konus scopes
 

Has anyone tried the Konus scopes that CVA seems to have somekind of promotions deal with? BPS has the scope and rings for $80, sounds like a deal but I dont want a junk scope, I have always been a bushnell guy.

My sons CVA Wolf came with one on it. For that price, it is a very nice setup.

Konus is pretty much bottom of the barrel for a hunting scope. SWFA sells the 3-9x for $44.95.

Spend more now, rather than re-buy later.

save up some$$$ you can buy a Nikon under $200 if you watch for sales A wise man told me one time,Buy the best equipment you can afford.Cheaper is seldom better

Charlie

I would say I would get the bushnell banner or for a few more bucks the trophy line
I post this a good read on low end scopes
http://www.opticsthoughts.com/index....views&Itemid=4

x2

Glass is just as important as the gun.

I sold hunting optics for several years and those Konus had a lot of returns with problems. In fact more returns then any other brand we carried. The Bushnell Trophy at just over $100 is a far better scope. Very few problems and good quality glass. And I agree with saving up a bit if you can and step into a couple hundred dollar optic. Whether it is a Bushnell Elite or A Nikon Buckmaster or something of that sort. You will be much better off in the long run.

all my other scopes are mid-level bushnell's, never had a problem with them but was curious about the konus. looks like I'll stick with bushnell.

[QUOTE]
A wise man told me one time,Buy the best equipment you can afford.Cheaper is seldom better


+1
True dat. You get what you pay for. For decades i had cheap scopes on most of my guns. Cleaned out the attic in December and gave the stuff to the Salvation Army. There were 14 rifles scopes that had gone bad for some reason or the other. A couple of them were old Weavers that just wore out. The rest were the usual cheap suspects. One of those cheap scopes cost me a trophy deer. Three or four of them cost me hogs when they went bad without warning.

Europeans will buy a $1,000 rifle and put a $2,000 scope on it. Americans will buy a $500 rifle and put a $50 scope on it. There is nothing wrong with a $500 rifle but something will most likely go wrong with that $50 scope.

i only have one konus and its the konus pro 3-9x44 and its a hell of a crystal clear scope. The super fine 30-30 ret. is excellent and allows me to use a bulls eye as small as 1/4" @ 100 yards for placing my shots accurately. Life time warranty as well.

No horse in this race.
American Hunter (NRA) gave a fairly favorable review of Konus binoculars.

I love my leupold muzzleloader scope they came out with 6 or 7 years ago. Built like a tank and good optics. My 30-06 has an original Nikon Monarch UCC scope from years ago and its still works great.

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.

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 :s4:

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. :s5: When the opportunity present$ itself, I'll upgrade my MLer with a euro, first focal plane scope. That's just the way I roll :biggrin:

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.