The scoop on scopes?

[Handsome Rob]

I have a seemingly obvious question, but I can't seem to find the answer.

Other than optical clarity, what is the advantage of an expensive riflescope, over a cheaper model, all other things being equal?

Say I'm looking for a non-adjustable AO, fixed power scope to fit a hunting rifle, a .308 for argument's sake. What advantage would I have picking a Swarovski/Zeiss/Leupold scope over a Bushnell/Tasco/Barska with the same basic specs?

The reason I ask, is that my eyesight is such that I can't notice a discernable difference in optical clarity between cheap & spendy glass. Do I have any reason to spend several hundred on a scope, when a sub-$100 model looks exactly the same to me?

[gregintenn]

You'll get repeatibility in adjustment. When you turn the adjustment 2 clicks, the point of impact will be where you expect it to be. On a cheap scope, who knows? You'll also get a scope that won't likely go haywire on you. I've seen glass crack, lenses fog, reticles break, etc. on cheap scopes. I'm sure it happens, but I've never personally witnessed it on a higher end scope. With Leupold in particular, you get a lifetime warranty. Anything happens to it, send it back and they'll rebuild or replace it free. You don't even have to be the original owner. You can find a used Leupold M8 4x for $150 or so on ebay and other trading sites. I have several, and you'd have to spend many times that amount to improve.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

Scopes aren't what they use to be. A lot of the cheaper "Older scopes" were built to last and only lacked clarity and FOV compared to the old ones (as far as I have been told). I had a cheap scope because I thought the same thing and It would never hold a zero. I lost several Deer to that scope and tossed it right after that. I went with a Nikon Pro-staff 3x9 and it is solid. I think I picked it up for about $199 a couple years back and you can find them cheaper then that. Currently I am using a Shooters Edge and it is the best scope I have touched (minus the actually Military sniper scopes - Leupold 3.5-10X30mm) and they are fairly cheap comparatively.

[quietguy]

Optical clarity and light transmission really show up in low light conditions. The quality of the coatings show up in bright direct sun.

Personally, I generally go with Leupold or Nikon mid-priced scopes.

[Guest GunTroll]

Warranty, low light conditions (dawn/dusk), repeatability. All mentioned already but thats what you get with spending more. Buy cheap... buy many, many times. Buy quality... buy once. Oh yeah, piece of mind....priceless.

.

[whiskey]

Warranty, low light conditions (dawn/dusk), repeatability. All mentioned already but thats what you get with spending more. Buy cheap... buy many, many times. Buy quality... buy once. Oh yeah, piece of mind....priceless.

.

I took a nice Nikon Monarch and a Mueller Eradicator to the range and viewed them side by side. Even though the Mueller had higher magnification, the Nikon was noticeably clearer. Edge clarity is another factor, but usually less important. The last seconds of usable daylight is when you make your money back on more expensive scopes.

A couple mid priced scopes that I have been very happy with are the Bushnell Elite 3200 series (has a rainguard coating that works well), the Nikon Buckmaster and Pro Series, and the Leupold VX-1.

[Dolomite_supafly]

The cheaper scopes of today use inferior adheasives. A lot of them are not purged which causes problems. The adjustments are "close enough" but not precise enough to be dialing in elevation over and over again. The lenses get semared with grease as they ar assembled.

If you want a cheap, dependable scope then hit the gun shows. There are always vendors who are selling used scopes. They will almost always say where they are made, if they don't then do not buy them. What you are looking for is any scope that is made in Japan. Japanese Tasco's were considered some of the best a few decades ago and cost a lot. Nowadays you can find those same scopes for $20 or more but no where near the cost of a comparable quality modern scope. And most dealers just see them as a cheap Tasco and price them accordingly.

One more thing. If you are buying a used scope do not buy it with the rings. The rings are often times put on the scope to hide flaws. Whether it be scratches or rings marks. If they do want to sell them with rings make sure to remove them to inspect the scope. I bet most dealers will tell you they don;t have the tools to remove the rings or do not want you to.

I check all the scopes I see that are not obviously Chinese junk. And in most cases I can get a quality scope for little money. For a hunting rifle you don;t need any of the fancy knobs or the tactical reticles. Just buy a simple duplex reticle to save money. I will say that 3-9 scopes tend to be the cheapest on the used scope market.

Hope this helps.

Dolomite

[whiskey]

On a side note: if you are looking at fixed power scopes, take a look at the Weaver K-Series for hunting. Fixed powers are lighter and generally though to be "tougher". No moving parts leaves less things to break.

[DaveTN]

If all things are equal there won’t be much difference; including the price.

Parallax. If the lenses aren’t made to an exacting spec, or if they can move; you will have problems with parallax.

Clarity. Quality of the lens and the manufacturing process.

Light gathering capability. Brighter clear view.

Body construction. If the body construction allows the lenses to move or if the body has significant changes with temperature changes (Coefficient of thermal expansion) it will affect accuracy and repeatability.

And to me, warranty and customer service are important. If I spend a bunch of money on a scope I want to know that if I drop it or something goes wrong with it I can send it in and they will fix it.

The biggest variable is the shooter and the gun. If you have a half azz shooter with a half azz gun and he puts a Leupold on it; he will still be a half azz shooter. If he uses a cheap scope and shoots the same the Leupold will get the blame. It’s like people spending $3K on a 1911 and thinking it will make them a great shooter. If there are near great shooter status it might help them; if they are an average shooter they probably won’t see much difference.

It’s not what you can see when looking through the scope; it’s how the total package works for you. That’s something you have to be able to try. I wouldn’t buy a Leupold if I could shoot as accurately with a Tasco; that would be crazy.

For your hunting application the key factors would be, can it handle the .308 recoil and hold zero, and once you have it sighted in can it maintain zero when you make that cold bore shot a week later at a Deer. There are scopes under $200 that can do that.

[finz50]

Optical clarity and light transmission really show up in low light conditions. The quality of the coatings show up in bright direct sun.

Personally, I generally go with Leupold or Nikon mid-priced scopes.

This is the biggest thing I have noticed between my Leupold Vari-X IV and cheaper scopes out there.....same goes with binoculars from my experience too....

[Patrick Henry]

If u r looking for reasonable quality that will last and hold a zero you will have to spend +/- $200. Ck out ChuckHawks.com The Redfields, Nikon Pro-Staff, and the Burris are rated very well. Redfield is made in the USA, and the others are are imported but not ComChi made.

[robin48]

I bought a Bushnell DOA 600 and put it on a 300 WinMag and it took it. Light gathering and clarity are excellent also. So far I like it. Would I rather have a Zeiss or something similar? Sure but for the budget I had at the time this scope is fine.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[roverboy]

Another thing the cheap scopes are bad for (besides coming unsealed and fogging up and adjustment turrets not being precise)is they don't take recoil very good. I've got a POS Simmons 8 point 3x-9x that even when new wouldn't sight in on a .30-06 but, is now on my .22. Its doing good and as long as it keeps doing good it'll have a home on the .22.

[hornett22]

I like Nikon and have never had a problem. Leopold is nice too and has the best warranty hands down. I used to like Simmons but lately not impressed.

I like Cabelas website. The reviews are pretty thorough and accurate.

[Smith]

The reason for the price difference is the precision in the grinding of the glass. To get a near perfect concave lens takes time and precision equipment. The more expensive scopes are ground better than cheaper ones. This is the main reason for the high dollar scopes being better. A precision ground lens is what gives you clarity, light transmission, etc. That being said, the Japanese do this very well and at a cheaper cost. They can do that because their scopes are an extension of their pricier photo lens buisness. I have been impressed with the Nikon's as many have mentioned. I have a Nikon Team Primos (early Monarch) that is excellent.

[Wingshooter]

I have always used cheap scopes (less than $100), but I got a Nikon Monarch UCC this year. Wow, what a difference! I haven't hunted with it yet, but at the range I can tell a big difference in clarity. Things are just easier to see now.

Got a great deal too... found the Monarch on sale at Gander Mtn for $187.