high value low cost optics, scopes binoculars, spotters ect.

[codyjoe1128]

Took one shot with the "cheap" tasco tonight, put a hole in the top of the corner post at 667 yards using the shooter app on my android, used the rectical range finder in the program to range it( Google earth says its 668) it said to dial 9.7 up (39 clicks) and 2.8 moa(11 clicks) right one shot and splinters everywhere...one shot one dead fence post! Shooter app $9.99...savage model 12 bvss 300wsm $625...tasco 6-24x42 $80...winchester silvertips $2.15 a POP...wooden corner post $20....the look on the game wardens face after he said ill never hit it PRICELESS!!!

 

[GBA1776]

Im glad other people have used those tasco scopes and like them, Now people will know im not nuts telling them a scope that costs a fraction of what they are used to spending is actually good

 

[codyjoe1128]

I'm fairly rough on scopes...all my guns are truck guns...they lay "unloaded" in the center of the front seat...pretty much at all times when I'm home, till April when turkey season is open and yote is closed, then its the trusty 870 12 gauge( hey 100 yards is long range for killing a turkey with a shotgun right) then May 1st and back in the truck the rifles go....I used to be a Simmons guy but I've got a cabelas target dot 17 hmr scope on my 17 now($90?) And the tasco on my wsm.....both ride and shoot flawlessly so far....

 

[Andy Backus]

I just posted a review of Nikon's Monarch 3 binoculars. I used their 10x42's on a recent western muley hunt and was really impressed considering their $200-300 price range.

CLICK HERE to see the review.

 

[jehu]

If some of you want to trust your hunt success to a $99 piece of crap then thats your business. But if you want to be still in the game when the buck of a lifetime steps out at the very end of the day or if you pay thousands of dollars for a trophy hunt then thats when Alpha Glass pays off. Buy the best you can afford but don't try and justify your purchase to make yourself feel better about it by comparing Tasco to Ziess or Swarovski because anyone here knows there is no comparison period.

 

[REDHEAD]

Very true , but one can only go as far as his wallet will let him. I have had good luck with Bushnell - Banners . My Banners have been frozen and thawed more times than my toes. No moisture , great clarity to this day. Had to retire one. After 25 years , the springs gave out. Not bad for $40. I purchased a 2 for 1 Burris Fullfield pkg , 5 years ago. Looking at the objective lens, I noticed moisture. No- its poor glass cleaning and poor ground glass. End of story.

 

[jehu]

Every manufacture can have a lemon once in a while. My advise for young and budget shooters is this: in todays world most major rifle manufactures produce very accurate rifles and for most shooters to wring out that accuracy then good optics will allow them to do better especialy in low light conditions. Buy a good rifle and then spend 2-3 times its worth on optics to be the best you can with that rifle. Just my .02 others will disagree.

 

[stevesdl]

I have to jump in and no offense intended to anyone.

My hat is off to this thread and some talking common sense.

The whole purpose with hunting is to go out and have fun (period). I would luv to know the validity behind the statement that one has to spend 1.5 or 2 or 3 times the cost of the rifle to get the rifles full potential? Just how do those numbers work? What real truth does that come from. Is that proven market research.

If one can purchase an inexpensive scope and get the job done, have a great time, and enjoy the sport of hunting, what part of that statement proves failure? Also if that successful hunt with the inexpensive scope also gave that person the ability to purchase other family or personal needs, how can that not be a win win situation?

There will always be people that "drink the koolaid". If you have the money and can purchase a scope that might be better, than great, but that does not prove that the higher costing scope is a more "justified" scope for hunting. In addition, it would make many of you really really mad to see what the real cost of that high priced product is and to see that the extra dollars was really going to the companies executive pockets who are laughing all the way to the bank.

Just my thought.

 

[Terrytf]

I have to jump in and no offense intended to anyone.

My hat is off to this thread and some talking common sense.

The whole purpose with hunting is to go out and have fun (period). I would luv to know the validity behind the statement that one has to spend 1.5 or 2 or 3 times the cost of the rifle to get the rifles full potential? Just how do those numbers work? What real truth does that come from. Is that proven market research.

If one can purchase an inexpensive scope and get the job done, have a great time, and enjoy the sport of hunting, what part of that statement proves failure? Also if that successful hunt with the inexpensive scope also gave that person the ability to purchase other family or personal needs, how can that not be a win win situation?

There will always be people that "drink the koolaid". If you have the money and can purchase a scope that might be better, than great, but that does not prove that the higher costing scope is a more "justified" scope for hunting. In addition, it would make many of you really really mad to see what the real cost of that high priced product is and to see that the extra dollars was really going to the companies executive pockets who are laughing all the way to the bank.

Just my thought.

Well said

 

[joe0121]

I just posted a review of Nikon's Monarch 3 binoculars. I used their 10x42's on a recent western muley hunt and was really impressed considering their $200-300 price range.

CLICK HERE to see the review.

Nikon has some good glass for sure.

 

[msalm]

Rifles will come and go as I can always build another toy, good glass stays in the cabinet to be put on the next toy. I have a few cheap scopes on little 22 plinkers and what-not, two Nightforces on the other end of the scale, and then the middle is packed with several Leu VX-3's, B&L and bushnell 4200's, and a couple of Nikon monarchs on a few AR's. I shop around, pick up a few used scopes here and there, and buy the best quality I can at the time...but most importantly, I don't sell the scope with the rifle!

 

[theflyonthewall]

I'm glad to see this thread as well.

Of course here on a forum where "extreme" is the norm, it's going to raise some controversy. To me though, it all boils down to BUDGET. We can only buy what we can afford. It's nice to know that some folks can easily exclude the entire bottom end and mid-range optics and only look at the upper tier. I'm not one of them yet. I have my nose to the grindstone constantly in an effort to better my financial situation. But until I am smiling at 6 figures or more in my bank accounts on a daily basis, I have to compromise things.

For me, all I have a current need for is a rifle that shoots as well as I do or a little better----most fit into this category...lol. I have my 7mm Rem Mag for that. Next I have to settle on a good scope for it. And there's the crux. Ohhhhhhhhh how I would love to just pop out the platinum Visa and order any Nightforce I wanted. But since there's no platinum on my Visa, and there sure as hell isn't enough credit on it for a Nightforce, I'll have to buy something else and settle.

So to those that say "just wait until you can buy a "real" scope...." I would much rather SHOOT MY RIFLE than look at it, wishing I had that gazillion dollar scope that I may never be able to afford.

So for all those that are in the same shape as me, maybe this will help you:

In my plight for a reliable scope within my budget constraints, I've found it necessary to prioritize features.
Features that I can afford:
A. Reticles
1. Mil-Dot
2. Plex
B. Power
1. Variable up to 20x in some models.
2. Fixed power of nearly any practical range for hunting.
C. MOA/MOA or MIL/MIL
1. MIL/MIL is my preference, but only affordable in fixed power (for ME)
2. MOA/MOA pretty-much any scope in hunting magnifications can be had in MOA/MOA.

What I know can't afford:
1. Fancy custom or semi-custom reticles....like the EBR-1 (drool)
2. European-quality glass...would love it, but it's not gonna happen.
3. Laser-rangefinding scopes...not gonna happen.
4. Side-parralax adjustment....might get lucky, but it's not on my must-have list of features.

To me, it made the most sense to prioritize the features that scopes offered. I really struggled in my early research/shopping because I kept comparing apples to oranges. If budget shoppers like me try to shop by certain features instead of comparing one scope to another, maybe it would make the decision process easier.

That's my two cents for a great thread on scopes.

 

[GBA1776]

Jehu,

I Let My Bullets Do The Talking, NOT The Price-Tag On The Box.

There are alot of great rifles out there but, and its a BIG but, 95% of people out there CANT outshoot the rifle they use. A rifle that is Capable of .5 MOA accuracy wont guarantee that the shooter will shoot it to its limits. Blaming your gear For your Mistake is an excuse, and one thats used all to often. Every company makes a lemon every once in a while, and some companies make junk. But As long as a Scope holds a Zero, And the shooter knows how to use it properly, long and difficult shots can be made. Regardless of the cost.

You Need to actually read what I wrote, the title to the thread is " High value, Low Cost" NOT " Low Cost=High Value" there is a difference.
I could have spent $300-$400 more than what I did, But I wouldnt have Got much If anything For the Extra money. I did Get a whole lot for NOT spending the money.

Your knee-jerk reaction to just reading about my $100 scope, is Exactly why I started this Post.
I never Said the Tasco I bought Is Better or Even just as good As a Ziess, Swarovsky Trijicon ect. Actually one of my First posts said "No its Not as Good as My Shooting Buddies Leupold" But Compared to some of the $150-$300 scopes I looked at, It is just as good or better.

I took a trip to eastern washington over New years weekend, I brought my AR-15, it was packed In a Case, Driven Over the mountains, Packed in another truck driven 45 min on a bumpy dirt road, then ATV'd 20min to a field and the only adjustment I had to make was elevation, Two 1/4 moa clicks to be exact. It needed a minor tweak because of the altitude and temperature change. And After the adjustment I was shooting a 18"x18" plate at 634yds (according to my Mil-dot calculation) and that was in 10mph wind gusting to 15mph. If I couldn't shoot,and read wind It wouldn't matter what equipment I had. I was looking at a $350 Bushnell, but the Tasco I bought Has all the features I want, And Obviously works well. Plus I saved enough for 9mm, 22wmr ammo, and binoculars.

Im not saying there aren't crap cheap scopes out there, Of course there are, But there Are also crap scopes in the $300 range.
I will never say A scope costing $600+ is junk, apart from a defective scope, they are great. For that price THEY BETTER BE. But Again as stated in earlier posts, that you obviously didn't read, everyone doesn't need a scope that costs more than the rifle it sits on.
Take your own advice, don't try to justify A $1000 dollar scope, saying "it will make my trophy shot for me", Its all down to the finger behind the trigger, But Go pick up the scope i bought and tell me its junk its A Tasco VAR251042M.

Redhead, Thanks for Getting It, and For the Tip on the Banners Ive Also had good luck with Bushnell I just got some Powerview 10-30x28's and for small light and inexpensive Bino's they work great.

I'm trying to have people spread the word about optics that don't break the bank, That also don't make you sacrifice quality. Despite what you may have heard gear like this is out there, all it takes is to look past a name and at the product itself.

The Shooter Makes the Shot, Not The Gear.

 

[GBA1776]

TheFlyOnTheWall

It seems we both want the same things in a scope, I want Mil-Dot Variable Power, And for My AR-15 I wanted a Scope that could easily focus on something close (less than 50yds so a minimum power of less that 3x) and also have the ability to shoot out to the maximum range of the .223, With a 16" 1-9 twist im pretty much limited to 55-62gr ammo so 600yds is about it for target shooting with that setup. So the 2.5-10 fit my needs perfectly, I would have liked a 16x but i could only find 4-16x and 4x is to powerful for fast close range target acquisition.

I dont know exactly what your looking for but if you dont mind having parallax adjustment on the objective bell, The Big brother to what I bought is a 6-24x42mm for around $120 maybe less. If you dont like it most places have a 30 day return policy, plus Tasco has a 1 year warranty, at least thats what came with mine.