Gun vs Optics
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Harriman NY
Posts: 45
Gun vs Optics
There are several threads running concerning "cheap scopes". Which, in your opinion, is more important, the gun or the scope.
Personally, I've always been of the opinion that I want the very best scope and then find a rifle to put under it.
Let the games begin.
Personally, I've always been of the opinion that I want the very best scope and then find a rifle to put under it.
Let the games begin.
#2
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Gypsum KS USA
Posts: 1,289
RE: Gun vs Optics
I give equal standing to both...don't put the cart before the horse, but don't pull a load with a shetland pony...Putting a low quality scope on a rifle that's incredibly accurate will ruin a good rig, putting a $2k scope on a rifle that can't shoot a 40" group at 20ft is a waste of money and time...BUT, I don't believe in paying more than what you're getting, or more than you have to....a rifle HAS to be accurate for me to keep it, no if's and's or but's, but I'm not going to pay for a weatherby to get a less accurate rifle than a Savage, and I'm not often going to pay for a Ziess when I can get a Nikon or Cabela's Alaskan guide of the same quality for half the price.
I also don't believe in limiting your magnification, now-a-days, variable power scopes are just as reliable and durable as fixed powers, so the days of putting a 4x fixed on your .30-06 should be over (now, for a brush buster, you only need a 2.5x, 3x, or 4x at the most, so why pay for a variable?), people say "all you need is a 3x42mm" a lot when beginners ask what magnification to get, I say get a 3-9x42mm, or a 4-16x42mm (which is, IMHO, 4-16x42mm or 52mm is the best set up for hunting, close range wide view plus the ability to make long shots more "up close and personal"). Why limit your 600yrd deer rifle with a glass you can't see past 100yrds with? Just don't be stupid and put a 8-25x on a rifle you might have to take a 20yrd shot with.
I also don't believe in limiting your magnification, now-a-days, variable power scopes are just as reliable and durable as fixed powers, so the days of putting a 4x fixed on your .30-06 should be over (now, for a brush buster, you only need a 2.5x, 3x, or 4x at the most, so why pay for a variable?), people say "all you need is a 3x42mm" a lot when beginners ask what magnification to get, I say get a 3-9x42mm, or a 4-16x42mm (which is, IMHO, 4-16x42mm or 52mm is the best set up for hunting, close range wide view plus the ability to make long shots more "up close and personal"). Why limit your 600yrd deer rifle with a glass you can't see past 100yrds with? Just don't be stupid and put a 8-25x on a rifle you might have to take a 20yrd shot with.
#3
RE: Gun vs Optics
Prettty simple answer here. You need your scope and gun to perform whatever task you need performed. The best scope in the world will not make a bum rifle shoot well and of course the best rifle on earth will not perform with less that adequate sighting system. That won't get the job done either. There is no magic number of dollars that will quarentee that you have it made. There are many good scopes from 100-200 dollars that will offer many years of trouble free service. I have used most all of them at one time or another. When I buy a Remington 700. Ruger 77, Browning A bolt ,Tikka , Savage or Model 70, I expect any of them to give at least good hunting accuracy when topped with any of the better scopes of almost all brands. I have had perfect service from Bushnell banner and better scopes. Tasco World Class and better scopes. Swift and the better Simmons have also never let me down in any way. It makes sense to buy the best gear that your wallet will let you buy. To me it is also senseless to spend many dollars more that I need to spend for good Optics. IF Leupold or one of the other high dollar scopes were the only optics that would do the job then they could demand any price they wanted Thank goodness that is not the case. have got by very well spending two thirds of my gun money for the rifle and a third for the scope. I won't spend more unless I have to.
#5
RE: Gun vs Optics
Up until I had a couple of cheap scopes go bad on me, I didn't feel the need for higher quality optics! Hard lesson learned!
I'd rather put more money into optics than in the gun.
My point is this; you can get a Savage or Winchester (I have a Black Shadow that gives me 1 inch groups!)
For +/- 400 bucks, these guns for all practical purposes shoot as well as guns costing 3 or 4 times more! However, a 75$ Trashco will not give you the quality of a 200$ Nikon or Luepy!
I'd rather put more money into optics than in the gun.
My point is this; you can get a Savage or Winchester (I have a Black Shadow that gives me 1 inch groups!)
For +/- 400 bucks, these guns for all practical purposes shoot as well as guns costing 3 or 4 times more! However, a 75$ Trashco will not give you the quality of a 200$ Nikon or Luepy!
#6
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 1,086
RE: Gun vs Optics
For me its a matter of matching up the scope to the gun. I'm not going to put a $400 scope on a 22 to shoot squirrels. I wouldn't put a $40 scope on a rifle that I'm going to carry thru the mountains to hunt elk. (Personally I would probably never spend $400 on any scope). I do feel that quality scopes can be had for $200-250. Right now I have my best scope on my 22 mag because I use it the most. Foxes, yotes, groundhogs, crows, squirrels..it sees lots of action in a range of weather conditions.
#7
RE: Gun vs Optics
A couple of examples in my gun case are a Remington 700 ADL synthetic 257 Roberts. The gun was 399.00 I put a VX l 3x9 Leupold scope on it 199.00. I have a NEF 26 inch barrel 280 Remington. 189.00 I put a Swift 3x9 scope on it 99.99. Both work real well for me and both made drop in thier tracks shots on Mule deer this fall. I expect both scopes will give me at least 20 years of good service.
#8
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 259
RE: Gun vs Optics
Without breaking the bank spend as much as you can afford. I'm not a rich man and cannot afford many of the high dollar scopes. Although I would like to have one. Most of my scopes are so old I can't tell you what they are just the manufacturers name.
Redfield = 3x9
Bushnell = 3x9
Bushnell = 4x20 (not worth a dollar if you ask me)
But I am soon adding a new 7mm mag to my army, that contains a Zeiss.
Redfield = 3x9
Bushnell = 3x9
Bushnell = 4x20 (not worth a dollar if you ask me)
But I am soon adding a new 7mm mag to my army, that contains a Zeiss.
#9
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Harriman NY
Posts: 45
RE: Gun vs Optics
As far as I'm concerned there is no better scope out there than the Zeiss products followed closely by Swarovski, Leica and Kahles. There are a bunch of good ones out there. However, their pricing is in the mortgage payment category..... a big mortgage payment. Still, nothing approaches the crystal clarity, brightness and quality of the above mentioned "top end" scopes like Zeiss. Gee maybe someday they'll have a 2 for 1 sale.
I own and will use the Nikon Titanium scope next week and I find that to be a very good scope indeed. I also like Leupold scopes which have proven themselves worthy for many years.
These responses to my question have been quite good. Keep em coming.
I own and will use the Nikon Titanium scope next week and I find that to be a very good scope indeed. I also like Leupold scopes which have proven themselves worthy for many years.
These responses to my question have been quite good. Keep em coming.
#10
RE: Gun vs Optics
The cheapest scope I am still useing all the time is a Bushnell Sportview 6X. Its about twenty years old and cost about 25.00. When it comes to hitting the target it will do just as well as a 500.00 scope. Its been doing just that for the 20 years I have had it. If it goes to hell now, I sure got my moneys worth from it. However I expect it will last for many years yet as its already stood up to all the recoil and hard use I could throw at it. They discontinued the sportview several years back. I sold many many of those and wish I would have kept a few more for myself.