can be more important. With a cheap scope, the reticle can shift slightly with every shot - even the minor bumping the rifle gets while being transported can throw the zero off.

One way to test a scope is to do a box test. Fire a shot at the lower left portion of the target, then move the reticle up 5 clicks (depending on scope), shoot; 5 clicks right, shoot; 5 clicks down, shoot; 5 clicks left, shoot. If you don't end up with a reasonably square box then the reticle controls suck and you won't be able to reliably use them for anything.

There is one other important point, price doesn't tell you as much as you might think. Bushnell makes a decent little 10x scope (frequently on sale for $199) that is great for the casual shooter. I have one on a .22 bolt gun that I use for practice. On the other hand there are scopes like Counter Sniper - expensive with good specifications but real junk.