stubblejumper

Are you saying thatyour legal hours are only from sunrise to sunset.Where I hunt the legal hours are from one half hour before sunrise to one half hour after sunset.

retrieverman

As in most everything in the world, you get what you pay for. With a $200 scope, you get $200 optics, and there is nothing wrong with them. I have killed MANY deer and hogs with a Ruger 270 topped with a $50 1986 model Tasco scope, BUT there is a difference in a$50 Tasco and a Zeiss Diavari in the quality of the optics.

As for your theory, you are only partly right. A "decent" gun (whatever that means) and a $200+/- scopeIN THE HANDS OF THE RIGHT SHOOTER is capable of making the same shots as aBlaser R93topped with a Zeiss Diavari.

stubblejumper

Unless of courseit is too dark to see the target clearly with the $200 scope while it is stillclear with the ziess scope.

retrieverman

Been there, done that, but I am trying not to be argumentative. That can be our little secret. Let's just let that one go.

Todd1700

I used cheap scopes for a long time. There are some out there that will certainly hold zero and provide decent service. The difference that I see between a 200$or less scope vs a 300$ and up scope is; better light transmission and much more resistent to fogging. Most scopes in the 350 and up range are dry nitrogen filled to help prevent fogging. The lenses have much better coatings and more layers of them which boost light transmission. And finally the lenses themselves are just flat out better glass which also helps light transmission. They also tend to be covered by a much better warranty. I've used World Class Tasco's, mid-range Bushnells, and Simmons scopes. I know and remember how they performed in low light conditions. The scopes I use now (Pentax Lightseekers, Leupold VXIII's, Zeiss Conquests) blow them away. Those cheaper scopes would also fog up badly especially on cold rainy mornings

Now that said, I personally cannot see enough difference in a 400 dollar Zeiss Conquest and a 1000 dollar Zeiss Diavari to warrantspending an extra 600 dollars on one. I'd like to hear from the people who own one, what one of those 1000 to 1200 dollars scopes will do that a 400 dollar Zeiss Conquest won't do.

retrieverman

Given the topic, I am embarrassed to admit what scopes are currently on my guns. I mainly use Conquests, but I do own a couple ofDiavaris. There is definitely a difference in the quality of Conquests vs. Diavaris, but is it worth the price difference? Probably NOT.

I have been fortunate and acquired some "high end" firearms at reasonable prices, so I have invested in some "high end" optics to match the quality of the gun. I work in the agriculture industry and raise cattle, so I am far from being "wealthy". For me, it is where you put your priorities. I raise registered Brangus cattle and spend more than I should on guns and scopes, but I have friends that live in $250,000 houses and shoot worn out pieces of junk guns. It is allin where you put yourpriorities. Sorry if I digressed.

Highpower

I'm pretty much a Leupold user. Not to say that I don't own a few less expensive scopes on rifles, but I tend to only buy Leupold now. For me, the difference is where and what I'm hunting. If I'm hunting deer where I can go home at the end of the day and change rifles if I have a scope mal, then a less expensive scope can be OK. If I'm chasing elk around in the Flat Tops area, it's pretty tough to run out and pick up another scope if/when that cheaper scope fogs up. I've sort of subscribe to the theory of a less expensive rifle and better optics will probably shoot better than an expensive rifle and cheap optics. Just my $.02

Mike Hill

The only way to know is to do a side by side comparison. Take your Tasco and a Nikon Buckmaster and look through one then the other yu will see a big difference in brightness and clearity. I'v never used the super high end scopes but my guns say remmington and browning not custom but right off the shelf. Not only that but a good Nikon or a Lupold come with a lifetime warranty. I have gone through 3 Tasco World class scopes on my 06 there not made to take the punnishment of the higher end scopes.Just my 2 cents Mike

trailer

I don’t see any reason why someone should be embarrassed about owning high end equipment being scopes or rifles. The end result is the one owning them is the one who spent the money being low, mid range or high end...

aimiablerooster

I hear what you're saying. Its a question of value I think. If you buy anything on either end of the spectrum you end up with reliability issues on one end and jewlery on the other end. I wouldn't deny that the real expensive stuff is better than middle or higher than middle cost equipment. The question is whether it represents a reasonable value or not. Reasonable of course is relative to what you can or are willing to afford. I sure wouldn't mind having the high end stuff if I got it for a steal. Great glass is much easier to look through, and you sure see it with binoculars when you spend the time.

I agree with Trailer, nobody should feel embarassed about the equipment they use whatever it is. You use what you can afford or want to afford. I buy what I'm willing to afford, and I'm pretty happy with middle of the road equipment.