thanks for the info.

Other than clarity, I feel a huge difference in the "cheapies" is eye relief and being able to "find the crosshairs" or see through the scope. Just ask a new hunter. I got my fiance into hunting a couple years ago and I put an $60 tasco on a 243 just to test a theory. I can see fine through the scope b/c I'm used to it but she had a difficult time "finding the crosshairs". I then gave her the 270 with a Leupold VXI 4-12x40 ($215) and she could "see the light". That being said, with all the technology and market competition, I would have a hard time spending over $300 on a scope. My best personal example for a "need" of quality glass was in '08 while antelope hunting in SE Wyoming with my dad. I had a good goat @ 327 yards, with that same 270 and 4-12 leupy my fiance took from me, it was overcast and about 15 minutes before shooting light was over and the sight picture through that $215 scope was very clear and we loaded up the goat 5 minutes later.

Man, I have had a bunch of scopes. Some of my thoughts. Optical clarity and tracking that will stay consistent over time is the difference. Premuim glass=better light transmission=top dollar, does everyone need it-NO, does everyone who has seen it want it, YES. I can't pay for the top end stuff, so I don't buy it, the best optics are not $1000, they are $2-3 thousand, such as US optics, Premier, or Scmidt and Bender, they are all very clear and bright, so bright that you have to get used to them to use them. My current favorite, for the last several years, scopes are Burris, I have 5 now, 3-fullfield II's, one Tac 30, and one XTR 3.5x12. They all work well, but I wouldnt trade the XTR for any Leupy, Nikon, or Ziess conquest, it is simply that good. Tracks great and very clear, glass quality is just better on the XTR, and you can find them for around $600 if you shop. Just my .02 worth from a lot of lead down range.

I've noticed that after $4-500 dollars, the DIFFERENCE in quality of glass, eye relief, field of view, and functionality greatly decreases as you go up in price. It's usually more features, bigger tubes and objective lens, illuminated dot/reticle etc, etc. Yes the Ziess Conquest 3-9x40 is worth $400 if you can swing it, but the Burris FFII at $200 is still a pretty good scope.

I started typing out all my (and friends) cheap scope horror stories and then thought "what's the use"? Just let one cheapie fail at a critical moment (or any moment) and you will be instantly converted.But that doesn't mean you have to spend a $1000 or even $500. OK, here's one story.A friend was big into BSA's,had a bunch and one was on a 25/06.Boy,that gun would shoot,it was astounding.Then one day at the range the scope just went black,like you put your hand over the objective.The scope was left on the table,the rest to E-bay.I don't own expensive rifles with expensive scopes;what I have is good rifles with good scopes.I'll never forget a guy showing me his MKV Weatherby .270 and mounted on it was a scope that costs around $50.It really was hard not to laugh. Kix

Have you ever wanted to know how there are guys that shoot deer at 300 to 500 yards away enough said you can't do it with the Tasco on the rack at Walmart yes they are good for some things you just can't compare cheap vs High Dollar and any one who has been hunting long enough knows the diffrence.

nikon

I agree with the whole quality vs. price issue but easy on the "can't do it" statement. There definately is a difference but I personally saw my buddy, who's on THF, shoot a deer @ 400+ with a Remington 721 in 3006 with a Tasco 3x9. The old Tasco's with the antelope on the side. In ideal lighting and weather conditions most "low budget" scopes can get the job done. Try doing that on an overcast day 10 minutes before legal shooting light is up and it probably wouldn't have happened.

The old Tasco's were actually decent scopes made in Japan. Not a real comparison to the "China" crap around now.

I don't buy a good scope just for the "glass" in it and neither should anyone with any common sense. The internals (adjustments,etc.), and ruggedness of a scope are as important or more so than the "glass".

Yeah, a man might find a BSA or Simmons that will last a few years or alot, especially if most of the "hunting" is sittin' in a box staring at a barrel of corn. Don't take me wrong, I've done my share of the same.

But I'm not going to trust the Wally World bubble wrap scope on my next elk or mule deer hunt.

BTW I don't consider Burris FF II's etc as cheap scopes. Excellent? No. But they are pretty good scopes. When I think cheap I think Simmons, present day Tasco, BSA, etc.

Bill

Fogging up and clarity at high magnifications are where I can tell the differences.

i dont think ive yet to spend over 100 for a scope.
distances where i hunt its not needed

This is the year I finally upgraded scopes. 2-3 years ago I went to the $100 scopes from the $40 ones. This year I bought a Zeiss Conquest, 2 Bushnell Elite 4200's and a Nikon Buckmaster. We shall see..

What is the comparison between the Bushnell Elite 4200 and the Zeiss Conquest? I have a 4200 that I am very pleased with on my 7mm-08. I am thinking of getting a .375 for some future elk, moose, and bear hunting (never hunted these yet) and am interested in maybe going with a Zeiss scope for it. I've heard some fine comments about the Zeiss, but I have never used one. Your thoughts?

I think the Zeiss is a little better opticaly but then several people told me they feel they are neck in neck. Sometimes in your (mine) head you percieve things based on their relative price. I haven't shot the guns yet so need to spend some time with the. (I bought new guns to go with the new scopes too..lol)

4200 is a good scope but the glass is not as good as Ziess... Is it worth the 300 bucks more.. I think so..but something you have to decide onyour self. I do think Ziess plex reticle is one of the best on the market, unless you like ultra thin then you will hate it.

For the same price as the Bushnell you can get the Vortex Viper which runs very close optically to the Ziess but for three hundred less.

Leupold....

The rule of thumb used to be 1.5 x rifle price = scope price. So, if your rifle cost $150.00 you'd spend about $225.00 for a scope of equal quality. When the Japanese really started making camera lenses that ALL changed. They eventually started putting out top-notch glass and the quality gap between US, Euro, and "Jap-glass" shrunk. I never even thought about putting Jap glass on a rifle until about 1988, and I probably missed out on some good deals because of it. The majority of money in a scope is in the glass. Look at Swarovski, they aren't a scope company. They're a glass company. They just happen to also put their glass in scopes. That having been said, there's also much to be said for good guts. Square it out of the box, sight it in, then try a return to zero test on some lower shelf scopes and you'll see the difference pretty quickly. I've sent some pretty high-dollar scopes back to the factory for failing this test.

I have always heard 1/2 the cost of the rifle for the scope.

Bushnell Elites bang for the buck and Nikon Buckmaster.

I don't care for Nikon. I have never owned a Monarch though, only two Buckmasters and they sucked IMO.

I go with mid quality. I have VX2 3-9-40 leupolds on all my rifles, even an older Vari X2 on my AR.

Just don't see paying an arm and a leg for a scope for the average deer rifle. Leupolds are good quality, ain't the best out there but they have never let me down in all the years I've been hunting.

I bought a NC Star scope once, coolest looking piece of junk I ever blew $80 on.

1/2 rifle price = scope price is about right these days. With more competition quality glass has come down to earth price-wise where even those of us of modest budget can afford decent quality glass without compromising.

edited to add: I didn't want to get into brand-naming, as that wasn't the question of the original poster. I just brought up Swarovski as an example.

I still exceed that figure though.

I have Leupold's on most of my hunting rifles 3.5-10x50. I used a simmons whitetail for years. The biggest difference to me is in low light conditions. I can see so much better in low light with the leupolds than the cheaper scopes and to me that is when the big bucks are stepping out most of the time. I personally think they are worth every penny I have spent on them.

My theory is that the law of diminishing returns ramps pretty fast after you hit $400 or so. In other words, is a $1000 scope better than a $400 scope, sure. But it's not $600 better. The price of components at that level to get just a small increase in quality doesn't justify it in my mind.

I have Nikon Monarchs and love them. Probably more than I need as I've had Buckmasters in the past and love them as well. I've looked through some high end Zeiss and Swarovski scopes that were very nice and that I would have been willing to pay another couple hundred for, but not the several hundred that it would have taken to get one.

So I think you get what you pay for, but the higher up the scale you go, the less your money is buying you.