Optics

[Clem Bronkoski]

Am I missing something? I've been looking at some of the scope prices across the board and I just can't justify paying over $1000 for a rifle scope when there are so many scopes for less with excellent glass and features. Arken, Athlon and a few others come to mind.
I'll admit I'm no "glass dnob" (no offense) but what's the scoop?

 

[buckbrush]

Buy a $1000 scope and run it hard for a year and come back. Does it still hold zero? Does it track? Is it consistent?

The premium scopes can just handle more use and abuse in my experience and I'll pay an extra $2000 for the warm-fuzzy feeling my next shot will doped right.

If you dial for an 800 yard shot five times a year, $1000 glass is probably (maybe) fine.

 

[comfisherman]

Legacy reputations were often earned for a reason, like so many things in this life they come with a price. Certainly not needed by everyone, 1000 bucks buys a ton of scope from so many companies, compared to equivalent dollars it's leap years ahead of what was available 15 or 20 years ago.

But features aren't always the only thing that matters. There is no guarantee that a nf atacr will be 100% for every hunt but they as well as their consumers pay a premium in the belief that it will have a higher chance than the arken, athalon, etch.

Some pay way more for domestic or ally country of origin. Was about 14 when work had payed for a decent 22, pump 12 and basic bolt 3006. Everything since then has been discretionary spending, as such even country of origin is a viable reason to buy a much more expensive scope. No fault to those who have other values or reasons, for me everything is non essential and I choose allies after domestic.


Circling back to my first line, some companies and even some specific lines of scopes have proven themselves. I've had a few hunts that required boats planes and some extreme physical exertion to complete. The price of a more budget minded scope vs a known reliable premium was only a small percentage of the cost of the hunt.

Way different story when I hunted a ranch 18 miles from my house in college. Gear failure meant a 20 minute ride home and I'd still have the opportunity the next day. Gear failure on a hunt hundreds of miles down the Alaska peninsula after a week of fighting weather and expending many hours and thousands of dollars to be there.... is soul crushing. I've seen scope brands become seething swear words in those instances.

 

[Trm82]

The cheap ones work but for how long ?
Run a high end scope then go run a lower end and you'll know why they are lower end.
The guys that put their life on the line in war zones are not using Arken They are using Night Force, and Schmidt and Bender for a reason.
I think everyone should be able to enjoy the hobby so spend what you can and have a good time but I do believe in the saying buy once cry once.

 

[waveslayer]

You're paying for reliability, for one thing, then good glass, yes they're is a major difference. Buy once, cry once. Sell all your scope, but 1 really nice piece of glass and you are set. Most guys buy glass for each and every rifle, add that all up and you have spent more then what a TT, ZCO, or March costs

 

[Terry Lightle]

Coyote opportunities are too precious to me to worry about optic problems,I am pretty rough on equipment as are a lot of serious coyote hunters.If a guy makes 15 or 20 stands in a day hardly anybody puts their gun in a case every time.Think my Leupold VX5HD was worth every penny,at least to me.

 

[dfanonymous]

The scoop is tier1 optics are usually better. Simple as that.

Ideally, they should tract better, have better glass, multicoatings which can help pop colors and makes seeing on low light little better depending on the brand and model in question.

Generally this will include also getting a more robust erector assembly and a "better" travel range of adjustment.

Theres also might be special reticles and other features you might find and so forth.

Now you might reread my first sentence that tier 1 is simply better. That is usually the case. However, is a tier 1 scope $2-3000 mo better? For most people, no.

Another fact is that the Gucci tier 1 optics won't make you suck any less. A lot of people would be better served spending the money saved on extra ammo and range time. Imo

 

[mannup1515]

I was on a cow elk hunt spotting for my stepbrother… He borrowed my rebarreled 6.5 weatherby RPM chambered savage…
Had a NF nx8….
There was other hunters (cow tag)down the way of us waiting for the same herd to show up in the morning…
Well first official light was not bright enough lol… We wanted to get the first shot off… It was a long ten minutes before we could make out the cows from the bulls… He did get his cow… Shooting suppressed didn't scare the herd off but the other hunters shot out of the excitement and dropped a bull…
They had a package 6.5 creed with a cheaper vortex…
The better glass bought time early in the morning and I'm sure shooting light in the evening…
I have always liked optics better than the rifles themselves… But I understand the pain of dropping a lot of cash… I can't afford Tangent theta scopes but I wish I could…
There are a lot of "good enough" scopes out there that will get the job done… Just know the limitations of your equipment…
I do believe in the cry once adage…
But we all have our budgets…
I treat scopes with the idea that it's a lifelong investment… I may sell the rifle out from under it but the scope stays…

 

[Bang4theBuck]

I think it would be cool to have or make a video showing the difference in the internals of a scope we could somehow agree is high-end, and one that isn't.
I think this could also provide illustrations to consumers on scopes of all price ranges of how they are made, and more specifically how do they get to the price point that they do. Which are features driving cost and which are quality things driving cost, etc.
My current conundrum is I have an itch to either build a rifle on the extreme short end of length, weight and packability, or buy an extremely light weight factory rifle. On the factory rifle side, I was looking at hlthe extreme light weight scopes. Lots of guys are putting a Leupold vx 2.5-10x40 CDS sort of scope on these rifles to save weight. The optic quality has always been great in the Leupolds I've has, but at sub 1lb, there just doesn't seem like there can be much robustness in thay package. I just have to believe that weight of a scope is somewhat of a factor. There can be different number of lenses, different materials in the erector tube's, etc....
My (1) nightforce ATACR that I own is a tank, and it is great in every way, and it weighs like 2.75 lbs.
One could even evaluate the ratio of ounces to dollars to find suitable options, it would seem.

 

[Quintus]

The scoop is tier1 optics are usually better. Simple as that.

Ideally, they should tract better, have better glass, multicoatings which can help pop colors and makes seeing on low light little better depending on the brand and model in question.

Generally this will include also getting a more robust erector assembly and a "better" travel range of adjustment.

Theres also might be special reticles and other features you might find and so forth.

Now you might reread my first sentence that tier 1 is simply better. That is usually the case. However, is a tier 1 scope $2-3000 mo better? For most people, no.

Another fact is that the Gucci tier 1 optics won't make you suck any less. A lot of people would be better served spending the money saved on extra ammo and range time. Imo

This is perfectly stated. For the most part if you don't get why $2500 for a scope you don't have a need or practical use for a $2500 scope. As stated some, me included don't need a tier one because I just don't have the skill or desire to acquire the skill to need more than a $1500 scope can provide. (and for most of my hunting a 20 year old $300 scope is still effective). You can still shoot a long ways for a long time on a tier 2 or tier 3 scope. For me that's 600 yards and I can for my purpose shoot effectively with a reticle to 500 if needed. You always have to remember if you spend time on this site, several of the guys on here are exceptional experienced shooters and certainly demand and need the higher end stuff to be reliably, consistently, effective. There is definitely a point where poor glass and mushy internals will cost you, but for most folks they never get to that point - at least if they are staying away from the super cheap "junk".

 

[PingGong3]

I bought a vortex scope for my first elk hunt about 10 years ago. On the last day of the hunt, 1 hour before dark, we spotted elk at about 200 yards. When I got my rifle up to look at them, all I could see was a blurry mass. No matter what I did, I could not see the elk. That was a disgusting feeling.
When I got back home I contacted vortex and they said to ship it back to them. Their report was that the nitrogen had leaked out of the scope and had caused those issues. They fixed it, shipped it back and I sold it. I never went cheap on a scope again because the old saying is true, "Buy once, cry once".
Now thank goodness none of those elk were legal shooters but I learned a valuable lesson that day. The next 2 hunts taught me more about clothing and boots but that particular hunt taught me about the importance of quality optics.

 

[gearguywb]

I owned an indoor range and gun shop at one time in my life. Close to deer season guys would come in and want a super accurate whizz bang bolt gun....the cheap out on the scope.

I am not suggesting that you have to but the most expensive thing out there, but remember, you cant shoot what you cant see.

 

[trapper1954]

All I can say is I'm not afraid to buy an old Burris or Leupold, even a vx2 off ebay and get after it. If you've got the power needed, mounted it right, centered your cross hairs, lapped your rings, you can get ,most times, all the travel you need for long distance. You must have skill.

 

[Bang4theBuck]

This is perfectly stated. For the most part if you don't get why $2500 for a scope you don't have a need or practical use for a $2500 scope. As stated some, me included don't need a tier one because I just don't have the skill or desire to acquire the skill to need more than a $1500 scope can provide. (and for most of my hunting a 20 year old $300 scope is still effective). You can still shoot a long ways for a long time on a tier 2 or tier 3 scope. For me that's 600 yards and I can for my purpose shoot effectively with a reticle to 500 if needed. You always have to remember if you spend time on this site, several of the guys on here are exceptional experienced shooters and certainly demand and need the higher end stuff to be reliably, consistently, effective. There is definitely a point where poor glass and mushy internals will cost you, but for most folks they never get to that point - at least if they are staying away from the super cheap "junk".

Well said....that's why I wish there was some sort of testing to quantify 'clarity, durability, and maybe even longevity, with the later being difficult I'm sure.