Phil from Maine

The last Tasco scope I had on my rifle parrellexed on me and it was thrown to the way side..

Champlain Islander

ditto

Zeiss Diavari is on my primary. I have Leopolds and Nikons too. Nothing in that class is as good as the Zeiss then again they don't cost as much. With glass you get what you pay for. It is just a matter of getting satisfaction and being happy with what you have....for the money.

Stonewall308

Put some wood furniture on that rifle! I personally think these new synthetic stocks look cheap and gimmicky.

Nice scope though.

Rugermk2

Originally Posted by IL-Cornfed
I'm actually shocked that the bottom of the line Tasco scopes could remain zeroed! In fact, I seriously doubt the scopes abilities to take much abuse at all before failing. Also, the optical quality would be so poor, you guys have to know what you're missing.

Well hate to tell ya bud, but i spent $70 on my tasco mil dot 2.5-10x44 mm scope for my 270win 4 years ago, and it stays zeroed with no problem. The optics are crystal clear because I clean it, and It zooms just fine. The only time it's not "zeroed" is when you switch loads, and everyone should know you have to sight it in again when you do that. Also, I have a bushnell banner 3-9x50mm on my 300wby mag, and it stays zeroed with no problem as well. The optics are crystal clear, and it zooms fine. Guess how much I paid for it.....? $80 I shoot this rifle on the bench alot, and I've never had problems with it. I lock tight my base, and check my rings every so often. The only time it needs re zeroed, is when switching loads as stated above common sense re sight the rifle when you switch loads. It might not be off by much, but it makes a difference when shooting 500+ yds So in my opinion theres nothing wrong with tasco or bushnell, but of course I dont beat my rifles around, drop them in the dirt, or bang them against things on a regular basis either. Theres my 2 cents!

uncle matt

I learned long ago to spend my money wisely. Sure there is the initial investment, but it is exactly that - an investment - that pays dividends for life.

I won't waste good money on bad scopes like Zeiss, Leupold, Schmidt Bender or Swarovski. I don't care to hear the stories of how the mfg. stood behind them for this long or that long. My mfg. stands in front of me once and delivers a scope that is perfect for life.

Lippershey-Junghans

isatarak

Above $100. or so each dollar spent returns a diminishing increase in quality. Substantially so.

mhogancu

i 2nd the Diavari. i shoot a 56mm on the 300 Jarrett and a Zeiss Conquest on the 7mag. the Conquest is a great scope for under 800 but i can tell a world of difference with the Diavari in low light situations. plus, as much of a punch that 300 jarrett puts out, the diavari with Talley rings has stayed on zero for prob 5 years and 35-40 rounds down the tube.

Woodsmaster742

VX-III worth every penny

Gangly

I have had two tasco's fail. Both were low end models. One stayed zero'd but the cross hairs went fuzzy within 1 box of ammo, and the other bounced all over the place before the cross hairs blurred. I now have a Nikon Buckmaster with a leupold 1 piece base, and the difference is ENORMOUS. Low light visibility is amazingly better and the scope has taken a BEATING and still stayed dead on. You really do get what you pay for when it comes to optics.

thndrchiken

Any scope should hold zero, regardless of the cost. Now that being said you get what you pay for, I've done the Simmons, Trashco, BSA thing in my youth and learned that if you save for the quality glass you come out ahead in the long run over spending on not so quality glass and end up having to replace it. My primary gun wears a Zeiss, all of my other hunting rigs wear Leupold's, my Varmint Rigs wear a Nikon Buckmaster's and a Bushnell Elite3200.