How much do you spend on your scope?

[juancarlos]

I was always told to use 75% of your rifle cost on your glass
So $1000 dollar rifle means 750$ scope.
Although that's usually not practical for most.

What is your guys' go to ?

[heretohunt]

These days you can get a damn good scope for around $500. I have yet to see the drawback for the one that I purchased at that price point. I have other scopes that are more expensive and one that is three times that much. I don't really see the value. I would rather put my money into binocular's and most importantly a spotting scope.

[harv3589]

I picked up a like new Leupold FX-3 6x42 for $350 and fits my hunting style perfect. I spend far more time behind my binos so spending the money there is far more important IMO

[Beeman3]

Good glass costs plain and simple. I think it really depends on the rifle and what it will be used for. A $500 dollar scope that will will be dialed up and down lots for long range hunting or F class probably doesn't have repeatability like say a NF, S&B etc. For a hunting rifle that is not dialed there is some good options for $750-1000. That covers the internals, then is the quality of the glass. Compare a high end scope looking directly into the sun or at low light. The difference is huge in my experience. Clarity and light gathering also cost and could cost you the animal of a life time with a cheap scope. as they say. Buy once cry once. A high quality scope will last you a life time.

[elkhunter11]

I have never paid more for a scope than for the rifle the scope is mounted on. You can buy a decent scope for around $500, although I personally choose scopes in the $1000 to $1500 range for my hunting rifles.

[Groundhogger]

I'd say there is no hard/fast rule. The scope I just put on my most recent rifle purchase was 15% the cost of the rifle. The scope I put on my .223 Varmint gun early this spring cost almost 2X what the rifle did. (1.85X to be exact )

The caliber/application sort of dictate what I use and even working within a tight budget, I'd rather save for (what I think is) the best than compromise on the scope. Sometimes, budget will dictate what I START with...sometimes I THINK I have it right then time in the field and experience with other scopes sort of re-shapes my plan. Either way, I'm always wanting the best tool for the job and usually...the scope is planned WITH the rifle, not an afterthought.

[fish_e_o]

the scope makes the gun, the gun doesn't make the scope.

put a $2000 scope on a $300 gun and you'll out shoot people who put a $300 scope on a $2000 rifle.

[spoiledsaskhunter]

....I'm one of the guys who swears by good glass. ANY glass you use should be the highest quality you can possibly afford. every time I go out and use good binos or scopes, I appreciate good optics.

given the options, I would spend more on glass and less on the gun.

[roger]

Originally Posted by juancarlos

I was always told to use 75% of your rifle cost on your glass
So $1000 dollar rifle means 750$ scope.
Although that's usually not practical for most.

What is your guys' go to ?

personally id be looking the other way, $1000 rifle gets a $1500 scope, with rings and bases included. most of the time your scope choice should/will allow you to transfer from gun to gun for the rest of time. spend as much as you can afford. youll rarely hear guys say boy I wish I have broughten a cheaper piece of glass.
for example, $350 gets you a NEAR MFG alphamount or more serious NEAR MFG hardware upwards of double that.
the real question is...what is the weakest link in your firearm?
I would much prefer to own one high end gun (that I can afford) as opposed to 5 middle of the roaders.
Quality over quantity every time.

[propliner]

Originally Posted by spoiledsaskhunter

....I'm one of the guys who swears by good glass. ANY glass you use should be the highest quality you can possibly afford. every time I go out and use good binos or scopes, I appreciate good optics.

given the options, I would spend more on glass and less on the gun.

I agree with this. I spend 1-1.5x the value of the rifle on a scope and never regret it. I also don't hang onto guns that don't shoot accurately enough the make good glass realize ts potential.

[bobtodrick]

Read a good article recently (in a magazine, not online so unfortunately can't link to it) about the differences between 'good' and 'premium' scopes.
In the $500-$1500 price range (where I shop) you get the better Bushnell's, Vortex, Nikon, etc. Most of these are good scopes with decent optics, and more importantly well made turret mechanisms that track well and hold zero.
They went into the internals of that range of scope vs the premium line (NightForce, S&B etc). Discounting the things like zero stops, multi function elevation dials and such the main difference was how the turrets and internal were made. In the 'good' scopes all the internals are made out of a stainless steel with a hard coat (nylon is an absolute no-no). The premium scopes make these parts out of titanium and such...much more expensive.
How it related to the average shooter. After thousands of turret adjustments the hardcoat will wear, causing the turret to lose crispness and it's ability to track precisely.
Will it make a difference to the hunter or target shooter who goes out a couple of times a month to hunt/target shoot. Not likely.
Does it make a difference to a 'professional' who is sitting on a mountain top in Afghanistan for days on end all year long...it very well might.

[YoteStopper]

Depends on what you need out of the optic. Most $500+ glass should give you reliability for hunting rifle setups, although I would stay with Bushnell or Leupold in that range. If the intent is to repeatably and reliably dial your firing solution, not many scopes under $1000 can hold their own. I'm personally using FFP Sightron S3's for my target rifles.

[Okotokian]

I've generally spent between $400 and $700. Less for rimfires. For that I get a decent scope that suits my purposes (casual big game hunting in Alberta one or two months per year, shots under 300 yards, not in ultra-harsh conditions). I readily admit you probably can get more scope for more money, but TO ME, it's not worth the extra expense. It might be well worth it to others.

[6MT]

The most I've spent on one of my scopes is $3659.

[oldgutpile]

I typically pay about the same for the scope as the gun itself. I draw the line at spending over 2000 on scopes. I like quality, but most of my shooting is done under 200 yards. If I need more clarity out past this, I use my binoculars.

[.257Weatherby]

Matching a scope to a rifle is like asking a Ford Pinto to be your cross country expedition machine.
A Wby Vangaurd is close approaching the thousand dollar mark and a Leupold would serve your rifle and you well.
BTW, I am not calling the Wby. Vangaurd a Ford or a Pinto, just a comparison.
Rob

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by juancarlos

I was always told to use 75% of your rifle cost on your glass
So $1000 dollar rifle means 750$ scope.
Although that's usually not practical for most.

What is your guys' go to ?

That may have been the case years ago but I believe the quality of scopes have improved and the price has dropped a bit over the past 20 years ago. For strictly a hunting scope shooting up to 300 yards or so I agree with what many have said......500.00 will get you a good scope for that application.

[Knotter]

If you have great bins, A good scope for $500 would do it. Hopefully you are not studying your target through your scope for too long. A good scope will buy you time in the magic half hour before and after sunset. you wont miss an extra $250 bucks when you fill a tag where you would otherwise be scratching your head.

If your scope is worth more than your binoculars you might want to rethink your purchase.

[Bleat]

Originally Posted by bobalong

That may have been the case years ago but I believe the quality of scopes have improved and the price has dropped a bit over the past 20 years ago. For strictly a hunting scope shooting up to 300 yards or so I agree with what many have said......500.00 will get you a good scope for that application.

I completely agree. To take this one step further in my opinion you should even be able to find a very respectable hunting scope for even less than $500 if you look hard enough....depending on what you're planning on using it for and what's important to you.

A Zeiss Terra 3X (on sale right now for $380 - 3x9x42, or $440 for a 4x12x42), Redfield Revolution ($320) or even Nikon Monarch\ProStaff. The Terra 3X rates nearly the same in low light gathering abilities as some scopes that cost a fair bit more than $500.

The Terra rated very close to the Conquest in light gathering ability in some tests\reviews online and they cost a good deal over $500. I also have hunting partners who use a Terra themselves and they rave about performance.

If it's a beater that's going into the back of your truck that you use to dispatch the odd coyote then you likely don't need a Swarovski or S&B....or any of the above for that matter.

If warranty is important to you and you tend to be a bit hard on gear then maybe a company like Vortex with their zero-haggle warranty appeals more. I think Bushnell is offering a lifetime coverage as well.

Lots of great options these days. Almost too many.

I completely agree that you can get a lot of scope around the $500 range these days and even a hair less if you're a smart shopper.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by Bleat

I completely agree. To take this one step further in my opinion you should even be able to find a very respectable hunting scope for even less than $500 if you look hard enough....depending on what you're planning on using it for and what's important to you.

A Zeiss Terra 3X (on sale right now for $380 - 3x9x42, or $440 for a 4x12x42), Redfield Revolution ($320) or even Nikon Monarch\ProStaff. The Terra 3X rates nearly the same in low light gathering abilities as some scopes that cost a fair bit more than $500.

The Terra rated very close to the Conquest in light gathering ability in some tests\reviews online and they cost a good deal over $500. I also have hunting partners who use a Terra themselves and they rave about performance.

If it's a beater that's going into the back of your truck that you use to dispatch the odd coyote then you likely don't need a Swarovski or S&B....or any of the above for that matter.

If warranty is important to you and you tend to be a bit hard on gear then maybe a company like Vortex with their zero-haggle warranty appeals more. I think Bushnell is offering a lifetime coverage as well.

Lots of great options these days. Almost too many.

I completely agree that you can get a lot of scope around the $500 range these days and even a hair less if you're a smart shopper.

A lot of clarity/low light is dependent on how many coatings the lens' will have. Binos and scopes will all use the term "fully multi coated" which means all glass surfaces must have multiple coatings on each side of every lens in the bino/scope. On higher end scopes "fully multi coated" will have more coatings on all air to glass surfaces. Some of this is what makes up the extra cost as coating lens' is a very time consuming process. The more coatings the more light transmission.

Low light is also very dependent on exit pupil of the device which can change with a scope depending on the zoom power it is on. Your age can also determine your usable exit pupil as most people over 40 have a max. exit pupil of 4 whereas younger people can have an exit pupil of 6 or 7 which makes their eyes capable of using the available light with settings that produce an exit pupil of over 4 such as a zoom power of 6 on a 42mm (exit pupil 7) objective lens scope.

[schreyer]

Whatever a NightForce costs.

[6MT]

yep!

[270person]

Originally Posted by juancarlos

I was always told to use 75% of your rifle cost on your glass
So $1000 dollar rifle means 750$ scope.
Although that's usually not practical for most.

What is your guys' go to ?

Monarch 3 Nikon at $ 500.00 suits me just fine thanks. Have Leupolds in the same range and $100 higher and I don't find them to be as crisp and bright.

P & D is the best Nikon retailer I've found in town and Prophet River is excellent as well.

[Bleat]

Originally Posted by 270person

Monarch 3 Nikon at $ 500.00 suits me just fine thanks. Have Leupolds in the same range and $100 higher and I don't find them to be as crisp and bright.

P & D is the best Nikon retailer I've found in town and Prophet River is excellent as well.

+1 on the Monarch
+1 on P&D

I have one right now on a Vanguard 30-06 and have zero complaints. I'd buy another tomorrow. Clear and bright. Holds zero....and when I purchased P&D had one of the best prices if not the best price in the city......and was under $500

[Mulehahn]

This may sound like blasphemy, but I would much rather see a shooter pick up a used Nikon/Leupold/Bushnell for $300 and put the savings into ammunition. To put it simply, most people don't shoot enough to make the extra $500 to $1000 more worth it. Having looked through a Leupold, Nikons, NightForces, Swaro, etc I can honestly say that the difference of usable lights is a couple of minutes. But if you can't make the shot it doesn't matter. Now, if we are talking about shooting at 500yds+ where an adjustable turret is handy, or target shooting a few times a week where you will constantly adjusting to compensate for wind or something then yes I fully agree it is money well spent. But I personally would much rather see someone take that $500 dollars, buy 10 boxes of premium ammo, learn their gun, learn how it feels, and just become better shots. Their success will increase much more dramatically. Throwing a $2000 scope on a rifle doesn't make it shoot any better; that still falls on the one behind the trigger.

Until his eyesight started to fail him a few years ago my dad was a better shot than I am even today and his rifle/scope combination is older than me.

[waterhaulerhunter]

I have a 350$ pro staff 5 on 2000$ custom 6.5/284 hunting rifle and a 500$ zeiss conquest on 2800$ cooper 280 and there's not a single person that could convince me that those rifles would be anymore effective out to my hunting ranges. I was ringing the 8" gong over and over at 500 yds this morning with the 6.5-284.

[Kurt505]

Eventually all my scopes will be $1100 no matter how much or little my rifle costs.

I use my rifle for hunting, and so far the nicest hunting scope I've found is a Swarovski Z3 3-10x42. It's light weight, it's crisp and clear, it has low enough magnification for bush hunting and high enough power for wide open spaces. If I can't see what I'm shooting with 10x magnification, I won't be taking the shot anyway.

[rpcw]

To me it depends on recoil and how the scope works for your eye.

I shoot custom smokeless muzzloaders. Basically a .458 full formed 300 or 310 grain bullet at up to 3000 fps. Recoil is very stout.

I basically have settled on bushnell elite 4500/6500. $500 to $1000 is spent depending on distance I'm shooting.

For small caliber stuff a simple bushnell trophy works just fine

[juancarlos]

i currently have a nikon monarch on my sako rifle, and no deer has come up to me to see how expensive it was. do i want to upgrade? of course, will i ?
probably eventually. I'm just wondering what the rest of you guys are doing/ using.

[Smokinyotes]

I really like the glass on my NF's but they are heavy. My old vx2 2-7 leupold would probably be just as effective as the nightforces out to 300 yards. If you can afford a $1500 scope for your hunting rifle buy it. If 3-400 bucks is all you can afford buy it. The animals will be just as dead.