I have another, slightly different angle on this discussion. I happen to be one of those old-fashioned types that does NOT care for variable-magnification scopes. I have always preferred
a fixed-power scope of no more than 6X. Of my two current rifles, one wears a 6X and the
other, a 2.5X. (they are both .308's.... but I have never had any great difficulty in hitting the
target... at the ranges over which I shoot (250 yds max.)). Both scopes are moderately-priced models. I have had both for some time... and used them in all manner of conditions. They have both maintained zero very well.
My conclusion is that, as long as the scope is of decent quality in the first place (and not all
of them are) then one is more likely to get consistent performance from a moderately-priced fixed-power model than a similarly-priced variable. I would think that this would simply have to do with
the lack of optical and mechanical complication of the fixed-power scope. It is true (I believe) that
a more expensive scope will offer better overall quality, in most cases. The question, as I see it,
is, will the extra quality be worth the money ? In my experience, with my preference for fixed-
power scopes, the answer is no.
I must add, though, that if I used variable-power scopes, I probably would go much higher in
the price arena for a proven, well-regarded model. With the inherent complication and optical
design factors of the variable-power scopes considered, I think one would be better off in paying more (though not for, perhaps, the most-expensive model).