scope cost madness

[Paul at Fechan]

Here's a though that will tease you. I have 20/10 vision and the normal person should have 20/20. In other words my vision at 20 feet is what the average person sees at 10 feet. As a reverse of this a person with 20/40 vision sees at 20 feet what the average person sees at 40 feet.

By that measure of standard it is reasonable to state that if your vision is less that 20/20 then spending a high amount of money on a scope is a waste of money. My 20/10 vision through a good scope is significantly better that an average person's 20/20 vision through the worlds finest glass. Obviously wearing visual correction aids can improve your vision but the extra layer of material to do this lowers light transmission to the retina.

So, unless you have 20/20 or better vision get your eyes lasered and get a spend the change on your scope. You'll see the target clearer!!

 

[Conor1]

About 5 years ago, I invested heavily in Zeiss Victory scopes. The image is crystal clear in all of them. I also have a S&B pm11 for target shoot and a Swarovski z6i 1-6x24 for driven game and dangerous game. Forced to choose, I would have a Zeiss Victory any day".............

 

[Mungo]

I would love to set up a box with holes in it, fit 10 scopes inside the box so the only thing you can see is the lens just to see how much people can tell between a £400 scope and a £2500 scope in the same conditions.

no badges, no labels, just your eyes and the exact same conditions

Brilliant idea, and I've suggested it before. Oddly, among the people I've suggested it to, those with low end scopes are always keen, those with expensive ones are always mysteriously busy that day....

I've done similar trials with other consumer luxury goods (wine, fly rods). Without exception, people simply can't tell the difference above a threshold - and it's a low threshold. £9.50 or so with wine, £70 with fly rods. I would be astonished if it were any different with rifle scopes. My guess would be that above, say, £200 (and I'm being generous), assessment of relative value would come close to random.

 

[diverdave]

I think the difference in attitude reflects the massive variety of grounds and environments we stalk on. Some need a £10 scope, some benefit from better glass.

As a diver i spent hundreds on watches, trashing one or two a year. 25 years ago i bought a rolex and i wear it every day, diving, fishing, fighting fires, fixing my old landys and whatever else, it rarely leaves my wrist. It is now the cheapest watch i have owned, and though it loses a bit of time each week, so do i!

I loved MTC and hawke scopes, and used them and raved about them. They are clear and low cost. However i recently bought a swarovski and it is a different league, in all lights. I dont know if it will make me shoot better but i expect it will be perched on my rifle for decades, whereas the other scopes were changed regularly, as i upgraded. The groups i shoot on the range are the same with both scopes, so there is no difference there, but clarity is way better. As for value for money we will see in a decade or two!

Realistically, i will never criticize a chap with a cheap scope, or envy someone who has the best on their rifle, I see them as stalkers and if the chap with a low cost old beat up scope shoots well then grand. I am sure that there will be as many who have stunning scopes who cannot use them.

As quality rises, and price rises, the difference gets smaller, there is more difference between a £10 ebay scope and and £200 scope than there is between a 1k and 2k scope, I am sure there is an optimum range, depending on your shooting environment, and i think a few hundred quid for a new one would more than suit most of us.

Dave

 

[bogtrotter]

I have recently touched on this subject matter. I am new to SD and still only using Rimfire 17HMR but looking into stalking. When I bought my rifle I already knew I didn't really have the cash for a semi-decent scope. My local shop sold me a second hand scope for £60 and this has served me well.
However, I have only been bunny bashing and when light levels are low, out comes the lamp.
I discussed my plans to move into stalking in the not-so-distant future with my gunsmith with respect to guns/scopes and I thought he gave me some good advice with respect to scopes.
My plan was to first upgrade my scope on my rimfire to later use it on a centrefire. He simply showed me a scope in the £250 budget I initially had my eye on for my rimfire, (good for 200m) then he showed me a second hand S&B 8x42 (I think).

My inital reactions:
1) WOW! The clarity was superb compared with my current scope.
2) The Reticle design drew my eye in instantly to the centre of the cross hair so aquiring point of aim instantly compared to my existing scope which was simply amazing.

After more conversation, I was then explained that the difference in scope quality would also extend my hours of shooting as the amount of light captured could mean the difference of an extra 15 mins before Dawn and an extra 15 mins after Dusk compared to the cheap model scopes.

if I am to believe the last statement (which I have no reason to doubt), and considering my initial type of shooting can only be classed as "periodic" (due to work commitments), then that extra 30 mins of stalking/hunting per day, as and when I get the opportunity to go, means the more expensive scope will pay for itself in 'pleasure time' in no time at all.

I am totally convinced, so now I am saving as best I can for an expensive scope. He wanted £500 for this scope second hand. (apparently £800 new). There were only a couple of scope ring marks on it. Full warranty etc. but I wasn't in a position to buy.
I have seen them for around £400 second hand and after all, once out the box, they are all second hand!

He gave me one final word of warning, once I buy one, I will NEVER pay less for a scope again!!

I think he might just be correct!

So go have a look thorugh some scopes.

Of course a quality scope is better, but do you really need one on a stalking rifle?, nice to have but is it really necessary.

If you want to stay within the law it says one hour before sunrise, and one hour after sunset thats sunrise sunset not dark check out the light level one hour after official sunset.

Most scopes in the £200 £300 will be adequate in most stalking situations at legal light levels, nice to have something better but not essential,
Don't be put off stalking just because you can't afford the very best of scopes.

 

[I. Farticus]

Oh, I don't need a bad scope to miss. Can do that perfectly well in broad daylight with scopes of any quality. Nothing if not consistent...

Welcome to MY world...

 

[I. Farticus]

why people told to spend more than they can afford on the scope or double the rifle price?

simple.....if you cant see it you cant shoot it



you wouldnt buy the worlds most expensive best produced stereo then put a pair o tesco speakers on it?????




then again why all the difference in opinion and people rubbishing others comments?

i wish folk would remember we are all different with different abilities of eye sight and what may be crap for one may be fine for another.....


then again there are some folk who blind themselves by their pocket..


i was told to go as much as i could afford when i started and was just gonna buy a cheap tasco.....
i was taken out at last light and was viewing a buck thru a tasco that was just in our pocket...wasnt mounted on a rifle.....i could see the deer outline but couldnt make out the shoulder line or tell what sex it was ....just a silhouette or blob....
was then handed the rifle with an older swaro on it of at least 20yrs old now and immediately could see the shoulder line coulde see clearly it was a buck and could even differentiate the colours of his coat as he was between winter and summer coats.......it was like someone had turned back the clock at least 45 minutes

sorry that was enough convincing for me.

if you dont agree and think im mad for spending decent money on a scope fine no probs but my choice.....& keep yer opinions to yourself.....as i wont rubbish someone if they are convinced they dont need a more expensive scope...some folk dont for what they do

WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT ....ACCEPT IT

there isnt any right or wrong just whats for you!

paul

Hear hear

 

[User00003]

I know this is an old thread, but hey ho...

I don't have much money for expensive scopes (or much money for that matter - LOL!), but I do shoot with a zeiss that's just under a grand, an S&B that's £650, and a well used S&B 6x42 I've borrowed off a kind member of the forum (which I am extremely grateful for - you know who you are). I also have a couple of Nikko Stirlings on the rimfires, and I sometimes shoot my fathers rifle which carries an old 3-9x36 zeiss diavari.

I 'have' however, tried and used a couple of very expensive scopes, £2K+ zeiss and S&B at almost £3K.

In MY opinion, the big zeiss is nice, but it cosmetically wears way too fast and the zoom is useless as an extra costing feature as it stays on 6-8x the whole time. The clarity is excellent, it's robust and it's waterproof. Ticks all boxes and unless needing to shoot further than 300yds I see absolutely no reason anyone would need anything more sophisticated. These are of course available 2nd hand at even better prices than new.

The newer S&B I have is just as good as the zeiss if not better (Hungarian), it actually is tougher in the coating and does not wear as easily, and there's no f'ing around with zoom, etc. (6x42 fixed). it's a 30mm so doesn't fit my brno's which is why I was so happy to borrow an old S&B 6x42 German in 1" from a forum member - now that is even better than the hungarian, the glass is just a tiny tough sharper, not much, but a wee bit, and I'd say it's probably as good if not better than the big zeiss, and seems more robust.

I do have to say that I like the zeiss turret adjustments a bit more than the S&B, they track a touch more consistently, even though the S&B have a little dial to show how far in the adjustment range you are, which is excellent.

I shoot on the hill in the autumn and winter, and farmland and forestly in the spring and summer, so need my scopes to work on both fronts.

I like the S&B 6x42 because it's clear enough for shooting in almost total darkness, in fact, easily clear enough to shoot illegally, and the 6x is more than enough out to 300yds on the hill and 'close' enough for both high seat work near woodland borders, and more.

my requirements for a scope are simple, they must be waterproof, they must be recoil and shockproof, the mounts have to sit tight and if the rifle gets a wee knock I don't want to be concerned the zero's been knocked out. I have to have trust in them and KNOW that if I bring one to argyll to be exposed to torrential downpour for 3 consecutive days and dragged through peat hags and over rocks it will perform.

I don't want anything to fancy I am concerned over a wee scratch or re-sale value, or a fancy turret getting knocked or damaged. when I look though the scope I want a good simple reticle that gives me a clear picture and without interuptions. I want one that I can see against a deer in near darkness/woodland, and on the hill in a blizzard or in downpour - if that means I can't use it for target shooting, so be it.

If I one day am able to spend thousands of pounds on a rifle, I will be over the moon to stick another used S&B 6x42 on it, or 8x56 if I prefer, - and in fact, that leads me to comment that I like the x42 because my line of sight sits better on the cheek weld, so I in turn have quicker target acquisition and a firmer picture, hopefully translating into better more accurate shots.

If I one day buy a longer range rifle for fox work or some fun target work, ok, I'd probably like to have a fancy turret type scope, but for stalking I like to travel light, those scopes are heavy and would just take away some of my enjoyment of the stalk, so a smaller lighter scope is preferable there.

so, ,,just IMHO - LOL.

 

[Bavarianbrit]

I was told today that the russians are the world leaders in eye transplant operations. thats a novel way to get 20/20 vision, might even be cheaper than the high end scopes cost, but what a tacky thought - using dead persons eyes just to ímprove your sport.
Martin

 

[bogtrotter]

I know this is an old thread, but hey ho...

I don't have much money for expensive scopes (or much money for that matter - LOL!), but I do shoot with a zeiss that's just under a grand, an S&B that's £650, and a well used S&B 6x42 I've borrowed off a kind member of the forum (which I am extremely grateful for - you know who you are). I also have a couple of Nikko Stirlings on the rimfires, and I sometimes shoot my fathers rifle which carries an old 3-9x36 zeiss diavari.

I 'have' however, tried and used a couple of very expensive scopes, £2K+ zeiss and S&B at almost £3K.

In MY opinion, the big zeiss is nice, but it cosmetically wears way too fast and the zoom is useless as an extra costing feature as it stays on 6-8x the whole time. The clarity is excellent, it's robust and it's waterproof. Ticks all boxes and unless needing to shoot further than 300yds I see absolutely no reason anyone would need anything more sophisticated. These are of course available 2nd hand at even better prices than new.

The newer S&B I have is just as good as the zeiss if not better (Hungarian), it actually is tougher in the coating and does not wear as easily, and there's no f'ing around with zoom, etc. (6x42 fixed). it's a 30mm so doesn't fit my brno's which is why I was so happy to borrow an old S&B 6x42 German in 1" from a forum member - now that is even better than the hungarian, the glass is just a tiny tough sharper, not much, but a wee bit, and I'd say it's probably as good if not better than the big zeiss, and seems more robust.

I do have to say that I like the zeiss turret adjustments a bit more than the S&B, they track a touch more consistently, even though the S&B have a little dial to show how far in the adjustment range you are, which is excellent.

I shoot on the hill in the autumn and winter, and farmland and forestly in the spring and summer, so need my scopes to work on both fronts.

I like the S&B 6x42 because it's clear enough for shooting in almost total darkness, in fact, easily clear enough to shoot illegally, and the 6x is more than enough out to 300yds on the hill and 'close' enough for both high seat work near woodland borders, and more.

my requirements for a scope are simple, they must be waterproof, they must be recoil and shockproof, the mounts have to sit tight and if the rifle gets a wee knock I don't want to be concerned the zero's been knocked out. I have to have trust in them and KNOW that if I bring one to argyll to be exposed to torrential downpour for 3 consecutive days and dragged through peat hags and over rocks it will perform.

I don't want anything to fancy I am concerned over a wee scratch or re-sale value, or a fancy turret getting knocked or damaged. when I look though the scope I want a good simple reticle that gives me a clear picture and without interuptions. I want one that I can see against a deer in near darkness/woodland, and on the hill in a blizzard or in downpour - if that means I can't use it for target shooting, so be it.

If I one day am able to spend thousands of pounds on a rifle, I will be over the moon to stick another used S&B 6x42 on it, or 8x56 if I prefer, - and in fact, that leads me to comment that I like the x42 because my line of sight sits better on the cheek weld, so I in turn have quicker target acquisition and a firmer picture, hopefully translating into better more accurate shots.

If I one day buy a longer range rifle for fox work or some fun target work, ok, I'd probably like to have a fancy turret type scope, but for stalking I like to travel light, those scopes are heavy and would just take away some of my enjoyment of the stalk, so a smaller lighter scope is preferable there.

so, ,,just IMHO - LOL.

I agree 100% with your expectations from a scope, sometimes wish I had stuck with 6x42 as you are right about the line of sight.

 

[Erik Hamburger]

There is no logic - any WP scope with multi-coated lenses and a good warranty on it will do - and you can not get that (in rip-off UK) for any less than around £300.

And do you really think that the human eye is capable of detecting the difference between a mid-priced scope with a 92% light transmission, and a top-end scope with a 94% light transmission? Of course not!

Just like in any hobby/sport don't forget the magazine editors jump into bed with the manufacturers with big marketing budgets - for which YOU have to pay. Just look through the mags and you will see a 'test' of some piece of kit, it gets a raving review, naturally, and on the opposite or next page...an advert! Yeah and we, the readers, are idiots.
Some write-ups of hunts read like a sales catalog: 'I gently squeezed the trigger of my NEW (new) BestBrand X and the 120Grains soft point BestBrand Y bullet found its mark, which wouldn't have happened if I hadn't been kept warm and dry by BestBrand Z NEW (new) NEW waterproof, windproof, silent, latest design, even holding your body-odeur, computer-designed NEW (new) stalking jacket.

OK to make a long story short, don't be seduced by the marketing men!

 

[User00003]

There is no logic - any WP scope with multi-coated lenses and a good warranty on it will do - and you can not get that (in rip-off UK) for any less than around £300.

And do you really think that the human eye is capable of detecting the difference between a mid-priced scope with a 92% light transmission, and a top-end scope with a 94% light transmission? Of course not!

Just like in any hobby/sport don't forget the magazine editors jump into bed with the manufacturers with big marketing budgets - for which YOU have to pay. Just look through the mags and you will see a 'test' of some piece of kit, it gets a raving review, naturally, and on the opposite or next page...an advert! Yeah and we, the readers, are idiots.
Some write-ups of hunts read like a sales catalog: 'I gently squeezed the trigger of my NEW (new) BestBrand X and the 120Grains soft point BestBrand Y bullet found its mark, which wouldn't have happened if I hadn't been kept warm and dry by BestBrand Z NEW (new) NEW waterproof, windproof, silent, latest design, even holding your body-odeur, computer-designed NEW (new) stalking jacket.

OK to make a long story short, don't be seduced by the marketing men!

sounds like you've been watching Nosler TV! LOL

 

[nuttyspaniel]

There is no logic - any WP scope with multi-coated lenses and a good warranty on it will do - and you can not get that (in rip-off UK) for any less than around £300.

And do you really think that the human eye is capable of detecting the difference between a mid-priced scope with a 92% light transmission, and a top-end scope with a 94% light transmission? Of course not!

Just like in any hobby/sport don't forget the magazine editors jump into bed with the manufacturers with big marketing budgets - for which YOU have to pay. Just look through the mags and you will see a 'test' of some piece of kit, it gets a raving review, naturally, and on the opposite or next page...an advert! Yeah and we, the readers, are idiots.
Some write-ups of hunts read like a sales catalog: 'I gently squeezed the trigger of my NEW (new) BestBrand X and the 120Grains soft point BestBrand Y bullet found its mark, which wouldn't have happened if I hadn't been kept warm and dry by BestBrand Z NEW (new) NEW waterproof, windproof, silent, latest design, even holding your body-odeur, computer-designed NEW (new) stalking jacket.

OK to make a long story short, don't be seduced by the marketing men!

Alot of what you say rings true in my mind. Some scopes/ bins cost the same as a second hand car £2k thats getting beyond a joke. At that price I would expect the scope to do it all itself including the driving and dragging...

Nutty

 

[bogtrotter]

There is no logic - any WP scope with multi-coated lenses and a good warranty on it will do - and you can not get that (in rip-off UK) for any less than around £300.

And do you really think that the human eye is capable of detecting the difference between a mid-priced scope with a 92% light transmission, and a top-end scope with a 94% light transmission? Of course not!

Just like in any hobby/sport don't forget the magazine editors jump into bed with the manufacturers with big marketing budgets - for which YOU have to pay. Just look through the mags and you will see a 'test' of some piece of kit, it gets a raving review, naturally, and on the opposite or next page...an advert! Yeah and we, the readers, are idiots.
Some write-ups of hunts read like a sales catalog: 'I gently squeezed the trigger of my NEW (new) BestBrand X and the 120Grains soft point BestBrand Y bullet found its mark, which wouldn't have happened if I hadn't been kept warm and dry by BestBrand Z NEW (new) NEW waterproof, windproof, silent, latest design, even holding your body-odeur, computer-designed NEW (new) stalking jacket.

OK to make a long story short, don't be seduced by the marketing men!

Yes we have Zeiss pro stalkers on here, and others sponsored by one company or another.

When I look at my kit, I think I must be being sponsored by Oxfam.

 

[willie_gunn]

Scope and bino threads on this site are becoming like celebrity dancing and "got no talent" programmes - wait around for a week and another one is sure to come along

Whatever, here's my two-penn'th.

Having managed perfectly well with a second-hand Zeiss 6x42 for the first 10 years or so of my stalking, a couple of years ago I traded up to a secondhand Zeiss 2.5-10x50 that Macleod's had for sale at a good price. When I bought a second rifle, I put a matching scope on top of that. I could perhaps have stuck with the 6x42, as I can count on the fingers of two hands the shots I've taken at deer at distances of over 150 yards down the years. But I've also travelled up to Scotland for the last 17 years and that's where the additional magnification really comes in handy. Both scopes have illuminated reticles, not for last light but for first light and shooting into deep, dark, cover. The sort of deep, dark, cover that muntjac like, for example.

I am sure that I could have bought cheaper scopes, but I also know that if and when I sell my scopes (not that I'm considering it, so no offers please) I'll get back the majority of what I invested in them. After 10 years of trouble-free stalking with the fixed Zeiss, I have confidence that the new scopes are, and will remain, reliable. And if anything does happen to them, then there's the Zeiss warranty to fall back on. That's what you are paying for.

willie_gunn

 

[RossGym]

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...

I think it is more about being able to see what you are shooting at in the half light, rather than how well you shoot. If you can't see it, you certainly can't hit it.

 

[Steyer 6.5]

IMO who gives a deers dropping what someone wants to pay. If they can afford it so be it. I've looked through Swarovski Zeiss and own leaupold. I've owned Swarovski binos and now own Zeiss rfs. If money was no option I'd have Swarovski Zeiss or s&b on my rifles including .22 as there is a difference in what you see at low light and customer service and re sale. If you spend big they last years and don't lt you down.

When it comes to vari mag and ir they have there place and if your using one or two rifles for foxes to reds on the hill then you may well use the so called gadgets. If you got them you can use it when needed.

 

[Mungo]

IMO who gives a deers dropping what someone wants to pay.

On the face of it, it shouldn't matter a bit what others want to spend thier money on. But actually, it makes a huge difference: if a majority can be convinced that they need to spend £600 plus on scopes with all the bells and whistles, then companies have no incentive to keep thier costs down, or to continue making well made but simple scopes. The marketing guys must adore the fact that we lap up the hype, and so many of us buy into the idea that, if a person wants to, they're entitled to spend what they want. I'm sure Leica or Swaro or whoever could make an excellent fixed focus scope say in the 6X42 range, with no IR etc, for around £300. But they don't, because they know we're bling obsessed mugs.

 

[Vipa]

It's not all about clarity...

I have a S&B PMII on my tactical/target rifle.. the POI has to remain constant time after time whilst the windage and elevation are moved hundreds if not thousands of times, often to the extremes of possible adjustment... then, to add insult to injury, it has to cope with the recoil of thousands of 300WM or worse rounds and STILL go back to the exact POI.. Each click felt needs to have exactly the same effect on the POI as the last and it needs to do this flawlessly, irrespective of the zoom factor time and time again otherwise the data coming out of the ballistics computer is useless and there won't be any silverware on the mantlepiece... apply the same issues to a hunting scope and you could be looking at wounded animals. My hunting scope is a Z6i, has a ballistic turret and is variable and has to cope with 300WM recoil on a light-ish hunting rifle... lesser scopes might be alright but I have had more than a couple of experiences that tell me otherwise...

I have had 500-1000 scopes and they were not capable of doing this... one big name mid priced fixed mag scope I had managed to lose a focussing element the first time it was subjected to the moderated recoil of a 6.5x55, let alone anything bigger. Another... the clicks made no sense... first click moved POI 1cm @ 100.. the next had no effect at all, the next 4 clicks moved it 3/4cm and the next 1... 3cm!!! this was a big mid range named scope that I bought to replace my first Z6i which I sold naively thinking that it was all hogwash and that I'd fallen for a marketing ploy... confidence went through the floor and I replaced it with another Z6i soon after..

I had the same experience with bins at around the same time.. thinking I had just been suckered into the belief that I had to spend a lot of money... so.. I got rid of the Geovids and bought something half the price (no rangefinder) which got stunning reviews etc... I just couldn't cope.. the image was not as clear, glassing for long periods, particularly when panning along forest edges, was uncomfortable verging on the painful sometimes... Learned my lesson and bought a pair of Zeiss RFs and haven't looked back.. I won't be making that mistake again!

Everyone seems to think it's all about image quality... it really isn't... there will be little difference between a £1k scope and a £3k scope as far as pure image clarity is concerned BUT there is a world of difference when it comes to tollerences, engineering, materials, reliability, function etc....

As for the question posed in the OP... MOST modern, even inexpensive, rifles out of the box will outshoot even the best marksmen in the world but having a scope that a. does not perform EXACTLY as it should every time the trigger is squeezed and therefore b. reduces confidence WILL damage competitive performance or wound animals... The scope is by far the most important component of any set-up and therefore deserves the bigger proportion of the spend being allocated to it although, as has been mentioned, if one is able to afford high end rifles... Blasers et al, then the maths doesn't stack up as it once did... the same ethos is true though... buy the best scope you possibly can... unfortunately you do get what you pay for so best usually also means expensive!

 

[Tom D]

I have been hankering after a higher mag scope with a finer reticule for my HMR and whilst I love the 2-7 Lupold VXR that is on it I really could do with a finer reticule for longer range crows and things, so I had decided to get another VXR but the 4-12 version. Then I heard that Uttings were doing a free range finder with every VXR scope, ordered one immediately, I didn't even want a range finder, but a free one.....

That is great value, the VXR is an excellent scope, and with a £200 rangefinder chucked in, I couldn't resist....