WTH is with these scope prices??

[SidecarFlip]

Not a peep.

Probably won't be because even though the european monetary situation is poor, our domestic dollar ain't worth squat either.....

Thats why it takes 40 grand to buy a car that cost 4 grand 30 years ago.

Whar it will take to bring everything into perspective pricing wise is for us to be on the same footing as China and I don'r see that happening, not without a rash of civil disobedience.

It's not the initial cost of the product but rather the markup that each entity applies before the product reaches your hands.

If you only knew.....

 

[JimBoIHN]

I have 2 Nikon Monarch scopes. 3-12x42SF and 4-16-50SF. The most expensive was about $430 if I remember. Nikon have started offering custom turrets for less that $100 ea. The repeatability of my turrets has been excellent. It is unfortunate that the 223 version scopes stop at the 3-12x42, since their turrets are target style and don't have covers to begin with.

Having said all that, I am currently shooting to 350 yards, which is long range for michigan. It is only safe because of the terrain on the farm, usually in most of MI and OH it is flat as a pancake so having a backstop can be an issue. I would personally need a different rest to reliably shoot longer than 350 yards and prone is basically out of the question because of all the vegetation (and clay mud) at ground level.

Does anyone have any proven ideas for an accurate rest system which allows for shooting in near any direction ?

The military teaches a pretty darn good sitting position which gets your point of aim up to about 2 feet above ground.

 

[Buano]

Not a peep.

Probably won't be because even though the european monetary situation is poor, our domestic dollar ain't worth squat either.....

Thats why it takes 40 grand to buy a car that cost 4 grand 30 years ago.

Whar it will take to bring everything into perspective pricing wise is for us to be on the same footing as China and I don'r see that happening, not without a rash of civil disobedience.

It's not the initial cost of the product but rather the markup that each entity applies before the product reaches your hands.

If you only knew.....

I actually have a masters in finance so I understand financial markets quite well. The problem I see isn't the exchange rate, it's the monopoly given to the importers. Importers jacked prices on European scopes when our currency fell due to not funding the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan & the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Those price increases were justified based on exchange rates. Since then, the Euro has dropped against the dollar, which SHOULD have meant a drop in the prices of European scopes. To date none of those drops have happened, which means the importers are keeping the extra money that we would have saved, but for the monopolies given to the importer. Simply said, if the importers had to compete with other importers, the importers would only keep a reasonable price unless he wanted his competition to undercut his prices & take ALL the business. With a monopoly there is no competition, so market forces do not force a reasonable price. This is what I was talking about.

I am tempted to find a European seller to see what it would cost me to buy from Europe.

 

[gonewest]

I really wish we could band together and boycott the Euro optic market for a yr or so and see what happens. When S&B can raise the price of the Summit scope 4-5 hundred dollars something is wrong. Its the exact scope just higher priced. You can buy a great scope for 4-5 hundred. I am really stating to rethink this whole German optic thing.

 

[load]

I actually have a masters in finance so I understand financial markets quite well. The problem I see isn't the exchange rate, it's the monopoly given to the importers. Importers jacked prices on European scopes when our currency fell due to not funding the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan & the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Those price increases were justified based on exchange rates. Since then, the Euro has dropped against the dollar, which SHOULD have meant a drop in the prices of European scopes. To date none of those drops have happened, which means the importers are keeping the extra money that we would have saved, but for the monopolies given to the importer. Simply said, if the importers had to compete with other importers, the importers would only keep a reasonable price unless he wanted his competition to undercut his prices & take ALL the business. With a monopoly there is no competition, so market forces do not force a reasonable price. This is what I was talking about.

I am tempted to find a European seller to see what it would cost me to buy from Europe.

obviously you went to a very liberal collage. the tax cuts were for everyone not just the wealthy. My taxes will go up around 4000 dollars when they end and I am NOT rich.
Many of the trade rules we are under today were written in '96.
Economics 101-tax on corperations (ie the rich) is a tax on product which ends up being paid for by the end user. Just a way to hide a double or triple tax and make people believe they are not really paying it. The tax also pushes these people to go to places were it is cheaper to do business. Right now the USA has the HIGHEST corperate tax rate in the world forcing importation instead of American manufacturing.
A bigger financual problem is the massive expansion our federal government has been under. It is to a size that no matter how much they tax there can never be enough money to fund all the unfunded liabilities even if they CONFISCATED all of the wealth in the USA. We have a higher debt to citizen ratio than Grease! They are being forced to impose austerity in other words CUT SPENDING. If the our federal government would revert to what it was 100 years ago the dollar would be worth more.

 

[JimBoIHN]

I actually have a masters in finance so I understand financial markets quite well. The problem I see isn't the exchange rate, it's the monopoly given to the importers. Importers jacked prices on European scopes when our currency fell due to not funding the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan & the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Those price increases were justified based on exchange rates. Since then, the Euro has dropped against the dollar, which SHOULD have meant a drop in the prices of European scopes. To date none of those drops have happened, which means the importers are keeping the extra money that we would have saved, but for the monopolies given to the importer. Simply said, if the importers had to compete with other importers, the importers would only keep a reasonable price unless he wanted his competition to undercut his prices & take ALL the business. With a monopoly there is no competition, so market forces do not force a reasonable price. This is what I was talking about.

I am tempted to find a European seller to see what it would cost me to buy from Europe.

You nailed it, partner. That's why the free market isn't working anymore - we ain't got one. The rich have control of everything and they are getting even richer, of course. If they can get the jerkdogMUTT in, they will be able to further reduce their pathetically inadequate tax "burden". Ain't it disgusting? If you ain't rich, I mean. I wouldn't vote for R if he were running against........well, you name it.

 

[JimBoIHN]

obviously you went to a very liberal collage. the tax cuts were for everyone not just the wealthy. My taxes will go up around 4000 dollars when they end and I am NOT rich.
Many of the trade rules we are under today were written in '96.
Economics 101-tax on corperations (ie the rich) is a tax on product which ends up being paid for by the end user. Just a way to hide a double or triple tax and make people believe they are not really paying it. The tax also pushes these people to go to places were it is cheaper to do business. Right now the USA has the HIGHEST corperate tax rate in the world forcing importation instead of American manufacturing.
A bigger financual problem is the massive expansion our federal government has been under. It is to a size that no matter how much they tax there can never be enough money to fund all the unfunded liabilities even if they CONFISCATED all of the wealth in the USA. We have a higher debt to citizen ratio than Grease! They are being forced to impose austerity in other words CUT SPENDING. If the our federal government would revert to what it was 100 years ago the dollar would be worth more.

Yes, indeed, the apparent tax rate is quite high. The effective tax rate, after all the creative accounting those corps, is probably extremely small. IE-they hide most of the true profits. Believe it!

 

[Buano]

obviously you went to a very liberal collage. the tax cuts were for everyone not just the wealthy. My taxes will go up around 4000 dollars when they end and I am NOT rich.
Many of the trade rules we are under today were written in '96.
Economics 101-tax on corperations (ie the rich) is a tax on product which ends up being paid for by the end user. Just a way to hide a double or triple tax and make people believe they are not really paying it. The tax also pushes these people to go to places were it is cheaper to do business. Right now the USA has the HIGHEST corperate tax rate in the world forcing importation instead of American manufacturing.
A bigger financual problem is the massive expansion our federal government has been under. It is to a size that no matter how much they tax there can never be enough money to fund all the unfunded liabilities even if they CONFISCATED all of the wealth in the USA. We have a higher debt to citizen ratio than Grease! They are being forced to impose austerity in other words CUT SPENDING. If the our federal government would revert to what it was 100 years ago the dollar would be worth more.

I agree that the tax on corporations should be reduced to level the competitive playing field worldwide. I know corporate taxes are passed on to consumers, but I also know corporate taxes are used as incentives to get corporations to behave in the public interest so zeroing out corporate taxes also makes no sense. If we remove the incentive structures caused by our tax code, the only way to get corporations to behave responsibly would be to add governmental controls. I prefer freedom with incentives to Gestapo agents telling us what to do.

Since the 1960s effective tax rates on millionaires have been cut by two thirds while effective tax rates on working-class people have gone up. In the 60's most families could survive on one salary, now many can't survive on two. In the last two years 94% of the economic gains have gone to the top 2%. Anyone who can't see what our country's shift from supporting working families to making the rich richer doesn't have their eyes open.

And in case it mattered: My MBA is from the William E. Simon School of Business at the U of R. Our dean was George Bush (senior)'s economics advisor & I debated then VP Bush before his run for the Presidency. I would hardly call that a "liberal" college even if some on the right like to throw that label at anything & anyone that looks at facts & evidence instead of dogma.

 

[JimBoIHN]

I agree that the tax on corporations should be reduced to level the competitive playing field worldwide. I know corporate taxes are passed on to consumers, but I also know corporate taxes are used as incentives to get corporations to behave in the public interest so zeroing out corporate taxes also makes no sense. If we remove the incentive structures caused by our tax code, the only way to get corporations to behave responsibly would be to add governmental controls. I prefer freedom with incentives to Gestapo agents telling us what to do.

Since the 1960s effective tax rates on millionaires have been cut by two thirds while effective tax rates on working-class people have gone up. In the 60's most families could survive on one salary, now many can't survive on two. In the last two years 94% of the economic gains have gone to the top 2%. Anyone who can't see what our country's shift from supporting working families to making the rich richer doesn't have their eyes open.

And in case it mattered: My MBA is from the William E. Simon School of Business at the U of R. Our dean was George Bush (senior)'s economics advisor & I debated then VP Bush before his run for the Presidency. I would hardly call that a "liberal" college even if some on the right like to throw that label at anything & anyone that looks at facts & evidence instead of dogma.

The apparent tax rates on Corps and the rich is meaningless. Their true tax rate is way less than that via loopholes,............ of all kinds. That's why many millionaires pay NO income taxes at all. I though everyone understood that-guess not. Only us dumb commoners are stuck with the tax burden for everyone, rich, poor, and in between.

 

[Buano]

I have 2 Nikon Monarch scopes. 3-12x42SF and 4-16-50SF. The most expensive was about $430 if I remember. Nikon have started offering custom turrets for less that $100 ea. The repeatability of my turrets has been excellent. It is unfortunate that the 223 version scopes stop at the 3-12x42, since their turrets are target style and don't have covers to begin with.

Having said all that, I am currently shooting to 350 yards, which is long range for michigan. It is only safe because of the terrain on the farm, usually in most of MI and OH it is flat as a pancake so having a backstop can be an issue. I would personally need a different rest to reliably shoot longer than 350 yards and prone is basically out of the question because of all the vegetation (and clay mud) at ground level.

Does anyone have any proven ideas for an accurate rest system which allows for shooting in near any direction ?

There are bipods long enough to use in a seated position. A Harris HB25C bipod (or another make), along with a foam seat to keep your butt from getting muddy should easily get you to 500 yards.

There are shooting sticks to support the front of your gun in a standing position. These are as basic as two saplings cut as you entered the woods to products like the Vanguard Pro T68 Shooting Tripod that provides solid tripod support to 68" (about $100 on ebay). The single-stick "monopod" varieties do not help any where near as much as the bipod & tripod varieties. Walmart was selling both monopod & bipod varieties of these.

If you will be shooting from a seated position a bipod should work. If you may be shooting from standing, the commercial shooting sticks are your best bet. They do mean you have one more item to cary, but they will increase your long-range accuracy.

 

[Greyfox]

You nailed it, partner. That's why the free market isn't working anymore - we ain't got one. The rich have control of everything and they are getting even richer, of course. If they can get the jerkdogMUTT in, they will be able to further reduce their pathetically inadequate tax "burden". Ain't it disgusting? If you ain't rich, I mean. I wouldn't vote for R if he were running against........well, you name it.[/

Sounds like "O's" class warfare strategy is progressing very nicely. Gun control is only a little further down on his to do list.

 

[JimBoIHN]

If R gets his class strategy in effect we will all have to sell our firearms to pay taxes to cover the rich.

 

[enigma]

I wouldn't pay $400.00 for any bushnell scope more less $1398.99 might as well say$1400.00 junk to me.

 

[rcdinaz]

Now that we are on too politics and taxes this should probably be moved to the general discussion thread.

In regards to the scope price topic I have checked prices in Europe, electronics in China, and Japan and you wold be surprised for high quality products the prices are not enough of an advantage to beat a supper sale here in the U.S. If you will accept cheap products or hit the grey market then the prices change drastically. I have checked Swaro, Sony, Apple, Samsung, market leader type products and the deals were not especially great. Now things such as textiles and low tech items can be had for a steal.

The one thing I will point out is the rich & tax debate ends up being a pretty foolish one. There just are not enough of the so called rich to take care of everyone's proposed problems, it makes more sense for an individual to take care of their own challenges since blaming others is always counter productive to completing a goal even if you are right. Taxes = Government, as gov has grown we have higher taxes allowing for more "tax incentives" for the so called rich (actually specific/special interest) which is the case with pretty much any form of gov regardless of the party etc. If you want truly lower taxes you have to have less gov and less gov organizations, all are included. Our favorite gov groups increase the needs for taxes period no matter how much we like what they do. So until/if/ever people decide they can expect less from their gov the cost and taxes are not changing anytime soon, last I checked the IRS, Whitehouse, DOE, DOL, EPA, DOJ, Homeland Security and on and on have all grown. Ohhh wait the DOD and their expense has been reduced so there is one, not that the DOD would be one that would give you the warm and fuzzies to see go.