When do you decide to step up into a high quality rifle scope?

[bsa1917hunter]

Hi guys. I've been kicking around the idea of buying a top tier rifle scope. The scopes I am looking at and considering are Nightforce. Now, I've had Swarovski's and an upper end Trijicon and also some upper end Nikon rifle scopes approaching the $1,000.00 mark. My question is when do you decide to step up over the $1,000.00 threshold in scope buying these days? I have a buddy that loves Swarovski and has decided to only buy those from now on for his hunting rifles. He blames that on his "poor eyesight". He also has a $2,000.00 Schmidt and Bender that he rarely pulls out of the safe. He says, "the reticle is not good for shooting at 100 yards". I've been a cheap scope kind of guy for all of my life. With the aformentioned Swarovski's and Trijicon, I sent them down the road because they were no better than my cheap Burris FFII's. Now, I've gotten into the SWFA SS and love them. They track unbelievably well, but the glass isn't as perfectly clear as I'd like. One picture I like sharing: I had been shooting 440 yards with my 6.5 creedmoor and then went to the 100 yard range, I dialed back down to zero and shot this group:


Now, if I buy a Nightforce I might feel funny puting it on a $300.00 rifle . I imagine it will go on my AR10 308 for a real sexy combination. Here's the 308:


As of right now, this rifle is a solid 1.5-1.6 moa shooter with a 7.62 AR specific Burris rifle scope:


Should I expect better accuracy with a better rifle scope, such as a Nightforce? I'd really like to find out. What are your opinions on why you made the switch to a Nightforce or Schmidt and Bender. I realize they offer much better tracking for better dialing and long range precision. If you can give examples on how your rifles performed before and after, I'd really like to see and hear about it. Thanks and have a Merry Christmas!!

Read More

 

[User 1234]

For known distance shooting I would not spend the money for marginally clearer glass. For hunting where a FFP makes rangefinding rapid I would pay for that upgrade. I had a four digit scope and it was very nice, but for the shooting I realistically do right now I'm having fun with $400 and below scopes. My Leupold VX-R Patrol 3-9x40 is the most I currently need. I picked up a vintage Redfield at an antique store for $12 and it has very clear glass. I'll put that on a 22 and have cheap fun shooting tin cans.

 

[Bealzybub]

Best group I ever shot in my life (3 holes touchin) was with a $35 used scope I bought off Ebay. Every once in a while I'll shoot sub moa 5 shot groups where you cant see 5 holes. I decided to fork out almost $900 back when the Viper PST SFP first came out. Didnt help. I now have nearly a dozen of those Bushnells as pictured on those rifles.

 

[Dungannon]

$1000 is a high end scope for me. I have two, don't regret either purchase, but have never looked at anything above $1200.

Higher magnification makes sense if you're shooting paper or steel at real long ranges from a bench or prone position. On the other hand, in a hunting rifle the better quality glass will give a clearer view at early light and dusk when game is moving around.

I don't hunt anymore, but anything more than 10-12x would be wasted with me for several reasons: my self-imposed limits on making a humane kill with confidence, a shrinking field of view at higher magnification that made it harder to pick up game [assuming I had first spotted it while glassing with binoculars], and a certain queasiness about bonking a top dollar scope on a tree limb or rock. YMMV

 

[P7M13]

My most expensive scope retailed for $1,850. I have two others in the $1,500 range. All of them I bought used at significant discounts.
Expressing my opinion here, this is what you get for more $$:

• Absolutely accurate tracking;
• Clarity and zero distortion at higher magnification;
• No distortion around the outside of the field of view;
• Much clearer picture in low light conditions;
• Adjustable parallax;
  
• No shift in POI with change in magnification;
  
• Better warranty (c'mon - if you're going to drop $2,400 on glass, it better come with a no-bull guarantee like NF)

With the above opinions, any scope that doesn't hold its zero, no matter what you paid for it, is worthless.
That said, if you have a scope that tracks true and holds zero, going up in glass may make you more accurate because you can see the target better, but the biggest contribution to your accuracy will be trigger time, your technique, and your loads.
A little story about this:
Gave my daughter a Marlin XL7 in 7mm-08 for Christmas 2016. Put a cheap Simmons scope on it, (old Japanese glass, I've seen them used for $40).
Take her and her BF to TCGC one evening for a good range session. Shooting Hornady 139 gr cartridges I loaded, BF gets behind the rifle, 4 shots, 2 MOA at best. "Cheap rifle" he says gruffly. Yeah, I bought it for $249.
Using the same ammo, my daughter sits down, first shot, dead center bull. 2nd shot, touching. 3rd shot, just misses touching the other two, all in the bull. I laugh out, "Dude, you just got OWNED!"
I've videoed her shooting, and you can see her visibly relax, stop breathing and oh-so-gently squeeze off that shot, then keep watching for the follow through. I couldn't shoot that well, and it definitely WAS NOT the glass.

 

[Kruel J]

Scopes don't make you a better shot. Just saying.

 

[Bealzybub]

Scopes don't make you a better shot. Just saying.

Exactly. So I'm thinking I wasted my money on that PST SFP 6-24 Vortex cause I'm getting great groups with my $35 Bushnell. Two years in a row I was first shot of the morning elk hunting from a stand 175 yards off so low light was obviously not a problem. Its got an adjustable BDC turret on it. Came with three actually for different bullet weights and I have since aquired blank hashmarked taped turrets for custom loads. While its not going to be something I could shoot various ranges constantly all day I did get a 550 yard kill simply by adjusting the turret. This post isnt meant to show me patting myself on the back or to be a braggart. Anyone shooting as long as I have should be able to accomplish the same things. It was simply a response to the quote above.

 

[orygun]

I once had a single shot 45-70. Shooting at 50 yards with open sights I shot about 1-1 1/2" groups. Put a 4x Leupold on it and I shot 1-1 1/2" groups...

To replace the scope on my Ruger it would cost me about $650. It's a VX-R Leupold. I own and have owned a bunch of Vari-X II's and some VX-II's and think they are great scopes, especially for the money, but the quality of the image in very low light is so much better in the VX-R.
To me the best reason to spend the extra money is the low light transmission.

 

[Greenbug]

I don't usually buy cheap scopes, by that I mean less than $500. That being said, I also would not consider a "high price" optic for a rifle that didn't already show me it could shoot. I had a Bushnell 4200 scope on one of my rifles and it was consistently shooting sub 1/2 MOA groups. I decided to step it up with a nice Swarovski scope and now it shoots consistently under 3/8". Not a massive improvement in group size by going to the more premium optic, but I sure enjoy shooting it with the nicer glass.

Once you go to the top shelf glass it is nearly impossible to return to the "cheap" stuff.

All I own now are Leupold and Swarovski. I have had a couple of Nightforce but they are so dang heavy and overbuilt for my purposes.

 

[HB of CJ]

Thank you everybody. Our, (my) best scope is an old Leopold 3x9x40 fine cross hair picked up at some gun show years ago fairly cheap. Many finish dings. A very tough reliable scope that gets switched around constantly. Right now sitting by itself in one of the gun safes.

If I had the money, (which I don't) and if I were NOT trying to downsize everything, (which I am NOT) I would love to get a nicer entry level thermo night scope. Our old Russian Yukon nite vision scope works only so well. Dangerous dinky sneaky garden monsters in the summer.

 

[Reacher]

Buy the Nightforce, but beware, the next time you need a scope you will not be happy with anything less

 

[Sandaholic]

I decided an awful long time ago. My budget however has not been able to acquiesce as of yet

 

[No_Regerts]

If my life depends on it and the .gov is paying for it.

 

[bsa1917hunter]

I appreciate all of your comments guys. Just got back from shooting my cheap $300.00 savage with cheap $200.00 Burris scope and once again, put together a good shooter. However, I would not trust it to track as well as my SWFA SS 16x. The main reason for the upgrade in glass, for me, would be the upgrade in glass quality and better tracking, better zero retention etc. Of course we all know switching to a better scope won't make you a better shooter, but it will benefit you much more when it tracks true. Especially when you are shooting longer range.

 

[Mark W.]

Thinking a better scope will make you a better shot is like the photographers that think a better camera will make you a better photographer.

I have never spent more then $400 on a scope and I still can't out shoot any of my rifles. And I have rifles that I can shoot sub MOA 5 shot groups with.

 

[41mag]

I've just barely acquired a brace of Leupold VX models mounted, no range time yet. Best scopes I've ever actually owned. They definitely are more fun to 'bench race'.....

The fun part of the project, is mounting them on a pair of Ruger Scout Rifles in 223/308. We'll see.

 

[ron]

I have gone the cheap(less than $500) route on scopes. I stepped up to a VX-3 Leupold
on my Savage groups were much tighter. Now I have several Leupolds on my rifles.
I like the Leupold glass quality and repeat ability. Leupolds are in my opinion are exspensive
scopes. But are Night Force scopes really worth 2 or 3 times as much? I have looked
through some $4500 Night Force at the club sorry I don't see the 2 or 3 times value.
Maybe if you were a military sniper you want a scope that can take severe abuse and will
still work? I like E-bay for new and used Leupolds. Tip: VX-3 is a better glass then the
older VX-III (Roman Numeral) Leupolds. Many other manufactures make a good high
end scope. I do not have any experience with them.

 

[P7M13]

If my life depends on it and the .gov is paying for it.

You know .gov doesn't give one rat's arse about your life. They just want you to be more effective.
You: "what's this paper towel tube with caps on the end and pin pricks?"
Them: "that's your rifle scope."

 

[bsa1917hunter]

I have gone the cheap(less than $500) route on scopes. I stepped up to a VX-3 Leupold
on my Savage groups were much tighter. Now I have several Leupolds on my rifles.
I like the Leupold glass quality and repeat ability. Leupolds are in my opinion are exspensive
scopes. But are Night Force scopes really worth 2 or 3 times as much? I have looked
through some $4500 Night Force at the club sorry I don't see the 2 or 3 times value.
Maybe if you were a military sniper you want a scope that can take severe abuse and will
still work? I like E-bay for new and used Leupolds. Tip: VX-3 is a better glass then the
older VX-III (Roman Numeral) Leupolds. Many other manufactures make a good high
end scope. I do not any experience with them.

Ron, thanks for your advice. I appreciate it. Now I'm really leaning toward getting another couple SWFA SS fixed power scopes...

 

[No_Regerts]

You know .gov doesn't give one rat's arse about your life. They just want you to be more effective.
You: "what's this paper towel tube with caps on the end and pin pricks?"
Them: "that's your rifle scope."

Oh, I had no delusions that the two were linked.