Yet another low priced scope question

The local shooter's club had a shoot this weekend, and after the shoot, all of the toys came out. Lots of guys had very serious and very expensive

<< I asked some of the guys about their scopes, and they said 'its no Leupold, but it works fine.' Some of the guys had shot hundreds of heavy-recoil rounds through using Simmons and BSA scopes and had no complaints.

Most of these guys are 25+ year shooters, own hundreds of guns, are master reloaders, etc., etc., etc., in other words, not newbies like me who don't know better. Yet they still put $100 scopes on $1000 rifles.>>

A less-expensive scope that is well taken-care of can function just as well as an expensive one. I have both Burris & Leupold scopes on rifles, as well as having BSA, Simmons and Tasco scopes on others. The oldest, cheapest scope (Tasco) functions just as well as the newest, priciest (Leupold) scope, on the rifles I have them on and their purpose.

The big question is on the use of the rifles. If the 260 custom with the BSA was used for one specific purpose, then as long as the scope met that purpose, and remained functional, then cheap serves that purpose just as thoroughly as expensive.

Is it as durable? Maybe not, but I know that you can buy 2 or 3 BSA's for what 1 Leupold costs.

<<So once again I am confused.>>

About what? Some folks are biased in that they won't put anything but a certain brand of scope on a rifle, ever, some feel you have to have the cost of the rifle and scope be close to the same, and a custom rifle cannot function without a top-of-the-line scope. IMO, if it serves it's purpose, then that's the answer to the question.

I have seen $1500 scopes (swarovski) that felt rough in their power adjustment and AO, and Zeiss Conquest scopes (about half that price) that were as good as I've ever seen. I've seen cheap scopes that had rough adjustments, just like the swarovski. My cheapo Tasco has some of the best adjustment I've ever felt in a scope, and it has hunted in the worst weather I've hunted in for nearly 20 years, and has yet to give me a problem.

Know what you can spend on a scope, and then start looking for something you like that serves your needs, too. You don't need a fixed 36x scope for hunting, just like you probably wouldn't want a fixed 4x for target shooting.

For my money, these are the best ones I've seen:

Where money is no object: Zeiss Conquest. The clearest optics I have ever seen. Have not hunted with it, only shot with it.

Mid-to upper range: Leupold Vari-X III, 4-14x. I've hunted with this one. Very good scope for the money, crystal clear optics. Fantastic picture at 300+ yards.

Mid Range: Weaver Grand Slam. One of the best buys for the money. Optics are Japanese. Probably the most bells & whistles for the money, too.

Low-to-mid: BSA 3-9x. 50mm objective. Good price, reasonable performance. I have this on a 'boomer' a 7mm STW, and get sub 1' groups at 100 yards all day long.

Cheap: Simmons 4-16x. I have this on a 17 HMR, and it is used more than any other scope I have. No problems. quarter inch groups with it and the rifle regularly at 100 yards plus.

The one feature I'm hung up on now is the adjustable objectives. Most scopes I even look at now, I don't give them a second glance if they don't have the AO. That is a nice feature IMO, and one that has spoiled me somewhat.

Hi,

#Most of these guys are 25+ year shooters, own hundreds of guns, are master #reloaders, etc., etc., etc., in other words, not newbies like me who don't #know better. Yet they still put $100 scopes on $1000 rifles.

#So once again I am confused.

Range shooting requirements versus hunting or competition requirements are seperate things. Lots of pampered range guns can get away with cheap optics, at least for a while. Lose a competition to a fallen reticle or a buck with a massive rack after bumping a scope, and see how long those cheap optics stay on top of a gun.

Range shooting at the same distance every week is particularly unchallenging, to optics and shooters alike. It is when you are shooting at various distances that reticle adjustments and parallax and zoom adjustments that are not consistant will ruin your day.

A lot of people look at the price of a Leupold Vari-X III and say, 'I could have another gun for that kind of money.' If that's what they want, fine for them. I am in the (slow, expensive) process of upgrading to finer hardware accross the board, both over and under the mounts. It means self-denial of owning 'just another gun' and instead selling, trading up, or saving up for the good stuff.

Sitting down at your favorite shooting bench and shooting one more sub-MOA group from a known distance looses its challenge. For many multi-gun owners the challenge is doing that with a dozen or more rifles, and often it takes some sighting-in and figuring-out when one has sat in the safe for a few months too long.

Taking a rifle out of the safe and putting the first one right in the X ring at 300 when it was last fired at 100.... well, that's what seperates the men from the boys, isn't it?

# #For my money, these are the best ones I've seen: # #Where money is no object: Zeiss Conquest. The clearest optics I have ever #seen. Have not hunted with it, only shot with it. # #Mid-to upper range: Leupold Vari-X III, 4-14x. I've hunted with this one. #Very good scope for the money, crystal clear optics. Fantastic picture at #300+ yards. # #Mid Range: Weaver Grand Slam. One of the best buys for the money. Optics #are Japanese. Probably the most bells & whistles for the money, too. # #Low-to-mid: BSA 3-9x. 50mm objective. Good price, reasonable performance. #I have this on a 'boomer' a 7mm STW, and get sub 1' groups at 100 yards all #day long. # #Cheap: Simmons 4-16x. I have this on a 17 HMR, and it is used more than #any other scope I have. No problems. quarter inch groups with it and the #rifle regularly at 100 yards plus. # #The one feature I'm hung up on now is the adjustable objectives. Most #scopes I even look at now, I don't give them a second glance if they don't #have the AO. That is a nice feature IMO, and one that has spoiled me #somewhat. # #BC # Your comments here hit the nail on the head - optics. That is most of what you are paying for with the higher priced scopes. If you look through your 40mm objective, $1500+, Zeiss or Leopould and then look through your 30mm, $50 Simmons or Tasco you will see a huge difference in the picture. Good glass is expensive.

# One more thing ... although experience is usually a good thing but # just because someone has been doing something wrong for 25 years # doesnt mean its good or right ... #

Just as a fellow at the local club has sent a Tasco scope back 3 times that keeps breaking while on a target 22 rifle. He will not buy a good scope, just send the old one back for a repair. It is fine while it is working but if he is ever in a match and it breaks it will put him out of the competition but I bet he will still send it back and get it repaired.

This debate comes up fairly often on here; like the 9mm/.45 one, I don't think it has an answer.

I am from the 'cheap scope' school. I shoot an AR15, which is a 1MOA rifle no matter what I bolt onto it, and my local range is only 100m long. With my $25 BSA scope from Wal-Mart, I can knock 12-ga shells off of the 100m line -most- of the time. I doubt spending a thousand bucks on a scope would enrich my life all that much.

There are other reasons not to buy a fancy scope. Hunters, for instance, usually don't need millimeter accuracy; they shoot at relatively short ranges at large (heart sized) targets, and carry their gear through the woods where it can get dropped, rained on, or possibly stolen. A lot of them come to my local range to zero their BSA, Tasco, or Simmons scopes, shoot ragged-hole groups at 100 meters, and pack up and leave without ever complaining about how crappy their optics are.

Having fired with a variety of super-cheap and super-expensive scopes, my opinion is that at low powers (4x or so), there is very little difference between an $100 scope and a $1000 scope, aside from features like drop compensation and range turrets. It is only at high magnification that exotic European glass makes cheap Asian or American glass look like 'garbage.'

I recommend that you try out as many scopes as you can. At least look through them if you can't mount them on a firearm and try them. If you find one that you like, get that one and don't worry if it's not the most expensive one in the store. Nothing over ten dollars with a warranty and a brand name is going to fall apart from normal use.

If you are a professional sniper, benchrest shooter, or compete in long-range events where a scope is necessary, you will probably not want to settle for anything but a 'professional' scope. However, you will probably not agonize over spending an additional grand or two on your rifle, either.

If these 25+ year master riflemen on the range are actually hitting their targets, nobody, no matter how expensive their scope is, really has any reason to criticize them.

# Most of these guys are 25+ year shooters, own hundreds of guns, are master # reloaders, etc., etc., etc., in other words, not newbies like me who don't # know better. Yet they still put $100 scopes on $1000 rifles. # # So once again I am confused.

I have to echo pretty much everything that Ken has written. I have owned el cheapo scopes, and still have a couple of them

I agree with much of what has been said here. Among other things, the hunter's modest accuracy needs make a lot of sense. You're trying to hit a big area and usually at short distances as well.

But the motto where I live and hunt - Norway - is 'spend as much as you can afford on the scope. Whatever you have left you use on the rifle'. This has to do with the fact that most rifles shoot far, far better than what you need them to, and in most cases far, far better than the shooter. You're out hunting deer in the woods... what would you need sub-1MOA accuracy for? So that you can use the 2 seconds of time you have, standing in an awkward position with no support for your rifle to place the shot just slightly further left on the deer 100ft away?

With many rifles, this soon becomes rather pricey, but I am a firm believer that at least on rifles you hunt big game with, you need a solid piece of quality optics. And let's be honest here. ~$150 for a Leupold VX-I is not a lot of money. It'll save you from fogged up lenses, bent scopes and wandering zero as well as a lot of other problems.