Are the high dollar scopes really worth it?

Discussion in 'Long Range Hunting & Shooting' started by outdooraddict, Mar 11, 2008.

  1. outdooraddict

    outdooraddict Well-Known Member

    Nov 13, 2007
    I am very seriously looking at a new scope for my 300rum I have looked at Night Force, Leupold, Nikon, and Bushnell. I have come down to a Bushnell elite 4200 30mm tube 6-24x50 with a mil-dot reticle. For three times that much my second choise is a Night Force NXS 5.5-22 NPR2. I am having a very very very hard time trying to justify a 1500 + dollar scope that will not get used a whole lot, this summer I plan on shooting once a week 20-40 shots out of that gun at most some weeks less at 200 yds or so some weeks more when were shooting out to 700-800. This is a hunting gun only for elk and deer. I am taking it to Idaho this fall, after this year it could sit in the safe for 5 years who knows. Where I live is a shotgun only area so no rifles and if I go up north the 280rem will most likely get the nod. So is it really worth it to spend 1500 for something that will only get used every three or four years or should I put the extra money into binos, spotting scope, ect. thanks all.
  2. Earl Fouraker

    Earl Fouraker Well-Known Member

    Feb 18, 2007
    I own both the scopes you mentioned.....I will say that I like my nightforce scopes alot better then the 4200. I love the Nice thin NP-R2 better then the mil-dot of the 4200 tactical. Optically the nightforce is more clear...especially on the high end of magnification. I will say for around $560 the bushnell is a really nice scope with a good sight picture, nice adjustment knobs, and good tracking. If money was a concern I would go with the 4200 and not look back. If you want the best scope you can buy for under $2000 go with the Nightforce. One thing to think about also is you will never have a hard time trying to sell a nightforce is you need to.

  3. tjonh2001

    tjonh2001 Well-Known Member

    Aug 13, 2007
    i also own both of the scopes and i am satisfied with the elite. no comparison to a nightforce. if i were you i would look inbetween those to like an IOR or leupold. they are ahead of the elite, yet still have money in the pocket.
  4. pjracer

    pjracer Well-Known Member

    Jan 20, 2008

    There is no substitute for quality.
  5. royinidaho

    royinidaho Writers Guild

    Jan 20, 2004
    I've come to the conclusion, finaly, that even though used not very often, when used it's gotta be good. That's most probably the only chance that I'll get for the season.

    I've come to recognize that I have to be prepared for any time of day, early, late, rain, fog, snow, whatever comes along and that's my chance.

    I've settled on one of the high priced scopes. Which one I don't know yet. It'll be some kind of ranging reticle (for hold overs not ranging) and most probably a 56mm objective.
  6. bradtothebone

    bradtothebone Member

    Nov 17, 2007
    I used to have a 4200

    :cool::cool:then bought my 1st nightforce, a 5.5x22x56 with Npr2 reticle..... I ended up floggin the 4200...... Now I own another nightforce 8x32x56 npr2 reticle....... ANd except for my gopher rig (.204 ruger) I run nightforce or zeiss...... Once you get a taste of the good glass you wont want to settle for less....
  7. James Jones

    James Jones Well-Known Member

    Jul 1, 2002
    Like everybody else said for the money the 4200 is a good deal , it certainly ain't a Nightforce.

    I have owned a Nightforce and currently own a Nikon Tactical , IOR , Shmidt&Bender and Leupold MK-4 and for the money I like the IOR best . I got the Nikon from here in the ads for a hell of a deal and will say its everybit the scope the higher priced Leupolds are.

    Another Realy good scope for the money is the Burris Black Diamond , they can regualry be had used in great shape for $500-$600 in the uper power range
  8. James D.

    James D. Well-Known Member

    Feb 16, 2002
    I have the Nightforce NXS NP-R2, Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50, IOR 6-24x50, and now a USO ST-17. If on a budget and was CLEAR glass with reliable internals the Zeiss Conquest should fill the bill. Other than that I would go with the Nightforce. I had an older 30mm tube IOR fail me on a .338 Lapua, and is now replaced with a USO. (Met a guy at the range with a .50BMG and after so many rds the etched reticle cracked, Zeiss warrantied it and the scope was replaced by a Super Sniper...) I like to believe that spending extra money guarantees that you would have less problems due to higher quality, sometimes it works and sometimes it don't.
  9. Strick9

    Strick9 Well-Known Member

    Nov 16, 2007
    Why the NP-R2 and not the Np-R1,,looks almost the same but you get one moa breakdown instead of two Moa..and if you research most will tell you that the 56mm obj for the increase in cost and weight doesn't really do that much for you..m2c
  10. jimbo300

    jimbo300 Well-Known Member

    Sep 2, 2007
    I have been shooting a NF scope since 1994 or 1995. I bought that first scope for $600. NIB. I can remember trying to justify that much $ at the time. Since then I have purchased 2 more NF scopes for much more, actually double. I have never second guessed my decision however after owning a NF.

    3.5-15X56 NP-1RR
    5.5-22X56 NP-1RR
    8-32X56 NP-R2
  11. mikenc

    mikenc Well-Known Member

    Jul 23, 2007
    To answer your question simply.

    YES, The expensive scopes are worth it.

    Just think how much you are spending to go hunting amd shooting. Then just think what a waste it would be to buy a cheap scope add still spend all that money on hunting/shooting.

    Mike Alford