Overthinking Rifle Scope Options

[OntarioHunter]

A $1000 or $3000 scope can still fail but that failure rate will be a fraction of what the $100 scope will be.

Really? Do you traffic in scopes enough to build a database of scope failures vs cost? Or is this just an assumption that spending more money will get you something more reliable? I agree with Don. Most guys who spend thousands on a scope do it for appearances ... or because they think it will make them a better hunter/shot than they really are. I know what I need and it's a lot less than what a $2K scope has to offer. I don't need meat or horns so badly that I have to try shooting at critters in the dark or 500 yards away. And I sure as hell don't need to impress the other guys in my hunting camp with fancy gear ... because there aren't any other guys in my hunting camp.

 

[cahunter805]

I have 2 sets of vortex binos, 2 scopes, 1 spotter. Never sent any in for warranty. Scopes track reliably all the time.

Do yourself a favor and google leupold scope tracking and see what it auto fills with... Looks like they leupold has problems with scopes tracking true.

Don’t kid yourself. There are plenty of Vortex optics that don’t track also.
Their Razor line is a pretty decent optic though.

 

[Point Creep]

Are Schmidt Bender's known for not tracking?

I know, get within 200 and sight in 2" high at 100, MPBR is all needed.

 

[noharleyyet]

Are Schmidt Bender's known for not tracking?

I know, get within 200 and sight in 2" high at 100, MPBR is all needed.

If I hunted as much and as hard as you I'd have a lot less rifles and at least a hundred percent more Schmidt & Benders.

 

[schmalts]

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.

What he said...... But i would raise that 100.00 quit a bit more.

Don’t kid yourself. There are plenty of Vortex optics that don’t track also.
Their Razor line is a pretty decent optic though.

I take a lot of tracking complaints with a grain of salt. Don't get me wrong, but like someone said, not a single one of us have real data to back up claims. and when I mean claims, I mean that on a percentage basis. Example, someone said google Leupold tracking problem. Ok, let's put that into perspective.... who sells more scopes in this country, Leupold or Nightforce? (just and example, don't know who sells what amount) If company A sells 5 times more scopes with a exposed turret than company B, you would see 5 times more complaints on the web if the failure rate is the same. And that 5 times more complaints do not mean they are worst than company B. None of us have real data to back up any claims if a manufacture has better or worst tracking record (pun intended) How many S&B are sold I have no idea, but just by guessing the number that would give you a ton less complains on the web about tracking. Again, just pointing out you can't go off "complaints on the web"

 

[88man]

I like higher power scopes for most western hunting
4.5 x 14 minimum if at all possible

 

[Fire_9]

Really? Do you traffic in scopes enough to build a database of scope failures vs cost? Or is this just an assumption that spending more money will get you something more reliable? I agree with Don. Most guys who spend thousands on a scope do it for appearances ... or because they think it will make them a better hunter/shot than they really are. I know what I need and it's a lot less than what a $2K scope has to offer. I don't need meat or horns so badly that I have to try shooting at critters in the dark or 500 yards away. And I sure as hell don't need to impress the other guys in my hunting camp with fancy gear ... because there aren't any other guys in my hunting camp.

They all do it for appearances huh? Is that in the same category as telling a bunch of internet strangers that they’re multimillionaires almost on a weekly basis?

No I don’t have first hand experience with enough scopes to build my own database. But there are people out there that do and have shared the information on several platforms. Everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt but I truly believe the correct information is out there.

I hope you continue to use your $99 Nikon with great success. But I promise you there’s a reason why you don’t them them in the competition space.

 

[Point Creep]

Really? Do you traffic in scopes enough to build a database of scope failures vs cost? Or is this just an assumption that spending more money will get you something more reliable? I agree with Don. Most guys who spend thousands on a scope do it for appearances ... or because they think it will make them a better hunter/shot than they really are. I know what I need and it's a lot less than what a $2K scope has to offer. I don't need meat or horns so badly that I have to try shooting at critters in the dark or 500 yards away. And I sure as hell don't need to impress the other guys in my hunting camp with fancy gear ... because there aren't any other guys in my hunting camp.

The good thing about posting a question on a hunting forum, is you could get some terrific free information. The bad thing, is you often have to weed through so much ridiculous nonsense. Case in point @OntarioHunter doesn't know how to SIGHT IN HIS RIFLE AT 100 yards, yet he wants to waste everybody's time with his useless and ignorant input on quality equipment. I will say I did enjoy reading about your campfires of human fecal matter, but I have a weird sense of humor.

 

[rjthehunter]

Trade offs are understood-but these are order of importance for this rifle, a lightweight hunting rifle in 6.5 prc. Quality and durability are more important than weight and price to some extent.

PROVEN turret, as in bomb proof rock solid from top to bottom, back and forth and after being dropped off a cliff. Always back to zero with enough usable elevation travel to get me past 1000m.

Simple, easy to see and get on target quickly reticle. No chance I’d consider some cluttered up BDC reticle. Clear and visible at all power ranges if scope is variable. Ideally I’d like a 3 or 4 to 12 to 15 variable. But that likely require an additional parallax adjustment and more moving parts/weight/cost and maybe worth it.

Exceptional glass, doesn’t have to be Swarovski NL pure quality but UPPER echelon. Good light transmission so likely 44-50mm. It won’t be compact.

It’s going on a lightweight rifle that will total under 8lbs even with the suppressor, so I don’t want a beast, Under 30 ounces preferably a lighter.

The word in bold is not one derived from sales and marketing but preferably from time in the field and from usually those that have spent recent years in the Middle East where there lives depended on it working ALL the time.

Under 30oz. Can be found for under 1k. Durable in my experiences. Proven turret in my experience (not military's use, but I've tested it a lot. Would the military even touch a scope with an exposed turret that isn't a higher magnification?) Glass is good with exceptional light transmission.

Deal breaker for you might be 1. it's a vortex. and 2. the reticle is busy...

Viper PST Gen II 3-15x44 FFP

Please Select Reticle | 30mm Tube

vortexoptics.com

 

[OntarioHunter]

The good thing about posting a question on a hunting forum, is you could get some terrific free information. The bad thing, is you often have to weed through so much ridiculous nonsense. Case in point @OntarioHunter doesn't know how to SIGHT IN HIS RIFLE AT 100 yards, yet he wants to waste everybody's time with his useless and ignorant input on quality equipment. I will say I did enjoy reading about your campfires of human fecal matter, but I have a weird sense of humor.

Taking things out of context is eighth grade. I see a lot of that on this forum. I asked for shortcut suggestions on sighting in my rifle because I had very little ammunition left for upcoming trip to Africa and at that time no prospects of finding more. Several guys were more than happy to help. In fact, I was surprised at the variations in their responses. Many others chose to act like children. It's the internet after all. Apparently you would prefer repeatedly freezing your bare butt over a smelly outdoor privy to discreetly disposing of same load of excrement in a fire. To each his own.

You are clearly in the gear snobbery class. And you love it. That's fine. Not my thing obviously. Too bad you can't respect that. But hey, it's what being a snob is all about.

 

[Point Creep]

I don't need meat or horns so badly that I have to try shooting at critters in the dark or 500 yards away. And I sure as hell don't need to impress the other guys in my hunting camp with fancy gear ... because there aren't any other guys in my hunting camp.

Dying to know where you and your tasco were on the last day of hunting season this fall? Feel free to comment on my snobby gear.. I'm sure a neoair is a terrible waste of money, as is the Hilleberg, along with a sleeping bag I bought used in 1994 for $350 and still use today because it is the BOMB. The little rifle and scope without turret is well out of your league - bought purely to impress people and hunt in the dark while taking 500 yard hail Marys. An overpriced Ziess Victory 3X9, maybe 15 years old and looks like it's been thrown off a mountain several times.

 

[cahunter805]

Really? Do you traffic in scopes enough to build a database of scope failures vs cost? Or is this just an assumption that spending more money will get you something more reliable? I agree with Don. Most guys who spend thousands on a scope do it for appearances ... or because they think it will make them a better hunter/shot than they really are. I know what I need and it's a lot less than what a $2K scope has to offer. I don't need meat or horns so badly that I have to try shooting at critters in the dark or 500 yards away. And I sure as hell don't need to impress the other guys in my hunting camp with fancy gear ... because there aren't any other guys in my hunting camp.

Really?
I spend my hard earned money on a scope/gear that I have full confidence in due to my own personal testing and experiences and have 100% faith in without failures.
I also love game meat, antlers, will shoot 500 yards on an animal and camp with others with fancy gear. I didn’t purchase any of it because I think it will make me a better hunter or shooter but in the end I can say that it sure makes hunting more enjoyable and successful!

 

[Cheesehead]

I used to just use a fixed 4 but now I guess I’m

 

[KoolBreeze]

If I could find a $1000 rifle scope that checked all the boxes I’d be happy.

Me and you both! I've looked at so many different ones it's mind numbing. No matter which one I look at, there always seems to be a few things that nag me about it. Thought what I was looking for would be easy; boy was I wrong.

• 2 to 4 power on the low end, around 12 on the top end
• 50mm objective maximum, preferably a 42 or 44
• capped turrets that CAN be used to dial elevation ocassionally when I sit over a bean field. Might would except a turret with a zero lock instead, if it checked all the other boxes.
• dependable, reliable and tracks accurately
• good low light glass. It will replace a Meopro 3.5-10x44, which works ok but I'd like to step a tad.
• illuminated reticle, preferrably just the center of the cross hair or a dot
• simple reticle, like a Plex or German #4. Would be ok with a BDC type but no Christmas trees or thin target reticles
• Second focal plane
• Would go as high as $1200 - $1500 for the perfect scope
• Good eye relief of at least 3.5"

The number 1 thing I want is dependability. I don't baby my gear but I try not to abuse it either. But I want to know that it's going to hold zero and return to zero if I twist the turrets. To me, on paper, the VX5-HD & VX6-HD checks every box unless you read all of the bad press they get on the internet. Can you depend on it to be there when it matters the most? Well I don't know, never had a bad experience with Leupold but all of mine are old (as in Vari-x III).

 

[cahunter805]

Me and you both! I've looked at so many different ones it's mind numbing. No matter which one I look at, there always seems to be a few things that nag me about it. Thought what I was looking for would be easy; boy was I wrong.

• 2 to 4 power on the low end, around 12 on the top end
• 50mm objective maximum, preferably a 42 or 44
• capped turrets that CAN be used to dial elevation ocassionally when I sit over a bean field. Might would except a turret with a zero lock instead, if it checked all the other boxes.
• dependable, reliable and tracks accurately
• good low light glass. It will replace a Meopro 3.5-10x44, which works ok but I'd like to step a tad.
• illuminated reticle, preferrably just the center of the cross hair or a dot
• simple reticle, like a Plex or German #4. Would be ok with a BDC type but no Christmas trees or thin target reticles
• Second focal plane
• Would go as high as $1200 - $1500 for the perfect scope
• Good eye relief of at least 3.5"

The number 1 thing I want is dependability. I don't baby my gear but I try not to abuse it either. But I want to know that it's going to hold zero and return to zero if I twist the turrets. To me, on paper, the VX5-HD & VX6-HD checks every box unless you read all of the bad press they get on the internet. Can you depend on it to be there when it matters the most? Well I don't know, never had a bad experience with Leupold but all of mine are old (as in Vari-x III).

Nightforce SHV checks pretty much all those boxes especially with the force plex reticle.

 

[Don Fischer]

Taking things out of context is eighth grade. I see a lot of that on this forum. I asked for shortcut suggestions on sighting in my rifle because I had very little ammunition left for upcoming trip to Africa and at that time no prospects of finding more. Several guys were more than happy to help. In fact, I was surprised at the variations in their responses. Many others chose to act like children. It's the internet after all. Apparently you would prefer repeatedly freezing your bare butt over a smelly outdoor privy to discreetly disposing of same load of excrement in a fire. To each his own.

You are clearly in the gear snobbery class. And you love it. That's fine. Not my thing obviously. Too bad you can't respect that. But hey, it's what being a snob is all about.

Guess I didn't see the post where he didn't know how to sight in at 100yds. Number of different ways to do it but I have one way I use on most everything. Bore sight the thing in the living room looking to hit the target at about 25yds, not to hard. Shoot one shot at the target then set the gun up in the same position and looking throiugh the scope, move the crosswires to the bullet. Next, move the target to 100yds and fire one shot at the target, likely it will be quite low. Set the gun up again and move the crosswires to the bullet hole. Fire one more shot and notice where it hits. Move the turret's so that the bullet should hit where you want. Sighted in fairly well with three shots! I'd been shooting a long time before I read about that program. before that I simply had the rifle scope bore sighted in a store and shot off a whole bunch of ammo moving the hole aroung on the paper! Ontario Hunter was not alone!

 

[Don Fischer]

They all do it for appearances huh? Is that in the same category as telling a bunch of internet strangers that they’re multimillionaires almost on a weekly basis?

No I don’t have first hand experience with enough scopes to build my own database. But there are people out there that do and have shared the information on several platforms. Everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt but I truly believe the correct information is out there.

I hope you continue to use your $99 Nikon with great success. But I promise you there’s a reason why you don’t them them in the competition space.

$99 Nikon. Years ago durning hard times I bought a Tasco World Class 3-9x for I think it was about $75. Used in on a 25-06 for 5 or six years and was thinking of a better scope, nothing was wrong with the Tasco other than it was a Tasco! Took it off and told about it on the internet and a guy got ahold of me looking to buy it for his grandson's new 22RF. Well got back to him and gave it to him and as far as I know the scope is still working today. On that old 25-06 I put on an older Bushnell Banner 3-9x. Guy said it wasn't worth much so I got it for free. That was about 30 yrs ago and that old Banner just keeps doing the job. On my 30-06 is a 2 3/4x Redfield I bought about 1970 for a 338 Win Mag. Used it several years and took it off and put it on a mod 660 in 308. Gave my son the old mod 660 maybe 10 years ago. He hated the scope and wanted a 3-9x so he gave the scope back to me and it went on that 30-06. That's about 50 yrs use for a scope I might have paid $80 for brand new. I suspect my old Banner is about the same age!

But I would not go out and buy a $99 scope today, I can afford to spend more! Have two new Leupold/Redfields I paid about $150 for brand new, not a complaint one with them. I scope is simply a sighting aid and if it works for you, it works and cost I guess doesn't really matter!

 

[OntarioHunter]

$99 Nikon. Years ago durning hard times I bought a Tasco World Class 3-9x for I think it was about $75. Used in on a 25-06 for 5 or six years and was thinking of a better scope, nothing was wrong with the Tasco other than it was a Tasco! Took it off and told about it on the internet and a guy got ahold of me looking to buy it for his grandson's new 22RF. Well got back to him and gave it to him and as far as I know the scope is still working today. On that old 25-06 I put on an older Bushnell Banner 3-9x. Guy said it wasn't worth much so I got it for free. That was about 30 yrs ago and that old Banner just keeps doing the job. On my 30-06 is a 2 3/4x Redfield I bought about 1970 for a 338 Win Mag. Used it several years and took it off and put it on a mod 660 in 308. Gave my son the old mod 660 maybe 10 years ago. He hated the scope and wanted a 3-9x so he gave the scope back to me and it went on that 30-06. That's about 50 yrs use for a scope I might have paid $80 for brand new. I suspect my old Banner is about the same age!

But I would not go out and buy a $99 scope today, I can afford to spend more! Have two new Leupold/Redfields I paid about $150 for brand new, not a complaint one with them. I scope is simply a sighting aid and if it works for you, it works and cost I guess doesn't really matter!

Don, it was on sale Black Friday for $99. Normally about $170 as I recall. Not a dirt cheap scope but not real expensive either.

Edit: That scope retailed here for $269 Can.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Guess I didn't see the post where he didn't know how to sight in at 100yds. Number of different ways to do it but I have one way I use on most everything. Bore sight the thing in the living room looking to hit the target at about 25yds, not to hard. Shoot one shot at the target then set the gun up in the same position and looking throiugh the scope, move the crosswires to the bullet. Next, move the target to 100yds and fire one shot at the target, likely it will be quite low. Set the gun up again and move the crosswires to the bullet hole. Fire one more shot and notice where it hits. Move the turret's so that the bullet should hit where you want. Sighted in fairly well with three shots! I'd been shooting a long time before I read about that program. before that I simply had the rifle scope bore sighted in a store and shot off a whole bunch of ammo moving the hole aroung on the paper! Ontario Hunter was not alone!

The original context was what should I look for at a hundred yards target given a specific load and charge for my 30-06. Range facility (an old gravel pit thirty miles from town) was limited (100 yards) and I was short on time and very short on ammo. I wanted a quick answer: where should the bullet be at 100 yards to be in at 200? It was not a case of me not knowing how to zero a rifle as some of these juveniles have misinterpreted. The serious helpful responses were actually quite varied.

 

[KoolBreeze]

Nightforce SHV checks pretty much all those boxes especially with the force plex reticle.

I've looked at them and yes, they check most of the boxes. They only have 2 models available with the ForcePlex though, the 3-10x42 and the 5-20x56. I'm not sure how glass compares to the MeoPro but it's probably good enough. I may end up going that route though. I also like most of what I read about the Meostar R2 2-12x50 RD but I haven't found one to look at yet.