How much to spend on optics?

Do spend more or less on your Optics than your Rifle cost?

  • I spend Less on the Optics than the cost of the Rifle

    Votes: 122 63.2%

  • I spend More on the Optics than the cost of the Rifle

    Votes: 71 36.8%
  • Total voters
    193
I have one rule, don't throw a lump of poop scope on a nice rifle.

So many people go out and save up for a nice heavy barrel .223 for varmint or a nice stainless 7RM and throw a $109.00 Bushnell on the things.

It is true, you don't have to buy a Hendsoldt to have good optics these days but don't put all season sport radials on your 1/2 ton and wonder why you can't get up the driveway in January , same goes for optics.

That being said, my scopes have typically been approx same value as the rifle but like dogleg my cheap Vanguard is sporting a rapid Z 6.5-20.
 
stubblejumper said:
My rifles almost always cost more than my optics, but that certainly doesn't mean that I use low cost optics. My optics generally range in cost from $800 to $1500, but my rifles generally range between $2000, and $3000.
Click to expand...

x2, generally custom Rem 700 rifles in chasis or LR specialty stocks or lightweight McMillan hunting stocks depending on the application. Either way it's NF, high end of the scale vortex or Leupold optics for me.
 
nomad 68 said:
...Personally i think a lot of higher end scope makers charge a premium just for their name.
Click to expand...

A lot of people pay a premium just for a name and feel reassured that they got something better because they paid more for it. The more they pay, the better they feel, even though quality doesn't go up nearly as much as the price.
 
I would match the scope with the quality/accuracy of the rifle. For instance, you don't put a Night Force on a SKS nor put a BSA on a bemch rest rifle!! Also, the intended use and features you need will dictate your choice. Once you know what you need, spend time at the range and look through the scopes of your fellow shooters.
 
Depending on the gun and its intended use, I would spend at least as much on my optics on a rifle that is going to see serious use such as moose/elk hunting. That gun may place you in a once in a lifetime situation and I would not want my optics to be the limiting factor.
 
jjohnwm said:
But riflescopes are for aiming, not observing. As long as optical quality is decent, I am more concerned with waterproofness, durability, zero-holding, general ruggedness and warranty service.
Click to expand...

This is my belief too. Proper shooting technique is to focus on the reticle, not the target so I don't need to count the hairs on the animal. That said good light gathering and good clarity at full magnification goes a long way to confidence in your shot. And a clear image does not need the same magnification of a blurred image, so you have to find a balance you are happy with. Lots of stuff on the market under $500 that will do that.
 
I spend more on the optics but at first I have had 3 cheap scopes that cost 150.00 each on 3 different guns and every year it was re sight in because they would not hold zero so the last 2 scopes cost more than the guns lesson learned. the last two scopes were Leupolds one was $1050.00 and $580.00 and both are excellent scopes.
 
All the books I grew up reading (1960's and 1970's) estimated that a scope should cost about 1/3 the price of the rifle. Well, optics are a bit better now, with more to choose from, but for my demands, half the rifle price will generally do. This assumes regular-priced rifles like say, a Win 70, not entry-level rifles like a Savage Axis. there, if I decided the rifle was a keeper, I'd likely put on a scope equivalent to the rifle price.
 
This is an interesting question because it depends.

On my CZ 452 I've got a 2-7 VX2 and that's good enough.

On my custom 338 I've got a 2.5-10x32 Nightforce NXS compact, which still is not at the value of the rifle but it is what I wanted for goto hunting rig.

On my customized Belgian FN Browning Safari, I've got a 2.5-8x36 VX3, which is not at the value of the rifle and is coming off soon because it is so lacking in brightness and clarity next to my Nightforce, Horus, and Zeiss.

There is a difference as one spends more on glass but I think that the return in brightness and clarity diminishes per dollar spent as one goes up the optics quality ladder. This spot will be different for most everyone due to variance in eyesight and economic capability. For example, the difference between a $100 and a $500 scope is significant. The difference between a $500 and $1500 scope is notable but not as wide.

The trap here is when someone looks through a good glass at the range and they don't see much of a difference between their $150 Bushnell spotting scope and a $2500 Swaro HD spotting scope. At 100 yards, in good weather, in well lit conditions, is probably where the difference is least noticible. Try sunset at 2km, across a valley under a tree. With the good glass you can still count the tines.
 
I treat most my scopes as investments.
I don't JUST go out and buy a scope.
The kitty won't allow it.
I study the equation long and hard and peruse
the EE and other sources of inventory.
Then I look at the thermometer and how long
winter has been or is going to be.
Then I looky in the mirror and decide whether the
wifey has pizzed in me cornflakes lately or not.
And then I wait, wait, wate, and whayte sum more.
Then I lewk up and ask for forgiveness.
Then I roll over all the bowlders in the back yard.
Check the ashtrays fer lewnies.
Wait for the kid to show up and check that ashtry.
Look under the seats and check in the couch slots.
......Eeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwyuuuu.
Bonfire the couch and wait for it to cool down.
Take the metal detector out there and garnish sum change.
Take me ma out for lunch and let her pay.
When she ain't wartch'in, snatch the tippy.
It takes a while, but dang, eye gawt a Zeyes Konkwest cumm'in.....
aye .........Jay..........

Fraaaaaack, eye knew I kewd do it and they did help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom