9 replies [Last post]
arrowflipper's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Joined: 01/03/2011
Posts: 579
scopes

As has been brought up on this site, having good optics is paramount.  Here's my question; how much do you need to spend to get good optics?

Let's stick with your rifle scope.  Over the years, I've hunted with Redfield, Burris, Nikon, Leopold, Kahles, Tasco, Weaver, Bushnell, Bausch and Lomb and Unertle.  I've never tried the Zeiss, Leica or Swarovski, but I'd sure like to. 

With that said, there's a world of difference in the quality of scopes and light-years of difference in price.  Is it worth the money to step up to one of the big three?  Or are there other scopes that will do the same thing for a lot less money?  I'd like to hear what you think.

thanks,

 

Critter's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!Moderator
Location: Western Colorado
Joined: 03/26/2009
Posts: 3968
I once read in a gun magazine

I once read in a gun magazine that your scope on your rifle should cost about the same as the rifle that you are putting it on.  Now with that being said I have never followed it.  The first scope that I ever bought was a old Redfield 3x9 40 years ago and that scope is still on that rifle.  All my other rifles now carry Leopold's.  I have tried Tasco, Bushnell, Bausch and Lomb and have had problems with all of them and will never buy any of them again.  All but the Tasco were taken care of by the factory on and the Tasco will never be found since I gave it the deep six into a river.  As for Nikon's a friend of mine has one that has been back to the factory 3 times for internal fogging.  On the third time they sent him a new scope.  They had good factory service but I don't want to take a chance that when I want it to work it want it to work and not have to send it back to the factory.  So until one of my Leopold's fails me I will stick with them.

Now as for my single shot pistol's I have one Thompson Center Recoil Proof on a .357 Herrett, and a Burris on my .44 mag and 7-30 Waters.  The only problem that I have had with any of those was when I sheared off the mounting screws on the mount on the Waters and that was due to the recoil.   

 

Tndeerhunter's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Tennessee
Joined: 04/13/2009
Posts: 1110
scope stuff

arrowflipper wrote:

As has been brought up on this site, having good optics is paramount.  Here's my question; how much do you need to spend to get good optics?

Let's stick with your rifle scope.  Over the years, I've hunted with Redfield, Burris, Nikon, Leopold, Kahles, Tasco, Weaver, Bushnell, Bausch and Lomb and Unertle.  I've never tried the Zeiss, Leica or Swarovski, but I'd sure like to. 

With that said, there's a world of difference in the quality of scopes and light-years of difference in price.  Is it worth the money to step up to one of the big three?  Or are there other scopes that will do the same thing for a lot less money?  I'd like to hear what you think.

thanks,

 

 

I'd figure I own about 60 scopes now. I have had excellent luck with Leupold, Burris, Bushnell (Elite series ONLY), Nikon, and even Pentax. I also own three Zeiss Conquests and consider them perhaps the best of my scopes. I might own even more Zeiss scopes if their Conquest line contained some smaller sized scopes, like 1-4 or 2-7, which are two of my favorite variable ranges for big game hunting.

I refuse to hunt any more with Trashco, lower end Bushnell, or Simmons scopes of any type. Simply my personal preference. I am convinced that good glass can be purchased for about $200+/-. and $400-$500 will buy a shooter/hunter a very good quality (excellent quality) hunting size scope. My lower end favorites include VXI, Burris FFII, Nikon Prostaff, Weaver V-series and Bushnell Elite series (3200 & 4200)

Looking at the top of my purchase range $$-wise, I like the previously mentioned Zeiss Conquest and also Leupold. A very good friend likes his high-end Burris scopes a lot. Leupold scopes may not be the brightest, or even the absolute best bang-for-buck, but they are rugged, quality made and have an excellent warranty. Matter of fact a new (to me) used Leupold M8 just arrived a few minutes ago via UPS and will soon be perched atop a period rifle (M88 in .308).

A wise hunter who knows just how much magnification he actually needs to hunt can also save $$ and move up a whole scope series by simply buying a 1-4, 2-7 or 3-9 rather than a 4-12, or 4-16 power scope for big game. 

As they say though.... "Your mileage may vary" Dancing

Don Fischer's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Antelope, Ore
Joined: 03/24/2005
Posts: 3183
I have two 40 yr old

I have two 40 yr old Redfield's myself. A 2 3/4x on my 30-06 and a 1-4x thats retired for now. I used them, Leupold, Tasco, Bushnell (got a 25 yr old Banner on my 25-06) and Nikon. I'can be frugal so I simply would not waste the money on a high end scope. Between one of those big three and my Leupold/Redfield there is about $900 difference in price, There's nor $900 difference in quality. I believe you can get a good scope for from a hundred Fifty dollars up. I to like the 2-7x scopes. My favorite hunting scope though has been my old 2/3x Redfield.

A lot of people get hung up on "gotta get good glass" ot the spend more than your rifle crowd. I think it's much better to buy a mid range Leupold, Bushnell or Nikon and save the money for practice ammo. There is not $900 difference between the big three and my Redfield, or my old Redfields, or my old Banner or even my Nikons, it aint there. The value come in how the scope is constructed and sealed.

Of course every one does put out a monday scope now and then, I've only had one though and that company is out of business now. It was a Tasco Pronghorn. It let go of the retainer ring on the front lense. So I trashed it and bought another Tasco only that time a World Class. About 1989 and it's been used on my 25-06 and my 6.5-06, not a hicup in all those years. This past winter I gave it to a guy I know of in Portland for his boy's first rifle.

I have no desire to own a high price scope. My lesser scope's, and they may be lesser but not by much, Have served me well for many many years.

hunter25's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Colorado western slope
Joined: 11/13/2009
Posts: 3021
For myself I have been the

For myself I have been the most satisfied with the scopes in the 200 to 300 range. I have an old Leupold Varix1 that has never failed after more thsn 20 years of use. I now have 3 more that are shooting for the same track record. I also have a VXIII that although very good just does not seem that much better than the others for the money. And last I have a Zeiss Conquest 4.5x14 that cost nearly 4 times what the others did but at least with this one I have been a bit dissapointed. It is superb in normal light being far clearer than anything elsr I own but loses it all and fades the fastest in low light. It even appears blurry although turned down to 4 and having the range set properly. Maybe I expected too much and tried to use it in the wrong situation but it only gets used for antelope now when low light is rarely an issue.

Tndeerhunter's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Tennessee
Joined: 04/13/2009
Posts: 1110
scopes

hunter25 wrote:

For myself I have been the most satisfied with the scopes in the 200 to 300 range. I have an old Leupold Varix1 that has never failed after more thsn 20 years of use. I now have 3 more that are shooting for the same track record. I also have a VXIII that although very good just does not seem that much better than the others for the money. And last I have a Zeiss Conquest 4.5x14 that cost nearly 4 times what the others did but at least with this one I have been a bit dissapointed. It is superb in normal light being far clearer than anything elsr I own but loses it all and fades the fastest in low light. It even appears blurry although turned down to 4 and having the range set properly. Maybe I expected too much and tried to use it in the wrong situation but it only gets used for antelope now when low light is rarely an issue.

 

I'd think there might be a problem with your Conquest then. I own 20 (or more) Leupolds including two with 30mm tubes and my three 1" Conquests have better contrast in low light. The relative brightness is best in the Zeiss as well. Now, contrast and relative brightness are not all there is in low light performance, as the reticle means a great deal as well. Generally speaking, with scopes that are close to each other in performance, the scope with the more bold reticle will work best in low light. If you have a fine target reticle that might be the cause.

Sorry to hear of your displeasure with your Zeiss, but it might be worth it to have it checked out under their warranty program.

hunter25's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Colorado western slope
Joined: 11/13/2009
Posts: 3021
I will give them a call to

I will give them a call to see what they say. As I have never owned a Zeiss before or even lookeed through another I had nothing to compare to. Everyone tells me they are the best in low light but I have found the opposite to be true with mine. Again it is unmatched in normal light but I would have to say it is even blurry just before it gets too dark to shoot. Not just dim but a little blurry when lookin at a target. I took it out last night just to make sure I remembered it right. And it is definately darker looking through the scope than without it at that time.

Thanks for the input. I'll give them a call, I should have done it sooner anyway as the scope is not even quite one year old yet.

Tndeerhunter's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Tennessee
Joined: 04/13/2009
Posts: 1110
Good Luck

Best of luck and I do hope they make it right and make you happy, most of all! Yes

BikerRN's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Joined: 05/23/2011
Posts: 693
Scopes

"I once read in a gun magazine that your scope on your rifle should cost about the same as the rifle that you are putting it on. Now with that being said I have never followed it."

 

I used that approach with my most recent rifle, but went with a range finder scope.

I do think one gets what they pay for, and a scope should cost at least half of the rifle's price. After a certain point the quality can't be any better, and you're just paying for gizmo additions, but quality never goes out of style.

 

Biker

Don Fischer's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Antelope, Ore
Joined: 03/24/2005
Posts: 3183
I think that using the price

I think that using the price you paid for your rifle as a basis for how much you need to spend on a scope is a bit silly. I like several different power ranges of scopes my favorite is the 2 3/4x fixed power. Kind of hard to find them any more. But my last rifle I paid something like $700 for. I wouldn't pay that much for a scope let alone more. All I want is a scope that the windage and elevation works right on and that has a clear view. I said a clear view, not the best you can get, it doesn't improve much. If you get a shot at 500 yds with your 22 Earglesplitten Loudenboomer tw3o minutes before end of shooting light, you take it and drop the animal right there, you ain't gonna find it! Maybe tomorrow but not tonight. Could be you won'r even find it if it was 200 yds or closer. Very hard to mark position with landmarks, in the dark.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Rifle scopesHammer1303/04/2006 12:30 pm
Wide selection of scopes, and binocularsnaf7878004/03/2013 11:20 am
Scope adviceR. Smith1503/18/2011 19:08 pm
What About Fixed Power Scopes?Highflyer701/05/2008 18:01 pm
A/O scopesSNOWMAN0813310/03/2006 22:32 pm