40 years ago I bought my 1st rifle scope a leupold 4X. Over the years I've learned what's good and bad to spend money on, when it comes to hunting. The best option isn't always the most expensive, but the best option is almost never the cheapest.
So a scope crapped out after less than a year and who knows how many rounds fired but you are still confident in it after said “repair”.
I wish I had gone with the illuminated reticle on my VX5. I shot my bull this year in the timber in the last few minutes of legal light, and it was sure nice to have bright, clear glass to make the shot.
Let’s be real, The average shooter would probably shoot the same with a $200 scope.
Yep. mtmuley
If given those 2 choices I’d take the Leupold. There is a reason Vortex and their “warranty” is so popular. It’s because it’s used so much by their consumers.
Definitely, hence the term diminishing return. You and I can't shoot like the other Pat S. So we ain't going to benefit much buying a 3000.00 scope over a 1000.00 scope. Would we benefit buying a 1000.00 scope over a 200.00 scope? Sure, I would say a lot more than the 1000 VS 3000 $
100% ... like I did before the repair. I see enough guys on here with expensive scopes that also go south for no reason and have to be repaired. It happens. My old "cheap" 3x Weaver never gave me a problem over forty years of very hard use. I changed because I wanted clearer modern glass and coatings. But at the store when I bought this Nikon I looked through a comparable Leopold scope (which was not on sale) and frankly I couldn't see any significant difference in clarity. Pay more $$$ for a gold ring? Why? I can tell you if the Nikon scope fails again for any reason (including damage due to mishap), it's going down the mountain ... and I'm out a hundred bucks. But I don't expect that to happen. Since Nikon fixed it I put about 100 rounds through the gun plus a couple of nasty falls while elk hunting and it's still holding zero.
what about 1400.00? what are your boxes?
That is very light. I'm past the whole lightweight/long range combo thing, cuz I just can't shoot one for crap compared to a rifle that weighs 2-3 pounds more unless I'm on a bench with bags. If super accuracy was my concern, I would not be skimping a ton on weight but that is me. Glad to hear you got the PRC in mind, that's what the Seekins Havok I been using is in. I like it so far, with the factory rounds it shoots better than I can. I just need to get some brass and do some hand loading now. I talked with Jake about a few things before I put things together. I ended up with a 3-18X44 Mark5 for it. It is really compact and it is really light to offset a bit of the weight of the rifle. I am at 9.5 pounds without a can. I am waiting for that to come in yet but that will put me a put over 10 pounds. As I posted before, I just think with my shooting skills and vision slowly getting old I don't think spending more is going to get me anything more at where I am at. Your situation might be different.
That’s what I was concerned about, I have had a pair of diamondbacks for a while with no issues and thought I’d try the scope also, potentially rangefinder. Chances are it’s probably ok but would hate to have a scope fail when I needed it.
The intended use of the optic makes a huge difference. If you want to twist turrets, you’re wasting you time and money with a $100 optic. A $1000 or $3000 scope can still fail but that failure rate will be a fraction of what the $100 scope will be.
I have 2 sets of vortex binos, 2 scopes, 1 spotter. Never sent any in for warranty. Scopes track reliably all the time.
