I hear a lot of ya'll say, "spend as much or more on a scope as you do the gun".
I want to know why you think a $400 scope the so much better than a $70 scope?

I've owned a variety of cheap scopes tasco, simmons, bushnell, valor, bsa, and Nc star to name just a few "most" with the exception of maybe two have served me just fine.
On one rifle now I have a nikon buckmaster and yes it's a good scope and I CAN tell that it's a little better quality but IMO not worth $100 or $150 more than any of my cheap scopes.

Back in the 70's when about all you could find was weaver, and red field I had one of each then when luepold (sp) hit the market I did own one of them, it turned out to be a GREAT disappointment!

Let's hear it why is a high dollar scpoe so much better in your opinion?

If you are thinking about getting a scope THE BEST SCOPE UNDER 1200 IS A SUPER SNIPER! i have one on two of my rifles and my uncle who told me about them has them on all of his rifles. in fact he gave away his leupold and bought one instead. they are about 300 dollars and are worth every penny.

good scopes hold up better but to me they are just MUCH better glass

I can see a nice set of horns right at the last bit of legal shooting time under trees at 200 yards clearly, when a cheaper scope I can barely see if it's a deer or not...

well, supposedly they hold there zero better than the cheapies do. Rick I have a cheap NCstar on one of my rigs right now and I have had zero problems with it after 2 seasons of use. did you have problems with the NC star?

I went against most on here's advice and got an NCStar Mark III tactical scope for my AR with the laser on it. 1" groups at 100 yards, and not much worse groups at 200 yards using the bullet drop compensator its equipped with. The laser has held true also, I can shoot coons out to 50ish yds from the hip!

Ha ha funny you said that... the Nc star I have is not very clear but so far it's held a zero ok. I bought it to replace a REAL piece of junk on an SKS and it was a lot better than the scope I had. Then I bought an AR and put the Nc on it just because it has the quick mount but have already replaced it.

So yes out of all the cheap scopes I've owned Nc Star is one of the ones that I don't like much.

Some of the cheap scopes I'm talking about has been on my guns from 10 and up to 20 years with no problems.

Well first I think you "probably" need to see what the definition of "legal shooting time" is, I'd bet your staying out a little past legal.
Second I don't want to risk a shot on something I can barely see that close to dark. You might can see horns just fine but can you really see where your cross hairs are? And can you see beyond your target to be sure it's a safe shot?
I guess morning is a whole different thing.

IMO if it's dark enough that I can't see through my (cheap) scope (in the evening) it's about time to head in anyway.

you get what you pay for in scopes.leupold is the cheapest scopes i own and they are not on my big game rifles.try getting a 350-400 yard shot on a game in low light with one of the cheep scopes and you will see the diff right off.in the bigger calibers the cheep scopes will not hold up to the recoil.see this all the time.

I'm sure I'll never be convinced but I still want everyone's opinions on why a high dollar scope is better.
I never shoot 300- 400 yds because I never practice at those distances and at our place you're lucky to see 200 yds.

Most of my guns are small caliber 17, 223,6mm but I do have a cheap scope on my 300 wm that's been there 15 or so yrs.

I guess when you say "you get what you pay for " it means I get a bargan because cheap scopes have served me well.
I shoot as good or better than any of the people I've hunted and shot with in the last 40 yrs. I'm gettin "older" and I'm not near as good as I used to be but I don't blame the scope or the gun. And no I've never claimed or considered myself to be an "excellent" marksman, but I can still shoot 1" groups @ 100 yds. And yes I know that's really nothing to brag about but it works for me.

I'm with Rick on this one. I don't spend high dollar on my scopes because I don't see that much additional benefit. Especially when I put a mid-grade Nikon or a good Burris up against a Zeiss or upper-end Leupold. Most good scopes are fine out to 300 yrds, which is my outside range in most cases.

Another reason I don't put big $$ into a scopes is that they don't hold there value like guns do. A $1000 scope today is worth $500 in a few years because "new improved" versions come out so quickly. $1000 spent on a new gun is still worth 90% of it's value (and sometimes more) as time passes.

My rule of thumb. Spend 50% of the gun's value on a scope. $400 rifle doesn't need more than $200 scope. $1000 rifle will shoot fine with a $500 scope. Just my .02 cents.

All I can say is you get what you pay for. That really, no matter what argument is made abot scopes, is what it comes down too.

Own a $1000 scope and you will be able to see the difference. There are just too many things that make a high dollar scope better than a low end scope to even start to list them all.

jusy go nikon and you got what you need for any gun hands down.

you do get what you pay for...sometimes I'll settle for a cheap scope and put the rest into a new rifle and another cheap scope to go on new rifle...and so on and so forth. It's a never ending cycle.

Considering what I spend on a lease and everything that goes with it I can't understand using a cheap rifle or scope. Look around and you can find great deals on used combos that are quality. I just hope that one day you don't get your shot of a life time and miss due to a poor quality rifle and or scope. A friend let me shoot his custom rifle with a Schmidt & Bender scope and I saw the light. Can not not afford it but would love to have it. Offered him my wife but he said no deal-he's single guess thats why he has it.

I don't wish for anyone to miss the shot of a lifetime...and yes, that is why he has it. As true as that may be, not every rifle a person owns has to automatically have an upper end scope put on it. As long as I have a handful that I trust I'm good to go.

I tend to favor Chevy scopes on Ford rifles. But, I ALWAYS carry Mercedes binos!

lol, guess that means I have mopeds on some of mine.

I'll be the first to say, I ain't gonna be spending anywhere close to a grand on a scope for anything. I just don't see it as necessary. The one rifle activity that I've participated in that required good glass, over any other activity, was shooting PD's. You will definitely see the cheap scope's liabilities when shooting these little critters all day for a few days in a row. I had one rifle with a very faithful Simmons scope on it, and after a couple of hours of looking through it on a PD town, my eye felt like it was full of sand. Never experienced that with my Weaver V series or Nikon Monarchs. Also, the Weaver's and Nikon's turrets actually track correctly and return to zero. Something you'll never get out of a cheap scope. So that Simmons is now in the drawer at home, and has been replaced with a Weaver V series (probably one of the most under rated scopes I've ever looked through). I'd put the V series up against a Leupy or Nikon any day.

All that being said, I still have not seen the need for a $1,000scope. if I were a military sniper and mine or someone else's life depended on one shot, then yes, maybe. But for a rifle that will be needed for 99.9% of the shots taken on wild game, it just isn't necessary. Sure I guess, if that's what you want, go for it. But it certainly isn't necessary. Wea re talking about needing a scope to hold zero, that's about it for almost all hunting done worldwide. There are a multitude of lower priced scopes, not to be confused with cheap scopes, that will hold zero til the cows come home, and even do double duty at some long range shooting on small targets. As always there are exceptions when you get into shooting handheld Howitzers. But you won't be finding any of those in my safe, so that's a non issue for me.

Overall, my findings are that scopes with glass made in China aren't typically worth having. They are unclear, and the workmanship, or lack there of, is horrible. I at least want to see "made in Japan" on my scopes. They seem to have much better quality glass, and are much better built.

It will be a long time before anyone sees a scope on one of my rifles that doesn't say Nikon, Weaver, or Sightron. But that's me.

The top of the line scopes provide alot of positives, but the mid market scopes have gotten very, very good over the last few years.

My dad was old school forever... tasco, simmons, redfield and lower lever weaver.

First time he looked though my zeiss conquest which is upper mid range scope he bought two the next day. Night and day difference litterally where his words.

Me- i'm always looking for a steal or best bang for the buck. I have found that Vortex scopes are about as good as you can get for the price and warrenty is second to none.

Their Viper line IMO is the best scope in the 300-700 range. Think mine is a 4-12 x40 and it cost $410 to my door. My zeiss is a better scope but not 300 dollars better.

Same thing when i was buying new bio's i got the Vortex Razors right a 600 bucks. the swaro SCL where by far the best bino's i have ever picked up clarity and wieght wise, but they where not $1000-1200 better then the Vortex IMO

How much is the zeis conquest BoBo?

$410+300 = $712

or can go with the 3x9 for $399+tax.

depends you look around you can get a 3-9x42 conquest for 399.

the 3.5x10x42 I think is around $700. And the 4.5-14 x42 I think upper 700's

If you jump up past the conquest line your looking at 1200 plus

I might put one on layaway at Cabelas if they carry the conquest line. Its time to upgrade mine. I could only go with the 3x9 the rest are too rich for my budget right now.

look at swfa on their sample list... They have some very good lightly used ones..

also look here for demos http://www.cameralandny.com/ at a reduced rate