Feelin' Frisky!
 

After reviewing many posts on scopes, and listening to people brag over the years about quality optics, I challenge anyone to PROVE that high dollar scopes (except MAYBE in SERIOUS competition/life-or-death shooting) can make ANY difference in hunting in LEGAL SHOOTING LIGHT, than decent scopes in the 200.00 range!
I've heard people brag that their optics cost "twice as much as their guns!" But, you can see it any day, whether it be a baseball bat in the batters box, golf clubs off the tee box, or guns, 99% of these people CANNOT play up to their equipment!
I've said it before, I am "thrifty" to say the least!
My theory is that a decent gun, with a DECENT +/- 200.00 scope will make any LEGAL shot that a combo costing 10 times that much will make! PROVE that theory wrong!

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

JagMag I am glad Im not the only one that thinks that way. Of course you can expect to be picked apart by the more is better is bigger crowd.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

Jag,
Then you should stay in that price range.
Good Luck.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

Many tomes I've posted my success with Tasco scopes.....

You don't have to sell me on this idea.....you don't even have to shell out anywhere near $200 to have a working and reliable scope on the gun!

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

JagMag,

I have to agree with you too. I will say in fairness I hunted in Germany when I was stationed there a few years back, and some of the high end scopes had somewhat better light gathering capabilities. However, I used a Simmons scope and hunted early morning, late night and night, and I still shot my fair number of deer and fox. IMHO, if you can afford to buy a scope that costs twice as much as your gun, hey it is you, go for it..... the difference does not make me want to. I have a Sauer that I got for a steal, but goes for over 2,000, yet it has a 89.00 Simmons Pro 50 on it. And guess what, I can see even in fog and it never has lost its zero. So economically what is the benefit? Again, this is MHO, but I think guys buy them for bragging rights only.......... then again, if someone gave me one, I would use it, but in my book and opinion, the cost doesn't justify it.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

I would generally agree, but what keeps me going back to a higher end scope is the eye relief. I've tried to save money on more cost effective scopes but once you use a high end scope it's hard to go back.

Just wondering, do you drive a Yugo?;)

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

No Yugo! [8D]

Ford Explorer 4 x 4. Agree with eye relief, but get what I need. Sure if I ever used a higher end I would have to have bunches of them! :D

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

Nope, but close, a Dodge Ram:D
Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against high dollar stuff, some of the braggarts can be nauseating though!

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

I would agree, hearing the beating of the drum over and over and over!! LOL!! I like to hear others opinions and experiences, pros & cons, etc. It helps me make a more informed decision.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

I kind of agree with you. I've seen the difference between good glass and cheap glass. There is a big difference! The problem is I think you reach a point where the price no longer supports the quality difference. The "Mid Priced" optics is where the value proposition stops as far as I'm concerned. I shop for guns the same way. I just don't have the money fora custom gun and jewlery on top!

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

I am sure that as the price range gets too low, you will get to a range where quality suffers, and the chance of you getting a "lemon" will be greater! I want a scope that holds zero, doesn't fog, and gathers enough light to make legal hunting shots! You don't have to float a loan to get those qualities!
I suspect that some of these hunters that are using their scopes to judge LEGAL shooting times, should invest in a wrist watch! Even most cheaper scopes gather enough light to get you in trouble with the Game Warden, if theres one nearby!:D

[Deleted]
 

[Deleted by Admins]

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

I agree 100 percent with Jag. 200.00 is about my limit for opptics. These scopes will make any legal shots a guy would need to take. They work great for me. Never seen one fail, never had anything even close to lack of light gathering ability. Of course these 200.00 scopes used to be 75.00.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

I have passed up two shots in over 30 years because I could not place the crosshairs to my satisfaction on the animal.Although it was still legal time,it was cloudy and the deer were up against the bush with no snow or sky for contrast.I simply could not determine the deers body position well enough to be sure of a clean kill so I passed.The scopes being used were leupold vari x III's.The extra brightness provided by my current swarovski scopes may very well have made those shots feasible.The way that I look at it is,if having a brighter scope allows me to take one or two more animals in my career,the investment has been worthwhile.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

How about fogging in rain or snow?
Resale value and warranty are other considerations, Scopes I thought I paid too much for 15 years ago are now worth more than the purchase price.
Another consideration, eye relief usually is better on more expensive scopes, This is real easy to see with pistol scopes
Many times I have chased the zero setting on cheeper scopes as they bounce on my rear seat in my pickup
I have several Tasco and Simmons scopes but they are getting replaced as I find gunshow bargains.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

I have used Redfield, Burris and Leupold scopes and some Bushnells. I have a Simmons Atec on one rifle that works very well, at the time it was closer to $200.00. I tend to stay away from Tasco and low end Bushnell scopes because of their inability to not fog up or gather light real well. When I was younger and couldn't raising three kids and all I tended to buy cheaper scopes, but even today I have a hard time paying over $275.00 for a scope and would much rather stay under the $200.00 range. I guess Ifwere going on a hunt that I have invested alot of time and money then I would opt for an expensive scope.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

I would have disagreed but recently been buying 3200's like they are going out of style.

The usual cycle for most people I see is start out low, then have a failure of some type. Then go real real expensive. Then figure meet in the middle. For some folks like stubble probably, need accurate MOA adjustments for long range. Most scopes can't do this well. Sure they can hold zero, they have enough range to get to zero, but the extra step is accurate graduations. In other words, you need to raise 6.7MOA to hit zero at 600 yards day in and day out.

I have almost found a middle ground. For target guns and long range, I buy conquests, VXIII, Vari-X III's, and starting to trust my new 4200, but not sure its a target scope. But guns I know are not going to change zero, 3200's it is, maybe VXII's, still got several Vari-X II's.

I know its not required for big game, but I like clear precise optics. Once you use good stuff, its hard to go back. I know some of the 8 points and aztecs will hold zero, but I just don't think the optics can compare.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

At this time I can’t say that high end scopes are worth the extra bucks but I have number of scopes ranging from mid range to high end, well high end enough for me. In the very near future as soon as I move and make my own range I will be testing all my scopes for comparison in light gathering and how they react to different weather conditions. Only then will I know for sure...:eek:

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

Is this one of those April Fool threads? If so, you got me!!!

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

Cheaper scopes tend not to last, gather as much light, or hold their zero like expensive scopes. If you only shoot 100 yards then who cares, butcheap scopes become a weak link if you use thembeyondtheir limits. It might be one thing to slap a $200 simmons or bushnell on a 243 but if your up in the 300s or bigger I just see that thing getting rattled easily.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

While I agree that most of these guys just want to brag about how much they paid for their scopes, I do see the advantage of a higher quality scope. Having lived throughsome bad times with old Weavers and Redfieldsin the 70's, there is nothing more annoying then pulling up on a deer and not being able to see it in the scope because it’s fogged up. Some of the swamps and hardwoods I hunt arefilled with shadows an hour before the end of shooting light and I am grateful for my Nikon's light gathering. I use mostly Nikon now because Ihave foundthat, for the money,they werecompatible with the Leupolds that I have owned and it's the best scope I can afford. However,if I came into a lot of money from some long lost rich uncle, I would have a Ziess or Swarovski.

To me it’s simple. Buy as much scope as you can afford, but do it to improve your hunting, not to show up your buddies.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

I used to really be cheap when it came to optics, and I paid for it a few times. Had a few scopes that wouldn't hold zero, would fog up if I looked at them funny (rain/snow/fog = no shot 90% of the time). I now won't spend any less than $200 on a scope and usually spend up to $400 on them. I don't need to worry about them bouncing around in my trucks, 4 wheelers, they will always hold their zero, and will not fog in the worst conditions with me breathing on them.

To each their own, but when the chance of a lifetime presents itself, I don't want it to be blown because I didn't spend the money on quality optics. Just my .02 cents.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

If I had a lot of money, I would have a Shepard. My hunting buddy has one on his 280. Until then, the 3200, Nikon Prostaff, VX-l and Aetecs will continue to serve my needs well. I have had good service from the Scheels scopes and Swift premiers as well. All around 200.00.


Rammer. I did end up buying a good knife at that gun show.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

Here's another perspective on light gathering. How about a fixed power scope? My next scope may well be a fixed 4X Mid priced scope. I purchased a Weaver K2.5X for a BLR81 that I wanted to use for shorter range "bush" applications. The image is crystal clear and very bright. The eye relief is very good as well. When purchasing, I compared the images with a few high priced variable scopes and this little Weaver was kicking butt. Of course the 2.5 power is very limiting. Its got me thinking that a fixed 4X might be just the ticket though. I'm not talking varmint but for deer it just may do the job very well. The variables I have are almost all set in the 4 - 5X area. They better...ever lost a deer because your scope is set too high??

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

James - what kinda knife ya end up with? I went to Boones after the gunshow an bought myself a hundred rounds of 22mag ammo. Workin on ordering up a new 223 at the moment from my buddy that has his FFL.

Fixed power scopes are great if you don't need the added magnification. For general hunting purposes I always leave my scopes set on 6x. I have a 4x on my 22mag and my 300 Sav, and they are both going to get upgraded to 3-9s, we don't have brush here so fixed powers hurt more than anything.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

Well as I said, if someone was to give me a Doctor, or Zwaroski, or Leupold, etc, I would use it, but for an old soldier Simmons scopes will always be on my rifles because of the quality and the ability to stand up to my .300 Win Mag and still be at zero on the range the following season! [8D]

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

I tend to agree with the cheep crowd, as I can't justify spending a large ammount of money on a rifle scope. I've noticed the rubber armored scopes tend to move in the rings and therefore will not hold zero. I think the simmons 8 point scopes are a little to cheep and don't holdup well either. I tend to agree with the weaver fixed power scopes, they are very clear and rugged. Would likely be a good choice for the hard kickers. But here in the east where our shots at game are usually under 300 yards, or more likely under 150 yds a fixed scope is all we really need. Their's a real need for variables when shooting paper or varmints. Any scope reguardless of price should show more definition than the human eye in low light situations, and the human eye is what most game departments are considering when talking about legal shooting light. Their are many deer killed in my neck of the woods when it could be called night hunting!

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

That may be so,but the conservation officers go by the time on the clock,not whether you can see game with the naked eye.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

Glad you brought this up. In germany, you could hunt all night for pigs and fox, so light gathering is good. But, I watch the clock, meaning I check the daily sunrise and sunset and go by that for hunting. Some dont, heard em shooting like 15 minutes before, but hey that is them...... but never did not see, so guess my Simmons serve me well

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

Rammer. I picked up a Marttiini hunting knife. They have pretty darn good steel in them. There was a fello right up by the front door that had a bunch of knives. Its probably good that I got there late and didn't have much shopping time.:D.

I like the Fixed power scopes too. I have a Simmons Pro-Hunter 6X that really gathers light well. There is a park accross the street where the deer come out. I can seem them very well through that scope untill well after shooting times are over. Its held up well on a 30-06 Remington Pump. I think its a 6x44.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

Are you saying thatyour legal hours are only from sunrise to sunset.Where I hunt the legal hours are from one half hour before sunrise to one half hour after sunset.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

As in most everything in the world, you get what you pay for. With a $200 scope, you get $200 optics, and there is nothing wrong with them. I have killed MANY deer and hogs with a Ruger 270 topped with a $50 1986 model Tasco scope, BUT there is a difference in a$50 Tasco and a Zeiss Diavari in the quality of the optics.

As for your theory, you are only partly right. A "decent" gun (whatever that means) and a $200+/- scopeIN THE HANDS OF THE RIGHT SHOOTER is capable of making the same shots as aBlaser R93topped with a Zeiss Diavari.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

Unless of courseit is too dark to see the target clearly with the $200 scope while it is stillclear with the ziess scope.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

Been there, done that, but I am trying not to be argumentative. That can be our little secret. Let's just let that one go.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

I used cheap scopes for a long time. There are some out there that will certainly hold zero and provide decent service. The difference that I see between a 200$or less scope vs a 300$ and up scope is; better light transmission and much more resistent to fogging. Most scopes in the 350 and up range are dry nitrogen filled to help prevent fogging. The lenses have much better coatings and more layers of them which boost light transmission. And finally the lenses themselves are just flat out better glass which also helps light transmission. They also tend to be covered by a much better warranty. I've used World Class Tasco's, mid-range Bushnells, and Simmons scopes. I know and remember how they performed in low light conditions. The scopes I use now (Pentax Lightseekers, Leupold VXIII's, Zeiss Conquests) blow them away. Those cheaper scopes would also fog up badly especially on cold rainy mornings

Now that said, I personally cannot see enough difference in a 400 dollar Zeiss Conquest and a 1000 dollar Zeiss Diavari to warrantspending an extra 600 dollars on one. I'd like to hear from the people who own one, what one of those 1000 to 1200 dollars scopes will do that a 400 dollar Zeiss Conquest won't do.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

Given the topic, I am embarrassed to admit what scopes are currently on my guns. I mainly use Conquests, but I do own a couple ofDiavaris. There is definitely a difference in the quality of Conquests vs. Diavaris, but is it worth the price difference? Probably NOT.

I have been fortunate and acquired some "high end" firearms at reasonable prices, so I have invested in some "high end" optics to match the quality of the gun. I work in the agriculture industry and raise cattle, so I am far from being "wealthy". For me, it is where you put your priorities. I raise registered Brangus cattle and spend more than I should on guns and scopes, but I have friends that live in $250,000 houses and shoot worn out pieces of junk guns. It is allin where you put yourpriorities. Sorry if I digressed.

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

I'm pretty much a Leupold user. Not to say that I don't own a few less expensive scopes on rifles, but I tend to only buy Leupold now. For me, the difference is where and what I'm hunting. If I'm hunting deer where I can go home at the end of the day and change rifles if I have a scope mal, then a less expensive scope can be OK. If I'm chasing elk around in the Flat Tops area, it's pretty tough to run out and pick up another scope if/when that cheaper scope fogs up. I've sort of subscribe to the theory of a less expensive rifle and better optics will probably shoot better than an expensive rifle and cheap optics. Just my $.02

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

I don’t see any reason why someone should be embarrassed about owning high end equipment being scopes or rifles. The end result is the one owning them is the one who spent the money being low, mid range or high end...;)

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

The only way to know is to do a side by side comparison. Take your Tasco and a Nikon Buckmaster and look through one then the other yu will see a big difference in brightness and clearity. I'v never used the super high end scopes but my guns say remmington and browning not custom but right off the shelf. Not only that but a good Nikon or a Lupold come with a lifetime warranty. I have gone through 3 Tasco World class scopes on my 06 there not made to take the punnishment of the higher end scopes.Just my 2 cents Mike

RE: Feelin' Frisky!
 

I hear what you're saying. Its a question of value I think. If you buy anything on either end of the spectrum you end up with reliability issues on one end and jewlery on the other end. I wouldn't deny that the real expensive stuff is better than middle or higher than middle cost equipment. The question is whether it represents a reasonable value or not. Reasonable of course is relative to what you can or are willing to afford. I sure wouldn't mind having the high end stuff if I got it for a steal. Great glass is much easier to look through, and you sure see it with binoculars when you spend the time.

I agree with Trailer, nobody should feel embarassed about the equipment they use whatever it is. You use what you can afford or want to afford. I buy what I'm willing to afford, and I'm pretty happy with middle of the road equipment.