Does anyone find themselves shooting better with cheap scopes? The reason I ask is that I have a rem 700 in 308 win. The first scope I put on it was a bushnell trophy 3-9x40 that I picked up for $120. I was shooting MOA with it and was very happy. I have a minox za5 HD 2-10x40 that retailed for $500 to $600 that I went and put on it since it was a "better" scope. I am having a hard time getting a 3 inch group consistently with the exact same ammo. I had that scope on a rem700 3006 that it did the same thing. It says on the turrets that a click is 1/4moa and it does not seem correct. Seems like it is closer to 1/2 moa per click. I don't know if its the scope or I have some physiological disorder to the scope.
Shoot better with cheap scopes?
- Thread starter JimFromTN
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
That would depress me. I've had a full array of different scopes and i haven't run into this yet. Sounds like you have a problem you need to figure out. I am in the process of buying a higher end scope and actually will be going FFP this time around. Sometimes I get stuck in my old ways and get reluctant to change. Im fighting this to expand my experiences and hopefully my versatility will improve. Good luck on finding a solution.
Bob Wright
Well-Known Member
Send a closeup picture of your scope in the rings as mounted. Curious on spacing...
ShtrRdy
Well-Known Member
Sounds like the 2-10x has a problem. Contact Minox to see if it's under warrante.
I agree, try warranty.
That said, the most "accurate" is a 3-9x40 $100 nikon from Canadian Tire in $10 rings.
Far from my best glass but it tracks 100% and just hasn't failed. It's been on every rifle I own and has been easiest to sight, zero and just works. Sadly my 2nd is an old tasco tha looks like it was used to nail together a barn. It's on a Savage single shot mk1.
Honestly they aren't my best, best for purpose, nicest, or frankly top of any list. But if I get to travel or go on a guided, both are coming as spares.
That said, the most "accurate" is a 3-9x40 $100 nikon from Canadian Tire in $10 rings.
Far from my best glass but it tracks 100% and just hasn't failed. It's been on every rifle I own and has been easiest to sight, zero and just works. Sadly my 2nd is an old tasco tha looks like it was used to nail together a barn. It's on a Savage single shot mk1.
Honestly they aren't my best, best for purpose, nicest, or frankly top of any list. But if I get to travel or go on a guided, both are coming as spares.
Tall target or box test!
I don't know about shooting better. I shoot a lot of crossfire and Diamondback scopes. My test mule is a 4-12 Diamondback. I even loan it to others for testing and hunting if they need a scope. She has ridden some cheap ranch rifles to custom front stuffers.
440coronet
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2016
- Messages
- 661
Put the Bushnell back on if accuracy returns then you have your answer.......
One of the reasons I asked is that 20 years ago I bought a rem 700 in 300wm. I could not afford a good scope at the time so I put a cheap BSA scope on it. I was shooting sub moa with cheap factory ammo. Once I upgraded to better glass, I don't think I have shot that well with that rifle since.
I agree with the tall target test.It will do more in diagnostics of a scope.
Here is a good video on how to do that.
www.bing.com
Here is a good video on how to do that.
tall target test - Search Videos
Unfortunately, I don't have it anymore. I gave it to a friend in need thinking I had a better scope that I could use.
OldElkHunter1961
Well-Known Member
There are myriad possible accuracy robbing culprits to chase. However, to your original interrogative, in practical application hunting afield, I've found no meaningful or measurable differed between scopes in the $300 range to those costing $3000. Nor have the costlier optics lasted longer. Most of my scopes and other glass are in the VX-II or VX-3 price range now and I see no justifiable reason to spend more. No, I do not drive an enclosed side-by-side to a heated box stand on a ritzy dude ranch. Never done that albeit as the decades pass it does now sound marginally tempting.
