I have a customer that I've built several rifles for that hunts a lot out west. A couple of nights ago we were discussing scopes. He generally buys Swarovski scopes because he believes that the glass in them gives him a few extra minutes of hunting time in the evening. I pulled a 8.5-25 Sightmark with a 35mm tube out of the counter and asked him to look through it. He was pretty surprised at the quality but he wanted to try it in the dusk so I let him take it with him for a quick trial. He returned it with a sheepish grin allowing as to how it was pretty darn close. So, I was just wondering, exactly what are we getting for our money when we pay an extra $2,000 bucks for a scope. Now, don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that a $300 dollar scope is the same quality as a $2,000 Nightforce or something but it does look like the imports have narrowed the gap by a considerable margin. I have used a Sightmark in my 1,000 yard competition but went back to my Leupold "just because" I couldn't get myself comfortable with the thought that the cheaper scope was going to be as good as the Leupold or that it would let me down at Camp Perry or something. But, has anyone else noticed the quality of some of the lower end scopes lately?
Scopes, do you get what you pay for?
- Thread starter clowdis
- Start date
Reliability and warranty and quality control are the things that come to mind. I would only use the cheaper scopes on low recoiling rifles and shooting conditions that do not require a lot of knob twisting. I think you have to look through the lenses and adjust power, paralax to do you own QC. Reasearch and how long the company has been around. They are OK for local club matches so any failure is no big deal, I would not use a new company of unknown quality on a hunt that has taken ten years to draw.
The human eye is the biggest variable, acquity, color correctness, both play into the image you see.
the most magnificant scope may look no better than you eye can see and what is sees in color spectrum.
Therefore, $ is not the answer alone, i have had two catarac surgerise and now have 20/20 for the first time in 25 years.
scopes that were marginal are now great.
you can buy name if you want but service, what you see, may only need to be medium price, i have settled on Luep.
Bob
the most magnificant scope may look no better than you eye can see and what is sees in color spectrum.
Therefore, $ is not the answer alone, i have had two catarac surgerise and now have 20/20 for the first time in 25 years.
scopes that were marginal are now great.
you can buy name if you want but service, what you see, may only need to be medium price, i have settled on Luep.
Bob
I am not an expert, but I have found that my less expensive scopes do not give me a perfect "return to zero" after making elevation or windage changes, especially when those changes are large. The less expensive scopes also do not give me as consistent point of impact changes when making adjustments for elevation or windage.
The glass may also be better on my expensive scopes, but I am primarily a target shooter and the "few extra minutes of hunting time" or better color accuracy isn't that important to me. I do change elevation for shooting at ranges from 200 to 1000 yards, and the mechanical performance of my better scopes (Leupold, Vortex Razor) is far superior to my cheaper models.
My cheaper scopes are fine if I set a zero and then don't change it. If I'm dialing on 30 minutes of elevation or 9 minutes of wind, the comparison is dramatic.
The glass may also be better on my expensive scopes, but I am primarily a target shooter and the "few extra minutes of hunting time" or better color accuracy isn't that important to me. I do change elevation for shooting at ranges from 200 to 1000 yards, and the mechanical performance of my better scopes (Leupold, Vortex Razor) is far superior to my cheaper models.
My cheaper scopes are fine if I set a zero and then don't change it. If I'm dialing on 30 minutes of elevation or 9 minutes of wind, the comparison is dramatic.
OK my thoughts to this.I have come to the point that all GLASS is made by the same place/people.( Jap's ) Its the inside of a good or bad scope that makes it a good or bad scope.Those who really take care and have the pride in their product will offer a better scope.So the more you pay the better it gets in most cases,but will add that some have pulled their heads from their butts to offer a great product for a not so high cost.
I say this for a good friend who loved to shoot,and ounce a member at Hawksridge 1000 yard taught me something one day.He showed me many types and brands of scopes,I was told to just look through all and give a good or bad say to that one scope.Well I found that from a $50 to a $1800 scope the glass was all good,but found that the insides had a great amount of difference to them.The more they costed the better they came back to a zero.Did or does this mean that I am right No it sure doesn't,but leads me to think that I am in some way.
I say this for a good friend who loved to shoot,and ounce a member at Hawksridge 1000 yard taught me something one day.He showed me many types and brands of scopes,I was told to just look through all and give a good or bad say to that one scope.Well I found that from a $50 to a $1800 scope the glass was all good,but found that the insides had a great amount of difference to them.The more they costed the better they came back to a zero.Did or does this mean that I am right No it sure doesn't,but leads me to think that I am in some way.
Johnboy said:
Ah hah! This is the point that I'm getting to. I wonder how many of the Japanese lenses are made at the same plant and then shipped to manufacturers all over the world. If there isn't any difference in the lenses then there has to be a difference someplace else such as adjusting screws, finish, etc. Anyway, I still think that the quality is getting closer and the high priced scopes are just that, high priced. I use a leupold on my match rifle and my varmint rifle and I have no issues with glass or knobs, they all work wonderfully well. But then again, so does my Sightmark.
There is a HUGE difference in the lenses. Some of the Japanese scopes wear lenses made there, some don't. The best (Schott of Germany) makes different grades of glass for different scope manufactures. The lower end Zeiss scopes wear the middle line. The top end wear the best. Same with the Japanese glass makers. The Chinese make glass, as do the Romainians and Austrians. The LEUPOLD VX-7 line was assembled with Schott top of the chain optics. When it comes to optics, you usually do get what you pay for.
I wish I had recorded all my talks with him.When he had to offer great info I did listen but time has passed from that one talk.He talked about different makers of lens ( glass as he called it ) but cannot remember.I do remember Germany being a second maker though.As said before he could offer a lot of good info when asked.I always said he was the smartest man I would have ever known.
I still think its the tooling and the parts that make the best scope's with good glass.If a scope only had great glass but did not track back to your zero,well then its not worth the time or money to have it.Had a Tasco one time,stayed on a 223 its whole life.One day it just fell apart,the bell lens came loss.( none fixable ) Now I own two Leuplods,a Burris,and a Nikon.They all hold zero and track right back after making adjustments for a longer shot.( they alll have great glass ) The Nikon is the cheapest of them all and I love it.As said before you can buy a scope thats not going to break the bank and have a good/great scope.Will I ever buy another Tasco or like it NO I sure Want.Someone would have to prove to me they had done their R&D first.
I still think its the tooling and the parts that make the best scope's with good glass.If a scope only had great glass but did not track back to your zero,well then its not worth the time or money to have it.Had a Tasco one time,stayed on a 223 its whole life.One day it just fell apart,the bell lens came loss.( none fixable ) Now I own two Leuplods,a Burris,and a Nikon.They all hold zero and track right back after making adjustments for a longer shot.( they alll have great glass ) The Nikon is the cheapest of them all and I love it.As said before you can buy a scope thats not going to break the bank and have a good/great scope.Will I ever buy another Tasco or like it NO I sure Want.Someone would have to prove to me they had done their R&D first.
JRS said:
Most european scopemaker buy the optical glas at Schott Germany. Also IOR in Romania.
And cutting, grinding and coating is done by the scopemaker.
Most cheaper but good scopes are made by this company: http://www.light-op.co.jp/english/
They manufacture many brands and in different quality grades. Many very good scopes are manufactured there.
But also other scopemaker do a good job. For excample Nikon, which are made in the Phillipines. Very good scopes for a good price.
Critical is a lot of cheap Chinese stuff. Most wasted money but I`ve also tested some good ones.
I've talked with and listened at seminars to scope manufacturers rep's and what I gathered from these is that you get what you pay. Glass is graded like diamonds, the better quality cost more and comes from only a few places, not all batches of glass come out the same,that explains the grading system. Next, the coatings are differant with and within each manufacturer, different grades. The materials and construction of scopes is another "you get what you pay for".
Service is something I hope I never need, but that is also paid for up front. I believe that without a good trigger and a GOOD scope I cannot really know how good or bad a rifle is. Buy the best you can and hope it works. I do that because I need all the help I can get. I've pretty much used up all excuses I can think of and ran out places to borrow more. John
Service is something I hope I never need, but that is also paid for up front. I believe that without a good trigger and a GOOD scope I cannot really know how good or bad a rifle is. Buy the best you can and hope it works. I do that because I need all the help I can get. I've pretty much used up all excuses I can think of and ran out places to borrow more. John
I have quite a few scopes. Over the years I've had both low end and fairly high end stuff. 7-8 years ago several of the folks I know of were hyping Mueller scopes and saying how great they were at a bargain price. So, I picked up an 8x25x50 Eradicator as I recall. The scope seemed sturdy and just looking through it, it compared with my Luepolds and such.
I spent a week with it in SD shooting prairie dogs. I was usually shooting two rifles. One was equipped with the Mueller and the other a 6x24 Bushnell 4200. While I could tell little difference in shooting, at the end of the day I would have a terrific headache. Three days into this, I swapped out the Mueller for another Bushnell. The headaches went away. When I got back home the Mueller went away.
On at least two W/E's per month most of the year I shoot benchrest matches. During most of those days time I'll spend several hours at a bench. I've never had eye problems with Luepolds, Weavers or Nightforces. Sometimes your eyes won't tell you everything your brain is trying to process. I no longer buy cheap glass for anything. I may not get the absolute best, but I get the best I can possibly afford.
Rick
I spent a week with it in SD shooting prairie dogs. I was usually shooting two rifles. One was equipped with the Mueller and the other a 6x24 Bushnell 4200. While I could tell little difference in shooting, at the end of the day I would have a terrific headache. Three days into this, I swapped out the Mueller for another Bushnell. The headaches went away. When I got back home the Mueller went away.
On at least two W/E's per month most of the year I shoot benchrest matches. During most of those days time I'll spend several hours at a bench. I've never had eye problems with Luepolds, Weavers or Nightforces. Sometimes your eyes won't tell you everything your brain is trying to process. I no longer buy cheap glass for anything. I may not get the absolute best, but I get the best I can possibly afford.
Rick
Bradley Walker
What I have noticed is that the newer scopes have a LOT more vertical... My old USA Redfield actually has better glass than my Nightforce, but the Nightforce has a lot more "up".
The Redfield runs out of vertical at a little over 600 yards.
The Redfield runs out of vertical at a little over 600 yards.
Generally, more money buys more scope. Over the years my competition rifles (F/Open, F/TR, 1,000 yard) have migrated towards 12-42 NF Benchrest, and the Leupolds have migrated towards varmint/hunting rifles/plinking rifles. For instance, an old 1" 8.5 X 25 Vari-X III is sitting of a .17 HMR. Albeit a very accurate .17 HMR.
Granted there are more expensive and better scopes, but the NFs have proven more than adequate to this point for the competitions I shoot.
Once you've got enough magnification, and once the glass is good enough, then it's a matter of precision machining, quality materials , precision assembly and quality control. It's those things that determine repeatability, holding zero and whether it lasts or breaks.
I keep hearing about cheap Russian or Chinese knockoffs, or bertrillium-whatever coated counter snipers, or counterfeit Mk 4s that perform as well as a Weaver, Sightron, Leupold, NF, US Optics, Heritage, S&B etc. What a load.
If that were true one of those low dollar wonders would show up in the top 20 at the Super Shoot, or the 1,000 yard Nationals, or in the PRC series. Instead you see March, S&B, Nightforce and the like. A few holdouts still using Premier modded Leupolds and Weavers. The cheap scopes, they're OK for plinking, they might be OK for a starter scope in local competition, but not for a season of high level competition.
IMO a Sightron or Weaver is the least expensive scope I'd take seriously for an entire season of competitive shooting.
Granted there are more expensive and better scopes, but the NFs have proven more than adequate to this point for the competitions I shoot.
Once you've got enough magnification, and once the glass is good enough, then it's a matter of precision machining, quality materials , precision assembly and quality control. It's those things that determine repeatability, holding zero and whether it lasts or breaks.
I keep hearing about cheap Russian or Chinese knockoffs, or bertrillium-whatever coated counter snipers, or counterfeit Mk 4s that perform as well as a Weaver, Sightron, Leupold, NF, US Optics, Heritage, S&B etc. What a load.
If that were true one of those low dollar wonders would show up in the top 20 at the Super Shoot, or the 1,000 yard Nationals, or in the PRC series. Instead you see March, S&B, Nightforce and the like. A few holdouts still using Premier modded Leupolds and Weavers. The cheap scopes, they're OK for plinking, they might be OK for a starter scope in local competition, but not for a season of high level competition.
IMO a Sightron or Weaver is the least expensive scope I'd take seriously for an entire season of competitive shooting.
I don't see too many people here speaking for the really cheap scopes, so I'll step in. I bought an $80 Barska 6-24x40 that came with a spotting scope... 
Turns out I am more than able to shoot 600y F-class and score over 370/400 with my AR in .223.
What I love about the Barska:
Low Cost.
Dropped rifle off of bench into dirt. Still works and no zero change (I'll call myself lucky)
Knobs are repeatable within 1/4MOA which is OK for my shooting, I take 5 rounds to zero each session.
MIL-Dots are acceptable and help with windy day holdovers (Not reinventing the wheel here just a nice feature)
1/8MOA adjustments are nice for 600y. I don't understand why the cheep "rim-fire" scopes have 1/8MOA and nice
long range optics are still 1/4 only? I'll take reliability any day, but that would be a nice for the picky competitors like me.
Thick center cross hairs, these just obscure the fine detail, but force the shooter into making consistent sight picture using quadrants
What I hate:
24x clarity is an issue, I compete at 20x. I equate it to looking through glasses that have fogged slightly
Eye-Relief is VERY picky, but makes for consistent cheek weld.
Parallax adjustment is crap. It is an AO scope, but no adjusting out the parallax. This counteracts any cheek weld you had
Instead my method is weld and don't release for nuthin! Makes mag reloading interesting...
Millet 4-16x "Tactical" :
Fixed most of my issues from above. Parallax adjustment is still a PITA for longer ranges but its doable otherwise I like it.
Premier Optics Boosted Leupold:
Love it, good luck finding one :'( Mine is working well, and I hope it stays that way. I just miss scope "features" like Mil-dots
Nightforce:
Only problems are business related not product related. Needs better QC out the door, but the company fixed my issue quickly and correctly, so what can I say? I won't send back my Barska because of visual clarity, but the thought that a Nightforce can leave the shop floor with a manufacturing flaw is almost blasphemy in my book, again the issue was resolved with the best possible outcome and with an accepting, understanding, professional attitude that was totally appropriate. I would equate it to having a factory recall for a faulty gas pedal on a brand new Lamborghini.
I might just try a Premier Heritage if I need another $$$ scope.
-Mac
Turns out I am more than able to shoot 600y F-class and score over 370/400 with my AR in .223.
What I love about the Barska:
Low Cost.
Dropped rifle off of bench into dirt. Still works and no zero change (I'll call myself lucky)
Knobs are repeatable within 1/4MOA which is OK for my shooting, I take 5 rounds to zero each session.
MIL-Dots are acceptable and help with windy day holdovers (Not reinventing the wheel here just a nice feature)
1/8MOA adjustments are nice for 600y. I don't understand why the cheep "rim-fire" scopes have 1/8MOA and nice
long range optics are still 1/4 only? I'll take reliability any day, but that would be a nice for the picky competitors like me.
Thick center cross hairs, these just obscure the fine detail, but force the shooter into making consistent sight picture using quadrants
What I hate:
24x clarity is an issue, I compete at 20x. I equate it to looking through glasses that have fogged slightly
Eye-Relief is VERY picky, but makes for consistent cheek weld.
Parallax adjustment is crap. It is an AO scope, but no adjusting out the parallax. This counteracts any cheek weld you had
Instead my method is weld and don't release for nuthin! Makes mag reloading interesting...
Millet 4-16x "Tactical" :
Fixed most of my issues from above. Parallax adjustment is still a PITA for longer ranges but its doable otherwise I like it.
Premier Optics Boosted Leupold:
Love it, good luck finding one :'( Mine is working well, and I hope it stays that way. I just miss scope "features" like Mil-dots
Nightforce:
Only problems are business related not product related. Needs better QC out the door, but the company fixed my issue quickly and correctly, so what can I say? I won't send back my Barska because of visual clarity, but the thought that a Nightforce can leave the shop floor with a manufacturing flaw is almost blasphemy in my book, again the issue was resolved with the best possible outcome and with an accepting, understanding, professional attitude that was totally appropriate. I would equate it to having a factory recall for a faulty gas pedal on a brand new Lamborghini.
I might just try a Premier Heritage if I need another $$$ scope.
-Mac
I think the more relevant question is "will a more expensive scope make you a better shooter?" or otherwise help you achieve your objective (no pun intended).
For example, Jerry Tierney, using iron sights (admittedly top quality sights as you'll find on world-class Palma rifles), will dust most people on this forum who are using telescopic sights. Meaning, put ten of you with your best gear on the 600y or 1,000y line vs. JT and his Palma rifle, and I'm betting on Jerry. And I would expect to collect on 80% of those wagers.
A $3k+ Schmidt & Bender will NOT make you a better shooter. It will certainly make you a POORER shooter, pun intended. One of the dumbest posts I've seen in recent memory is currently on Calguns.net, wherein the OP decided to buy his first rifle, and wanted to shoot long range, so he chose it in .300 Win mag (a Remington XCR) and was fixin' to put a Schmidt & Bender 5-25 on it. A quick/dirty analogy would be buying a new Nissan Altima and then putting $4k worth of racing wheels on it. :
There are lots of factors that determine value IMO of any consumer good, and when it comes to scopes, it is whether the scope is reliable and repeatable as the top two criteria. Image quality is probably no higher than fourth on the list. Third would be affordability.
Anecdotal evidence: An LEO sniper and longtime competitor arrived at a match with a Lapua TRG-42 and Schmidt & Bender scope. He didn't win (I think he got 3rd that day). He was beaten by a guy with a .308 sporting a Sightron scope. The respective cost of the rigs (including optics) was probably $6k vs. $1k.
What I look for is VALUE, i.e. bang for the buck. Methinks that you can get 90% of the performance for half the cost, if you understand what these tools can do and especially what you can do with them. Your checkbook won't make you a better shooter. Practice will.
For example, Jerry Tierney, using iron sights (admittedly top quality sights as you'll find on world-class Palma rifles), will dust most people on this forum who are using telescopic sights. Meaning, put ten of you with your best gear on the 600y or 1,000y line vs. JT and his Palma rifle, and I'm betting on Jerry. And I would expect to collect on 80% of those wagers.
A $3k+ Schmidt & Bender will NOT make you a better shooter. It will certainly make you a POORER shooter, pun intended. One of the dumbest posts I've seen in recent memory is currently on Calguns.net, wherein the OP decided to buy his first rifle, and wanted to shoot long range, so he chose it in .300 Win mag (a Remington XCR) and was fixin' to put a Schmidt & Bender 5-25 on it. A quick/dirty analogy would be buying a new Nissan Altima and then putting $4k worth of racing wheels on it. :
There are lots of factors that determine value IMO of any consumer good, and when it comes to scopes, it is whether the scope is reliable and repeatable as the top two criteria. Image quality is probably no higher than fourth on the list. Third would be affordability.
Anecdotal evidence: An LEO sniper and longtime competitor arrived at a match with a Lapua TRG-42 and Schmidt & Bender scope. He didn't win (I think he got 3rd that day). He was beaten by a guy with a .308 sporting a Sightron scope. The respective cost of the rigs (including optics) was probably $6k vs. $1k.
What I look for is VALUE, i.e. bang for the buck. Methinks that you can get 90% of the performance for half the cost, if you understand what these tools can do and especially what you can do with them. Your checkbook won't make you a better shooter. Practice will.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.