I picked up a couple of used Buckmasters. Friend at a gunshop sold them (and rifles) to a guy he knows, that sat in his safe for 6 months, then he traded the rigs in at a substantial penalty. Good for me, bad for him. They look new with no ring marks.

Bushnell 3200s or Nikon Buckmasters

Cheap can be a relative term depending on you cash flow.


For me the Nikon Prostaff is a good starting point. Anything cheaper than that and the clarity and eye relief is next to nothing!!!

The Nikon Buckmasters line is a bit above the cheap range IMO they are good glass for the money!!!

quote:

Originally posted by rahtreelimbs:

The Nikon Buckmasters line is a bit above the cheap range IMO they are good glass for the money!!!

Very good glass for what I paid for the two I just picked up!!!!!

I bought one of the cheap Pentax Gameseekers in 4x12 for a CZ 17Hmr and it has functioned very well. Head shots on squirrels at 80-100 yards are fairly routine and it rides around in the truck often. I think a good scope on your go-to rifle makes all the sense in the world but Burris FF2, Sightron, Nikon, Weaver GS, Simmons Aetec, are all decent scopes for the money and will work perfectly most of the time for targets, hunting varmints etc.

60+% of the successful deer hunters every year are using cheap scopes that I would never put on a rifle so they will work some of the time - it depends on your use. If I miss a squirrel in a few years because of my cheap Pentax it won't be the end of the world.

I have had excellent luck with Weaver V-Series (V10's), Grand Slams and Burris FFII's.

I recently bought a Pentax Gameseeker scope. I was impressed with the optical clarity when I got it. I haven't mounted it yet, but if the mechanics work well while sighting in, it will be a winner for the money. It also came with a free set of 10x42 Gameseeker binoculars.If they are any indication, it will be a winner. I watched some deer with them tonight for 3/4 of an hour right before dark with no eyestrain at all. Compared with a set of 7x50 Vivitars that my buddy had, they were much clearer and about 200% brighter !!I hope the scope works as well.

I have been thinking about picking up one of the Pentax scopes too.

Nice to hear they seem worth the $

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:
I have more than my share of Conquests and a few Leupolds, but my rifle nut habit is getting out of hand! I need some "cheap" glass for my fun guns. These are rifles primarily shot from the bench, and hunted occasionally (close to home). These are all medium bore rifles (300 Mag and smaller)

I am toying with buying a handful of the Nikon Pro Staff scopes. I have an older Monarch that was nice.

Opinions? Suggestions?

If not a Leupold, then a Federal NITREX.

Cheapest??? Hmmm. If the glass comes from the Schott glass works (Swaro, Zeiss, S&B, Kahles etc) I don't care how little it costs, I would use it unless it was broken.

I love the 1.5-6x42 Diavari scopes, they are good for almost all hunting, they are rugged, they are the standard for brightness and the mechanics are perfect. The Zeiss Conquest line matches the quality at a lower price. I am intrigued by the Nikon Monarch Gold 1.5-6x42. Those I have seen as low as $450 but more commonly $500-$600. I want to try one of them. Below that quality I have yet to be really happy with a scope.

The cheapest I have put on a rifle is a Tasco World Class on my newest 788 .222. It is just a stop gap until I can afford maybe a Nikon Buckmasters or Fullfield II 4x12or16x40+. Those are the cheapest scopes I would buy. The Tasco came on another rifle I bought, so it doesn't count.

There are cheap scopes and there are awfull scopes. I typically try to avoid anything made in China like the plague. There is some pretty good stuff coming out of the Phillipines thesedays. I have one of the early Bushnell Legends (pre Ultra HD) that was advertised as 91% light transmission like the XLT Trophys are now, and both are made in the Phillipines. The Burris fullfield II is also made there. The optics on all of these are fantastic for the $$.

Leupolds do hold their value well, but they are not the only ones. Denver Redfields or nearly any Weaver will hold good value. I have a couple of the Japan "micro trac" Weaver's (Blount era) and they are very reliable with decent glass. Not my favorite though, but they are also very resaleable because they say Weaver. I love the generous eye relief of the El Paso Weavers if you can find one that is clear and in good shape they are still very worth while. Not a big fan of the fine crosshairs though. Still have never seen a Tasco or Simmons that I like, including the early Japan stuff. YMMV.

The cheapest scope I have is a Bushnell elite 3200 and its on my
22LR

Bushnell no longer makes the 3200 and 4200. They have been replaced by a single model, the Elite.

What about the Weaver K-4 4x38mm scope. Has very good glass and is very rugged. In my opinion far superior than a cheap variable and costs in the neighborhood of $140.00.

Leupold VX1s are only about $200 and seem to be fine. I have a Bushnell 3200 but am not satisfied with it.

$50 (when they were on sale) Vortex 6x. I wouldn't put'em on a big banger but they work fine on a savage 99 308.

I've always preferred European scopes but am favorably impressed by the Leupold VX-1. As you might remember , I hate tunnel vision and find that even in dearer Leupolds and the Nikon Monarch 4-16.

I guess cheap is a relative term, as I certainly don't think $4-500 for a scope is expensive.
Why risk failure when hunting opportunities are becoming ever more limited & expensive?

High end Leupold is as cheap as I will go.

Ken....

quote:

$50 (when they were on sale) Vortex 6x. I wouldn't put'em on a big banger but they work fine on a savage 99 308.

Glad to see I ain't the only person that can live and operate without paying a whole bunch for a scope.

To each their own and everyone's mileage varies, but I simply never have felt that a scope had to be of a certain price level to be any good.

When Cabela's first brought out their Pine Ridge line of scopes, I bought 2 of the Fixed 6 power, something they no longer make and on sale they were $60.00 a piece.

I put one on Lora's .257 Roberts and the other on my .375 H&H. In total I probably put 300 rounds thru the .375 while I had the Pine Ridge scope on it.

After about 5 years, the scope on Lora's rifle developed a problem with the turrets and I moved the one on the .375 to the .257.

I have only one variable scope on any of my guns a 3x9 Leupold on my .300 Weatherby and I bought that thing on sale for less than $200.00.

I prefer fixed power scopes, especially 6 power and especially the old steel tube El Paso made Weavers. In fact I constantly monitor EBay looking for Weavers for sale.

I replaced the Pine Ridge from my .375 with a Weaver K6 with post and crosshair. I guess I am just cheap.

I just bought a couple of the discontinued Minox 3x9x50 scopes from Camera land. Doug is selling these for $219.00 and they are really impressive. Retail was over five hundred bucks so it is a good deal with a lifetime warranty. Parts are made in Europe and assembled in the US.

Few if any "cheap" scopes made today (usually on the Pacific rim) are the equal of what were very expensive scopes back in the day. A Rochester Baush and Lomb, a Kollmorgen, Early Redfields (26mm), a fixed Unertl or a fixed Lyman Perma center will put today's cheap scopes to shame. The best part is that today they are "cheap" as we have a generation of shooters who have never sat behind one, think that gimmicks are what make a good scope and believe all the BS about the huge gains made in optics as hyped by the companies that make them BUT never verified by independent testing labs.

Funny how the same folks who get damp shorts over a pre 64 M 70, at 10 times the original price, ignore a ANIB BalVar 8 for $200.00 that cost almost as much as that M 70 back in the day.

Not that I am complaining as the 6X Kollmorgen with a broken crosshair that I have $26.00 into with perfect lenses and 98% exterior, will go to TK Lee and for about $150.00 (shipped) will get a going over and a new Lee dot Reticle.

So these classic scopes are not "cheap", they are inexpensive bargains. The exceptions being "long tube" external adjustment Unertls, Lymans and Feckers which are excellent and expensive, having no competition.

Wish I could buy a mint 58' Caddy Eldo for the same price as a new ATX.

Bobby, it depends on your use. If you're going to mount a scope, sight it in, then leave the adjustments alone, there are many inexpensive scopes that will handle the task. Expensive scopes come into their own when the adjustments are used...range the shot, then 12 clicks up, 5 clicks right, to adjust for distance and wind. A cheap scope may not consistently produce the same adjustment to point of aim each time it is adjusted...they may not "track" very accurately.

Same with variable power...you may find your point of aim "wanders" a bit from the point of impact as you move through the power range of the scope.

The ability to withstand shock and rain or severe humidity is another factor that improves when you move up the price ladder.

If you mount it, sight it in, and use it that way, you'll be fine with most lower-end offerings.

The cheapest scope I'll bother with is a VX-11, and that's not very often. The few bucks extra for a VX3 is forgotten on the way home. Lazy adjustments will eventually use up the saveings in ammo costs.

I bought a 4-12 Redfield for my .270 and love it. They're around $230

quote:

Originally posted by jctheman1:
Few if any "cheap" scopes made today (usually on the Pacific rim) are the equal of what were very expensive scopes back in the day. A Rochester Baush and Lomb, a Kollmorgen, Early Redfields (26mm), a fixed Unertl or a fixed Lyman Perma center will put today's cheap scopes to shame. The best part is that today they are "cheap" as we have a generation of shooters who have never sat behind one, think that gimmicks are what make a good scope and believe all the BS about the huge gains made in optics as hyped by the companies that make them BUT never verified by independent testing labs.

Funny how the same folks who get damp shorts over a pre 64 M 70, at 10 times the original price, ignore a ANIB BalVar 8 for $200.00 that cost almost as much as that M 70 back in the day ...

Personally, I'd look for the ones made before they discovered "Perma centa", a time when American scopes shared the optical integrity that the European makers clung to for another decade or three.

Your post also reminds me that for all his custom-made and double rifles, Elmer Keith was quite happy with scopes like the Weaver K4. I wonder if they sent him one every Christmas?

I find Biebs's comment interesting, too. Maybe the money I've spent on scopes has been wasted because I never crank the clockwork for long shots or vary power unnecessarily.

Perma Center had nothing to do with optics. It had everything to do with bad drilling jobs on sporterized rifle. (and even some from the factories)

As for Elmer, he also believed a 270 would not kill an Elk and that JOC had tried to kill him at the annual Winchester gunwriter bribe shoot.

Nothing wrong with a K4, heck you can even set the parallax by moving the turret. Not as waterproof as a Bausch, Koli, Lyman or Unertl but they got the job done.

It's just all marketing department driven BS, if you can't kill anything in the lower 48 with an 06' and a 4X scope, you just a'int hunting.

Yes, JC, Perma Center (and image-moving scopes in general) has nothing to do with the optics - but everything to do with seeing less of them and not sighting through the optimal part of the lenses.

BTW, I've just picked up a copy of Nick Stroebel's 'Old Gunsights & Rifle Scopes'. It's a great read but misses the mark here and there. Though he gives an extensive explanation of scope history and technology, he seems to accept without question the American outlook that image movement is the bee's knees. I'm a bit surprised at this because classic concepts could be another reason to seek out old scopes rather than just collectability.

Some of the transcription of specifications is without any question of veracity, for instance where the Helia (a sometime Kahles marketing name) table has fields of view obviously in metres but listed as feet at 100 yards.

I find his claim that Pecar was nothing more than a labelling name for a scope sold in the US a little apocryphal. Though they may have last been "catalogued in the 1961 Gun Digest", the rest of the world was able to buy them for decades after that and I think the Pecar factory closed earlier this century.

On my hobby horse of field blending, I've noticed nothing in the book so far, and he makes no mention of Bushnell's use of the tapering ocular housing, though you can see it in the pictures.

quote:

Originally posted by jctheman1:
Perma Center had nothing to do with optics. It had everything to do with bad drilling jobs on sporterized rifle. (and even some from the factories)

As for Elmer, he also believed a 270 would not kill an Elk and that JOC had tried to kill him at the annual Winchester gunwriter bribe shoot.

Nothing wrong with a K4, heck you can even set the parallax by moving the turret. Not as waterproof as a Bausch, Koli, Lyman or Unertl but they got the job done.

It's just all marketing department driven BS, if you can't kill anything in the lower 48 with an 06' and a 4X scope, you just a'int hunting.

I see the POS Larry Root is back. Larry apparently you are too phucking stupid to realize how easy it is to catch you. Now will you go away or do I need to post your PMs with your bigoted, racist comments against the host on this site? FOAD you POS.

I have bought several refurb Nikon Buckmasters from Natchez.Same warranty as their other scopes and have had no problems with them at all.

fwiw, I too have found Swift Premier scopes to be decent...own 3 of their 6-18x44. LOL, found the BSA Majestic DX Hunter scopes OK enough to have three of them...all their 6-24x44 model. All these scopes are on mild to mid recoiling centerfire rifles...talking 223 to 30-06 rifles that I shoot paper with. Prices of these scopes were from around $170 to $90. For example, paid $145 for my first BSA Majestic DX, last one was around $90 when Grafs had them on sale. Same thing for the Swift, $160 for first and $125 for last. Each of these scopes have seen a fair number of rounds fired at range....not a problem with any of them.

Freebee.
Is that cheap enough?
Oh it was a Zeiss Varipoint 1,5-6x42 in almost mint condition :-)

True story; from at least 15 years ago; a friend had a TASCO cheapie on his 223 heavy barrel bolt action and the sling swivel came off and it dropped on the scope bell and actually bent the tube. We took it off and I told him that we have nothing to lose and I smacked it on the work bench until it looked straight. (It was a long scope). He re-installed it and proceeded to shoot some .5 moa groups with it. He called Tasco and they wanted him to send it to them so they could use that story in advertising, but they never did. They also gave him a new scope. I am just saying that all Tascos were not junk, although some of them were.

I like my conquests for hunting big game with rifles that recoil where a failure would be bad news bu I've gotten good service from sightron pentax and Minox scopes. Leupolds are hard to beat for service but they command a high price compared to comparable glass.

I wont use a Swift orlower end Bushnell based on very bad experienctes in the field but would use a Burris ff2 or weaver or nikon buckmaster.

I agree with Heat. The cheapest scopes on my rifles are high-end Leupolds. My stable of go to guns now carry Swarovskis. One Kahles as well.