Rifle Scopes Huge tactical scope market gap?

[ToddM]

Does anyone else see this huge gap in the tactical scope market gap in the $400-1000 range?

I mean there are tons of options over $1000: Leupold, IOR, NF, S&B, March, Premier, etc. etc. etc. Vortex is supposed to have something new out but I think I read somewhere in the $1500 range. All great scopes, own several, but the market is flat out saturated in this price range. We don't need more $3000 scope options, or $1500 scope options.

Under $500 the only real contenders are Falcon, SS, Bushnell 3200 10x. Bushnell scopes the reticules are too thick, not enough adjustment, no mil options.

There is a MASSIVE gap IMO in the $500-1000 range for good quality scopes with reticule options, and mil knob options out there for the taking. Something that some thought and effort has been put into not a Nikon/Burris etc. where all it is is them taking their other scope line and putting target knobs on it. Something with matched reticule/knobs, maybe even a low profile knob choice, 1/2 MOA adjustments, the list goes on and on.

If companies like SS and Falcon can put out as good of a product as they do for under $400. A company that wanted to put a little more into the product and have it sell in the $750 price range would sell more than they could make.

Basically something in the mk4 quality range with some design changes in the $750 price range, which frankly is all the Mk4's are worth anyway.

 

[LSOSGT1109]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

I totally agree. I would like to see something like the Falcons or the Millett TRS1's with more positive adjustments and just a little better glass. I wouldn't mind paying a couple of hundred bucks more for either one of those scopes if they made those improvements. The scopes are great now for the price but they're just not hardly good enough for what I want. I was excited about the new Vortex tactical scope coming out but I didn't realize it was gonna be in the $1500 range. For that price why not just go with a Nightforce NXS?

 

[Ratbert]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

If leupold would just offer 0.1Mrad M2-type turrets on the 4.5-14 that would be just the ticket @ $850.

 

[Ratbert]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KSP446</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I was excited about the new Vortex tactical scope coming out but I didn't realize it was gonna be in the $1500 range. For that price why not just go with a Nightforce NXS? </div></div>

FFP

 

[ToddM]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

Yep,

Which is exactly the problem with Leupold, if I'm going to pay $1200 for a new Leupold MK4 or more for some models with illumination, I'll buy a NF any day. Especially since leupold is still not offering a reasonable mil knob adjustment. Now you put leupold in the $700 range and it's a different ballgame. That said I love the M2/M3 size knobs leupold does and the TMR reticule is sweet.

The Clearidge Optics scopes look promising, but there is almost no information about them anywhere, aside from the vendor themselves or a few very vague reviews here and there. In addition to only having two small dealers. Along with adjustments that do not match the reticule. Their price is right, if the quality is there and a couple adjustments were made such as the adjustments matching the reticule etc.

 

[OFIS]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

i got my leupold M1 for a smidge under 900, back when 4scopes.com was selling them under the corporate mandated pricing.

if leupold stopped hiking up their prices theyd be selling/owning this 'dead zone'

those MRT scopes are nice, but $900 nice? ...cmon

 

[MontanaMarine]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

Sightron has some nice scopes in subject price range.

 

[OFIS]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

http://www.4scopes.com/leupold_vx_iii.htm

 

[One-Eyed Jack]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

You can have my Super Sniper 10x for $750 plus shipping.

 

[Longshot38]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

Sightron III or Big Sky, Millet, Bushnell Elite Series, Super Sniper, Mueller, Zeiss Conquest, just a name few. I don't see the big gap you are speaking of.

 

[cape]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

doesn't ziess make a conquest tactical? if not they should, It would be right in that price range. Now if they would only move the reticule to the 1st plane. Correct me if i'm wrong plz

 

[kelvrick]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Longshot38</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sightron III or Big Sky, Millet, Bushnell Elite Series, Super Sniper, Mueller, Zeiss Conquest, just a name few. I don't see the big gap you are speaking of.</div></div>

Sightron, as far as I know has regular covered turrets? Also doesn't have side parallax adjustment or matching turrets
Millet, under $500
Bushnell elite 4200/6200: Under $500 no mill turrets, thick reticule, needs more adjustment. I'd love a 4200 as it is now with ffp and mil turrets for another two hundred or so
Super Sniper: Under $500, doesn't have matching turrets
Mueller: Under $500, doesn't have matching turrets
Zeiss Conquest: No matching turrets.

Yea, there is a gap. It seems if you just want matching turrets, you're going from ~500 for the falcons and unders like wonder optics and jumping right up to nightforces/etc for 1k+.

Something else to be mentioned is the USO 10x fixed for under 1k.

 

[razzle]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

Kelvrick
The Sightron SIII has both target turrets and side parallax adjustment.

 

[ToddM]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

Sightron - 1/8MOA adjustments on many models....not acceptable, no mil turrets, covered turrets. Credit for supplying enough elev. adjustment though in the SIII models. Great glass.

Burris tac30 - turrets don't match reticule, covered turrets, have to use their ballistic reticule - good elevation adjustments, good glass.

Burris XTR - covered turrets, turrets don't match the reticule, most have their ballistic reticule. Good elevation

3200/4200/6500 elites reticules way too thick - not nearly enough adjustment on 3200/4200, again no mil turrets, tactical exposed turrets frankly way too big, and they turn way too easy.

SS was mentioned as a quality scope under $500 range.

Millet - unimpressive record of problems - the new 2009 TRS is supposed to have mil knob option and enough adjustment, time will tell. However, also sub $500.

Muller - unimpressive record of problems - not enough adjustment, turrets don't match reticule, covered turrets. Also well under $500

Nikon monarch - not enough adjustment, poor turrets, good glass.

Nikon monarch X - turrets dont' match reticule, not enough adjustment.

Meopta - amazing glass - covered turrets, no moa/moa or mil/mil option. Not enough adjustment really.

Zeiss conquest - no mil option, cheap plastic target turrets, not enough adjustment, no marks on the knobs to show if you've gone more than 1 revolution, no marks showing which direction for adjustments from shooters position. Great optics, but again just taking their normal scope and slapping target turrets and a mildot on it doesn't cut it.

In addition NONE of these offer a mil reticule with 1/2 moa hash marks or a MOA reticule to match their knobs.

 

[1shot2kill]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

does anyone own a bushnell elite 4200 6x24 sf tactical i have heard they are pretty good and around 550.00

 

[Longshot38]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

Guys we are talking about budget scopes. You can't have you cake and eat it too. If you want to scope with a reticle of your choice, target type turrets w/ matching reticle, solid internals with adequate travel, unrivaled track record and customer service, and top quality glass then you are going to pay for it. However if you are will to compromise a bit you can get a quality tactical type scope for under a grand easily.

 

[ToddM]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

The 4200 6x24 is a nice scope, but not enough internal adjustment and bushnell's mildot reticules are way too thick. They only have about 44-46 MOA of usable adjustment. The bushnell elite scopes are great glass and quality. If they were to take their 4200 elite, scale down the turrets a bit with more solid clicks, offer moa/moa or mil/mil, change the reticule so it's thinner and offer 1/2 mil or 1 moa has marks, and price it under $800 they would be a HUGE winner.

Ya know for most people $750-1000 is not budget, that's like saying a Porsche 911 turbo is budget because you are comparing it to a mclaren. While I can understand not getting TOP glass and a scope I can drive a tank over, it should be easy to build a reliable scope with good glass in that range and still have options.

If companies like falcon and SS can build solid scopes with those options for under $400, other companies should be taking advantage of building on that, making a scope in the $700-800 range with the same features only better quality and maybe more options. Falcon gives you reticule choices and adjustment knob choices, more than enough elevation, warranty, even FFP, etc. The glass could be better but that should be able to be done in a budget of $800

I doubt we will see it from any of the big companies, just because tactical scopes are TINY share of their market. I'm sure a company like leupold/nikon/bushnell sells literally hundreds of their non-tactical scopes for every tactical scope. There's no motivation for them to be innovative in that market share. If there was they would do a little more market research and put some effort into their "tactical" option scopes, and improve them from user feedback. You just don't see it in the big companies. How long have people been asking leupold to offer 0.1 mil knobs. How long have people been complaining the 3200 series has too thick of a reticule and not enough adjustment.

 

[Ratbert]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

Exactly. All we want is 4.5-14 Mk4 quality with Falcon level options, possibly without the FFP. We're not complaining that the top level optics are too expensive, we're complaining that no one is willing to step up and make a medium quality optic between the Falcon and the IOR.

The glass on the falcon doesn't bother me that much, what I want to see is Mk4-M2 quality turrets on it. And perhaps some evidence that it's close to as tough as a Mk4.

ETA: Another way to look at is, being willing to spend as much as twice as much as the cost of a Falcon @ $380 basically buys you nothing. That's a hole in the market.

 

[GhostFace]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The glass on the falcon doesn't bother me that much, what I want to see is Mk4-M2 quality turrets on it. And perhaps some evidence that it's close to as tough as a Mk4.

</div></div>


I agree with you except I would prefer M3 adjustments but I could live with M2 tho....

 

[Luvman]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

I'm with you guys. I've been patiently waiting for a mid level tactical type scope with matching turrets and reticle. I'd love to be able to order up a MK4 4.5-14 with FFP and M2 style .1Mrad knobs for 1K. I'd want mine with a 40mm obj though.

I have a vortex 6.5-44 at the moment it's a GREAT varmint type scope. I may pick up one of their tactical scopes down the road when they have a mil/mil option.

In the meantime I've grown impatient and have ordered up a Heritage. I've contemplated the SH IOR but with Val's track record of customer service I had to pass. If I spend more on glass than I did for the rifle that's going to wear it, I expect quality and good customer support.

IOR lost my business due to reputation, I didn't pick up a NXS F1 because the rotating ocular doesn't appeal to me and I don't care for the lit reticle adjustment.

my $.02,
LM

 

[phlii]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

My big WTF is why reticles don't match turrets on more scopes, especially in the specified range. If more companies like Burris, Leupold, and Nikon were to do this AND educate the public on the advantages, they would clean up.

 

[matchking]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ToddM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Burris XTR - covered turrets, turrets don't match the reticule, most have their ballistic reticule. Good elevation</div></div>
While they don't offer matching reticle/knobs, there is nothing wrong with the turrets. The covers screw off and the turrets are nice. It is not just a hunting scope that has been revamped.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ToddM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In addition NONE of these offer a mil reticule with 1/2 moa hash marks </div></div>

Thank goodness, that might confuse me.

 

[Jim See]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

The original Weaver Tactical was a nice scope for the money.
FFP, mil-dot. I don't mind the covered target turrets, but could do without the 1/8min clicks. Glass is very good, and my 4 have performed well, for a budget scope. I basically zero at 500 and use mil holds.

 

[ranger1183]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

Horus Vision!

Have you looked at the Horus Vision Predator, Horus Vision Hawk, Horus Vision Talon and the Horus Vision Raptor?

All are under $1,000 and all have matching units knobs/reticles.

http://www.horusvision.com

Good shooting!

 

[TEAMSENDIT]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

The real problem is most people that buy these "budget" tactical scopes don't and won't know how to properly use the reticule or the turrets. I don't know how many times I have been in a gun shop and seen some guy that barely knows what a 308 is buy a rem 700pss type gun and buy the "coolest" scope he could. Me standing their watching and knowing this is the same guy that will probably only shoot the rifle a few times. It will probably take him an hour to sight it in even though he has target turrets and will be on the paper in the first shot.

For the record i am not talking about you fellow hide members, but you all should know who I am talking about.

The big companies market to their majority buyers and in that majority their are alot of people who purchase because it looks cool not because of its actual performance. However once you get above the $1000 mark the majority is informed marksmen who know what they want in features and quality and are willing to pay for it.

Sorry about the rant but I have seen an abnormal amount of dumbasses since the whole obama gun craze.

 

[gszeto99]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1shot2kill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">does anyone own a bushnell elite 4200 6x24 sf tactical i have heard they are pretty good and around 550.00 </div></div>

I have one.....I am going to test it out today....got a new set of badger standard rings with farrell 10 MOA base.

 

[Phil1]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: diggler44</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The real problem is most people that buy these "budget" tactical scopes don't and won't know how to properly use the reticule or the turrets. I don't know how many times I have been in a gun shop and seen some guy that barely knows what a 308 is buy a rem 700pss type gun and buy the "coolest" scope he could. Me standing their watching and knowing this is the same guy that will probably only shoot the rifle a few times. It will probably take him an hour to sight it in even though he has target turrets and will be on the paper in the first shot.

For the record i am not talking about you fellow hide members, but you all should know who I am talking about.

The big companies market to their majority buyers and in that majority their are alot of people who purchase because it looks cool not because of its actual performance. However once you get above the $1000 mark the majority is informed marksmen who know what they want in features and quality and are willing to pay for it.

Sorry about the rant but I have seen an abnormal amount of dumbasses since the whole obama gun craze. </div></div>

Why should this surprise anyone now that "Tactical is cool" and someone can walk into a store and a hour later fulfill the Tom Berenger "Sniper" persona.

 

[Phil1]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ToddM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Basically something in the mk4 quality range with some design changes in the $750 price range, which frankly is all the Mk4's are worth anyway.

</div></div>

And that's why leupold has lost market share for this type of scope over the last decade.

 

[hydro556]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

I agree that there is a gap, but I disagree on the MKIV line. My model 60000 is probably my favorite scope. Tough and durable, accurate and repeatable adjustments and good glass. Around $1K from a great company with excellent CS.

 

[ToddM]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

Leupold makes a solid scope, but their prices are a bit high, and they have not listened to their customer base. Add to that they charge you $100+ just to get a mildot/tmr reticule either after the fact or in the scope price. Their illumination system is not impressive. Their 3 degrees cant tolerance is just unacceptable, along with ghost clicks, zero problems etc. Some of that may be because of the sheer number of scopes they have out but it does not excuse things like their cant policy.

They do have Impressive warranty service, I will give them that, but again for the price you pay and what you get they should have. That and many scope companies offer impressive warranty. Basically you are getting a VXIII with tactical knobs and mildot/tmr, a second erector spring, and a 30mm tube for double the price. If leupold MK4's run in the $700-800 range street price they are a solid deal. However, if they go anywhere over $1000 especially the cost of some of their versions for instance the desert tan $1400 3.5-10 M2 illuminated, or other illuminated models, NF spanks them.

I think others have hit it on the head, the big companies don't care about the tactical market. 90% of the guys that walk in to buy them have no idea what they want or how to use it. Worse yet most of the stores don't know either. A couple months ago I actually had by far the largest NF dealer in Reno flat out ARGUE with me that NF didn't make anything called a zero stop and didn't offer a mil turret option, and this was the optics manager and the guy who does the NF ordering.

If scope companies took the time to revamp their lines, and then use their marketing to explain to customers why ranging reticules are valuable, why having your knobs in the same adjustments, and your scope level is important. Guys would be selling their old scopes and buying new scopes by the truckload.

 

[hydro556]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

I got my model 60000 (MIKV, 4.5-14x50, Ill. TMR) for $1099 delivered and love it. I will concede the Illumination control sucks.

 

[Forrest Ebert]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

There is a scope out there and it's called the W.O Tactical scope.4-14 x50
Excellent glass and MOA reticle ,side focus tac turret knobs 30 mm one piece tube assembled in the USA and it all comes with a Lifetime warranty ! I haven't forgotten the price all for $295.00 plus shipping and applicable taxes if any. so does that sound like it fills the gap you have described? If so then contact me:

Forrest Ebert
Western US /International Representative
WO TAC Scopes
[email protected]
510-439-8571

 

[Ninja]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ToddM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does anyone else see this huge gap in the tactical scope market gap in the $400-1000 range? </div></div>

This is the <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">GOOD USED SCOPE</span></span> price range, IMHO...

 

[TheArtist]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

I've been looking off and on at scopes for many months now. I also believe there is a major gap in scope choices out there. The problem is anything under 1200.00 is not really worth buying for the semi to serious shooter. Anything even up to 500.00 is usually nothing of great consistant quality (mushy knobs, no precise anything) and everything I've seen in the 500.00 to 1000.00 range is so overpriced it's just ridiculous.

I'm a semi pro photographer (semi pro means I get paid for magazine feature photo contributions but do not do it full time) and scopes are absolutely the EXACT same as the camera lense market.
The camera lense market has lenses that can be 150.00 or 15,000.00. You can buy a lense for 800.00 or 2400.00 that is for the same camera and the same power, but just like scopes, the price is quality, but there is also a charge for name recognition.
Take Nike shoes for example, Nike shoes are made in sweat shops in Indosesia by 14 year olds in basements and are made for less than one dollar a pair, brought to the USA and sold to the masses who scaft these cheap shoes up for 200.00 a pair. 50,000% mark up. Same with Old Navy, Marth Stewart, Banana Republic and The Gap. Their stuff is made in all kinds of Pacific Island countries like Saipan for pennies, in sweat shops and brought here and sold for 10,000% mark up.

Scopes and camera lenses are one and the same. A great lense is totally obvious to a cheap lense, putting a 150.00 dollar lense on my camera (all Nikon eq.) and shooting pictures and then putting on a 1,500.00 lense and taking the same pictures is obvious in the results of the quality of the photograph.
BUT....hardly any difference if any when comparing the 1,500.00 lense to a 5,000.00 lense......the difference mainly is name recoginition costing an additional 3,500.00...

I also build custom Harleys and have a fabulous private shop where I own my own CNC equipment and I know the time it takes, even with CNC to make very precise parts to exacting standards out of top quality metals (titanium, 7075, stainless, tool steel, etc.) BUT, there very well could be, with todays repeatable CNC equipment the ability to make scopes that are FAR better than they make today for less money.

I feel the scope companies just don't care and do not have any desire to "fill the gap"

I know it can be done, but no one is willing.

why would a scope company actually care to make less profit to make a super nice scope and take less margin to fill the gap....

In my opinion a current 599.00 scope to me is worth about 150.00
a 899.00 scope is worth about 399.00 and a 1200.00 leupold is worth about 599.00.

If the gap has not been filled yet, year 2009 for gods sake, it most likely will never be filled.

I wish someone would step up to the plate and make a super nice solid, accurate 2-9x or 2-10x (or close) with a 35mmtube with perhaps a 37 or 40mm end for use on .22 rimfires. A small scope that rivals the big boys, but the problem in my situation on my .22 rimfires is who wants to have a 3.5-15x-56mm Nightforce that cost 1800.00 sitting on top of a CZ 452 Varmint that cost 399.00? But the little gun is accurate and deserving of a great scope, but there is NOTHING out there (tactical wise)......but compromises.


If Japan and Korea can put cameras in cell phones and "give" the phones away for free if you sign a year contract with a phone company, the GAP CAN BE FILLED......

 

[rundm]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

the new sightrons

 

[ToddM]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

From what I can see the new sightrons still don't have knobs that match the reticule, and frankly the nice shiny gold lettering doesn't scream tactical to me (but that's a personal issue).

They also don't have indicators to show knob direction from shooter viewpoint. Can't see from the images I saw if they have marks to show turret revolutions. Reticule thickness looks good. Turrets are covered.

My issue with turret covers is two fold. First it does not allow fast adjustments. Second many scopes that use turret covers rely on them at least partially for waterproofing. That means if you leave them off in inclement weather you have a larger chance of water issues. On a hunting scope I zero at 300-350 yards and never touch I'm fine with covered turrets. On a .22 mildot it's fine too since I only use holdovers off the reticule. On a tac/target rifle I don't want them covered.

The images I saw of the new 6-24 again looks another company took their target/hunting scope and stuffed a mildot and target turrets on it added some adjustment range and called it good. The sightrons I've seen had great glass and tracking but again, just tossing a mildot and target turrets on doesn't cut it.

I'll also go the extra step to say that scopes should have the ability to adjust their parallax down to at least 25 yards. Bushnell, Meopta, falcon, can get this done the big boys should be able to.

 

[johngfoster]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

What I would like to see would be a "budget" Premier Herritage. Something made by a company that actually understands what "tactical" shooters need and want in a scope. Maybe just a fixed power to cut down on the internal optical complexity. Or how about U.S.Optics doing something like this? What an opportunity!

 

[Joeyhotfizzle]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

ToddM, I think you are really asking a lot for a scope that would cost between $500 - $1000. I wish somebody would make one with all the options that you mentioned for a reasonable price, I would buy one in a heartbeat.

As far as the Sightron SIII's they are great scope for the price. I have an SIII 6-24 MD and I really like it. The gold engraving is not shiny at all (almost like a bead blasted SS but gold) and I doubt my paper targets would notice that. The turrets has marks on them just like the MK4's that tells you how many revolutions you have made and they are also numbered. The knobs on most scopes are pretty much standard, Counterclockwise to go up for elevation or to go right for windage. Also the scope is waterproof w/o the turret covers - I dont plan going commando and take mine for a swim. In my opinion the turret covers are there to prevent accidental bumps that may cause your zero to change (on the SIII's at least).

Just my .02 cents

Here's a pic of my SIII next to my MK4.

 

[mistersunday]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

Has anyone hear tried Horus Vision? I have a Predator that I really like.

 

[ToddM]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

I don't think it's that much to ask for example:

Burris Tac30 - Good glass and adjustment, add a mildot option and mil knobs you can double the price and still be under $1000.

All the nikon Monarch X and Burris XTR really need is more adjustment and knobs matching the reticule.

Leupold, while mostly over $1000 all they need is a 0.1 mil knob setup.

The SIII scope if the knobs matched the reticule, they added markings to the scope to indicate rotation, and allowed it to parallax to 25 yards how much would that cost?

The bushnell 3200/4200. Improve the clicks a bit, reduce knob size, change reticule to thinner mildot. In the 3200/4200 increase adjustment range....they should be able to do that without more than doubling the cost of the scope and it would still be under $1000. They could triple the 3200 and still be under $1000.

Easier and cheaper yet for any of the above - produce a tactical style reticule in MOA, then they don't even have to change the internal movement of the scope. I prefer mils myself but if they offers a MOA/MOA setup then it would just be personal preference not lack of usability in having knobs and reticule in different units.

Not asking for rocket science here, I'm not asking for glass to rival my swarovski's, or that I can jack my truck up with the scope body.

Provide good glass, enough adjustment (60+ MOA of real adjustment, 80+ MOA would be better) and knobs with solid clicks that match the reticule.

 

[matchking]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ToddM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My issue with turret covers is two fold. First it does not allow fast adjustments. Second many scopes that use turret covers rely on them at least partially for waterproofing. That means if you leave them off in inclement weather you have a larger chance of water issues. On a hunting scope I zero at 300-350 yards and never touch I'm fine with covered turrets. On a .22 mildot it's fine too since I only use holdovers off the reticule. On a tac/target rifle I don't want them covered. </div></div>

The biggest reason for turret covers on a "tactical" scope is to prevent accidental movement of knobs. There are a more than a few "tactical" scopes out there with covered turrets - a lot of US Optics for example.

 

[Ratbert]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheArtist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I'm a semi pro photographer (semi pro means I get paid for magazine feature photo contributions but do not do it full time)...


I also build custom Harleys and have a fabulous private shop where I own my own CNC equipment and I know the time it takes, even with CNC to make very precise parts to exacting standards out of top quality metals (titanium, 7075, stainless, tool steel, etc.) BUT, there very well could be, with todays repeatable CNC equipment the ability to make scopes that are FAR better than they make today for less money.

</div></div>

Dude, what part of NC are you in? I want to come hang out at your house...

 

[Joeyhotfizzle]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

I hope someone that works from any of the big scope companies notices this post and maybe then...

 

[Ratbert]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

I've decided I'm going to give the Horus Hawk a try for my new LR-308. Having capped turrets and just doing holds for this rifle is fine, and that is where the Horus shines. It's FFP and I won't have to deal with the crappy illumination so many manufacturers like to slap on their scopes. Only downside is I wish that parallax was at least user adjustable (like the 'fixed' parallax USO's and MST-100) rather than permanently set for 100yd. Who knows, it could be a winner. I know Boyette likes his, and the few looks through it I've taken certainly didn't discourage me.

A Heritage, or even a ST-10, just isn't appropriate for every rifle in the safe. Doesn't mean they should have to wear crap, though.

 

[DogboneS]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheArtist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Scopes and camera lenses are one and the same. A great lense is totally obvious to a cheap lense, putting a 150.00 dollar lense on my camera (all Nikon eq.) and shooting pictures and then putting on a 1,500.00 lense and taking the same pictures is obvious in the results of the quality of the photograph.
BUT....hardly any difference if any when comparing the 1,500.00 lense to a 5,000.00 lense......the difference mainly is name recoginition costing an additional 3,500.00...

</div></div>
I am not targeting you, but you mentioned something that others haven't touched on. I work in the optics industry, and have probably handled close to a half million $ worth of "premium" optical quality glass stock. Were I work we CNC, grind, and polish optics for D.O.E. contracts. I finish glass to optical mil specs. Glass stock is ungodly expensive. For a couple reasons. Limited supply. Premium glass is not made daily. Boules of "pure" glass can take months or years to produce. Transmission and homogeneity quality of the glass come at a premium, and these cost are passed on to the customer. I have handled 3"diameter x 3/8" blanks of glass that, before machining, the blanks cost $8k a piece, primarily, because there was none available for the next 3 years. I too wonder what I am getting when I spend big bucks on a scope. I can't disassemble the components to see what I've actually purchased, unlike the rest of the rifle.

 

[TheArtist]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

To DogboneS, you hit it on the head. Only in the Medical field where clarity at ultra high magnification and NASA type outfits have applications where such high quality glass is needed. The human eye, combined with a rifle, shooting at standard distances of 100-1000 yards reaches a point where the glass in the scope becomes good enough and any money spent beyond that quality is a waste of money in any situation. The more important areas of a top notch scope are absolute dead on perfect-every-time turrets and the scopes machining quality and the scopes ability to be rock solid and stay together after 1000's of rounds.
Here is the "inexpensive" area, with todays modern CNC equipment, you can mill and turn out scope body after scope body after scope body all the exact same and all to the exact tolorances needed time and time again, and other than the glass, all of the rest of the scope is milled out metal parts, ball detents, knobs, the housing, etc. All these parts are completely priced on costs of supplies and time machining, that is it, the only other factor in the price of a scope is the glass.

But unlike a lense needed for the hubble space craft, gun scopes have a stopping point on glass quality, where anything past that is just plain overkill. Once that glass quality is met, the only other factor is machining quality and the choice of metals used.

Anyone that manufactured scopes, any company making scopes could easily "fill this gap" with an outstanding scope, with Schmidt&Bender or US Optic quality housings using the same tool steel detent parts and machining tolorances with glass as good as it "needs to be" with exact matching turret/mildot plus mil-radian turrets in say a 3-9x or a fixed 8x or fixed 9x or even fixed 10x for 799.00 if they gave a crap, but as we see, they don't.

So here we are in 2009 on a blog site with instant satallite linked cellphone-wireless hi-fi laptop capable society, we built and put a freaking rover (a machine designed and milled out of aluminum and titanium) and landed it on freaking Mars for gods sake. And no one can make a super excellent scope for 799.00 with the same quality as all the overpriced scopes out there?

I can tell you right now, it "can" be done, but no one in this scope industry is going to do it because they don't care to do it.
All they want to do is manufacture as many scopes in sub-par quality as the assembly line can push out in 24 hours and hope that we-the-people, will be satisfied paying 1200.00 for a product that should have cost 599.00 and some cases has the quality of a product that should have cost 399.00 but yet, there it is, on the shelf for 1200.00.....to me it is the absolute weak link in the entire sport of shooting is this massive gap in the scope scene.

You can by a wonderful camera lense for 799.00 I have plenty of them, but to buy a scope of exact same lense quality will cost 1800.00 in the scope industry..... it's almost like the scope makers are laughing at us (well not me cause hommie don't play that game) for thinking we "have" to fork over 1800.00 to get a decent scope and in some cases 3300.00.

You know it's a screwed up sport, and a screwed up game when a really great gun can be had for 800.00 to 1200.00 and then to have to go out and pay twice that for a scope to go on it? you know there is something wrong with this picture.

I've almost gotten to the point that I, having all the equipment less the glass works ability, have decided to make my own scopes exactly to my design and specifications which I have my own ideas already in place, I have a boat load of already signed on projects to do first however. But I have finalized my billet stock CAD design for my own designed stock for my Remington 700 and it is baddass I must say, and the billet is on the way right now to mill it out, next after that is for me to mill out my own designed billet stock for my CZ 452. I have built-in all billet seamless tubed bi-pods built into them that all retract into the stock for a slick streamlined look when not being used all with spring pined click detents that are all internal and hidden, very slick outfits.

and to RatBert....everyone wants to come hang out at my pad......

 

[ToddM]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

Exactly, I'll trade $3000 level lenses for bushnell 3200/4200 level lenses and take a more solid scope built with options for under $1000 every time.

I think what happens is companies come along and say "well X, Y, Z are selling their scopes for $1500 lets make ours similar and sell it $200 less. Few companies have been willing to buck that trend. There is market for it. It's the same silliness that companies use to charge 30% more for FFP. Bottom line is though the buying public eats it up and until people vote with their $ the trend will continue.

That or you have the company normally selling $500 scopes that shoves target knobs, adds a mildot, paints it matte and charges $900 for it.

Look at the SS's they sell out frequently and go faster than most of the top scopes on the for sale boards. Same is true of Falcon, they built a FFP scope with options less than $400. Is it as solid as a S&B...no, is the glass as good, no. But think what could be done if they put bushnell 4200 level glass in it, and spent the rest on improving the build quality, adding a couple more options. It also sells out frequently, and when they come up for sale they are GONE. WoTac is in the game now as well, new kids on the block but another company offering a lot of options for a low price.

If someone were to put that innovation with better quality into a $800 scope budget they couldn't build enough of them. There would still be a market for the $1500-3000 scopes, always will be. The market is always there for top level glass, be it binoculars, spotting scopes, cameras, telescopes, etc. Riflescopes don't need anywhere near that level of glass. Even most tactical reticules only use at most the center 50% of the glass, it's not like a camera lens that needs the best glass edge to edge.

 

[ranger1183]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

I Love Horus Vision Scopes!

I have a Horus Vision Predator that has served me very well. Got it last year in March. Excellent scope.

But unemployment is forcing me to sell it. Going to throw in NightForce Ultra-Light rings (low) and a Horus Vision Angle Cosign Indicator with the scope. No knob covers (I have no idea where those ran off to).

Total is $800 if you know anyone who is interested.

 

[jeffersonv]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?

How would it be if Vortex Vipers came with matching mil turrets/reticles and FFP? That would work for me and was what I was hoping for. Now we are looking at the $1500 price range for their next production. Great.
They had a lot of folks hoping and waiting.

I don't think many scope makers are far off from what we tacticle/precision shooters want. Crisp repeatable adjustments and matching turrets/reticles in FFP. Glass is already in the ball park, just need a couple minor engineering/hardware changes.

Our niche is one that can and will improvise but maybe that is what is hurting us in this area.
How bout if we stop buying what doesn't fit our needs?

 

[TheArtist]

Re: Huge tactical scope market gap?



I know many guys on here are probably near a divorce with their wives for spending $2700.00 on a NF or S&B or US Optics scopes just to "be in that club" but these guys that are "near divorce levels" for spending that kind of money (on not just one but maybe 2 or 3 scopes that the wife has found out $9,000.00 has been spent on 3 scopes) that are sitting in a gun safe.

But these are 10% of the casual shooting crowd. The rest of us, the 90% that shoot targets just for fun do not need a $3300.00 US Optics scope, not to say we wouldn't like to have one, but we're not going to plop down that much money for it, only want a super tight, rock solid housing with matching internals, with rock solid turrets, a repeatable dead on zero (like the big boys have) and "good enough" glass, and have the scope at stores for 799.00.

That is do-able if only someone cared. Japanese glass is perfect and redily available. The machining can of course take place here in the USA where there are millions of CNC machines.

housing made in the USA, glass made in Japan, and lets face it, I know personally because I machine and own CNC equipment, it doesn't take any more time to machine a part out of crappy metal as it does to run the same mill path on good metal, same exact shop time, time=money, the time spent to machine the same part out of sub-par metals is still the exact same shop machine time as running that program on a quality piece of metal.

The problem I see with the 300.00 to 800.00 scope market is the glass is fine, the housing and the turrets suck. this is the main downfall on these scopes. Basically all these scope makers need to do is step up the turret machining tolorances and use titanium springs and hardened internals and get that stepped up to the big boys and they'd have it.

You could take Nikon Monarch glass for example, from a platform scope in their already 399.00 line up, machine out a 6061 housing, upgrade the internal metals quality to the same hardened standards and threading size and tolorances of the big boys, match the turrets and reticle, and you would have it.....bamm....... job done.

the higher quality metals costs and machining would bump it up to 799.00 and it would end up being a super nice scope that would satisfy any shooter and the clicks would be perfect everytime and the repeatability would be there and the quality of the turrets and resetting would be there. That's what we want........

And like ToddM says, they wouldn't be able to make them fast enough, but that is o.k. also, it makes you appreciate the wait time and the final product and its quality and satisfaction once you receive it.