These threads about shooters prefences in optics got me to thinking about what are the worst optics on the market. We always talk about what are the best but which are the ones to avoid?

Question:
What is the worst brand of optics?

Who did I forget?

Choices:
ATN
Barska
BSA
Leapers
NCstar
Simmons
Tasco
Nikko Sterling
All of the above

 

I just got done shopping for a used 30-06. What I found is a Win. Mod. 70, "Stainless Classic" w/ Leupold 3 - 9x 40mm duplex VX II. But I passed up a lot of nice rifles with cheap scopes. That's like a good looking woman in K-Mart polyester.

-- Tasco.

When I seen a Simmons scope for sale at Wal-mart right next to the clay pigeons and shoot-n-see targets I knew they was crap...

2 shots after my 308 let loose I knew the game was over.

Problem with the poll!! You can only vote for one!! Should have had another choice.........ALL LISTED!!
Save your money and buy something decent to begin with!! GHD

The correct answer is, all of the above.

Yeah, you guys are correct, I screwed up by not adding all of the above as an option and I also forgot Nikko Sterling so I have edited it.

Wow, those are some tough choices. After a struggle, I narrowed it to BSA and NcStar. NcStar finally "won" out. That yellowish hue reminds me too much of the cheesy sunglasses of the 70s.

LWD

quote:

Originally posted by Cane Rat:
Yeah, you guys are correct, I screwed up by not adding all of the above as an option and I also forgot Nikko Sterling so I have edited it.

Yeah, ALL OF THE ABOVE, and a couple so bad I can't remember them.

You left out Counter Sniper.

But Guns and Ammo loved the Counter Sniper! Haha, suckers.

Tyler, G&A, ST, G&A,,,,,,,,,,,all the gun rags LIKE whatever is sent to them for review!! I really question if the writers of most of this drivel heve ever sat at a bench and rung a rifle or optics out!! And damn sure that most of them never had a "real time" adventure in the varmint fields or the reloading room with subsequent testing at the bench and range!!!! I know you knew this and understand it and your post was in a humoristic state. Just hoping we can "edumicate" the rest of the folks here. GHD

quote:

Originally posted by groundhog devastation:
Tyler, G&A, ST, G&A,,,,,,,,,,,all the gun rags LIKE whatever is sent to them for review!! I really question if the writers of most of this drivel heve ever sat at a bench and rung a rifle or optics out!! And damn sure that most of them never had a "real time" adventure in the varmint fields or the reloading room with subsequent testing at the bench and range!!!! I know you knew this and understand it and your post was in a humoristic state. Just hoping we can "edumicate" the rest of the folks here. GHD

I agree with this statement for the most part. It amazes me that there are some who have journalism degrees who just happened to "land" jobs at the gun rags, could have just as easily been a job at Poodle Grooming Monthly, and then decided to begin their shooting careers because they work for a gun rag. Of course there are those who are one of us, and are the real deal, like Craig Boddington, Wayne van Zwoll, John Taffin, Garry James, Jim Carmichael, David Petzal, and many others but there are some real dingdongs as well who couldn't tell shit from a good grade of putty.

Cane Rat, The real statement here referring to you last part of the post is: "They couldn't tell good shit from apple butter!!!" GHD

You might be surprised at how functional some of those makes are in a fixed power, low magnifacation scope. Pretty good optical glass is cheap these days, optical designs for scopes are "mature" and all of the basic patents are expired, so it is no trick to make a pretty decent fixed power scope for very little money (at least in jurisdictions where the hourly wage is expressed in cents rather than in dollars). BUT if those cheap scope makers try to incorporate the relatively sophisticated variable power mechanism and boost the magnification beyond the resolving power of the lenses, the those cheap scopes become trash.

I have a 40 year-old Bushnell Sportview, one of the cheapest Asian-made scopes at the time, that is still going strong on a gun I gave to an uncle to carry in his pickup several decades before the turn of the last century. And I also have a little Chinese 4x made to mount on an SKS that I use on a kid's .22 which is amply clear and precise for that application. Of course, outside of those two applications I own nothing but a few dozens of Leupolds, a couple of legacy Denver Redfields, and a few fine, tough old fixed Weaver K models.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
You might be surprised at how functional some of those makes are in a fixed power, low magnifacation scope.

+1. I've got a fixed 4x NcStar on my 22 and couldn't be happier with the glass quality. It's not as good as my VX-II that I have on my hunting rifle, but for $35 I wouldn't expect it to be. I wouldn't trust it with heavy recoil, and I haven't taken it out in the rain too often, but for shooting out to 70 yards at the range it has been perfect so far.

My buddy put an ATN scope on his 50 bmg. Not sure what model but it was supposed to be specifically for the bmg. When I was mounting it for him I told him to send it back right away and get a refund because there were black specs all over the glass. On the 4th or 5th shot that damn scope snapped completely in half. I've never seen nothing like it before.

On another note I mounted a Nikko Sterling 6-24 on a bmg. It wasn't the clearest scope but better than I expected for $120. It actually lasted a couple hundred rounds of BMG before I replaced it. It was still going strong.

I had (and sold) a BSA Sweet 17 that would resolve the stucco texture on a wall at 60 yards. Very sharp scope. I also have a BSA 8-32X target scope with which I shot a .154-inch group out of my 300WSM. I have a BSA 6-24X that puts the pills out of my T/C Encore right up a jackrabbit's adz out to 250-some yards. I know BSA ain't anywhere near the best scope, but I have had good luck with them. And they ain't $3,000 like a Nightforce. Hell, I can't shoot good enough to merit the expense...

quote:

You might be surprised at how functional some of those makes are

Yup, Gotta agree w/Stonie here.

I'm not too much of a Glass Snob; they all have their places in the Grand-Scheme-of-Things.

All of my serious Big Game & Target rifles & barrels have quality optics aboard; Zeiss, S&B, Swarovski, Kahles, Docter, Leupold, Kaps, Nickel, etc.

To qualify this though; since I'm at source here in The Fatherland, some of the optics have been Target of Opportunity purchases made second-hand. I just hate to pass on a deal!

At the Gunshops all my Buddies rush to the used racks while I ask what kinda optics the Smith has recently taken in trade. There's ususally a glass or two at significantly reduced cost worthy of additional contemplation.

Never been disappointed yet but did return one S&B 6x42 to the factory to have a #1 recticle changed to a #4 and I've not a clue what they did to it as the recticle was changed but Brother; that is by far the clearest glass I've got in my stable.

On some of my "Plinkers" I've a few Grade II (Grade IV?) optics; simply because all I require of them is to hold zero and other than a ride to the range in a padded gun slip they don't receive too much abuse.

It's all about choices .... although several of those mentioned above are serious contenders for the "Not worth giving any consideration to" Grade of glass.

I bought a couple Simmons Atec Scopes and put them on a 22 Fireball and a 223.They have the most precise elevation and windage adjustments I have used on any priced scope.I am not saying they are the best scope,but for the dollar are better than some much more expensive ones I own.

quote:

On the 4th or 5th shot that damn scope snapped completely in half.

I was on a bear hunt with my son in Alberta in 1998 in a camp that accomodated six hunters, so the four other hunters were strangers to us.

One guy brought a very nice Browning BAR, I believe in .270, mounted with a Simmons scope. The guides set up an informal range and had everyone fire a shot or two to assure their rifles remained zeroed. When the guy with the .270 fired a shot, the entire front bell fell off of the scope. That will give you a sinking feeling when you are over 100 miles from the nearest town.

As a very general and broad rule of thumb, if your scope didn't cost something like one-half of what your gun cost, then you probably need a better scope.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
[As a very general and broad rule of thumb, if your scope didn't cost something like one-half of what your gun cost, then you probably need a better scope.

While I know that the purpose of this "general rule" is to encourage people to buy good optics I personally think the specifics are rubbish, though the sentiment holds good. For my stalking I don't need a variable scope but I do hunt into last light and on the open hill. I bought a 2nd hand S&B 8X56 for £250 and it is ideal for the job I use it for and the glass is top notch. I would say it cost about 10% of what the rifle did but I honestly couldn't better it at any cost for my purposes.

So, as Gerry has already said, it is worth looking at good, top grade 2nd hand optics from reliable sources as you can put the best glass for the job on your rifle for a lot less money than you imagine, and certainly a lot less than the cost of the rifle.

Point well taken, caorach. A very high grade collector-quality rifle, especially a vintage one, might be best served with a scope of relatively modest price compared to that of the gun; similarly, a rather pedestrian Savage varmint rifle might deserve a scope that cost more than it did in order to optimize its performance potential.

In offering my "rule of thumb", I was thinking in terms of typical American-made Ruger and Remchester hunting rifles. In those instances you typically need to spend about one-half their cost in scoping them.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with good used optics -- by far the majority of my scopes were "previously experienced" when they came into my ownership.

I've had three Simmons scopes go south on me. The reticules just fell out or rotated in their housing when mounted on normal weapons the scopes were designed for. One of those was a replacement from Simmons and performed the exact same trick as it's predecessor

There's "bad" and then there's worse than "bad" and they are in that catagory. IMHO.

I don't think any one of the low price brands are distinctly better or worse than the others. In this very competitive market you sort of get what you pay for. Don't expect much in a $69.99 3-9x40 from any company. You might get a useable 4x from one of them for a little under $100 so long as you don't plan on mounting in on your 7lb super magnum.

.

When I started shooting...

There were three basic scope brands that the gun stores had in stock -- Leupold, Redfield, and Weaver.

Weavers were discussed the way that many cheaper scopes today are discussed.

But I had good success with the El Paso all-steel Weavers. Used mostly the fixed-power models.

.

Not as simple as trashing a particular "brand" of optics.

In today's consumer market the big brands have a wide range of optics to fill particular price niches and the quality varies accordingly.

Take Nikko which is very common DownUnder. Nikko like so many of the other companies listed don't "make" scopes. They purchase them from optical companies, just made to their specs and price point.

Their low end scopes are serviceable and obviously have a market because they have been around for a long time.

Their high end scopes used to be made in Japan until very recently, probably by the same makers as Bushnell Elite, Weaver Super Slam, Tasco Euroclass etc and are optically and mechanically fine instruments.

I prefer some of the high end stuff from these "trash brands" to the low and middle range of the so called name brands.

Tasco scopes make fine paper weights, tire chocks and tent pegs.

You might want to check out how much a used Tasco Titan goes for on eBay.

I have a Tasco World Class from the eighties that was on a 7mm mag for twenty years without trouble. Been on a 223 for a few and still clear and holds zero. Not a bad $100 investment.

quote:

Originally posted by Ozzie:
You might want to check out how much a used Tasco Titan goes for on eBay.

World of difference between the older Japanese-made Tascos like the Titan and the ChiCom-made junk which is being peddled today, not even the same Tasco Co.

Agreed that there is a huge difference between the old and the new but still doesn't alter the fact that you can't trash a whole brand while disregarding that some of the models within a brand name may be gems.

Marketing is what is important to most of the big companies, that's why Bushnell Elite were called B&L for many years to differentiate from the rest of the brand until the licence ran out.

That's why Leupold now sells a different model only they call it Redfield.

Early Redfields were great, later ones were crap which partly explains why the company failed, and presumably made by Leupold they will be OK again.

Being ChiCom manufactured does not necessarily denote poor quality these days. Again it depends on the specifications of the purchaser. A lot of quite expensive scopes now being sold in the US are ChiCom.

However quality costs and when the Chinese make a good product it costs almost as much as a Western made product which negates any possible reason to buy from a nation that is essentially the enemy of the West.

I have a Nikko-Sterling that I bought from the NRA catalogue. It was bought as a spare and mostly to help contribute to the NRA. It was mounted on my 338 WM. and worked fine until I got around to getting a Leupold VX-II on it. The scope held up just fine albeit for only about 200 rounds - but no problems. I have a couple of Simmons but they are on 22 mag. and 17HMR. If they can't hold up to that then there is a real problem.

I cant say BSA is bad...I have a 24x BSA on my 204 and it hold zero without problems. I shoot it pretty regular out to 300 yrds on the range and it works fine for what it is. Granted im going to replace it when I get back stateside, but its definately not the worst scope I have owned.

Keep in mind here a couple of factors:

One is any mass produced product including scopes are only as reliable as the QC of the company that stands behind them. If the QC is low, you may or may not get a lemon.

Second are the mounts and mounting job of the scope - are they good mounts properly installed and aligned? If not, THEY could be the problem; not the scope itself.

IMO the correct answer is any variable power Bushnell, that does not have Elite in it's name. Their lower priced stuff is absolute garbage, all the way around.

I had mounted a BSA scope on my 7mm STW. It made it about 300 rounds before the prisms came loose inside. Everytime you pulled the trigger the focus would change. The point of impact would stay the same, but you would be shooting in the middle of a fog.

Worst brand of optics? Anything with plastic lenses.

Bushnells? same issue. Early Scopechiefs and early Banners were excellent scopes in their respective price brackets.

Plastic lenses, how do you tell especially if the plastic lens is an internal one?

I've owned 2 BSA's The first was a 6-24 refurb from Midway for $40.00, from 6-14 it was fine, above that it was terible.
The other one is a 4-16 that is on a 6.5 Swede and is good to about 12x. No mechanical problems with either one. Both held/hold zero.
BSA's are not nitrogen filled and will fog under certain conditions.
And believe it or not, the tubes are painted and cheap paint at that! Changed out the 4-16 yesterday and some stringy stuff(paint) came off the top 1/2 of the rings. Replaced it with a Nikon,much better now. I wouln't have another as a gift!

Stepchild

Cane rat, you forgot to add, anything that has the Cabelas name on it.