Grey poupon scopes

[4onaside]

I am always amazed at what some of the guys on here spend for scopes. I finally broke the $100 barrier this year with a Nikon pro-staff on ebay,mainly due to peer pressure, but all of my considerable hunting life, I have done quite well with "economy priced" scopes. The question that I have never found an answer for is, how do state of the art top dollar scopes improve a hunter's success? Particulaly an eastern hunter. I have more pasture than most, and, I suppose that you could encounter a 300 yard shot, although it would be poor planning if you did so. But, obvious most shots in this part of the country are well under 100 yards. And, I've found that the cheapest of the cheap do just fine under those conditions. Even, in the wide open west, I try to limit myself to 275 or less, because beyond that, whatever equipment that I am using, outdistances my ability.
Just curious as to what real benefit is derived from spending IMO way too much money for optics, other than, of course, the grey poupon syndrome.

 

[cecil30-30]

I guess you could say that im relativly new to deer hunting with only 7 years experience,but since I started when i was 14 i have been saving my money and buying guns,and I would just top them off with a cheap simmons or cheap tasco at walmart and not think twice about it.Then when times comes to sight theses scopes and rifles in,none ofthem seem to work right.On one scope 1 click up may mean 10 clicks left,and on another 1 click down might mean 3 clicks up,or it may not even move at all.I have had no luck at all out of cheap scopes and I am just now starting to realize that you definatly get what you pay for when it comes to Optics!I just bought my first Leupold for my muzzleloader and man what a differenc,when you give it a click to the left,that is where it goes!Seems like everytime i get a cheap scope,they are trash,just plain and simple.I bought the SImmons whitetail Classic scope for $110 a few years ago and it is a great scope and still holding a zero to this day on my 30-06,been sighted in now for about 3 years,with no adjustments.But really $110 is justa drop in the bucket compared to these 4 and 5 hundred dollar scopes people buy.I could not afford that but I won't spend under $100 on a scope from here on out,because you do get what you pay for.

 

[LCU]

Good glass is not just for taking long shots.
Good glass has a lot of benefits for a hunter.

Hunt in low light conditions,and assorted weather conditions, at various distances with a quality scope, then hunt with a 100 scope.

IMO the difference is huge.
I also have a budget,and decided my last scope to be a VX-III.
More cash did not get me much more scope, but less money, even within the Leupold brand, gave me less.

Once you hunt with good glass it spoils you. IMO.

 

[LCU]

Most of the scopes on my rifles, cost more then the gun itself.
I found the same true with binos,and all I hunt with now are Swarovski.
I am not a glass snob, and there are many more expensive products being sold than what I buy.
I am limited on money and have to spend it between bow, ML and Rifle hunting.

 

[ratsnakeboogy]

Most of the scopes on my rifles, cost more then the gun itself.
quote]

I like good glass, but I just can't spend more on a scope than on a rifle. That just defies all logic to me(no offense LCU). I've had cheaper scopes outperform Leupold, and vice versa. Honestly I get better performance from the old Redfields than anything. I like my Zeiss binoculars very well though.

 

[LCU]

I don't shoot junk guns, but I will spend more on a scope than the gun itself.

 

[megalomaniac]

You don't need an expensive scope on a rifle to SHOOT a deer, as long as the scope will hold zero.

You DO need good glass to really HUNT deer, though. (although to meet the good glass requirement you can substitute good binoculars for a scope)

Let me explain the difference...

The average hunter will shoot a deer less than 100 yards, mostly with plenty of light after sunup or before sundown. He doesn't need to be able to tell if the yearling is a button or a doe fawn, he doesn't care if it's a 3ptr vs a 4ptr... he's just going to shoot the darn deer and kill it deader than stink.

but to really HUNT, you've got to maximize those first 5 minutes of light in the morning, as well as the last 5 minutes of light in the evening. In order to do that, you've got to have really, really good glass (in fact, I've only got one scope capable of doing it efficiently... and it cost $1300). For that reason, I carry a pair of zeiss 8x56 binoculars. I could use cheaper/lighter binocs for the rest of the day, but those 10 minutes are so crucial, it's worth it to me.

Also, some hunters aren't satisfied just shooting deer under 100 yards. Some like to shoot em out to 700. And at 700 yards, you just can't 'hold over' and expect to make ethical kills. You've got to have a scope that not only holds zero, but has accurate, true, and REPEATABLE adjustments to dial in the dope on the scope before the shot. That alone immediately eliminates 75% of the scopes out there.

And the way I hunt, I NEED to be able to tell the difference between a button and a doe; between a 2.5 yr old buck and a 3.5 yr old buck; etc. In order to accomplish this, I need a scope with excellent color contrast and extremely low distortion. The cheaper scopes just don't compare.

Finally, I like to shoot at the range a good bit. The difference in scope prices probably is most obvious in this situation... My $1300 scope can be held on a 1/6" dot at 100 yards on 32x with ease.

 

[LCU]

Binos and scopes working together in low light conditions during prime time hunting is best.
It's not all about long distances.
Good glass makes for good hunting.

 

[Model70Man]

As stated before, you don't need expensive optics to shoot long range. My first rifle came with a Simmons 3-9x40 piece of junk. It wouldn't hold zero for anything. I took some advice and bought a Leupold Vari-X II 3-9x40. What a difference in clarity and the scope held zero. I vowed to never buy a Simmons unless it was for a 22lr and became a Leupold fan. Then I messed up and looked through a Zeiss Conquest. Big mistake. The optics blew me away. The Zeiss was clearer, brighter, better resolution, and had a crisper image out to the edge of the glass than any other scope I've ever looked out of. Minute details were easier to see compared to the Leupold. And to my amazment, the same price and even less expensive than a VX-III. I now have 7 or 8 Zeiss Conquest scopes now and all of my bolt action rifles wear the Conquest. They hold zero and don't have to re-zero before each season unless I change the load I'm shooting. They track better than the Leupold as well. 1 click is exactly .25 inches at 100 yds. Then I looked through a Meopta Meostar R1. Same price as the Conquest, but again the optics were just that much better for the same price. Meopta optics rank right up there with the $1500 to $2000 scopes for the price of a Conquest.

IMO, less expensive scopes will get the job done. But, if you want to be able to determine if that buck in the thick stuff or at the woodline 150 yds away is an 8 point or a 7 point, the less expensive scope will not help your chances, especially in low light conditions. If a person has grey poupon syndrome because they have $300 to $500 scopes on their rifles, then I have it really bad. :grin:

 

[ratsnakeboogy]

Again LCU no offense intended. I would never call anyone elses gear junk.

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

 

[LCU]

Again LCU no offense intended. I would never call anyone elses gear junk.

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

I did not take it like you did.
No harm.

My remmy 700 is not an expensive rifle. It shoots well enough for the hunting I do with it.
I budget in as much scope money as I can.
I like good glass a lot.

Took me a while to buy the Swarovskis I have now.
Had I not bought a dozen cheaper ones over the past years, I could have used it much earlier.

I don't think paying more than a hundred or 200 is snobby like Grey Poupon.

 

[JimFromTN]

If all your going to do is hunt deer 3 or 4 days a year with it and go to the range maybe once before season if your lucky, then stick to the cheap scopes. The cheaper the scope, the bigger the gamble. If you don't have much time invested in the woods and you aren't really that serious then if you blow it on a buck of a lifetime because of your scope then its no big deal and it still makes for a great story. If you invest allot of time in the woods then you might want to invest in a higher quality scope. How much you spend should be based on how much you hunt and how serious you are. The more you invest, the more it sucks when you blow it.

In addition to being worlds apart in low light situations, the more expensive scopes are more durable. Also at higher powers, the more expensive scopes will be allot clearer.

I usually spend about the same amount on the scope as I do the rifle but I hunt other things besides just deer in TN. I have hunted hogs in Texas and Moose and Black Bear in Alaska and I am ever hopeful to hunt just about every species of big game in the United States and possibly Europe and who knows maybe even Africa someday so I see spending $600 on a scope as a wise investment.

 

[ratsnakeboogy]

Speaking of scopes Jim, hows that elite 4000 working out?

 

[JimFromTN]

I have not have a chance to use it, yet. I have it mounted and I have taken it outside and looked thru it at dusk. It looks great, but I don't know how my neighbors felt about it. I am going to take it out friday and get it sighted in. Did you ever decide what you were going to do with the leupold?

 

[ratsnakeboogy]

Glad you like it, it was just too big for my model sevens.


The leupold is on my muzzleloader right now, it will probably stay there for a while.

 

[JimFromTN]

Thats a good choice for that scope.

 

[PickettSFHunter]

Ditto, megalo, LCU, M70Man. Good glass is worth every penny.

 

[4onaside]

Interesting takes boys, but I am, always have been, and always will be a yellow mustard man. And, contrary to Jim, I am, always have been, and suppose always will be a very serious hunter. I don't think that time in the woods has much to do with how serious that you are, but I spend, always have and always will every convenient moment in the field. I have looked at crosshairs,I'm sure, longer than any of you have been alive. I have killed my share of game, at first light, last light, deep woods, high plains, alpine, etc. etc. I have only had two scopes malfunction that I recall, and neither cost me game. One was an old Weaver, that would fog internally. It did not happen on dry days, but on humid mornings, it had a tendency to fog. The solution was put it in the oven and dry it out, so it would be ready to go again, the next time, I kid you not! The only other was a Simmons 8 point, which I discovered had a loose objective lens. Unforntately, I made this discovery at 11,600 ft in the Colorado rockies, and killed a bull with it at 275 yards an hour or so later. Since there was not way to tighten it, I threw it away when I got back to Tennessee. But, it performed just as well as a $1,500 scope would have performed. I have always been partial to Bushnells, Sportviews mostly, and have found them to have extremely bright optics, all things considered. So my track record does not indicate any serious sacrifices of my sport by usuing bargain basement scopes. I'm proud that you fellows are able to buy what you want and what you feel like you need. Me, I'll continue to spend my spare change on Great Western hunts, on which my rifles are scoped with inexpensive glass. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Rackseeker]

There have been alot of good shooting rifles sold/traded because of poor performing optics. I work with a fella that purchased a high dollar Weatherby 30-378 mag. then mounted a BSA scope on it. The scope wouldn't handle the recoil of the rifle. He thought it was the rifle. Like others have said you get what you pay for when it comes to optics.

 

[Kimberman]

I have had a cheap scope cost me a very nice buck, it was a Cabelas Pine Ridge 2-7 that I put on my first muzzle loader. It would shift the point of impact vertically 1 foot to 18 inches at 50 yards. I have also had the crosshairs break in 2 cheap Bushnell scopes. I do have 2 Simmons scopes that have been OK, one rides on my 10/22, the other rides on my old 30-06 that I dont hunt with anymore, but will loan out if someone needs a gun to go hunting. I have had great luck out of my 2 Nikon Monarchs, a Leupold VX2, and a Pentax Lightseeker. None of them cost me more than 300 dollars, but none were under 200. If I had the money there would be nothing but Zeiss scopes on all of my rifles, but I have a lot of rifles and want more, so I will stay in my 200-300 dollar range and get more rifles with the money I dont spend on Zeiss optics.