Do you over scope?

Do you really need a Swarovski Z8i 2.3-18x56 - 4A-I 68401 to hunt deer on 200 acres in East Texas? I sighted in a buddy's rifle yesterday. The scope cost 8x what the rifle cost. I have to say it is nice. I might get me one. I need to by a .50 BMG first.

Nope
I just cannot see spending that kinda jack on a rifle scope...EVER!

You can get a really nice and reliable piece of glass for $1k or less

For my patch of East Texas a Leupold 2-7 with a plain old duplex reticle works just fine.
In answer to your question, yes many do over scope based on the range and conditions they will be shooting in.

Lot's of opinions here. I tend to look at it from a dollars and cents perspective.

My thoughts are that scopes depreciate. A three or four year old scope will get you 50% of it's original cost. A ten year old scope is close to worthless. The reason they depreciate is that the technology is always getting better and eventually is "dated" compared to new versions.

Conversely rifles typically retain most of their value and will appreciate over time.

So.. my rule of thumb is never spend more than the cost of the rifle on a scope. I sometimes only spend 50% of the cost of the rifle on glass if I find a good deal. In ten years the gun will still shoot great but you'll be wanting to upgrade the glass. Just my

As I've gotten older, I find that more expensive scopes help me stay in the game." Three eye surgeries in the last 3 years have cost me a lot in terms of visual acuity, so my early morning, late evening vision if quite poor and my night vision is really bad. The difference in clarity on the couple of high dollar scopes I use is remarkable. But I agree: if you're still young enough to have the eyes of an eagle, don't use your money for expensive glass; pour it into high quality firearms instead.

I didn't even think about the guy having eye sight problems, but in that case it does make sense.

As is with most hunting purchases, it is not a matter of need, but want. Plenty of deer got killed before any of these fancy optics were on the market. I killed a pile of deer with a cheap Simmons Whitetail Classic scope on my old .270. My grandpa had a Tasco fixed 4X scope on his .30-30, and I’m guessing he killed a couple semi loads of deer with that rifle.

Different scopes for different folks.

Yes for me. I hunt from smaller thicker place to more wide open terrain. I went with more scope than I needed due to the fact it allowed my to not need to carry a spotting scope when walking or stalking. I use my binos vast majority of the time to spot deer and then use my spotter. I have used the spotter only to look for deer at times. Now with the larger scope I can just carry my rifle and binos and not need the spotter. I have 6.5x20 and 5x30 scopes on my 2 primary rifles. 65 yr old eyes and Lasik surgery 21 yrs ago make you appreciate good and higher X glass in low light or last light conditions. The higher magnification scope has saved me a lot of wasted time and steps after finding a deer with 10x.

Excellent - makes perfect sense!

I don't hunt in the deep woods where high magnification is worthless. These days most of my deer hunting is as a guest usually looking for culls or identifying "good bucks" for the land owner. My deer rifles wear varmint scopes so I can study heads & bodies very carefully. Last good buck I shot in South TX was at 180 yds & my scope end up at 14x. The previous year on a similar shot my scope was left on 6x. To each his own.

Yes, I am sure that people do overscope for hunting often. By overscope, I mean too much zoom, too much emphasis put on paralax adjustment, exposed turrets, and amount of elevation adjustment. I have been getting into long range competitions, and the scopes that I put on those rifles would be WAY overscoped in that aspect for hunting east Texas. It would NOT be overscoped as far as glass is concerned.
Conversely, I am sure that they UNDER scope more often. I used to buy and use only cheaper scopes. Since I have been shooting the competitions, and have been introduced to really good glass, I have realized how much the glass on those cheap scopes absolutely suck. I never realized it before, but now I do. For a hunting rifle out to about 250-300 yards, spend money on glass.

If you step into high end rifle scopes, they do not lose that much value. Some will bring 70-80% of their new coat ten years later. Optics are in investment. They are so important to me, and so good, I do not have one on every rifle. My 7 Rem Mag sits in the vault most of the year with no scope on it. To me it is very appropriate to have a rifle scope that costs more than the rifle. Even double is fine. Reason being, there are a whole lot of $500 rifles out there that shoot very well. Once you get to use very good glass, and controls that do exactly as their told, every time, and tolerate years of use without breaking, you are spoiled forever.

In heavy woods, you do need a low bottom end. In open country having a high top end is very helpful, if you're going to shoot some distance. But in any case, you will love having very clear glass. All day, and especially the last 5 minutes of legal light it is a huge help.

For you, it is quick and easy to change a scope from one rifle to a different rifle. You just go out to your front yard, and re-zero. Most people don't have that luxury. I have to mount it, then go to a range and zero. (the closest range over 100 yards is over an hour away from me) If I find an issue at the range, I have to go home, fix the issue, then go back to the range. For most people, it does not make sense to move scopes often. Otherwise, I can't disagree.

Very true.

In the case of my 7 Rem Mag example. 9 months out of 12, it isn't wearing a scope. The one that I move over to it, I have moved before, and taken notes. Both rifles shoot very well. With a turreted scope it is very easy. Up or down X number of Mils (or MOA) right or left X number of Mils (or MOA) based on the last time it was moved. I will never suggest just making the adjustments and NOT shooting, absolutely shoot to verify. However, if there is an error it is very small.

Ive used a 2.5 x 8 vx3 Leupold for a very long time and I like it. I dont shoot over 250ish. However, yall got me wondering. I havent shot a deer with a rifle since 2012(just REAL picky) and I have noticed when sighting in each year that my eyes are having much harder time seeing the target. I may need to point my rifle at a deer at 250 and see what I see. I may need to go to like a 3x12 or 15. Kinda hard to get an old guy to change, unless I just cant see good enough any longer. If I do buy a new scope, it wont have one of those fancy turret thingys on it.
To answer your question, Im pretty sure Im not over scoped.

I bought a Leupold 3x9 VXII with a 40 mm objective 20+ yars ago for $199. I dont know what it would be worth today, but I doubt it lost 50% of its value?

Most of the scopes I have bought recently are way overkill for the hunting I do. I like to shoot them when Im not hunting sometimes too though.

I have four main deer hunting rifles. I am a trophy hunter and my deer rifles are set up to suit my priorities.
One wears a 2-7 Leupold
Two wear 2-10 Swarovski’s
The fourth wears a 4-12 Swarovski
All have fairly bold simple duplex reticles

None have exposed turrets. All are good in very low light. The Swarovski’s resolution of detail and low light performance is outstanding. They are simple, hold zero, and take me out to 400 yards which is all I need to hunt deer.

I use binocs or a spotting scope if I’m looking for game. The rifle does not get pointed at anything I don’t plan to shoot. If I do point the rifle at an animal I often shoot it PDQ. I don’t think I am under or over scoped.

I don't but a lot of people do. There is no harm in it as long as your bottom magnification is low enough and you pay attention to the power setting. People tend to miss when a fast shot presents itself and they have the magnification dialed up too high.

I’m definitely in the “older I get, the worse my eyes get” group. Vortex makes a solid scope for a reasonable price in my book.

Since 1966 I have hunted with a 30-06 and a 4x Weaver...now how's that for over scope...lol..I had a buck at 10 feet away...one of the hardest shots for me..lol Now that I'm aging ...I may have to get a better scope as I am having trouble focusing.

I run a 2.5-10 I can hunt most of the state, have a different rifle with a 6-18 if I need 300+ yards.

I have never been in a hunting situation where a 3x9 wasn't sufficient. If 9x isn't enough then I need to get closer. It is called hunting, not sniping.

I like that…

I’d rather have to much and not need it than need it and not have it. My rule of thumb has always been spend at least or more on the glass than the gun because if you can’t see it you sures hell can’t shoot it. I’ve killed plenty with an old 3X9 but the new glass is so clear compared to that old timey crap why would I still want to. Low light ability with the higher end glass is a game changer as far as I’m concerned and worth the price of admission.

Given the average hunter's shooting skills, using an expensive, high-end scope can be akin to a women using a designer purse to carry $5 and some change. And like the purse that somehow makes a woman feel rich, it's the feeling of being an immediate sniper that often goes with a high-end scope.

As a Midwest hunting guide once wrote,"When a hunter shows up with a fancy rifle and expensive scope, I know the trip is to likely to include a lot of four-letter words and missed opportunities. However, it's when a guy shows up with a well worn rifle and fixed-power scope that I can rest assured there will be meat to pack."

First and foremost, a rifle scope is an aiming device and should hold zero and track reliably, and obviously It should have a usable reticle in all lighting conditions. Then comes glass quality, as any modern day $300'ish class scope has good enough optics to get you past legal shooting light. I'm always amazed at these scope threads that go on an on about glass and not mechanics.

For what it's work, I liken it to level of comfort and feeling confident in how your rifles are going to perform. If you shoot multiple distances on the same rifle, sure it might be overkill for 200 yard deer, but you also wouldn't want to change the scope on your rifle anytime you change your shooting distance be it for target-fun or hunting. If it's purely hunting I would definitely say I'm "overscoped", but I tend to think of it like bow practice...practice at further distances so at average hunting range it's a chip shot to make an ethical kill.

That said, I'm also the type to shoot long range on the same weapons I take into the field to hunt. I'd never invest in a LR competition gun, but like some have posted above, the more expensive glass is sometimes more important than the rifle when shooting at distance. I have and will continue to invest in glass as I can even tell the difference on my own guns with higher quality glass.

Overscope?
If 98% of those who post on this forum saw my gun collection along with my scopes they would die laughing.
To me they are tools, and they have worked well over the years in my hands never letting me down.
To me expensive glass still won't compensate for a poor shooter to begin with!

But all of you saying the old stuff works just fine still drive 1980’s 2 wheel drive trucks and don’t pay thousands upon thousands on leases, corn, blinds, etc etc. Some of you guys make zero sense sometimes

Nope I bet a lot of you are driving newer diesel 4X4’s just in case you hit that wet slippery spot going through the gate on the lease you paid $4,000 on pulling in your $30,000 camper you haul 2 times a year to justify the big truck for that reason and don’t forget the $15,000 Ranger to haul all those critters out of the woods and the list goes on but you get my point. Flame On Pilgrims

I only own 3 variable power scopes in the entire gun safe. Leupold 1.75x6X, Leupold 2.5x8X, and a Zeiss 2.5x8X. These for 416, 375 and 300RUM

All other slug shotguns, muzzleloaders, rimfires, and deer rifles wear Leupold fixed 4X or 6X. That works fine for me out to 300 yards. If they look too small, I just get closer!!!

I’ve had all sorts of scopes with varying power ranges (and fixed powers). As long as a fellow is Ok with the size and weight of a scope, it seems to me that the lower end of the power scale might be the most important. Too much magnification on the lower end could be a problem in the woods. As for the upper magnification, you can use as much of it as you wish. An 8-32 power would not be something I’d want, and my 6.5-20 Leupold is borderline too high at 6.5.

I have 3-9's,a 3-12, 4.5-14's, 6-18, and a 6.5-24. For deer hunting I prefer the 4.5-14x. 4.5 collects light pretty well, gives a decent field of view, and 14x allows me to study them if I need to as well as place a shot fairly precisely. More often than not I end up between 9-12x when shooting something 100-200yds. Below 100yds it's more like 6x.

I would say you are spot on judging by all the rigs that come up and down our road from August to February, driving like bats out of he77 and littering the ditches with corn sacks full of beer cans.

As for the OP, my rifle will shoot where it is pointed no matter what time of day it is. The scope riding on it does not work like that. So, I opt to make a list of expectations for the scope, and purchase the one that fits the bill. I don’t care about re sale, since I can’t ever remember selling a scope. When I think of overscoped, I think of over magnified. I hunt open wheat fields for the most part, and have some fairly long shots at times, so for me something in the range 6.5-20 or 8-25 works well. I like having a good field of view, and if I were hunting in heavier cover, I would opt for something of lower magnification.

I don't think so. 3-9x40's on a couple 308's. 4x30's on my 6.5 Swede and 7x57.

Most of mine are 4x16's, doesn't matter where i'm hunting. It is so automatic with me that at times i have the scope ordered or on hand long before i decide to get the next rifle.

I was listening to Remi Warrens podcast the other day and he said spend all you can afford on good glass... Binos and scope. I have a 4-24, 3-15, and 3-9 on my rifles, none of which are on the high high end of scopes but they're all I could justify at the time. I prefer the larger magnification ranges because they can just flat out do more stuff. Can you shoot long range with a 3x9, yes but there are better options.

No such thing as too much scope.

My man

Swfa 3-9x42 HD mil/mil here.

Neither over or under scoped. Just right.

If it helps you see better buy it

Nothing worst than crap scopes and rings

The last scope I bought is way too much for the rifle, but I couldn't find anything else that checked all my feature boxes. It's a 4.5-30x56 on an 18" 223 Wylde AR. The 34 mm tube and 56 mm objective even look ridiculous when mounted.

Most of my rifles wear identical Nikon 2.5X10 scopes. That’s all I’ve ever needed.

Just weight

I don’t even think it needs to track that well, on a hunting rifle. As long as it holds zero, I can adapt well enough to whatever tracking issues to get it zeroed as long as it stays zeroed. That’s all I ask of mine.

Tracking reliably is more a function of a target shooting rig. And to be honest I don’t think you can really count on most $300 scopes to track well and last long if you regularly dial adjustments.

Edit- I should probably add the question, how can you really be over-scoped with a variable, if you can dial down the magnification for a close range shot? My personal preference is for a light and robust fixed scope, but I don’t think that makes a high quality variable too much scope. I sense a little bit of envy, or maybe jealousy?

I spend a nice amount on my deer rifle scope, mainly because I want to squeeze out every ounce of shooting light I can. I am sure I have missed out on at least one big deer because my scope was not up to snuff when he walked out at last light. I would like for that to not happen again.

If you have the means then why not spend the money? When it comes to a rifle scope you should buy as much quality as you can afford. You can get by on a savage axis or go even cheaper than that at a pawn shop somewhere. But a cheap scope is going to fail way before a cheap rifle.

Even in the $300 range there are some very good scopes and also there are some very poor ones. I still shop in the $300-$400 price range, it’s a lot of money to me. But the quality there can vary by a lot! Even between two scopes of the exact same model.

But on the high end, you don’t need to shop around as much.

I agree that optics are way more important “bang for your buck” wise than your rifle. I also have a pair of very nice binoculars that are so good they almost defy belief. I bought them for hunting out west/up north but with almost any ambient light at all I can make out a buck’s frame and even count big points way past legal shooting light and way past when even the best scope will allow me to do so.

I would feel just fine taking my Savage Axis truck gun topped with my Swarovski scope hunting anywhere in the world. But I would feel like I had one hand tied behind my back with a 5K rifle topped with cheap optics and/or carrying cheap binoculars.