It should be illegal to manufactor cheap/$#!++y optics. Take BSA for example. My older brother bought a 1.5-4.5 Illuminated reticle BSA scope and put it on his SKS. Bought one of those scope mounts that mounts on a side plate so you can still use the iron sights. Well, we sighted it in yesterday. Pretty happy with the over-all results. Everything was cool. Had it shooting within 5 or so inches at 100 yards; didnt expect any better so we called it good. And today we were up shooting stumps with it just for fun because we were done with our hunt, he turns it up to 4x and finds out the cross-hairs (german post) are now tilted... bad. Like the horizontal bar was running SW to NE. Still solid in the rings. The cross-hairs now move with the power adjuster, turn it down to 2x and the cross-hairs are level. It sucks, really bad. A 90 dollar scope that isnt worth the ink it took to fill out the order form. It must have screwed up due to the punishing recoil of that huge 7.62x39 round. This isnt my only complain about cheap scopes either. A couple years ago, my friend Cory got a Rem 700 ADL 30-06. It came with a Tasco 3-9x40 world class. He shot it about four times and the cross-hairs broke at the duplex taper. The bottom cross-hair coming up was pointed to the left, the left cross-hair was pointed up, and the right cross-hair was pointed down. The only cross-hair that didnt brake was the top one coming down. I am pretty sure that I will never buy a scope that costs less than $250. It just isnt worth it to get cheap/$#!+ optics.

I agree there crap,

I had a simmons which gave me some strife, I am slowly getting rid of all my cheap scopes.

I agree also.

I think the phrase "You get what you pay for" applies more to optics than almost any other component. I don't think I own a hunting rig where the gun cost as much as the scope. Example: I have a Zeiss scope on a Remington 700 ADL.

I think riflescopes are a lot like automobiles.

Somewhere amid the array of options, there is a "most for your money" choice.

I'm not a big fan of Japanese automobiles, but you have to admit that a Honda is a good car. Is it the most expensive car on the market? Not by a long shot. Is a Mercedes Benz which costs four times what the Honda did actually four times better? Probably not. Check that statement. Certainly not.

We're talking about major diminishing returns in both cases here.

Most of the Chinese scopes (recent make Tascos, BSA's) are substandard. American companies got too price competitive and they went not only with the cheapest labor to build these scopes, but also the cheapest materials. And they fail, quite often. Now Bushnell has had some scopes made in the PRC, but they seem to be doing better than the late Tascos and BSA's. The Chinese will do what you ask and pay them to do, it seems.

Normally, a Bushnell scope will give you excellent return on investment. Bushnell seems to be the most dependable of all the sub 100 dollar scopes.

I like the Japan made Tascos, and try to pick them up when I see them. The old Japan made World Class Tascos are pretty good scopes--especially when you can get a 3 to 9 power for 20 bucks.

So, buyer beware it is. If you are careful about your purchases, you can find good value in some of the lower priced optics.

Dan Newberry
green 788

I will have to somewhat disagree.There are good ones and bad ones in all scopes.I have never owned a BSA,I have had bad luck with tasco but as far as simmons,I have had nothing but good luck with them.I agree they are not as clear as leupold and other high $ scopes But the 3 that I have have been great scopes.I own leupold and Swarovski scopes And they are great but Im just not sure they are worth the difference between $800.00 to $150.00.

I know I'm going to get flamed but...
For me,on a rifle other than 22 cal a
leupold is where I start as the min scope
to put on my rifle.I do like and use zeiss
as well as swarovski.Will try a khales.
Are the high $ euro scopes and leupold worth it?
Every penny.Would never put a simmons,bushnel,
tasco on a rifle I was going to use.
Flame suit on
Jeff

This may sound like I'm a snob, but - If your scope costs signifacantly less than the gun that it will sit on, don't buy it. In fact, if you can not afford a high quality scope and the gun that you want, get a cheaper gun. The difference between guns is dramaticlly less than the difference in scopes. An inexpensive rifle with a trigger job and a good scope will be a better hunting tool than a high quality rifle and a poor scope. In my opinion, for a serious hunting, leupold is the minimum. Kahles may be the best combination of quality and price. Schmidt & Bender if your rich uncle remembered you in his will.

Cheap stuff ain't good. Good stuff ain't cheap.

I've learned the cheap scope lesson as often as the cheap boot lesson.

Redial
Master of the Obvious

There are a few things you don't want to go cheap on: Boots, sleeping bags, scopes and women. They will all cost you more in the long run then top shelf.

Gentlemen

Once you have gotten the taste for the better stuff, nothing else will do.

I have an relative who were an leupold fan. I gave him an Swarovski scope in gift and now, No american "partly made in Japan" or Japanese is found on his rifles.

Meopta makes nice scope for the money

I agree aboyt the boots, sleeping bags and optic. But the girls, I'm not soo sure

/ JOHAN

My family comes from a long line of lower end optics. My grandpa has a Bushnell on his 06, my uncle a Bushnell on his .338, my dad has a Tasco on his 06, and when I got my .270 at the age of 14, it came with a Tasco World Class. With this kind of company, I thought I was in good favor. So it may come as no surprise that I found it odd legal shooting hours began and ended the better part of an hour before and after I could see through my scope. It was frustrating for me have to hang up my rifle an hour or so before legal shooting hours ended. And I could never understand why I frequently had to resight in that Tasco, why the point of impact changed with the power, and why more often than not, it was like I was looking through a shower curtain. Then I had a revalation. It seems another uncle of mine has a Vari-X II 3-9 on his 06 and one day by chance I looked through that and what do ya know...even with a thick coat of dust of the objective bell, that Leupold was still clearer and brighter than my Tasco. So when my brother got his .300 Mag a year or so later, I determined there was no way a POS Tasco was going to find its way on our family's first magnum. I wanted him to have a scope that would allow him the most potential out of his rifle, or would at least suffice until he could afford higher end optics. I bought him a Buckmaster 4.5-14x40AO. Overall it has been a very nice scope and it opened the door for us and higher quality optics. That Nikon costed about $280. When I bought my 7mm this summer, I put a $510 Leupold Vari-X III on it. Beleive me, good optics are a sound investment. I know not everyone can afford Swarovski and Ziess. I wish I could but I am a college lad. But if a college lad like me can afford Leupold, I think just about anybody can. There is no reason anybody should have to put anything less on a hunting rig.

I used the think the el cheap scopes were okay on .22s and plinking rifles. Now I am not so sure. The Simmons 22 MAG 4x32 has worked fine on my brother's Marlin 880SS .22LR, but after my present experience with BSA I doubt if I will ever buy another. And when I put that old 4x Tasco on the SKS to replace the BSA, it was honestly like picking out different blotches of color, literally like looking through stained glass or a shower curtain. No I think more and more I am realizing the importance of good optics. I am saving up for a low power compact now, perhaps a Buckmaster or a VX-I. For now, iron sights do just fine on that SKS. Putting a Tasco on it seems like such an insult to a fine rifle.

I ain't rich enough for shitty optics.

[ 10-30-2002, 23:11: Message edited by: FarRight ]

Now I ain't knockin' cheap scopes and I've owned a few. But all my rifles now have Leopolds sitting on them and for one reason only, they work. They range from a VX-III 1.5 X 5 to the 6.5 X 18 and I've yet to have a problem with any of them. Just my 2cts.

All my life I've used nothing but B&L and Leupolds. I've watched many use Tascos, Swifts, BSA's, etc. Very, very few cheap scopes survived long. And then only by guys that didn't shoot much, or care. One of my hunting partners has a cheapie with a broken crosshair on his .25-06. When he shoots at a rock, the bullet lands "close enough".
The surprising thing is you can pay too much. The german organization DEVA, using S&B's own test equipment found in 1993 that S&B scopes are not optically superior to the VarXIII's by Leupold. Nor are they more rugged. What's more, they aren't made with seals under their adjusment dials, so they will leak air.
There are some very rugged scopes at moderate prices out there. Bushnell's 3000-4000 series have an excellent reputation for holding up.
Weaver's Grand Slam scopes have a very accurate, repeatable tracking system. Reportdly as good as anyone's.
Over at 24hourcampfire, John Barsness points out that among the top brands there is very little difference optically, not the head and shoulder differences that some would have us believe. He regularly measures their brightness at twilight using an eye chart. E

I started with a bushnell banner then a leupold vari xii then varix iii's then ziess and finally swarovski.Although none of these scopes failed at any time each change resulted in a scope that I found to be better optically than the previous ones.For those on a budget the bushnell elite is a great scope for the money but with optics you really do get what you pay for.

I was on a cheap scope kick several years ago.
I've kicked that monkey off my back and have seen the light.

I've had Tasco & BSA scopes almost literally fall apart from use.

I'm a Leupold guy now. Life is good.

Regarding low cost scopes, I think the good old "K" series Weavers are pretty decent.

I agree that Tasco and BSA are simply too cheaply made to deal with, however Ive had good luck with Bushnells. Never tried a Simmons but in comparing them I think a Bushnell is every bit as good if not better for less $. Ive had two problems with the REAL cheap Bushnells, 1- they will fog up in bad weather and 2- the lack of eye relief is deadly when combined with a high recoil rifle, but that can be said of a lot of scopes. That being said I still will vouch for the optic quality of even the cheap Bushnells. They are clear and bright with no distortion even in low light.
I have not had any of the Two problems I mentioned with my Trophy scope and the optics are fantastic for a near $100.00 scope. In fact Id compare their glass with ANY scope! If I were to get a big bore with considerable recoil though I think I would save up for a Leupold due to their superb warranty and fine reputation, but I still like Bushnells for standard to small cartridges.

Generally speaking, as one poster already said, you get what you pay for. Quality optics do not come as inexpensive packages. I have, with a couple of exceptions, Leupold on everything I shoot, and have come to trust these scopes implicitly, since I have never been let down by one. I have one 220 Swift with a B&L 4000 Elite 6-24 that I acquired by trading some equipment. It seems to be reasonably good, but still not optically quite on a par with either of my 6.5-20 Leupolds. My favorite optics on a hunting rifle is that beautifully clear 6x42 Leupold. But, I have others from a M8-4x right through to the 3.5-10 VX III. All are excellent. My 30-30 has an older Weaver K3, which has never given me any trouble, but is not as bright as the Leupolds. Buddy of mine had a World Class Tasco lose a crosshair this fall, right during his moose hunt!! NOT a happy guy, believe me. I've made some bad decisions in my life, but using Leupold optics was not one of them! Regards, Eagleye.

"Mere parsimony is not economy...Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part of true economy."
Letters to a Noble Lord, Edmund Burke 1796

Haven't heard anything about Burris and Sightron. Jury's out on Sightron still, and if it breaks, I'm not out much. Burris, however, is top notch in my opinion. Fully the equal of a Leupold Vari-X II.

About 20 years ago an old elk hunter told me "you can't shootum if ya can't seeum". Switched to Burris Signature and Leupold Vari X III. I now have Swarovski binoculars and want one of their scopes!

Gentlemen,

There is also a cheap scope discussion going on over at Marlin Talk right now. My main hunting rig, a Ruger M77 7mm Rem Mag with a Hogue stock wears a Bausch & Lomb Elite 3000 3x-9x scope. I have nothing but compliments for that scope. I love it. I also own a couple of Leopolds which are every bit as good (or in the 1.5x-5x Vari-X III, better). My cheap scopes are limited to a Simmons 1.5x-5x on a .303 and a couple of bushnells. They seem to work ok, but you definitely get what you pay for.

Whatever you do, don't ever buy a BSA scope...they are garbage.

Joel Slate
Slate & Associates, LLC
www.slatesafaris.com

7mm Rem Mag Page www.slatesafaris.com/7mm.htm

Over.40-I have four 3x10x42 swarovski a-lines.If you want a swarovski scope give them a try as They are the clearest ,brightest scope I have ever used.Here in canada they are only $300 more than a varix iii so the price difference is not all that extreme as some would have you believe.

I have destroyed many scopes shooting and hunting. These includes: Simmons, Burris, Leupold, Bushnell, Nikon, and Tasco. I have about 10 at any one time now. I believe the Leupold and Burris are of equal durability and light transmission depending on the scope model. I don't own any Euro models currently because I don't think they're worth the extra money. The only American brands that I've never had problems with so far are Redfield(1) and Weaver(2). The Redfield has sat on a 22-250 for about 20 years. The Weavers were on a .22LR and a 30-06 which have both been sold. The Weaver 4X on the 30-06 is still going strong taking several deer last year by a friend's kids.

I also went through the cheap scope learning process. Tasco, Bushnell, Simmons, I had em all and eventually became dissatisfied and replaced them with the higher quality optics I should have bought in the first place. I have a few Nikons and am happy with them but mostly use Leopold. I understand that anything mechanical and man made can fail, but I believe the chances of it happening are a lot less with quality optics. Why take a chance of spoiling the limited hunting time we have to enjoy by taking a chance with inferior equipment?

I talked to my hunting partner a little while ago to see how it went today, i couldn't go due to work. Just before legal light he seen three elk on the ridge above him but couldn't tell if they were bulls. As they feed up the ridge and out of range it got light enough for him to they were big bulls He's going binocular shoping in the morning I think he finally learned

All my scopes are Swarovski, with a few Leupold X-II and X-III thrown in between. I still have to meet a bad scope...

David,

I tend to agree with the guys here with regards scopes in that my problems disappeared when I switched from TASCO to Swarovski, S&B and Meopta.

Having said that circumstances or choice may mean you don't wish to spend a lot of money on scopes. If that's the case, at the budget end of the market, I would say get a good basic scope and stay from things like variable power and illuminated reticules, you will get far more reliability from a fixed x4 at this price range. Now, I don't know what you call cheap, but I would look for a secondhand 4x32 Leupold. That will be streets ahead of the BSA with all its bells and whistles and I would bet not too expensive either�it will be kinda basic, but it is a damn good scope and will work well on your SKS....

Regards,

Pete

[ 11-01-2002, 13:23: Message edited by: Pete E ]

I've never had a scope fail, and I've got a Bushnell on a .458 win.