konus scopes
01-15-2011, 05:59 PM
#13
Dominant Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 21,193
I know a lot of people believe in spending the major money on optics. I hear it and hear it, buy a good scope and you can't go wrong. I am not saying this way of thinking is wrong. So don't get me wrong. But I kind of object to that thought. Does the cost of the scope make one scope better then another?
I have some very inexpensive scopes. Does that make them inferior? Granted they are not a Leupold, or Nikon. But they did not cost any where near that much. So far they are tough as nails, have great glass, and I believe a life time guarantee. These would be the Simmons Pro Diamond and Pro Sport.
I have some very inexpensive scopes. Does that make them inferior? Granted they are not a Leupold, or Nikon. But they did not cost any where near that much. So far they are tough as nails, have great glass, and I believe a life time guarantee. These would be the Simmons Pro Diamond and Pro Sport.
01-16-2011, 05:54 AM
#14
Fork Horn
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location:
Posts: 313
Yes.
A scope is a mechanical device that houses coated, precision ground lenses, and prism, it is not a cast iron doorstop.
The quality of the raw glass, grinding, polishing, coatings, number of lens surfaces coated all effect what we see. The strength and accuracy of the tube and erector effect lens alignment and tracking.
Of course there are degrees of better and the law of diminishing returns is always present. Is my $1500 Schmidit & Bender 5 or 6 times "better" than my $250 Nikon? No, but, it is noticeably better. I can see more (better resolution) and see later/earlier in the day. While I haven't tried "shooting the box" - counting elevation and windage clicks to shoot a 12" box on a target at 100y, with the Nikon, I know my 10 year old S&B will. I can also see the .30 cal bullet holes @ 6x as I do it.
So, where does that leave "cheap" scopes? First, from a durability standpoint MLers aren't scope killers, recoil is about the same as the 45-70 Govt load in rifles of equal weight, so, the likelihood of broken reticles and lenses flying about the tube is relatively small.
Where differences really show is in resolution, repeatability and security of adjustments. None of which can be seen over the internet or in a store. Resolution in particular, is near impossible without a side by side comparison as unless you know what you are not seeing, you never miss it
In the end, it boils down to what you can afford and what value you are willing to place in a single rifle. Afterall, there are plenty of folks that have a dozen rifles with $80 scopes, they kill deer, shoot good groups, and are supremely satisfied.
I run opposite way, I have a few good rifles with the best scope I could afford at the time. It's taken me over a year to get used to the Nikon Omega on my Triumph after hunting 10 years with a S&B on my .308.
When the opportunity present$ itself, I'll upgrade my MLer with a euro, first focal plane scope. That's just the way I roll 
A scope is a mechanical device that houses coated, precision ground lenses, and prism, it is not a cast iron doorstop.
The quality of the raw glass, grinding, polishing, coatings, number of lens surfaces coated all effect what we see. The strength and accuracy of the tube and erector effect lens alignment and tracking.
Of course there are degrees of better and the law of diminishing returns is always present. Is my $1500 Schmidit & Bender 5 or 6 times "better" than my $250 Nikon? No, but, it is noticeably better. I can see more (better resolution) and see later/earlier in the day. While I haven't tried "shooting the box" - counting elevation and windage clicks to shoot a 12" box on a target at 100y, with the Nikon, I know my 10 year old S&B will. I can also see the .30 cal bullet holes @ 6x as I do it.
So, where does that leave "cheap" scopes? First, from a durability standpoint MLers aren't scope killers, recoil is about the same as the 45-70 Govt load in rifles of equal weight, so, the likelihood of broken reticles and lenses flying about the tube is relatively small.
Where differences really show is in resolution, repeatability and security of adjustments. None of which can be seen over the internet or in a store. Resolution in particular, is near impossible without a side by side comparison as unless you know what you are not seeing, you never miss it
In the end, it boils down to what you can afford and what value you are willing to place in a single rifle. Afterall, there are plenty of folks that have a dozen rifles with $80 scopes, they kill deer, shoot good groups, and are supremely satisfied.
I run opposite way, I have a few good rifles with the best scope I could afford at the time. It's taken me over a year to get used to the Nikon Omega on my Triumph after hunting 10 years with a S&B on my .308.
When the opportunity present$ itself, I'll upgrade my MLer with a euro, first focal plane scope. That's just the way I roll
01-16-2011, 07:33 AM
#15
Dominant Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 21,193
That must be my case... I have a Nikon Omega and a Bushnell Elite 3200 and I admit, they are a great scope. But for the kind of shooting I do, my Simmons work just fine also. Although I can understand you point about expensive scopes.
