What's good enough in a Scope these days?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Grizzly on bison - that's a phenomenal picture. I had the same problems with my scope the day we spotted the grizzly. Glad to see your pictures came out, mine did not. I also love Yellowstone, considering moving to the Idaho Falls area (only two hours from Yellowstone, and incredibly beautiful on it's own) for retirement in 10 years. We'll see how I can handle the cold in winter!

​Great way to get pictures without dropping $10K on a massive lens as well. No you don't need to spend lots of $$ on equipment that works!
 
Upvote 0
Pauly5 - don't ever feel ashamed of having good glass. My only issue is those that tell me I MUST have this or that. If you can afford it and it works for your application, go for it! The $695 NZ you speak of is down in the $500 US range. That's probably my top end, but sounds like in your case money well spent. 

​You speak wisely, buy what fits the purpose. Must admit I am envious of both scopes you mention!
 
Upvote 0
Weatherby - I agree on the old cars so I can afford other stuff, and optics are part of the other stuff. My car is a 1997 GMC Truck, though there are days I wonder if it would be cheaper to by a new truck, repairs are killers.

​That is some list of scopes! I'm, as they say, Green with envy! A High end air gun (FX Impact or something similar) is on the list but a couple years out. And, yes, I hear about you about Choices. Four major hobbies, can't support them all. Woodworking (shops and good wood are expensive. Finished product from China is always cheaper), Photography for over 40 years. New equipment is expensive for good stuff, just like scopes and air rifles. Cooking in a Dutch Oven. That's probably known as a camp oven in most of the world. That hobby doesn't require much $$ anymore, but good food to put in the pot costs, and finally, shooting. I do shoot air rifles and powder burners, though less and less powder burners. Just too expensive. 30-06 is $1.00 per bullet, son's .223 is about $.50 per shot. Pellets are (including filling air tanks) $.05 per shot, so I'm much happier and they are nearly silent.

​Gotta economize wherever I can to afford all 4.

​and yes, that's a fantastic list of scopes. I have looked through good glass, it is better, maybe someday I'll have that Swarovski scope!

​And thanks to all that have responded to my ramblings so far, good to have other opinions.
 
Upvote 0
One of the big gotta-haves in a scope is durability and repeatability. It does me no good to have a scope that gets out of zero at the smallest bump or jostle in the field. What good is it then, when you might only have one shot and no sighters? I would hope that is something inherent in the better scopes, but I have no idea of that is true. And if it is true - where is the cutoff, cost-wise?
 
Upvote 0
Enough scope is when you can clearly see what you are shooting at and when it has features that allow you to range it properly. 

Many people in the air gun community seem think they need 50x for target shooting at 25 meters in the middle of the afternoon. There have been many occasions where such people find they made a poor choice when it's too dark to see the target in the forest at their FT match. It's important to prioritize the right features for your needs.

When you look at how little magnification people on rimfire forums look for and what they prioritize, it makes you wonder what air gun people are doing with a 10-50 (especially on a budget scope). 

I have been experimenting with this a lot lately and I get the same conclusion each time. I can clearly see the pellet holes at 14x for any distance I could hit a target with my air rifle. I max out at 150 yards. Add another 10 to make sure you are covered but a 6-24 is the upper limit of common sense in most cases imo. 

When I listen to people talk about why they need their $3000 scope, it is almost entirely related to precision adjustments for long range (1000 yard) shooting. Even some of those guys, when reviewing the PA 4-14x44ffp and the Athlon Argos 6-24 FFP, said that, if you use the reticle instead of the turrets (as a number of top competition shooters do), you can perform exceptionally well with one of those cheaper options. 

If you look for a scope with features suitable for air gun shooting, even the Leupolds aren't that expensive. 
 
Upvote 0
I always smile when I see some say Hawke scopes are not that good? Hawke has a large range of scopes from the Vantage to the Frontier. And the cost goes from a little to a lot. And its like saying you have to have a mil-dot scope. On one of my 25yard rifles I don't need that. My problem is I like to buy things and last year I would see someone say try this..........and I would lol. Picked up a SWFA 16x42(not sure I need it on a Maximus) and a weaver grand slam and not sure how many Hawke scopes.
 
Upvote 0
Zebra Wrote - When I listen to people talk about why they need their $3000 scope, it is almost entirely related to precision adjustments for long range (1000 yard) shooting. Even some of those guys, when reviewing the PA 4-14x44ffp and the Athlon Argos 6-24 FFP, said that, if you use the reticle instead of the turrets (as a number of top competition shooters do), you can perform exceptionally well with one of those cheaper options.

Comment is on the mark! I can see some Field Target types wanting the expensive scopes for precision adjustments, because you need every advantage in those sports, but for now, for me, less is more. Less expensive means more ammunition.

​A friend, who is military sniper trained, and shoots extensively at long range (warms up at 600 yards and moves out from there) said his biggest concern about my 4-14 scope was that I was Over Scoped for the gun and range. After using the scope, I really like it because it's bright, and for what I do, perfect. No, I really don't need a 50X, 25X is probably too much. I picked up a cheap scope that is 6-25X just so I could try it out and see. It's probably too much for air rifle, but considering the price of the scope ($60) it's a good place to experiment. 

​Had some fun tonight though. Went to Sportsman's Warehouse and ask the person behind the counter to indulge me and help me compare an average to low end scope to a nice (really nice) scope. 

​He loaded a Simmons 3-9 onto the stock with rubber mounts, then put on a Vortex 3-9. The Simmons was around $60 or $70, where the Vortex, I think, was around $900. Yes, there were some serious differences, right down to the sharpness of the reticle. He said that if we were out around dusk the real differences would show. The Vortex ability to transmit light at dusk is incredible. I'll have to go back and check that one out.

​Then he handed me a Vortex $3400 scope. 34mm tube and massive turrets. That one was NICE. Yes, I was drooling all the way out the door. Will I ever need that 900 scope? No, afraid not. Will I WANT IT? ABSOLUTELY!

​Oh, if only money weren't an issue.

 
Upvote 0
A good scope will not make you a better shooter, but it can help a lot making aiming more relaxing and easy, which is good for your results.
With a decent scope, you can get behind it, and it will feel right immediately. Not having to move your head around to get a good picture, just sit and shoot.
Cheaper glass can definitely be good enough, but the risk of getting a bad sample is higher than with the more expensive brands.
Also when the magnification rises, the cheaper glass will tend to degrade quite fast (milky image)

Regarding magnification, to me, more is better. I shoot BR, and a too thick reticle is just about unusable for that purpose. Shooting steelplates at 1000yrd or what a sniper does is something different, and less magnification might be sufficient in that case.

For precision shooting at very tiny targets even at short ranges, I like more magnification better.
I'd say, get the best your budget allows, and try before you buy to prevent disappointment. 
I have seen many stories of people who kept buying cheaper end scopes and after they had discovered it was not good enough, they sold it with a loss. When you do that 4 or 5 of times, you might as well have saved your money, buy a more expensive, better scope and just be happy with it☺
 
Upvote 0
It's true that a good scope doesn't make a better shooter but a bad scope can mess up a good shooter's shot. 

A bad scope is one that doesn't provide you with a clear view or one that is functionally poor. E.g. If you use turrets and the scope's turrets are not precise enough for what you are doing. 

A bad scope for you is one that can't be used for the application or your skill level. E.g. a 10x on a deer gun. 

I have more expensive scopes but the one I shoot best with is my PA FFP scope. The FFP thing really helps with fast moving small game by reducing the time needed to work out corrections. The scope isn't making me a better shooter but it is compensating for some of my weaknesses and making me more likely to hit the target. 
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu