Rifle Scopes Optic Needs Analysis

[Bro Mo]

Is there a rule of thumb for the capability provided by cost? Does the quality improvement provided by the increase in cost generally follow some function of the distance or conditions an optic accomplish?

Do quality turrets cost X dollars and the ability to see Y distance cost a certain amount per yard within a scale of condition complication such as low light or high temperature and humidity.

Just wondering if there is a general way to say something along the lines of, "I need to see this far under these conditions, therefore I need to spend at least this much to get the quality to achieve that."

 

[tacotim]

Thats a fun idea. Maybe you will get some good responses. I think its impossible though. There is too much difference in defining how a tactical-like scope should be 'scored', what the score is, and of course this score would be different for every example of the scope Then there is also big differences in price due to different labor markets. For example an S&B from Germany or Hungary. If there was a rule of thumb, I bet it looks linear on a semi-log plot. Performance on the linear axis, cost on the log axis.

 

[SlimBlundt]

You can’t so easily score a scope by feature because your intended purpose as well as personal preferences dictate the value of each attribute. For example:
- I value MOA over MRAD
- I value SFP over FFP... for hunting
- I value a smaller objective lens that is lighter and allows me to mount a scope lower over a larger objective lens that collects more light but weighs more, costs more, and requires taller rings.
- Illuminated reticles are nice but not a deal breaker
- a 30mm tube allows for more versatile mounting options but a 34mm tube allows for a more complex erector and more elevation adjustment
- one scope might have exceptionally nice “clicks” but they’re too close together while It’s direct competition might have more muted clicks that are spaced further apart and are less susceptible to over adjustment
- I value shorter turrets that won’t snag while others prefer taller turrets that are easier to grasp and see without changing shooting position
- I value light weight over bomb-proof durability
- I value lower magnification for close shots more than a higher magnification for long shots (...and that’s a deal breaker)

I could go on and on and on

 

[The DFC]

My rule of thumb is the more mag you want the better the scope should be-ie the more you have to spend. I can't plug any absolute values in but if I'm going to buy a scope with mag of 18x or above-it has to be good-say Vortex Razor good for example-at least for me anyway.

 

[Bro Mo]

A guy once told me that you shouldn't spend less than a $1k on binoculars 10x or more. I imagine add $500 for quality turrets on a scope and 10x plus looks like $1500 buy-in.

 

[SepticDeath]

Way happy with my Athlon ETR. Makes hitting 1,000 yard targets a breeze with a 308. Paid $1,100.

 

[alfmoonspace]

Sure you can read up on the forums and see who bought what and what is the best bang for your buck. Unless you try it yourself, you won't know what works for you and your intended use.

SS 10x is cheap and will work at long ranges. So does a ZCO or a Tangent. Prius vs GT500.

Also, hardly anyone mentions eye site. I would pay 3k for LASIK over optics any day of the week.