bronko22000

I'll be the first to admit it. I am no "Glass Snob" when it comes to rifle scopes. I've been using Bushnell, Leupold, Nikon, Burris and Zeiss scopes on my hunting rifles for quite some time now but lately I've been experimenting with different brands and I like them. Maybe for the extremely serious shooter or someone that needs a Nightforce either for prestige or they are that good I don't know. I looked at them and honestly I can't tell the difference nor can I justify the cost. Maybe its just my eyes. I put a Meuller 8-32X on my Bergara HMR and it is really nice. But honestly I think a bit more magnification than needed for the 6.5CM. But two brands that I've been buying recently that are great scope for hunting rifles including inline muzzleloaders are the Vortex Crossfire series and the Konus M30 series. What I like about the Konus is the illuminated center dot in the reticle. You have the option of either red or blue and it is just the ticket for those low light conditions or heavy dark timber. And the best part is that these scopes won't break your wallet. I've often heard it said that you should pay twice as much for your glass than you did for your rifle! Really? I think that you can do just fine with a lesser priced scope. OK - I opened the door. Now let's hear all the flack...!!!

mrbb

I think scopes today are of better quality than ever, so that old saying you need to spend twice as much on a scope as a rifle is, no longer true
PENDING< what your use of the riffle and scope is!

the differences your NOT seeing on scopes like Nightforce are NEVER on the outside, its there intuurnals that are made to so much tighter spec's and HOLD them longer , as they just don't loose there repeatability as lesser quality scopes do

when your just using a riffle for hunting and its basically a set it and forget it after zeroing in, you will never really KNOW the differences in nightforce scope over say a leupold or like mid range and up quality

SO< again, the use of your rifle comes into play a lot here

if your a guy that is constantly making scope adjustments, due to range, changing loads, or shooting in competitions/matches where anges change a LOT and you wish to make scope adjustments per range changes on courses,
, and so on

the scopes that have the strongest and most repeatability internals, show there value REALLY fast, all the more so if you wish to use the same scope for yrs!

almost ALL newer made scopes , on the mid to Higher end range will tend to hold there own for a while, but they ALL start to fail after a lot of use

Now all the super top end scopes, well, they again hold true longer, thus that is where there costs come into play, there internals are just more durable and stronger and truer over time from day one to down the road!

and don't forget that Glass quality can also be better, but I do agree, most ALL scope makers offer models with very good glass these days

and when one is looking at glass, its not just being clear, its being clear edge to edge! and lastly
one tying most of the NEW on the market makers cannot offer is, PROOF they have what it takes to be about in the decades to come!

as what good is a warranty if the scope MFG is no longer making them,

for the average hunter, who shoots his rifle a few times a yr, they do NOT need a HIGH end scope, those that do buy them, tend to buy based on WANTS , over needs!
and nothing wrong with that if you can afford it

but that is typically a way of life for most of use, if were being honest
we all tend to buy things we want MORE than what we could get away with to meet the NEEDS only side of things!

Value has many forms that allow us to justify things we buy and collect and own
its never ONLY about needs IMO!
Wants seem to win more than just needs anymore
its most likely why so many Americans are in Debt ?

Nomercy448

I’ll share my firsthand observations which I can point to as objective differences between varying classes of optics:

Most of us have experienced this because the scopes are so ubiquitous: viewing a target in the morning or evening light through a $50-150 scope, then through a $300-600 scope, it’s like someone flipped on high beam headlights, pointed at the target.

I shot recently with a friend who had bought a few lower cost scopes from me, and I had briefly before installed, leveled, and boresighted onto his rifles. He HAD been shooting inexpensive rifle package scopes on his rifles, so despite the fact these were still inexpensive optics, $250-300 class, they marked a substantial improvement in his ability to see and engage targets lost in the shadow of the berm.

But this contrast between quality levels of optics does honestly continue between various classes. Albeit true that most folks simply will not have applications sufficiently challenging and demanding of their optics to observe, let alone NEED these advantages.

Admittedly, I will skip detail here in comparing this entry level $250-500 to $500-700 optics, and $500-700 optics to $1000-1500 optics, other than to say the difference in clarity, contrast, and resolution between each step, and the functional feature set between these classes are real. Aberration, shadows, contrast, distortion... all of these things improve at every level I’ll mention here.

Spotting impacts at 1000+ yards through even mild mirage, whether on target or against grass background - looking through a Vortex Viper HSLR or PST, the small dust splashes in the grass, the distant puff of bullet splash on target, or the grey/silver splatter on target are often lost in the light. Viewing through a Bushnell XRS II or Nightforce ATACR, these fine details of contrasting light will more often be clearly defined and fully visible.

Watching a target at 1200 yards looking through a Bushnell Elite Tactical DMR II, a $1600 optic in its time, or a Vortex Razor Gen II, a $2400 optic, bobbing in and out view, being swallowed and regurgitated by the waves of mirage. Sliding over behind a Kahles K525i and a Tangent Theta, the target remains resolved in view far better - shootable, when with the others, it was not. Equally, shooting through pouring rain, standing on a tower 25ft in the air, engaging targets out to 1400yrds - the Swarovski glass in my binos (same as that in my Kahles riflescope) could cleanly resolve the targets, however my Bushnell DMR II and my squadmate’s Vortex Razor could not draw sufficient contrast between the grey haze of the rain, the grey and white bullet splattered target, and the caliche berm of the bowl canyon behind the targets.

Yes, there are bells and whistles like locking turrets, zero stops, tool-less re-zero, illuminated reticles, etc which add to scope prices even when glass is equivalent, but it’s also true to point out REAL differences in clarity, resolution, and contrast between optics at varying price points. Many folks may not NEED that level of performance, and many more of us may not need it on most of our rifles, even if we do occasionally need it on some. But the performance gap is measurable, at every level.

bronko22000

Both of you make valid points. And I accept them as fact. But for my needs I don't plan on shooting past 600 (maybe a tad farther) and I believe my Mueller works just fine for that. My hunting rifles I'm more than happy with the optics I've installed. I've taken mulies and pronghorn out to over 400 yards with them, a couple arond the 300 yard range, but most of my shots have been inside 100 yards. But one thing I will never do is put a BSA, NCstar or Simmons on anything I own. IMO these brands are real POS.

CalHunter

I agree with Bronko on this. I've taken 1 spike elk at 400 yards, a few critters out to 300 yards but the vast majority of animals under 200 yards. For me, it's about getting clear glass that works well in that last 30 minutes of hunting time after sunset and a reticle that isn't too busy and is instinctive to use. I gotta admit, however, that precision shooting and long range target shooting do have their allure. If I ever get into that, I plan on spending a lot of time asking NoMercy a lot of questions on setting up a rig.

mrbb

have to ask, for those of you that are happy with your scopes (and NO bash meant)
but when your making them longer shots for you's at 300-400 yards, are you making scope adjustments in the field, or just holding over and using say , Kentucky wind age like adjustments for distance, aiming higher over body or such, rather than again, making actual scope adjustments for the shots!

as that is my point on why I said, most folks get by with basic scopes, as there NOT making lots of adjustments often, to find where they fail!

as like Is aid, most deer hunters I know tend to sight in a rifle at "X" range, and leave it there , thus there never really using the scopes adjustments after sighting in!

so unless scope then gets a hard impact, they tend to hold zero's

its when your making adjustments often, you find weak links in scopes designs and materials used

Glass
again, can be GREAT on lesser scopes, but it won't change the durability of internals on the scopes!

add great internals and great glass, you end up with costly scopes!, nature of the beast
but for those that use the adjustments often, they tend to be a needed deal in long term life of scopes!

as again cheaper scopes just DON"T have the internal parts, even one's with better glass from my experience!
they can be GOOD , but not the same as the top tier scopes!

bronko22000

Mrbb most of my scopes have a simple duplex reticle wich is sufficient for most all my hunting. I have a couple that have a BDC type reticle but only one that I ever worked with. That is a Burris Fullfield 3-9x. That BDC is spot on out to 500 yards with my 270 Win load. This is the rifle that I used for all my hunts out west and was always successful with it.

mrbb

OK< so basically like I said, your and NO bash here again
like most hunters they sight in scope and basically leave it be, using hold over either by the scopes hash/reticle design
which then means your never really using the scopes adjustments minus that one time sighting in
so use like this, most decent scopes will last a life time
and I agree there are many great cope reticle's out there that allow the average shooter to shoot farther now
but like all things, they should be tested to make sure there on at "X" ranges and not just shot at game to find out(as I know some do NOT saying YOU do this)

elkman30

Most of my hunting is at 250 yards or less. For me, a simple duplex reticle and zeroing the scope at an adjusted MPBR of 200 yards or less covers just about all of my hunting needs. I guess you could call it a set it and forget it system (kind of like Jack O'Connor's 3" high at 100 yards method) but I like to check my scopes before each hunting season with both paper and steel targets. I've only had a few bad scopes in my life but am determined to avoid another one if possible.

Nomercy448

I shot in the National Rifle League Border Wars South Central Finale today, after which a couple shooter-friends asked to look through my Kahles. The three of them were shooting a Nightforce ATACR, a Vortex Razor G2, and the 3rd, a Tangent Theta. The Kahles and the Tangent are exceptionally similar in clarity up to ~20x, but at 25x, the Tangent does resolve mirage boil a little better - I’d observed that in comparison before. The Tangent shooter had upgraded from a Razor G2, and claimed he notices these scopes are clearer and crisper, but his scores really haven’t changed. However, the Nightforce ATACR shooter and the Razor shooter both instantly flinched out the same “oh wow, that’s super clear!” when they got behind my rifle, viewing disgusting mirage boil in 15-20mph winds, trying to disguise targets out at 1000yrds. These ~20min or so spent by highly skilled and experienced shooters, playing monkey rolls behind 4 rifles, prone on a firing line was a confirmation of consistent observation - the ~$4500 Tangent Theta lead the pack but maybe not tall enough over the $3500 Kahles, both of which stood tall over the $3500 Nightforce ATACR, which stood as tall itself over the $2800 Vortex Razor G2... which in itself is a phenomenal optic, considerably worth its cost over most optics in the market, so this is no knock on Vortex Razors - I know I could shoot the same scores on any day with any of these 4 scopes, or even with my $1400 Bushnell DMR II (which is why I own 2 of them, AND an XRS II).

But as I have said above, even at the highest of high quality of optics, more money typically does buy notably improved performance. Just a matter of whether you need it for your application or not.