Paul L Mohr: I pretty much agree with you. If your rifle costs $2000, that doesn't mean spend $2000 on a scope. It is important to remember the flip-side of this. If your rifle costs $200, that doesn't mean spend $200 on the scope. For my own money, I don't see how a scope that is better (and more expensive) than a Leupold VX III is going to provide me any better hunting performance. This scope provides me a bright, sharpimage at the legal start and end of the hunting day (1/2 hour before sunrise and 1/2 hour after sunset in Oklahoma). Why do I need a brighter scope so I can hunt at midnight because that is an illegal time for me to hunt? Just an example, substitute your own preferred choice.

What you want to do is consider what your scope needs are. You can buy a serviceable, reliable scope for less money if you choose an appropriate manufacturer. Just to use an example, a Leupold VX II, while less expensive and lower quality than a VX III, would likely be very reliable. The difference? Higher quality optics and optical coatings in the VX III that improve the low light performance and image sharpnessof the VX III. It doesn't make sense to get a low cost scope by a dubious manufacturer -- no telling what kind of problems you are liable to experience.

When I inherited my father's rifles on his passing they were scoped with a low cost brand, the name now escapes me. When shooting one of these rifles I discovered that the rear lens housing could easily be rocked sideways back and forth by hand. I wonder what happened during the recoil caused by firing the rifle? The rifle wouldn't shoot groups at all, because of this flimsy, cheap scope. I wonder how susceptible this scope would have been to fogging, given this rear lens housing situation? I replaced that scope promptly with a Leupold.