scope cost madness

Mungo

Well-Known Member
I've recently become aware of the recieved wisdom that a scope should cost as much (or, in fact, preferably more than) the rifle it's on.

Really??

What's the logic?
 
most if not all rifles are better than the person holding it,
but if you cant get a constant point of aim..........
 
the logic is that you get what you pay for

Have had the same conversation/learning curve with newer shooters for over a quarter of a century

The same rule also applies to the scope mounts
 
Last edited:
depends on what it is going on as well,i cant see the point on putting a 2k scope on a hunting air rifle when most off the modern £100/200 scope are easily clear enough to 40m.
centre fire rifles a different thing,past 300 yards the glass quality really shows,and there is no point having a rifle if you cant see what your shooting at:doh:
 
This was good advice when I first bought a c/f rifle, I think. The rifle was of course second-hand, as I was younger and poorer.
How does it stack up now? Quick scan of various sites gives us a PH .270 for about £300 or less, or an alledgely good Sako AIV for £500.

S/H scopes? 6x42 Schmidt, Zeiss, Swaro all starting at £300ish, up to nearly new condition at nearly new prices.

Seems to hold so far for lowish-budget purchase of solid, reliable gear.

For me, it would no longer hold if I decided irrationally to buy a stalking-rifle costing a couple of grand. Why would I need more scope than a Schmidt 6x42 on it?
 
Oh, I understand the distinction between, say, a £40 or so scope and something in the £2-300 bracket (ie. around half the cost of a good rifle). But beyond that? There must be very few shooters who are good enough that the additional quality of the scope will make the blindest bit of difference.

A high end piece of glass will only make a difference once you're shooting is already very, very consistent. Before then, inaccuracy caused by the shooter will mask any minor gains caused by the scope. The simple analogy would be that buying a Ferarri won't improve your driving: you'll only get the best out of it once your've become an extrenely good driver. Up til then, probably best to stick to a Focus...
 
Oh, I understand the distinction between, say, a £40 or so scope and something in the £2-300 bracket (ie. around half the cost of a good rifle). But beyond that? There must be very few shooters who are good enough that the additional quality of the scope will make the blindest bit of difference.

A high end piece of glass will only make a difference once you're shooting is already very, very consistent. Before then, inaccuracy caused by the shooter will mask any minor gains caused by the scope. The simple analogy would be that buying a Ferarri won't improve your driving: you'll only get the best out of it once your've become an extrenely good driver. Up til then, probably best to stick to a Focus...
depends on what range your shooting at m8;)
 
For me, it would no longer hold if I decided irrationally to buy a stalking-rifle costing a couple of grand. Why would I need more scope than a Schmidt 6x42 on it?

I agree, I've got an S&B 8X56 that cost me £250 second hand on my rifle. The rifle cost a lot more but I can't imagine a better scope for my purposes. It is worth buying a quality scope that is suitable for your purposes, it is not worth paying a fortune just because some bloke on the internet says you should spend more on your scope than on your rifle. Which is the long way of saying use common sense.
 
There is one big saving, if the rifle is really a stalking rifle buy a good second hand fixed magnification scope. They appear to be a steal compared with all the bells and whistles jobs. Less to confuse you under pressure, and I think that the eye position is just that bit less critical and the less glass required improves light transmission.

David.
 
depends on what range your shooting at m8;)


If that was true advances in glass and scope technology would be directly proportional to accuracy at range and BR and FLT scores would be significantly advanced as well.

unless I am mistaken they haven't followed the same advances with massively reduced group size and scores at 1000yds
 
The advice was buy good scope and spend the change on the rifle.

Of course in the modern days of Blaser etc this advice is moot as the change from a scope unless the budget is huge would not even buy a saddle mount for the Blaser.
 
I have just sold my S&B Zenith 3-12x50 and purchased from two SD members

a) Sightron 2.5-10x56 illuminated for my 270

B) Bushnell Elite 6500 4-16x50 mildot for my 222

I still have enough change to buy something else and with the quality if the glass I really don't think it would be the cause of a miss.

I am more than happy with my deal.


Ian
 
Last edited:
I have Bushnells on my 30-06 and my243. Have had for years and they have never let me down. However I am a hobby stalker and if I were stalking as my living I would probably buy a Scmidt. I have just bought from the US a Barska to go on my 270 It cost £75 including postage and just today zeroed it and shot one and half inch group. I can here you saying he must be mad but these scopes will do everything and more for the likes of me. If it is crap and i dont think it will be I,ll ditch it and get a Bushnell. I think some of the guys buy expencive scopes as a bit of "willy waving"
Tusker
 
I think it's a load of crap past the £400 mark. You'll see a big difference between a fifty quid scope and a scope costing 3-400. You will also see a difference between a 400 quid scope and a 2 grand scope but the difference will not be 1600 pounds worth. For a hunting scope, you need some clarity to about 300 metres. If it's getting too dark to see something through the scope, then you should be asking yourself whether you really want to shoot something and track it in such low light.
 
Used to think the same as you ferretmanabu, in fact i think you have just bought my old scope ( Burris Fullfield 11) cracking scope and used to cost 3 0r 400 quid from Uttings, i bought a Meopta and took it back because i thought the Burris was better, bought a second hand Swaro 8x50 and there ia a world of difference between that and the Burris.
 
The way I look at it is this. If I buy a £800 scope with a European name on it, then there's a VERY good chance I'm actually getting £800's worth of scope. If I spend £500 on the latest (and possibly still best) lower end scope there's a very good chance that all I'll be getting is a £150 scope made in the People's Optical Equipment Factory No5 in Xan Ming with a £500 price tag stuck on it. The same scope may also be available at varying prices from other "manufaturers", but with their company name painted on it.The European, or to a lesser extent American scope will almost certainly retain a much bigger percentage of it's purchase cost as a resale value as well.
 
Well Mungo,

if you only hobby stalk using a guide between the hours of 9am and 5pm buy the boot fair crap.
But when the deer are really moving in the early and late hours you will just see flimmer like on a TV without a signal with the cheapy (honest) thats the difference.
No one wants to spend the 2K price tag (I actually spent 1150 euros in 2004 on a new zeiss) but they really do work and the are mechanically 100 times better and are recoil proof.
And I have never looked back
Martin
 
Nope.

Not convinced at all.

Good Leupold (or similar) at around £300 will do all you'd ever realistically need. The gains from substantially more expensive scopes really are marginal. I'm pretty certain most of us couldn't actually see a difference - I'd love to see the results of a 'blind' test! There is a very well documented psychological effect that leads us to percieve something as better if we believe it to be more expensive...

Certainly I know from binoculars (about which I know substantially more than rifle scopes, being a professional field biologist) that, while a Leica or a Swarovski is a lovely artefact, Bushnells or Nikons for a 10th of the price will do the job perfectly well. And I can garuntee that attempting to read 2mm colour rings on a fast moving bird in twilight is every bit as hard as trying to shoot a deer.
 
Back
Top