In general, the term "Entry Level" is used to describe a product that is not as capable as a "top of the line" model, but will exceed the abilities of a new user, so it gives them a chance to make a "budget friendly" purchase and learn the ropes, and then purchase a more advanced product when their skills finally exceed the abilities of their equipment.

The PROBLEM with that logic, in terms of hunting rifles or optics, is that it really doesn't take that much skill to make a vital area hit of a coyote to elk sized animal at typical hunting ranges. A Stevens 200 .243win with a 3-9x40mm Bushnell Banner spitting Remington Core-Lokts is JUST as effective at killing a deer at 100-200yrds as a Krieger barreled Stiller Viper 7mmWSM with a Nightforce Benchrest 8-32x56mm spitting custom handloaded Bergers, except that the Stevens likely cost about $500 total instead of $5,000, and the .243win has manageable recoil even for a new shooter, compared to the thumping of a 7mmWSM. The 3-9x40mm Bushnell Banner is a budget scope, but is plenty durable enough, clear enough, and user-friendly enough for a new shooter to get it sighted in and hold it on target at 100-200yrds, and it won't have all of the confusing bells and whistles of the Nightforce competition scope. The Core-lokts aint the belle of the ball, but they do the job for JimBob Ownagun, and they don't require the time and experience to hand roll the custom ammo.

However, when it comes to delivering a 0.5MOA group at 1,000yrds, the Stevens isn't going to keep up.

At the end of the day, if it were legal, I could drive a NASCAR monte carlo to the grocery store just as effectively as I could a Toyota Camry, but when it comes to Talladega, the Camry just isn't going to make the cut.

Entry level guns will do the job for the average hunter, and they save the new shooter a bit of cash as he/she starts a new hobby. If a guy spends $500 on a rifle and scope, then only hunts one season, he can likel sell it for $350 and only be out a little. Or he can keep it in the closet and not feel too bad about having $500 sitting around collecting dust. On the other hand, a remington 700 Sendero with a Leupold Mark IV scope will run you just under $3,000, and resale will be a lot less than $2,850. And having a $3,000 paperweight in the closet would be a MAJOR waste, compared to a $500 stevens.

How angry would your wife be if you blew $500 in Vegas? How angry would she be if you blew $3,000?

On the flip side, "Entry level" guns are often bought by "entry level" hunters, who are often "entry level" age. A 16-24yr old kid buying his first deer rifle doesn't likely have a lot of money to throw around. My first deer rifle was a USED Ruger Mark II M-77 .30-06 with a 4-16x40mm Tasco. The whole deal cost me $400 when I was 15. I worked my BUTT OFF all summer saving up $400. Now that I'm older, I have pairs of shoes that cost more than $400, let alone rifles. My first car was a 20yr old Chevy S-10 pick up with 150,000miles. It was a great "Entry level" truck because it worked well enough, and it was within my budget. Now that I'm older and have a decent job, it's a '08 Chrysler 300 and a 2010 Dodge Ram, plus the wife's 07Volkswagon Jetta. When price is a MAJOR determining factor, we're sometimes forced to buy WHAT WE CAN AFFORD, when it's not, then we buy WHAT WE WANT.

But in general, I do agree that having a $3,000 rig to do the job of a $500 rig is typically a waste of money, but you don't have to push the envelope very hard before you find the limits of a $500 rig.