Scope cheap vs expensive

joeranger · April 30, 2006, 11:08 PM

What am I missing if I buy a cheap scope?
WX2-103994 - Blackhawk? 6-24x44 mm IR Tactical Scope, Matte Black
$139.97

Less accurate, breaks faster, fuzzier picture? I do not shoot that much, but I need to top off my new ar for a sod poodle shoot.

270Win · May 1, 2006, 03:27 AM

The argument against cheap scopes is generally threefold:

Poor glass quality - results in inferior light transmission (dark picture), fuzzy picture (especially at the edges) and sometimes quartering (where one or more quadrants is noticeably worse or out of focus than the others, resulting from a extremely poor grind).

Poor outer construction - scope will fog up, clicks won't be repeatable, turrets will jam or move too much, tube can bend or, worst case, the entire tube will seperate.

Poor inner construction - reticle will go off-center or otherwise shift or even break up completely, scope shifts under recoil or impact or other pressures, resulting in a wandering zero, which can be the kiss of death unless it's due to bases/rings or some severe impact.

Now, start asking "what scopes are cheap" and you'll get as many answers as there are people posting. Generally the worst is BSA; other than that, it's touch-and-go with the low-price-range offerings. What the pricy scopes provide more than anything else is consistancy; buying a Leupold is not a crapshoot.

Old Time Hunter · May 1, 2006, 08:05 AM

An expert told me that it more depends on the magnification, the more magnification the better the scope you need. I have been very happy with my in expensive Bushnell's, but they are only 1.75X4-32 Dusk and Dawn scopes. Scope runs $70-80 bucks, but the Weaver mounts and Burris rings add another $30-40 bucks depending on which rifle I am mounting it on. Got Leupold VX II 4x12 on my Ruger 77 Mark II (.300WM), but it has too short of an eye relief for my taste.
Just pick up a bunch of scopes at your local sporting goods store with out looking at name brand or price and see which ones are the quickiest to acquire a target. You might be suprised that the big dollar ones are not necessarily the best.

garryc · May 1, 2006, 08:40 AM

Hey, there can be some good ones. I bought two Barska scopes on sale once, a 4-12 and an 8-32. Optics were accepable, and darn sight better than a BSA. I shot the square and they were dead on. I wouldn't trade my Sightron s2's for one, but for the money they were pretty good

FMB42 · May 1, 2006, 12:19 PM

IMO, a cheap scope is cheap in build quality, however you can find scopes that offer a low price and good build quality. Cheap can define quality and or price. Cheap quality scopes can lack in clarity, brightness, and the ability to hold zero, etc and are generally not worth the trouble. I would recommend that you look for a quality scope that is sale priced. ReviewCentre.com as well as many other websites have owner ratings on scopes BTW. Always go with the best rings and base that you can get, as a scope is only as good as the mount it sits on.

BUSTER51 · May 1, 2006, 12:31 PM

Check Out The Optic Zone .com Jon Know What He's Doing And Always Has The Best Prices .:d :d

Oldphart · May 1, 2006, 01:02 PM

Cheap scopes are cheap because they're made cheap. Instead of machined metal parts, they use molded plastic. Instead of the best optical glass, they use 'Brand-X'.
But that isn't neccesarily a bad thing. If you're putting the scope on a hunting rifle that will only see twenty rounds through it all year a cheap one will probably do. But if you're going to shoot in matches where you can expect to shoot a thousand rounds or more in a year the cheaper scope will get beaten to death.
I have Simmons scopes on the hunting rifles and a good quality Weaver on my target gun. I tried a Simmons on the target rifle and it barely survived one season. I had it put back together and now it's on a 10/22. We'll see how long it holds up there.

afsnco · May 1, 2006, 02:16 PM

I use a BSA 6-24x50mm on my rifle. I only average a couple hundred rounds per year, however. Once zero'ed, the round always hits where I aim. As a plinker, I just can't justify spending as much on my optics as the rifle itself, when a cheap BSA is good enough for my purposes.

joeranger · May 1, 2006, 08:38 PM

OK, thanks guys. I stopped by Dick's Sporting goods and compared the Tasco the the Leopold. No comparison on optics. The more expensive scope just looked clearer.
However, I would like to buy an inexpensive scope to stare and I will upgrade as I get more serious about putting a lot of rounds downrange.

Can I get some suggestions on a $75-$150 long range varmint scope?

esldude · May 1, 2006, 09:11 PM

$75-150 long range varmint scopes are a bad idea. Look good glass costs, good internals cost, good coatings on the glass cost. Variables are a bit more complex. Scopes with AO even more complex and costly to make right.

So you are asking for a high magnification variable with AO and all the bells and whistles for a cheap price. I can guarantee you every part will be compromised. It is the only way they can meet the price with all that stuff. So so glass, minimal coatings, minimal internals, less precisely made. Add up often to money thrown away.

Which is the good bargain, 6-24x cheapo that isn't useful or a more expensive high quality scope? THe former can often be a complete loss of what you spent on it. The latter will hold some resell value, and last.

So the key to you getting something you can afford, which is also of decent quality is simplifying the scope.

http://theopticzone.com/detail.aspx?ID=3252

Something like this for $174. Bushnell Elite 3200 10x mil-dot. No variable, no ao, not extremely high magnification. Meaning in the simpler scope most of the money went for decent coatings and pretty good glass. Isn't optimized for varmint use, but enough power, and clarity it will work for that purpose. Mil-dot isn't bad to have either.

When you go with high magnification it pushes the quality of everything even more. Moderately good quality glass that is okay at 6x or 10x or 12x can look pretty sad at 24x or 32x. Same for inaccuracy in the scope internals. All the problems are made worse at high magnification.

If you must have variable power, and AO, then keep it moderate. Maybe a 4-12x. Maybe something like a Swift Premier for $149.
http://www.eabco.com/Swift01.htm

Or look for a quality used scope. Some are around in this price range. Decent quality with good build. And when you are ready to move up, you can get all or most of your money back. Bausch&Lomb Elite 3200 or 3000 series in 4-12x would fit that description and come up at your price.

Coltdriver · May 1, 2006, 09:28 PM

You might take a look over on ebay. There are frequently fair deals on better used glass.

FMB42 · May 2, 2006, 02:55 PM

You will want an AO in order to meet your requirements, and this with good rings will put you over $200 easy. Barska is one of the few brands that will come close to your requirements and price range IMO. Poor quality scopes often end up unused or mounted on low powered rifles and, in some cases, are worse then iron sights. Been there, done that.

Oldphart · May 2, 2006, 08:00 PM

On the outside of your price range is the Weaver KT-15. A fixed, 15 power, 40 mm objective, scope that works quite well for me. Natchez has it for $247.51.

geronimo13 · May 2, 2006, 09:16 PM

I bought a mueller 8 & 1/2 X 25 by44mm mil dot varmint scope for $149 + $10 shipping and love it. Very clear glass up to 18X, above 20X gets a little lighter (greyer?). See it @ http://www.muelleroptics.com/products/MT852544.html , go to the reviews and there's a link to a snipercentral review also. Swift and Mueller seem to be good quality for the price. Since you're shooting .223 (like me) the heavy recoil destruction shouldn't be bad. I initially thought the 8.5X low powere would be no good for inclose (50 yards) but being 53 and needing glasses it is better than I'd imagined. +1 on the E. A. Brown link.

tINY · May 3, 2006, 02:06 AM

For varmint shooting, you are usually shooting durring the heat of the day where all you see with more than about 16 or 20 magnification is a mirage dance......

-tINY

Wild Bill Bucks · May 3, 2006, 12:05 PM

Your rifle is only as good as the sights on it. The best rifle money can buy, won't be any better than a well thrown rock, if you can't sight it.
If you are going to spend your money on a rifle, then spend enough to put quality optics on top.
I use Simmons Aetec and Weaver exclusively and haven't had much trouble with either. I don't shoot competition, but do manage between 8,000 and 10,000 rounds per year at the range.
Lots of good scopes out there, and quality, for me, just means I have to save a little longer.

Huffmanite · May 4, 2006, 10:15 PM

I have no expensive rifles and certainly not any expensive scopes. I have a 1891 Mauser I rebarreled to 257 Roberts and I put a Barska 4 x 12 50 mm on it back in January. Optics are clear to me on range and bullet hits where crosshairs are. I'm satisfied enough to try a Barska 6 X 16 on a .308 Mossberg SSi I bought last week.

Take a look at Sportsmanguide.com for a scope. Low and higher priced scopes can be found there. Where I found the Barskas. PS their Sportsman Guide brand of scopes may be Barska too. Least ways the 4 X 12 50mm was.

kingudaroad · May 4, 2006, 10:52 PM

Man,I can't believe there's no Leupold support here. I will never put anything less on any of my firearms.

Huffmanite · May 5, 2006, 01:08 AM

By the way Joeranger, take a look at www.CDNNINVESTMENTS.COM

You may need to download their catalog, but they are a kind of clearance house for guns and such. Have a lot of deals on scopes you may want to look at.

Leopold? The man is looking for a Chevy, not a cadillac.

Jack O'Conner · May 5, 2006, 06:10 AM

I bought this Simmons AETEC 2.8X-10X in 2003 for $129. from cheaperthandirt.com and its a keeper! Very bright and clear. Its been bounced around driving across the prairies many times yet holds its zero year after year.

I bought this Simmons Pro Hunter 2X-7X in 2002 for $59. from cheaperthandirt.com and its a keeper! Very bright and clear. Its been exposed to minus 4 degrees, sleet, and heavy snow yet holds its zero year after year.

I'm NOT convinced that hunting success and high dollar gear are related.

prime8 · May 5, 2006, 07:33 AM

Ive got an NcStar 6-24x50 I paid 120$ for. Its on my Model 70 in 300 win mag. Holds zero, doesnt fog, endures Iowa winters, and even has an illuminated mil-dot reticle. You can spend more, but why? Alot of people put too much stock in how much they spend on things. Means nothing! My buddy bought a 1200$ high end scope, and I can smoke him all day! I got a little over 600 in this gun with a bipod, scope, sling, and rings! Shoots tight! Dont listen to the retoric, buy a cheapy and find out yourself. Theres quite a few brands that will do just fine. I will admit, you do run a higher risk of getting a dud, than with the big boys. The cheapys cut costs in quality control. If ya dont care for it, put it on your pellet gun! jmo

tennsooner · May 5, 2006, 09:36 AM

I started out with cheap scopes..BSA...Tasco...Nc Star. One day found a great deal on a Bushnell 4200 8x32 put it on one of my rifles headed out to the target range and amazed myself at just how much better and clearer I could see out of it over the rest. As stated above the Nc Star was the best of the lot as far as the cheaper scopes are concerned but everything from here on out I will go for higher priced over the bargain. Keep in mind I used to laugh at people dumb enough to spend as much on a scope as a rifle and now I am one of them.

joeranger · May 5, 2006, 12:11 PM

OK, thanks everyone. Here is a summary of how someone should decide on a scope based on what is important to them. Feel free to add your .02.

Budget : If you only have $100, guess what?
Use: How often and for what purpose? (oldphart)If you're putting the scope on a hunting rifle that will only see twenty rounds through it all year a cheap one will probably do. But if you're going to shoot in matches where you can expect to shoot a thousand rounds or more in a year the cheaper scope will get beaten to death.
Brand: (kingudaroad)Man,I can't believe there's no Leupold support here. I will never put anything less on any of my firearms
Quality Control/Consistancy: (thanks 270 WIN)
Poor glass quality - results in inferior light transmission (dark picture), fuzzy picture (especially at the edges) and sometimes quartering (where one or more quadrants is noticeably worse or out of focus than the others, resulting from a extremely poor grind).

Poor outer construction - scope will fog up, clicks won't be repeatable, turrets will jam or move too much, tube can bend or, worst case, the entire tube will seperate.

Poor inner construction - reticle will go off-center or otherwise shift or even break up completely, scope shifts under recoil or impact or other pressures, resulting in a wandering zero, which can be the kiss of death unless it's due to bases/rings or some severe impact.
Parrallax http://www.usoptics.com/sub_pages/parallax.php
Shock Resistance: What recoil/ How often?
Optics/Light: How clear/ How far?
Magnification: (Old Time Hunter) the more magnification the better the scope you need. (esldude) When you go with high magnification it pushes the quality of everything even more. Moderately good quality glass that is okay at 6x or 10x or 12x can look pretty sad at 24x or 32x. Same for inaccuracy in the scope internals. All the problems are made worse at high magnification.
Adjustment: (elsdude) Variables are a bit more complex. Scopes with AO even more complex and costly to make right
Look: Call me silly, but I like the "big scope sniper" look, especialy on a custom AR.
Reticle: Mil-dot, illuminated, range finding

Jack O'Conner · May 5, 2006, 03:04 PM

JoeRanger:

Most of the feature hunting trips in many magazines read like a long commercial for high end products. But I've never been suckered into that fallacy. Please share photos of your successfull hunts with your high dollar gear.

My hunts do not not include Leupold. Yet I'm successful year after year and decade after decade. How can this be? Under the rules of evidence, the bargain priced scopes are built right after all. The evidence is there for all to see.

Anyone can disagree with a theory or opinion. But the evidence speaks for itself.

Jack

geronimo13 · May 5, 2006, 04:07 PM

Ar 15 500 yard scope review http://www.militaryoptics.com/MUELLE...04-16X50AO.htm
Mil dot usage http://www.riflescopes.com/mildot/ . I like mil dot. For less than $100 don't expect anything but getting lucky on Ebay with a used quality scope.
Whats your shooting distance? I think a 4 X 12 for the ar is about perfect unless shooting 1000 yards and even then if you're young (good eyes) you could do it.

April 30, 2006, 11:08 PM	#1
joeranger Senior Member Join Date: March 18, 2006 Location: Virginia Posts: 423	Scope cheap vs expensive What am I missing if I buy a cheap scope? WX2-103994 - Blackhawk? 6-24x44 mm IR Tactical Scope, Matte Black $139.97 Less accurate, breaks faster, fuzzier picture? I do not shoot that much, but I need to top off my new ar for a sod poodle shoot.

May 1, 2006, 12:19 PM	#5
FMB42 Senior Member Join Date: March 8, 2006 Posts: 215	Let's define cheap. IMO, a cheap scope is cheap in build quality, however you can find scopes that offer a low price and good build quality. Cheap can define quality and or price. Cheap quality scopes can lack in clarity, brightness, and the ability to hold zero, etc and are generally not worth the trouble. I would recommend that you look for a quality scope that is sale priced. ReviewCentre.com as well as many other websites have owner ratings on scopes BTW. Always go with the best rings and base that you can get, as a scope is only as good as the mount it sits on.

May 2, 2006, 02:55 PM	#12
FMB42 Senior Member Join Date: March 8, 2006 Posts: 215	A long range varmint scope for $150 will be hard to find. You will want an AO in order to meet your requirements, and this with good rings will put you over $200 easy. Barska is one of the few brands that will come close to your requirements and price range IMO. Poor quality scopes often end up unused or mounted on low powered rifles and, in some cases, are worse then iron sights. Been there, done that.

May 5, 2006, 06:10 AM	#20
Jack O'Conner Senior Member Join Date: July 11, 2005 Location: Manatee County, Florida Posts: 1,976	I bought this Simmons AETEC 2.8X-10X in 2003 for $129. from cheaperthandirt.com and its a keeper! Very bright and clear. Its been bounced around driving across the prairies many times yet holds its zero year after year. I bought this Simmons Pro Hunter 2X-7X in 2002 for $59. from cheaperthandirt.com and its a keeper! Very bright and clear. Its been exposed to minus 4 degrees, sleet, and heavy snow yet holds its zero year after year. I'm NOT convinced that hunting success and high dollar gear are related. __________________ Fire up the grill! Deer hunting IS NOT catch and release.

May 5, 2006, 07:33 AM	#21
prime8 Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2006 Location: In a tent in Iowa Posts: 434	Good doesnt mean more expensive! Ive got an NcStar 6-24x50 I paid 120$ for. Its on my Model 70 in 300 win mag. Holds zero, doesnt fog, endures Iowa winters, and even has an illuminated mil-dot reticle. You can spend more, but why? Alot of people put too much stock in how much they spend on things. Means nothing! My buddy bought a 1200$ high end scope, and I can smoke him all day! I got a little over 600 in this gun with a bipod, scope, sling, and rings! Shoots tight! Dont listen to the retoric, buy a cheapy and find out yourself. Theres quite a few brands that will do just fine. I will admit, you do run a higher risk of getting a dud, than with the big boys. The cheapys cut costs in quality control. If ya dont care for it, put it on your pellet gun! jmo __________________ X

May 1, 2006, 03:27 AM	#2
270Win Senior Member Join Date: August 30, 2005 Location: Damascus, Maryland Posts: 921	The argument against cheap scopes is generally threefold: Poor glass quality - results in inferior light transmission (dark picture), fuzzy picture (especially at the edges) and sometimes quartering (where one or more quadrants is noticeably worse or out of focus than the others, resulting from a extremely poor grind). Poor outer construction - scope will fog up, clicks won't be repeatable, turrets will jam or move too much, tube can bend or, worst case, the entire tube will seperate. Poor inner construction - reticle will go off-center or otherwise shift or even break up completely, scope shifts under recoil or impact or other pressures, resulting in a wandering zero, which can be the kiss of death unless it's due to bases/rings or some severe impact. Now, start asking "what scopes are cheap" and you'll get as many answers as there are people posting. Generally the worst is BSA; other than that, it's touch-and-go with the low-price-range offerings. What the pricy scopes provide more than anything else is consistancy; buying a Leupold is not a crapshoot.

May 1, 2006, 08:05 AM	#3
Old Time Hunter Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2006 Location: Hinterlands of Wisconsin Posts: 488	An expert told me that it more depends on the magnification, the more magnification the better the scope you need. I have been very happy with my in expensive Bushnell's, but they are only 1.75X4-32 Dusk and Dawn scopes. Scope runs $70-80 bucks, but the Weaver mounts and Burris rings add another $30-40 bucks depending on which rifle I am mounting it on. Got Leupold VX II 4x12 on my Ruger 77 Mark II (.300WM), but it has too short of an eye relief for my taste. Just pick up a bunch of scopes at your local sporting goods store with out looking at name brand or price and see which ones are the quickiest to acquire a target. You might be suprised that the big dollar ones are not necessarily the best.

May 1, 2006, 08:40 AM	#4
garryc Senior Member Join Date: November 12, 2005 Posts: 2,536	Hey, there can be some good ones. I bought two Barska scopes on sale once, a 4-12 and an 8-32. Optics were accepable, and darn sight better than a BSA. I shot the square and they were dead on. I wouldn't trade my Sightron s2's for one, but for the money they were pretty good

May 1, 2006, 12:31 PM	#6
BUSTER51 Junior member Join Date: December 28, 2004 Location: PHOENIX, AZ Posts: 992	Check Out The Optic Zone .com Jon Know What He's Doing And Always Has The Best Prices .:d :d

May 1, 2006, 01:02 PM	#7
Oldphart Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Posts: 375	Cheap scopes are cheap because they're made cheap. Instead of machined metal parts, they use molded plastic. Instead of the best optical glass, they use 'Brand-X'. But that isn't neccesarily a bad thing. If you're putting the scope on a hunting rifle that will only see twenty rounds through it all year a cheap one will probably do. But if you're going to shoot in matches where you can expect to shoot a thousand rounds or more in a year the cheaper scope will get beaten to death. I have Simmons scopes on the hunting rifles and a good quality Weaver on my target gun. I tried a Simmons on the target rifle and it barely survived one season. I had it put back together and now it's on a 10/22. We'll see how long it holds up there.

May 1, 2006, 02:16 PM	#8
afsnco Member Join Date: March 20, 2006 Posts: 76	I use a BSA 6-24x50mm on my rifle. I only average a couple hundred rounds per year, however. Once zero'ed, the round always hits where I aim. As a plinker, I just can't justify spending as much on my optics as the rifle itself, when a cheap BSA is good enough for my purposes.

May 1, 2006, 08:38 PM	#9
joeranger Senior Member Join Date: March 18, 2006 Location: Virginia Posts: 423	OK, thanks guys. I stopped by Dick's Sporting goods and compared the Tasco the the Leopold. No comparison on optics. The more expensive scope just looked clearer. However, I would like to buy an inexpensive scope to stare and I will upgrade as I get more serious about putting a lot of rounds downrange. Can I get some suggestions on a $75-$150 long range varmint scope?

May 1, 2006, 09:11 PM	#10
esldude Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2004 Posts: 438	$75-150 long range varmint scopes are a bad idea. Look good glass costs, good internals cost, good coatings on the glass cost. Variables are a bit more complex. Scopes with AO even more complex and costly to make right. So you are asking for a high magnification variable with AO and all the bells and whistles for a cheap price. I can guarantee you every part will be compromised. It is the only way they can meet the price with all that stuff. So so glass, minimal coatings, minimal internals, less precisely made. Add up often to money thrown away. Which is the good bargain, 6-24x cheapo that isn't useful or a more expensive high quality scope? THe former can often be a complete loss of what you spent on it. The latter will hold some resell value, and last. So the key to you getting something you can afford, which is also of decent quality is simplifying the scope. http://theopticzone.com/detail.aspx?ID=3252 Something like this for $174. Bushnell Elite 3200 10x mil-dot. No variable, no ao, not extremely high magnification. Meaning in the simpler scope most of the money went for decent coatings and pretty good glass. Isn't optimized for varmint use, but enough power, and clarity it will work for that purpose. Mil-dot isn't bad to have either. When you go with high magnification it pushes the quality of everything even more. Moderately good quality glass that is okay at 6x or 10x or 12x can look pretty sad at 24x or 32x. Same for inaccuracy in the scope internals. All the problems are made worse at high magnification. If you must have variable power, and AO, then keep it moderate. Maybe a 4-12x. Maybe something like a Swift Premier for $149. http://www.eabco.com/Swift01.htm Or look for a quality used scope. Some are around in this price range. Decent quality with good build. And when you are ready to move up, you can get all or most of your money back. Bausch&Lomb Elite 3200 or 3000 series in 4-12x would fit that description and come up at your price.

May 1, 2006, 09:28 PM	#11
Coltdriver Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2001 Posts: 683	You might take a look over on ebay. There are frequently fair deals on better used glass.

May 2, 2006, 08:00 PM	#13
Oldphart Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Posts: 375	On the outside of your price range is the Weaver KT-15. A fixed, 15 power, 40 mm objective, scope that works quite well for me. Natchez has it for $247.51.

May 2, 2006, 09:16 PM	#14
geronimo13 Member Join Date: April 7, 2006 Posts: 41	I bought a mueller 8 & 1/2 X 25 by44mm mil dot varmint scope for $149 + $10 shipping and love it. Very clear glass up to 18X, above 20X gets a little lighter (greyer?). See it @ http://www.muelleroptics.com/products/MT852544.html , go to the reviews and there's a link to a snipercentral review also. Swift and Mueller seem to be good quality for the price. Since you're shooting .223 (like me) the heavy recoil destruction shouldn't be bad. I initially thought the 8.5X low powere would be no good for inclose (50 yards) but being 53 and needing glasses it is better than I'd imagined. +1 on the E. A. Brown link.

May 3, 2006, 02:06 AM	#15
tINY Senior Member Join Date: April 26, 2005 Location: Orygun Posts: 2,589	For varmint shooting, you are usually shooting durring the heat of the day where all you see with more than about 16 or 20 magnification is a mirage dance...... -tINY

May 3, 2006, 12:05 PM	#16
Wild Bill Bucks Senior Member Join Date: December 28, 2005 Location: Southeastern Oklahoma, Next door to Sasquatch Posts: 1,266	Your rifle is only as good as the sights on it. The best rifle money can buy, won't be any better than a well thrown rock, if you can't sight it. If you are going to spend your money on a rifle, then spend enough to put quality optics on top. I use Simmons Aetec and Weaver exclusively and haven't had much trouble with either. I don't shoot competition, but do manage between 8,000 and 10,000 rounds per year at the range. Lots of good scopes out there, and quality, for me, just means I have to save a little longer.

May 4, 2006, 10:15 PM	#17
Huffmanite Senior Member Join Date: February 17, 2006 Location: Northeast of Houston, Tx Posts: 393	I have no expensive rifles and certainly not any expensive scopes. I have a 1891 Mauser I rebarreled to 257 Roberts and I put a Barska 4 x 12 50 mm on it back in January. Optics are clear to me on range and bullet hits where crosshairs are. I'm satisfied enough to try a Barska 6 X 16 on a .308 Mossberg SSi I bought last week. Take a look at Sportsmanguide.com for a scope. Low and higher priced scopes can be found there. Where I found the Barskas. PS their Sportsman Guide brand of scopes may be Barska too. Least ways the 4 X 12 50mm was.

May 4, 2006, 10:52 PM	#18
kingudaroad Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 2005 Location: austin Posts: 735	Man,I can't believe there's no Leupold support here. I will never put anything less on any of my firearms.

May 5, 2006, 01:08 AM	#19
Huffmanite Senior Member Join Date: February 17, 2006 Location: Northeast of Houston, Tx Posts: 393	By the way Joeranger, take a look at www.CDNNINVESTMENTS.COM You may need to download their catalog, but they are a kind of clearance house for guns and such. Have a lot of deals on scopes you may want to look at. Leopold? The man is looking for a Chevy, not a cadillac.

May 5, 2006, 09:36 AM	#22
tennsooner Member Join Date: January 9, 2006 Posts: 54	I started out with cheap scopes..BSA...Tasco...Nc Star. One day found a great deal on a Bushnell 4200 8x32 put it on one of my rifles headed out to the target range and amazed myself at just how much better and clearer I could see out of it over the rest. As stated above the Nc Star was the best of the lot as far as the cheaper scopes are concerned but everything from here on out I will go for higher priced over the bargain. Keep in mind I used to laugh at people dumb enough to spend as much on a scope as a rifle and now I am one of them.

May 5, 2006, 12:11 PM	#23
joeranger Senior Member Join Date: March 18, 2006 Location: Virginia Posts: 423	OK, thanks everyone. Here is a summary of how someone should decide on a scope based on what is important to them. Feel free to add your .02. Budget : If you only have $100, guess what? Use: How often and for what purpose? (oldphart)If you're putting the scope on a hunting rifle that will only see twenty rounds through it all year a cheap one will probably do. But if you're going to shoot in matches where you can expect to shoot a thousand rounds or more in a year the cheaper scope will get beaten to death. Brand: (kingudaroad)Man,I can't believe there's no Leupold support here. I will never put anything less on any of my firearms Quality Control/Consistancy: (thanks 270 WIN) Poor glass quality - results in inferior light transmission (dark picture), fuzzy picture (especially at the edges) and sometimes quartering (where one or more quadrants is noticeably worse or out of focus than the others, resulting from a extremely poor grind). Poor outer construction - scope will fog up, clicks won't be repeatable, turrets will jam or move too much, tube can bend or, worst case, the entire tube will seperate. Poor inner construction - reticle will go off-center or otherwise shift or even break up completely, scope shifts under recoil or impact or other pressures, resulting in a wandering zero, which can be the kiss of death unless it's due to bases/rings or some severe impact. Parrallax http://www.usoptics.com/sub_pages/parallax.php Shock Resistance: What recoil/ How often? Optics/Light: How clear/ How far? Magnification: (Old Time Hunter) the more magnification the better the scope you need. (esldude) When you go with high magnification it pushes the quality of everything even more. Moderately good quality glass that is okay at 6x or 10x or 12x can look pretty sad at 24x or 32x. Same for inaccuracy in the scope internals. All the problems are made worse at high magnification. Adjustment: (elsdude) Variables are a bit more complex. Scopes with AO even more complex and costly to make right Look: Call me silly, but I like the "big scope sniper" look, especialy on a custom AR. Reticle: Mil-dot, illuminated, range finding

May 5, 2006, 03:04 PM	#24
Jack O'Conner Senior Member Join Date: July 11, 2005 Location: Manatee County, Florida Posts: 1,976	JoeRanger: Most of the feature hunting trips in many magazines read like a long commercial for high end products. But I've never been suckered into that fallacy. Please share photos of your successfull hunts with your high dollar gear. My hunts do not not include Leupold. Yet I'm successful year after year and decade after decade. How can this be? Under the rules of evidence, the bargain priced scopes are built right after all. The evidence is there for all to see. Anyone can disagree with a theory or opinion. But the evidence speaks for itself. Jack __________________ Fire up the grill! Deer hunting IS NOT catch and release.

May 5, 2006, 04:07 PM	#25
geronimo13 Member Join Date: April 7, 2006 Posts: 41	Ar 15 500 yard scope review http://www.militaryoptics.com/MUELLE...04-16X50AO.htm Mil dot usage http://www.riflescopes.com/mildot/ . I like mil dot. For less than $100 don't expect anything but getting lucky on Ebay with a used quality scope. Whats your shooting distance? I think a 4 X 12 for the ar is about perfect unless shooting 1000 yards and even then if you're young (good eyes) you could do it.