School me on Riflescopes

[WildBill]

That's some good info, Bill. I found a good article on Optics Planet's website that explains a lot of factors to consider when shopping for a scope. It's a pretty good read: Linky.

Lots of good information.

P.S. Keep the Lyman sight. They don't make them like that any more.

[VMI77]

I see the "junk" statement a lot. Not knowing much about scopes myself I wonder what it's based on? Are you saying a $100 scope won't hold zero? --that would obviously make it worthless. If so, is there some objective evidence for this claim or is it anecdotal? What precisely makes a $600 scope worth six times the price of the $100 scope? Are you talking about actual functional differences or something more subjective, like "quality," or the difference between nice and necessary?

This discussion reminds me of the one about how much to spend on speakers for your stereo system. Off the top of my head I can point out a few differences between a good scope and a "junk" scope.

A good rifle scope is a precision assembly consisting of mechanical and optical components. Just "holding zero" isn't good enough. Not only must it hold zero it must be capable of being adjusted without significant hysteresis. A good scope can be adjusted to 1/4 MOA rather than 1 MOA for cheaper scopes. A good variable power scope will hold the same point of aim throughout the range of magnification. A poor (junk) scope may not. A good scope will withstand the effects of constant recoil without moving the point of aim.

The light gathering power of a scope is also important. Poor (junk) optics will look dark, making it harder to find your target under low light conditions. The image quality of a poor scope will be blurry and not as sharp as a good scope. Good scopes are manufactured with high quality optical glass rather than inferior glass or plastic. A good scope has coated optics which result in a better focus across the spectrum of light.

The materials used to manufacture a good scope are more expensive than a poor (junk) scope. A good scope is made from anodized aluminum, which is strong, light weight and resistant to corrosion. A poor (junk) scope is made of carbon steel or plastic. The scope tube for a good scope is manufactured to tight tolerances and is hermatically sealed so that moist air can not enter the scope and create a fog. When subjected to extreme cold, a poor (junk) scope will let in moist air into the tube and fog the lenses.

Whether or not a $600 scope is worth six times the price of the $100 scope is up to the consumer.

That's all I can think of right now.

A good list of objective considerations but I'm not sure how to apply it. I agree that not holding zero, changing aimpoint with magnification, and fogging, are characteristics of a junk scope. However, I can see a number of under $100 scopes on Amazon (and other places) that feature 1/4 MOA adjustment with good user reviews that cover a number of the other considerations such as fogging and low light visibility. If I go a little higher on price I see a $150 Nikon 3-9X scope on Amazon that has a lifetime warranty, 1/4 MOA adjustment, bullet drop compensation, and is nitrogen filled and supposed to be water proof/fog proof. This particular scope has excellent user reviews. I can't tell if it satisfies everything on your list, but it seems to cover all the important ones. What would another $450 get me?

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-ProStaff-3- ... d_sbs_sg_2

[WildBill]

A good list of objective considerations but I'm not sure how to apply it. I agree that not holding zero, changing aimpoint with magnification, and fogging, are characteristics of a junk scope. However, I can see a number of under $100 scopes on Amazon (and other places) that feature 1/4 MOA adjustment with good user reviews that cover a number of the other considerations such as fogging and low light visibility. If I go a little higher on price I see a $150 Nikon 3-9X scope on Amazon that has a lifetime warranty, 1/4 MOA adjustment, bullet drop compensation, and is nitrogen filled and supposed to be water proof/fog proof. This particular scope has excellent user reviews. I can't tell if it satisfies everything on your list, but it seems to cover all the important ones. What would another $450 get me?

Another $450 would get you more of what you got for the original $150. Three times more [quality, features, performance]? I doubt it. Some of the improvements would be niceties, such as sharper focus, smoother zooming, a better finish on the tube, metal, rather than plastic knobs or lens covers. Lifetime versus limited warranties, choices of reticles, etc.

A few words about MOA adjustments. As I mentioned in my first post, hysteresis is an important factor in adjustment of sights. Every screw or gear adjustment mechanism has some hysteresis or backlash. If you turn the screw 1/4 MOA, you expect the POI to move 1/4 MOA. Just because your dial shows you moved it that far doesn't necessarily mean the reticle moved that far. A cheaper scope will probably have a little more slop than a really expensive scope so you may have to move the adjustment back and forth several times, until it becomes stable.

In my experience many people think that a higher power scope is better than a lower power scope. In certain situations it is, but I have found that most of my shooting is at around 4X. You have a narrower field of sight at higher magnification, so unless you are shooting from a bench or other support, it is more difficult to acquire the target and hold it steady under higher magnification.

Another factor to consider is what will be the main use of your scope - hunting, plinking, target shooting, bench rest shooting. I have a few high-end scopes for bench rest shooting. When you click the micrometer one click the bullet moves 1/4 inch at 100 yards - every time. If you want to shoot 1/2 inch groups all day long you should probably buy a high-end [expensive] scope. My main scope for casual target shooting, plinking or hunting would be my 4X Weaver. It probably cost less than $100 [although a long time ago]. It is has good quality glass, is fairly rugged and has lasted many years.

I think Nikon is an excellent brand. My SLR is a Nikon. A few of my lenses are Nikon, but most are other brands. The reason is that I think the price/quality ratio was better on the other brands. Some people think that with a Nikon you are "paying for the name." I believe that is true, but they earned their name by producing superior products for 50 years.

Sometimes you don't know how bad some optics are until you experience them with your own eyes and then compare them to a superior product. It's sort of like looking at your back yard through a dirty window for years - and then one day you clean the window and realize the beautiful view you have been missing.

I think that your decision has been made on how much you will spend. So just buy the best scope for your money.

If you haven't seen the video "Inside The Zeiss Factory" that AndyC posted, check it out. It shows some of the processes used to manufacture rifle scopes. It may also show you where the money is spent producing quality optics.
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=39226&p=470089&hilit=zeiss#p470089" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PeteCamp]

I agree with everything WildBill listed as desirable qualities in a riflescope. In my half century of shooting experience, I have learned one basic truth about riflescopes: When people tell you to spend as much on your scope as on your rifle, don't believe it (IMHO). There is no way to measure the quality of a scope by how much money you spend. Price does not equal adherence to the list of desirable qualities. I can pretty much guarantee that if you don't go talk to people who own and shoot scopes on rifles regularly, and do some research, you will probably not be spending your money wisely.

There are great scopes that are very inexpensive. There are very expensive scopes that are not so great. Some are great for hunting, some are great for targets or snipers. Take some time and look through some of them and choose wisely. Good luck.

[VMI77]

If you turn the screw 1/4 MOA, you expect the POI to move 1/4 MOA. Just because your dial shows you moved it that far doesn't necessarily mean the reticle moved that far. A cheaper scope will probably have a little more slop than a really expensive scope so you may have to move the adjustment back and forth several times, until it becomes stable.

In my experience many people think that a higher power scope is better than a lower power scope. In certain situations it is, but I have found that most of my shooting is at around 4X. You have a narrower field of sight at higher magnification, so unless you are shooting from a bench or other support, it is more difficult to acquire the target and hold it steady under higher magnification.

Another factor to consider is what will be the main use of your scope - hunting, plinking, target shooting, bench rest shooting. I have a few high-end scopes for bench rest shooting. When you click the micrometer one click the bullet moves 1/4 inch at 100 yards - every time. If you want to shoot 1/2 inch groups all day long you should probably buy a high-end [expensive] scope. My main scope for casual target shooting, plinking or hunting would be my 4X Weaver. It probably cost less than $100 [although a long time ago]. It is has good quality glass, is fairly rugged and has lasted many years.

Thanks. I wasn't aware of the hysteresis effect with scope adjustments before you mentioned it in this thread. I agree with you on different quality levels for different uses. My usage would be more casual, exclusively, so I'm not inclined to buy an expensive scope. I think I'd rather go cheaper and put that extra $450 into another handgun.

[VMI77]

I agree with everything WildBill listed as desirable qualities in a riflescope. In my half century of shooting experience, I have learned one basic truth about riflescopes: When people tell you to spend as much on your scope as on your rifle, don't believe it (IMHO). There is no way to measure the quality of a scope by how much money you spend. Price does not equal adherence to the list of desirable qualities. I can pretty much guarantee that if you don't go talk to people who own and shoot scopes on rifles regularly, and do some research, you will probably not be spending your money wisely.

There are great scopes that are very inexpensive. There are very expensive scopes that are not so great. Some are great for hunting, some are great for targets or snipers. Take some time and look through some of them and choose wisely. Good luck.

Based on what I've seen of scopes (limited), and my experience with similar issues in other areas (not so limited), I agree. Since my scope usage is always going to be on the very casual end of things, I don't shoot rifle much anyway (and when I do it is more often with iron sights), I'm inclined to go cheaper and use the extra $500 or so to buy another handgun.

[Warhammer]

So, does anyone have a recommendation for a 3-9X scope for hunting use that won't break the bank? Cabella's has a Nikon Pro Staff on sale for $99 that seems to be getting very good reviews.

[gmckinl]

So, does anyone have a recommendation for a 3-9X scope for hunting use that won't break the bank? Cabella's has a Nikon Pro Staff on sale for $99 that seems to be getting very good reviews.

Assuming it's the same as the one I bought at Academy for $150... I'm good w/ it. It doesn't seem to me to be up to the level of my Leupold VX-III scopes, but it is not junk. It seems a decent scope for a fair price. Mine was on an AR and is now on an '06. Works just fine. No complaints. I would buy another one. At $99 it sounds like a great deal.

[HankB]

For around $300 you can get a Leupold VXII 3x9 riflescope. I've had it's predecessor, a Vari-X II, on my .30/06 Model 70 for over 30 years now, hunted all over in all weather (including 3 African safaris) and have never had a problem - I never even have to adjust zero.

For under $200 you can get a Leupold VXI or Redfield (made by Leupold) and they'll probably be satisfactory . . . but there's no doubt in my mind that they've taken shortcuts in the assembly to get the price down. (I think they may cement in some of the lenses.)

I would avoid completely brands like Leapers, NCStar, or IOR Valdada. (First two are cheap, the last one isn't, but from what I've seen they're junk.)

One last thing - when I was working as range officer at my old gun club, I saw a LOT of 'scopes fail when we were open to the public; almost invariably, the broken 'scope was a Tasco.

[PeteCamp]

Boy, am I gonna get flamed here. I would recommend the Nikon ProStaff 3x9 as a good quality hunting scope. Maybe not the best, but certainly up to the task. I would take the $200 you'll save by not buying a scope that is not substantially any better, but has a "trusted" name (read that price marked up because of that name) and spend it on ammunition. I believe a marksman can shoot well enough, even with iron sights, to bring down most game out to 300 yards. But you will never become a marksman by spending all your money on a scope and not shooting but 20 rounds or so before the hunting season starts to make sure your scope is zeroed.

[WildBill]

I believe a marksman can shoot well enough, even with iron sights, to bring down most game out to 300 yards. But you will never become a marksman by spending all your money on a scope and not shooting but 20 rounds or so before the hunting season starts to make sure your scope is zeroed.

It seems to be a common fallacy that a scope makes one a better marksman. A scope will probably help most shooters with shot placement and allow them to shoot tighter groups, but it will not neccesarily make him a better marksman.

A scope is merely a tool that allows the shooter to see and aim more precisely, an greater distances, than with iron sights. Unfortunately some people have problems with their eyesight and their tends to worsen with age. Fortunately, a good quality scope can help mitigate degrading vision. Since Mr. Camp stated that he has been shooting for half a century, I assume that he is 51 years old and that he agrees with me.

[PeteCamp]

WildBill....Absolutely! I can only wish I was 51 once again. My dad taught me to shoot in 1955 on my 7th birthday. Some kind of old (even back then) bolt action .22. I only got one round at a time handed to me.

I have been blessed that I still have eyes that can see well enough to shoot Service Rifle out to 600 yards. Of course, the rest of me is falling apart!

[lonewolf]

I think I have that old .22 bolt action! Single shot, have to pull the firing pin knob on the back of the bolt to cock it.......it was my father's gun when he was a kid in the fifties....then passed on to me......and soon to one of my boys........

Still shoots straight as an arrow....killed many snakes and rabbits with it.

[SecedeTX]

I have been really happy with my Nikon scopes. I think you get really good value for the quality. I upgraded from a cheapo $150 scope that came on the rifle. The low light gathering ability of the nikon compared to the inexpensive scope was night and day. Well worth the extra money.