Price of Optics versus Rifle

[EZM]

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.

[mulecrazy]

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.

[Hogie135]

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.

[pikergolf]

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.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

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.

[CanadianEh]

Arent the rules the same as engagement ring rules?

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


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.

[Trochu]

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.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by Hogie135

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.

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.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by bobalong

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.

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.

[roper1]

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.

[amosfella]

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...

[Scott N]

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.

[wwbirds]

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

[Masterchief]

Originally Posted by mulecrazy

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.

X2

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

[wildwoods]

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

[dave99]

Lots of fellas focusing on “as long is I shoot less than x distance a moderate price scope performs well enough”. I think that it’s light gathering and transmission that allows the highest end scopes to perform best. Distance of the shot, while not irrelevant, is not my top concern when choosing optics.

In low light scenarios, like dense Bush, and at dawn/dusk the high priced optics really make the difference.

In jurisdictions that allow shooting earlier/later than our 30/30min rule, the German optics (by this I mean the top end companies worldwide, not just Germany) are critical. So I think that in Alberta the mantra of spend more on optics than on your rifle is a bit bogus.

That said, call me a hypocrite because my hunting rigs carry Nikon Monarch, Zeiss, and two Swaros


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[old dog]

I usually base it on the quality of the rifle. High end rifles have high end scopes and visa versa. Now saying that I have a browning A bolt in a 243 with a 3-9 rifleman leupold with the multi cross hairs. It’s very accurate out to 600 yards. So u don’t have to spend a lot of money to be accurate at times.

[trigger7mm]

Personnally, I would put more money into the quality of optic, than I would the rifle. For example, say a mid range Savage rifle, with a good Leupold scope.

[Outhouse]

The best you can afford, just ensure to have a rifle that does the trick.

[kman35ca]

I like nice optics. But I also like great deals. That's why I picked up a Bushnell elite tactical, 6-24-50 ffp with the illuminated BTR I think ret. They go for 1300$ usually. It popped up on Amazon for 640$ including tax, shipping. It sits on my savage 12 243, in an mdt hs3 chassis, and I had a blast shooting long range coyotes this winter. Tracks great, and the glass is pretty good.
But I also got a meopta 4-16-44 on my 270wsm, and WoW. Especially at dusk, it gives me the feeling of having night vision. Just not a fan of the AO, but it's not that picky, and I haven't made any shots past 200 yards on big game yet. This year it was less than a hundred yards for my deer.
But honestly, I have a fetish for nice scopes. My hunting partners use cheap bushnell's, even those ones you get with package rifles, and they still work. But I can definitely see, how that meopta would be beneficial at dusk. I have held on a deer, that was just over the fence of the property we could hunt on up past shooting light. Too risky to shoot, but I was just awed by how that scope picked up so much detail, when with my own eyes, I could just see the outline of a buck. Meopta is definitely underrated.

[laus]

It think this depends on individual preferences, as for me the highest i have spent on optic was 400 for a Leupold and never felt i needed to go for something higher because it works perfectly.

[6.5 shooter]

All I know is that if I were to top all my rifles with $2000. scopes I would have to take out a second mortgage.....