How good are mid price range scopes

Yoda

Well-Known Member
I'm sorting out my scopes and trying to thin out the amount I've got.
So let's line them up and try a comparison. Wow, what a shock,
Six scopes ranging from £28 to £1,400 and do you know how much better the expensive ones are. Well, not a lot. I don't want to run down or bull up any makes, it is a simple exercise just looking through them.
The edge to the centre, dusk to midday etc etc etc. just basically doing what 99% of people do, look through the scope, line up and squeeze the trigger. I wasn't interested in getting too technical, just does the scope do the job.
Do we really need to spend so much on a scope as all the "experts" recommend ?
If I were to say which is the best scope for my type of shooting you'd all think he's raving mad. (well i am but that's beside the point)
 
I think under range conditions (day time, clear targets etc) the glass isn't as important as some would have us believe but more the build quality of the rest of the scope. Do the clicks actually match on paper at a set distance as they should do? Does the zero point return after winding up the elevation or windage? Is the scope actually manufactured straight and true etc? Will it hold up the continued recoil?

all a bit harder to check without testing it or having to rely on manufacturers claims.
 
Had a client out other evening and when the light went down we checked out if we could see the rutting buck which was not too far away.

Clients scope could see absolutely nothing including a bunch of cows coming up the field to investigate us, cost I believe he said was £700 second hand but cost way over £1000 when new.
My scope cost £100 new and we could see down to the edge of the woods and clearly see the cows coming up the field.

His scope would trash my scope on a range in daylight conditions but clearly mine had the edge in low light.

His scope, 12-35x56
Mine, 3-9x40
 
i use a Bushnell xlt 3 12 x56 iv hit all three medals in roe this season plenty of munty and the odd fallow also on about 50 foxes too.... i love the scope cant fault it and it cost a whopping £200 money well spent ... scope prices have gone mad and to anyone starting out they are led to belive they have to spend 1000's
 
I have an AG S 4-16x56 scope which I use on an air rifle. It was very good with NV back in the day. However it is not advisable to dial in for shots as it will not revert back to its original zero. I had an MTC Viper as well but it was shockingly bad and that went to the rubbish dump as I could not in good conscience sell it as it was not fit for purpose. I definitely believe in paying up for good scopes.

One thing I say for sure here in Switzerland is that people definitely, pay up for high end scopes, much more so than they do for rifles.
 
I've had only a few scopes in my time. The 'best' I guess was a Schmidt & Bender on my 243. However, I changed this for a Meopta Artemis 7 x 50 and haven't looked back. I now have this scope on a .17hmr and another on a .308 they were both second hand and around £160 and I love them. In contrast I have a BSA sweet 22 on a .22lr and it is great in daylight but hopeless around dusk.
The best scope I looked through was a Swarovski Z6i, but to be fair that was in daylight. Most scopes look good in light conditions.
 
I am lucky over the last few years in having a bit more disposable income than when i bought quite a lot of my gear 20-30 years ago so have 'upgraded ' quite a few scopes - worth the extra ? a difficult question to answer without lots of caveats, with scopes back then i could not afford top German stuff but have had many years enjoyable / successful shooting with good value mid range glass such as Weaver and Burris , Jap made Weaver's particularly always seemed to offer very good glass / build quality for the price and i still rate them even now , no they are not as good in low light as real expensive glass but for value for money - leagues ahead.
 
AT The End of the DAY , YOU Get What you pay for !!! bit of a hard pill to swallow for some , buy a high end rifle scope you will see everything in all conditions it will always hold ZERO the Tracking will be reliable , and if ''THATS '' not the case, the manufacture will replace , also if you treat it with respect, When you sale it , you will Receive a fair amount of your money back , making your next purchase MUCH less painful ,
 
My frustration is that, as far as I have seen, most scope manufacturers don't publish the figures for the qualities of their scopes. Only sometimes are there claims about light transmission but no clue on how it was measured or comparison to cheaper models. The accuracy and repeatability of the adjustments, optical quality at different wavelengths and light levels, and shock tolerance can all be measured. To me not being given this information so I can make intelligent comparisons is as insulting as rifles that come out of the factory with rubbish triggers which is my other Grrrr.

Mind you for me it's a bit easier because I don't have much to spend anyway LOL.
 
You cannot just go by the tables of features, because marketing managers will drive engineering to build scopes which ring the most bells so they can compare their scopes to some group of competitors they can beat.

What these tables don't show are the categories where their products are weaker. For example, if Scope A has a light transmission of 91%, B has 93%, and C has 95%, the advertising of scope A will omit Light Transmission.

What is important are the things which don't show up in any tables:
* How well do the turrets adjust, click into place, stay in place?
* How well do the turrets track all around the box?
* Do the turrets reset the zero point? How do they do it?
* Resolution ( sharpness ). You need to check it on an optical target, like a Zeiss or USAF test chart.
* Color correction.
* Flare suppression
* Eye box - How forgiving is the scope of head placement?
* Eye relief - for YOUR eyes.
* Failure rate and return for repair rate
* Warranty

Not only can you test many of these yourself, you have to check them yourself.
 
Hi Southern,
Who can realistically compare multiple scopes for their low light performance? When looking at cars there are loads of numbers published that I can compare, with audio kit I expect to see THD and the marketeers can still tell their stories giving people the choice to by on specification, superficial features or brand image. There is lots of FUD pushing us up market, what I want is a simple scope with quality where it matters that I can afford and justify to myself. I think the scope market is a sad place to be a buyer.
 
This is an interesting thread for me. All being well I hope to buy my first rifle and scope early next year, and I admit to having been a bit daunted at the price of quality scopes. Even second hand I'd be hard pushed to afford many of them. So it's good to know there's stuff out there that does well for the money. I'll have more to spend on outings!
 
Have had 2 Bushnells now for 12 years and hunted all over the world in all conditions. Never let me down. They were both £200 new.
Tusker
 
My personal view is that mid priced scopes offer the very best value for money. I have a couple of fixed power Schmidt & Bender scopes, a 7x50 Meopta (my favourite) and a couple of small variables by Meopta and Leupold on my doubles. The Leupold is easily the worst of the bunch but does what I want of it, the others all provide more than adequate performance for my needs.

I've also owned a multitude of cheap scopes over the years for target shooting and all but an old fixed power 6x42 Nikko Stirling Silver Crown, a 6x42 Hawke Endurance and a K6 Weaver have been a total waste of time and money and their guarantees are worthless.

I do think though that in general you get exactly what you pay for and that good glass is worth the money just that I can neither afford or justify it. So I live with what I can afford and don't feel underscoped in any way.

P.S. The worst scope that I ever owned was a Redfield 4-16 variable, absolutely useless in even good light. It was similar to two modern Nikko Stirling variable scopes fitted with all the bells and whistles and which were bought by a fellow rifle club member and the club secretary for fitting to a gallery rifle. In both cases the scopes were fitted but in the slightly reduced light levels of the tunnel range were found to be sadly lacking and in both cases immediately returned and replaced with better scopes. My view of these modern Nikko Stirling scopes and the Redfield is that in spite of the price which would put them in the mid price range they are only any good for air rifles in bright light conditions.
 
Last edited:
I have a £90 Hawk on my 22/10 which is nice as it has a iluminated retical its a 3-9 50 IR

I have a Sworskey 8 x 56 on my 243

The Swaro is old and i wish it had IR but the image quality is superb. its true HD Its also very easy to get a clear view of the retical & the pray

The Hawk is standard vision in comparison and the cros hairs are anoyingly thin and often get lost on the target


Even though the Swaro is old it must have been arround the £1000 mark and the Hawk is less than £100

Is the Swaro worth the extra?

Probably not, but I like owning one like I like owning a quality pair of shoes I could easily live without


ATB

Mark
 
Started with Leupolds on .243 and .222.

They were perfectly adequate, and I had no real reason ever to change them. At the very limits - say the last 10 to 15 mins of dusk - they began to struggle, but by then, I doubt it's sensible to shoot anyway. The only time I ever felt I was limited was when foxing, and hadn't yet switched on the lamp. Never been an issue with deer.

I now have an S&B 6X42 on a .308 and a Meopta 3-12X50 on the .243, and in broad daylight, would be hard pressed to notice a difference - and I'm never sure if any difference is real or just in my head. At dusk, the S&B might just wring an extra 5-10 mins out of the day, but as I say, by then, I'm not happy shooting anyway. I would say that both the S&B and the Meopta seem to be heavier and more robust, which I like. I also really like the reticule in the Meopta.
 
Chasey a 8x56 Swarovski was never that sort of money, if it was you were robbed mate.
 
The users of very expensive high end scopes will tell you that they must be better than their rivals because they cost more!!

Ian.

never a truer word spoken.

and i have wasted more cash on cr@p scopes over the years.

mid range scopes for me are in the area of £400 to £600 second hand at that.

i have 2 zeiss on my main rifles, and a borrowed bushnell sportsman on my wee 17 just now, all do what they say on the tin for me with no complaints from charlie or mr/and soon the be mrs Roe.

bob.
 
If you go for mid-range and buy a scope that is water proof and multi-coated you are likely to get acceptable quality for a reasonable price.
And if you than buy your choice online from a USA retailer you will get it some 25-30% cheaper than in the UK, AND you'll get it quicker.

There is a series of articles about scopes (OK it is from the USA point of view) which really influenced my views, here they are:
Main page with all the links: http://www.chuckhawks.com/index2i.scopes_optics.htm
And of particular interest:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/plea_sensible_scopes.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.com/under-scoped.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.com/riflescopes_start.htm

And yes, I will admit that if I had plenty of money to spent on my hobbies I would go for a top-end scope such as a Zeiss, but with al the other expenses related to my sport I simply can't justify that for now, and my choices of mid-range optics (Sightron S11, Aimpoint red dot) seem to hold up against the top-of-the-range optics some of my stalking friends use, both on the range and in the field.
 
Back
Top