Rifle Scopes Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

[Phil3]

Is there a generally perceived "sweet spot" in scope value vs benefit. Is there a point of obvious diminishing returns. I am sure a $3,000 scope is outstanding, but how much better than a scope half as good? Or that $1500 scope vs one for $750? At what point does it make sense to spend a bit more for a definite and perceptible improvement in usable performance? May help to see where I need to be on price range.

- Phil

 

[SheepsClothes]

Re: Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

You hit the nail on the head.

Diminishing returns. I'm new to this site but when purchasing any widget no matter what it is you first need to assess what you need from your purchase. You could trade the word need for want in that last sentence, but that's a pointless path as you don't need anything aside from food shelter and water etc. So define what you want from the scope you need, find out what features the scope will need to have to get you there. Then see if you can afford those needs.


Then you need to assess if your budget can cover those needs. If not, save up or compromise. I've been stuffing my piggy bank for 4 years or more to buy a rifle and a scope. I realised, I can't afford the glass I need and a rifle. So the rifle waits and I'm researching on what features will suit me best and taking the cost issue out of the problem.

 

[Phil3]

Re: Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

What I need can be covered by from inexpensive to very high end scopes. My question asks to what degree quality and performance increase relative to cost. Obviously, we all want the "best", but I wonder at what price point a scope's performance increase lacks behind a larger price increase.

- Phil

 

[TonyAngel]

Re: Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

Phil, the question that you ask is very valid, but I think the answer will vary from person to person.

For me, I have very definite lines among grades of scopes. In terms of higher end scopes, I'd like to have a Schmidt or Premiere, but I really don't need them. I'm sure that one day I'll have one or the other just because I want it, but I can't imagine needing a $3K+ scope.

When I need a scope with good glass that is built like a tank for rough environments, I draw the line at Nightforce. I've been a fan of them for a while and feel that they are the best bang for the buck in high end scopes. The glass is on the better side of good and I've never had to re-zero one due to a knock or fall.

When I need a scope with good glass, but does not need such a robust build, the options widen a bit. In this class of scope I'd put them in the price range of around $700 to $900 or so. Vortex PST, Sightron SIII, etc.

When I just need something dependable from a reputable manufacturer in the $300 to $500 or so range, there are a bunch to choose from. Bushnell, Weaver, Super Sniper, etc.

For me, the bottom line is that I don't think that I'll ever be able to say that I need a S&B or Premiere, but I do have rifles where I thought I NEEDED to have a Nightforce on top of them, because of what I planned to do with them.

Of course, there are those that value glass quality over robustness of build; and for those guys that want one without paying for the other there are brands like Swarovski, Kahles and Zeiss.

 

[BobinNC]

Re: Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

Phil,

You pose an interesting question, that cannot be truly answered simply because the way in which you posed it. It's like saying "How long is a piece of string"???

Without knowing your application for the scope, how can one put a price on the relative worth of the features required to meet an unknown set of requirements.

For example:

Low light requirements if any
Ranges anticipated for use
weight limitations if any
potential target size
illumination
turrets - Mil or MOA
benchrest, tactical or hunting use
ranging capability needed

Even considering one of the better brands, the way you option a scope greatly affects the price. For example lets take 2 US Optics SN-3 3.2-17x44mm w/30mm tubes

Price point 1:

SN3-1700
Base price $2010
ERGO - Standard Option
44mm Low Profile - Standard Option
U.S. #1 1/10 MIL - Standard Option
U.S. #1 1/10 MIL - Standard Option
30mm - Standard Option
Matte Black Type III Hard Anodizing - Standard Option
Mil-Dot - Standard Option
Lo Profile Housing - Standard Option
Rapid Focus - Standard Option

$2010 Total

Price point 2:

SN3-1750
Base price $2290
T-Pal Left - Standard Option
44mm - Standard Option
EREK 1/10 MIL - 175.00
U.S. #1 1/10 MIL - Standard Option
30mm - Standard Option
Matte Black Type III Hard Anodizing - Standard Option
Mil-Scale GAP - 86.00
11 Pos Rheostat (Red) - 185.00
Lo Profile Housing - Standard Option
Rapid Focus - Standard Option

$2736 Total

The difference cost wise between the two scopes is over $700.

In function the cheaper one lacks only side focus parallax adjustment (it has front parallax adjustment called ERGO), EREK turret with a sort of zero stop, a detailed ranging reticle, and illumination.

The glass, power, and durability would be the same between the two scopes. Same functions, less features...

Do you need the features the SN3 1750 has over the SN3 1700?

If you do then the price difference between them is irrelevant, because the cheaper scope does not have the features you need to be successful for your application.

Define your minimum basic needs first, then we can have a through discussion of what scopes can fill those needs, and what they cost.

 

[Phil3]

Re: Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You pose an interesting question, that cannot be truly answered simply because the way in which you posed it. It's like saying "How long is a piece of string"???

Without knowing your application for the scope, how can one put a price on the relative worth of the features required to meet an unknown set of requirements.</div></div>

Or the dimensions of a cloud or how high a wave is... I know your point, but asked because I am looking for info on what extra dollars really buys. I sense for instance that the glass quality (or any of the features you mentioned) would be noticeably different between a $300 scope and a $1000 scope, but would another $700 ($1700 scope) return the same kind of improvement? I mean for instance, how good can the clicks on a turret get? This is not so much about WHICH features as it is about the incremental improvement of quality of those features vs the increase in price.

I might find four scopes with all the features I desire, at price points of $300, $1000, $1700, and $2400. One of these is likely to give the most bang for the buck. Perhaps the $1000 model gives 70% of the performance of the $2400 model and 90% of the $1700 model, but is four times as good as the $300 model.

Your list gave me some things to think about, that I had not considered before, so I added some answers to try and nail down various models. I added a few features or attributes as well.

Low light requirements if any - None
Ranges anticipated for use - 100 - 300 yard
Weight limitations if any - None
Potential target size - Bench 1MOA center circle on paper
Illumination - None
Turrets - Mil or MOA - MOA
Benchrest, tactical or hunting use - Benchrest or Tactical
Ranging capability needed - No
Zoom capability - To 24X. No minimum
Objective size - 42mm and up
Tube size - 1" or 30mm
Finish - Matte black
Reticle - Fine, MOA markings
Turret MOA clicks - 1/4 or 1/8 MOA
Side Focus - Yes
Focal Plane - Second (maintain reticle at one size)

I hope this helps define needs.

- Phil

 

[LoneWolfUSMC]

Re: Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

This is an extremely hard question to answer because YOUR idea of quality and what is acceptable may be vastly different from mine. It's like the guys at the range who tell me that a Leupold VX-III is an amazing scope.

From what I have experienced the $1000 tier seems to be the "sweet spot" for balancing dollars and features. In this range you get relatively clear glass, good tracking and good turret feel.

Turret feel is a difficult one because I can line up three $2K+ scopes and each one has a different "feel" to the clicks. The style of clicks that I prefer, may not be the type that you prefer.

Generally what I have seen is that a $1000 scope has many times the quality of a $200 scope. The difference between a $1000 scope and a $2000 is profound, but nowhere near that of the first jump. I am finishing up a review on a $900 tactical scope. I have been using the hell out of it. It's a good scope. However I will be happy to put my Vortex Razor back on the rifle. The $900 does everything my Razor does. The Razor just does it better.

 

[BobinNC]

Re: Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

Phil,

Since it seems your needs/requirements dictate a MOA/MOA SFP scope, you certainly made your selection field smaller.

Hensoldt is out due to no MOA/MOA scopes
S&B is out ditto
Premier is out due to no SFP scopes
USO is out because there variables are FFP, but I guess the fixed SN17 & SN22 might work
Leupold is out
Bushnell is out
Nikon is out
Burris is out
SWFA SS is out

That leaves you:

IOR
Vortex PST SFP
Nightforce
Sightron
USO fixed powers
March

Since illumination is also not wanted, and the MOA compatable IOR's, Vortex, and NF comes with it, your choices are down to very few.

See you were worried about benefit vs cost, but your requirements are so self limiting that the question becomes academic.

See that was easy........

 

[DannySeesUSMC]

Re: Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

Phil3, Sightron S3 6-24x50 MOA/MOA seems like exactly the scope you are wanting.

 

[42769vette]

Re: Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

to me votrex pst where tehh break is. after that there is more cost than benifit, depending on what your doing with the rifle

 

[ctressler]

Re: Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

if you are not shooting past 300 Yards, I wouldn't spend more than $500 on a scope. Check out the Vortex Viper PA, I think it has everything you listed.

However, there is a really good chance that in the future you are going to want to stretch it out farther than 300 yards and a $1700-$1500 scope would allow you that room to grow.

 

[Phil3]

Re: Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ctressler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if you are not shooting past 300 Yards, I wouldn't spend more than $500 on a scope. Check out the Vortex Viper PA, I think it has everything you listed.

However, there is a really good chance that in the future you are going to want to stretch it out farther than 300 yards and a $1700-$1500 scope would allow you that room to grow. </div></div>

I would love to go further than 300 yards now, but can't since there are no ranges around here further than 200 yards. - Phil

 

[ctressler]

Re: Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

You should come out to Arizona and particapte in one of the AZPRC new shooter range days. They shoot from 200 to 2200 yards. Check out AZPRC.net

 

[Phil3]

Re: Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

Arizona is a little far from the San Francisco bay area!

 

[Phil3]

Re: Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

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

Since it seems your needs/requirements dictate a MOA/MOA SFP scope, you certainly made your selection field smaller.

Hensoldt is out due to no MOA/MOA scopes
S&B is out ditto
Premier is out due to no SFP scopes
USO is out because there variables are FFP, but I guess the fixed SN17 & SN22 might work
Leupold is out
Bushnell is out
Nikon is out
Burris is out
SWFA SS is out

That leaves you:

IOR
Vortex PST SFP
Nightforce
Sightron
USO fixed powers
March

Since illumination is also not wanted, and the MOA compatable IOR's, Vortex, and NF comes with it, your choices are down to very few.

See you were worried about benefit vs cost, but your requirements are so self limiting that the question becomes academic.

See that was easy........ </div></div>

Yes it was (easy). It looks like the Sightron SS624X50LRMOA or Vortex PST6241SA. Leaning to the Vortex, because I prefer their MOA reticle and it is cheaper. How it performs vs the Sightron I can not say.

I am a bit suprised there are so few choices. Thankfully, there is something out there.

- Phil

 

[Bevan]

Re: Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

SuB have a MOA reticle out now but really MOA is dumb

 

[ctressler]

Re: Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bevan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but really MOA is dumb </div></div>

I had to laugh at this, I get your point but what a way to put it.

You could also say that you can't be dumb if you want to use MOA.

 

[XTR]

Re: Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

There is a bit of esoteric philosophy going on here. I'll step out on the limb and say your number is about $1500. At tht price you can get pretty much every feature you would want (or really need) other than the name on the side.

For a hunting scope that will be set to a 200yd zero and checked once a yr the number is lower. Probably closer to 1/2 that price.

 

[ratton]

Re: Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

Check out Sacramento Valley Shooting Center in Sloughhouse Ca (sacvalley.org). They have a tactical match on the 1st Sunday of each month. Lost of different scopes you could check out.

 

[bigwheeler]

Re: Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

For a good number of us shooting is a hobby. You start putting too much thought
about the cost of a hobby and it takes some of the fun out of it. I buy what I can
afford and I think is the best for what I want to do. Not just how cheap I can get the
job done. And when I squeeze a nickel the Indian rides the buffalo. I do expect good
value for my dollar. It's just we all have different value systems.

 

[strick9]

Re: Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

I have been through them all with the exception of Hensoldt and March. Bought and sold a ton, back and forth to the post office what a pain in the ass to rezero blah blah. I eventually settled on Night Force, now I try not to even look back or at new product.

As a hunter first and paper puncher second I went with NF on all of my rigs for a multitude of reasons including durability,price point, reticle, moa settings,weight etc. Damn If I had only listened to the masses for once I could have saved a lot of time and money.

The only slight scratching I had wass with the light transmission at dawn and dusk but going with the 56mm obj solved that as well.

 

[GONIF]

Re: Sweet Spot in Scope Benefit vs Cost

With most things you have to pay twice as much to get a 10 to 20% improvement ,why would scopes be any diffant .
My favrote bang for the buck for people just getting started is the Bushnell 3200 elite 10x at under $200.00 .It is shocking what you can acomplish with it at the price .