You might get marginally better glass in a high end scope
Marginally better glass? Not IMO. There's a big difference in quality glass and not so good glass. For hunting it is true that often a cheaper scope will do just fine. Even for shooting targets it sometimes works. But not always. I've used a lot of different scopes for target shooting and at distances where you need to see the actual bullet hole a good scope will make a lot of difference. For example a scope I have that will do fine picking up individual objects at 400 yards (like a piece of a broken clay or a chalk target) isn't worth a hoot shooting 100 yard groups because I can't see the bullet holes from my .223. They make small holes and cheaper glass just won't pick up those holes. So I can't tell how to adjust my scope because I can't tell where my bullets are hitting unless I walk the 200 yards to check the target every 5 shots. But I can shoot small targets that I can see with that scope at 400-500 yards. And if I put my Weaver scope on the same rifle it's no trouble at all to see the bullet holes at 100 yards. Glass most certainly does matter. Sometimes it matters more for sure.
BTW I'm not saying more expensive glass is always better. It isn't. But most of the time it is. And I haven't seen a Tasco with good glass in it my entire life and I'm pretty old.
BTW captain. That's a heck of a score on a Weaver scope. 3-9 is always a good choice. It's a versatile scope and it avoids many of the problems with more powerful scopes while still giving good magnification.