Best "Budget" scope for dawn/dusk shooting

It's like anything, such as a £5000 rifle will be made better and probably be capable of shooting better than a mass produced £1000 rifle but will the end user actually be able to tell the difference? If your eyes aren't perfect then the difference between a £700 scope and a £2000 scope probably won't be enough to justify the extra money. If you only shoot deer in almost pitch black conditions and have great eyes then maybe it is. Also something that is built to perform perfectly under test conditions may not be able to achieve the same level of achievement in the real world. Put both scopes up at low light and use a specialist light meter and the too end may get a better result but a human eye can't tell the difference.
 
I don't think it can be just as good as them, but it seems based on other people's experiences, it is not far off. Also considering it's not really a "budget" scope loosing zero should not really be a problem for it. The 10 year warranty vrs Swarovski is prob its biggest down fall for me, but I could buy a 2nd and possibly a 3rd delta for the same money should something go wrong after the 10year warranty is up.
I'd love a top end Swarovski but it is hard to shell out so much extra cash when I can't find a bad review on the delta 2.5-15x56.
Ps I would like to hear the bad revive, before I buy one!
 
I'm just really struggling to come to grips with "A £700 Delta Titanium will hold its own with a £1800 Ziess/Swarovski"

A lot of it is to do with marketing and branding and unique selling points. Zeiss always win glass tests, for example, whereas Swaro, it is said, will not allow the glass in any of their scopes to be tested against other scopes but they market on brand image and customer service. I've never seen a Swaro scope directly tested against any other and I've never seen on appear in any of the big, well conducted, comparative tests but, of course, their glass is adequate for our purposes which is all that matters.

The truth is that all of the "top name" scopes perform well beyond what the stalker needs, they are all more than adequate for your purposes and so by spending more you are mostly buying bragging rights and magazine adverts in your fave shooting magazine. You see this a lot with people posting on here effectively asking others to justify their spending a fortune on something they don't need by a big name manufacturer who has big adverts so the end user can tout the name around and try to impress people. This has left a huge opportunity for "second tier" manufacturers who can also produce adequate glass but who appreciate that by not going right to the limits of current technology you can knock the cost of a small car off the price and still provide the end user with an excellent scope. Due to the savings you probably also get rather less good customer service and less expensive magazine adverts but in most cases the optical quality is beyond adequate.

As you can often see the "big name" manufacturers have simply nowhere left to go and so they are selling on "features" which are things that look great in the adverts but, basically, either make up for other design failings or are simply rarely used or have such specialized application that only a small percentage of customers will have an actual use for them. Once they'd produced a good quality 6X42 or 8X56 that allowed you to shoot up until the time when you decided that finding the shot deer was getting difficult scope development was over and the development of marketing features and unique selling points started.

I haven't looked through a Delta but, clearly, neither have you and with that in mind you'd be very unwise to dismiss it as not comparing to the big names. Equally the best value in scopes is always a second hand fixed mag from a big name, because big names hold their money, as it has every feature you need without you having to carry and pay for things you don't need and will always be worth what you paid for it. On too many occasions you see people on this forum wanting others to justify their spending over £2k on a scope and then see them complaining about how they have no stalking and about the cost of stalking. If they'd bought a scope appropriate for their requirements, at £300 - £400, they'd have £2k to spend on stalking and the perfect scope for their job.

So, you need to go take a look at a few scopes and compare them at last light and then work out your priorities. By all means if you want a big name with fancy features then go for it, if you want something cost effective that will do all your stalking work for you at zero cost then go second hand fixed mag and big name, if you want something new that will do your job with a cash saving over the big names then don't knock the second tier manufacturers until you've looked through them as you will be doing something very different to any other stalker if they don't work for you.
 
Caorach - Thanks for the information. Pretty much places what i had thought myself just helps when someone else in the business thinks the same way.

I'm pretty sure none of the dealers around me stock the Delta so it would be a purchase online and see job. From looking around i cannot see any of them stocking one.

The cost of stalking isn't anything i need to concern myself with, have been lucky in knowing a lot of farmers who have fair numbers of fallow. All the shooting i need.

As much as i would also like the "bragging rights" of walking about with a 3/4 grand setup. the first we bit of wear the scope gets will break my heart. where as if i paid ~£700 for the Delta. i'm sure it will do all i need and if it got the odd scuff it wouldnt be the end of the world - currently have a Leupold 3-9x40 on my Sako and its done me well the last few years.

my head (and wallet!) does say go with the Delta.

In regards to a fixed mag scope I keep thinking it will be quite an annoyance when woodland shooting which can be quite tight quarters at times. so i think that would rule them out.
 
gigidygigidy - I'm in the same park as you as well when it comes to wanting to read a bad review. i always find its the "bad" reviews are either people who fall into 2 categories "Truthful" or "a faulty scope" people who throw down a 5 star review within 2 seconds of receiving something are a pain in the *** as they haven't had time to adjust and get a feel for the item.
 
In regards to a fixed mag scope I keep thinking it will be quite an annoyance when woodland shooting which can be quite tight quarters at times. so i think that would rule them out.

I shoot sika in forestry and so take shots from about 10 yards to 250 yards. Under those circumstances an 8X56 or 6X42 works perfectly fine. You simply do not need a variable scope, there are reasons some people like to have them but that is not the same as needing one.
 
or if you want a variable, look at the meopta R1 3-10x50. somewhere on here theres a very good post reviewing a lot of the scopes, have a search about.

Agree, I have one of these Meopta's and in comparison to many scopes which include Vortex, Docter Optic, Leopold, Zeiss, and Schmidt & Bender it comes very close to the S&B 3-12x50 Ill but at half the money.

Meopta R1 3-10x50 is worth every penny and more, illuminated would be even better but not absolutely necessary.
 
I'm just really struggling to come to grips with "A £700 Delta Titanium will hold its own with a £1800 Ziess/Swarovski" Does it hold Zero as well as the Zeiss/Swarovski - can it really stand up beside the Zeiss in low light conditions etc. I just find it really hard to believe considering the substantial price differences in the two lol - i do know with the Zeiss/Swarovski you are paying for a "brand name" so that is a big factor in it also but like? £1000 for a sticker?

I own 2 Swarovski Z6i 2 15 56 and a Zeiss COnquest and I also own a Vortex Viper HS LR & a Bushnell 6500

The Bushnell is noticeably more of a drain pipe to look through but whilst I love my Z6is it is hard to justifie the expense when doing a side by side with my Vortex

The image is very crisp and the low light capabuility is so close as to not be worth worrying about in the real world

But then I paid out for a Sako75 and yet my mates cheep browning A bolt has knocked over more deer than I am ever likely to shoot.

In truth the Z8s and Z6i s of this world are not truly justified but my Z6i gives me the same warm glow to own one as it does when I slip into the 3.0 V6 Jag and drive to Tesco :D
 
I own 2 Swarovski Z6i 2 15 56 and a Zeiss COnquest and I also own a Vortex Viper HS LR & a Bushnell 6500

The Bushnell is noticeably more of a drain pipe to look through but whilst I love my Z6is it is hard to justifie the expense when doing a side by side with my Vortex

The image is very crisp and the low light capabuility is so close as to not be worth worrying about in the real world

But then I paid out for a Sako75 and yet my mates cheep browning A bolt has knocked over more deer than I am ever likely to shoot.

In truth the Z8s and Z6i s of this world are not truly justified but my Z6i gives me the same warm glow to own one as it does when I slip into the 3.0 V6 Jag and drive to Tesco :D

Hi Chasey,

whatre your our opinions on Zeiss Conquest? Same as original posters question but I have decided on the Zeiss 3-12x50 non illuminated. Seems to do everything I require but still tempted by a Swarovski fixed. Can you push me in any direction, as you've experience?

Cheers, Jolyon
 
Hi Chasey,

whatre your our opinions on Zeiss Conquest? Same as original posters question but I have decided on the Zeiss 3-12x50 non illuminated. Seems to do everything I require but still tempted by a Swarovski fixed. Can you push me in any direction, as you've experience?

Cheers, Jolyon

The Conquest is a very good scope, but for me it doesn't come to the eye quickly.

I still have it if you want one cheep.

I have the 6.5 20 50MC with side parallax and BT.

There's a wear mark on the main lense coating from some over enthusiastic cleaning (which doesent seem to affect the image at all) and because of that ill sell it for £300

ATB
 
Just remember there is a big difference between the old Zeiss Conquest range (target oriented and mainly for the American market) and the new Conquest DL range which have replaced the Duralyt and are more of a stalking scope with better glass.
 
Caorach - you have posted the most sensible comments about scopes, and in your analyses hit the nail on the head. I fully agree, a decent mid-range fixed scope (6x42, 7x50 or 8x56) will do the job just fine in 99% of UK stalking scenario's.
 
The Conquest is a very good scope, but for me it doesn't come to the eye quickly.

I still have it if you want one cheep.

I have the 6.5 20 50MC with side parallax and BT.

There's a wear mark on the main lense coating from some over enthusiastic cleaning (which doesent seem to affect the image at all) and because of that ill sell it for £300

ATB

Thanks for the offer but that's too much mag for my requirements . More interested in your opinion of Conquest quality . I really only need a fixed mag but think I like the idea of ability to turn down to low range .

Jolyon
 
Back
Top