bronko22000

I've had several different brands of scopes on my hunting rifles. But lately I have found myself looking to either Leupold or Burris for my optics. I have 3 Burris scopes with the Ballistic Plex and can tell you from experience, that it really works. I know you could probably do the same thing with target turrets with a bit better fine tuning, but for big game hunting, it is the cat's meow.

Todd1700

It all depends on what you intend to use a scope for. If you plan to use the scope on a low recoiling rifle that you will just be shooting in daylight hours at a range or plinking in a gravel pit like a 22 up to a 223 then it makes no sense to pay more for a scope designed to handle heavy recoil, filled with dry nitrogen to prevent foggingor with multicoated lenses to transmit light well in early morning or late evening hunting situations. There are plenty of scopes out there in the75 to 150dollar range that will be fine for low recoil plinking. Now for hunting I like and think that you need a better scope. Scopes that will stand up to powerful recoil without failing or shifting POA. Scopes that will not fog up in early morning cold or rain. And a scope that allows you to see well enough to shoot during the low light hours when large game often move the most. That said however I have always been able to find a scope that met those requirements in the 300 to 500 dollar range. I'm not knocking the super expensive scopes in the 500 and up range.But for huntingI have never seen any practical usable advantage of a 1000 dollar scope vs a 500 dollar scope.

Mojotex

About 1970 my eyes started downhill and I could no longer manage open sight shooting at ranges out to 200 yards +/- , so I entered the scope market. I started off with an economy scope, then moved up to what I'll call a mid-range priced scope. I learned the hardest of ways that going this route was utter foolishness and a total waste of my $$$.

Long story short, if a $200 scope was the absolute best you could do ... then you done good. However, if you short changed your rifle buy not going to the best glass you could actually afford at that time, then I'll bet my bottom dollar you'll be back in the scope market soon .... and for what you spent on the Barska + whatever you end up spending on its replacement, you could have jumped up to an even better piece of optics.

Been there, done that.


vare ,

DM

I always get a huge kick out of guys on forums with numerous rifles, whineing they can't afford decent scopes for them. (thatWASN'T aimed at the origional poster) I guess it never occured to them to sellthree of those rifles, to put "decent" glass on the other three...

Over the years, the most reliable scopes i've owned have been Leupolds, and they have been the work horse scopes for my hunting rifles. They have been so reliable, i quit taking a spare scope on extended hunts in the bush.

After having said that, i just bought a Zeiss to put on my "most used" hunting rifle, to a get better low light level sight picture. (replaceing an old Bausch & Lomb)

DM

A11en

DM, I just that very thing. With ammo prices going through the roof, I decided tosell several rifles & a handgunand get down to tworifles with quality glass.

I narrowed it down to:
- Remington 700 SS Mountain Rifle in .243 with a Zeiss Conquest 4.5 - 14 X 44mm
- Remington 700 SS SPS in.300 WSM with a Zeiss Conquest 4.5 - 14 X 44mm

I still have aMarlin 336C, Ruger 10/22, and a couple youth model rifles for my boys (with cheaper scopes). But I've really come to appreciate quality glass, especially in the last 5 minutes of shooting light.

My boys shoot youth models with the cheaper scopes. I will get them quality glass when they get their first full size rifle.

salukipv1

its your call, do what you feel.

My philosophy is its cheaper to buy the best now, than to buy whatever, and replace it down the road. I've never gone for the cheap scopes, only scopes I use to buy were nikons or leupold vx-iii, not too long ago I picked up a swarovski PH, and there's no denying that it is certainly at another level compared to the other 2. Other 2 are plenty good, but that swaro is just about perfect, mechanically, and visually, everything about it i like, which typically when I purchase something, its not perfect, or lacking something here or there, not this, I couldn't ask for more, and now they have the Z6.

Everyone's situation is different, but I think far too many people use the I can't afford it excuse, when in reality that means, I'd rather spend money elsewhere, or I won't give up smoking, etc...etc...

statjunk

No proof to back this up but I know this is somewhat true for me. When I buy something of higher quality I will typically take better care of it. I wonder how many of these wandering zeros are due to lack of care.

Tom

retrieverman

All I am going to say on this subject is that you do get what you pay for. Buy cheap get cheap.

homers brother

Let's be honest - it's easy to get caught up or overwhelmed by "gear fever" anytime you're starting out in a sport. Many ofus who've been around awhile probably started out with borrowed, used, or "cheap" rifles, not having $5K to run down to the local Cabela's toscare up a hunting outfit? Many of us made do with fixed-power scopes for years. Variable-power scopes were for magazine writers. Many of us used maps and an old Boy Scout compass to find our way around. Electronic navigationgadgets was for astronauts and fighter pilots. Before Gore-Tex, there was Army-surplus wool.

Sure, we'd all like to buy the absolute best stuff we can get - but reality is that we often simplycan't afford it. Nothing wrong with that - better to be hunting than wishing.

If you find yourself strapped for cash enough to buy your first centerfire rifle - let alone buy "good glass", welcome to the club. Many of us have been there ourselves. Some of us are still there. I still have a couple of Bushnells, Weavers, and Tascos hanging out in the safe on smaller-caliber weapons. They haven't failed yet,nor have they given me any indications that they will. Honestly, I probably wouldn't take them on an expensive guided hunt or out-of-state, but I'm not afraid taking them into the local National Forest.

And it's still better to be hunting than wishing.

DM does make a good point though. Once you've accumulated enough that you can consider buying a second rifle, consider first that you might upgrade the glass on your first rifle instead. Realistically, you're not going to gain a lot replacing a $75 scope with a $150 scope, though. I don't seem to notice much difference until I've dropped upwards of $300. There's probably a good reason I haven't looked at Zeiss, Swaro, Kahles, etc! I don't know if I could hide a receipt that big from my wife!?

Folically Challenged

I have to disagree with you on that one.

In my experience, I've found the biggest differences in scopeswhen going from the <$75 scopes to the $150-ish scopes. It's when you start going from the $150/$200 scopes to the $300/$400 scopes that the differences get much smaller. There's one hell of a big difference when moving from a Barska/BSA to a Bushnell 3200/Buckmaster. Going from the 3200 to the 4200, however,doesn't show nearly as big a difference.

It's often put forth that one should spend "as much as you can" on a scope. I'd temper that by saying, "spend up to the point where you personallycan't see much of a difference by spending more."