Thread: some mothers do have them. What a complete BullSh1tter on tardme...

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

Because a Tikka T3 would probably give a Merkel Helix or Mauser a run for their money for accuracy and function just as reliably and that's all a hunting rifle needs to do. It doesn't need a fancy oil finished walnut stock, meticulous attention to detail or a hand lapped action. That's just nice to have although appreciated by many, including myself. High quality scopes, on the other hand, generally have a definite edge in ruggedness, reliability and low light performance over many of the cheaper brands.

I have had the luxury of trying a couple of those brands of rifles and with scopes on them that made me scared to drop it, a $12k rifle, with a $9k scope, and sorry, there is no Tikka on this earth that could ever get close to that baby by a long way. .But neither is anything else I will ever own. (Its like comparing a Tasco with a Zeiss.....)

As for the comment "High quality scopes, on the other hand, generally have a definite edge in ruggedness, reliability and low light performance over many of the cheaper brands in the most part I agree with you. But it comes at a significant cost increase same as the more expensive rifles.

The reason you use to justify the cheaper rifle can be applied to the scope choice in the same manner as the reason you use to justify a better scope can be applied to someone's rifle choice. In short, your reasoning is exactly what suits a lot of shooters but not all. Some shooters cannot spend $4k on a scope and make do with what fits within their budget. (that includes me)

You would spend $1300 on a rifle rather than $5K because the size of the increase in performance does not match the increase in the price. ("Because a Tikka T3 would probably give a Merkel Helix or Mauser a run for their money for accuracy") To which I would reply, one of my mates Nikko / Howa combo will give any combo a run for their money for accuracy. Last group I saw was 4.6mm at 100m and then hit a magpie at 400. (204 ruger 3 shots not far enough apart to form a clover leaf, more of an odd circle.)

Others simply make the same decision regarding scopes. I can hit most of my targets (Rabbit) at 300m with a $200 scope. Will that number small number of misses justify me spending $2k more on a scope? If I can hit 10% more?, 20% more? Maybe, or maybe I am getting too the limit of my and my rifles capabilities, in which case that $2k buys a lot of ammo and hits a much larger number of rabbits......Way more fun.

As for ruggedness, I can guarantee one thing, if it is a $50 scope or a 5k scope, if you land on it hard enough it will still be broke, and the walk home worrying about how will I find the money to fix it will be way less painful than the other. (though the bruising hurts for a week or two)