Rifle Scopes How Much Scope Do You Really Need?

[PLX65]

With a wide variety of precision rifles available now for $900 and up and with multiple choices in scopes, what is the perfect match?
Do you put a $3k scope on a sub $1k rifle? or a $1k scope on a $3k rifle? This is a question that has a lot of opinions I'm sure.

 

[TimeWillTell]

While I think a $3k scope on a sub-$1k rifle may be extreme, I do believe you'll always be served best by getting the best scope you can. When I built my custom I put an original HDMR on it. It's still there. Bit outdated by still a solid scope. Sometime in the future I'll likely upgrade but idk exactly to what, maybe a Razor gen2 or AMG. On the used market you can get either about $2k if you look and watch and I think a newish shooter would he well served to try to swing this into their budget. There's also other high value options. That said, athalon and vortex and Bushnell and others have some good high value scopes in the $1k range if your budget is tight. If you have a budget of $2k total, I'd say spend about the same on each. If you have $3-$4k it's harder decision in my mind but something like a John Hancock rifle with a slightly used razor makes a lot of sense at $4k. There's NO perfect answer.

ETA: there's been an explosion in good rifle options in the $1500-2k range that weren't there when I built mine 4 years ago. This has been a huge improvement in my mind for a new shooter with a decent budget. No longer is one sacrificing rifle performance in favor of better glass, or sacrificing glass to have a better rifle (which I kind of did though still like my Bushy scope).

 

[molzarella]

Wouldn't recommend going cheap on the rings either...

 

[Bender]

How is your first post in the FS section?

 

[b6graham]

waiting on a JH. originally wanted a Razor Gen II. thought about going with pst gen II, then an athlon cronus btr. but still may end up with the razor. i want the 34mm so a badger/spuhr doing go to waste later if i upgrade

 

[Basher]

The statement that used to get thrown around was to spend twice on your scope as compared to what you put into the rifle. I don't know that such a statement rings true anymore, as both optics and rifles have increased in quality quite a bit without a huge price increase.

That having been said, you can't outshoot a crap optic. You can put a $2K+ optic on an $800 rifle and still wind up with a serviceable setup, but putting an $800 optic on a $2K+ rifle is likely to cause you a heeadache eventually. Unless you got a real lemon of a rifle, the optic will likely hold you back more than the other way around.

 

[918v]

How much scope do you need? It depends on the use and has nothing to do with cost of the rifle.

 

[PLX65]

Thanks for all the input it has helped.

 

[spife7980]

As much as you can!

 

[koshkin]

How much scope do you need? It depends on the use and has nothing to do with cost of the rifle.

That, I agree with.

I have a $2700 scope on a rifle that originally cost me $500.

On the other hand, I have a $1500 scope that spends most of it's time on a $5500 rifle.

It really depends on what you are doing with it.

ILya

 

[natdscott]

And I have NO scope on $2,000 rifles.

Really truly is defined by purpose, as 918v said above.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

As far as tactical/LR stuff, these days you can get great rifles that don't give up much (if anything) in performance that are reliable for much less than you can a reliable optic that doesn't give up performance features.

IMO the optics to buy for this stuff start around the $2K mark. Anything less and you're giving up reliability and/or performance.

For other applications there are optics that have the required features and quality/reliability for much less (sub $1K even), but not this market.

 

[MikeInUtah]

So someone please explain to me how a Bushnell dmr for around $800 is giving up enough performance/reliability to exclude it as an option and instead invest in a $2000 plus optic for a $1000k rifle (example rpr)? Keep in mind that if someone like the OP is asking for advise on this subject with context of a 'perfect match', it implies that the person is probably a new shooter and looking for advise. I am not trying to knock the OP but given this common topic and numerous responses I see that they should 'buy as much as they can afford' or use some silly formula that correlates the cost of the rifle to the expected cost of the scope. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to steer these folks to an optic that is proven consistent with decent glass and that is common/popular enough that they shouldnt have problems unloading easily when they can determine a more appropriate scope for them? My suggestion is there are a bunch of decent options with DMR-esque scopes that the OP can pickup for around $800 which will allow them to learn and understand what $2000+ scope they need based on events/classes they shoot, distances they typically shoot, reticle, features they would use, etc?

 

[jda2631]

If you are going to shoot long range, get as good of a scope as you can afford. It will be your biggest hindrance most likely. People are shooting ruger american predators in 6.5 to 1000 pretty easily, that's a $400 gun. Getting a gun to shoot to 1000 is pretty easy now a days, and pretty cheap. But if your scope doesn't track correctly then it wont matter anyway.

 

[TimeWillTell]

So someone please explain to me how a Bushnell dmr for around $800 is giving up enough performance/reliability to exclude it as an option and instead invest in a $2000 plus optic for a $1000k rifle (example rpr)? Keep in mind that if someone like the OP is asking for advise on this subject with context of a 'perfect match', it implies that the person is probably a new shooter and looking for advise. I am not trying to knock the OP but given this common topic and numerous responses I see that they should 'buy as much as they can afford' or use some silly formula that correlates the cost of the rifle to the expected cost of the scope. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to steer these folks to an optic that is proven consistent with decent glass and that is common/popular enough that they shouldnt have problems unloading easily when they can determine a more appropriate scope for them? My suggestion is there are a bunch of decent options with DMR-esque scopes that the OP can pickup for around $800 which will allow them to learn and understand what $2000+ scope they need based on events/classes they shoot, distances they typically shoot, reticle, features they would use, etc?

Agreed. I have one, love it for the cost. Reliable, repeatable. Not same glass as a razor or $2k+ option but for a new shooter on a budget it's a winner imo. I'm a realist and the simple fact is you don't need $5k+ in a setup to be successful and get enjoyment from shooting.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

So someone please explain to me how a Bushnell dmr for around $800 is giving up enough performance/reliability to exclude it as an option and instead invest in a $2000 plus optic for a $1000k rifle (example rpr)? Keep in mind that if someone like the OP is asking for advise on this subject with context of a 'perfect match', it implies that the person is probably a new shooter and looking for advise. I am not trying to knock the OP but given this common topic and numerous responses I see that they should 'buy as much as they can afford' or use some silly formula that correlates the cost of the rifle to the expected cost of the scope. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to steer these folks to an optic that is proven consistent with decent glass and that is common/popular enough that they shouldnt have problems unloading easily when they can determine a more appropriate scope for them? My suggestion is there are a bunch of decent options with DMR-esque scopes that the OP can pickup for around $800 which will allow them to learn and understand what $2000+ scope they need based on events/classes they shoot, distances they typically shoot, reticle, features they would use, etc?

The DMR2 isn't a bad optic but is twice what you're saying you can get a DMR for. You're also going to have to wait for them to come up used as they were discontinued.

As far as the downsides to that optic, I had several of them and ran them extensively. Here's my complaints:

- Turrets. This was my biggest complaint. To put it simple, they suck ass for a number of reasons. 1. No zero stop. 2. 5 mil per turn which makes it easier to get lost in the revs. 3. The pull up turrets that constantly slip back down making it hard to use the lines to track your revs, and will slip down just enough that you think you're disengaged but you're not so you get to pull it up again. 4. They use a spline system to set them and they were far from high tolerances, you'd often be between to hash marks.

- Glass. In all of the ones I had only one had good glass and it actually had GREAT glass. It was a rare catch and I probably would have kept that one if it didn't have the Tremor 2 reticle which I couldn't stand. In the others the glass quality was so bad that is was practically unusable above about 18x. To 18x they works very well though.

- Reticles. The only reticle worth a shit that they did IMO is the H59 for the .2 mil marks on the main stadia if nothing else. The Tremor 2 was a messy abortion, and the G2 was too basic.

- Weight. It's pretty heavy for whats supposed to be a compact optic.



They were pretty reliable. A good bit of them went down but there was also a crap ton of them out there and people running them because street price was a grand and you could often get them from places like Natchez for even less.

I wouldn't recommend one personally. Not when for $1300-$1400 (used market and street price) you can get the DMR2 which fixes all of the issues except the weight on the DMR. Yes that's a significant price increase but it's more than worth it to get those features.

 

[TimeWillTell]

For a new shooter or someone on a budget the dmr is a fine option. Dmr ii is better for reasons stated above but it's all a matter of expectations and budget. I'd take a dmr over a viper pst for a similar cost for example. Sure, if you can spend more then spend more and get a dmr ii or go up even further to a razor.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

An optic lacking features that will certainly hinder a shooters learning and shooting abilities is a pretty poor choice IMO. The secondary market is also going to be terrible on something like that when they go to upgrade because it's very undesirable.

I wouldn't buy a PST either, they're even worse. The only thing comparable between those optics is the price range though.

If budget is a concern and someone wants something to get them running until they can afford the good stuff I'd buy a $300 SWFA. You'll get a very reliable optic and keep $500+ in the bank to save towards a good optic. Yes it cuts more features from the DMR but not too many as the DMR is pretty no frills itself. When you upgrade you have a great optic for a 22 or another rifle, or you sell it for a $50 loss in the classifieds.

 

[Birddog6424]

There are plenty of $1000 to $1500 scopes on the market that will do everything 2k and 3k scopes will do. But the glass won't be as nice.

You can get a scope that tracks great, is reliable, and durable. You can hit every target that the guys with 3k scopes can hit. See the hits and the misses. If you are a PRS shooter it will not effect your scores whatsoever.

You can hunt with it without detriment and they will perform wonderfully.

But it won't be as bright or crystal clear as the 2 to 3k scope.

 

[Glassaholic]

^^^ What Birddog said. I tend to agree. Some might argue that you can see your splash at distance better or "cut through mirage" better due to better optical performance of some scopes; however, most modern scopes are good enough optically to get you shots on target at 1000 yards, if the scope can track, then by and large it comes down to reticle preference. Frank mentioned on the podcast that on day one of SHOT they were doing some world record shoots where you had to have 3 straight hits on a 36" square plate at 1500y and further and one of the few guys to accomplish this was a guy with a 7 STW hunting rifle with a 10x super sniper scope if I recall correctly, so a $300 scope was "enough" for that shooter!

 

[CBDR]

Life is to short to have regrets. I should have, why didn't I ? Will I be able to overcome that sicking feeling in the pit of my stomach if I pass the 3k threshold on a scope. If this descriptive rings true in your world,,, welcome aboard. Fiscal discipline in my life requires mega hours of overtime.
Happy Presidents Day = Double Time Pay

 

[W54/XM-388]

Get as much scope as you can possibly afford.
Rifles come and go, good scopes stay.

 

[jda2631]

Get as much scope as you can possibly afford.
Rifles come and go, good scopes stay.

+1

 

[KCHORRO]

How much scope do you need? It depends on the use and has nothing to do with cost of the rifle.

+1

 

[Ledzep]

I'm on board for buying the scope to fit your purpose, but here are a couple rules of thumb I have...
I spend at least $300 on a fixed power scope, don't go over 12x unless you spend more than $700

I spend at least $700 on a variable power scope, only FFP, and spend $1500+ if you want much over 15x on the top end.

I recently sold my $2800 scope to buy a $1000 scope because I don't shoot as much as I used to. Pocketed the difference and spent it on car projects... Can I tell the difference between the two scopes as far as optical clarity/quality? Yes, certainly. Will it affect my ability to hit painted red steel plates? Doubt it.

 

[patriot07]

Loaded question for sure. It's kind of 2 got parts:

1 - are more expensive scopes easier to use, or do they improve the user experience?
2 - do more expensive scopes improve the performance/results?

I think you'll find that once you get past a certain level, most of what you're getting is more related to #1 than #2.

 

[Smooth_87]

Better functioning in feel scopes with better glass are more valuable the more time you spend shooting.

You appreciate better quality if you use your gear or shoot higher volume than the recreational shooter.

Some people shoot an hour once a month, some once a week. Some hunt and shoot daily.

Same way you appreciate higher quality equipment in anything in life.

If you spend a lot of time behind a scope shooting you will see more value in the top of the line gear.

Gear for the purpose. Same way you wouldn’t see it as optimal to take a drag car to an endurance race or vise versa.

 

[samnev]

With a wide variety of precision rifles available now for $900 and up and with multiple choices in scopes, what is the perfect match?
Do you put a $3k scope on a sub $1k rifle? or a $1k scope on a $3k rifle? This is a question that has a lot of opinions I'm sure.

IMO several factors should be considered. The operators eyesight, the inherent accuracy of the rifle being scoped the intended use of the rifle and the money available without braking the bank. All things considered buy the highest rated scope that you can afford.

 

[ra2bach]

you want the opinion of someone who doesn't know anything?

ok, I believe you need to spend enough to get perfect mechanical accuracy (tracking, RTZ, etc.) of the adjustments. and good function of the controls .

reliability and durability - it doesn't matter what the warranty or how cheerful the CS people when you have to return it. I want something that's going to behave a few miles down the road after I have used it in all the conditions I do.

you need an effective reticle that you can work with, and I believe you need to spend enough to get glass that is optimal for the range, the conditions, and the targets you shoot and after that, it's gravy.

can you do this below $1000? most people don't think so... $1500?.. $2000?.. $3000?..

I don't know. as I said, I don't know shit but these are the minimum specs that define precision optic to me...

 

[PLX65]

Thank you all for your input.
This is where I ended up for the moment.
Bergara BMP 6.5
Vortex Razor Gen II
Seekins Rings
It made sense to get the better optic now and
move it to another rifle in the future.

 

[ra2bach]

Thank you all for your input.
This is where I ended up for the moment.
Bergara BMP 6.5
Vortex Razor Gen II
Seekins Rings
It made sense to get the better optic now and
move it to another rifle in the future.

nice. sounds like that will do everything you are hoping it will...

 

[BarrettBoy]

I could probably do almost everything I'm currently doing on a mildot fixed 10 power with no illumination as long as the turrets tracked properly and have enough travel.

That said, I have a $3000 scope with a horus reticle on my rifle.

 

[79steeler]

Every frigging penny you can afford!

 

[Bender]

Did anyone mention the world record ELR shot made by a guy with a 7stw and a SWFA fixed 12x?

 

[brianf]

when i first started out i didnt believe the hype about really high dollar scopes and glass etc.
until i was shooting at 600 with a lup MK 4 and the mirage made my maiden vanish.
grabbed my friends rifle with a night force 5.5-22 and magically it reappeared.
been sucked in ever since, although in my opinion once you get above the $2000 mark you start to split hairs to a point.

 

[Glassaholic]

when i first started out i didnt believe the hype about really high dollar scopes and glass etc.
until i was shooting at 600 with a lup MK 4 and the mirage made my maiden vanish.
grabbed my friends rifle with a night force 5.5-22 and magically it reappeared.
been sucked in ever since, although in my opinion once you get above the $2000 mark you start to split hairs to a point.

That's a real world example of how better optics can help, another area would be in low light situations, that too is where lesser scopes struggle, though I must admit that over the past 5 years I have seen an improvement within the $1k scope market that has been quite impressive. Can today's XTR II's, PST II's, DMR II's, etc. compete with the $3k glass enough that it is no longer a hindrance. When I test my scopes I test them against resolution charts and the like to see how much detail my eye can pick up in the same lighting conditions; however, that doesn't really tell me if I can see splash with one scope but not with another. What is really important when making a shot, especially at long distance is being able to see your intended target and having confidence that if you dial elevation your turrets are doing what they are supposed to do. People blame equipment on what most likely is user error all too often, but if you have a good scope built within the last 5 years it's doubtful that the scope is causing you to miss your shots. Obviously, you need to make sure your scope is tracking properly and all that.

Did anyone mention the world record ELR shot made by a guy with a 7stw and a SWFA fixed 12x?

That's right Bender, John Armstrong showed up with a hunting rifle and put 3 shots in a row on the 1500 yard target, something most other shooters were not able to do, I didn't realize he was using a 12x SWFA, that just makes it all the more impressive. That guy is a Jedi, "I am one with my rifle and my rifle is one with me"

 

[koshkin]

That's right Bender, John Armstrong showed up with a hunting rifle and put 3 shots in a row on the 1500 yard target, something most other shooters were not able to do, I didn't realize he was using a 12x SWFA, that just makes it all the more impressive. That guy is a Jedi, "I am one with my rifle and my rifle is one with me"

That is both inspiring and a nice excuse for me: I shoot with too many rifles, so I never get an opportunity to be "one with my rifle".

ILya

 

[Deleted member 10043]

Ok, spend twice as much on your rifle and an equal amount at the gym and you will be operator as fuck except for the part where you have to buy your own shit

 

[Rthur]

You can get from A to B on a bicycle.
Some like a truck to do same.
Some like a sports car to do same.
They'll all get you there, some have more performance/comfort.

R

 

[Smooth_87]

Before the market was flooded with options people were making the same hits with Leupy’s, NXS and 10 power Mildots.

We’re lucky that we have so many great options these days but I think the newer guys are spoilt for choice and people need to put things into perspective.

There was more fuss on shooting and less on equipment. The same is still true for some.

 

[Bender]

That's a real world example of how better optics can help, another area would be in low light situations, that too is where lesser scopes struggle, though I must admit that over the past 5 years I have seen an improvement within the $1k scope market that has been quite impressive. Can today's XTR II's, PST II's, DMR II's, etc. compete with the $3k glass enough that it is no longer a hindrance. When I test my scopes I test them against resolution charts and the like to see how much detail my eye can pick up in the same lighting conditions; however, that doesn't really tell me if I can see splash with one scope but not with another. What is really important when making a shot, especially at long distance is being able to see your intended target and having confidence that if you dial elevation your turrets are doing what they are supposed to do. People blame equipment on what most likely is user error all too often, but if you have a good scope built within the last 5 years it's doubtful that the scope is causing you to miss your shots. Obviously, you need to make sure your scope is tracking properly and all that.


That's right Bender, John Armstrong showed up with a hunting rifle and put 3 shots in a row on the 1500 yard target, something most other shooters were not able to do, I didn't realize he was using a 12x SWFA, that just makes it all the more impressive. That guy is a Jedi, "I am one with my rifle and my rifle is one with me"

I went a researched, I was off a little. It was a 20x fixed power. But a 7stw in a hunting stock non the less.

 

[brianf]

Before the market was flooded with options people were making the same hits with Leupy’s, NXS and 10 power Mildots.

We’re lucky that we have so many great options these days but I think the newer guys are spoilt for choice and people need to put things into perspective.

There was more fuss on shooting and less on equipment. The same is still true for some.

the funny part is that before the market got flooded and the internet made forums like this and "x scope" vs "y scope" discussions we were stuck with magazines that only tested what they got paid to test.
or if you were lucky enough the local 50 year old gun store owner who was a cook in the army in 1984, gave his opinion...i mean told you what is right from wrong.
meanwhile his only knowledge is reloading .38 wad cutters in his basement as fast as he can.

i have to admit i get a little gear queer now and then, pretty pictures of camo suck me in sometimes.

 

[Smooth_87]

the funny part is that before the market got flooded and the internet made forums like this and "x scope" vs "y scope" discussions we were stuck with magazines that only tested what they got paid to test.
or if you were lucky enough the local 50 year old gun store owner who was a cook in the army in 1984, gave his opinion...i mean told you what is right from wrong.
meanwhile his only knowledge is reloading .38 wad cutters in his basement as fast as he can.

i have to admit i get a little gear queer now and then, pretty pictures of camo suck me in sometimes.

It’s fun to talk shooting when not shooting, I get it and enjoy every aspect of our community.

Like I said, we are very lucky now to have so many great options and product information, but people need to recognise gear was working well before it got todays level of quality.

How many excellent choices are essentially better than the old gear (not including S&B) that was getting the job done is my point.

 

[Nittynate]

Do

when i first started out i didnt believe the hype about really high dollar scopes and glass etc.
until i was shooting at 600 with a lup MK 4 and the mirage made my maiden vanish.
grabbed my friends rifle with a night force 5.5-22 and magically it reappeared.
been sucked in ever since, although in my opinion once you get above the $2000 mark you start to split hairs to a point.

Do you think leupold fixed the problems with their new scope mark5 HD?

 

[Birddog6424]

Personally I've been of the opinion for some time that we make some things out to be far more difficult than they actually are. They sound more important on a discussion forum than they actually play out to be in real life.

Bullet splash for example is relatively easy to spot. It's movement of some sort and the eye snaps to it immediately. It seems to be pretty rare that the guy with the nice glass is the only guy to see splash. My buddy picks up everything I do with his cheap Athlon spotter that he won in a raffle. Most often by far it's either there or it isn't. Everyone sees it, or no one at all. Or that one guy who says "I think it might have maybe been a little low left, but I'm not sure". I've seen every splash through my scope at a mile that the spotters picked up due to the distance allowing me time to settle and watch.

And the dreaded low light hunting scenario. This comes up often. But having spent 40 years tromping over hill and dale a good portion of the year chasing everything that runs jumps or swims, I honestly can't think of a time I was ever unable to make a shot due to poor glass. And I spent a lot of years hunting with a 4x12 Bushnell Sportview with an old beater Bushnell spotter riding in the saddlebags. The only time there was a shortfall was in judging horn quality. And even those issues were very few. A trophy hunter shouldn't be using their rifle scope to make that estimation anyway. Just about any decent scope will allow you to see well enough to determine where to place your shot. And any horns longer than the ears are super easy to see if you have to make a determination of sex.

So I'm definitely a guy who will never get wrapped around the axle on glass. I'm just an Idaho meat and potatoes kind of guy, and I've found it isn't hard to achieve "good enough".

 

[Glassaholic]

Personally I've been of the opinion for some time that we make some things out to be far more difficult than they actually are. They sound more important on a discussion forum than they actually play out to be in real life.

Bullet splash for example is relatively easy to spot. It's movement of some sort and the eye snaps to it immediately. It seems to be pretty rare that the guy with the nice glass is the only guy to see splash. My buddy picks up everything I do with his cheap Athlon spotter that he won in a raffle. Most often by far it's either there or it isn't. Everyone sees it, or no one at all. Or that one guy who says "I think it might have maybe been a little low left, but I'm not sure". I've seen every splash through my scope at a mile that the spotters picked up due to the distance allowing me time to settle and watch.

And the dreaded low light hunting scenario. This comes up often. But having spent 40 years tromping over hill and dale a good portion of the year chasing everything that runs jumps or swims, I honestly can't think of a time I was ever unable to make a shot due to poor glass. And I spent a lot of years hunting with a 4x12 Bushnell Sportview with an old beater Bushnell spotter riding in the saddlebags. The only time there was a shortfall was in judging horn quality. And even those issues were very few. A trophy hunter shouldn't be using their rifle scope to make that estimation anyway. Just about any decent scope will allow you to see well enough to determine where to place your shot. And any horns longer than the ears are super easy to see if you have to make a determination of sex.

So I'm definitely a guy who will never get wrapped around the axle on glass. I'm just an Idaho meat and potatoes kind of guy, and I've found it isn't hard to achieve "good enough".

I think there's a lot of truth to what you say Birddog and if I could just teach my brain to stop telling me I'm missing out maybe I could save my pocket book a lot of money. That being said, I have definitely seen a difference in image quality between lower end scopes and higher end scopes when looking into the shadows in low light when I'd do my testing; however, the "newer" low end scopes like the XTR II, DMR II, LRTS and PST II lines have shown a marked improvement in low light quality. As an example, I had one of the original DMR's and have also had the new DMR II and the difference in IQ in low light is like night and day, the original DMR had a bluish cast to it that washed out the image to my eyes taking away detail and contrast, while the newer DMR II did not suffer from the same. Would it make a real world difference in being able to spot an animal at dusk I honestly cannot say because I never did a side by side comparison, but I'd feel much more confident in the newer glass that's available.

 

[steve123]

It's funny how I've been to both extremes.

At first owning cheap and seemingly featureless scopes (I remember when a Leupold 4-12 was hot stuff, LOL), then when I got into the tactical rifles I got my first FFP, a Horus 8-26x50 Predator, going from there to Nightforce, IOR, USO, Vortex, Bushnell, March, etc, as I worked my way up to S&B over the years.

Along the way I found out what I did and did not like about all those scopes and what features I needed or preferred.

For the most part my more expensive rifles have equivalently priced scopes. What happened was a couple years ago I sold various things including medium priced scopes and bought the inexpensive Athlon FFP scopes to outfit my other rifles. I did this because I had more rifles than scopes and got really tired of changing scopes around. You know what?! I discovered I can do well with a cheap variable power scope that has good glass, tracks well and has a awesome tree reticle for all the shooting I do that isn't super serious. I don't regret my decision to do this one bit and I've been able to redirect finances to other purposes instead of being scope broke, lol.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Life is too short to have regrets.

Yet, the most expensive scope I own lists for $259.99 (Mueller 8-32x44 Target Dot), and I have three of them. Having the other two can take the sting out of any reliability issues; I think of them as hot spares, one can be swapped over once I get home. After maybe 4-5 years, it hasn't happened yet.

Quite some time back the discussion turned to the incongruity of putting an expensive scope on a Savage. Well, I could never come up with either the money or justification to do that, so I bought a small supply of Tasco 6-24x42M and 2.5-10x42M Varmint/Target scopes , and they still haven't failed me in going on 15 years. And, yes, they don't do everything, but they will do everything I need them to do in a satisfying manner.

I just finally took the 6-24 Tasco off the 2001 Ghost Dancer 260 Rem which had served as my pretty well used 1000yd F-Open rifle, and replaced it with a Weaver T-24. I may reverse that, should mirage prove to be the downfall of the T-24; in which case it would go on something I reserve for 600yd and less (like my 11VT .223), and one of my hot spare 8-32x44's would be the replacement.

So, I have my reservations about whether or not my needs and talents can justify spending a thousand (or thousands) on a top of the line optic. Yes, I use less pricey optics, but not just any old cheap scope. I test one before I invest in more of them; and some perform quite favorably, like the Tasco Varmint/Target line, and the Mueller 8-32x42 Target scopes.

My Savage 11VT rifles, upgraded with Choate Tactical stocks, EGW 20MOA bases, Vortex 30mm medium 6-srew Tactical rings, and Mueller 8-32x44 Target scopes price out at just over $1K per rifle, ready for the range. There are two, identical except for chamberings, a .223 and a .308, intended for F T/R competition. They hit what I aim at using my handloads.

Greg

 

[ra2bach]

I admitted I don't know very much or have much experience with upper tier scopes. I always bought the best that I was able to afford at the time but none was over $1000.

I just picked up a Bushnell LRTSi and compared it to an SWFA 3-15x42, an Athlon 2.5-15x50, and a Vortex PST GenII 2-10x32 that I rate, optically, in roughly that order.

my method wasn't sophisticated - I focused the reticle, set them all on 8x, mounted them on a tripod and started looking at the trunk of a tree in deep shade about 90 yards away in the woods behind my house.

I started with the SWFA as I was most familiar with that. I moved the parallax (focus) knob back and forth to get the sharpest detail in the surface and edges of the tree. then I looked through the other two, and the LRTSi last. there were obvious differences among the first 3 but I'm ok with each of them in their specific role and price point.

however, when I mounted the Bushnell, I clearly saw that the tree I thought I was looking at was actually two trees, a smaller one in front of a larger one! it was not just sharper, but the color and contrast was more vivid. as people say, the image just "popped". kind of surprising actually...

you guys who've had great glass all along, and I'm not saying the Bushnell is great glass, it's just the best I've owned so far, are probably not very impressed by my revelation but the first time you see the difference, it's kind of exciting.

so to answer the thread question "how much scope is enough?", I guess I don't know.

are the top tier scopes the same step up in performance over this $1500 optic, or do the returns diminish after this? when you move up are you simply paying for better mechanical functionality?

right now my wallet is telling me not to look through more expensive scopes. I just wonder how long I can live at this level, though, before I feel the need to step up...

 

[steve123]

I admitted I don't know very much or have much experience with upper tier scopes. I always bought the best that I was able to afford at the time but none was over $1000.

I just picked up a Bushnell LRTSi and compared it to an SWFA 3-15x42, an Athlon 2.5-15x50, and a Vortex PST GenII 2-10x32 that I rate, optically, in roughly that order.

my method wasn't sophisticated - I focused the reticle, set them all on 8x, mounted them on a tripod and started looking at the trunk of a tree in deep shade about 90 yards away in the woods behind my house.

I started with the SWFA as I was most familiar with that. I moved the parallax (focus) knob back and forth to get the sharpest detail in the surface and edges of the tree. then I looked through the other two, and the LRTSi last. there were obvious differences among the first 3 but I'm ok with each of them in their specific role and price point.

however, when I mounted the Bushnell, I clearly saw that the tree I thought I was looking at was actually two trees, a smaller one in front of a larger one! it was not just sharper, but the color and contrast was more vivid. as people say, the image just "popped". kind of surprising actually...

you guys who've had great glass all along, and I'm not saying the Bushnell is great glass, it's just the best I've owned so far, are probably not very impressed by my revelation but the first time you see the difference, it's kind of exciting.

so to answer the thread question "how much scope is enough?", I guess I don't know.

are the top tier scopes the same step up in performance over this $1500 optic, or do the returns diminish after this? when you move up are you simply paying for better mechanical functionality?

right now my wallet is telling me not to look through more expensive scopes. I just wonder how long I can live at this level, though, before I feel the need to step up...

Normally most shooters would rate the glass like this - V PST2, Ares, SWFA, but everyone's eyes see differently, there is no right or wrong here, just what a persons eyes prefer. I have little doubt that the LRTSi has nicer glass and it seems Bushnell has improved it over the years.

Basically you pay for more refinement with higher end scopes, that includes better glass as part of the package, you pay a huge amount of money for a incrementally small nicety's. Do I like my S&B's the most, of course, are they $2000 better than my Cronus, not to me anymore. At the time I bought those S&B's we had fewer choices, so back then they were worth the money to me. I won't spend that kind of money anymore on a scope. Besides, there is no perfect scope, all can and do fail, and I can find fault with each.