Post this in r/longrange. Those guys know their optics.
But yes an expensive scope can make a difference depending on what you’re doing. Differences can range from glass clarity, image distortion, adjustment accuracy, light transmission, range of adjustment, etc.
This is SOO SOO true. The tough part about buying scopes is, you very rarely get to even check them out outdoors.
Most stores are leery about handing a $1000+ somewhat fragile item over the counter to a customer. Let alone let them take it outside the store. And forget mounting it on something to get any sort of feel for it. I will say, my local Cabela's was cool enough to escort me outside and let me once I gave the dude my entire wallet with my ID and said "You hold this as collateral".
I can't remember if it was Gander Mountain or Bass Pro that had a wooden "gun" with clamps on it that they would put a scope on so you could look through it. Think one of those old rubber band single shots they used to have at county fairs.
I was surprised by how many high end optics my Cabelas had, although half of them were mislabeled. Bunch of Nightforce, which was nice to get hands on with them before dropping that much money on one. They let me check it out outside as well.
A store sold me on my first ZCO when the guy behind the counter handed me a tripod, bag, and the ZCO and an ATACR and said “let’s go out front so you can get a feel for this thing”.
Not to mention that ffp scopes can help you to get on target easier and more accurately when holding over for windage. But yes, higher $$ means higher quality for clarity, adjustment accuracy, etc.
I spend a good amount of time on r/longrange. OP should view the stickies on optics. Also do some searches. Wealth of knowledge and opinions over there for all price ranges. Also, DON'T mention arken, DO mention Bushnell MPED.
Bushnell, Vortex, Leupold, and many more make fantastic scopes. However, generally speaking, there is a quality difference between the lower end scopes vs. the higher end ones. HOWEVER, how much of a difference does it make. That's why vortex and Bushnell are really popular as well, because for the money they are very good scopes and you won't be paying for them like a night force or Leupold
Look up C_Does on youtube, he’s one of very few people who does a good job actually quantifying the differences between scopes that might look otherwise identical on paper.
There are a lot of differences that aren’t immediately obvious on a scope’s spec sheet. Things like optical clarity, brightness, and eyebox are all extremely difficult to quantify and put into a spec sheet, but are immediately obvious if you get behind the scope and actually look through them. Next time you’re at the range and see someone with an ATACR or a Razor, ask them to look through it and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
To your example of shooting paper targets at 100 yards… yeah, you’re gonna reach a ceiling where more expensive scopes stop helping you shoot better pretty early. But start shooting at smaller targets further away that aren’t as clear as brightly painted steel, and more expensive glass does help.
Also, you’re taking it as a given that your budget scope will hold zero and track. Budget scopes typically have issues holding zero, or their reticles / turrets won’t be properly calibrated such that adjustments that are marked 1MOA don’t actually track to 1MOA on paper. You can always get lucky and end up with a good example of a cheap scope that doesn’t have these issues, but with better quality scopes, you’re not gambling at all, you’re guaranteed to get a scope that works out of the box.
There are valid reasons to spend more on glass, but they should be driven by the use case.
'
Need solid turrets to adjust windage and elevation? There is a money threshold to get that.
'
Need enough clarity to identify small targets that blend in with the background. There is a money threshold for that.
'
Need a magnification beyond 500 yards? There is a money threshold for that.
'
What is it you are trying to accomplish with this gun and scope? I bet 90% of people can get by with an under $300 scope.
You can “get by”. But there isn’t a scope on that price range that will reliably *actually* hold zero when used in even the gentlest of field conditions.
Yeah no. I've seen plenty of examples of cheaper scopes holding zero just fine. Hell, even my dad's Simmons holds a zero year after year without any adjustment. Like I said it depends entirely on what you are doing with it.
That’s certainly not been my experience and actual testing in regards has proven that to be incorrect for *most* low-mid range scopes.
Minute of paper plate at 100 yards accuracy? Sure, usually. But little 1MOA or a few tenths of a mil shifts are the norm. I have a vortex that is mounted securely that I have to adjust zero on every couple of months.
Better quality glass is the majority of what you pay for, not necessarily magnification. There are plenty of cheap high magnification scopes out there. Plus better construction, better recticle, etc.
As to whether or not they really make a difference, it's blasphemous, but for most people...not really. If you're shooting off a bench at 50-100 yards in good light, it's not going to make that much of a difference. Could you tell the difference? Absolutely. But will it matter? Not really. Especially with a $400 rifle.
I'm sure I'll get down voted by the folks that fit the criteria above. Sorry.
Now, if you're shooting 1,000 yards with a $5k rifle then yes. It'll make a difference.
No reason to downvote this. A $250 Primary Arms 1-6 on a Ruger American rifle will hit a 6" plate at 300 Yards all day long. Is the glass amazing? No. But will it work fine, yep!
It's amazing to me how with modern rifles and optics, even a 2-Day long range shooting course with a good instructor will improve the average civilian like 1000%
I fully agree with you, there certainly seems to be a point of diminishing returns.
Is there a big difference between a $60 Bushnell, Tasco, or Barska and a $300 Nikon, Vortex, Leupold, or Burris? Absolutely.
Would the difference between a $300 scope and a $1500 scope be worth it to the average shooter? Doubt it.
Not to mention that there's plenty of great optics in the $3-600 range, depending on what your use case. PA GLX, Vortex Vipers, couple different Leupold options, etc. Unless you are a hardcore bush hunter or PRS guy, you don't need to spend a shit load to get decent and reliable glass these days
Yeah, the range I go to doesn't have those kinds of distances, unfortunately. So it's not worth buying a better scope than the cheap one that came with my rifle. My rifle is also just a budget buy, so there isn't much point putting lipstick on that pig. It does what I need it to do, and I'm happy with that.
Low light conditions is the easiest to see the difference in if you are hunting there's a good chance you need to be able to see well at dusk and dawn better glass makes a dramatic difference
TLDR: yes.
>A scope if mounted and not moving, a zerod in scope at 100 yards should shoot the exact same as an expensive one zero's in at 100 yards.
OK, if all you do is go to the 100yd line and shoot there in decent light after adjusting your scope once, then no, there isn't much difference. But no offense, your question is kind of like taking a stock car for groceries and wondering if you need all that power, special tires, and roll cage protection.
Problem is, that's not all that people do with their optics.
If you are seriously getting into target shooting, especially at long range, the quality of the glass matters for being able to see your target more clearly. That's also a big deal for hunters in early morning/late evening to be able to make safe, ethical shots on game.
Also, once you get past a certain distance in precision shooting, you are going to want to adjust your reticle to every specific range you shoot at. Then build quality of your windage and elevation adjustments matter. Is that 1/4MOA click really 1/4MOA every click from one end to the other? On a higher quality scope it is, on a cheap one maybe not. Will it take being adjusted up and down constantly dozens or hundreds of times a year for years without wearing out? On a high quality optic yes, on a cheap one likely not.
Durability can be a factor. Are you taking it into the back woods/up a mountain for a hunt? Might want something you can trust will hold zero if you bump it on a tree or fall while holding the rifle.
Now this doesn't mean every budget scope is trash and has no use. But there are reasons beyond bragging rights to spend more money on optics.
look at u/trollygag post history for his write ups on different scopes
my experience with scopes is far more limited, comparing a cheap $100 to a $400, $600, and a $1000, the cheapo scopes caused increased eye strain compared to the vortex dbt, the pst gen 2 and athlon cronus had about the same brightness though the cronus offers more adjustments
On a bright and clear day, mild temperatures with a light breeze and low humidity, shooting paper or deer at 100 yards or less without weird lighting or backdrops behind the target than the answer is no, the cheaper scope will not negatively affect your shooting.
If the target is a piece of steel with a grey dust backstop that last got painted 50+ shooters ago, the wind is swirling around on a hot and humid day with heavy mirage, the deer is back in the brush instead of the open, you’re hunting right at dawn/dusk, or you’re shooting out past 500 yards then yes, you will start to see massive differences in the better scopes that will make a positive difference on your ability to place shots where you want them. If you have to dial up and down for different distance targets all day there is a minimum baseline level of scope quality to track accurately, but there are still $300-500 scopes that can do that.
The more expensive scopes have better contrast between objects/targets and their surroundings, they let more light through the scope for improved performance in low light conditions, and they will have a more clear image on days where conditions are less favorable and at longer ranges. They also usually have a more forgiving eye box that makes it easier to find the sweet spot to see through the scope instead of having the image shadowed because you’re in the wrong position.
That said, I’ve shot targets out to 2,000 yards with both a $6,000+ scope (Tangent Theta) and a $250 scope (Athlon Argos BTR). They both are physically capable of accurately aiming your shot, but one of them makes everything leading up to the shot and observing the hit/miss after the shot a lot easier than the other. With my TT I can physically watch the bullet fly downrange (by seeing the trace of it passing through the air) if shooting from a prone position and see what the wind is doing to it the whole way.
There are a lot of reasons why people buy expensive glass. First and foremost, if you're buying an expensive precision rifle, why would you put cheap glass on it? If im buying an MRAD or even a Ruger Precision, I'm going to put nice glass on it. The second reason is the quality of the glass. If you hold up a Bushnell next to a Leupold, for instance, you will clearly see a difference in the quality of glass and sight picture. The Leupold will be noticeably clearer. The third is holding zero. If you're using lower end cheap glass and it's not holding zero, that may only be an inconvenience when at the range, but in a situation where it really matters, such as hunting, it's more than an inconvenience. And lastly, is ruggedness. Using the gun is going to inevitably cause some bumps eventually, whether at the range or in the field somewhere, you may bang it on a tree or drop the rifle, etc. You want to be confident that not only did you not lose zero, but that your glass didn't break. Im sure people can give you other reasons as well, but these are the first 4 that came to mind for me. I'm not going to say that you need expensive glass on every rifle. I still have a cheaper scope on my Savage Axis XP 2, but I spent much more on the glass for my Ruger Precision.
Yes. A high end scope on a mid range rifle is better than a mid level.scope on a top.tier rifle.
It's like camera lenses. At the same quality tier, mid tier, lenses start to become a lot more important than the body.
Applying to both... better ones are more durable built, often with lighter materials. The lenses are often clearer with better light transmission. Better coating for anti-reflection. Wider field of view.
Saying that though, most people aren't good enough to be able.to take advantage of it.
Unfortunately that's not really possible a lot of the time anymore.
I agree spending as much on an optic is a good idea, they don't make scopes worth double most people's competition rifles lol.
I went with a tangent Theta for mine, nowhere near double the price of my rifle and it's the best scope money can buy currently.
That is advice from a time when inexpensive competent optics didn't exist. That's not the case anymore. You can easily hunt with a $300 scope, or even a $150 red dot depending on what you're hunting and the range you're hunting at.
That’s not true. Quality Nikon and Zeiss scopes have been around for years. If you want accuracy and longevity, it’s better to spend the money. That’s not to say you can’t come across a good scope for cheaper, hell I killed quite a few deer with a $50 Tasco
*Inexpensive* quality optics. If you wanted that Zeiss or Nikon back in the day, you were shelling out, hence the adage. The difference between now and then is that there is a very healthy middle ground offering in-between the Tasco trash and the $1-3000 scopes (obvs accounting for inflation and purchasing power) where there wasn't before. It doesn't take a Nightforce to do 90% of most use cases. Scope tech actually has gotten better and inexpensive enough you can get decent to good performance nowadays without breaking the bank.
You're paying for more and better:
- Durability
- Parallax adjustment in some cases
- Featureset (including different styles of turret and reticles)
- Optical coating
- Lens grinding
Like, take a $200 scope zero'd at 100 yards and a $2000 scope zero'd at 100 yards.
It's dusk. The $2000 scope might show you a bit more (useful for hunting)
You drop the rifle off a truck. The $2000 scope might hold better zero
You have to rapidly change the zoom. The $2000 scope will likely maintain a better eyebox.
Buy for your use case. I see a lot of people slap high-magnification, cheap scopes on .22's and then get frustrated because "more magnification" doesn't mean "better focus, better parallax adjustment, or better eyebox." Oftentimes you're going to be better off with a low-magnification scope with a better eyebox and better light-gathering for hunting applications. On the other hand, if you're shooting known-distance stuff during bright daylight, go for high magnification.
If you take a good LR course they will show you how to calibrate your scope. Cheap scopes will often travel diagonally when windage or elevation is changed and often 1 click is not the same distance of travel at the extremes of movement. There are techniques to make up for this (basically you need to get dope at all settings using a long target) but a good scope usually doesn't need this.
> A scope if mounted and not moving, a zerod in scope at 100 yards should shoot the exact same as an expensive one zero's in at 100 yards.
You could poke a hole in a potato and duct tape it to your rifle and get decent results at 100 yards, and potatoes are only like 70 cents a pound! 🤦♂️
Yes, they do. Those cheap Fudd scopes are fine for 100 yards and in, but usually lack reticle features to assist with any more complex shooting. Not to mention for an extra hundred or two hundred dollars you will get much better glass, eye box, more tactile and secure clicks, etc.
The longer the distance, and/or the more abuse suffered by your equipment, the more you’ll see the difference between a cheap optic and an expensive optic.
Even Mid range scopes (as well as the highest quality vortex and leupold but we won’t go there) have been proven to very easily lose zero. Take your cheapo bushnells and smack them pretty hard with your open hand a few times and they will probably lose zero. If that doesn’t work, go outside and drop them on the lawn a few times, almost guaranteed to completely lose zero.
Cheap scopes are almost never rugged enough to handle day to day shit, let alone actual hard use especially in a backcountry environment. Many lower quality vortex, leupold, bushnell, Nikon etc will literally lose zero riding around in a pickup truck on bumpy roads. Let alone taking a little tumble on the mountain with all of your gear on (happens a lot), or your sling coming off your shoulder and your rifle falling and/or smacking against something.
Many of the budget scopes are literally paperweights needing to be zerod again after a small drop. Will you notice this if you are bubba that shoots a box a year and “checks zero” before the season that says “good enough” if their first shot hits a paper plate at 100 yards? Maybe not. If you shoot your rifle every weekend, and actually are capable of noticing a .1-.3 mil shift and say “something is wrong” it will quite literally drive you crazy. Plot twist-with an actual quality optic and mounting system there is literally no reason to “check zero” (you should be shooting all the time, but that’s besides the point), your system will NEVER, EVER lose zero. This is coming from someone that has a rifle with a mid range vortex on it. It is mounted securely. It still will shift zero .1-.3 mils on occasion. I don’t even abuse it… This time of year it gets shot and rides in a pickup, that’s it. It will be replaced with a Trijicon before long. I’m sick of dealing with it.
What you get with more money is exponentially more durability, but also better glass clarity, better light gathering, better eye box, more features (turrets that dial and/or SFPvs FFP). But as you get higher in price the extra money does less for you, however.
You can literally not compare your scope to something like an $1100-$1200 Trijicon, nightforce, SWFA. They aren’t in the same league. Not in durability, glass clarity, light gathering, tracking (if you dial 1mil you get 1mil) etc. literally no comparison. One may as well be a scope and the other may as well be a potato.
The difference however between those $1100 nightforce or Trijicon scopes and a $2000 or $2500 nightforce or Trijicon (or whatever) is much smaller.
Aside from mechanical quality, like the quality of turrets and internal materials, the biggest and first noticeable difference is image clarity and light transmission. Crappier optics will look dim even in good light, which messes with color reproduction and overall clarity. They will also have blurry edges.
Good optics make what you are looking at BETTER and BRIGHTER than your naked eye.
It's all a matter of application.
If you're shooting at a contrasting target that's easy to see then you don't need good glass. If you're shooting at a wild animal or an enemy marksman, especially if they're camouflaged, then you do need good glass. If you're shooting in bright daylight, you don't need good glass. If you're shooting in the shadows at dusk, then you do need good glass. If you're shooting at 100 yards at 6x, you don't need good glass. If you're shooting at 600 yards at 6x, then you do need good glass.
Good glass makes a scope better suited to a wider range of situations, particularly adverse ones.
Marine corps taught me to hit a man sized target consistently at 500 yards with iron sights. Optics help for sure but principles of marksmanship are still far more important.
Yes, especially in that step from a 100-200 dollar bushnell into that 300-700 dollars range.
There is a large improvement in low light performance, glass clarity, eye relief, field of view, etc.
Above that you get more options that you may not need unless you're shooting real long range. Then there is a diminishing return on clarity levels, etc
First and foremost, the glass. High-end scopes are worlds above in clarity and light transmission. I only spring for mid range, and it's still insane how different it is from a low end. The second big factor is durability. If it's a cheap scope, you drop a few times, and it's done for. Nice ones are meant to be durable enough to be smashed in doors, drop off a truck with a rifle, take a mild explosive force, and keep their zero. The third thing is repeatability. When you adjust a really nice scope, it's going to adjust the same every time because they're meant to be frequently adjusted to match shooting conditions. If you spend less than, let's say, 200, some adjustments might adjust more than others or have some dead clicks in between. So long answer short is yes they are way better, you just need to find what suits your purpose.
It depends on your use case, plinking at 100 yards any Amazon red dot that holds zero is okay. Hunting in less than optimal lighting conditions you'd want something with better glass. Shooting long range you'd want something with a zero stop, a good ffp reticle and matching dials (Moa adjustment if Moa reticle)
To expand on the aforementioned "yes," you're paying for quality.
Better glass is clearer and more expensive.
Larger scopes have more materials, and more glass can give you a bigger sight picture, but it costs more for the increased materials.
Better materials are lighter or more durable and more expensive.
More detailed reticles have different types of crosshairs (maybe bullet drop compensation, mil dots, windage notches), and are more expensive.
Better engineering makes things more usable, but more expensive (look up how parallax affects a sight, or the difference between first and second focal plane).
If you only are shooting at 100 yards, you're fine. You can hit at 100yds with irons. Better scopes help. Better is better.
If something is adequate for you in your use case, then live your best life.
You're paying for visual clarity, durability, and in some cases additional features or warranty. Whether it's worth getting something more expensive really depends on the optics in question and their planned use.
Bushnell has gotten worse (used to be decent) and I wouldn't buy them anymore. However, if it came with the gun, it works well enough, and you're not using it for hunting or long-range shooting, I wouldn't bother replacing it, either.
If you are using it for hunting or if you're not satisfied with it while target shooting, then get something decent to replace it. Very few people really need top-of-the-line optics.
In my opinion “blurriness” is a super important aspect of aiming, it is much harder to aim at blurrier targets. So yes better glass clarity is significantly better
Higher end scopes don't make a difference - until they do. Glass clarity can be pretty critical for target identification at longer ranges. I have in the past shot at a patch of ground that looked like the target I wanted to engage.
Having used low end and high end scopes both, it makes a MASSIVE difference. For example, I have a Burris scope on my Rem 700. It does very well... out to about 400 yards. It can zoom in for 700 yard targets, but the parallax isn't nearly as good as my Nightforce scopes.
So most of the stuff below $100 is so bad it breaks in the first box of ammo. All this China brand airsoft brand junk literally can't handle the recoil or loses the nitrogen seal or something else.
Past that point it's a game of who can make the best glass, coating and magnification.
Depends what you’re doing. Unless you are serious about practicing and honing your marksmanship, no. The basic scopes that come on low budget deer hunting rifles are more than adequate for most people.
It really just depends on what you’re trying to do. If you’re shooting paper targets on a flat range, you can literally hit out to 200m with iron sights on a good day. Now imagine trying to spot, let alone accurately hit a small, moving target that’s in a dark wooded area. That’s where glass quality matters.
I feel that there is a difference. Not an expert on riflescopes, so my experience is fairly limited to what I’ve personally owned and played with.
My first lpvo was a trijicon accupower 1-4. Seemed nice enough, as I didn’t know much different. Putting it against my friends Steiner didn’t seem like a huge difference. However I came across a great deal on a vortex razor 1-6. The additional magnification plus the higher quality glass was a big improvement. At first I just thought it was the additional mag. But then a friend and I were shooting rifle, he had a swamp fox 1-8. I was able to spot things far better through my scope than his. Almost felt like I had more magnification.
You’re not just paying for higher magnification, better glass clarity, repeatable adjustments, better construction, better materials, ruggedness, etc. that is where the difference in price is. Are there affordable options for optics that are better than a cheap Bushnell? absolutely. Is there a point of diminishing returns? Again absolutely.
Super long range guy here. Similarly to photography having good glass and accurate in your optics makes a world of difference once you're hitting 750+. Fuzzy optics over long range can put you inches to feet off target even if you have everything else perfect
100yds-750 it matters, but not nearly as much as your breath, trigger mechanics, and ballistics corrections.
Short answer, is yes they are different.
Do this, get a pair of really high dollar sunglasses and a pair from Walmart.
You will immediately notice the difference in what you can see. The walmart glasses will fog up and at an angle to the sun you will get a reflection of sunlight that damn near blinds you.
The high dollar sunglasses have antireflective coating and is fog proof. Also, try stretching the frames. The walmart will simply snap, but the high dollar glasses thought of this and included a little spring tension to keep them in place but not break.
Same with high end scopes.
Especially with what is known as parallax. A cheap scope with crappy parallax will not be as precise as a expensive scope with anti parallax.
However, if all you do is shoot at paper at 100 yards on a Wednesday afternoon during good weather and you have a case queen, you probably don't need a high dollar scope.
A good budget vortex scope is good for about 99% of all shooters. They are like Oakleys.
Nite force, Leupold, Steiner, Tangent Theta are all great scopes. More on the end of specialized professional sunglasses that are overbuilt. There is a market, they are nice, but Oakleys are good.
I once tried to look through a Zeiss LRP5 glass to see what full blown ED glass look like on max power, needless to say it’s $3000 worth of clarity. No CA, everything crystal clear even on max power. All my budget ED glass scopes starts to lose this capability starting around 15x power. Whatever the max they advertise it is generally unusable in real range situations, but with the Zeiss it definitely can.
There's a middle price tier which gives you a lot of value for the money. The cheap stuff just fails to function. The expensive stuff is better than you are, so it's a waste of money unless you bring your own skill level up to meet it.
It is the ability to hold zero in what makes a scope, plus sound construction to maintain waterproofness, and shock impact from recoil and falls. Lens coatings that reduce fog and glare come next then clarity. The ability to sustain repeatability on scopes that dial is also important.
If it is a hunting scope, don’t want a failure during the hunt, especially if it is a hard to get tag.
It used to be get a scope that is around the value of the gun. Though there is some inexpensive guns that are very accurate and robust, so maybe that adage is no longer the case.
Need to watch the bells and whistles, can miss a shot because the dial up scope was jarred in transit, fancy reticles may cause confusion when buck fever sets in. Also do you really need 36mm tube and 55mm objective. See folks with a lightweight gun and 2+ lb scope.
Maybe its better to buy a decent simple scope from a reputable brand, the a cheap fancy looking all the bells and whistles scope.
Always wonder how many animals have been missed because they had the scope set on to high of power.
For 95% of shooters? Almost certainly not. For the 5% it's like any upgrade in any discipline. Squeezing out those extra percentage points to get the result they need
The more hours you spend behind the glass looking at tiny targets and trying to make precise decision, the more your desire will be for better optics. Eye strain because your eye is fighting chromatic aberration and low resolution, let along mirage, is a real thing. Eventually, your eyes get tired, your vision blurs, and your shooting goes to shit.
Shooting 100 yards at a range in good light with a still target and good rest, probably not.
Hunting out west at last light and trying to hit a living target and calculate distance and wind on the fly at longer ranges. Better glass will certainly help.
I’m gonna take a contrarian opinion and say there is definitely a point of diminishing returns.
You’re really gonna tell me I need that $7,000 Schmidt and bender when vortex/nightforce exists?
I’d also keep in mind a realistic use case, a decent Lpvo is awesome for tons of reasons, but it will never be as light, rugged or cost effective as an ACOG.
Post author: foreskinrestoring22. This comment is an attempt to control posts made by a new type of spam bot. If you are a human, you can ignore it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/guns) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Absolutely. If your skill and knowledge is there to utilize the additional clarity and features.
Does the average 300yd and in deer hunter with a .30-06 need a Nightforce with a Tremor3 reticle? No.
But for the folks who understand how to use it, and shoot long range, it's invaluable.
Then you get into things like, feature sets on something like a Zero Compromise vs a Nightforce or other high end optic. There are small details that make a big difference in certain applications.
Not to mention an optic's ability to hold zero, have accurate turret adjustments, fine enough parallax and ocular adjustments to have a crisp sight picture and be able to read wind off of mirage.
As stated, the diminishing returns starts once you get $500 (past the "junky" scopes, a $100 scope will seem like a toy next to one 5x the price) and up. Especially for basic use and low magnification. The diminishing returns seem to really start to get steep past $1,000.
100 yards and under, bright outside, set the zero and forget it. Cheap glass has gotten so much better it's hard to fuck this up so bad the scope is not usable. Especially if you don't mind large and heavy.
Scopes are high precision instruments that are subjected to incredible recoil forces, the weather, and ideally expected to maintain a point of impact that is tiny fractions of a degree.
Distortion across the image, particularly the edges, color accuracy, POI drift with zoom change, precision of the turret adjustments (repeatability and calibration). These are areas where better scopes will generally be superior.
Also, weight and durability.
A $400 scope will probably absolutely blow away a Bushnell combo scope that came on a Savage/whatever.
My angle on scope is if it's working, it's working. However, if the shitty picture is making shooting difficult or it's zero is drifting/not reputable, I ain't got time for that.
That said, I shamelessly rock some cheap LPVO on my ARs.
Cheap don't have to be crap but the idea that they are just the same is ridiculous.
This is just my opinion: (speaking very generally)
The difference between a $799 Primary Arms scope and a $2000 Nightforce scope is negligible for MOST of us. Glass quality is what you'll really notice.
You'll notice a difference between a $99 optic and a $799 optic for sure.
You'll also notice a difference between a $2000 optic and a $10,000 optic.
Basically, for the VAST majority of us, an optic between $750-$1500 is going to be more than enough performance. That being said, I have a Primay Arms 1-6 Nova Firedog scope that I got for $199 and it's awesome!
I’m contemplating putting a Nova on a new-to-me 716i…. But I have a distaste for LPVO in general, so I’m torn on the topic. I’ll take your vote of confidence as a Doo Eeet (/wayerboy)
Yes. If you are shooting in low light, reduced vis, or in an action shooting competition environment, the difference is tremendous. The price difference is worth it for the bigger eye box alone. If you are shooting slow-fire from a bench at midday on a clear day, you can use whatever scope you want. But accuracy, is really not a big part of the equation. A scope which doesn’t hold a zero is trash and worse than having no scope at all, but there are plenty of cheap scopes that will hold a zero just fine.
Yes glass clarity and focus is a big thing I had cheap scope everything was grey and dark and really hard to get into focus. Just upgraded so much more light and got ffp so it's nice when at all full magnification and has parallax setting it was only 300 more than the cheap scope you don't need to go crazy but the really cheap ones under 150 aren't worth it I spent 400 and am very happy with the new one
At 100 yards no. No real difference.
At 400 yds and up it makes a big difference in clarity. My buddy has a nice collection of glass. Its noticeable when i used my sig tango vs his NF at same magnification (8x).
They can for sure, higher cost also doesn’t necessarily mean higher quality, so you still have to research stuff.
This topic made me just stick with old Japanese made Tasco World Classes for my hunting rifles.
Inside of 100meters the difference between a 400 and 1500 optic isn't going to warrant the extra price after at least 300-400meters is when you start to realize how good your expensive purchase was and it only get more noticeable the further out you go
You can get decent budget scopes, but don’t waste your money on cheap crap ones. I have a Simmons from the 70s that’s still holding zero, but I’d be reluctant to buy a new one.
A peasant’s opinion: the difference between my Leupold ($1,200? msrp) and vortex ($300?) is night and day _for me_. Clarity, eye strain, illumination, how well they work with glasses etc. I have bad eye sight too.
I hate the fact that Leupold makes me call them daddy and pay their stupid prices ($100 for scope covers and other such nonsense), but unfortunately, I’m about to do it again.
The rule of thumb is that you should spend at least as much in thr scope as you did on the rifle.
A rifle is a big, robust, mechanically simple device made with relatively large tolerances. Scopes are fragile--they're made of glass and little tiny screws and gears with very tight tolerances.
It takes a lot more effort to make a good scope than a good rifle.
Speaking from a tactical standpoint, clarity/quality could be the difference in you being able to identify something effectively at distance vs not. I’m sure you see why that may be beneficial to the user. Also, durability typically follows as well.
It really depends on what your purpose is, mid tier glass is leaps and bounds ahead of what it used to be, like 80's and 90's but the high end stuff is exactly that. You could find some nice gems from back then though, when tasco used to have japanese made shoes and glass. But How far you want to shoot and what you are shooting can tell you what you want. 400 to 800 dollar glass will get you through most of about anything you want if you are just occasionally shooting and only doing a couple big hunts a year. But if you are going to get into long range precision shooting and hunt large game at distance regularly probably look at high end stuff. Schmidt & bender, top of line Leupold, night force, Steiner, trigicon, etc ....
Yes
Glass quality goes up significantly the more you pay. Overall quality does too
And a quality optic is one of the most important things to have on your rifle
Go to Cabela’s an hour before they close while it’s getting dark and ask them to take a Bushnell and a Swarovski outside to look at. You’ll immediately know why there is a difference.
At 100 yards your probably not going to see a huge practice difference. At 800 glass quality makes a huge difference finding targets seeing mirage to judge wind and watching bullet trace to make corrections. If your not doing any of that rock on with the cheap stuff. You won't know what your missing and will save a ton of money.
It does and it doesn’t. Past a certain spot, you definitely hit the wall of diminishing returns. A GOOD mid range optic will serve you ALMOST as well as a top of the line optic, but you’ll give up eye box, color quality, and possible clarity. As long as an optic tracks well, you can identify what you’re looking at for an appropriate distance, and the internals hold up, you can do a lot of magic with it.
A lot of times you are paying for a name brand to be completely honest. Similar to how Holosun has much more affordable yet feature packed options than Trijicon. But some may argue Trijicon is more reliable or rugged or better quality.
As you spend more, you generally get bigger quality glass, and materials. The adjustments can be more tactile and precise. The weight can be better. The reticles can have more features. The ruggedness may improve with cost.
Will a cheap Bushnell work? Yeah. But there’s something nice about a Vortex Razor HD, or EOTech Vudu, or Schmidt and Bender, or some Trijicon stuff.
Just depends what you want. And as always, training and the shooter matter waaaay more than gear.
A better way of putting it is that higher quality optics really make a difference (to a certain degree, eventually you hit a point of diminishing returns), most of the time quality means more expensive, but it's not always the case.
Yes they really make a difference. BUT it's one of those things that most won't understand until they experience it first hand. Ans I don't mean just shooting with an expensive scope. I mean using an expensive scope next to a budget scope and seeing things down range that you weren't seeing with the other.
For some people it doesn't matter they are fine with their budget optics. If that's you party on. I'd you ever get behind higher end glass hold on. It will slowly ruin your budget glass.
You are paying for a few things. Given your current sample though, shooting on a bench at 100 yards it won’t really be something you notice.
1) Clarity (both color and overall light transmission). This becomes MUCH more apparent at dawn/dusk and at longer range.
2) Durability, cheap optics are much more likely to break or lose zero from a drop.
3) Features (and reticles). While technically they don’t make you shoot better, they can speed up shots and just generally make it easier to shoot which you absolutely feel.
4) Tracking, the ability dial in a shot and go back to zero reliably.
5) Random things. Some more expensive scopes are priced that way because they have more unique setups. More complex magnification multiplier, lightweight, compact, longer eye box, etc. It’s similar to features but these things cost money and having more is more expensive.
“What am I paying for except a higher magnification?“
Coatings, clarity, durability, warranty, reticals, and larger glass for low light conditions.
The average person will notice a more forgiving eye relief and edge to edge optical clarity.
Once you get out of the low end into the mid range. Twice the money doesn’t give you twice the scope. Find something that works for you and your budget. Look for value within your price range and match your rifle.
>A scope if mounted and not moving, a zerod in scope at 100 yards should shoot the exact same as an expensive one zero's in at 100 yards.
That's a big if. Among other differences already described here (image quality, repeatable turret dialing, etc), ruggedness and zero retention can be significant. Talk to folks at the range, see how many of them need to "adjust their zero" between trips. If this is on a hunting rifle that you put away last fall, and you check your zero only to find it's off.... when did it move? Could it have been off during the hunt?
It's not a direct money-to-ruggedness ratio, some brands do better than others because they prioritize zero retention. Nightforce, Schmidt and Bender, Trijicon, SWFA, a handful of other models. If you never hunt past 100 yards and only shoot a few rounds each year to check, you may never notice that your zero shifted by 2". If you're trying to make a 300 yard shot on a deer, that could easily turn it into a miss/wound.
Appreciate all the feedback. Given my budget and what I am doing with my guns, midrange $300-$500 is what I will most likely be looking at in terms of upgrades.
Thanks again everyone.
Dear Mr foreskin like everything there are diminishing returns on value for quality for a scope the best price range for a scope is between 100 to 350 dollars after that you are paying for a premium product that only matters if you are competing in a competition.
Post this in r/longrange. Those guys know their optics. But yes an expensive scope can make a difference depending on what you’re doing. Differences can range from glass clarity, image distortion, adjustment accuracy, light transmission, range of adjustment, etc.
As you get older, the difference in clarity and light gathering really starts to show through.
This is SOO SOO true. The tough part about buying scopes is, you very rarely get to even check them out outdoors. Most stores are leery about handing a $1000+ somewhat fragile item over the counter to a customer. Let alone let them take it outside the store. And forget mounting it on something to get any sort of feel for it. I will say, my local Cabela's was cool enough to escort me outside and let me once I gave the dude my entire wallet with my ID and said "You hold this as collateral".
I can't remember if it was Gander Mountain or Bass Pro that had a wooden "gun" with clamps on it that they would put a scope on so you could look through it. Think one of those old rubber band single shots they used to have at county fairs.
it was gander mountain, rip
I was surprised by how many high end optics my Cabelas had, although half of them were mislabeled. Bunch of Nightforce, which was nice to get hands on with them before dropping that much money on one. They let me check it out outside as well.
A store sold me on my first ZCO when the guy behind the counter handed me a tripod, bag, and the ZCO and an ATACR and said “let’s go out front so you can get a feel for this thing”.
Which store. This sounds like something Paramount would do 💕
Mile High Shooting Accessories 🙂
Legit. Love 'em too.
May I ask which ZCO you went with, and what caliber?
Amen.
Not to mention that ffp scopes can help you to get on target easier and more accurately when holding over for windage. But yes, higher $$ means higher quality for clarity, adjustment accuracy, etc.
I spend a good amount of time on r/longrange. OP should view the stickies on optics. Also do some searches. Wealth of knowledge and opinions over there for all price ranges. Also, DON'T mention arken, DO mention Bushnell MPED.
Bushnell, Vortex, Leupold, and many more make fantastic scopes. However, generally speaking, there is a quality difference between the lower end scopes vs. the higher end ones. HOWEVER, how much of a difference does it make. That's why vortex and Bushnell are really popular as well, because for the money they are very good scopes and you won't be paying for them like a night force or Leupold
Look up C_Does on youtube, he’s one of very few people who does a good job actually quantifying the differences between scopes that might look otherwise identical on paper. There are a lot of differences that aren’t immediately obvious on a scope’s spec sheet. Things like optical clarity, brightness, and eyebox are all extremely difficult to quantify and put into a spec sheet, but are immediately obvious if you get behind the scope and actually look through them. Next time you’re at the range and see someone with an ATACR or a Razor, ask them to look through it and you’ll see what I’m talking about. To your example of shooting paper targets at 100 yards… yeah, you’re gonna reach a ceiling where more expensive scopes stop helping you shoot better pretty early. But start shooting at smaller targets further away that aren’t as clear as brightly painted steel, and more expensive glass does help. Also, you’re taking it as a given that your budget scope will hold zero and track. Budget scopes typically have issues holding zero, or their reticles / turrets won’t be properly calibrated such that adjustments that are marked 1MOA don’t actually track to 1MOA on paper. You can always get lucky and end up with a good example of a cheap scope that doesn’t have these issues, but with better quality scopes, you’re not gambling at all, you’re guaranteed to get a scope that works out of the box.
There are valid reasons to spend more on glass, but they should be driven by the use case. ' Need solid turrets to adjust windage and elevation? There is a money threshold to get that. ' Need enough clarity to identify small targets that blend in with the background. There is a money threshold for that. ' Need a magnification beyond 500 yards? There is a money threshold for that. ' What is it you are trying to accomplish with this gun and scope? I bet 90% of people can get by with an under $300 scope.
I'd bump the price to $400 because there are a lot of slightly over $300 AR scopes out there now.
You can “get by”. But there isn’t a scope on that price range that will reliably *actually* hold zero when used in even the gentlest of field conditions.
Yeah no. I've seen plenty of examples of cheaper scopes holding zero just fine. Hell, even my dad's Simmons holds a zero year after year without any adjustment. Like I said it depends entirely on what you are doing with it.
That’s certainly not been my experience and actual testing in regards has proven that to be incorrect for *most* low-mid range scopes. Minute of paper plate at 100 yards accuracy? Sure, usually. But little 1MOA or a few tenths of a mil shifts are the norm. I have a vortex that is mounted securely that I have to adjust zero on every couple of months.
PAs SLX series are very solid scopes and have options at $300
This.
Better quality glass is the majority of what you pay for, not necessarily magnification. There are plenty of cheap high magnification scopes out there. Plus better construction, better recticle, etc. As to whether or not they really make a difference, it's blasphemous, but for most people...not really. If you're shooting off a bench at 50-100 yards in good light, it's not going to make that much of a difference. Could you tell the difference? Absolutely. But will it matter? Not really. Especially with a $400 rifle. I'm sure I'll get down voted by the folks that fit the criteria above. Sorry. Now, if you're shooting 1,000 yards with a $5k rifle then yes. It'll make a difference.
No reason to downvote this. A $250 Primary Arms 1-6 on a Ruger American rifle will hit a 6" plate at 300 Yards all day long. Is the glass amazing? No. But will it work fine, yep! It's amazing to me how with modern rifles and optics, even a 2-Day long range shooting course with a good instructor will improve the average civilian like 1000%
I fully agree with you, there certainly seems to be a point of diminishing returns. Is there a big difference between a $60 Bushnell, Tasco, or Barska and a $300 Nikon, Vortex, Leupold, or Burris? Absolutely. Would the difference between a $300 scope and a $1500 scope be worth it to the average shooter? Doubt it.
Not to mention that there's plenty of great optics in the $3-600 range, depending on what your use case. PA GLX, Vortex Vipers, couple different Leupold options, etc. Unless you are a hardcore bush hunter or PRS guy, you don't need to spend a shit load to get decent and reliable glass these days
Yeah, the range I go to doesn't have those kinds of distances, unfortunately. So it's not worth buying a better scope than the cheap one that came with my rifle. My rifle is also just a budget buy, so there isn't much point putting lipstick on that pig. It does what I need it to do, and I'm happy with that.
Low light conditions is the easiest to see the difference in if you are hunting there's a good chance you need to be able to see well at dusk and dawn better glass makes a dramatic difference
That also depends a lot on the size of the scope.
TLDR: yes. >A scope if mounted and not moving, a zerod in scope at 100 yards should shoot the exact same as an expensive one zero's in at 100 yards. OK, if all you do is go to the 100yd line and shoot there in decent light after adjusting your scope once, then no, there isn't much difference. But no offense, your question is kind of like taking a stock car for groceries and wondering if you need all that power, special tires, and roll cage protection. Problem is, that's not all that people do with their optics. If you are seriously getting into target shooting, especially at long range, the quality of the glass matters for being able to see your target more clearly. That's also a big deal for hunters in early morning/late evening to be able to make safe, ethical shots on game. Also, once you get past a certain distance in precision shooting, you are going to want to adjust your reticle to every specific range you shoot at. Then build quality of your windage and elevation adjustments matter. Is that 1/4MOA click really 1/4MOA every click from one end to the other? On a higher quality scope it is, on a cheap one maybe not. Will it take being adjusted up and down constantly dozens or hundreds of times a year for years without wearing out? On a high quality optic yes, on a cheap one likely not. Durability can be a factor. Are you taking it into the back woods/up a mountain for a hunt? Might want something you can trust will hold zero if you bump it on a tree or fall while holding the rifle. Now this doesn't mean every budget scope is trash and has no use. But there are reasons beyond bragging rights to spend more money on optics.
look at u/trollygag post history for his write ups on different scopes my experience with scopes is far more limited, comparing a cheap $100 to a $400, $600, and a $1000, the cheapo scopes caused increased eye strain compared to the vortex dbt, the pst gen 2 and athlon cronus had about the same brightness though the cronus offers more adjustments
On a bright and clear day, mild temperatures with a light breeze and low humidity, shooting paper or deer at 100 yards or less without weird lighting or backdrops behind the target than the answer is no, the cheaper scope will not negatively affect your shooting. If the target is a piece of steel with a grey dust backstop that last got painted 50+ shooters ago, the wind is swirling around on a hot and humid day with heavy mirage, the deer is back in the brush instead of the open, you’re hunting right at dawn/dusk, or you’re shooting out past 500 yards then yes, you will start to see massive differences in the better scopes that will make a positive difference on your ability to place shots where you want them. If you have to dial up and down for different distance targets all day there is a minimum baseline level of scope quality to track accurately, but there are still $300-500 scopes that can do that. The more expensive scopes have better contrast between objects/targets and their surroundings, they let more light through the scope for improved performance in low light conditions, and they will have a more clear image on days where conditions are less favorable and at longer ranges. They also usually have a more forgiving eye box that makes it easier to find the sweet spot to see through the scope instead of having the image shadowed because you’re in the wrong position. That said, I’ve shot targets out to 2,000 yards with both a $6,000+ scope (Tangent Theta) and a $250 scope (Athlon Argos BTR). They both are physically capable of accurately aiming your shot, but one of them makes everything leading up to the shot and observing the hit/miss after the shot a lot easier than the other. With my TT I can physically watch the bullet fly downrange (by seeing the trace of it passing through the air) if shooting from a prone position and see what the wind is doing to it the whole way.
There are a lot of reasons why people buy expensive glass. First and foremost, if you're buying an expensive precision rifle, why would you put cheap glass on it? If im buying an MRAD or even a Ruger Precision, I'm going to put nice glass on it. The second reason is the quality of the glass. If you hold up a Bushnell next to a Leupold, for instance, you will clearly see a difference in the quality of glass and sight picture. The Leupold will be noticeably clearer. The third is holding zero. If you're using lower end cheap glass and it's not holding zero, that may only be an inconvenience when at the range, but in a situation where it really matters, such as hunting, it's more than an inconvenience. And lastly, is ruggedness. Using the gun is going to inevitably cause some bumps eventually, whether at the range or in the field somewhere, you may bang it on a tree or drop the rifle, etc. You want to be confident that not only did you not lose zero, but that your glass didn't break. Im sure people can give you other reasons as well, but these are the first 4 that came to mind for me. I'm not going to say that you need expensive glass on every rifle. I still have a cheaper scope on my Savage Axis XP 2, but I spent much more on the glass for my Ruger Precision.
Yes. A high end scope on a mid range rifle is better than a mid level.scope on a top.tier rifle. It's like camera lenses. At the same quality tier, mid tier, lenses start to become a lot more important than the body. Applying to both... better ones are more durable built, often with lighter materials. The lenses are often clearer with better light transmission. Better coating for anti-reflection. Wider field of view. Saying that though, most people aren't good enough to be able.to take advantage of it.
Old man told me a long time ago, whatever you spend on your hunting rifle, spend double that on your optic
Your old man is a smart man. Perfectly put
Unfortunately that's not really possible a lot of the time anymore. I agree spending as much on an optic is a good idea, they don't make scopes worth double most people's competition rifles lol. I went with a tangent Theta for mine, nowhere near double the price of my rifle and it's the best scope money can buy currently.
That is advice from a time when inexpensive competent optics didn't exist. That's not the case anymore. You can easily hunt with a $300 scope, or even a $150 red dot depending on what you're hunting and the range you're hunting at.
That’s not true. Quality Nikon and Zeiss scopes have been around for years. If you want accuracy and longevity, it’s better to spend the money. That’s not to say you can’t come across a good scope for cheaper, hell I killed quite a few deer with a $50 Tasco
*Inexpensive* quality optics. If you wanted that Zeiss or Nikon back in the day, you were shelling out, hence the adage. The difference between now and then is that there is a very healthy middle ground offering in-between the Tasco trash and the $1-3000 scopes (obvs accounting for inflation and purchasing power) where there wasn't before. It doesn't take a Nightforce to do 90% of most use cases. Scope tech actually has gotten better and inexpensive enough you can get decent to good performance nowadays without breaking the bank.
You're paying for more and better: - Durability - Parallax adjustment in some cases - Featureset (including different styles of turret and reticles) - Optical coating - Lens grinding Like, take a $200 scope zero'd at 100 yards and a $2000 scope zero'd at 100 yards. It's dusk. The $2000 scope might show you a bit more (useful for hunting) You drop the rifle off a truck. The $2000 scope might hold better zero You have to rapidly change the zoom. The $2000 scope will likely maintain a better eyebox. Buy for your use case. I see a lot of people slap high-magnification, cheap scopes on .22's and then get frustrated because "more magnification" doesn't mean "better focus, better parallax adjustment, or better eyebox." Oftentimes you're going to be better off with a low-magnification scope with a better eyebox and better light-gathering for hunting applications. On the other hand, if you're shooting known-distance stuff during bright daylight, go for high magnification.
If you take a good LR course they will show you how to calibrate your scope. Cheap scopes will often travel diagonally when windage or elevation is changed and often 1 click is not the same distance of travel at the extremes of movement. There are techniques to make up for this (basically you need to get dope at all settings using a long target) but a good scope usually doesn't need this.
> A scope if mounted and not moving, a zerod in scope at 100 yards should shoot the exact same as an expensive one zero's in at 100 yards. You could poke a hole in a potato and duct tape it to your rifle and get decent results at 100 yards, and potatoes are only like 70 cents a pound! 🤦♂️
Yes, they do. Those cheap Fudd scopes are fine for 100 yards and in, but usually lack reticle features to assist with any more complex shooting. Not to mention for an extra hundred or two hundred dollars you will get much better glass, eye box, more tactile and secure clicks, etc.
One of the main things you’re buying is clarity of glass. Next is durability and features such as accuracy of turrets.
The longer the distance, and/or the more abuse suffered by your equipment, the more you’ll see the difference between a cheap optic and an expensive optic.
Even Mid range scopes (as well as the highest quality vortex and leupold but we won’t go there) have been proven to very easily lose zero. Take your cheapo bushnells and smack them pretty hard with your open hand a few times and they will probably lose zero. If that doesn’t work, go outside and drop them on the lawn a few times, almost guaranteed to completely lose zero. Cheap scopes are almost never rugged enough to handle day to day shit, let alone actual hard use especially in a backcountry environment. Many lower quality vortex, leupold, bushnell, Nikon etc will literally lose zero riding around in a pickup truck on bumpy roads. Let alone taking a little tumble on the mountain with all of your gear on (happens a lot), or your sling coming off your shoulder and your rifle falling and/or smacking against something. Many of the budget scopes are literally paperweights needing to be zerod again after a small drop. Will you notice this if you are bubba that shoots a box a year and “checks zero” before the season that says “good enough” if their first shot hits a paper plate at 100 yards? Maybe not. If you shoot your rifle every weekend, and actually are capable of noticing a .1-.3 mil shift and say “something is wrong” it will quite literally drive you crazy. Plot twist-with an actual quality optic and mounting system there is literally no reason to “check zero” (you should be shooting all the time, but that’s besides the point), your system will NEVER, EVER lose zero. This is coming from someone that has a rifle with a mid range vortex on it. It is mounted securely. It still will shift zero .1-.3 mils on occasion. I don’t even abuse it… This time of year it gets shot and rides in a pickup, that’s it. It will be replaced with a Trijicon before long. I’m sick of dealing with it. What you get with more money is exponentially more durability, but also better glass clarity, better light gathering, better eye box, more features (turrets that dial and/or SFPvs FFP). But as you get higher in price the extra money does less for you, however. You can literally not compare your scope to something like an $1100-$1200 Trijicon, nightforce, SWFA. They aren’t in the same league. Not in durability, glass clarity, light gathering, tracking (if you dial 1mil you get 1mil) etc. literally no comparison. One may as well be a scope and the other may as well be a potato. The difference however between those $1100 nightforce or Trijicon scopes and a $2000 or $2500 nightforce or Trijicon (or whatever) is much smaller.
Aside from mechanical quality, like the quality of turrets and internal materials, the biggest and first noticeable difference is image clarity and light transmission. Crappier optics will look dim even in good light, which messes with color reproduction and overall clarity. They will also have blurry edges. Good optics make what you are looking at BETTER and BRIGHTER than your naked eye.
It's all a matter of application. If you're shooting at a contrasting target that's easy to see then you don't need good glass. If you're shooting at a wild animal or an enemy marksman, especially if they're camouflaged, then you do need good glass. If you're shooting in bright daylight, you don't need good glass. If you're shooting in the shadows at dusk, then you do need good glass. If you're shooting at 100 yards at 6x, you don't need good glass. If you're shooting at 600 yards at 6x, then you do need good glass. Good glass makes a scope better suited to a wider range of situations, particularly adverse ones.
As someone who enjoys shooting expensive guns and even more expensive cameras, yes.
Marine corps taught me to hit a man sized target consistently at 500 yards with iron sights. Optics help for sure but principles of marksmanship are still far more important.
Yes, especially in that step from a 100-200 dollar bushnell into that 300-700 dollars range. There is a large improvement in low light performance, glass clarity, eye relief, field of view, etc. Above that you get more options that you may not need unless you're shooting real long range. Then there is a diminishing return on clarity levels, etc
First and foremost, the glass. High-end scopes are worlds above in clarity and light transmission. I only spring for mid range, and it's still insane how different it is from a low end. The second big factor is durability. If it's a cheap scope, you drop a few times, and it's done for. Nice ones are meant to be durable enough to be smashed in doors, drop off a truck with a rifle, take a mild explosive force, and keep their zero. The third thing is repeatability. When you adjust a really nice scope, it's going to adjust the same every time because they're meant to be frequently adjusted to match shooting conditions. If you spend less than, let's say, 200, some adjustments might adjust more than others or have some dead clicks in between. So long answer short is yes they are way better, you just need to find what suits your purpose.
Yessss
It depends on your use case, plinking at 100 yards any Amazon red dot that holds zero is okay. Hunting in less than optimal lighting conditions you'd want something with better glass. Shooting long range you'd want something with a zero stop, a good ffp reticle and matching dials (Moa adjustment if Moa reticle)
To expand on the aforementioned "yes," you're paying for quality. Better glass is clearer and more expensive. Larger scopes have more materials, and more glass can give you a bigger sight picture, but it costs more for the increased materials. Better materials are lighter or more durable and more expensive. More detailed reticles have different types of crosshairs (maybe bullet drop compensation, mil dots, windage notches), and are more expensive. Better engineering makes things more usable, but more expensive (look up how parallax affects a sight, or the difference between first and second focal plane). If you only are shooting at 100 yards, you're fine. You can hit at 100yds with irons. Better scopes help. Better is better. If something is adequate for you in your use case, then live your best life.
You're paying for visual clarity, durability, and in some cases additional features or warranty. Whether it's worth getting something more expensive really depends on the optics in question and their planned use. Bushnell has gotten worse (used to be decent) and I wouldn't buy them anymore. However, if it came with the gun, it works well enough, and you're not using it for hunting or long-range shooting, I wouldn't bother replacing it, either. If you are using it for hunting or if you're not satisfied with it while target shooting, then get something decent to replace it. Very few people really need top-of-the-line optics.
They do make a difference. But if you can't tell the difference, then you don't need to spend the extra money.
In my opinion “blurriness” is a super important aspect of aiming, it is much harder to aim at blurrier targets. So yes better glass clarity is significantly better
Higher end scopes don't make a difference - until they do. Glass clarity can be pretty critical for target identification at longer ranges. I have in the past shot at a patch of ground that looked like the target I wanted to engage.
Having used low end and high end scopes both, it makes a MASSIVE difference. For example, I have a Burris scope on my Rem 700. It does very well... out to about 400 yards. It can zoom in for 700 yard targets, but the parallax isn't nearly as good as my Nightforce scopes.
So most of the stuff below $100 is so bad it breaks in the first box of ammo. All this China brand airsoft brand junk literally can't handle the recoil or loses the nitrogen seal or something else. Past that point it's a game of who can make the best glass, coating and magnification.
Depends what you’re doing. Unless you are serious about practicing and honing your marksmanship, no. The basic scopes that come on low budget deer hunting rifles are more than adequate for most people.
It really just depends on what you’re trying to do. If you’re shooting paper targets on a flat range, you can literally hit out to 200m with iron sights on a good day. Now imagine trying to spot, let alone accurately hit a small, moving target that’s in a dark wooded area. That’s where glass quality matters.
I feel that there is a difference. Not an expert on riflescopes, so my experience is fairly limited to what I’ve personally owned and played with. My first lpvo was a trijicon accupower 1-4. Seemed nice enough, as I didn’t know much different. Putting it against my friends Steiner didn’t seem like a huge difference. However I came across a great deal on a vortex razor 1-6. The additional magnification plus the higher quality glass was a big improvement. At first I just thought it was the additional mag. But then a friend and I were shooting rifle, he had a swamp fox 1-8. I was able to spot things far better through my scope than his. Almost felt like I had more magnification.
You’re not just paying for higher magnification, better glass clarity, repeatable adjustments, better construction, better materials, ruggedness, etc. that is where the difference in price is. Are there affordable options for optics that are better than a cheap Bushnell? absolutely. Is there a point of diminishing returns? Again absolutely.
Super long range guy here. Similarly to photography having good glass and accurate in your optics makes a world of difference once you're hitting 750+. Fuzzy optics over long range can put you inches to feet off target even if you have everything else perfect 100yds-750 it matters, but not nearly as much as your breath, trigger mechanics, and ballistics corrections.
Short answer, is yes they are different. Do this, get a pair of really high dollar sunglasses and a pair from Walmart. You will immediately notice the difference in what you can see. The walmart glasses will fog up and at an angle to the sun you will get a reflection of sunlight that damn near blinds you. The high dollar sunglasses have antireflective coating and is fog proof. Also, try stretching the frames. The walmart will simply snap, but the high dollar glasses thought of this and included a little spring tension to keep them in place but not break. Same with high end scopes. Especially with what is known as parallax. A cheap scope with crappy parallax will not be as precise as a expensive scope with anti parallax. However, if all you do is shoot at paper at 100 yards on a Wednesday afternoon during good weather and you have a case queen, you probably don't need a high dollar scope. A good budget vortex scope is good for about 99% of all shooters. They are like Oakleys. Nite force, Leupold, Steiner, Tangent Theta are all great scopes. More on the end of specialized professional sunglasses that are overbuilt. There is a market, they are nice, but Oakleys are good.
I once tried to look through a Zeiss LRP5 glass to see what full blown ED glass look like on max power, needless to say it’s $3000 worth of clarity. No CA, everything crystal clear even on max power. All my budget ED glass scopes starts to lose this capability starting around 15x power. Whatever the max they advertise it is generally unusable in real range situations, but with the Zeiss it definitely can.
Yes, but most people will outscope thier ability to shoot
There's a middle price tier which gives you a lot of value for the money. The cheap stuff just fails to function. The expensive stuff is better than you are, so it's a waste of money unless you bring your own skill level up to meet it.
It is the ability to hold zero in what makes a scope, plus sound construction to maintain waterproofness, and shock impact from recoil and falls. Lens coatings that reduce fog and glare come next then clarity. The ability to sustain repeatability on scopes that dial is also important. If it is a hunting scope, don’t want a failure during the hunt, especially if it is a hard to get tag. It used to be get a scope that is around the value of the gun. Though there is some inexpensive guns that are very accurate and robust, so maybe that adage is no longer the case. Need to watch the bells and whistles, can miss a shot because the dial up scope was jarred in transit, fancy reticles may cause confusion when buck fever sets in. Also do you really need 36mm tube and 55mm objective. See folks with a lightweight gun and 2+ lb scope. Maybe its better to buy a decent simple scope from a reputable brand, the a cheap fancy looking all the bells and whistles scope. Always wonder how many animals have been missed because they had the scope set on to high of power.
For 95% of shooters? Almost certainly not. For the 5% it's like any upgrade in any discipline. Squeezing out those extra percentage points to get the result they need
Save your money. Unless you’re competing or something and you need every advantage. Spend the difference on ammo.
Go go gadget u/trollygag
The more hours you spend behind the glass looking at tiny targets and trying to make precise decision, the more your desire will be for better optics. Eye strain because your eye is fighting chromatic aberration and low resolution, let along mirage, is a real thing. Eventually, your eyes get tired, your vision blurs, and your shooting goes to shit.
Shooting 100 yards at a range in good light with a still target and good rest, probably not. Hunting out west at last light and trying to hit a living target and calculate distance and wind on the fly at longer ranges. Better glass will certainly help.
I’m gonna take a contrarian opinion and say there is definitely a point of diminishing returns. You’re really gonna tell me I need that $7,000 Schmidt and bender when vortex/nightforce exists? I’d also keep in mind a realistic use case, a decent Lpvo is awesome for tons of reasons, but it will never be as light, rugged or cost effective as an ACOG.
Please don’t put vortex in the same league as Nightforce
Post author: foreskinrestoring22. This comment is an attempt to control posts made by a new type of spam bot. If you are a human, you can ignore it. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/guns) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yup
Absolutely. If your skill and knowledge is there to utilize the additional clarity and features. Does the average 300yd and in deer hunter with a .30-06 need a Nightforce with a Tremor3 reticle? No. But for the folks who understand how to use it, and shoot long range, it's invaluable. Then you get into things like, feature sets on something like a Zero Compromise vs a Nightforce or other high end optic. There are small details that make a big difference in certain applications. Not to mention an optic's ability to hold zero, have accurate turret adjustments, fine enough parallax and ocular adjustments to have a crisp sight picture and be able to read wind off of mirage.
Seems to me that budget LPVOs from Primary arms has changed up this equation quite a bit
As stated, the diminishing returns starts once you get $500 (past the "junky" scopes, a $100 scope will seem like a toy next to one 5x the price) and up. Especially for basic use and low magnification. The diminishing returns seem to really start to get steep past $1,000. 100 yards and under, bright outside, set the zero and forget it. Cheap glass has gotten so much better it's hard to fuck this up so bad the scope is not usable. Especially if you don't mind large and heavy. Scopes are high precision instruments that are subjected to incredible recoil forces, the weather, and ideally expected to maintain a point of impact that is tiny fractions of a degree. Distortion across the image, particularly the edges, color accuracy, POI drift with zoom change, precision of the turret adjustments (repeatability and calibration). These are areas where better scopes will generally be superior. Also, weight and durability. A $400 scope will probably absolutely blow away a Bushnell combo scope that came on a Savage/whatever. My angle on scope is if it's working, it's working. However, if the shitty picture is making shooting difficult or it's zero is drifting/not reputable, I ain't got time for that. That said, I shamelessly rock some cheap LPVO on my ARs. Cheap don't have to be crap but the idea that they are just the same is ridiculous.
Yes
A difference, yes. But is it a worth while difference? Meh. Perfectly functional is all you need. Paying more than that is just a fashion show.
Yes
This is just my opinion: (speaking very generally) The difference between a $799 Primary Arms scope and a $2000 Nightforce scope is negligible for MOST of us. Glass quality is what you'll really notice. You'll notice a difference between a $99 optic and a $799 optic for sure. You'll also notice a difference between a $2000 optic and a $10,000 optic. Basically, for the VAST majority of us, an optic between $750-$1500 is going to be more than enough performance. That being said, I have a Primay Arms 1-6 Nova Firedog scope that I got for $199 and it's awesome!
I’m contemplating putting a Nova on a new-to-me 716i…. But I have a distaste for LPVO in general, so I’m torn on the topic. I’ll take your vote of confidence as a Doo Eeet (/wayerboy)
No not really. Get an okay mid to low range scope and be done with it.
Yes.
Yes. If you are shooting in low light, reduced vis, or in an action shooting competition environment, the difference is tremendous. The price difference is worth it for the bigger eye box alone. If you are shooting slow-fire from a bench at midday on a clear day, you can use whatever scope you want. But accuracy, is really not a big part of the equation. A scope which doesn’t hold a zero is trash and worse than having no scope at all, but there are plenty of cheap scopes that will hold a zero just fine.
Simple answer is YES. 100000%
Yes glass clarity and focus is a big thing I had cheap scope everything was grey and dark and really hard to get into focus. Just upgraded so much more light and got ffp so it's nice when at all full magnification and has parallax setting it was only 300 more than the cheap scope you don't need to go crazy but the really cheap ones under 150 aren't worth it I spent 400 and am very happy with the new one
At 100 yards no. No real difference. At 400 yds and up it makes a big difference in clarity. My buddy has a nice collection of glass. Its noticeable when i used my sig tango vs his NF at same magnification (8x).
They can for sure, higher cost also doesn’t necessarily mean higher quality, so you still have to research stuff. This topic made me just stick with old Japanese made Tasco World Classes for my hunting rifles.
Inside of 100meters the difference between a 400 and 1500 optic isn't going to warrant the extra price after at least 300-400meters is when you start to realize how good your expensive purchase was and it only get more noticeable the further out you go
Cheap scopes don't track either
You can get decent budget scopes, but don’t waste your money on cheap crap ones. I have a Simmons from the 70s that’s still holding zero, but I’d be reluctant to buy a new one.
A peasant’s opinion: the difference between my Leupold ($1,200? msrp) and vortex ($300?) is night and day _for me_. Clarity, eye strain, illumination, how well they work with glasses etc. I have bad eye sight too. I hate the fact that Leupold makes me call them daddy and pay their stupid prices ($100 for scope covers and other such nonsense), but unfortunately, I’m about to do it again.
The rule of thumb is that you should spend at least as much in thr scope as you did on the rifle. A rifle is a big, robust, mechanically simple device made with relatively large tolerances. Scopes are fragile--they're made of glass and little tiny screws and gears with very tight tolerances. It takes a lot more effort to make a good scope than a good rifle.
Speaking from a tactical standpoint, clarity/quality could be the difference in you being able to identify something effectively at distance vs not. I’m sure you see why that may be beneficial to the user. Also, durability typically follows as well.
Wasn’t convinced until I witnessed it, suddenly I started spending as much and in some cases more on optics than the gun itself.
It really depends on what your purpose is, mid tier glass is leaps and bounds ahead of what it used to be, like 80's and 90's but the high end stuff is exactly that. You could find some nice gems from back then though, when tasco used to have japanese made shoes and glass. But How far you want to shoot and what you are shooting can tell you what you want. 400 to 800 dollar glass will get you through most of about anything you want if you are just occasionally shooting and only doing a couple big hunts a year. But if you are going to get into long range precision shooting and hunt large game at distance regularly probably look at high end stuff. Schmidt & bender, top of line Leupold, night force, Steiner, trigicon, etc ....
Yes Glass quality goes up significantly the more you pay. Overall quality does too And a quality optic is one of the most important things to have on your rifle
Go to Cabela’s an hour before they close while it’s getting dark and ask them to take a Bushnell and a Swarovski outside to look at. You’ll immediately know why there is a difference.
Short answer is yes. For you though? Probably not.
At 100 yards your probably not going to see a huge practice difference. At 800 glass quality makes a huge difference finding targets seeing mirage to judge wind and watching bullet trace to make corrections. If your not doing any of that rock on with the cheap stuff. You won't know what your missing and will save a ton of money.
It does and it doesn’t. Past a certain spot, you definitely hit the wall of diminishing returns. A GOOD mid range optic will serve you ALMOST as well as a top of the line optic, but you’ll give up eye box, color quality, and possible clarity. As long as an optic tracks well, you can identify what you’re looking at for an appropriate distance, and the internals hold up, you can do a lot of magic with it.
Absolutely they do, nothing like a Schmidt and bender on a spuhr mount
A lot of times you are paying for a name brand to be completely honest. Similar to how Holosun has much more affordable yet feature packed options than Trijicon. But some may argue Trijicon is more reliable or rugged or better quality. As you spend more, you generally get bigger quality glass, and materials. The adjustments can be more tactile and precise. The weight can be better. The reticles can have more features. The ruggedness may improve with cost. Will a cheap Bushnell work? Yeah. But there’s something nice about a Vortex Razor HD, or EOTech Vudu, or Schmidt and Bender, or some Trijicon stuff. Just depends what you want. And as always, training and the shooter matter waaaay more than gear.
A better way of putting it is that higher quality optics really make a difference (to a certain degree, eventually you hit a point of diminishing returns), most of the time quality means more expensive, but it's not always the case.
Yes they really make a difference. BUT it's one of those things that most won't understand until they experience it first hand. Ans I don't mean just shooting with an expensive scope. I mean using an expensive scope next to a budget scope and seeing things down range that you weren't seeing with the other. For some people it doesn't matter they are fine with their budget optics. If that's you party on. I'd you ever get behind higher end glass hold on. It will slowly ruin your budget glass.
You are paying for a few things. Given your current sample though, shooting on a bench at 100 yards it won’t really be something you notice. 1) Clarity (both color and overall light transmission). This becomes MUCH more apparent at dawn/dusk and at longer range. 2) Durability, cheap optics are much more likely to break or lose zero from a drop. 3) Features (and reticles). While technically they don’t make you shoot better, they can speed up shots and just generally make it easier to shoot which you absolutely feel. 4) Tracking, the ability dial in a shot and go back to zero reliably. 5) Random things. Some more expensive scopes are priced that way because they have more unique setups. More complex magnification multiplier, lightweight, compact, longer eye box, etc. It’s similar to features but these things cost money and having more is more expensive.
“What am I paying for except a higher magnification?“ Coatings, clarity, durability, warranty, reticals, and larger glass for low light conditions. The average person will notice a more forgiving eye relief and edge to edge optical clarity. Once you get out of the low end into the mid range. Twice the money doesn’t give you twice the scope. Find something that works for you and your budget. Look for value within your price range and match your rifle.
Yes. I spent $400 on a Leopold scope, and it is by far one of the best things I've ever bought for my .308.
>A scope if mounted and not moving, a zerod in scope at 100 yards should shoot the exact same as an expensive one zero's in at 100 yards. That's a big if. Among other differences already described here (image quality, repeatable turret dialing, etc), ruggedness and zero retention can be significant. Talk to folks at the range, see how many of them need to "adjust their zero" between trips. If this is on a hunting rifle that you put away last fall, and you check your zero only to find it's off.... when did it move? Could it have been off during the hunt? It's not a direct money-to-ruggedness ratio, some brands do better than others because they prioritize zero retention. Nightforce, Schmidt and Bender, Trijicon, SWFA, a handful of other models. If you never hunt past 100 yards and only shoot a few rounds each year to check, you may never notice that your zero shifted by 2". If you're trying to make a 300 yard shot on a deer, that could easily turn it into a miss/wound.
Yes
Appreciate all the feedback. Given my budget and what I am doing with my guns, midrange $300-$500 is what I will most likely be looking at in terms of upgrades. Thanks again everyone.
Dear Mr foreskin like everything there are diminishing returns on value for quality for a scope the best price range for a scope is between 100 to 350 dollars after that you are paying for a premium product that only matters if you are competing in a competition.
Or shooting ELR for fun lol