HuntingNet.com Forums - View Single Post - Riflescopes - $100 vs. $200 vs. $400???
Old 12-18-2006 | 12:11 AM
  #9  
CalHunter's Avatar
CalHunter
Super Moderator
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 18,767
Likes: 12
From: Northern California
Default RE: Riflescopes - $100 vs. $200 vs. $400???

So far, I've used a cheap Bushnell that broke, a Simmons Aetec that still works after 10 years on a .338WM, a Swarovski on another .338WM (great scope), a Leopold VXII (another good quality scope) and a couple of Nightforce scopes (illuminated reticles that require batteries suck). Simmons Aetecs are good scopes for under $200. I know people who have used the 44mag series also with good luck. My VXII cost $275 about 10-12 years ago but it's been a good scope for under $300. The Swarovski is awesome but it had better be for the pricetag ($700 for the American version). I have friends and relatives who have had good luck with Nikon scopes for under $400 and have heard nothing but good about the Bushnell 3200 and 4200 series but those were originally manufactured under another company.

You can find decent scopes for under $200, good scopes for under $400 and awesome scopes for over $400. If a scope costs over $1,000, well, it better have a laser rangefinder or be aweful clear and bright for the 1st 1/2 hour before and after sunset (still legal shooting time in my state). I think the amount of money you spend is obviously dictated by your finances but should also be considered depending upon what type of hunting you're doing. If you're target shooting, varmint hunting, small game or even deer, hogs, etc., I would say go with what you can afford. If you're going on a once in a lifetime hunt (i.e. guided elk, sheep, moose, etc. trip, then you would be wise to save up a few hundred $$ extra so you don't take a chance on a scope going bad. Yes, my $200-$300 scopes have lasted a long time but I don't think I'd risk that on a once in a lifetime hunt. JMHO of course. Hope this helps some.
CalHunter is offline  
Reply