Thread: Super budget scopes worth a try, or not?

Over many years of hunting and shooting competition , glass is the best but biggest investment you can make .
“ The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence “ attitude that drives new rifle purchases has been a constant battle for me and many rifles have come and gone , buttttt.....
I’m a firm believer in buy the best glass you can afford and when my rifle has fallen out of favour and been traded the scope is never included in the sale because it is usually of a quality and is of performance standard that will stand the test of time and will outperform the new rifle , it really is a buy once situation .
When you are still using the same scope or binoculars five or ten years later the true cost of ownership gets more affordable by the minute.
Everyone is different but in my opinion “ Glass “ is not an area to cut corners .

Ken

If you are aiming around the $500 mark you could probably pick up a vx3 3.5-10 second hand on here or trademe with a lifetime warranty. They are a wicked scope. And from memory you were looking at a 7mm rem? For a little more you could get a 4.5-14 more suited to distance. Some of the boys on here swear by the weaver super slams also.

Expensive does not always mean better if the features you're getting in return are of little use to you.

I think a good rule of thumb is to pay as much as it takes in order to get the 'best' version of whatever feature(s) you want/require.

If paying more means some of those features are compromised by features you don't exactly 'need', then you're not making your $ work in your favour.

Echoing the poster above, I'd suggest taking a look at a Leupold VX3. They can be had for $500-800. Simple, durable, great warranty, and good glass.

Then, if you decide to get into long-range/low light shooting sometime down the track, you'll be able to buy that expen$ive scope and know exactly where all that money is going.

Originally Posted by uk_exile

Cheers. I wasn't thinking of this scope in particular. It was an example and it more just a general question about what really needed ....
That's 10 times the prices of these cheapies and 4 times the $500 scopes that possibly (probably?) still be ok for high country 400-600m shots.
So much to learn!

400m is difficult and you won't be able to do it reliably with a $500 scope. Try it on gongs and see. To shoot an animal at 500m you would need a scope in the $2000 to $4000 range. It needs accurate adjustments tracking,parallax , zero stability with power change and to a lesser extent sharpness at high mag at least 12x. Plus it needs to withstand several thousand practice rounds.

For a $500 scope 250m is a reasonable expectation.

Weaver superslam are an example of a good budget scope with features you need for 500m shooting. They are more like $1500 landed in NZ I believe. They compromise on brightness and field of view but will do the job. Another budget brand with a very good reputation no frills and good features is the American SWFA which are bigger and heavier but rugged.

I have some of the cheapest Nikon scopes, around $150 and they actually track accurately. Metal on metal internals I think.

Originally Posted by uk_exile

Cheers. I wasn't thinking of this scope in particular. It was an example and it more just a general question about what really needed as there's such a massive spread in prices.
I don't have any gear yet and first thoughts had been $1500 new rifle plus $500 scope but seems many shooting open high country opt for $1500 - $2000 scopes. Like VX-5HD.
That's 10 times the prices of these cheapies and 4 times the $500 scopes that possibly (probably?) still be ok for high country 400-600m shots.
So much to learn!

To be honest, the question is way too generic, it is not possible to address it with a yes or no answer.

First it may help to dissect why and what in a scope that costs money. btw I am no expert, but I have been a keen consumer for many years.

1. Elements. the elements inside any optic instrument can be very cheap or expensive. Material obviously play a big part. I am not actual sure if high end scopes use expensive glass like camera lenses and binoculars, or just stick to high end plastic, given the recoil and the way guns are generally used in the wild. Coating is another big thing. High end coating is very slow and very expensive. So in the end the question is how much better Image quality are you willing to pay for. For rifle scopes, a lot of people actual take the view that image quality is not that big of a deal (as big as camera lens or binoculars) because you only need the scope to be clear enough to see the target. Usually scopes made of even the cheapest coating on the cheapest plastic lens will be good enough for hunting targets during the day. As light level fall, your view through the scope gets darker. better Elements with better coating will have higher light transmission rate and in turn allow you see better in dusk. However, the fact is the difference in light transmission between expensive glass and cheap glass is not big. I have not seen light transmission tested across different scopes but I can draw some comparison from camera lenses. Camera lens' aperture number is the ratio of the aperture to focal length, and that ratio directly affects amoutn of light that passes the lens and projects to the film (or sensor, for digital cameras). If you compare, 5 different 85mm lenses from different price points ranging from top end (8,000 for Zeiss Otus 85 1.4) to bottom end (400 for Canon EF 85 1.8), all set at F2.8 (same ratio, same aperture opening width), you will see probably less than 10% difference in light transmission.

2. Objective Size. Another way to increase light transmission is to increase the diameter of the front element, which is called the object lens. High end scopes this usually result in a few hundred dollars of price increase. Most common objective size is 40mm. larger versions are usually 50mm. A few speciality scopes go to 56mm. Usually increase in objective size also increase in weight substantially. Low end scopes tend to sport large objectives to show good value.

3. Internal mechanics . The internals are probably the most important part of a scope. it is also the part which the manufactures tells you the least. We know a few things: 1. the better the materials the better, it results in the more accurate the clicks, longer lasting internals, and less likely to go out of zero through knocks and bumps and recoil. 2. The larger the internals the better, same benefit as before. 3. Design choice is very important, some choose to have more clicks but smaller internals, some choose to have larger internals and sacrifice adjustable range. Because there is no way to tell what choices of design or materials the manufactures have made, apart from adjustable range which is usually stated, you really just have to make an educated guess based on the manufacture's reputation. Even high end scopes do not get right all the time. See this article, even big names like Nightforce, S&B, and Zeiss are a bit off. Second tier brands like Vortex and Bushnell are further off again. Yet this part is where the cheap scopes are likely to save cost because the relevant specs are not disclosed.

4. Outer body. Most modern scopes, even the cheap ones, use metal tube, There are some quality difference in metal they use but usually even the cheap ones use OK aluminium. scope bodies are not that complex so even the cheap ones usually machined well enough.

5. marketing and warranty cost. obviously no brand cheap scopes save on both fronts.

Whether a low end is worth buying comes down to your use. If you do not intend to use the turrets after you zeroed the rifle, and only intends to use the scope on a 22 LR for hunting, and intends baby the rifle. Cheap unbranded scopes actually will do OK. But for you 400-600m shots, you will be shooting at least 308 or something similar, you will have no confidence that cheap scopes will hold zero and you be certain that its tracking will be way off.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

To be honest, the question is way too generic, it is not possible to address it with a yes or no answer.

First it may help to dissect why and what in a scope that costs money. btw I am no expert, but I have been a keen consumer for many years.

1. Elements. the elements inside any optic instrument can be very cheap or expensive. Material obviously play a big part. I am not actual sure if high end scopes use expensive glass like camera lenses and binoculars, or just stick to high end plastic, given the recoil and the way guns are generally used in the wild. Coating is another big thing. High end coating is very slow and very expensive. So in the end the question is how much better Image quality are you willing to pay for. For rifle scopes, a lot of people actual take the view that image quality is not that big of a deal (as big as camera lens or binoculars) because you only need the scope to be clear enough to see the target. Usually scopes made of even the cheapest coating on the cheapest plastic lens will be good enough for hunting targets during the day. As light level fall, your view through the scope gets darker. better Elements with better coating will have higher light transmission rate and in turn allow you see better in dusk. However, the fact is the difference in light transmission between expensive glass and cheap glass is not big. I have not seen light transmission tested across different scopes but I can draw some comparison from camera lenses. Camera lens' aperture number is the ratio of the aperture to focal length, and that ratio directly affects amoutn of light that passes the lens and projects to the film (or sensor, for digital cameras). If you compare, 5 different 85mm lenses from different price points ranging from top end (8,000 for Zeiss Otus 85 1.4) to bottom end (400 for Canon EF 85 1.8), all set at F2.8 (same ratio, same aperture opening width), you will see probably less than 10% difference in light transmission.

2. Objective Size. Another way to increase light transmission is to increase the diameter of the front element, which is called the object lens. High end scopes this usually result in a few hundred dollars of price increase. Most common objective size is 40mm. larger versions are usually 50mm. A few speciality scopes go to 56mm. Usually increase in objective size also increase in weight substantially. Low end scopes tend to sport large objectives to show good value.

3. Internal mechanics . The internals are probably the most important part of a scope. it is also the part which the manufactures tells you the least. We know a few things: 1. the better the materials the better, it results in the more accurate the clicks, longer lasting internals, and less likely to go out of zero through knocks and bumps and recoil. 2. The larger the internals the better, same benefit as before. 3. Design choice is very important, some choose to have more clicks but smaller internals, some choose to have larger internals and sacrifice adjustable range. Because there is no way to tell what choices of design or materials the manufactures have made, apart from adjustable range which is usually stated, you really just have to make an educated guess based on the manufacture's reputation. Even high end scopes do not get right all the time. See this article, even big names like Nightforce, S&B, and Zeiss are a bit off. Second tier brands like Vortex and Bushnell are further off again. Yet this part is where the cheap scopes are likely to save cost because the relevant specs are not disclosed.

4. Outer body. Most modern scopes, even the cheap ones, use metal tube, There are some quality difference in metal they use but usually even the cheap ones use OK aluminium. scope bodies are not that complex so even the cheap ones usually machined well enough.

5. marketing and warranty cost. obviously no brand cheap scopes save on both fronts.

Whether a low end is worth buying comes down to your use. If you do not intend to use the turrets after you zeroed the rifle, and only intends to use the scope on a 22 LR for hunting, and intends baby the rifle. Cheap unbranded scopes actually will do OK. But for you 400-600m shots, you will be shooting at least 308 or something similar, you will have no confidence that cheap scopes will hold zero and you be certain that its tracking will be way off.

How did that Chinese 'scope that you had out being tested work out?

Originally Posted by Tahr

How did that Chinese 'scope that you had out being tested work out?

Pretty good actually. my view remains the same as I had in the review that I had done. It is definitely a low better than the class of scope OP is questioning. At its price, it is really competing against low-mid-end range of big named brands.

Spend less on a second hand rifle so you have more money to spend on optics. I've picked up some pretty good deals on used scopes that will do what you want. Some of the Nikko Stirling are actually quite reasonable at the lower end, with many rate for springer air rifles, so pretty tough. Nikon make pretty good scopes that you could pick up second hand for a good deal. The Nikon Monarch range are pretty good value for what you get.

I've seen the scopes like you linked where the point of impact changes when you change zoom level.

Or! Just hunt with a longbow.

No expensive glass to worry about.

Generally I have found with most things in life you get what you pay for and good and cheap are not generally two words you find together often

a mate got a bushnell & lupy veri power knock off last year , he tried to sell them for around 200 each but no one was really interested so he stuck the lupy on his air rifle 6 shots latter the reticule was moving around lol , then he stuck the Bushnell on a sterling 22 and brought it around to sight it in , im still laughing now , total peace of shit you could hardly see the target 50 meters away and that was on 10 power it had all the fancy dials and changed colour but he wont buy another .

Theres a vx3 on the buy/sell section that would fit your bill perfectly

Someone mentioned you had or were getting a 7mm Rem Mag, I have that caliber and I have put a Swarovski Z 5 with Ballistic turrets on mine and I find it compliments the riffle fine. I did plenty of research on the internet before deciding on my scope which I encourage you to do.

https://southernwild.nz/collections/...nt=20760153665

Here is a link for you to look at so scroll down the page then click on the video, the price is $1990 so although expensive you won't be disappointed as I am shooting out to 500 meters with mine with confidence. Most people say spend twice as much on your optics as your riffle and I would say that's about right.

Good luck with what ever you go for

I've owned a few scopes. Bushnell, Nightforce, SWFA, and a couple of others. When I had my 7.08 bolt action I used a SWFA SS 10X42. I picked it up for around 300 Euros at the time. It certainly wasn't exceptional quality but I could dial it in from 100 to 500mtrs and it would be on the money every time and back to the zero was spot on. For the price I'd certainly buy another if I could find one in NZ. The glass was clear enough.
My Nightforce was a whole different story. Exceptional clear glass and even on the highest mag it was excellent. Used prices on those back 5 years ago were alot cheaper in Europe. I bought mine for 650 euros in perfect condition. You'd be lucky to get one for that price now !