|
|
03-13-2018, 01:57 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: edmonton
Posts: 3,115
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by madball
You would notice a difference between your 3200 and a Leupold VX-6 or something like a Schmidt and Bender.
Another big difference for me with high end optics is that I can slip and smack the scope on a rock, drop the rifle completely and generally abuse it on the side of a mountain for 10 days and know that its not going anywhere and the POA/POI isn't going anywhere either.
|
I had an opportunity to harvest a nice 6x6 whitetail last year at 300 yards but missed out on it because I couldn't make out the horns against the trees with my Vortex Diamondback. My buddy standing right beside me clearly identified the target with his Leupold vx3. He shot the deer even though I had it in my sights much longer.
I unfortunately have wounded 2 deer on 2 separate occasions because the cheaper scopes failed to hold zero. Both shots were gimmie's at close range but the deer were never recovered. I feel I owe it to the animal I'm trying to harvest to provide it with the cleanest kill possible. If it costs me a few hundred dollars more to get a quality scope that will hold zero I will gladly pay it because I never want that feeling again. I will go for quality (optical and build) over cost every time now.
__________________
" Everything in life that I enjoy is either illegal, immoral, fattening or causes cancer!"
"The problem was this little thing called the government and laws."
|
03-13-2018, 03:41 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Drumheller
Posts: 2,666
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by madball
Having looked through both, the Bushnell on your wife's Savage and the 3200 series really aren't that far apart on the quality spectrum as far as light transmission goes. You would notice a difference between your 3200 and a Leupold VX-6 or something like a Schmidt and Bender.
Another big difference for me with high end optics is that I can slip and smack the scope on a rock, drop the rifle completely and generally abuse it on the side of a mountain for 10 days and know that its not going anywhere and the POA/POI isn't going anywhere either.
|
I have no doubt in my mind the pricey scopes would have a marked difference in light transmission. I just have doubts that under 99% of shooting scenarios in the field that the difference would be the deciding factor of whether or not the deer hits the turf. I have had my 270 for 10-11 years and the wife has been shooting hers for 8. We have had a couple bumps of the scope and every fall we are still bang on 2" high at 100yards.
|
03-13-2018, 05:54 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12
|
|
Generally, the fixed scopes cost less money than variables. I put a $450 SWFA SS 10x42 on my 338 and it works like a charm. I would not trade it for any SFP scope that goes to $1200-1500.
|
03-13-2018, 06:23 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,130
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by madball
Having looked through both, the Bushnell on your wife's Savage and the 3200 series really aren't that far apart on the quality spectrum as far as light transmission goes. You would notice a difference between your 3200 and a Leupold VX-6 or something like a Schmidt and Bender.
Another big difference for me with high end optics is that I can slip and smack the scope on a rock, drop the rifle completely and generally abuse it on the side of a mountain for 10 days and know that its not going anywhere and the POA/POI isn't going anywhere either.
|
I don't think anyone would argue you will see a difference, but for shooting up to 400yds. (the OP) you will not see enough of a difference by jumping to a scope in the 1000+range to justify the 2,3 or 4 times the cost.
|
03-13-2018, 07:17 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Location
Posts: 4,961
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobalong
I don't think anyone would argue you will see a difference, but for shooting up to 400yds. (the OP) you will not see enough of a difference by jumping to a scope in the 1000+range to justify the 2,3 or 4 times the cost.
|
My 130 grain Hornady American Whitetail in 270 calibre drops 19.3 inches at 400 yards. Average Whitetail brisket being 17 to 18 inches tall. I'm sorry but I can't see most people holding a whole brisket height high above the vitals with an incredible amount of success. And I've seen a lot of different people shoot to varying degrees out to 200, 300 yards. Taking a flyer 8 or 9 inches above the back of a Whitetail deer at 400 yards would be a very low probability shot in my opinion. I could see a fixed retical out to 300 yards where the OP has an argument. But 400 yards plus is a different ball game. For a mere $600 extra, the retical that I bought (rapid z-conquest) takes all the guesswork out of elevation estimating. Hold on fur and fire. Same with ballistic matching turrets. It's a huge difference in accuracy. I will gladly pay 50-70% more for no guesswork. Bonus is you typically get better construction and better glass by doing so. That's three major positives to dig a little deeper into the Wallet for a better scope
|
03-13-2018, 07:31 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 4,427
|
|
This is the same argument you hear from the rim fire guy's IT is only a .22...
I buy the best I can afford for all my rifles.....but I have a lot of rifles so $2000+ dollar scopes are out for all but my target rifles....I have use some "cheaper" variables and as another poster mentioned my point of impact changed a LOT, when cranking through the magnification settings....so now on all my big game rifles I shoot fixed power scopes.
On my varmint guns I shoot fixed, as well as mid range variables ($500-$800) but mostly they stay on one power setting for most of there time in the field BUT when all you can see is a head at 200...the extra power comes in handy.
IF I could afford better optics...I would.
__________________
Trades I would interested in:
- Sightron rifle scopes, 4.5x14x42mm or 4x16x42mm
especially! with the HHR reticle. (no duplex pls.)
- older 6x fixed scopes with fine X or target dot.
|
03-13-2018, 07:55 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,130
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildwoods
My 130 grain Hornady American Whitetail in 270 calibre drops 19.3 inches at 400 yards. Average Whitetail brisket being 17 to 18 inches tall. I'm sorry but I can't see most people holding a whole brisket height high above the vitals with an incredible amount of success. And I've seen a lot of different people shoot to varying degrees out to 200, 300 yards. Taking a flyer 8 or 9 inches above the back of a Whitetail deer at 400 yards would be a very low probability shot in my opinion. I could see a fixed retical out to 300 yards where the OP has an argument. But 400 yards plus is a different ball game. For a mere $600 extra, the retical that I bought (rapid z-conquest) takes all the guesswork out of elevation estimating. Hold on fur and fire. Same with ballistic matching turrets. It's a huge difference in accuracy. I will gladly pay 50-70% more for no guesswork. Bonus is you typically get better construction and better glass by doing so. That's three major positives to dig a little deeper into the Wallet for a better scope
|
400 would be a stretch for holdover......agreed, but if your load matches up with a BDC reticle it could still be done with accuracy.
|
03-13-2018, 08:49 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 718
|
|
Some are glass fetishists, others don't appear to appreciate much by way of difference in glass v $$$ seems to be. For me, I prefer to shoot two eyes open and use as little magnification as needs be for the shot. I typically do not shoot much in places where longer (400+) type shots would be something I look to execute on Game. Also preferring a simple recticle (crosshairs only please) and simpler glass that my eyes are good with looking through comfortably I find I really don't need to spend all that much on a scope. Doesn't mean there surely aren't some VERY tempting high $$$ out there!
Seems to be we've got it better than ever when it comes to obtaining a quality scope. The $1500 scope of decades past can now be had for $400 or less. As always, price figures and what whomever figures represents a good value are subject to change.
__________________
Balls and Spirit!!!
|
03-13-2018, 09:01 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: south calgary
Posts: 2,280
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobalong
I don't think anyone would argue you will see a difference, but for shooting up to 400yds. (the OP) you will not see enough of a difference by jumping to a scope in the 1000+range to justify the 2,3 or 4 times the cost.
|
There is a huge difference between a 320.00 3200 and a 600.00 zeiss conquest,,huge and very much worth the difference. I have them both and they can not be compared
|
03-13-2018, 09:02 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,985
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by radubc
Generally, the fixed scopes cost less money than variables. I put a $450 SWFA SS 10x42 on my 338 and it works like a charm. I would not trade it for any SFP scope that goes to $1200-1500.
|
The fixed scopes used to cost less but now it is difficult to find a good fixed and when one does it is quite often more than a variable. Leupolds fixed 4s and 6s often cost more than a vx-1 and sometimes more than some vx- IIs.
|
03-14-2018, 09:57 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 78
|
|
About the same... price does not cut it so much as what are you going to use it for...
|
03-15-2018, 10:36 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: 00
Posts: 507
|
|
Depends what I'm doing, I used to hunt big game with a 1938 mosin nagant with fog proof, water proof, scratch proof, anti glare iron sights! I could take a moose or deer out to 200 yards with that gun! But no longer have it.
but when hunting coyotes at long range...
Small target and extended range, yes I like good glass to make a shot that would otherwise be a pass.
|
03-15-2018, 11:15 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 311
|
|
I don't get too hung up on glass quality in a rifle scope. Something middle of the line (~$500) is fine. In my opinion I need the best quality glass in my binos or spotter, to see fine details in antlers or horns.
Once I know the animal is a shooter, I don't need to count points in my scope, it just needs to be clear enough to make a safe shot at last light.
|
03-15-2018, 12:30 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Beaumont
Posts: 3,395
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fast_pass88
I don't get too hung up on glass quality in a rifle scope. Something middle of the line (~$500) is fine. In my opinion I need the best quality glass in my binos or spotter, to see fine details in antlers or horns.
Once I know the animal is a shooter, I don't need to count points in my scope, it just needs to be clear enough to make a safe shot at last light.
|
That's basically how I look at it too. I have spend 3x as much on my binos than my scope. The scope holds zero, is repeatable and has good clarity and light gathering but it's not top of the line. My binos are of higher quality for sure.
__________________
The kill is the satisfying, indeed essential, conclusion to a successful hunt. But, I take no pleasure in the act itself. One does not hunt in order to kill, but kills in order to have hunted. Then why do I hunt? I hunt for the same reason my well-fed cat hunts...because I must, because it is in the blood, because I am the decendent of a thousand generations of hunters. I hunt because I am a hunter.- Finn Aagard
|
03-15-2018, 01:08 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: near Calgary
Posts: 6,689
|
|
What ever works for you
many years ago I bought my first rifle and the only scope I could afford after spending all my money on the rifle was a cheap Bushnell scope chief 3-9. Still have that rifle although I think I updated the scope after nearly 10 years of successfully harvesting many small and large game animals. About the time I moved to Alberta my neighbor convinced me that this was not a one rifle province where the 270 would do for all animals and convinced me I needed to buy his surplus to him custom made 22-250 (250 varmint in those days) which featured the state of the art Weaver K8 scope of the 60's. I recall the focal length on that scope was so bad that solid on a bipod on the fenceline looking for a coyote in a stubble field at 200 yards I had to manually move the scope to and from my eye to avoid getting a large black hole sight picture. I killed that coyote just fine but thinking back on the quality it was like looking through a keyhole into a bright light to focus on a target made even more difficult if it was moving. those days are long gone and we have many lower priced and intermediate quality that now serve the purpose since those days. My son has been the recipient of many of my old Vari X 2 and even 3 scopes over the years as I upgraded to 30 mm tubes and Argon filled scopes. He is just as pleased to own 20 year old technology that still gets the job done until he can afford better. Watching a valley a few years ago 5 cow elk came out of the trees 500 yards below our lookout and since we were already prone we looked at them through the scopes on our rifles and then traded scopes. When he saw the sight picture through the argon filled 4.5-14 30 mm tube compared to his varix 3 on 10 power all he could say was "wow".
You dont need it to be successful but it sure is nice when you have it. At my age with old eyes I could not go back to the lower quality scopes I once used and am glad the technological advances have made up for deteriorating vision.
__________________
a hunting we will go!!!!!!
|
03-15-2018, 01:45 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Jasper
Posts: 839
|
|
Lots of fellas focusing on “as long is I shoot less than x distance a moderate price scope performs well enough”. I think that it’s light gathering and transmission that allows the highest end scopes to perform best. Distance of the shot, while not irrelevant, is not my top concern when choosing optics.
In low light scenarios, like dense Bush, and at dawn/dusk the high priced optics really make the difference.
In jurisdictions that allow shooting earlier/later than our 30/30min rule, the German optics (by this I mean the top end companies worldwide, not just Germany) are critical. So I think that in Alberta the mantra of spend more on optics than on your rifle is a bit bogus.
That said, call me a hypocrite because my hunting rigs carry Nikon Monarch, Zeiss, and two Swaros
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
03-15-2018, 02:12 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 940
|
|
I usually base it on the quality of the rifle. High end rifles have high end scopes and visa versa. Now saying that I have a browning A bolt in a 243 with a 3-9 rifleman leupold with the multi cross hairs. It’s very accurate out to 600 yards. So u don’t have to spend a lot of money to be accurate at times.
|
03-15-2018, 02:16 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Rocky View County
Posts: 633
|
|
I'd be in the boat of spending what I deem "necessary" for an optic, and nothing more. I've yet to spend $350+ for a rifle scope, regardless of how much I spent on the firearm, and in 20+ years hunting have yet to have an issue of any kind. Treat things well, and they will do the same for you.
Theory: spend the time (and money) on learning to shoot properly/comfortably.
Vortex, Redfield, and Bushnell Elite are the brands on my current rifles.
|
03-15-2018, 02:45 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: onoway, Ab
Posts: 7,236
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fwee6
I'd be in the boat of spending what I deem "necessary" for an optic, and nothing more. I've yet to spend $350+ for a rifle scope, regardless of how much I spent on the firearm, and in 20+ years hunting have yet to have an issue of any kind. Treat things well, and they will do the same for you.
Theory: spend the time (and money) on learning to shoot properly/comfortably.
Vortex, Redfield, and Bushnell Elite are the brands on my current rifles.
|
I guess if you have never spent more than $350 on a scope I suspect you probably don’t know what you are missing.
|
03-15-2018, 04:24 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Drayton Valley, AB
Posts: 696
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fwee6
I'd be in the boat of spending what I deem "necessary" for an optic, and nothing more. I've yet to spend $350+ for a rifle scope, regardless of how much I spent on the firearm, and in 20+ years hunting have yet to have an issue of any kind. Treat things well, and they will do the same for you.
Theory: spend the time (and money) on learning to shoot properly/comfortably.
Vortex, Redfield, and Bushnell Elite are the brands on my current rifles.
|
I am in the same boat after 30+ yrs of hunting and never had an issue with my $200-$350 scopes. I own a couple full custom rifles and I have tried and compared my present Nikon, Redfield, Minox scopes to those costing 3 or 4 times as much and can't justify the expense. Two hunting partners have scopes in the $1500 range, Zeiss, Quigley Ford and Huskemaw and from comparing their scopes to my scopes at first and last light and don't see a noticeable difference, although their scopes are all nice.
Last edited by abhunter8; 03-15-2018 at 04:30 PM.
|
03-15-2018, 04:25 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,985
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokinyotes
I guess if you have never spent more than $350 on a scope I suspect you probably don’t know what you are missing.
|
Well, he probably would never miss the extra money he would have spent if he would have paid more.
|
03-15-2018, 07:10 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dreadful Valley
Posts: 14,775
|
|
Too much time spent pontificating, and not enough time spent actually shooting.
Most wannabe hyper typer sniper types couldn’t wring the best outta fixed 6 power scope on their best day.
The nuances of harvesting game at extended ranges are so mis represented it’s almost criminal.
__________________
There are no absolutes
|
03-15-2018, 07:24 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,773
|
|
Someone once said to me that a rule of thumb states, "What you spend on a rifle you should spend the same on optics". Not sure about his line of reasoning...
|
03-15-2018, 08:04 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 11,933
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokinyotes
I guess if you have never spent more than $350 on a scope I suspect you probably don’t know what you are missing.
|
I think the same of a good quality walleye rod. I can't tell you how many guys say their $30 Canadian Tire special catch just fine - yet they have no idea how many nibbles they might actually be missing.
I look at optics in a similar way - and I probably spend more than most - but if it means having a better, clearer look at what I'm trying to shoot - and it holds it's zero - and I'm confident in it despite the price tag ..... I'm happy.
|
03-15-2018, 08:31 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 128
|
|
I put inexpensive Vortex Crossfires on most of my rifles and I have nothing to say. I love my cheap scopes, they are clear and hard to beat warranty, and at the end of the day the deer/moose don't see a difference.
I also have a 2000$ scope that I tend to leave in the safe so...
|
03-15-2018, 08:41 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Location
Posts: 4,961
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by EZM
I think the same of a good quality walleye rod. I can't tell you how many guys say their $30 Canadian Tire special catch just fine - yet they have no idea how many nibbles they might actually be missing.
I look at optics in a similar way - and I probably spend more than most - but if it means having a better, clearer look at what I'm trying to shoot - and it holds it's zero - and I'm confident in it despite the price tag ..... I'm happy.
|
Absolutely perfect analogy. I was once a weekend warrior who thought my old fibreglass rod was awesome. Till I tried a higher quality walleye rig. My bushnell legend 7 power was all I thought I needed. The upgrade has been night and day.
|
03-15-2018, 09:36 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,985
|
|
I used to be a bit of a scope snob. Usually the minimum I would allow myself to be seen with was something with a big fat gold ring and the fatter the gold the better.
Now I have an attitude more like Scruffee. Vortex is a good bang for the buck and since I do not keep my rifles very long Vortex work fine for this meat hunter. I have no complaints and my last moose and elk and a handful of deer have no complaints as well..
Buy whatever makes you happy. I will not look down on anyone who is more economical and I sure as heck do not look up to those and respect more those that spend more.
|
03-16-2018, 08:01 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 928
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by EZM
I think the same of a good quality walleye rod. I can't tell you how many guys say their $30 Canadian Tire special catch just fine - yet they have no idea how many nibbles they might actually be missing.
I look at optics in a similar way - and I probably spend more than most - but if it means having a better, clearer look at what I'm trying to shoot - and it holds it's zero - and I'm confident in it despite the price tag ..... I'm happy.
|
Bang on. I won a remington 783 in 308 last year in a door prize draw and immediately put a Zeiss conquest on it. I wouldn't put cheap glass on anything I spent to many years as a kids staring through a cheap fogged up Bushnell on a 303. Bushnell isn't even a consideration for me.
|
03-16-2018, 08:51 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dreadful Valley
Posts: 14,775
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerThomson
Bang on. I won a remington 783 in 308 last year in a door prize draw and immediately put a Zeiss conquest on it. I wouldn't put cheap glass on anything I spent to many years as a kids staring through a cheap fogged up Bushnell on a 303. Bushnell isn't even a consideration for me.
|
You do know that Bushnell comes in a pletoria of different lines.
Buy cheap and you’ll get cheap crap. Invest in a better product line, and you’ll see a much better product. The oldish 4200 and 6500 and the newer Elite lines are solid performers.
Nowadays I’m swayed by brands like Nikon, and Sightron, best bang for your dollar. IMO.
I am not a Vortex fan, having seeing a disproportionate number of failures for me to not stake the outcome of a hunt or a match on their hap hazard QA & QC.
Sure you can dress a $400 entry level rifle with optics worth double the rifles price. But I could also put Y rated tires on the wife’s mini van, but it still is just a mini van.
I’d a put a Sightron S2, or a Nikon Monarch 3 on that 783, but that’s my opinion.
What ever puts a tilt in yer kilt, as they say.
__________________
There are no absolutes
Last edited by Dick284; 03-16-2018 at 09:02 AM.
|
03-16-2018, 09:49 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 3,480
|
|
Having shot thousands of rounds over the years, I am beyond certain that I no longer practice enough to attempt shots much beyond 200 yards. I can hit a pie plate 100% of the time with absolute certainty out to 200 with my Bushnell Elite 3200s, 4200s or VX2 Leupold. I also have never had one of these cheap scopes fail right back to the Bausch and Lomb, Vari X days.
I do not push legal light and have never had even the slightest problem seeing and hitting animals through my scopes. I am also certain that I hear as many shots in the 1/2 hour before and after legal light as the first and last 1/2 hour of legal light. Perhaps that is a factor in the equation for some, although I am sure none of AOs fine members would partake in such behavior.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:02 AM.
|