Rating value scopes

nowarningshot

nowarningshot

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 99.6%
257   1   1
Location
On a Island in the Pacific. Gulf Islands
I just got to thinking, based on the Vortex Crossfire thread below. How about we come up with a picks and pans of value scopes. It is typical for a newbie to buy the best rifle they really cant afford, and then put a sh!t scope on it. My tastes are more mid range and i would say i typically spend more money on the mounts than some do on scopes.

So pick a couple scopes Brand/model in three price ranges, dont be afraid to state your opinion and if you have no experience with them say so.

Value = <$400
Mid range = $400 - $1000
Quality = $1000 - $1800

Value: picks Vortex Diamondback, Bushnell elite, Nikon Buckmaster. Pans Cheap chinese and low end Leupold.

Mid range: picks Vortex Viper, Nikon, Bushnell 6500. Pans: bad experiences with Leupold for me.

Quality: picks for me are high end Leupold (contradiction i know), and Sightron. Pans: this range buys a lot of scope and warranty and like i said i am a mid range guy.

I did not include a Ultra high level, for that money there are some truly outstanding optics and they come with great support and a well deserved and paid for reputation. I think that even $1800 is above the level of 95% of firearms owners yet includes a lot of outstanding products.
 
I've had some pretty good luck with Bushnells, the 3200-4200 series.
Old Bausch & Lomb scopes as well.
Lately, I've anti'd up and been moving over to Leupold.
Find they are brighter, more clear and just plain easier on my tired eyes.
Warranty isn't a slouch on them either.
Did some comparisons between the 4200 and VX II's and find at low light/dusk/dark
the Leupold out shines the 4200's I have here.
Just my humble opinion and I sure wish I had discovered this earlier.
 
Low end gun package kinda stuff gets dumped, and I won't do that dance anymore. Al though I'm testing a Hawk 4X on a 22 and so far so good.

Mid range - Used mostly Burris, Bushnell, but I would include Leupold, Nikon, Vortex, Weaver. Better tracking on these scopes but they can show some problems over time. Glass is better. Close to the $300.00 price range and up. A good warranty makes the difference here.

Mid/High level - Good tracking, fairly reliable glass gets better, more reticle options. - This is usually where the 30mm tube comes in and gives additional light and this is where I'm at now. Brands are commonly known to the customer who is buying in this category.

High end level - I'm not there but appreciate the best that optics can provide.
 
I covered some of this in a review I did that is stickied in the precision rifle forum. It is dated but can be found here: http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...Optics-Review-for-the-newer-Precision-Shooter

Some up to date thoughts (new scopes only - if you can buy used quality then do so ):

Low end (sub $250): There is no real difference between made in China no-name and made in China with a recognised name. QC is all over with some very good and some appalling. I recently saw two 100% fake Leupolds that were really good ( yes, really ) with reasonable glass and good - repeatable - tracking. So nice I bought them and put them on 22.'s but I also recently saw a ZOS that had the reticle canted 20 degrees and turrets that were just for decoration so, honestly, it is a crap shoot.

Middle ($250 -$750): There is the traditional and very solid Bushnell Tactical 10x ( old Elite 3200 ). At under $300 retail this is the absolute value buy in fixed 10X and is perfect for the M14 and such like. There is also the very good Bushnell Legend HD - I have on on my 30-06 hunting rig and it is an excellent scope for the money. The Vortex are popular in this price range though, personally, I don't like them too much but they have the best warranty in the business. Burris come into play here as well - they make good scopes and also have a good warranty. In this price range stick with the basics and avoid the temptation to go with loads of features as something has to be compromised to make the price point.

Mid-high ($750-$1500) In this category many shooters consider the better Vortex like the Viper PST and they do offer lots of features for the dollar. Personally, I think the Sightron Siii to be the dominant player here with their 8-32x56 to be the absolute gem. I've not seen the new and lower priced NF but they ought to be looked at as should the Bushnell Elite. For the target shooting crowd a NF BR would be the pick at the top of this price range.

High end ($1500+) For me, S+B, and NF are the top considerations here and in that order. For those who are fans of Vortex there is the Razor and for the Leupold crowd there is the famed Mk4 ( I have a 8.5-25x50 and it is probably the pick of Leupold's litter as far as I am concerned ) which is dated but still works. The high end Bushnell Tactical 3-21 which I recently reviewed here is also something to consider. This is a big price range section and my first choice (S+B) is well over twice the price of some other scopes in the range so buyers will have to decide upon relative value.

Hope that helps.
 
Rimfire rifle high end to me is around 400$-500$ ie in the leupold vx2 3-9 efr

-But mid range centerfire to me is the 500 range ie vortex viper PA, weaver grand slam etc..
-mid high is the vortex PST, HS or weaver tactical or super slam etc...usually close to 1000 or a little more.
-high is for serious long range shooters and/or have alot of features you may not need.
-super high is in the Schmidt and Bender vicinity.

For what i need the mid to mid high is perfect. I would not trust less than mid range and would not pay for more than mid high unless i start doing some serious long range stuff. I.e 338 lapua mag ranges.
 
Last edited:
nowarningshot said:
I just got to thinking, based on the Vortex Crossfire thread below. How about we come up with a picks and pans of value scopes. It is typical for a newbie to buy the best rifle they really cant afford, and then put a sh!t scope on it. My tastes are more mid range and i would say i typically spend more money on the mounts than some do on scopes.

So pick a couple scopes Brand/model in three price ranges, dont be afraid to state your opinion and if you have no experience with them say so.

Value = <$400
Mid range = $400 - $1000
Quality = $1000 - $1800

Value: picks Vortex Diamondback, Bushnell elite, Nikon Buckmaster. Pans Cheap chinese and low end Leupold.

Mid range: picks Vortex Viper, Nikon, Bushnell 6500. Pans: bad experiences with Leupold for me.

Quality: picks for me are high end Leupold (contradiction i know), and Sightron. Pans: this range buys a lot of scope and warranty and like i said i am a mid range guy.

I did not include a Ultra high level, for that money there are some truly outstanding optics and they come with great support and a well deserved and paid for reputation. I think that even $1800 is above the level of 95% of firearms owners yet includes a lot of outstanding products.
Click to expand...

To use the OPs terminology (which I think are misleading)

Value - I couldn't even guess. Cheap sh*te scopes are just that and have no business being considered. There is no value in cheap garbage.

Mid-range - This is where I would place Leupold, American Zeiss, Burris. I have both Leupolds (VariX-III/VX3) and Burris (Fullfield and Signature) and they're excellent scopes, rugged and great glass. They mostly fall in the middle of the $400-$1000 price range but they shouldn't fail to please. I've never found a reason to stray from Leupold and Burris over 30 years of hunting.

Quality - If we're talking about sporting glass then there is little need to spend over $1000 on a scope as it doesn't necessarily give you any tangible benefits. The 30mm main tube is a gimmick and provides no measurable advantage over a traditional 1" tube. The drawback is weight and restricted access to the loading port. Likewise, 50mm and larger objectives on a hunting scope are ridiculous and only add weight and expense while giving almost no benefit over the hunting range of magnification (say up to 10x above which you really need a parallax adjustment). Even the lowly 1.5-5x Leupold gives an exit pupil of 4.4mm which is just about all that the eye can use, same exit pupil as a 3-9x40mm with the power cranked up. Once we start talking about long range tactical scopes then it's a whole 'nother ballgame. Super high power, accurate adjustments and lots of internal adjustability are required for that game. But as a general rule for hunting none of these things are necessary.
 
For those who have added some very useful information here and have ample experience. I would request some og that "real-life-experience" on the best use for an Adjustable Objective (AO). When to consider it as an appropriate feature on a scope, and does the AO affect the subtensions throughout the power range of a Second Focal Plane scope - to the same degree that substension is affected on a scope without an AO.?

Most of are familiar with the design of Hunting scopes in that they have the parallax set at 100 yards (most) or 150 yards. While the Rimfire specific (22LR) have a 50 yard paralax.

Burris had told me that the Euro Diamond (which is nice glass) is only suitable out to 500 yards. These scopes would be several years old now and the one I have seen did NOT have an AO; NOR did it have hash marks for a BDC - but had straight fine plex cross hairs. So while this type of scope could be used for 500 yards (by way of it's clarity) it would require some hold-over. With practice it could be done but maybe it's not the most optimal choice for longer shots on game.

Kindly share your knowledge and experience with the proper application of AO scopes.
 
The AO scopes are more practical when you're in the gopher patch than hunting when shots could come quickly at varied ranges. At 10x or under you don't need the AO which makes like less complicated. AO is just a big PITA for most hunting applications. As I'm fond of pointing out, a 400 or 500 yard shot at 10x is like shooting a 1x optic at 40 or 50 yards, which almost anyone would attempt. I know it is technically harder to shoot at the longer distances due to wind drift etc, but most people will never attempt a 400 yard shot so the discussion is merely a theoretical one to illustrate the ridiculousness of high magnification scopes in a hunting setting.

In a similar vein, BDC style scope reticles. Again, I doubt that the majority of hunters will ever attempt a 400 yard shot, let alone 5 or 6 hundred. Given that a 200 yard zero with most cartridges will allow you to center hold out to nearly 300 yards with most standard and magnum rifles, and the majority of hunters will not exceed this distance, then what sense is a BDC reticle? I dislike a straight crosshair reticle in an open country rifle. The Duplex agrees with me more. Fuddish as it may be, if it ain't broke then don't fix it.
 
Highwind said:
Thanks BigUlgyMan for your thoughts and insight... I suppose clear glass and a decent reticle will trump AO up to 500 yards then...?
Click to expand...

If your glass is quality and you stay at 10x you have absolutely no need for AO. It's when you get up in the 12x, 14x and higher that you need an AO scope.

I made a 287 meter shot on a springbok with my 416 Rigby using a Leupold 1.5-5x with a heavy duplex reticle. It was set on 5x and despite the fact that springbok aren't particularly large, I put the 350gr X bullet right where I wanted it and (this will shock you) the little beastie didn't move. Of course I know the rifle like the back of my hand and shot it a lot in preparation for the hunt, but with lousy glass small targets at distance become low percentage shots. For the majority of my hunting a 2.5-8x Leupold would be the cat's pyjamas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom