Talk about disappointment. Vector

Jump to latest Follow Reply
A higher-quality scope can "see" better at less power.I mean, 10 power is not 10 power; some cheaper scopes need to be cranked up to higher power to perform.
For sure, you do not need to spend more money on a scope that satisfies your needs.
Resolution and nuances are important to me.I am a glasser, and optics is one of my favorite things, as is music. I am also an audiophile,so again, resolution and nuances are important to me.
I buy used,so I can afford the better equipment.
We each have our needs and wants.Be happy with what you have,or save for something better while enjoying what you have.👍
 
Upvote 0
SpindleB said:
Or don't spend several hundreds of dollars on a scope for a pellet gun and then you don't have to worry about lifetime warranty. One that lets you hit what you are aiming at out to 50 or 100 yards is all you need. PCP rifle doesn't have enough kick to break down a good basic scope like a Spina or CVLife.

Unless you shoot competitive anything more is overkill.

Springers do require a more robust scope than PCP.
Click to expand...
"Or" me I'd rather not take the chance losing $200 instead vs spending $400 and not being concerned if it breaks because worse comes to worse some companies will either repair or replace it no matter how long I've had it.

Also, as an example, a friend named Randy noticed his Daystate Regal wasn't grouping as good as it used to after having it and the scope for 5 years. He had our other friend who has two of the same gun, and who knows them well as far as rebuilding and tuning, trying to find the problem. This tuner friend couldn't figure it out after going through the rifle rebuilding it. The first friend Randy put another scope on the gun as a test and it shot great again so something had gone wrong with the G1 scope. He sent it back and the company sent him a brand new G2 scope. That was 1.5 years ago. If this one were to go down he'd likely get a G3 scope returned to him - and so on. So it cost him $320 to begin with, and got a $380 scope returned to him, and if that scope went down he'd get a, just guessing a $420 scope.

I had the same G1 scope for 4 years, got high score at state, and high score at a bunch of monthly matches throughout those years with no problems. My point is things break. Warranty, warranty, warranty.

I'm kind of a miser in some ways and the few times I compromised by buying cheap scopes I was severely let down by them. Last time was when I bought one at Big5 and it was DOA. Thankfully I just took it back for a refund.
I'm not taking the chance anymore.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: boscoebrea
Upvote 0
I always read about all the deficiencies of my $100-$135 scopes and yet I never have seen even one of them. Almost like the ones I buy are of good quality and don't have those deficiencies.

For example the plethora of positive reviews of the CVLife BearSwift 5-24x56 FFP SFIR scope. None of the reviews I saw mention even 1 of the listed deficiencies.

I don't buy used scopes. For one thing the lifetime warranty for scopes like Hawke is only the registered original owner. I do have some used scopes but those came with rifles I bought.

But then I also think $2,500 for a pellet gun is insane. Especially when you can spend $650 delivered for a Reximex Throne 2 that matches up almost 1:1 with those $2,500 rifles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blackdog899
Upvote 0
steve123 said:
"Or" me I'd rather not take the chance losing $200 instead vs spending $400 and not being concerned if it breaks because worse comes to worse some companies will either repair or replace it no matter how long I've had it.

Also, as an example, a friend named Randy noticed his Daystate Regal wasn't grouping as good as it used to after having it and the scope for 5 years. He had our other friend who has two of the same gun, and who knows them well as far as rebuilding and tuning, trying to find the problem. This tuner friend couldn't figure it out after going through the rifle rebuilding it. The first friend Randy put another scope on the gun as a test and it shot great again so something had gone wrong with the G1 scope. He sent it back and the company sent him a brand new G2 scope. That was 1.5 years ago. If this one were to go down he'd likely get a G3 scope returned to him - and so on. So it cost him $320 to begin with, and got a $380 scope returned to him, and if that scope went down he'd get a, just guessing a $420 scope.

I had the same G1 scope for 4 years, got high score at state, and high score at a bunch of monthly matches throughout those years with no problems. My point is things break. Warranty, warranty, warranty.

I'm kind of a miser in some ways and the few times I compromised by buying cheap scopes I was severely let down. Last time was when I bought one at Big5 and it was DOA. Thankfully I just took it back for a refund.
I'm not taking the chance anymore.
Click to expand...
Not hard to do research on the internet these days to find that Chinese scopes have improved significantly. Mostly because they are building or providing the optics these days for the more expensive scopes. They are quite good at *borrowing* technology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: L.Leon
Upvote 0
Sawney Bean said:
I think that Joe Rhea, (Cyclops Videos), does a real good job of dispelling a lot of this. The relevant part starts at around 4:00.
Click to expand...
No comparisons involved, my point is that air rifles for probably 90% of their use do not require anything more than a low cost FFP SFIR scope. If you are shooting longer distance or competing then sure better scope is necessary. 50 yards or less a pinty AO for 40 bucks will hit the same target as a $2000 Leupold.
 
Upvote 0
JimD said:
I don't think this issue is terribly unique, unfortunately. I sometimes test at 5 yard intervals from 10 to 35 yards. I want to check on what I get from chairgun. My Arken EPL4 6-24 will not focus at 10 yards nor will my Vector Veyron 6-24. My Athlon scopes will. I think any of them will focus at 13 yards, however. Trusting my memory is iffy but I think they were OK by 12 yards. Not focusing at 13 is pretty far off.
Click to expand...
I haven't tried my Arken 4-16x50, but my vector 10x44 sfp focuses down to 10yds and my BSA sweet 17 3-12x42 focuses to 7yds
 
  • Like
Reactions: blackdog899
Upvote 0
JaceSpace1369 said:
I haven't tried my Arken 4-16x50, but my vector 10x44 sfp focuses down to 10yds and my BSA sweet 17 3-12x42 focuses to 7yds
Click to expand...
Jace I’ve got the Arken EPL4 4-16 and it does go down to 10 yards. I would have bought another Arken but the rest in this price range and higher are all more minimum focus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JaceSpace1369
Upvote 0
beerthief said:
Where did you read " focus down to 10 yards" in that exact scope specification list OR the general Advertisement of that LINE of scope statement ?
Click to expand...
IMG_1849.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: beerthief and MongooseV8
Upvote 0
How many of you actually use the tree parts of the reticle with any regularity? I use the elevation dots all the time, but really all I need are maybe three dots above the crosshairs and maybe 5 below. If they're not numbered then it becomes difficult to distinguish which one is which if there are too many. You find yourself counting dots from the top and then from the bottom to make sure you're using the right one. I've used the windage dots in the past too, but they're much less essential to me and the only reason why I would opt for a scope with a tree reticle over one without it is because to me it's an indication of a higher quality scope. Since wind is variable I don't see as much utility in having fixed dots to compensate for it. I'm guessing that the tree reticle really excels for ELR with powder burners. I can see where if I were taking 800 yard shots with someone spotting for me that it would be the bees knees.

I also find myself once again preferring SFP over FFP. I had a Russian FFP scope early on with a terrible reticle early on and it soured me on FFP for a long time. Then a couple years ago I picked up a modern FFP and found it to be orders of magnitude better than that old Soviet junk and the whole idea of having fixed holdover regardless of the magnification sold me on it. What I've noticed since then however is that I almost never use that fixed holdover feature. With a FFP scope the holdover dots just get too small to be useful for most of the magnification range. Sometimes even when you can still see the dots they're a PITA to use because they're just too small and close together.
 
Upvote 0
Sawney Bean said:
How many of you actually use the tree parts of the reticle with any regularity? I use the elevation dots all the time, but really all I need are maybe three dots above the crosshairs and maybe 5 below. If they're not numbered then it becomes difficult to distinguish which one is which if there are too many. You find yourself counting dots from the top and then from the bottom to make sure you're using the right one. I've used the windage dots in the past too, but they're much less essential to me and the only reason why I would opt for a scope with a tree reticle over one without it is because to me it's an indication of a higher quality scope. Since wind is variable I don't see as much utility in having fixed dots to compensate for it. I'm guessing that the tree reticle really excels for ELR with powder burners. I can see where if I were taking 800 yard shots with someone spotting for me that it would be the bees knees.

I also find myself once again preferring SFP over FFP. I had a Russian FFP scope early on with a terrible reticle early on and it soured me on FFP for a long time. Then a couple years ago I picked up a modern FFP and found it to be orders of magnitude better than that old Soviet junk and the whole idea of having fixed holdover regardless of the magnification sold me on it. What I've noticed since then however is that I almost never use that fixed holdover feature. With a FFP scope the holdover dots just get too small to be useful for most of the magnification range. Sometimes even when you can still see the dots they're a PITA to use because they're just too small and close together.
Click to expand...
Last time shooting 300m in a wind I used the tree with good results, since you can tell right away where to aim if you see differencies on hit and what ballistics told you. Im into long range slug shooting anyways because I love the challenge and test the limits. SFP is no go for me, might be totally different for somebody else ofcourse. Avoid low quality weird stuff if you want good experience. You dont hear many people saying 'I hate that I bought a good scope for my rifle'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sawney Bean
Upvote 0
Itsme Nobody said:
Last time shooting 300m in a wind I used the tree with good results, since you can tell right away where to aim if you see differencies on hit and what ballistics told you. Im into long range slug shooting anyways because I love the challenge and test the limits. SFP is no go for me, might be totally different for somebody else ofcourse. Avoid low quality weird stuff if you want good experience. You dont hear many people saying 'I hate that I bought a good scope for my rifle'.
Click to expand...
That makes sense and seems similar to what would be the case with long range centerfire shooting. Myself, I'm rarely shooting past 100 yards and what I find within that range is that windage varies considerably from shot to shot so that the extra dots on a Christmas tree reticle have minimal value to me. They don't bother me, they just rarely ever get used.

Typically, I do over 95% of my shooting with the scope at either maximum or minimum power. If I'm hunting I'll set the scope at 4 power and the parallax at around 20 yards. That sets me up for a quick, close up shot. If a long range shot presents itself then I'll usually switch to high magnification. For target practice I generally keep it at 16x. Doing it this way I find that the SFP has a significant advantage over FFP for me as I can still use my dots with the scope set to the lowest power. Generally, on a 4-16x I'll only use four settings ever. 4x for close up, 16x for long range and target shooting, 8x if for some reason 16x or 4x aren't what I want and 10x for sighting in. This makes the holdover math super simple.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu