Rifle Scopes 1k tactical scopes vs 2k + tactical scopes

[Chris777]

So at some point in the very near future I am going to be buying a new scope. I am currently looking at the Vortex razor HD gen 2 because of the features and the warrenty.

I’m sitting here asking myself “Is a 2k + scope really that much better than a quality 1k scope?” What am I paying for to warrant the extra cost? Is the glass that much better? Where is that extra cash going and what can a 2k + scope do that a 1k scope can’t?

I want to hear your opinions and experiences. Thanks in advance.

 

[SEMO Shooter]

Better glass, better field of view, better turrets, zero stop, better parallax.

 

[oneforall]

small improvements in all important areas in a scope resulted double the price or even 3x the price increase. In today's market, 1k scopes( like etr or steiner 4-16) should do fine unless you are one of those top shooters in the sport. We sure live in good times as far as scope quality goes.

 

[wade2big]

I have several of both. If you miss with a $1000 scope you would have missed with the $3000 scope. Sometimes I wonder why I spent the extra money.

 

[SporterII]

I was shooting quite well today. New 400.00 highly regarded fixed power.
Once I realized how non forgiving parallax was.
Reticle worked great if target was bright.
I am 400.00 farther from an Atac r

 

[diverdon]

Are the 1K scopes you comparing SFP or FFP. You need to know the difference and you need to know which one you want for your shooting. There is no better or worse, but FFP is generally going to be more money.

 

[wade2big]

I was shooting quite well today. New 400.00 highly regarded fixed power.
Once I realized how non forgiving parallax was.
Reticle worked great if target was bright.
I am 400.00 farther from an Atac r

I probably have that same $400 scope and your experiences differ from mine. Isn’t that how it usually is. Lol

I have bought, sold, and traded many scopes. I have shot behind many more. I finally used a 7-35x56 Nightforce atacr earlier this week and if I had dropped $4k on that thing I would have serious buyer remorse. Its good but NO scope is that good. A Razor gen II is equally as good and less than half the cost. Hell the PsT gen II and Bushnell lrhs do the job just fine and cost less than a third of the ATACR. I think too many guys try and buy there way in.

Now with all that being said, I like some of the nicer things in life as well. If you have the money, spend it all just dont think you will be gaining much. The $1000 scopes today hold their own against all the others.

 

[diverdon]

I probably have that same $400 scope and your experiences differ from mine. Isn’t that how it usually is. Lol

I have bought, sold, and traded many scopes. I have shot behind many more. I finally used a 7-35x56 Nightforce atacr earlier this week and if I had dropped $4k on that thing I would have serious buyer remorse. Its good but NO scope is that good. A Razor gen II is equally as good and less than half the cost. Hell the PsT gen II and Bushnell lrhs do the job just fine and cost less than a third of the ATACR. I think too many guys try and buy there way in.

Now with all that being said, I like some of the nicer things in life as well. If you have the money, spend it all just dont think you will be gaining much. The $1000 scopes today hold their own against all the others.

Perhaps I've not been keeping up with optics, can you tell me which $1,000 scopes compete with the razor gen II 4.5-27, with FFP and robust reliable turrets?

 

[wade2big]

Most all the scopes in the $1000 price range are good scopes. Many that come in less than that are too. The SWFA 3-15 is a great scope that super reliable. Its probably my favorite scope. Just wished it was illuminated to be usuable at low light. The PST gen II scopes track true and are good as well. I have two and know many others that shoot with them and have no problems. There are many many more examples.

I never said that these scopes are better than the higher dollar scopes. I just said that many give up very little to the upper end scopes to the casual shooter or competitior. Buying the newest golf clubs wont up your golf game but swinging the ones you have more often will. Thats the point I am trying to make.

I was shooting today with my AMG. My buddy was shooting his .338 lapua using the gen ii pst. We could swap rifles back and forth and make hits. The scope made no difference.

 

[Rugster]

As with most things in manufacturing, twice the price rarely means twice as good. It’s not linear, it’s exponential. You’re not only paying for features that are slightly better, more robust in most cases, or altogether missing from lower cost models, but you’re also paying for the R&D work that went into those items. They will eventually cascade down as the R&D creates/improves on the flagship which is the long way of saying a$1k scope these days is probably every bit as good as a much more expensive scope that was made 10 years ago. It’s up to you to decide where your needs are on the features curve and how that matches up to what you’re willing to spend. Clear as mud?

 

[SporterII]

Wade, yes lots of varying druthers in optics.
Like I said I too was making hits so to speak. I was slower and had more stress trying to stay behind this one for sure

 

[Discogodfather]

Similar to the difference between a Toyota and a Lexus. Better everything but not really proportional to the price. Maybe 20% better on all optical and mechanical components but 50% more cost.

When you get to the 3k scopes and beyond, you get maybe 40% better than a 1k scope. But only 10-20% more than a 2k scope. The closer you get to the top the inverse relationship between price and performance gets worse and worse.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

I've never had a better scope make up for my lack of skills, no matter the cost.

 

[flyer]

Expensive scopes tend to have more internal adjustment which is good for long range but similar performance can often be achieved with a sloped base.

There are features and optical design that also come with expensive scopes but you can get a damn nice scope for less than $1,500.

You do get more when you spend more but diminishing returns as said above and you should really choose based on what your needs are first.

 

[xNF_9]

The biggest thing for me when it comes to the price is not the quality but the amount of quality control that goes into the scope. Many scopes can be made for the amount amount of money but the quality control is what typically makes the price of the optic higher. I am a NF guy and the quality control is top notch along with some other brands. It is not quite the quality of the scope that increases the price but what it all takes to make the scope and create high amounts of consistency.

Some manufacturers are more concerned about a price point to reach and others the total quality. Will a $1500 scope compete with a $3000 scope? Certainly and and many do. Does it last as long or need to be sent back more times than a more expensive scope? I can’t say for sure but every manufacturer has a lemon here and there. Just depends on how many lemons they make and when quality control is at a higher standard I would think that there would be less lemons in that batch.

I pay for the quality control so when I need to depend on the scope and know it will work. That is what I pay for. Reassurance.

 

[Mxridr]

I have had a few scopes dmr swfa and kahles. That kahles is probably the best purchase I have made since I started shooting. Probably the only thing I have not changed either.

 

[Mxridr]

Yes a 2k scope is with the money

 

[patriot07]

Not a lot honestly. Sweet spot is in the $1500-$2000 range with the Razor Gen 2 and Delta Stryker. There is another sweet spot at the $1k range with the PST Gen 2 and SWFA HD 5-20. Cronus is kind of between those 2 depending on whether you're talking BTR or pre-BTR, but it's definitely there amongst the best values. Below $1k, I'd just drop down to the fixed-power SWFA scopes unless you need a cross-over scope that functions well for hunting also.

The difference in $1k-$2k is slightly better glass, deeper depth of field, better turrets, wider FOV, more forgiving eyebox, and just generally easier to use and look through for an all-day match.

If you're going to be shooting 1-2 hour range sessions and that's it, the $1k range is just fine. If you're going to be shooting matches, you'll probably appreciate the upgrades to get to the Delta or Razor G2. IMHO, anything past the Razor G2 is not worth the $ unless you're just going all the way to TT. I don't see enough tangible benefits in the $2k-$3k range to justify the cost over the Razor G2. I just don't have the stomach for spending $3,000 and still making compromises with optics or basic mechanical stuff or customer service. But some folks do, or don't like the TT reticle options, and that's what they end up with. Nothing wrong with that - it's just not a particularly budget-conscious decision.

 

[TXBO]

If you have to ask, get the $1000 scope.

 

[boomslang]

If you find a scope at $1k or less that has a reticle you really like, solid turrets and good glass and fits the bill of your intended purpose AND you can see yourself being completely happy with your purchase, then I would say there is no need to spend anymore than that.

However, if there is even the most remote possibility in your mind, right now, that you might want to see for yourself what all the fuss is about on the Razor, NF, SnB, ZComp, TT or whatever it may be, then save yourself some time and money by going with what you really want. As a new shooter, your preferences may change and continue to evolve over time with experience and you may find yourself wanting more out of your equipment.

 

[steve123]

Not every rifle justify's having a $2000 scope, or even a $1000 scope, more than half my rifles don't.

I've gone to the extremes, S&B on the nice expensive rifles, mostly because of features like reticle choice and close focus, but also the glass and the refinement.

Heck I've got a $169 scope on one varmint rifle which has suited fine for most of this rifles uses. I'm not unhappy with it, 4-16x40, mildot/mil turrets, SFP, and 10Y focus.

Burris XTR2 1-8FFP on the shorty AR. Just don't need a more expensive scope for this one either.

The list goes on, a bunch of inexpensive to $850 MAP Athlon FFP scopes on the rest, why spend more $ when these work great. Man, purchasing these has saved me thousands of dollars!

Best bang for the buck so far has been the Athlon Midas TAC series, feels and behaves like a $$$$ scope.

 

[Chris777]

Are the 1K scopes you comparing SFP or FFP. You need to know the difference and you need to know which one you want for your shooting. There is no better or worse, but FFP is generally going to be more money.

I know the difference between the two. FFP is the choice for me ?

 

[Rugster]

Not a lot honestly. Sweet spot is in the $1500-$2000 range with the Razor Gen 2 and Delta Stryker. There is another sweet spot at the $1k range with the PST Gen 2 and SWFA HD 5-20. Cronus is kind of between those 2 depending on whether you're talking BTR or pre-BTR, but it's definitely there amongst the best values. Below $1k, I'd just drop down to the fixed-power SWFA scopes unless you need a cross-over scope that functions well for hunting also.

The difference in $1k-$2k is slightly better glass, deeper depth of field, better turrets, wider FOV, more forgiving eyebox, and just generally easier to use and look through for an all-day match.

If you're going to be shooting 1-2 hour range sessions and that's it, the $1k range is just fine. If you're going to be shooting matches, you'll probably appreciate the upgrades to get to the Delta or Razor G2. IMHO, anything past the Razor G2 is not worth the $ unless you're just going all the way to TT. I don't see enough tangible benefits in the $2k-$3k range to justify the cost over the Razor G2. I just don't have the stomach for spending $3,000 and still making compromises with optics or basic mechanical stuff or customer service. But some folks do, or don't like the TT reticle options, and that's what they end up with. Nothing wrong with that - it's just not a particularly budget-conscious decision.

Everyone’s budget is different. I played with the newest TT because I wanted to buy a pair of them for my match gun and trainer. There were 3 distinct attributes I didn’t care for so I passed and purchased something else. While I agree with most everything you said, there are MANY options between a gen 2 razor and a TT. That’s a huge gap with a number of offerings. I don’t consider TT to be the best for what I’m doing (PRS), if I did I would own them.

 

[patriot07]

Everyone’s budget is different. I played with the newest TT because I wanted to buy a pair of them for my match gun and trainer. There were 3 distinct attributes I didn’t care for so I passed and purchased something else. While I agree with most everything you said, there are MANY options between a gen 2 razor and a TT. That’s a huge gap with a number of offerings. I don’t consider TT to be the best for what I’m doing (PRS), if I did I would own them.

That's fair. Not saying they're the best for everything. I just view everything above $2k as too much of a compromise to spend that much money on when you compare it to the TT above and the Razor G2 and others below. But lots of folks live in the $2500 range, so I get it. I just have a different take on things is all.

 

[lancetkenyon]

Once you go to a $2000-3000 scope, it is really, REALLY hard to be satisfied going back to a $1000 scope. If you don't have one already, don't do it.

I started with $150, then $250, then $600 scopes. Got my 1st "good" scope (Luepold Vari-X 3 6.5-20x50). Then a used SWFA 5-20x50.....and I was hooked. A $1000 scope is a gateway scope. Then Vortex Gen 1 Razor, then Steiner T5Xi, then Razor Gen 2, then AMG, then Kahles K624i, then S&B PMII/March/Premier/TT......

 

[260284]

My first FFP scope was a Burris XTRII 4-20. Picked up a Bushnell LRHS 4.5-18 next, then a LRSTi 4.5-18 and thought both had better glass than the Burris. My son used the Burris for a few years on his RPR, no issues with it at all, I just think the glass is better on the Bushnells. I was using them for hunting and matches, so they decent for both. I decided to build a (budget) dedicated match rifle and I really wanted a larger fov than the 30mm Bushys and I wanted .2mil windage. Did some research, got behind several scopes, (Gen1&2 Razors, Bushnell XRSII and DMRII Pro, and Athlon Cronus) ended up picking up a slighly used Ares ETR with a MKM throw lever for $950 shipped. I have been very happy with it so far. Shot a match with it on my 6.5 and another with the new 22BR. It hasn't let me down and I have no complaints. That said, will I ever buy a $2-3k scope? Maybe, but for now this one meets my needs and that is all that matter to me. I still have both Bushnells, they are great hunting scopes and I can hold my own with them in a match.

 

[patriot07]

Once you go to a $2000-3000 scope, it is really, REALLY hard to be satisfied going back to a $1000 scope. If you don't have one already, don't do it.

I started with $150, then $250, then $600 scopes. Got my 1st "good" scope (Luepold Vari-X 3 6.5-20x50). Then a used SWFA 5-20x50.....and I was hooked. A $1000 scope is a gateway scope. Then Vortex Gen 1 Razor, then Steiner T5Xi, then Razor Gen 2, then AMG, then Kahles K624i, then S&B PMII/March/Premier/TT......

This is a fact...

 

[kornface13]

I honestly think you should buy a $1k scope and then see if you ever encounter areas where you think it's holding you back. I own a Vortex Viper Gen 1, Athon Midas TAC, SWFA SS, Vortex Razor Gen 2, Nightforce ATACR. Honestly....I love the expensive ones, but I can promise you I won't be more competitive at PRS because of them. The Athlon and the Vortex Viper track perfectly from what I can tell, have good enough glass, nice clicks, zero stops, christmas tree reticles, outstanding warranties.... Basically everything you need to get out there and get it done. The Vortex Viper got me all the way out to 1180 yards with ease. I didn't have my Nightforce next to me to compare images, and I'll do that next time I'm at that range.

 

[Forward543]

1k scopes to roll with bushnell dmr( used $800), burris xtr ii, or athlon cronus btr(closer to $1200 in the px) they should all track awesome, with the athlon having the best glass. If you want better go to the next tier. The improvements are there, with the things listed from previous responses. If you are on the fence get the 1k level and shoot volume.
Side note i have shot with a guy running a nf beast who struggled to understand his weapon. seemed as if it would have been a better investment to buy ammo and shoot alot.

 

[hk dave]

IMO I feel $2k scopes are worth the difference over $1k scopes. I do feel like you actually get almost double the scope. That line is being blurred though.

It’s after $2k where the law of diminishing returns kicks in, and in many cases kicks in hard.

 

[patriot07]

IMO I feel $2k scopes are worth the difference over $1k scopes. I do feel like you actually get almost double the scope. That line is being blurred though.

It’s after $2k where the law of diminishing returns kicks in, and in many cases kicks in hard.

My first inclination was to balk at this, but after thinking about it a bit, I think I agree. The razor gen 2 and delta Stryker (both under $2k) are pretty meaningful upgrades over Cronus/SWFA HD/XTRII/PST2/etc.

But yeah, past that you kinda have to feel like $500-$1k is not worth worrying about to jump to the next level.

 

[Forward543]

IMO I feel $2k scopes are worth the difference over $1k scopes. I do feel like you actually get almost double the scope. That line is being blurred though.

It’s after $2k where the law of diminishing returns kicks in, and in many cases kicks in hard.

I think the 2k level are better, but i dont know about double. The Cronus btr really is not that far behind. The glass in the the rest of the 1k tier is definitely not as good, but mechanically seem to be holding the line. The only thing i have noticed with better glass is locating targets that are grayed out with rock/ gray back grounds.

 

[Primus]

I have several of both. If you miss with a $1000 scope you would have missed with the $3000 scope. Sometimes I wonder why I spent the extra money.

Disagree. While there are a few scopes that are mechanically reliable at $1k, there are many that aren't. Bushnell, night force and maybe sightron I would trust. Everything else is going to be inferior in every way shape and form to a $1500 razor gen 2 or xrs2.

You get what you pay for. Spending money on expesnice glass is never a bad investment unless its IOR

 

[Basher]

Disagree. While there are a few scopes that are mechanically reliable at $1k, there are many that aren't. Bushnell, night force and maybe sightron I would trust. Everything else is going to be inferior in every way shape and form to a $1500 razor gen 2 or xrs2.

You get what you pay for. Spending money on expesnice glass is never a bad investment unless its IOR

I think his point is, if it's a proven scope in the ~$1K range, it won't make you a better shooter. Making sure the scope isn't crap is a given here, at least in my mind. Tall target test everything, even the fancy $3K optics come out as a lemon once in awhile...

 

[Primus]

Well ya can't hit what u can't see. There are targets I could barley see with my bushy dmr but we're easy to spot and hit with the S&b. I really do think you need to get up past the $2k mark to start getting into diminishing returns land.

 

[Basher]

Well ya can't hit what u can't see. There are targets I could barley see with my bushy dmr but we're easy to spot and hit with the S&b. I really do think you need to get up past the $2k mark to start getting into diminishing returns land.

I don't disagree at all there! I'm in the boat right now of having to step down from an S&B to a lower class optic on a precision AR in order to bring in a few bucks, and I'm not super happy about it. But I understand that there ARE options in the ~$1K range that are reliable, repeatable, and clear enough to get the job done. In my case, I'm only working at about 800y and in (with a few occasional targets out to 1K) with 1MOA+ targets, so that's fine for me. I'll absolutely be buying another S&B or similar down the road again for it, but the point of the thread (I feel) is that there are workable options if you look around and choose wisely.

But yeah, I suggest all to buy the best glass they can for a multitude of reasons.

 

[TxWelder35]

If you are looking at the razor gen 2 hit up Scott @LibertyOptics. His pricing on them is incredible. Just got one for much less than I was expecting.

From my research the diminishing returns starts at that razor gen 2 price point. For example on the razor you get HD, low distortion glass with lenes that are hand matched for each other. I'm not sure how much better glass will get than that and still be cost effective.

 

[hk dave]

That’s not to say your examples aren’t perfectly fine scopes. I’d not be sad to run any of them if they track true

I think the 2k level are better, but i dont know about double. The Cronus btr really is not that far behind. The glass in the the rest of the 1k tier is definitely not as good, but mechanically seem to be holding the line. The only thing i have noticed with better glass is locating targets that are grayed out with rock/ gray back grounds.

I thought the Cronus was $1800 list? I figured $1500-1600 market.

I think the current $2k optics are $400-500 better than a Cronus. I also think the Cronus is $400-500 better than $1k optics.

 

[patriot07]

I always hear the “if you miss with a $x scope, you’d still miss with something costing twice as much.”

Personally, I think that’s a bit naive. One of the biggest improvements with better glass is the ability to accurately spot misses so you can make a hit next shot. Seeing through mirage is another big plus of better glass. Lack of CA to have better target definition when they’re small is important.

If you want to take a $100 Bushnell out to 1k, go for it. I think you can do it a lot easier with an ATACR, TT, Kahles, Razor, Stryker, etc.

 

[Basher]

I always hear the “if you miss with a $x scope, you’d still miss with something costing twice as much.”

Personally, I think that’s a bit naive. One of the biggest improvements with better glass is the ability to accurately spot misses so you can make a hit next shot. Seeing through mirage is another big plus of better glass. Lack of CA to have better target definition when they’re small is important.

If you want to take a $100 Bushnell out to 1k, go for it. I think you can do it a lot easier with an ATACR, TT, Kahles, Razor, Stryker, etc.

I don’t know why you’re doing it other than to try and make a point, but you’re picking extremes here. Literally nobody is saying a $100 Bushy will compete with an ATACR or anything else in that class.

What they ARE saying is that a better scope won’t make up for your inability to properly shoot a rifle. Go spend $5K on a Henny if you want, but if you’re a crap shot, you just spent $3.5-4K more than you really needed to, given your skills and abilities.

Or, as in your example, you’re gonna miss with both on the first shot anyway if you suck. Maybe the $2K optic will help you spot a miss better, sure. But if you still can’t read wind, or apply proper NPA, or practice correct trigger control, you’re probably gonna be spotting a lot more misses with your $2K scope than you will be spotting hits.

I shot a fixed 10x USO at the last match I attended and came in 31/79. Not super amazing, but that $700, decade-old fixed power optic let me stomp on several shooters running glass costing four times as much. But guess what? While I outshot several people running far more expensive glass, several other shooters running similarly priced optics (and arguably lower-tier, such as PST Gen2s, Bushnells, etc.) outshot me. See the point?

Stop making this a more difficult discussion than it needs to be by reading too far between the lines...

 

[patriot07]

I don’t know why you’re doing it other than to try and make a point, but you’re picking extremes here. Literally nobody is saying a $100 Bushy will compete with an ATACR or anything else in that class.

What they ARE saying is that a better scope won’t make up for your inability to properly shoot a rifle. Go spend $5K on a Henny if you want, but if you’re a crap shot, you just spent $3.5-4K more than you really needed to, given your skills and abilities.

Or, as in your example, you’re gonna miss with both on the first shot anyway if you suck. Maybe the $2K optic will help you spot a miss better, sure. But if you still can’t read wind, or apply proper NPA, or practice correct trigger control, you’re probably gonna be spotting a lot more misses with your $2K scope than you will be spotting hits.

I shot a fixed 10x USO at the last match I attended and came in 31/79. Not super amazing, but that $700, decade-old fixed power optic let me stomp on several shooters running glass costing four times as much. But guess what? While I outshot several people running far more expensive glass, several other shooters running similarly priced optics (and arguably lower-tier, such as PST Gen2s, Bushnells, etc.) outshot me. See the point?

Stop making this a more difficult discussion than it needs to be by reading too far between the lines...

Reading between the lines? I simply tried to respond to a statement I see repeatedly on here that more expensive optics with better glass don't help people hit targets. I didn't agree with it and tried to justify it.

FWIW, I have run an SWFA HD 5-20 for a long time. It didn't necessarily hold me back, but there were times I wish I had better glass or more mag to get a better view of the splash. You've never going to learn how to read wind if you can't see your misses. My SWFA had excellent glass and I don't regret getting it. But the upgrade to the Delta Stryker I have now is significant, and I don't believe for a second that people are the least bit correct when they say that better glass doesn't help them hit more targets in the long run.

Sure, if you're Chuck Norris and the wind obeys your command, then maybe a $300 SWFA 10x is all you need. But most of us want a little more for really stretching the limits of the pursuit. JMHO

 

[Basher]

So I guess we can ignore the fact that a 7STW hunting rifle topped with a fixed 16x SWFA SS made consistent hits and set an ELR record at 2K then, huh?

I’ll stop. I’m a glass whore, but even I know that an accurate rifle tooped with a capable optic won’t hold back an accomolished shooter. Buy the best glass you can, but if all you can afford is an SWFA, learn it well and show up to kick e’rybody’s ass at a match. Don’t let us snobs hold you back if that’s all you’ve got!

 

[patriot07]

So I guess we can ignore the fact that a 7STW hunting rifle topped with a fixed 16x SWFA SS made consistent hits and set an ELR record at 2K then, huh?

I’ll stop. I’m a glass whore, but even I know that an accurate rifle tooped with a capable optic won’t hold back an accomolished shooter. Buy the best glass you can, but if all you can afford is an SWFA, learn it well and show up to kick e’rybody’s ass at a match. Don’t let us snobs hold you back if that’s all you’ve got!

Agree on all counts. My point wasn't that a capable optic would hold people back - my point was that there is a difference between the $1k range and the more expensive stuff.

Most ELR shooters have spotters, so I'm not even sure if that's an appropriate comparison to what I'm talking about. Either way, I ran a 16x for a long time and it's a good scope. I won't in any way pretend that it is as good as my SWFA HD 5-20, or my Delta Stryker. Both are better optics and absolutely help me get more hits on target.

 

[wade2big]

IMO I feel $2k scopes are worth the difference over $1k scopes. I do feel like you actually get almost double the scope. That line is being blurred though.

It’s after $2k where the law of diminishing returns kicks in, and in many cases kicks in hard.

I think the $2k scopes are better as well. Not even close to double the scope though. I also dont think the betterness (not really a word i dont think) will amount to any more hits on target. Just a little better glass and maybe better longevity but that is debatable.

Edit: I have several scopes that represent both categories we have been discussing and I enjoy the sound the bullet makes when it hits steel equally as well no matter which is on the rifle I’m shooting.

 

[PhOnEpHrEaK]

So I just had this debate with myself for the last year. I went from running two 1k scopes to running two 1.8-2k scopes. The difference is actually quite amazing in my mind. I did like my 1k scopes but I had two of them dramatically fail during matches in the last two years. The new scopes have a better reputation, better class and better turrets. I think the peace of mind is what really makes the difference for me though.

 

[Chris777]

Thanks for all the great info guys!