Why are scopes so expensive?

peebrainz said:

I have a couple of March compacts (1-10x and 3-24x) and I've always attributed part of the high cost to light weight and small dimensions.

Click to expand...

Yes , high end scopes can be lightweight but you're paying a premium on top of the quality scopes price.

My photography hobby started way back in mid '70s. Along these decades I spent a fortune on swapping lenses and unfortunately or fortunately I never had 2-3-5 K dollar lenses, but let say F2.8 and F1.8 which are considered higher mid class optics, lets call these just reaching closer to plateau .
To talk now about my target shooting hobby, 100 BR in my main interest with airguns but also I am playing some f-class distances as well with 308.
I like to have a scope that gives me that " if I want to hit it I must see it" approach.
This pretty much sums it up for my dedicated backyard gun as well witch will most likely never see the gun range ...

delooper said:

At 45s you have "some of them are really expensive and some are really cheap." Mike then replies "and now there's one more!" i.e. in response to the cheap comment.

That doesn't sound like marketing to me.

Click to expand...

I wasn't being specific about 45 seconds, it was just a short time into it. I stand by what I said completely, garbage scripted marketing crap.

delooper said:

I'm not sure I understand your post. Is a $200 scope expensive to you? I can find scopes for $20. So the price scale is just a smidge above the pocket knife market. There's pocket knives available for $5, and pretty nice ones for $40. Very nice ones for $200, and ridiculously extravagant ones for $2000.

Scopes are basically just 3 or 4 times the price of a pocket knife, and given the precision glass cutting and mounting that's required, it makes sense. Much harder to make a scope than a pocket knife.

In the States my impression is one of the better sources of quality affordable scopes is Gideon Optics.

Click to expand...

Very well said!!!

it is basically hours of labor that goes into the scope, times the labor rate in that country, plus marketing and distribution.
optics isn't exactly a science, so there is time consuming quality assurance and optical testing for more expensive scopes.
you might be lucky get a decent scope for a bargain price, but more often people don't even know if the scope is really any good (compared to an optically superior model) because they haven't compared them side by side with $2000 scope.
bottom line, even moderately priced scopes will make the target big enough to see and shoot.
most of the functional difference is in repeatable and accurate tracking. less expensive scopes tend to fail these tests, but they are still good enough for government work. i mean, how can you tell if you scope is .5 mil off in tracking and it wasn't you or the ammo variables?

caliusoptimus said:

Title pretty much says it all.

I've never owned or used a scope over a few hundred bucks. I've bought a few of the cheapo CVlife FFPs on amazon recently with no obvious problems. What's the deal?

Edit: not really talking about nightvision scopes... for that the price makes a bit more sense.

Click to expand...

You get what you pay for…. Cheap glass is cheap… but that said, Cheap glass may be all a person needs for a basic 10-50 yard pesting / plinking tool or even a simple red dot.

theLBC said:

it is basically hours of labor that goes into the scope, times the labor rate in that country, plus marketing and distribution.
optics isn't exactly a science, so there is time consuming quality assurance and optical testing for more expensive scopes.
you might be lucky get a decent scope for a bargain price, but more often people don't even know if the scope is really any good (compared to an optically superior model) because they haven't compared them side by side with $2000 scope.
bottom line, even moderately priced scopes will make the target big enough to see and shoot.
most of the functional difference is in repeatable and accurate tracking. less expensive scopes tend to fail these tests, but they are still good enough for government work. i mean, how can you tell if you scope is .5 mil off in tracking and it wasn't you or the ammo variables?

Click to expand...

Optics is all science and MATH! and of course precision engineering!

Nobody talked about ageing eyes. I am finding that my old eyes demand better glass. When you are young and flexible, so are your eyes and they will adjust to poorer conditions. You got to see it to hit it. Just like cars and houses, scope prices have doubled in the last 15-10 years. It's called inflation. Having said all that, Chinese glass has come a long ways. Just look at Athlon and Arkin.

cavedweller said:

Optics is all science and MATH! and of course precision engineering!

Click to expand...

design is definitely science, but grinding and polishing glass is sort of an art.


then again, perhaps things have changes a lot since i worked at meade instruments.

I've owned many high end guns but yet to ever jump into high end scopes. For my uses I haven't seen a need to go over a $500 optic to shoot birds out to 100yds. I owned a $1k Athlon Ares ETR UHD before but after about 6 months I sold it, while it was amazing, just complete overkill and could have 2 really nice scopes for the price. For me I won't look any further than the Athlon Helos BTR Gen2 line or the Arkens are also great. Have a LH4 4-16x44 I got recently and it's a great little scope.

caliusoptimus said:

Sry I could have made my question more clear.

What would you expect a premium scope (just as an example, a no compromises scope costing several thousand dollars) to do better than a budget (sub $500) scope?

Obviously the jump from the $30 range to the $300 range is massive in terms of zoom, brightness, reticle, features, material, and pretty much every other way. How about $300 to $3000?

Click to expand...

Well placed question, but , yes, big difference. I live in the $500-$1500 land. All comes down to clarity, magnification and clarity at that magnification. And field of view. That simple. My friend was using Athlon 3-18 x50 I think and I gave him a 5-50 Delta Stryker and the rest was history for target. He went and bought 3 for himself!

Dairyboy said:

I've owned many high end guns but yet to ever jump into high end scopes. For my uses I haven't seen a need to go over a $500 optic to shoot birds out to 100yds. I owned a $1k Athlon Ares ETR UHD before but after about 6 months I sold it, while it was amazing, just complete overkill and could have 2 really nice scopes for the price. For me I won't look any further than the Athlon Helos BTR Gen2 line or the Arkens are also great. Have a LH4 4-16x44 I got recently and it's a great little scope.

Click to expand...

When you're already shooting dimes or smaller at 50 , it's hard for me to justify the expense. I doubt a $1000+ scope is going to make a big difference. I also hear about bipods needing to be out by the end of the barrel . Adding weight and adapters really going improve to my accuracy to the extent its worth it ? I doubt it . I'm more than happy with the accuracy of my pcps and no need to try to " buy " a touch more .

If you can afford the top equipment though , I won't hold it against you .

Because they known people will pay regardless the high price.

caliusoptimus said:

For camera lenses... the difference between 300 and 3000 is usually pretty significant. High end ones will have large apertures, little distortion, mechanical stabilization, power zooms, autofocus, matched T stops in a set, color accruacy, matched color profiles for a set of cine lenses, par-focal zooms... just to name a few examples. Expensive lenses often make styles of photo or video that were previously impossible possible. You get into the $200k range and there are broadcast TV lenses that do things no other lens could dream. Naturally, there's snake oil at every price level too.

Is it the same way with scopes? Am I missing out on something amazing by being stingy?

Click to expand...

Yes you are missing out. But if you only shoot

in good light,
never into deep shadows
Don't care if the first shot is on after adjustment
Not worried about a 1 3/4 or ant exact moa is always dead on
Don't worry about flyers, or make other excuses for them,,,, you ain't missing nutin!

Now if you expect a springer, and I'll go with a magnum, like a Diana 54, or a wiehrach HW80, or HW95, to shoot sub moa, and dial as the adjustments call for, and give great images of small game high up and deep into trees at dawn and dusk in heavy timber.

You will quickly become a scope snob! Why you have asked, because one really does work, and one don't! I want my equipment to work rain sun snow fog bright light as well as low overcast early and late light.

But the main thing is, I want repeatable outcomes year after year like this


That is with a light wieght HW50s that most struggle with.


That's with a hot tuned R10 over 900 fps, a very hot for a springer. I mention these guns, because they are the wost on a scope for durability, and holding accuracy.

I shoot Short and long range Benchrest 100 yards to 600 yards. It was obvious 30 years ago why a scope that is truly worthy and capable of winning cost the most! It simply was the only way to win, cheap will cost you!

The best target rifle in the world can fall to a less capable target rifle if the optics aren't fully up to the task. Many never understand what fully capable is, Manny themselves start out incapable, and will never be fully capable because they limit themselves with what their understanding of capable is.

But from a standpoint of both sides of the experience fence, I can assure you, amongst the best hunters and shooters, cost matters, and we have seen how much cost can COST YOU, if you think cheaper can be as good or better!

If your not willing to pay 500 or more on optics, forget getting what the specs tell you, but it all depends on what your willing to go without!

I have a Hawke AM 4-12x40 AO on my R10, it shoots as good as my HW77K, on a bench or plinking.

The HW77K have a Hawke 4-16×50 IR SF, on it. But that is because no way can pick out small targets such as squirrel and starlings deep in the shadows of tall trees in heavy foilage for quick accurate head shots 25 to 40 yards in low light, or cloudy cover with the scope on the R10. Change that to winter, and same shots with no foilage, and that little 4-12× will do the same thing the 4-16× does.

Only you can decide how good good enough for you is.

One last thing, either of those scope are lacking immensely when repeatable adjustments are concerned, compared to any of the $1500.00 to $2500.00 Nightforce scopes I compete with will. Not even close, and trust me they are not in the same league for optical quality!

Those who have been there done that know there is a huge differance. Most that have never been there, done that, will claim there isn't,,,,, cluelessly!

Wildcatter said:

Yes you are missing out. But if you only shoot

in good light,
never into deep shadows
Don't care if the first shot is on after adjustment
Not worried about a 1 3/4 or ant exact moa is always dead on
Don't worry about flyers, or make other excuses for them,,,, you ain't missing nutin!

Now if you expect a springer, and I'll go with a magnum, like a Diana 54, or a wiehrach HW80, 03 HW95, to shoot sub moa, dial as the adjustments call for, and give great images of small game high up and deep into trees at dawn and dusk in heavy timber.

You will quickly become a scope snob! Why you have asked, because one really does work, and one don't! I want my equipment to work rain sun snow fog bright light as well as low overcast early and late light.

But the main thing is, I want repeatable outcomes year after year like this
View attachment 477358

That is with a light wieght HW50s that most struggle with.

View attachment 477359
That's with a hot tuned R10 over 900 fps, a very hot for a springer.i mention these guns, because they are the best on a scope for durability, plus accuracy.

I shoot Short and long range Benchrest 100 yards to 600 yards. It was obvious 30 years ago why a scope that is truly worthy and capable of winning cost the most! It simply was the only way to win!

The best target rifle in the world can fall to a less capable target rifle if the optics aren't fully up to the task. Many never understand what fully capable is, Manny themselves apart out incapable, and will never be fully capable because they limit themselves with what their understanding of capable is.

But from a standpoint of mouth sides of the experience fence, I can assure you, amongst the best hunters and shooters, cost matters, and we have seen how much cost can COST YOU, if you think cheaper can be as good or better!

If your not willing to pay 500 or more on optics, forget getting what the specs tell you, but it all depends on what your willing to go without!

I have a Hawke AM 4-12x40 AO on my R10, it shoots as good as my HW77K, on a bench or plinking.

The HW77K have a Hawke 4-16×50 IR SF, on it. But that is because no way can pick out small targets such as squirrel and starlings deep in the shadows of tall trees in heavy foilage for quick accurate head shots 25 to 40 yards in low light, or cloudy cover with scope on the R10. Change that to winter, and same shots with no foilage, and that little 4-12× will do the same thing the 4-16× does.

Only you can decide how good good enough for you is.

One last thing, either of those scope are lacking immensely when repeatable adjustments are concerned, compared to any of the $1500.00 to $2500.00 Nightforce scopes I compete with will. Not even close, and trust me they are not in the same league for optical quality!

Those who have been there done that know there is a huge differance. Most that have never been there, done that, will claim there isn't,,,,, cluelessly!

View attachment 477372

Click to expand...

Indeed ... world class optics stand alone in just how refined a picture you view looking threw them !!!
Due to an inheritance I am blessed to own no less than 3 Schmidt-Bender 6-25x56 PM II's There clarity & brightness along with a TANK weight build is the best I've ever used or spent time looking threw !! At @ $3600-$4000 each, a scope I would never even think of owning or buying, so there's that

Motorhead said:

Indeed ... world class optics stand alone is just how refined a picture you view looking threw them !!!
Due to an inheritance I am blessed to own no less than 3 Schmidt-Bender 6-25x56 PM II's There clarity & brightness along with a TANK weight build is the best I've ever used or spent time looking threw !! At @ $3600-$4000 each, a scope I would never even think of owning or buying, so there's that

Click to expand...

The true efficency of those scopes is the trackability and accuracy of the stated adjustment value!!!

Anyone with true experiance with those scopes knows, it's more than the eye can see! It is the reliable mechanics of the scope that tells the rest of your story!

And that is Exactly That!

This is how we establish cost when talking binoculars, not great rifle scopes!

Far to many are willing to replace their equipment. Which is why you inherited those, they are meant to last generations! Probably not going to get that with 5 or 6 hundred dollar scope. To some that doesn't matter? To me, I sell guns when I'm tiered of them, but my scopes go on the guns that replace the guns I sell!

"Been There,,,, Done That"!!

When i first started shooting i got a gamo pellet rifle with a included scope. I guess it was okay for 25 yards. When i got my first pcp i got a Hawke scope that was pretty good compared to the one that came with the gamo. I since got a couple other Hawke scopes and and wonderful but heavy mid range scope Crimson Trace CT5 3-24 recommended by a member no longer here. That worked very well for a lot of my long range stuff but my eyesight started changing. I bought a EP4 -16 to put on the uragan compact. Not as good as the CT5 but probably half the weight. My last jump up was to the Element Theos. It was even better especially with new prescription Eyewear.

As mentioned I think a lot of technology in manufacturing is reachable by all the companies, so playing field is more level. Because just about everything can be easily copied I'm sure every company can afford to purchase the competition's scope, tear it apart, and mechanically make the same scope. But to do some procedures and create the same tolerances it's going to cost money and that's where corners are cut and price differences pop up. Glass is one of those things that still cost to make and even harder make good. Can these companies keep selling the same scope over and over without some advances each year? For some companies it would be hard to get repeat customers if there wasn't something new to sell. It makes buying a preowned scope make sense as long as long as everything is working.

I have not been shooting long enough but It seems that some companies have plateaued out. Any advancements have been to other aspects of the scope. Some have added electronics with range finders and Bluetooth, March on its high end scope has gone to a external elevation and windage adjustments to keep the scope optically center. I think one of the manufacturers with rangefinder integrated in the scope is making a easy to change scope retical types by casting the retical and actually changing the center poa to accommodate the distance to the target. I guess one can make a lighter scope but I guess that would require some compromises that may and maynot be more expensive.

Allen