cheap scope vs expensive
- Thread starter madman68320
- Start date
I would say from someone that shoots field target the quality of the glass . I have trouble determining the difference between 38 yards and 45 yards. But with my more expensive scope it’s better.
Then there are features like lighted reticle.
Etched reticule
More stuff cost more.
Then there are features like lighted reticle.
Etched reticule
More stuff cost more.
Upvote 0
nuances=seeing things more clearly.Better built quality, better turrets and precision.If you just shooting 25 yards,like plinking a cheap scope can work fine. Others will elaborate. Cheap to me is about$100,I say this because you do not want a scope that is just a pile of chit.
Upvote 0
In a cheap vs expensive discussion, you're asking about quality. Good quality is a wise investment.
By my personal definition, a "quality" product is one that exactly suits the needs of the user. So buy what YOU need, match the purchase to the application.
A product is designed to meet a specific set of goals. That could be based on a price point or a performance. I've found that going to the extremes of cost or performance is usually a poor decision. Minimum cost results in a bad experience and ultimate performance crosses the "diminishing returns" line.
For me, I'm a serious amateur shooter and buy scopes in the $250 to $600 range. My cheaper scopes are fine for general shooting (plinking, pesting, hunting) out to 50ish yards and my more expensive ones for pesting and target work at longer range.
I'd recommend deciding what you really need the scope for, then research suitable scopes that are in your budget. Go and handle a bunch of scopes, lookie-touchy-feely will help you decide what is good for you and a much better approach than just comparing specifications.
If you give more information on what you want a scope for the people here will be glad to share their recommendations.
Cheers!
By my personal definition, a "quality" product is one that exactly suits the needs of the user. So buy what YOU need, match the purchase to the application.
A product is designed to meet a specific set of goals. That could be based on a price point or a performance. I've found that going to the extremes of cost or performance is usually a poor decision. Minimum cost results in a bad experience and ultimate performance crosses the "diminishing returns" line.
For me, I'm a serious amateur shooter and buy scopes in the $250 to $600 range. My cheaper scopes are fine for general shooting (plinking, pesting, hunting) out to 50ish yards and my more expensive ones for pesting and target work at longer range.
I'd recommend deciding what you really need the scope for, then research suitable scopes that are in your budget. Go and handle a bunch of scopes, lookie-touchy-feely will help you decide what is good for you and a much better approach than just comparing specifications.
If you give more information on what you want a scope for the people here will be glad to share their recommendations.
Cheers!
Upvote 0
I have always been an iron sight guy. Now that my eyes aren’t what they used to be, I started putting scopes on my guns.
Being a cheapskate I of course bought inexpensive scopes. My springers killed them, although visually they seemed ok.
Then I bought a Hawke Airmax. Not vey expensive but a couple steps up in price from the prior ones.
I found that the extra money was well spent. Better glass and overall quality.
Since that time I bought a few pcp. I decided to step up again in price/quality and purchased an Athlon, and then two more Athlons.
I went from a non-believer to plotting how I can buy another Athlon Helos.
Everyone will have their own point of diminishing returns. For me the Helos line/ price point is as high as I will ever go, and only if it’s a deal.
I dont compete so the Helos is perfect for me and certainly better than I ”Need.”
But wow! I am sure glad I bought it.
Being a cheapskate I of course bought inexpensive scopes. My springers killed them, although visually they seemed ok.
Then I bought a Hawke Airmax. Not vey expensive but a couple steps up in price from the prior ones.
I found that the extra money was well spent. Better glass and overall quality.
Since that time I bought a few pcp. I decided to step up again in price/quality and purchased an Athlon, and then two more Athlons.
I went from a non-believer to plotting how I can buy another Athlon Helos.
Everyone will have their own point of diminishing returns. For me the Helos line/ price point is as high as I will ever go, and only if it’s a deal.
I dont compete so the Helos is perfect for me and certainly better than I ”Need.”
But wow! I am sure glad I bought it.
Upvote 0
I'm a sub 50 yd. plinker/pester and I find that most scopes in the $80 - $100 range serves me well. With my aging eyes I do require AO and prefer SF. Illuminated is not a must have for me, I have rarely used it. Typically a 3-9x40 is adequate.
Springers require airgun rated scopes. Combo scopes are saved for... well, for nothing really. They are basically a marketing tool aimed at the unexperienced.
Springers require airgun rated scopes. Combo scopes are saved for... well, for nothing really. They are basically a marketing tool aimed at the unexperienced.
Upvote 0
I use one scope I paid less than $100 for (Hawke Vantage 2-7) and the rest are $200-330. I had several sub $100 scopes fail to hold zero but once I got up around $200 multiple brands have worked OK. Primary Arms, Athlon, Arken. The ones around $300 have better glass and turrents than the ones closer to $200. I suspect scopes even more expensive would offer benefits in at least one area but I do not plan to go up further except, perhaps a digital scope with a rangefinder and other extras not found in optical scopes.
Upvote 0
Better turrets, better light transmission, better build quality overall. It's like expensive guns vs Walmart break barrels. I was cheap for years and dozens of scopes. I am no longer cheap about it. There's a difference that just adds a better experience to shooting.
Upvote 0
I agreed with the above posts = Quality glass, image quality, lighted reticles etc
Another big difference to me was the warranty.
In general, with a more expensive scope, the company will honor their "limited life time" warranty.
I shoot competition field target and my optics have to work out in the field in hot, cold, and rainy conditions. Unfortunately, that pushes me into the $1000 + price range.
Another big difference to me was the warranty.
In general, with a more expensive scope, the company will honor their "limited life time" warranty.
I shoot competition field target and my optics have to work out in the field in hot, cold, and rainy conditions. Unfortunately, that pushes me into the $1000 + price range.
Upvote 0
Imo, your glass is not to be skimp on. It is what connects you to your target. The clearer the view, the better the chances of putting that slug or pellet exactly where you want it to go.
Upvote 0
Scope makers usually mention a couple of things. First, glass, i.e., distortion from the lenses themselves. As an exaggerated example, remember how a miniscule defect in the mirrors caused major problems for the Hubble telescope, distorting our view of outer space? Same with scopes, and cheaper scopes will tend to have more significant distortion. Luckily, we aren't looking at distant galaxies and most of us will never notice except in the very cheapest scopes.
Then, coatings. More and better coatings apparently make a big difference, although personally I don't see how coatings would add significantly to cost/price. Maybe more coatings means more processes to the manufacturer, hence higher costs?
I'd add a couple more. One, that the quality of the internals, particularly the adjustment turret mechanisms, would also make a big difference, class of fit for the screws, hardness of the materials, and the like. Oh, and etched glass v wire reticle, or god forbid,a painted reticle. Remember when we could choose a cheap, disposable harbor freight tool for a one-time job, v an expensive US made tool that would last forever? Kinda like that with scope internals.
Finally, the tube itself and the bells at each end. It's actually hard to make a tube that is perfectly concentric, inside and out, throughout its length. The more perfect you make the tube, the more it costs.
My $0.02
Then, coatings. More and better coatings apparently make a big difference, although personally I don't see how coatings would add significantly to cost/price. Maybe more coatings means more processes to the manufacturer, hence higher costs?
I'd add a couple more. One, that the quality of the internals, particularly the adjustment turret mechanisms, would also make a big difference, class of fit for the screws, hardness of the materials, and the like. Oh, and etched glass v wire reticle, or god forbid,a painted reticle. Remember when we could choose a cheap, disposable harbor freight tool for a one-time job, v an expensive US made tool that would last forever? Kinda like that with scope internals.
Finally, the tube itself and the bells at each end. It's actually hard to make a tube that is perfectly concentric, inside and out, throughout its length. The more perfect you make the tube, the more it costs.
My $0.02
Upvote 0
If you got it, spend the extra money. I can see getting rid of a gun well before a quality scope.
Upvote 0
Buy the "best" scope your valet can afford.
If I have per say $500 for a scope, I would not buy a brand new scope valued Tier#5 but I will buy a second hand valued Tier#4 or #3 hopefully.
The more $ you go there will be a plateau somewhere about $1200-1500 there is the entrance door to Tier 1 scopes.
If I have per say $500 for a scope, I would not buy a brand new scope valued Tier#5 but I will buy a second hand valued Tier#4 or #3 hopefully.
The more $ you go there will be a plateau somewhere about $1200-1500 there is the entrance door to Tier 1 scopes.
Upvote 0
scopes are like watches
A Timex and Rolex both tell time. There is added value in that Rolex to some though.
A Timex and Rolex both tell time. There is added value in that Rolex to some though.
Upvote 0
Most can make do with just decent glass. But if you’re a chronic scope clicker, that’s when it’s mandatory to up your budget.
Upvote 0
One consideration for me is the focal length. In the process of scope selection I found many that focus at 25 yards. I have a couple on my pb guns that are high end optics.
So a 10 yard focus is essential for my program. It’s not that important for pb s. And something I failed to take into account when equipping my pcp s. Got rid of one that wouldn’t focus to 10 yards. Parallax was really bad on that one.
So a 10 yard focus is essential for my program. It’s not that important for pb s. And something I failed to take into account when equipping my pcp s. Got rid of one that wouldn’t focus to 10 yards. Parallax was really bad on that one.
Upvote 0
Back in days - about two decades ago when I just started competing in archery FITA and Field...
I asked an older guy happened to be a long years champion:
"What is a best sight to buy?"
and he said:
" If you a good one you can shoot with toothpicks"
just a 2c
I asked an older guy happened to be a long years champion:
"What is a best sight to buy?"
and he said:
" If you a good one you can shoot with toothpicks"
just a 2c
Upvote 0
All the talk of competition shooting and high end scopes I get. But how many actually compete? If you are just banging away in the backyard pretty much a scope is a scope.
I've said this about the high end guns, unless you have a need for all the tweaks and geegaws you are buying a status symbol. Same for scopes, if you are just shooting paper or pests at 50 yards max you don't need anything more than a $100-200 Spina or CVLife FFP SF. Probably a $50 AO would be plenty.
Then there are people who buy $300 scope rings...
-- Matt
Upvote 0