Scope choice. How could that be....

Jump to latest Follow Reply
shambozzie

shambozzie

Member
Jul 12, 2016
3,025
1
3,221
South carolina, United States
One of the guys i follow on youtube is "Southern gunner". The guy is a crack shot and has tons of airguns. His guns range from bargain basement to high end Daystates and Raws. His scope choice got my attention. Center point and leapers/utg is what he use and shoot out to 150 yds with great success. I'm a big swfa fan and have 4 which are around $300 bucks and work well for me. Your thoughts on scope choices. High, low or stuck in the middle.
 
In my opinion, unless you compete at the big money events, an OK scope is just fine. You don't need super clarity at the outer edges and if you sight it in and leave it at that, you don't need it to track perfectly, just hold zero. Most of us shoot at shorter ranges anyway, UTG, Leapers, etc. are perfectly adequate to hit what we're aiming at. "Southern Gunner" puts more work into his shooting setups than I can even think about doing. I always look forward to his videos. I bought my Crown because of his videos on his FX Crown Continuum & am really glad I did.

Paul
 
Upvote 0
/\ /\ /\ /\ /\

Exactly my line of thinking. I ONCE purchased a $500plus Midas Tac, I didn't see anywhere near a $400 improvement over ANY of my $100-200 scopes at my ranges of <100 yard shooting. So I sold it and scoped 3 guns for the same cost.

To me a 13oz BugBuster on a 3lb PRod is 10 times more versatile then ANY 32oz scope.
Click to expand...

Based on today's prices...

How does the $200 Alpha6 compare to the $640 Midas TAC in your opinion optically?
 
Upvote 0
/\ /\ /\ /\ /\

Exactly my line of thinking. I ONCE purchased a $500plus Midas Tac, I didn't see anywhere near a $400 improvement over ANY of my $100-200 scopes at my ranges of <100 yard shooting. So I sold it and scoped 3 guns for the same cost.

To me a 13oz BugBuster on a 3lb PRod is 10 times more versatile then ANY 32oz scope.
Click to expand...

Based on today's prices...

How does the $200 Alpha6 compare to the $640 Midas TAC in your opinion optically?
Click to expand...


Optically I don't see any advantage of one over the other. Under 100yds neither showed me anything that I couldn't see with the other.

The Alpha I have sits on a gun that I will only use off the table in my back yard. Likely I will use it 2 or maybe 3 times between now and summer and it will then wind up for sale. I like having guns that I use. I was going to sell my WC because I wouldn't never grab it over my Regal since it had the Alpha on it. I put my 3-12BB on it and now use it in the woods for squirrels. In fact it now weighs like a LB less then my Regal that wears a 3-12 CP.
 
Upvote 0
In my book, it's all down to Elevation, clarity and eye box.

Elevation - maybe not so important these days as adjustable rings are available. Bought a BSA cheapie 6-24 for $79 on a Black Friday sale a few years ago. Limited elevation meant I was shimming the scope. I also have a Vortex 6-24, about $350, plenty of elevation and on adjustable rings. Vortex wins that one.

Clarity - again back to the BSA cheapie - not all that clear. Edge is blurry, you get the picture. Vortex is incredibly clear. Vortex wins.

Eye Box - At low magnification the BSA and Vortex are both good. As magnification goes up, the eye box gets smaller and smaller. The BSA Cheapie at 18X and up is virtually impossible to use. The Vortex is usable well over 20X. At 24X I can still use the Vortex, but like all scopes, higher the magnification the smaller the eye box.

On the other hand, I also have a BSA 4-14 that was a special purchase from Midway USA. Glass is clear all the way to 14X, plenty of elevation and the eye box is good all the way to 14X. Paid $150 for it if I remember correctly. Great scope.

If you can find clear glass, elevation and a good usable eye box for $29.00, it's probably a good deal. Just that it's hard to find all three together in the lower priced scopes.

I will say that scope quality has gone UP in the past 10 years while prices continue to come down. Great time to be using optics of any kind.
 
Upvote 0
Honestly, I have a 3-12x44 CP that is quite nice for being $100 or so. Not a terribly fine reticle, but nowhere near as bad as the CP ffp scope I once had and very quickly rid myself of.

I also have a utg scope that has been thru hell and back. It's been on several guns and still does its job. No complaints there. Again, not a super fine reticle. But no issues. 


 
Upvote 0
I keep waiting and waiting. 12 years and still holding zero. I pest out to 70 yds. Low budget do work. Fwb 124d.utg 4-16x40 early mode..
20170516_141657.1611412780.jpg



 
Upvote 0
I really like this one for a cheapie. They were around $78.00 before they raised the price on Ebay.

Pictures stays clear throughout a broad range of yards perfect for hunting with a useable reticle. Glass is very nice.

Amazon is selling this for $210.99 + $7.03 shipping believe it or not.

Anyone order from HERE before?

http://www.endze.com/718

https://www.ebay.com/p/19011763482?thm=4000

https://www.walmart.com/ip/CenterPoint-3-12x44mm-Rifle-Scope-30mm-tube-with-Precision-Lock-Turrets-Black-LR312SFT2/578419421

http://CenterPoint LR312SFT2 Precision Lock Turrets High Performance Riflescope https://www.amazon.com/dp/B079T8XZ36/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_WHddGbHRW79KN

The super cheap Barra scopes on EBay are very bright and clear even the cheap Chinese made H30 and H20 series unfortunately they probably don't honor their warranty SO I no longer push them but still been buying the brand regularly the brand is ABSOLITELY POSTITVELY THE best bang for the buck in scopes PERIOD!!!
 
Upvote 0
It is all personal preference. What do you like, how are you using it, and what do you want to get out of it?

We all aren’t going to agree on what is needed, which is why there are so many scope options. 

People always seem to focus a lot on glass and clarity, but depending on your eyes, scopes can look very different between two people. Another reason that the optical goals are not the same between manufacturers even at the same price levels. If there was one goal that mattered, they would all work towards that same resolution, or contrast, or color, or brightness, etc. Sure it needs to look good, but does it look good to your eyes?

I think many of the other features play a bigger role most of the time. What is the reticle like and does it fit your needs? Does it have enough magnification? Are you shooting 6” targets at 50 yards or 1/4” targets? Can you even see the target? We play paper games, and at 12x you can’t see most of the targets on the paper at 50 yards. Is it illuminated and do you even need that? Do the turrets track properly? (Amazing how many don’t, but users have no clue.) Do you even care if the turret track if you never turn them? Or do you turn for every adjustment? How much elevation adjustment is there? Is 40 MOA enough or do you need 120 MOA? Can that 13oz scope take abuse, or do you need a 30oz scope that can take some hits off barricades? Does weight matter, sometimes lighter is better and sometimes heavier is preferred? Is 10 yard parallax required, or does 25/50 suffice? Does the parallax actually work and is it repeatable (vital for some shooters)?

Is is really easy to say that expensive is a waste and cheap is all that is needed, or vice versa, and cheap is crap and you need expensive. I have tried and still own a very wide range of scopes from <$100 to >$3000, and there are massive differences. Each has their own reasons for being owned. You have to ask yourself what you need. And the only way to know, is to try. I thought when I started that expensive scopes were dumb, until I tried a few and then tried a few more. If I would have stopped with my fist sampling of Tier1, I never would have gone back either (it wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t for me).

Anyway, only you know... and you only know by trying. Don’t go into thinking you are going to pick the perfect scope the first try.And make sure you know what YOU NEED.
 
Upvote 0
Make sure you know what YOU NEED.
Click to expand...



Excellent post. 👍🏼 Excellent advice. 👍🏼

Without knowing how the different features will support or hinder your type of shooting it's hard to pick the right scope...!



Knowing the benefits of each of those features you mentioned will help you prioritize which specs are deal brakers and which are optional — and then you can pick a short list of scopes to try out optically, like Odoyle suggests — your eyes are YOUR eyes, the scope needs to work for YOU. 👍🏼



Matthias






 
Upvote 0
I have used so called cheap scopes for years on my springers,most were Center Point and Tech Force...the Tech Force are the best for the money I have used.

Scopes,I have a soooo many,I have learned that the better optics are worth the price...not more.

Don't be tripping out because you only have $100-200 to spend on a scope,you can get a "good enough" scope for that price....

Another thing to remember ,each brand of scope has sub-divides in price ranges.

I usually buy Used=getting a better scope for the money.

Most important thing I learned ,is just because a guy has the money to spend and brags about his scope does Not mean much to me...

I know that I can not afford it and there are plenty of other scopes that will do the "job" just as good for ME.


 
Upvote 0
If I were to buy a high end scope it wouldn't be as much for the glass as it would be for the combinations of other characteristics. Magnification range, eye box, eye relief, field of view, side focus and reticle.. I have ~$200 scopes that all do one or more of the above good enough but none that combine even four of the six.

The more of those characteristics I find in a single scope the more I'd be willing to spend.

Good glass would only be a bonus.

Of lesser importance would be having one rifle/scope combo that would cover most of my pesting and hunting needs. It would be nice but the further I get into this hobby the more I realize it can be difficult to accomplish. Still, practicing with one scope and caliber option would be nice. Better than having a close range rabbit rifle sitting around and not being used and having that first (and most important) shot be off.
 
Upvote 0
If I were to buy a high end scope it wouldn't be as much for the glass as it would be for the combinations of other characteristics. Magnification range, eye box, eye relief, field of view, side focus and reticle.. I have ~$200 scopes that all do one or more of the above good enough but none that combine even four of the six.

The more of those characteristics I find in a single scope the more I'd be willing to spend.
Click to expand...



Scouty,

So what are the specs you're looking for in each of those characteristics?

Like:

(1) What field of view at minimum magnification do you want at the very least?

(2) What top end magnification do you want at least?

(3) What features of the reticle are you looking for to at least consider it?

(4) Upper price limit?

(5) Mil or moa?

(6) FFP or SFP?



Matthias 😊






 
Upvote 0
If I were to buy a high end scope it wouldn't be as much for the glass as it would be for the combinations of other characteristics. Magnification range, eye box, eye relief, field of view, side focus and reticle.. I have ~$200 scopes that all do one or more of the above good enough but none that combine even four of the six.

The more of those characteristics I find in a single scope the more I'd be willing to spend.
Click to expand...



Scouty,

So what are the specs you're looking for in each of those characteristics?

Like:

(1) What field of view at minimum magnification do you want at the very least?

(2) What top end magnification do you want at least?

(3) What features of the reticle are you looking for to at least consider it?

(4) Upper price limit?

(5) Mil or moa?

(6) FFP or SFP?



Matthias 😊
Click to expand...

Good question(s).

I think my dream scope would be...

1.5-12x32 SFP with the eye relief of my Burris Timberline and the eye box and reticle (MIL) of my Dedal Stalker.

Just looking at the specs of some of my other wide FOV scopes, I'm guessing around 80' FOV at 100 yards at minimum power. I have a 2x with 54' FOV and ideally I'd have more than that.

I have a Classic Leshiy so I like the long eye relief to keep the scope ahead of the hinge point and a small objective to keep the scope low.

I would likely will have to compromise somewhere. Maybe a cheek riser, maybe a bit of overhang off the back. But not nearly two inches like some scopes I've tried. 

A few companies used to make a 2-12x32 with a really good FOV but they're not made anymore. I think they were heavy and not super forgiving eye boxes.

I know it can be done but just not sure if it exists.

I'm aware of and can afford the new March 1.5-15x42. But willing to afford is an entirely different thing. I'm just not there yet.
 
Upvote 0
I have inexpensive scopes, medium priced scopes and expensive scopes. It’s like anything else in life and usually boils down to what we are willing to spend or can afford. My boys and I shoot our air guns a lot, more than all of our powder burners combined by far, so I am willing to spend a fair amount of money to put quality optics on them. I’m not a rich man by any means, I either save my money, sell something I don’t use to fund a new purchase or I wheel and deal to make it happen. Like I said in the post last night, buying a scope usually means prioritizing the features of the scope you want or need and spending how ever much you need to in order to get those features. If you want to use a Centerpoint, BSA, or whatever, and you’re happy with it...Great. If you have the means and want to spend the money on a Schmidt Bender or Kahles...Awesome. 

Nobody should have to apologize because they can afford a tier one scope and choose to spend their money that way.

Nobody should have to apologize because they choose to use a BSA and spend their hard earned money in another way

Stoti
 
Upvote 0
Scouty,

I have not really explored scopes with less than 3x magnification at the bottom end, as 3x that usually provides me with what I need for my shooting scenarios.

However, looking through my Scope Specs List of short and 3-9x/ 3-12x scopes (attached below), I find a few that have a rather wide FoV.

All of the following have 10y side parallax, a holdoff reticle, are under $500, and unless otherwise noted, have exposed turrets.



FFP:

▪Swampfox Kentucky Long 2-12x44 FFP | FoV 54ft | OAL 12.4" | Reticle grid style





SFP:

▪Hawke Airmax 30 Touch (No. 13260) 3-12x32 SFP | FoV 64ft | OAL 10.5" | Small objective might mean small eye box | Eye relief 1.2"! | Capped turrets

▪Hawke Airmax 30 SF Compact (No. 13200) 3-12x44 SFP | FoV 44ft | OAL 10.9"

▪MTC Viper Connect 3-12x24 —or— 3-12x32 SFP | FoV 61ft | OAL 11.3" | Small objective might mean small eye box

▪Bushnell Engage 2.5-10x44 SFP | FoV 44ft | OAL 13.5"

▪Discontinued recently (someone still might have it): Nikko Stirling C-More X10 2-20x44 SFP | FoV 47ft | OAL 13.3"





I hope you find what you're looking for! 😊

Matthias



❌ Attachment: Scope Specs List for Short/light scopes — and 3-12x/ 3-9x

download.png
View attachment SCOPE SPECS TABLE. For Short Scopes -and- 3-12x 3-9x Magnification. 047. 2020-11. TABLE.16114...pdf


 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu