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

Ive never said Scopes arent needed I have one on every Rifle I own except my Winchester 92, I am saying that you dont need a $1,000 scope to shoot well.

I am saying there are other options out there for a fraction of the price,Options that will do the job and do it well. Ive Put just under 1,000 rounds through my AR with the tasco on it, and it still works great. When I miss, Its because I made a mistake, not because I didnt spend enough money on whatever.

All I want from my gear is it to work properly, so a scope that holds a zero and reliably makes adjustments, and has good clarity through all power levels i'm happy. And I got exactly that.

And I guess you aren't familiar with AR's but a Match trigger is about $120 for a kit and $200ish for the drop in, And dropping the trigger pull from a creepy 6lbs to a crisp 3lbs will do more for me than replacing A scope that works fine.
Would I love to top all my rifles with a Ziess or whatever, hell yeah, but would it improve my shooting? No.


All im trying to do is find good affordable gear, I know everyone has a different budget, But lets leave the top of the line brands out of it unless you find a crazy low price. the thread is "High Value Low Cost" Not spend a grand you'll get good stuff


Oh does anyone have a good variable power monocular? Ive looked around but only see ones that are fixed and they are usually 8x 10x 12x. there are a few variable powers online but I cant find them in any stores so If anyone has a good one, or If you got one that was junk please let me know so i dont buy the **** thing too.
Oh about the Barska Colorado spotting scope I mentioned I saw one On Ebay as a "buy it now" not an auction for $45 with free shipping
 
Savageman69 said:
Would I love to top all my rifles with a Ziess or whatever, hell yeah, but would it improve my shooting? No.
Click to expand...

It would improve on how well you would find/see your target. Improvements in optics are as important as improvements in rifle. If all one does is hunt deer at a stand under 150 yards, all one needs is a basic rifle with iron sights. Anything else beyond that is a luxury and one must decide, if on limited budget, which one is more important to HIM/HER.

I must have misunderstood your original post. I thought you were telling us that high cost optics aren't needed, not asking for low cost alternatives. Bushnell Elite 3200/4200 and Nikon Monarch are couple examples of budget scopes that work well, especially when you can find them on sale.

SWFA Riflescopes
 
Savageman,

It has been a few weeks since I read through all the posts so maybe I am forgetting some info but I think you are missing some important points that are critical to choosing a scope. Don't get me wrong I applaud the basic concept of your post and in some ways go through a similar process as you in determining which scope to buy. I often bypass much of the fluff to get exactly what I need, trying to save as much money along the way.

Having said that, if i recall correctly you are using a semi auto 22 cal to shoot at the minimum of what I would call LR shooting, ie about 600 yards. Also, it doesn't sound like you dial your turrets for varying distances but instead use hold over and your reticle for various holds. To be sure there are few scopes that won't be able to handle the abuse of that setup. It really is about as soft of a shooter as you can get and once you have the scope set you hardly touch it.

But for most long range guys this IS NOT how they use their LR rigs. They are using larger cartridges, sometimes much larger magnums, often times with brakes which makes durability of a scope so much more critical compared to the setup you are using. Also most guys run their turrets up and down for every shot they take so the demand for an accurate and repeatable and durable turret assembly is of utmost importance. These differences are going to drastically change the specs a shooter MUST have in a scope. And it is my opinion that most guys are not going to find the list of specs and performance requirements they need and rely on to perform flawlessly during their 1 or 2 hunting trips per year in a $100 scope.

I have tested a lot of scopes and there are certain things you ARE giving up when you go low cost. Turret return to zero is one of those. Accurate turret adjustment is another. Most low end scopes don't adjust .25 MOA per click as they are listed. So if a guy is using ballistic software then you are going to have to be sure and do some turret testing to find out how your turret does adjust so you can compensate in your ballistic program. Also, turret repeatability is another potential big issue. Over time low end turrets have a tendency to change their adjustment amount which makes for big headaches for LR shooters.

Also, changing turret adjustments on cheaper scopes often times makes big differences in optical quality. You are sacrificing optical quality already by choosing less expensive scopes so one needs to be sure that the additional change isn't going to be too much of a problem. Another issue I see with inexpensive SFP scopes is that the zero will change as you change the power mag up or down. Not all do this but enough to be a concern. And the number of inexpensive scopes that do it compared to the mid range scopes is pretty high.

I say all of this just to reiterate that LR hunting or shooting is a highly precise sport requiring highly precise equipment to perform to the standard that most guys will have in this sport. I think you will find a ton of guys that want the best bang for their buck but not many of those are going to be willing to put aside accurate and repeatable adjustments along with durability that will hold up on magnum cartridges.

In my experience there are very few under $200 scopes that will fit the bill. I really am not trying to dump and your parade here and do applaud the general concept you are promoting of educating guys that they don't have to spend primo dollars to get into this sport. But I also don't want to lead a new shooter in a direction that is going to introduce a ton of headaches and frustration and likely require a future upgrade to an acceptable scope in the near future. And it is my opinion that we are doing just that by promoting $100 or less scopes for the precision that LR hunting requires. By all means you don't have to go premium but in my opinion and experience going $200 and less is asking for a lot of frustration and problem over time. There have been many good mid priced scopes mentioned here that will perform well for a long time. That would be my suggestion to ensure acceptable performance while saving as much cash as possible. And buying used is another great way to get a lot of scope for the money.

My 2 cents


Scot E.
 
Its never been my intention to promote junk, I've been trying to find the one in a hundred great deal among the crap and then spread the word. Good stuff that doesn't cost alot is the exception not the rule.
Scot your absolutely right about the turrets not being precisely what they advertise, the .25 turret I have is more like .2 but for my skill level and setup that's not a big deal, I mean at 600yds it only makes a small difference on paper. Not one I can see at the range, But for extreme range that little inconsistency can cause a miss.
I think of long range shooting in terms of the caliber and gun. 300yds is nothing for a .308 but one hell of a poke for a 22lr.
And since A .223 is the biggest caliber rifle i shoot (not counting my 44-40 lever action) I know My long range isn't what most of you guys would consider long, and I think that has caused some confusion.

But I still think this Is important to discuss because, the reason I dont buy a $500+ scope that id love is I cant afford it. And I need something good for a good price. And that does mean sacrifice in capability and quality compared to what I really want. But The Tasco I bought was very comparable to the other scopes in the $250-$300 range that I was looking at. And every penny I can save helps, I know I got lucky with what I got but Thats the whole point of this thread. To share the good and prevent people from getting cheap crap thats everywhere
So when I do get my Savage FCP-K .308 I will still need a reliable affordable scope,(if not more than now) And if what i have on my AR-15 holds up like it has been, its bigger brother is going on that rifle to start with, untill my circumstances change.
Thanks for putting up with me, And for any tips on gear you guys have
 
I've read this thread a few times, following along as the posts multiplied.

My take is...

A Honda will always be a Honda but if you like comfort and can afford it, a Cadillac is always better than a Honda. Same applies to scopes and firearms.

I'm a Cadillac person.

I have a Tasco Red dot on a 22 rimfire pistol that was cheap and it looks and performs cheaply. I have a Trigicon on my match rimfire and it wasn't cheap. Neither was the firearm, neither is the ammo. it's about economy of scale.

Contrary to popular opinion, a Caddy can get excellent fuel mileage. My Deville with a big V8 gets 28mpg average.

.....heated and cooled seats, air ride, On Star, XM and a real engine under the hood seperates me from the Honda crowd. Same with optics.

A cheap optic you sell with the firearm when you sell it. A good optic you keep and mount on another firearm......
 
I don't see any manufacturers of high end scopes jumping into the low end market.
I do see companies like weaver and swfa jumping into the mid range markets though
and as in the case of vortex into the high end with their Razor. As far as optics go, even
3000 is not much money. You can buy a lens for a canon rebel camera (800.00) for
11,000 bucks. Bird watchers pay 6000.00 for a pair of binoculars. It all comes down to
what you can afford vs. what you need. The more players in the market , the more we
should get for our dollars.
 
I'm really sick of the Tasco crowd thumbing their nose at me for having a Centerpoint. The Centerpoint has all the fetures and more than the Tasco for a lot lower price. Why would I want to pay the high price of a Tasco when the Center point can get it done for less?
I thought about a Tasco for the last rifle I scoped but went with the Centerpoint instead 'cuz I could get a couple boxes of shells along with it and be out shooting that day for the same price as the Tasco.:D:D:D:D

Seriously, I put 3 different scopes on my daughters rifle 'till I settled on a Burris timberline 4.5x14 32mm for $200. Started with 3x9 Nikon prostaff for $169, didn't like it and took it back. I needed a scope cause I was load developing and the season was close so I picked up the Centerpoint 4x16 for $69 till I decided on the Burris.
I kept the Centerpoint as a spare. I felt the quality was the same as the prostaff as far as the glass was concerned. Both are finicky on the eye relief compared to the Burris and my Monarchs, Just a little tougher getting the sight picture (not good for a young shooter). The Centerpoint obtained tighter groups than the Prostaff I contribute that to the higher power. Even if the CP cost as much as the PS I'd go with the CP because of the higher power, the parallax adj and the target knobs.
The Burris even with the 8mm smaller obj lens is head and shoulders above both the CP and the PS. Better glass, more forgiving eye relief and the parallax adjust works better.
For $100 more you can get the Burris in a 42mm fulfieldII same thing but bigger.
For $100 more than that you can get a Nkon Monarch 4x16 42mm
So on and so forth.......

I believe that over about the $600 range is when you start running into diminishing rate of returns on your money.
It's kinda like building a hot rod engine. Horse power up to a certain point is cheap after that point you start paying alot for little increases.
 
Maybe a length of copper tubing with a cap sweated on the end and a small hole drilled centerpoint in the cap, mounted in 1" rings for the ultimate 'cheap' scope......:)

That sirs, is 'economy of scale'.......
 
SidecarFlip said:
Maybe a length of copper tubing with a cap sweated on the end and a small hole drilled centerpoint in the cap, mounted in 1" rings for the ultimate 'cheap' scope......:)

That sirs, is 'economy of scale'.......
Click to expand...

Decent scope rings are a WASTE OF MONEY!!! :cool:

mynewgunyj7.jpg
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

K
High Middle Cost Scope input needed
2
Replies
15
Views
4K
Konrad.INc
K
N
Picking a low cost, long range scope
2 3
Replies
29
Views
7K
gjk5
gjk5
B
2 spotters as binoculars?
2
Replies
14
Views
3K
Bob lee
B
gusd
Best value in high end spotting scope??
2
Replies
14
Views
3K
sp6x6
sp6x6
P
mounting a scope high or low
Replies
3
Views
3K
DWK
D

Recent Posts

Top