When I was in my local sports store I mentioned that I wanted to put a scope on my 8mm Mauser. The guy at the counter said not to bother with the cheaper stuff because the recoil would be too much and the scope would easily break. I just don't want to pay more for a scope than I did for the rifle. I was wondering if any of you guys could shed some light on this subject as I am very new to this sort of thing.
Low Cost Scopes on Higher Calibre Rifles
- Thread starter D-Rock
- Start date
D-Rock,
Paying as much for a scope as for the rifle is a very normal occurance. There's a lot of factory hunting rifles is the 500-$800 range and thats about what a decent scope runs. Now if you are just playing with a mil-surp or something you probably won't want to pay that much, just understand that you get what you pay for with regards to glass.
Paying as much for a scope as for the rifle is a very normal occurance. There's a lot of factory hunting rifles is the 500-$800 range and thats about what a decent scope runs. Now if you are just playing with a mil-surp or something you probably won't want to pay that much, just understand that you get what you pay for with regards to glass.
As has often been said, with optics you get what you pay for. However If you're just putting together a moderately priced hunting rifle you don't have to spend hundreds of dollars to get a scope that won't break under recoil. I know a lot of people turn up there noses at Bushnell due to poor warrrantee service, but for your purposes a Bushnell Banner 3 X9 would work just fine on an 8 mm Mauser and cost under $125 all in at Wal-Mart. Or you could get a Nikko Stirling 4X from Districorp for about $80 in hand that would also do the job well. No, they won't be a bright as a $500 scope and they won't have a no questions asked warrantee but they will do the job without breaking under normal use.
Don't go cheap on optics unless you deliberately know what your are getting into.
For example: I wanted an inexpensive scope for my CZ452 Varmint. The scope would only be needed for the range (not hunting) from 25 to 100 meters, and most likely on the bench or for practicing my position shooting. I wanted a 30mm tube (had the rings already) and side focus so that I could take out the parallax at 25 m and then 100 m shots. So I took a chance and bought one of the Leupold 3.5 x 10 x 40mm knockoff M1 turret cheepies from Egay. It holds the zero, looks real tacticool and does the job inside 100 metres at the range. I will never have to worry to much about consistency or quality of glass, since this rifle is bought for shzts and giggles.
If your rifle has to be depended on , extreme hunting or say, a 2 way range in Asskrakistan, on deployment, then spend over $ 1000 and buy a Schmidt/Bender, Leupold, Nightforce, US Optics, or ACOG.
Hope this helps,
Barney
For example: I wanted an inexpensive scope for my CZ452 Varmint. The scope would only be needed for the range (not hunting) from 25 to 100 meters, and most likely on the bench or for practicing my position shooting. I wanted a 30mm tube (had the rings already) and side focus so that I could take out the parallax at 25 m and then 100 m shots. So I took a chance and bought one of the Leupold 3.5 x 10 x 40mm knockoff M1 turret cheepies from Egay. It holds the zero, looks real tacticool and does the job inside 100 metres at the range. I will never have to worry to much about consistency or quality of glass, since this rifle is bought for shzts and giggles.
If your rifle has to be depended on , extreme hunting or say, a 2 way range in Asskrakistan, on deployment, then spend over $ 1000 and buy a Schmidt/Bender, Leupold, Nightforce, US Optics, or ACOG.
Hope this helps,
Barney
I suppose it depends how you define 'cheap.'
Once you get to the $300 range, you can get a perfectly acceptable scope. A Burris Fullfield II, Bushnell 3200, Leupold VX-I, assorted Nikons and a handful of others should be able to handle anything you throw at them recoil-wise, and offer sufficient clairity/brightness for any normal hunting situation.
Cruise through the EE and you can probably pick up a deal on a Bausch & Lomb, Bushy Elite or Leupold VX-2/3 for the $300 range.
Once you get to the $300 range, you can get a perfectly acceptable scope. A Burris Fullfield II, Bushnell 3200, Leupold VX-I, assorted Nikons and a handful of others should be able to handle anything you throw at them recoil-wise, and offer sufficient clairity/brightness for any normal hunting situation.
Cruise through the EE and you can probably pick up a deal on a Bausch & Lomb, Bushy Elite or Leupold VX-2/3 for the $300 range.
Honestly, 2 years ago I was one of the cheapest SOB's when it came to optics (I though $200 was a LOT to spend on a scope), but I didn't know much about them back then. Anyways, I just put a $1000 deposit down on a $1400 scope. Optics is the one thing I'll never go cheap on.
-Rohann
-Rohann
My brother bought a 4 power Armsport scope in the US for $29.95 when he bought his Browning BAR 7mm Rem. mag. back in the 80's. He has taken over 20 moose with it and never lost or missed one. He only uses gun once a year (if we get a tag) and checks his gun each year at the start of the hunt. We all offered to buy him a real scope but he is a happy camper. Each to their own, if a $1000.00 plus scope will make you shoot better than thats what you need.
There are different scopes for different applications. IMHO, spending more that $500 or so at the most on a scope for a deer gun is not really a good investment. It's an area of diminishing returns. Do you really need a photographic quality lens for a 300 yard shot on a deer? Do you really need a scope that's been tested to withstand 30,000+ shots on an H&H on your 270? Once you get into the long range stuff - precision shooting, target and the like, then maybe you can justify something more expensive. Or maybe for the once-in-a-lifetime shot where 100% reliability is utmost - say on safari, or with other dangerous game.
The more expensive scopes certainly a pleasure to use. But I really don't think they're as much of a necessity as a lot of people seem think. I'm sure we all know someone who brings home the venison year after year with a $50 Tasco without fail
The more expensive scopes certainly a pleasure to use. But I really don't think they're as much of a necessity as a lot of people seem think. I'm sure we all know someone who brings home the venison year after year with a $50 Tasco without fail
No but what is needed is assurance that the scope will put the bullet to the point of aim at ALL magnifications. Cheap scopes don't always do that.prosper said:
It's necessary to have enough light gathering capability to hunt successfully within legal hours and enough visual quality to be able to judge the animal through my scope at a distance.
No one wants to worry that the scope might fail at the worst possible moment or even worse has failed and until after the shot is taken. I've had cheap scopes fail, fog up or otherwise not get the job done.
You get what you pay for. The challenge is to only get what you need. The poster who said the Bushnell 3200 is where the range of acceptable scopes begins is right on the mark. Because we don't hunt at night like they do in Europe the Swarowski, high-end Zeiss etc. are probably not needed.
After I've developed the load, tuned the rifle, practiced at the range, planned the trip and gone hunting I don't want all that time wasted because I was too damn cheap not to buy a decent scope. I currently have Leupold Vari-X III and Bushnell Elite 4200 scopes on my rifles.
Last edited:
^ Oh, I agree 100%. But again, I don't care if the bullet impact is 1-2" off POA for hunting purposes. If I did, then I'd have to get a scope with an AO as well.
I'm not debating that a high end scope is very nice to use, and that the difference is quite noticable. But it's a luxury, not a necessity.
And I wholeheartedly agree that the bushy 3200 is about where things start getting interesting. The 3200 is probably about the cheapest scope that offers the reliability and quality that one would need for a hunting gun.
As I said in an earlier post, I believe that the $300-$500 range is about the sweet spot for hunting scopes, and is where you get the most bang for your buck. Beyond that, you start getting into an area of dimishing returns and luxuries that are probably unnecessary on a deer-gun. Below that - you're probably OK, but the durability and accuracy starts getting questionable.
I'm not debating that a high end scope is very nice to use, and that the difference is quite noticable. But it's a luxury, not a necessity.
And I wholeheartedly agree that the bushy 3200 is about where things start getting interesting. The 3200 is probably about the cheapest scope that offers the reliability and quality that one would need for a hunting gun.
As I said in an earlier post, I believe that the $300-$500 range is about the sweet spot for hunting scopes, and is where you get the most bang for your buck. Beyond that, you start getting into an area of dimishing returns and luxuries that are probably unnecessary on a deer-gun. Below that - you're probably OK, but the durability and accuracy starts getting questionable.
prosper said:^
And I wholeheartedly agree that the bushy 3200 is about where things start getting interesting. QUOTE]
Yah, but not interesting in a good way.I broke enough of those to know.The 4200 is a pretty good scope, a little short in eye-relief though.
Well I know for a fact that my Mk4 will probably last longer than I do, and will serve me very well. I am assured that the scope will function properly and never let me down, and that if it malfunctions that it will be replaced or repaired quickly and without question. It's well worth the $1400.
-Rohann
-Rohann
prosper said:
Yes, really. I broke a pile of them, and my experience is not isolated. The 10x mildot is a fixed power, as you know.They stand up better than a varible. I believe it is the only one they sell. Notice I said "sell" not build. Bushnell doesn't make scopes. I also broke a couple 4200s, one of those on a .22 target rifle. There was a time that I didn't own anything but Bushnells and B&Ls, now they are either long gone or sitting on a .22.
Eye relief either doesn't matter, if you aren't getting hit or is the most important thing there is if you are. I've been stroked enough times with Bushnells and B&Ls that I never want that to happen again. If you're not, then fair enough, for you. The 2.5x Leupold I have on my .416 Ribgy doesn't get anywhere near me, but I have been cut with a Bushnell on a 30-06. I know which way I prefer it. Load that rifle hot and it makes a .458 Win seem like a nudge.
Mike
