Blog Article - "How Much Is a Rifle Scope?"

We are trying to answer some fairly simple questions (yet they take a lot of explaining) in our new series of blog posts. They are mainly aimed at beginners or people who do not have much technical knowledge, but a good read for everyone hopefully!

Read it here: How much is a Rifle Scope?

There will be more to follow! We hope you like it.
 

CarlW

Well-Known Member
An excellent article. Thank you.

One piece of feedback: I am not sure comparing scopes with watches really works.

A scope generally tends to be more expensive because it is functionally better: expensive glass, generally-speaking, helps the user see better than does cheap glass.

However, this is not the case with watches. An expensive watch is rarely functionally better than a cheap one. In fact, a cheap £10 Casio will generally perform its function (telling the time) better than a £10,000 Rolex. With a watch, you are paying for something other than an improvement in function.

Kind regards,

Carl
 
Thanks Carl,

Glad you enjoyed it.

Not sure I agree with you entirely on the watches though. I would say Swiss watches are more accurate and lose less time than cheaper ones. Although certainly, they are more of a luxury (fashion) item versus scopes - I agree with that. Scopes are a much more functional product, yes.

Thanks,

Robbie
 
Last edited:

CarlW

Well-Known Member
Thanks Carl,

Glad you enjoyed it.

Not sure I agree with you entirely on the watches though. I would say Swiss watches are more accurate and lose less time than cheaper ones. Although certainly, they are more of a luxury (fashion) item versus scopes - I agree with that. Scopes are a much more functional product, yes.

Thanks,

Robbie
I have a Rolex Submariner, several Breitlings, and a £5 Casio. The latter keeps better time. Any quartz movement (and they are available for pennies) will beat a mechanical movement any day of the week.
 

bogtrotter

Well-Known Member
While I agree that top glass is better for me the question is how much better .
I'm a fan of Vortex optics have been ever since being first introduced to them a few years ago.
Recently had the opportunity to compare my Vortex binoculars alongside to German pairs at last light my Vortex were at
least as good as one pair the other pair was slightly better but only slightly there was very little in it other than the price
the German pair cost almost five times what mine cost ,they were certainly not five times better.
Don't have a Vortex scope at the moment but have looked through a few and if I ever need to replace a scope in the future it will be replaced with one from the Vortex range.
Performance for price plus the Vortex no quibble Warranty, for makes it a no brainer.
.
 
While I agree that top glass is better for me the question is how much better .
I'm a fan of Vortex optics have been ever since being first introduced to them a few years ago.
Recently had the opportunity to compare my Vortex binoculars alongside to German pairs at last light my Vortex were at
least as good as one pair the other pair was slightly better but only slightly there was very little in it other than the price
the German pair cost almost five times what mine cost ,they were certainly not five times better.
Don't have a Vortex scope at the moment but have looked through a few and if I ever need to replace a scope in the future it will be replaced with one from the Vortex range.
Performance for price plus the Vortex no quibble Warranty, for makes it a no brainer.
.
The issue is it is so hard to quantify quality, plus everyone sees through optics differently. But interesting to hear about your experiences with Vortex. It is not a brand we stock at the moment but we may look into it. Thank you
 
I have a Rolex Submariner, several Breitlings, and a £5 Casio. The latter keeps better time. Any quartz movement (and they are available for pennies) will beat a mechanical movement any day of the week.
Nice, and good choices! I am a Tudor man and can only say that it has been nothing but perfect - night and day compared to old cheaper watches (for keeping time). Hence my comparisons.
 

CarlW

Well-Known Member
Nice, and good choices! I am a Tudor man and can only say that it has been nothing but perfect - night and day compared to old cheaper watches (for keeping time). Hence my comparisons.
Like Rolex, Tudor meet COSC standards of -2 to +4 seconds per day. A £5 quartz casio will deviate by between 0.5 and 1 second per day. The hypothesis of paying for more functional performance (telling the time) fails for watches, whereas it broadly holds true for rifle scopes (better glass that helps you see better).
 

SDC7x57

Well-Known Member
It's not just function - it goes beyond that. My 30 yr old Swarovski on my old Mannlicher will always fetch more than the Nikko Stirling on my .22, which is the same age. I've also got an original Casio G-Shock belonging to one of the kids, but it will never fetch the same as my Submariner, which was manufactured in 1972, was bought by me in Edinburgh in March 1973 for £240, and sold last year for £5,500. Good luck with the Casio, functional or not....
 

CarlW

Well-Known Member
It's not just function - it goes beyond that. My 30 yr old Swarovski on my old Mannlicher will always fetch more than the Nikko Stirling on my .22, which is the same age. I've also got an original Casio G-Shock belonging to one of the kids, but it will never fetch the same as my Submariner, which was manufactured in 1972, was bought by me in Edinburgh in March 1973 for £240, and sold last year for £5,500. Good luck with the Casio, functional or not....
I agree. You have missed my point entirely.
 

SDC7x57

Well-Known Member
Sorry Carl, I was teasing a bit :norty:. Robbie's reference to watches vs optics was always going to open the door to all sorts of comment. What made me reply was that your point about 'function/cost' in optics vs watches is well made, and valid, but then you say in another post that you have a Submariner and Breitlings, as well as your Casio, which made me chuckle....hence my comments.

It has always seemed to me that people purchase items for a broad swathe of reasons - function, reliability and cost, probably being the three main reasons, followed by quality (or the perception of it..), and good old pride of ownership. Many, however, don't spend much time researching what they actually need, against what they think they want....but that's another discussion.

Over the decades, many scopes have come and gone. I confess that I've usually gone for the premium makes, but on occasion, I've used other brands, notably in Africa (usually American scopes due to availability vs cost). Some were good, others were just junk. Thus I think Robbie from Cluny has a point, although many of the more recent mid range scopes are now seriously good in performance terms, and also good value for money.

A big discussion, and respect to Cluny Country Store for starting it. Apologies again for ruffling feathers, Carl
 

CarlW

Well-Known Member
Sorry Carl, I was teasing a bit :norty:. Robbie's reference to watches vs optics was always going to open the door to all sorts of comment. What made me reply was that your point about 'function/cost' in optics vs watches is well made, and valid, but then you say in another post that you have a Submariner and Breitlings, as well as your Casio, which made me chuckle....hence my comments.

It has always seemed to me that people purchase items for a broad swathe of reasons - function, reliability and cost, probably being the three main reasons, followed by quality (or the perception of it..), and good old pride of ownership. Many, however, don't spend much time researching what they actually need, against what they think they want....but that's another discussion.

Over the decades, many scopes have come and gone. I confess that I've usually gone for the premium makes, but on occasion, I've used other brands, notably in Africa (usually American scopes due to availability vs cost). Some were good, others were just junk. Thus I think Robbie from Cluny has a point, although many of the more recent mid range scopes are now seriously good in performance terms, and also good value for money.

A big discussion, and respect to Cluny Country Store for starting it. Apologies again for ruffling feathers, Carl
I agree with you re scopes. However, again, Cluny's analogy doesn't work. Money does not buy you accuracy in a watch. The point is that simple.

PS I really love the Casio...!
 

Scapegoat

Well-Known Member
Interesting that you put Meopta in the budget bracket with Hawke and Minox. A good number of Meostar and ZD owners will be thinking you haven't really done the research before including that little gem!!
 

PKL

Well-Known Member
Since when is Minox budget? Excellent glass and quality and better after sales service than Zeiss.
I have used Minox bino’s for years and they’ve not given any less optical qualities to Zeiss bgats which I’ve had and used too.

The mid-range price is starting to dig deep into the premium brands market share, and Chinese optic production is just about on par with German as it stands...it’s going to be an interesting market going forwards
 
Interesting that you put Meopta in the budget bracket with Hawke and Minox. A good number of Meostar and ZD owners will be thinking you haven't really done the research before including that little gem!!
We do not put Minox or Meopta in the "budget bracket" at all. I actually think Meopta is underrated as a brand. Unfortunately, we have just found it very hard to sell.

I assume the quote you are pinpointing is "Hawke, Minox & Meopta are really good scopes for entry level (£150) up to the mid-tier, mid-priced range(£900)".

Let me clarify - The term "entry level" solely refers to Hawke's cheapest scopes (start at £75) and the £900 "mid-tier" reference is only a rough guide for both Minox and Meopta. More for those who have no idea of scopes and pricing. Perhaps it should have been a higher figure, although many are selling The Minox scopes well below RRP.

Obviously all articles are just an opinion and everyone is welcome to an opinion. As mentioned in the original post, most of our articles (to begin with) are based on answering simple questions for the beginner.
 
Last edited:

Scapegoat

Well-Known Member
We do not put Minox or Meopta in the "budget bracket" at all. I actually think Meopta is underrated as a brand. Unfortunately, we have just found it very hard to sell.

I assume the quote you are pinpointing is "Hawke, Minox & Meopta are really good scopes for entry level (£150) up to the mid-tier, mid-priced range(£900)".

Let me clarify - The term "entry level" solely refers to Hawke's cheapest scopes (start at £75) and the £900 "mid-tier" reference is only a rough guide for both Minox and Meopta. More for those who have no idea of scopes and pricing. Perhaps it should have been a higher figure, although many are selling The Minox scopes well below RRP.

Obviously all articles are just an opinion and everyone is welcome to an opinion. As mentioned in the original post, most of our articles (to begin with) are based on answering simple questions for the beginner.
The fact they are hard to sell is, I suspect, because bloggers lump them into the same bracket as Hawke and Minox rather than extolling their virtues to “beginners”!
 
As explained, we do not consider them in the same bracket as Hawke.

We guess that their lack of selling is because they are in the “mid-tier” “mid-priced” range (generally) of scopes and people tend to stay below that bracket or buy the more expensive brands above it.
 

Top