^why our country is doomed
And you guys are terrible now I need to sell my ATACRs and kahles and minox and buy a ZCO.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Are Tier 1 scopes even worth it ?
- Thread starter HoneyBakedBadger
- Start date
^why our country is doomed
And you guys are terrible now I need to sell my ATACRs and kahles and minox and buy a ZCO.
I like and can appreciate high end glass,
There has always been a point of diminishing returns on high end optics, but I think that ten years ago, some of the premium may have been justified as their were not a ton of players in the tactical scope market even scopes such as the leupold Mk4 were were just outclassed when compared to the scopes that say S&B and NF were putting out.
Fast forwards to today, there are a lot of damn good optics. I would recommend, getting in as much trigger time as you can, figure out what works about your gear and what doesn't, and 6 months or so down the road, you will be able to understand what are important factors in selecting a optic.
There has always been a point of diminishing returns on high end optics, but I think that ten years ago, some of the premium may have been justified as their were not a ton of players in the tactical scope market even scopes such as the leupold Mk4 were were just outclassed when compared to the scopes that say S&B and NF were putting out.
Fast forwards to today, there are a lot of damn good optics. I would recommend, getting in as much trigger time as you can, figure out what works about your gear and what doesn't, and 6 months or so down the road, you will be able to understand what are important factors in selecting a optic.
I probably burned close to that amount and maybe more with a $500 scope before I upgraded scopes.
When I got here about ten years ago I had never owned a scope you could dial. I had a hand full Leupolds, two Redfields and my most recent purchase had been a Swarovski 3-12X56. I needed glass for a .223 B/A and it had to have dialable turrets. After searching there were a lot of recommendations for the 6.5-20 Vipers. Ilya also gave them his stamp of approval, I bought one, and then another and then a third. The two guys that I varmint hunted with bought three or four more. After years of banging around not one of them has failed and they have killed a truckfull rock chucks.
So did I stop there? Noooo, I was reading here almost daily. SWFA was introducing the SS 5-20X50HD. Pre-orders were 33% off. Guys on SH were testing the preproduction ones with great success. LL signed off, Ilya signed off and I signed on for two. The idea being that if it was as good as it was supposed to be I'd sell one and keep the other. I mounted one on my FN SPR and I was suitably impressed. I learned the advantages of FFP and how to think in mils. I of course kept the second one and it found a home, shortly, on a TRG.
Over time, there was an itch. Now everybody knows what these itches do. They drive you to another step up. A particular maker or manufacturer. A particular scope you've wondered about or the need to buy a rangefinder that cost more than an entire competent PRS rig. I was also having significant vision problems that were getting in the way of my having fun. A couple of years ago several vendors put S&Bs on sale at incredibly favorable prices. This was not buying an expensive scope. It was parking money until you wanted to take a small profit (at the worst). So, of course, I did it. When it came in I mounted it on a mule and spent about an hour comparing it to one of SWFA 5-20s. The result was that the S&B was better.
How much better? Was it worth over twice the SWFA? At that point I had no answer to that question. Early the next year I bought a T1X. I first put on an extra 6.5-20X44 Viper. No go. My eyesight was still kicking my ass. Then I tried a Weaver Tactical 3-15X50. I thought these would be a perfect NRL- hunting .22 crossover. I still think that but not with the eyesight I had then. I decided to put the S&B on it. I could finally see a shadow of the quarter inch diamond at the center of the one inch dot. A couple months later I got my first eye surgery. A month or two later I got my second and then I went back to the T1X and S&B. I quickly put a thousand rounds of Center-X through it and then the epiphany. The S&B was worth it. It was worth every cent and if I had paid the 25% more that I normally would have it would still be worth every cent.
I can now see well enough with the other scopes mentioned that I could switch out the S&B and have no effect on my scores. The reason it's worth the money has nothing to do with whether you can acquire and hit your target. It has to do with the fact that it is simply easier. Nothing more than that. Easier is important. If your going to fire a couple of hundred rounds easier prevents you from having to get off the scope and back on. It allows you to stay on the scope with much less fatigue. It simply makes it easier to shoot "well".
We have posters here who continually post comparisons of optics. A number of them are really good at the analytics and even the written presentation. Read everything you can. There are also guys who are literally professionals. The first to come to mind are LL and "The Dark Lord of Optics". Again read everything. You will not be able to walk into a Cabelas, find maybe two Alphas or even second tier scopes and make a meaningful assessment. The same is true of going to a range where there are shooters with good stuff. Most gun guys will not object to giving you a look through there optic. They are not going to let you mess with it for a couple of hours. For me, the closest stores that might have something are around two hours of driving. The same is true of the closest range. I have used this site for a decade to make decisions on firearms, cartridges, optics, weather meters, range finders, etc., etc. I never received something less than expected and a number of times received something better than expected. This place is an incredible resource.
At the end of the first post, the OP approaches the question "do you need one". With the explosion of mid range scopes you absolutely do not "need an Alpha". There are now a bunch of optics that are perfectly capable.
So did I stop there? Noooo, I was reading here almost daily. SWFA was introducing the SS 5-20X50HD. Pre-orders were 33% off. Guys on SH were testing the preproduction ones with great success. LL signed off, Ilya signed off and I signed on for two. The idea being that if it was as good as it was supposed to be I'd sell one and keep the other. I mounted one on my FN SPR and I was suitably impressed. I learned the advantages of FFP and how to think in mils. I of course kept the second one and it found a home, shortly, on a TRG.
Over time, there was an itch. Now everybody knows what these itches do. They drive you to another step up. A particular maker or manufacturer. A particular scope you've wondered about or the need to buy a rangefinder that cost more than an entire competent PRS rig. I was also having significant vision problems that were getting in the way of my having fun. A couple of years ago several vendors put S&Bs on sale at incredibly favorable prices. This was not buying an expensive scope. It was parking money until you wanted to take a small profit (at the worst). So, of course, I did it. When it came in I mounted it on a mule and spent about an hour comparing it to one of SWFA 5-20s. The result was that the S&B was better.
How much better? Was it worth over twice the SWFA? At that point I had no answer to that question. Early the next year I bought a T1X. I first put on an extra 6.5-20X44 Viper. No go. My eyesight was still kicking my ass. Then I tried a Weaver Tactical 3-15X50. I thought these would be a perfect NRL- hunting .22 crossover. I still think that but not with the eyesight I had then. I decided to put the S&B on it. I could finally see a shadow of the quarter inch diamond at the center of the one inch dot. A couple months later I got my first eye surgery. A month or two later I got my second and then I went back to the T1X and S&B. I quickly put a thousand rounds of Center-X through it and then the epiphany. The S&B was worth it. It was worth every cent and if I had paid the 25% more that I normally would have it would still be worth every cent.
I can now see well enough with the other scopes mentioned that I could switch out the S&B and have no effect on my scores. The reason it's worth the money has nothing to do with whether you can acquire and hit your target. It has to do with the fact that it is simply easier. Nothing more than that. Easier is important. If your going to fire a couple of hundred rounds easier prevents you from having to get off the scope and back on. It allows you to stay on the scope with much less fatigue. It simply makes it easier to shoot "well".
We have posters here who continually post comparisons of optics. A number of them are really good at the analytics and even the written presentation. Read everything you can. There are also guys who are literally professionals. The first to come to mind are LL and "The Dark Lord of Optics". Again read everything. You will not be able to walk into a Cabelas, find maybe two Alphas or even second tier scopes and make a meaningful assessment. The same is true of going to a range where there are shooters with good stuff. Most gun guys will not object to giving you a look through there optic. They are not going to let you mess with it for a couple of hours. For me, the closest stores that might have something are around two hours of driving. The same is true of the closest range. I have used this site for a decade to make decisions on firearms, cartridges, optics, weather meters, range finders, etc., etc. I never received something less than expected and a number of times received something better than expected. This place is an incredible resource.
At the end of the first post, the OP approaches the question "do you need one". With the explosion of mid range scopes you absolutely do not "need an Alpha". There are now a bunch of optics that are perfectly capable.
Last edited:
Reading through this thread I'm thinking people have different definitions of what is tier 1 tier 2 or tier 3. There is nothing wrong with owning a lower tier optic.
@Dthomas3523 before he was a mod put it best that I have seen.
@Dthomas3523 before he was a mod put it best that I have seen.
According to that list I started with a tier 7 or 8 (Leupy mark ar 3-9 mismatch) and now I own a tier 3 (razor 2). I am perfectly happy with it.
People say You would be better off buying a 800-900 dollar scope and shoot 3k in ammo. It literally will do you no good to shoot 4k worth of Ammo through a shitty scope that does not track. Or to have 2300 dollars worth of Ammo sitting at home doing nothing because your Viper PST was sent back to Vortext for the 5th time.
Last edited:
Go shoot real field conditions in changing weather and light conditions, with targets that aren’t painted all nice and pretty, set up in front of (or in) brush. That will set optics apart.
Shot with some buddies in the mountains this past winter/spring, past 1000 yards the only optics that could resolve impacts on nicely painted targets were the swaro spotter and a zco. Kahles, nx8, and atacr’s couldn’t see shit with the lighting that day.
Shot with some buddies in the mountains this past winter/spring, past 1000 yards the only optics that could resolve impacts on nicely painted targets were the swaro spotter and a zco. Kahles, nx8, and atacr’s couldn’t see shit with the lighting that day.
If you can't see the target you cant hit it.
if i can't see the target, i am not even taking the shot.
and this is what illustrates the main reason why $4k is not too much to pay,
and also why such outstanding optical quality is not needed for the typical public or private range shooter.
i don't think anyone sets up targets you can't see with a $2500 scope.
if the target i needed to see and hit could shoot back at me, or if seeing it meant dinner or not, money would be no object.
I have owned a wide range of priced optics. The P4Xi, NF SHV F1, Bushnell HMDR, Kahles K624i, XTR 2 and a vortex hs LR gen 1. The Kahles was hands down my most favorite scope I’ve owned and or looked through. I really like the ergonomics and features.
However, I now have the P4Xi. The XTR2 was painful to look through in anything other than ideal conditions. Looking into shadows at 400 yards? Yeeaaaa...hard pass and a headache. 600 yards in a sunny spot...awesome glass lol.
The P4Xi has been good to me thus far. Good FOV, respectable glass, stiff turrets, parallax is not overly sensitive and awesome price point. I wouldn’t mind trying out a ZCO for the fun of it, but I don’t believe it would help me hit targets much easier.
I could see myself upgrading to a 6-24x Razor AMG though. I think the optical sweet spot is that $2k mark where you get the most for your money. After that, it’s marginal gains for more money.
However, I now have the P4Xi. The XTR2 was painful to look through in anything other than ideal conditions. Looking into shadows at 400 yards? Yeeaaaa...hard pass and a headache. 600 yards in a sunny spot...awesome glass lol.
The P4Xi has been good to me thus far. Good FOV, respectable glass, stiff turrets, parallax is not overly sensitive and awesome price point. I wouldn’t mind trying out a ZCO for the fun of it, but I don’t believe it would help me hit targets much easier.
I could see myself upgrading to a 6-24x Razor AMG though. I think the optical sweet spot is that $2k mark where you get the most for your money. After that, it’s marginal gains for more money.
at this point i suggest everyone put away their current rifle(s).
Spend a weekend's worth of ammo or two on a Winchester Model 88 lever gun (pre '64.308) with a Weaver K4 scope from back in the early 60s.
shoot nothing but that rifle for a few hundred rounds of your typical .308 target ammo.
not only will you have a sweet rifle and scope, you will never complain about too much recoil or a scope that can't see far enough.
Spend a weekend's worth of ammo or two on a Winchester Model 88 lever gun (pre '64.308) with a Weaver K4 scope from back in the early 60s.
shoot nothing but that rifle for a few hundred rounds of your typical .308 target ammo.
not only will you have a sweet rifle and scope, you will never complain about too much recoil or a scope that can't see far enough.
My cheap vortex has tracked well on a few rifles for almost a decade.
I slapped it on the AR it started on and it tracked even allowing me to hit steel at a bit under a 1000 yards yesterday.
For 900-1000 you can get a DMR and they are solid.
Hell, my old Horus falcon is still doing well and living on my 260 now.
I want a tier one scope because I can appreciate it.
It won’t do a damn For my shooting abilities.
Money doesn’t buy skills(unless you spend it on education) it can buy refinement, convenience and enjoyment.
Yes. Is a WRX better than a base model Kia? Besides better quality assembly and internal
parts, you are buying reliability. Drive the Kia like your WRX and you will destroy it a lot
sooner. I see a much higher failure rate amongst all the ‘gee it’s almost as good as’ scopes,
than I do with real tier 1 scopes, based on a % fail rate.
Pre-COVID 19, I often spent 7 days a week running classes and working at my local range. The
% fail rate of Vortex and other low mid end optics is disturbing. At least a few EVERY week!
Other end of the scale is Hensoldt, March etc, which some years have a fail rate lower than 0.1%.
Will high end glass make you a better shooter? Maybe, maybe not, but its one less variable to
worry about, allowing you to focus on improving fundamentals and growing knowledge.
No doubts about shitty tracking, RTZ, poor mirage and target resolution etc etc. Unless you
have an accident with, or beat the crap out of a high end scope, it should last a very long time.
Besides better quality assembly and internalparts, you are buying reliability. Drive the Kia like your WRX and you will destroy it a lot
sooner. I see a much higher failure rate amongst all the ‘gee it’s almost as good as’ scopes,
than I do with real tier 1 scopes, based on a % fail rate.
Pre-COVID 19, I often spent 7 days a week running classes and working at my local range. The
% fail rate of Vortex and other low mid end optics is disturbing. At least a few EVERY week!
Other end of the scale is Hensoldt, March etc, which some years have a fail rate lower than 0.1%.
Will high end glass make you a better shooter? Maybe, maybe not, but its one less variable to
worry about, allowing you to focus on improving fundamentals and growing knowledge.
No doubts about shitty tracking, RTZ, poor mirage and target resolution etc etc. Unless you
have an accident with, or beat the crap out of a high end scope, it should last a very long time.
I recently acquired a nightforce C576 ( honestly hate the hype model name )
Wasn't cheap, but i have wanted something with a horus reticle for a long time.
I know, plenty of gimick in their pitch too, but i like mildot reticles, and it fits well in what i want to do.
I spent a lot of time with a mildot bsa scope i bought about 12 years ago for $130 or so.
It still works well, shooting groups a bit over an inch at 100 yards. Haven't had problems hitting my targets out to 500 yards with it.
I know "back in the day" very skilled people were hitting targets at 1k yards or more with comparably very crappy 10x scopes.
Equipment is nice, but skills go a loong way.
My equipment is usually much better than me
Wasn't cheap, but i have wanted something with a horus reticle for a long time.
I know, plenty of gimick in their pitch too, but i like mildot reticles, and it fits well in what i want to do.
I spent a lot of time with a mildot bsa scope i bought about 12 years ago for $130 or so.
It still works well, shooting groups a bit over an inch at 100 yards. Haven't had problems hitting my targets out to 500 yards with it.
I know "back in the day" very skilled people were hitting targets at 1k yards or more with comparably very crappy 10x scopes.
Equipment is nice, but skills go a loong way.
My equipment is usually much better than me
Last edited:
good info.Yes. Is a WRX better than a base model Kia?
parts, you are buying reliability. Drive the Kia like your WRX and you will destroy it a lot
sooner. I see a much higher failure rate amongst all the ‘gee it’s almost as good as’ scopes,
than I do with real tier 1 scopes, based on a % fail rate.
Pre-COVID 19, I often spent 7 days a week running classes and working at my local range. The
% fail rate of Vortex and other low mid end optics is disturbing. At least a few EVERY week!
Other end of the scale is Hensoldt, March etc, which some years have a fail rate lower than 0.1%.
Will high end glass make you a better shooter? Maybe, maybe not, but its one less variable to
worry about, allowing you to focus on improving fundamentals and growing knowledge.
No doubts about shitty tracking, RTZ, poor mirage and target resolution etc etc. Unless you
have an accident with, or beat the crap out of a high end scope, it should last a very long time.
Did you see many Nightforce failures?
Kahles?
NF?
Magargal, that's usually what happens if you go to Turners in Kearny Mesa
If you haven't already, go see John at Precision Arms at 250 W Crest St C, in Escondido. He's in the upper right corner in the little strip mall. If he doesn't have the scope you're looking for or the scope you want, give him a week and he'll have what you want waiting for you. He scored me a bitchin' deal on a Schmidt and Bender PMII. Great guy to work with!
Last edited:
I've owned and tested many of the scopes out there, past-present...
Yes, you get what you pay for in quality control and reliability.
Any good scope can fail, and cheap scopes sometimes outperform more expensive optics, however, most days you'll find the 1200+ optics just work better, 2000+ optics are even better than that and $3000+ optics give you the least bang for your buck.
The place that you want to be is the $1,800-2,500 range.
Don't be afraid to buy used!
That's the most bang for your buck.
does a $4,000 NF do anything a $250 SFWA SS wont do?.......honestly no, they both magnify, track reliably, and are bomb proof scops.
just the same way a 4K ultra HD TV does the same thing as a 1990's Cathode ray TV.....they both show movies.
but a 4K tv isnt the same as a 1990s TV....is it?
and thats really the difference, optical clarity, specifically at higher magnifications, and low light conditions....and yes, the difference is very significant.
do you need a $4,000 scope.....honestly no, not at all.
do you want a $4,000 scope.....yes, absolutely.
just the same way a 4K ultra HD TV does the same thing as a 1990's Cathode ray TV.....they both show movies.
but a 4K tv isnt the same as a 1990s TV....is it?
and thats really the difference, optical clarity, specifically at higher magnifications, and low light conditions....and yes, the difference is very significant.
do you need a $4,000 scope.....honestly no, not at all.
do you want a $4,000 scope.....yes, absolutely.
I’ve never spent 7 days a week at a range but I have been to A LOT of 3Gun matches.
I can’t recall a single Razor failing. Those are absolutely the plurality scope at matches and that competition is a lot harder on optics than bench shooting.
Only been to two PRS matches and never shot one myself, but at those events Razors were the majority of scopes and the only failure I’ve seen was a (Chinese, not Cronus) Athlon.
Not calling BS or anything, I’m just saying that I’ve got a decent sample size and that’s not at all what I’ve seen. Crossfires and Diamondbacks and even Vipers are a lot different than the LOW-made tanks.
I have seen a Razor fail, very rare indeed though...
Also had several issues with SWFA fixed optics.
Seen issues with Bushnell HDMRs, although mostly in optical performance...
Had a minor issue with a NightForce, but only in illumination, everything else was great with that optic.
Never thoroughly tested a MK6 Leupold, but any optic can and will fail.
The difference in price is quality control and components.
They test them to harsher standards than most cheaper optics.
That's why the cheapest scopes generally have the most fails.
Also had several issues with SWFA fixed optics.
Seen issues with Bushnell HDMRs, although mostly in optical performance...
Had a minor issue with a NightForce, but only in illumination, everything else was great with that optic.
Never thoroughly tested a MK6 Leupold, but any optic can and will fail.
The difference in price is quality control and components.
They test them to harsher standards than most cheaper optics.
That's why the cheapest scopes generally have the most fails.
If it was Left windage and SMR3 I'd have bought that Kahles in the PX. Still a good deal.
March was the pioneer, the first ones, in using ED glass in riflescopes about 13 years ago and they more recently introduced the use of Super-ED glass and are alone offering that. I too noticed a huge difference in how mirage affects the picture of the target with my first March scope, a 5-50X56 with ED glass, coming from an NF NXS. I have further upgraded to a March 10-60X56 HM which uses Super-ED glass and the IQ in heavy mirage is extremely good. Over the last couple of years, I have formulated a hypothesis that ED and Super-ED glass help tame the effects of the mirage. I use the CAI to help me guage the IQ of the target. The CAI stands for Crazy Amoeba Index, as you see the target dancing and shape shifting as you look at it. It's on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is a perfect target picture and 10 shows the target to behave like an amoeba on crack, dipped in itching powder.
The old NXS, havn't seen a broken one here. I think the designer of the NXS left LOW/NF and set up his own company
up the road in Nagano. Beast seems to have the odd problem with the unusual turret/click system. Havn't seen any
ATACR problems other than illumination, which is minor. A few SHV models seem to have turret and focus issues. It
is a budget model positioned to compete against the growing mass of cheaper scopes, so no surprise. Very few Kahles
seen around here, so not a large enough sample to make a valid comment.
Nailed it.
#dink_4_lyfe
Single handedly allows me to go tier 1 on scotch, glass, and (insert materialistic need here)
Your custom $5000 rifle that gets the same accuracy as a $300 TC Compass in the real world looks way better with a $5000 March optic and frankly it’s impossible to hunt deer without that kind of kit.
Just the facts...
Just the facts...
Buy what you can afford period. My cheap Athlon Argos gives me the same satisfaction when I make a good hit as my S&B, Steiner, Minox, Bushnell or Vortex. My son loves fast expensive cars and tracks them, on his last car brake jobs were like 20K. I did not think it was worth the money but he did.
So nobody can tell you if tier 1 scopes are worth it its up to you to decide.
So nobody can tell you if tier 1 scopes are worth it its up to you to decide.
There are an awful lot of false promises in this thread.
I see lots of people saying things like “$4000 scope? You’d be better off with $1000 scope and $3000 worth of ammo.” I’ve got news for you, 99% of the time, the guy with the Tangent Theta, ZCO, etc. has more than enough money to buy the $4000 scope and still outspend you on ammo. Scopes, like everything else in life, are a game of diminishing returns. Is that Tangent Theta better than your GEN 2 Razor? You bet your ass it is. Does it mean that you can’t shoot out to a mile with the Razor? Absolutely not. Does it mean that the guy with the Tangent is probably going to have an easier time? Yes it does.
When I shot my last local PRS match I used a 224 Valkyrie AR with an Athlon Ares BTR on top. I spent some time that day back-to-back behind an AI AXMC with a ZCO on top. Was I able to see every target just fine that day? Yep. Did the ZCO give me a wider field of view, brighter image, better depth of field, increased resolution, and an unreal ability to read mirage and yet cut through it at the same time? Hell yes.
Bottom line, if you can afford one, and not think twice about the price, absolutely buy a top-tier optic. If you can’t, buy the best scope you can for your budget, keep in mind the “buy once, cry once” philosophy and push yourself to spend a little bit more than perhaps you think you should.
I see lots of people saying things like “$4000 scope? You’d be better off with $1000 scope and $3000 worth of ammo.” I’ve got news for you, 99% of the time, the guy with the Tangent Theta, ZCO, etc. has more than enough money to buy the $4000 scope and still outspend you on ammo. Scopes, like everything else in life, are a game of diminishing returns. Is that Tangent Theta better than your GEN 2 Razor? You bet your ass it is. Does it mean that you can’t shoot out to a mile with the Razor? Absolutely not. Does it mean that the guy with the Tangent is probably going to have an easier time? Yes it does.
When I shot my last local PRS match I used a 224 Valkyrie AR with an Athlon Ares BTR on top. I spent some time that day back-to-back behind an AI AXMC with a ZCO on top. Was I able to see every target just fine that day? Yep. Did the ZCO give me a wider field of view, brighter image, better depth of field, increased resolution, and an unreal ability to read mirage and yet cut through it at the same time? Hell yes.
Bottom line, if you can afford one, and not think twice about the price, absolutely buy a top-tier optic. If you can’t, buy the best scope you can for your budget, keep in mind the “buy once, cry once” philosophy and push yourself to spend a little bit more than perhaps you think you should.
^ yeah but the guy with the ZCO probably works too much and doesn’t practice as much as the guy with the cheaper scope lol
Last edited:
Very well said, couldn’t have articulated it any better myself.
Wait.....all of our expensive shit isnt just for taking pictures of it??
The only reason I have “tier one” kits is to look cool on the range and flex on the poors, duh.
I just did the math, If I took the money I spent since New Years on reloading components and barrels I could have bought a ZCO.
I have had everything from $300 scopes on up to ZCO. I can tell you, buy the best glass you can. I would urge you to save for an extra few months if it means you can step up in tier of scopes. NF/Kahles/Vortex are all great scopes and I still have some of those. I would not go any lower than those 3 guys.
While I have not had any of the high end Euro optics, There is not a brand that I have need seen a post on line dealing with some type of issue, I think the most important thing is that most of these manufactures have pretty good customer service and will take care of you
Anything mechanical can fail. I think there is a big difference depending on what the scope is used for.
A scope on a hunting rifle may get shot 10-20 rounds a year , sighted in and turret hardly ever turned again vs a scope used every weekend where its being dialed up and down hundreds of times. No comparison between the two, it's just common sense that the latter needs to be of higher quality to take that constant use.
A scope on a hunting rifle may get shot 10-20 rounds a year , sighted in and turret hardly ever turned again vs a scope used every weekend where its being dialed up and down hundreds of times. No comparison between the two, it's just common sense that the latter needs to be of higher quality to take that constant use.
Last edited:
They do, Vortex, NightForce, Leupold and Bushnell all have good CS, however, my favorite CS is usually Vortex and then NightForce, although you never need it with NF in many cases.
One other consideration is that you'd expect to see more failures out of brands which have more lower end items being sold. For every Razor or AMG sold, there's probably like 10-20 lower end Vortex scopes out there. ZCO, TT, NF, etc. don't make budget scopes, so of course there's less failures.
I consider warranty when I'm buying a scope, to be sure, but if someone's big selling point is "we have a really good warranty so who cares if it fails", that's not really encouraging in my book. Like the NF ad posted above, that's helpful if I never use the scope in a situation where it must work. The warranty is not all that helpful if the optic fails in the middle of a class or match, especially if it does it more than once.
As for the whole tier 1 vs tier 2 thing, use case is everything. If you're shooting one mile or in kinda bad conditions, or maybe you're genuinely trying to win those matches, you want every advantage you can get in your budget. If the stakes aren't so high, or the use case isn't as extreme, maybe you just don't need a tier 1 optic, and that seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I consider warranty when I'm buying a scope, to be sure, but if someone's big selling point is "we have a really good warranty so who cares if it fails", that's not really encouraging in my book. Like the NF ad posted above, that's helpful if I never use the scope in a situation where it must work. The warranty is not all that helpful if the optic fails in the middle of a class or match, especially if it does it more than once.
As for the whole tier 1 vs tier 2 thing, use case is everything. If you're shooting one mile or in kinda bad conditions, or maybe you're genuinely trying to win those matches, you want every advantage you can get in your budget. If the stakes aren't so high, or the use case isn't as extreme, maybe you just don't need a tier 1 optic, and that seems perfectly reasonable to me.
For what I do (hunting and hobby target shooting) not really I like a nice 1500 ish dollar scope that puts durability/repeatability first and then other features. So I’m usually shooting an NXS or an swfa then bushnell elite, razor
Similar threads
