Price of Optics versus Rifle
 

Had an interesting discussion with a friend over the weekend regarding how much we spend on optics versus a rifle particularly if the rifle is not an expensive gun.

All of his guns wear what I would call "inexpensive to mid priced" glass. He has a Cooper, a few Sako's and all of his guns top out at about $500to $600 in glass.

I can't imagine myself putting a cheap scope (I won't use brand names here) on an expensive gun like that.

I have always found value in spending a fair amount on optics, even on a cheaper gun - as an example I have a 700BDL and a VanguardS2 (both on lower price points in terms of rifles) wearing glass almost as much or equal to the gun itself (in price) which he thinks is insane.

I do see a clear difference in crisp images comparing cheap glass and good glass - this is particularly clear when looking through optics in low light or crappy conditions.

Just wanted to hear some opinions and reasons - for conversation's sake.

I know the common narrative is to pay more for the glass than the gun and I agree to some extent. However, If you are an average hunter/shooter who may have the range up to 400 yards then I don't believe a higher end scope is really going to make you any more successful. I paid 900 for my Tikka T3 hunter and put a bushnell 3200 3-9x40 scope on it. I think I paid 350-400 or so for the scope. I cannot say any sort of animal has ever gotten away on me because of the scope. A $1200 scope would just be ****ing away money in my opinion. I would look at eye relief before anything else. As long as it feels good and you are comfortable shooting it then its all good.

I think it comes down to just personal preference. If you want to spend the money on expensive optics then have at it. I personally have ran a Nikon Prostaff ($270 ish) on all of my rifles. I haven't had any issues with them hunting in all light conditions.

I'm sort of on the same page as mulecrazy.... I spend what most would consider "mid-priced" for pretty much all my rifles. While I can appreciate quality, I feel I get my money's worth (and the performance I expect) from something in the range of a mid priced Leupold or similar. I don't really hunt or shoot enough to justify spending $1000 +, sometimes well more than that, for optics.

Without a consistent POA you cant get a consistent POI
 

When I was at WSS I always advised spending as much on glass as you did with the rifle. If you shoot broad daylight every year it may not matter much but I have found higher end scopes have better low light performance so dusk and dawn shots have much more clarity so are easier.

I was going to sell a 22 mag I inherited from my father in 2008 with a cheap $50 scope as it would not group under 2 inches. Less than stellar glass meant I was not consistently aiming at exactly the same spot so POI varied a lot. Friend at WSS optics suggested the rifle was good for 150 200 yards on a good day and recommended I try a Leupold rimfire scope on it. Problem solved right away with 3/8 inch groups and my son routinely takes gophers at nearly 200 yards with it.
If you cant see it you cant hit it (within reason). Guess my rifles are valued at an average of $500 to $1200 but my big game and varmint scopes are worth $800 to $1500

I cannot see spending thousands on optics, unless it is for a specific reason. My Savage .243 wears a Ziess Conquest 3X9 that I picked up for 500 new. I cannot imagine needing clearer glass for myself at the ranges I shoot at. My Tikka .223 wears a Sightron Slll, 6X24 50mm I believe, less than 900 used. Again for what I do with it, target, more than enough. If I had money burning a hole in my pocket, maybe I would spend more, I like nice stuff. But I don't, so for me it's good.

I would rather have a cheaper rifle with a good scope than an expensive rifle with a cheap scope. The latter is sort of like having a Rolls with plastic seat covers. But whatever works is kool. There are far to many seeking the approval of others.

Arent the rules the same as engagement ring rules?

3 months salary for a proper optic for your sweetheart rifle? :scared0015:


In all truth though.. Optics are very much a case of diminishing returns. Just because a scope is $1500 does not mean it is 100% better than a scope that is $750. it might be 15-20 % better. and at some point you are paying alot of extra $$ for a name brand that is considered high end.

Perhaps it is my eyes, but looking through a $1500 Swaro and then looking through my $500 3-9x40 Meopta Meopro I dont notice much if any difference. In low light or sunlight.

IMHO Meopta make top quality optics at a great price, and even make some of the top optics for the big 3 ( ie. Zeiss Conquest) . but not as many folks have heard of them.

Think it depends alot on the shooter. Some guys never shoot beyond 200-300 yards and think spending big money on glass is a waste but justify it on the gun cause they are carrying it, feeling it, feel the cycle of the action, had an animal get away due to a lower quality firearm, etc. Some peoples eyesight isn't great, so a better scope would be ideal, but they still aren't going to be able to see beyond 300 yards. Some folks simply don't have the cash. Some likely view it as an investment, and a firearm isn't likely to depreciate as much as an optic and are therefore reluctant to spend equivalent dollars on the optic. Others feel there is no point in having a $1,500 firearm if your putting a $400 optic on it.

Me, I'd much rather have a $1,500 firearm and a $500 scope than a $1000 firearm and $1,000 scope.

Or put another way, I'll take the Rolls with seat covers vs a Buick with Recaros. :)

The majority of my rifles the scopes cost as much or more than the rifle. Great optics pay in the long run.

None of my scopes cost more than the rife. My T-3 Varmint has a Nikon Monarch 3 on it, my Cooper 22 has a Kahles on it, my custom big game rifle has a Swarovski Z-5 on it, and my Cooper and Anschutz rifles wear Hd-5 scopes.

If you are buying a hunting scope that is going to be used under 400 yards the majority of the time spending 500+ on a scope is definitely a want and not a need. These days lots of good quality scopes available for less than 500 bucks.

I put an $1100 Zeiss conquest with rapid Z on a $800 Remington 700. The rifle shoots well so I'm happy with that end of things (I want to build a custom but kicking tires on calibre and features- not ready yet to take the plunge). I can't say I would ever put a normal cross style single reticle on a rifle again. The small step up in funds to the rapid z reticle was well worth it. The optics are great in low light but the advantage of the yardage markers built in for zero guesswork is a huge positive. No holding over the animal and "guessing" drop anymore. For a mere +- $600 over a normal priced scope to me is a no brainer.
Another member on here spent around $1500-$1700 on his scope with ballistic matching turret. No cheat sheet needed. Such a cool concept, but well worth it for those longer yardages.
Boils down to budget and shooting distance comfort. The technology now though for a small step up in price can have the average hunter shooting greater distances more ethically.

Rapid Z endorsement over :)

Swaros and Zeiss are real nice. I've had each. However, Bobalong speaks the honest truth ^^^^^^

With optics, as with guns, and I suppose many things, you quickly reach a point of diminishing returns.

A used Nikon Monarch 3 offers really good value.

Most of us can see a lot farther than we can shoot. I like getting a little closer if possible, mid-range quality glass works for me, but I appreciate nice rifles.

The very best investment I have ever made was a good quality set of rangefinding binoculars.
I carry them wherever go , no matter if i am hunting with irons or optics.
I consider them a far more prudent and important accessory than an expensive scope.
Cat

There are a couple of guns that see use in really bad conditions. Cheaper scopes weren't a good option. The Swarovski works a lot better in those conditions than the cheaper scopes I have tried.

Another bonus of the Swaros, I could likely sell them for what I paid for them brand new... Can't do that with a nikon...

X2

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

I went out and bought 3 Nightforce, 2 are on full customs and 1 is on a Tikka T3. My gunsmith laughed at me for putting a NF on a Tikka T3.

Match your equipment to your hunting styles and quarry. I wouldn’t want to be 20km back and have the ram of a lifetime laughing at me because my cheap glass wasn’t up to the task nor would I want to risk failure on day 6 of an extended 10 day hunt cause I didn’t buy a better quality scope. And vice versa if collecting collecting whitetail does for sasuages was my main gig I would never spend a pile of cash on super high end scope.

My wifes 243 is one of those $450 savage combo units that came with a cheap bushnell 3-9x40. she shot her whitetail this year with 5 minutes of legal light left. I looked at the deer through my 3200 and her cheaper one. Both scopes could clearly make out the deer. I don't know how little light you guys are needing to see in.... I don't understand how some guys think a $1500 scope will "pay itself off".... A $300 scope kills just as good as a $1500 scope in 99% of the time. That's a pretty expensive 1%. If your into the long range end of things then that is a whole different ball of wax. I am good to 400 with the wifes 243 but that's it. Not like a guy has to shoot farther than that very often anyways.

It's like everything else, a $10,000 car can get you to work just as reliably as a $80,000 car, they will both break down eventually or not. Hunting in legal light I can't say I've ever seen an animal I couldn't have killed with a $3000 scope that I couldn't have killed just as easily with a $200 scope. Typically on even the most overcast dark damp day in dark timber there is plenty of light for even the crappiest optics to plainly see an animal during 'legal' hours at least with my imperfect vision. I buy lower to mid priced scopes preferring to spend the extra money on reloading and shooting. Perhaps if I were more affluent I might purchase better scopes but I can't honestly say the scopes I use have handicapped me in any way.

If you are dialing lots of elevation and wind the higher priced scopes will be more repeatable. Also have a better chance of them being a true 1/4 MOA per click value and not need to enter correction values into your program. But as stated for most hunting rigs that will be shooting 3-400 yds you can get away with a more mid range scope.

I have had one instance in 45 years of hunting where I turned down a shot that I would likely have taken with my current scopes. It was an overcast day , the deer was in the edge of the brush, and there were a few minutes of legal light remaining. I could see the deer fairly well with my Zeiss binoculars, but when I raised my rifle to take the shot, I could not clearly establish the angle that the deer was standing at, and that there was nothing that might deflect the bullet. When I switched back to my binoculars to bettet establish things, the deer moved deeper into the brush, and the opportunity was lost. Thankfully the deer was not the buck of a lifetime, or a record book elk or bighorn ram, but that incident resulted in me replacing my vari x scopes with scopes that were better at transmitting light. I have also hunted in other provinces and states, and in B.C. for example the legal hours are different than in Alberta. A scope that does the job at 30 minutes after sunset, may not do the job 45 minutes after sunset , where it is legal to hunt then.
I have also seen cases where the point of impact changed as the magnification was adjusted, on a Tasco package scope. I have also seen the point of impact move by feet a 200 yards when my hunting partners Burris scope was not holding zero. He missed two deer, then we set up a target only to discover that the rifle was shooting well over two feet to the left at 200 yards. We readjusted the scope, but a day later, the windage had moved again while riding around in the truck.
Yes a higher priced scope can fail, but I haven't had it happen with my scopes, or with my hunting partners scopes. I don't buy the most expensive scopes, but I do choose the higher end 1" scopes to mount on my hunting rifles.

A scope is an optic and more important it is a sight. When I sold firearms, those combo units were really popular. I think that the optic quality of those scopes was good enough to shoot game during legal light. I never heard any complaints there. Where I did hear and see numerous complaints about those combo scopes was the quality of the scope as a reliable sight. The reticle seemed to have a mind of its own and would not stay put. I can not even begin to count the turned reticles I witnesses on new scopes on those combo rifles. The amount of scopes returned for replacement was very high. That said most that got by the initial sight in with their combo scope usually did not experience the problem later.

When asked about the quality of those scopes I would always mention the problem and advise the buyer to shoot the rifle asap and not wait for just before the season start.

I used to hunt with my wife's cousin. One of his hunting partners had one of those POS Remington 710 combo rifles with one of those POS scopes. I never failed to point that out to him:) Long story short. He is still using that POS scope and rifle and has shot at least 5 bull elk and a couple moose and many deer.

You and your wife got it figured out.

scopes
 

It's not all about cost and distance.
The first time you have a scope fog up on you during a long awaited hunt, you will regret it.
Also, check out the price point difference for scopes when it comes to last or early light. I did a sighting-in with a fellow from work about two years back, and his Leuopold was done, shooting west, a half hour before my swarovski. The little bit of glare from the setting sun just killed his scope,and yet mine never missed a beat right up till the sun set behind the berm of the shooting range.
You do get what you pay for, and it all comes back to that saying "buy once; cry once".

My optics are not on any type of ratio with the cost of the rifle. I have a minimum quality standard I use on my inexpensive rifles I use a Nikon Monarch as my base model. Quality optics don't necessarily mean expensive optics. $400-$500 is where my optics start and they top out at $2000 no matter how expensive or inexpensive the rifle it sits on is. My favorite scope is the middle of the road Z3, it's good quality and light weight with enough range in magnification to work perfectly for my big game needs. I sold off my VX6 3-18x44 and VX6 2-12x42 in favor of the Z3's 3-10x42 because of the weight. As far as I'm concerned pretty much any scope you buy in the $800-$2000 range will all have high quality optics, it's the power and reticle choice that suits your needs from there that determines how much you'll have to spend. This of course is coming from a big game hunters opinion, varmint and target shooters may have a different opinion.

I have always put vx2 and Vx3 on my rifles, other than rimfire where i have a diamondback hd. I don't think I will ever need more than a Vx3 in a scope, i'm not shooting out to 1000 yards nor feel the need to.

I've always spent the same or more on the scope than the gun itself. Its almost impossible to buy a gun made in the last 5-10 years that shoots greater than 1.5 MOA and there is a sea of garbage glass out there. When I worked at a gun shop if I was trying to package a gun and scope under a specific budget I would always recommend customers step down in gun instead of scope and almost no one liked hearing it. 9 out of 10 would spend 70-80% of the total budget on the gun and slap a cheap after thought of a scope on top. It was super frustrating.

Having looked through both, the Bushnell on your wife's Savage and the 3200 series really aren't that far apart on the quality spectrum as far as light transmission goes. You would notice a difference between your 3200 and a Leupold VX-6 or something like a Schmidt and Bender.

Another big difference for me with high end optics is that I can slip and smack the scope on a rock, drop the rifle completely and generally abuse it on the side of a mountain for 10 days and know that its not going anywhere and the POA/POI isn't going anywhere either.