I have an Arken EP5, and love that scope for the money. I would like to try a lighter weight Arken. My good scope I won at last years RMAC raffle, is also a heavyweight, a Vortex Razor gen3!!!
Upvote 0
Why are scopes so expensive?
- Thread starter caliusoptimus
- Start date
I am an optics freak,for the most part people pay way too much for a scope. After a certain point, it is BS that sells. Now I will say cheap and good many times is wasted money. I have bought too many scopes on people's recommendations here only to be disappointed. I know scopes. A good scope is worth the money,I say this,a good not expensive scope costs more than $120 and usually has to be used. You can get a very good scope for less than$200 used, and I mean by good brands.$400-$600 for better, also certain brands have better scopes at the same price points as not as good brand ,I like Sightron, some better Burris and Nikon, all Leupold scopes I have are great and for the less expensive but good scope I like Hawke newer Vanage models.
Another thing I find is people say how good their scope is,I hope so ,you paid over $1000 for it.
Knives, don't start it
Butt to answer your question, a better scope has better everything, and better things cost more money,plus scopes are precision instruments that need very close tolerance to work right.
When you finally get a good scope you will get it, yes there is a shortage on my ADD meds and I hate it,I must apologize for my tone, Sorry. I don't even know what I said made any sense
Another thing I find is people say how good their scope is,I hope so ,you paid over $1000 for it.
Knives, don't start it
Butt to answer your question, a better scope has better everything, and better things cost more money,plus scopes are precision instruments that need very close tolerance to work right.
When you finally get a good scope you will get it, yes there is a shortage on my ADD meds and I hate it,I must apologize for my tone, Sorry. I don't even know what I said made any sense
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I didn't need to listen to 45 seconds of the first video you posted before I stopped it and refused to watch a second of the others. It was that obvious a scripted marketing piece. Nobody is that F'in stupid as the interviewer, took less than a dozen words out of his mouth to know the complete video is a waste of time unless you enjoy over the top stupid marketing videos.
Upvote 0
I totally made the mistake of trying out some better and better scopes when I got started back in airguns. There are some very nice scopes in the $200 range, but there are better in the $500-1000. You see the differences in the reticles, the clarity, the turrets and tracking. It’s also more noticeable at the extremes - max zoom levels, CA around the edge of the lenses, etc. Above $1K you can see the difference, but like so many things it follows the law of diminishing returns.
Upvote 0
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.
Upvote 0
Oh I still love Vortex PST gen 2 5-25×50 scopes. For the price these are still great scopes
Upvote 0
If you never use a scope to its capabilities, cheap scopes are fine. We used $40 Tascos from walmart on .22's and slug guns growing up and thought they were great. Once you get into precision games like bench rest and field target, you start to really use a scope. Paralax, clear glass, and accurate tracking of the turrets start to matter. I read maybe 25 or 30 years ago, a known good gun writer said that when shopping for a rifle, the scope should cost as much as the gun. It is that important. I usually don't go that far, but my powderburners all have Leupold glass on them. I try to stay with proven makes, not the latest fad imports.
Upvote 0
luies are pretty good, sightron also ( sightron has some real high end stuff as well), that is what i use . back in my days of comp. Balvars, Unertel , Lyman, external micrometer adj. Redfield 3200 and 6400 weaver T series. Burris for the pistols.
Upvote 0
One of the good reasons for lower cost scopes are, their usually much lighter than the spendy ones. Leopold might be the exception , weight wise.
Upvote 0
Some of the scopes I see mounted makes me wonder if they're members of the an astronomy club? LOL
Upvote 0
I have an EPL 6-24 and the lowest price scope, a LH 4-24 as well as the 34 mm SH models. All are bright and have the same reticle. The cheaper ones don't have the features like target turrets and zero stops, but otherwise the same. I can't believe how much you get for such little money.
Upvote 0
Quality is like buying oats. If you want fresh quality oats, you have to pay a fair price. If you are happy with the oats that have already gone through the horse, those are a little cheaper.
Upvote 0
Is that true? I thought given everything else equal, lighter weight and more compact scopes are more expensive.
Upvote 0
Arken seems to manage fresh oat optics, at post horse oat prices! Do the lightweight Arkens have good glass?
Upvote 0
My old eyes seem to think so. The EPLs have Japanese glass, but the LHs don't, but the difference is hard to notice. For $200, it's better than many $400 scopes.
Upvote 0
I have an Arken epl4 and it's their lightweight scope. My Vector Veyron, Athlon Talos , Hawke 4x are much lighter.
Check out the weight of most Hi end scopes . Many are heavy.
Upvote 0
, my Razor 3 is 45 ounces, nearly three pounds!
It really depends on what your needs and budget are. For 15-50yd airgun pesting, my $160 Vector Veyron gets the job done just fine. If I'm shooting past 100yds (mostly powder burners for me at this point) I need better glass so I'm usually in the $400-600 range. Those are what I consider to be overall "mid-range" scopes in today's dollars. For my long range powder burners (if I plan to shoot 200yds and beyond) I benefit from better glass in the $1,000 price range, but don't technically need it. It's around this $1,000 point that the curve of diminishing returns on scopes really starts to plateau. Meaning if you double the money to $2,000, you likely won't be getting anywhere near double the performance. You might get 10-20% better performance, but if people NEED that little bit extra, then it is certainly worth the price difference. So who NEEDS it? Well, people who's life depends on their guns (tactical), or people who make money from shooting and will manage to get a monetary return on the investment. Could be a competition shooter or even a hunting guide/outfitter. Who else might choose to buy $2000+ scopes? People that have enough disposable income, and buy what they want because they can. They want the best so they plop down $3,000 on a scope simply because they can. Good for them. But if they are a casual hunter/shooter, will the extra $2,000 they spent actually make a practical difference in their shooting? Probably not. But they'll look cool doing it and that makes them happy.
Upvote 0
I’ve worked my way slowly up the scope cost ladder over the years. In the last year I bought a March 48x and a Schmidt and Bender 12-50x56 FT II, my most expensive optics. And I own several at all ranges in between.
Here are some of the big things that money buys:
- highest quality glass and machined parts. Every copy of a lens model is a good copy. Midrange and budget scopes often have varying final quality and some copies are just much better than others. I think back to some Bushnell 4.5-30x and 6-24x tactical that a buddy and I both bought during a closeout sale. No question my 6-24 was tack sharp and my 4.5-30 was soft most of the time. His 4.5-30 was tack sharp.
- Zoom range. Big zoom ranges cost more and big zoom range with good optical performance costs a whole lot more. Fixed magnification scopes give you a lot more optical range performance for less weight and cost if you can settle on one magnification level.
- Usable maximum magnification. If you want to show the quality of an optic, wind it up to maximum magnification and point it at a very high contrast target. A black on white target backer, leaves on a blue sky, a flagpole. Cheap scopes always show their optical issues clearly at full magnification.
- Warranty. A good warranty is paid for up-front.
- Optical design. Glass that gives a wide range of parallax free focus, diopters of ocular adjustment, minimal purple fringing, minimal vignetting, maximum eyebox, etc. Also the performance of the scope in poor lighting conditions. If you're competing you don’t get to pass up or wait out a shot due to conditions.
- Heavy duty “tactical” construction. Big tube diameters with massive elevation range. This should make enough sense.
- Adjustment knobs that work reliably and make equal consistent movements with each click.
- light weight. It’s cheaper to build a chunkier scope to achieve a set of specs than it is to make it light.
- Large lenses gather more light and provide a bigger field of view but they do cost a lot.
- “ED” glass with fluorite material is superior to glass lenses and it’s not cheap. Especially big lenses.
So yeah we want it all.
My personal philosophy has shifted in recent years away from having a large collection of shooting toys toward having ten I really shoot regularly and outfitting each one with really good scopes. I’ve started by upgrading the scopes on my competition guns first. I may or may not get to my less serious guns since none of them already have cheap scopes on them. And in competition the size of the glass is not a big issue, even if it looks outlandish.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
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.
Upvote 0