expensive scopes vs cheap vs open sights

[SMELLYBUCK]

I have often heard that we should spare no expense when it comes to a scope. When guys thrown the question out "what scope to buy?" many of us recommend one in the $500 range (ziess conquest seems to be the most frequent.) When I first started hunting deer I used grandpa's .303 savage with a 4x. What a pathetic set-up for a beginner (could be the worst caliber ever). My second yr hunting I missed a nice buck because I had snow on the lens when I pulled up to shoot. The next year I went open sights and killed one at first light. It came running by at 30 yds and I pulled off a quick double lung shot. I doubt I could have done any better with an expensive scope. There is a flip side though. I had not seen any bucks by the end of the '98 season and spotted a little two-point with 9 does at 200yds with my binoculars. When I went to shoot (this set-up was better, Remington pump .270 with cheap 3x9) I could not find antlers in the scope I was using. I heard one guy once comment that expensive optics are only good for distinguishing does from small bucks. Very true in this case. I would like to hear your stories of when expensive optics have paid off or if there were times when you wish you had just used open sights.

 

[RANGERCON]

Actually, you can buy a 3-9x40 Zeiss Conquest for about $350.00 now.

Iam a optics whore, to say the least.

I hate to see a guy spend $150.00 on a POS scope,when he could put a $100 with it and have a non-fogging, clear, reliable scope that wont let him down when he needs it.

I cant remember a time when optics were better, cheaper, etc, than now a days.

You dont have to spend even $300.00 to get a great scope!! Used to be Leupold, and the Euro's. Now, most everybody is putting quality optics at reasonable prices.

I have had what I think is the best, and the worst.
It's very easy to get into the "zone of diminished returns" on scopes too.
You dont have to spend $1500 on a hunting scope for it to be good to great. And, how good is good enough??

 

[RLH]

don't get "good" and "expensive" mixed up. they aren't the same thing. there are some real "good" optics that aren't "expensive". leupold varix II comes to mind. damn good scope, not real expensive. from what i've seen, the cheaper ziess' are a cheap knock off of the the real deals. most expensive scopes are pretty good, not all good scopes are expensive. get a good one. to me, as long as i can see what i'm shooting at in legal daylight, i'm ok with it. binoculars and spotting scopes is a different story.

 

[chambero]

Good quality optics can buy you a significant amount of shooting time at the start and end of the day. I have put this to the test while hunting from large blinds in Texas. I use Leupold VXII or IIIs. I can consistently clearly see a target and judge its size through my scope or binoculars 15 minutes later when they can't be seen with the eye or lesser quality scopes. My brother-in-law has one of the cheaper Zeiss scopes and it seems to be on par if not better than the Leupolds. Leupolds service is hard to beat when needed though.

 

[nmtaxi]

I'm glad somebody asked the question. I had posted the question on a different forum, and am pretty much getting the same answers. I just bought a .338 for my Alaska moose hunt, and was trying to decide between a Leupold VXII, Burris fullfield, or a Weaver Grand Slam. I think I'm going to go with the Leupold.

 

[RANGERCON]

A Zeiss Conquest a cheap knock off of the real deal???

Not according to the specs.
Eye relief, light transmission, exit pupil, FOV are so close to being equal, that the price tag is the only real differance between the Conquest and the Diavari.
The FOV of the VM/V is slightly better than the Conquest.

The Diavari is 3x the price of the Conquest. I will give the VM/V it's due as far as light weight and compactness.
And I deplore the plastic turrets and caps on the Conquest.

The Zeiss Conquest is the best scope in it's class right now. IMHO. $600.00 and under.

Zeiss customer service is outstanding as well.

 

[RLH]

i only have one burris. 3x9 with a dot. "signature" model maybe? haven't beat it around too much, but it seems be a good one. it's on a stainless ruger .300 mag that see's more time loaned out than anything. what kinda reticles you guys like? i'm a dot man. nothing better on running game. chambero, what do you blind hunters even need a scope for? if you hunt too late in the day, how do ya find your way back. i'm usually too tired in the afternoon to hunt too late. i get ol' hurley headed to camp and take a nap while he finds his way back. i like leupolds real well. have had good success with them. i'm sure i'd like a scope with a 'z' in the name, but ain't never been able to pry that much cash outta my wallet. my oldest kid just bought a cabela's alaskan guide for his new tikka 270 wsm. it seems to be a real good scope too. time will tell. he's hell on stuff.

 

[NMRaptor]

For outfitting a my new rifle, I narrowed my scope choices to the zeiss conquest and leupold VX-III. Both were in the same price range but I eventually opted for the leupold because i preferred the reticle selections they offered.
-Raptor

 

[RANGERCON]

NMRaptor, which reticle did you decide on???

I never did like the wire reticle's on the Leupolds. Laser etched are superior. Dont break and fade in certain light situations.

 

[chambero]

RLH:

We have to hunt whitetails from blinds in Texas In Nov-Dec while we are recovering from half-killing ourselves crawing up and down canyons during our trips to the mountains in Oct. My family's place is near Wichita Falls in prety wide open country. I routinely have farther shots on whitetails than I've ever had on mulies or elk (granted I've had a lot more shots at our place than on western trips).

 

[saminwy]

just one thing i had to mention about the original post-when you mentioned the cheap 4x i think was that was full of snow and cost you a shot, i dont think even the ones with z in them are any good when ya let em fill up with snow.

 

[SMELLYBUCK]

Saminwy,
That is a point I am trying to make. The purpose of this post is to find out how many people have actually had an experience where the extra money spent on a "good scope" paid off. Although all these responses have been informative, helpful, and and appreciated; only one guy has come close to answering the question (Chambero says it buys him 15 minutes of light.) I understand the importance of good binoculars, but when it comes to rifle scopes who has ever had a situation where a good scope made the difference between a good buck and a missed opportunity? When has the extra $300 for a 3x9 ziess instead of a 3x9 bushnell paid off? Those are the stories I would like to hear!!!
Chris

 

[SMELLYBUCK]

RLH,
Give me an update on the Alaskan Guide sometime. How clear is it compared to a leopould? I'm interested in the rangefinding option they offer. That would have come in handy last year on an elk hunt when the snow rendered the rangefinder useless. Just need something that can help give a frame of referance for distance.

 

[NMRaptor]

Rangercon,
I bought the VX-III 4.5-14X40 with B&C reticle. It is for my Weatherby Ultralight chambered in 7mm Rem Mag. My opinion is that the ziess is superior in terms of optics but didn't have the reticle selections that I wanted. I also considered the Khales with the TDS reticle.
-Raptor

 

[RANGERCON]

SMELLYBUCK, No I have not ever lost an animal because of a scope failure, because I always have "tried" to buy the best scope I could afford. Even when it hurts.

I did get off the beaten path, so to speak. I apologize.

What I was trying to refer to was that, if you buy a quality scope/binos the first go around, you will spend less money in the long run. It is that simple. I feel scopes are as important as binos, maybe more so.

Sorry for the earlier post, that didnt answer your question.

 

[NMRaptor]

Smellybuck,
You also buy reputation for quality, customer service, etc. I once owned a pair of nikon binocs that had a 25 yr warranty. After ten years, they would nolonger focus and were nolonger fog proof. I contacted nikon and it was like pulling teeth for them to honor their warranty. Sure the nikons were less expensive than other products. But the nikons are now a $250 paper weight. I would rather pay more $$ for the assurance of knowing my scope isn't going to get knocked outa zero after getting bumped around on an atv or horse, or by airline employees. I also don't want my scope to fail due to weather conditions when I've gone on a sheep hunt or goat hunt.
-Raptor

 

[SMELLYBUCK]

Rangercon,
That's okay. I hope you're around when I do decide to purchase a scope. Your comments are appreciated. Thanks
CI

 

[Blueoak]

I have not used open sights since 1972. No one who is serious about hunting trophy big game with centerfire rifles would go with open sights or cheap scopes. I got a good buck in Mexico last year. It was very late, low light and 185yds. All I had was a neck shot.He never took a step! Open sight, I don't think so. Cheap scope? Depends on the guy shooting.

 

[Ant]

I think that a scope allows for precise aiming under conditions that are less then ideal. I think that if the deer is in thick brush he can harder to locate with open sights. Although, I have killed deer with both open sights and a scope. I think that open sights presents more of a challenge, but at close range 150 yards can be effective with alot of practice. I have been looking into muzzleloader hunting and some states do not allow a scope on a muzzleloader. So that means hunters venture out every year without a scope and are successful. I have hunted with an uncle of mine since I was a kid and he kills deer almost every year at various ranges with open sights. However, in the end I think it is a matter of preference.

 

[Cowkiller]

I think a person who uses open sights instead of a scope is a fool. So is a person that spends more than $300 on a rifle scope. Almost any scope will serve the purpose of accurate shooting at reasonable ranges. I have used a $50 Tasco for almost 20 years. I can't think of a single instance when I would have been any better off with an expensive scope. Believe me when I say I have given this scope an adequate test. I hunt more than just about anybody. I consider it just another "urban legend" that you need an expensive riflescope. Expensive binculars and spotting scopes are a whole 'nother story.

 

[RANGERCON]

LAST EDITED ON May-06-04 AT 01:19PM (MST)[p]Well Cowkiller, since Iam a "fool" because I have spent more than $300 on ALOT of scopes, explain how a riflescope, that you use to shoot your intended prey "humanely", is less important than a quality set of binos/spotting scope that is used to spot and watch your prey??

The ability of the scope to hold point of aim, adequately see the prey in inclimate weather/low light conditons, and generally be reliable optically/mechanically in all hunting situations, is LESS important than the ability to find it in the first place...Right??

Dont bother explaining. I seriuosly doubt you could convince me, or any professional shooter for that matter.

"So is a person (a fool) that spends more than $300 on a rifle scope. Almost any scope will serve the purpose of accurate shooting at reasonable ranges. I have used a $50 Tasco for almost 20 years." (Parenthesis added are mine)

Thanks for setting us fools straight..LOL

Oh, may I borrow your famous 20 year old Tasco to take to the range and shoot on top of my Sako .300 Win Mag. I only shoot about a 100 rounds a week, or so. I'll send it back to you in a sandwich bag if I can find the pieces...

 

[nmtaxi]

On my coues hunt this year, I really found out the importance of a good scope. I was hunting with my .257 Roberts that I had bought several years before, but really hadn't hunted with it much. When I bought it, I didn't pay much attention to the scope. The store owner convinced me that the Swifts he carried were just as good as anything. I've shot the gun at the range quite a bit, and had it on an antelope hunt, and it seemed fine. Even part way into my coues hunt, I took a spill, and knocked the crap out my scope. I shot a few rounds, and it stayed in position. I was impressed at the time. Then, a few days later, as I was lining up the scope on my coues buck at 350 yards, I realized the optics weren't good enough to distinguish the buck from the does. This was at 9 in the morning, on a sunny day. Granted, it wasn't a monster, but it was a mature buck. I had to sit there with my gun lined up for what seemed like an eternity until the buck turned in a direction that I could make out his antlers. I did take it with one shot, but I will have a scope with better optics next time I take that rifle out.

 

[woodruffhunter]

I would go with Burris. I believe they are the best glass for the price you pay. I used to own Leupold but in my opinion, Burris is a clearer/brighter.

 

[manny15]

I just bought a leupold 3x9x50, for $250.00 to me thats the best one can buy, my mind just can't fathom $500.00 for a scope...

 

[Model70]

Scopes do make a difference. I don't have enough experience with them to determine where the $$ cutoff is before you get diminishing returns for your money. I'm looking for a scope to replace the very old 4X Weaver on my rifle. It may have been a great scope in its day and the fact that it works great today in good light speaks volumes for the quality. However, I had one occasion where I was glassing a deer in the low early light with my $170 (I got them at a steal) binoculars, picked up the rifle to take a shot and . . . POOF . . . I couldn't see the deer through the scope. I guess the advances in technology put even today's moderately priced optics well ahead of the old technology.

 

[NMRaptor]

Cowkiller,
Open sights are often used on african game. Hunting conditions vary depending on the game hunted and may warrant different firearm setups. If I am spending upwards of $10K on a dall or stone sheep hunt I want to be certain that my equipment will not fail.
-Raptor

 

[RANGERCON]

Model70, a great optic upgrade for your rifle, might be a Nikon Monarch. They sell for about $239.00 or so for a 3-9x40. Great scope.

For $350 or so you can get a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 which I feel is the best scope in its class right now.

I too subscribe to the zone of diminished returns. But I must say, that I owe it to my prey to get the best I can afford.

Countless episodes at the rifle range where a guy comes in with a scope that has obviuosly been abused, neglected, not properly mounted, broken reticles, etc, etc...Gut shoots or injures a deer because his scope failed and he didnt bother checking it. It was junk to begin with, and he thought he didnt need to spend a ton of money on a SchmidtSwaroBenderZeiss. Fair enough. But, theres no excuse NOT to have a good mechanically/optically sound sighting devise now days. We owe it to our the animals we hunt.

 

[Cowkiller]

RANGERCON, You said don't bother explaining since your mind is closed. I'll explain anyway for others that might want to think about it a little. Binoculars and spotting scopes are used all day every day during a hunt. You can't shoot the animal you are hunting until you find and identify it. High quality optics can help with that process. A rifle scope is just used for the shot after the animal is already found and identified. Yes the scope has to be good enough to make the shot with but I haven't ever seen a circumstance where a cheap scope isn't good enough. In fact I often see people hunting with expensive scopes that have no top scope cover and their lenses are so dirty that they can barely see through them. In that case my clean Tasco is actually far superior to their $1000 scope. I have had no problem shooting up until the end of legal shooting hours. In fact the majority of my trophy mule deer have been taken in the last few minutes of legal shooting hours. Many times I have looked through my scope at animals after legal hours just to test the scope. Most times I could still see the critters well enough to identify them and shoot if I wanted to. This mind you is during the night by starlight or moonlight. I have hunted in the worst weather imagineable and again never had any trouble with my scope. Most of my hunting is in wilderness or backcountry. A day of hunting for me almost always includes a lot of climbing over cliffs, boulders and logjams, slipping and sliding on steep snowy slopes or talus, crawling through tunnels of brush so thick my feet don't touch the ground and I can't see the sky when I look up, numerous falls and maybe some horseback time as well. I've fallen into rivers and completely submerged myself including rifle and scope. My scope has taken so many hard knocks without damage or changing zero that I don't even try to protect it any more. As far as accurate shooting there is no reason that you can't make every reasonable shot on game with an economy priced scope.

Sorry if I offended anyone with the word fool. I retract that and revise it to just foolish.

 

[Cowkiller]

I was thinking of western big game hunting with a high powered rifle. I don't claim to know anything about hunting in Africa. There are situations where open sights are necessary. I use peep sights regularly when hunting with a muzzleloader in Colorado and Idaho. The law does not allow scopes.