I think the most I've spent on a scope so far was just below 50% of the cost of the rifle: A Nikon ProStaff 4x32 on a Savage Mark II BV .22. I love both the scope and the rifle. I guess my 3-9 Conquest was right about that same %, given that I mounted it on a 700 CDL.

I personally don't subscribe to that rule of thumb. My eyes top-out at the VXIII/4200/Conquest level of glass. When comparing those models to ones that cost more, I can't really tell any difference. The pricier scopes may, indeed, be better: it's just that my eyes (the only ones that matter!) can't see the difference. So if I'm supposed to spend $1,500 on a scope, just because I wanted to buy a $750 rifle, I'll respectfully decline. Nor do I want to buy a $200 Stevens rifle just because I want to mount a $400 Conquest on it.

As I see it, the VXII/3200/BuckMaster/Viper glass is right on the heels of the VXIII/4200/Monarch/Conquest level of glass. My eyes can tell a difference, but it gets hard to justify the $ difference for the increasein image quality.

However, when I compare the VXII/3200/Buckmaster to the VX1/Legend/ProStaff, I can see a significant difference - to the point where it's quite easy to see spending the extra $$ to take that next step up. While the less expensive scopes will be perfectly serviceable, and admirably durable, one can buy much better picture quality for just a few more sheckels.

To my mind, about $100 will buy a serviceable, reasonably durable scope (Legend, Weaver T-series). $150 will buy a much brighter, clearer scope (ProStaff, 3200, Diamondback). $300 to $400 will get you a scope that's still brighter and even clearer, but not twice as much (Monarch, 4200, Conquest).

The real key is not to look at any nice scopes. Once you know that there's something better out there, it's easy to become less happy with what you've already got!

FC