Firearms Talk banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,746 Posts
Adjustable zooms, and lens size.

A 3x9x40 is a scope that can adjust from 3x zoom up to 9 x zoom and the lens is 40mm.
A 4x32 is a scope permanently set at 4x zoom and has a 32mm lens.
And the list goes on
2x7x40
4x12x44
6x16x50

Often larger lenses are better at dark or low light conditions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
536 Posts
Adjustable zooms, and lens size.

A 3x9x40 is a scope that can adjust from 3x zoom up to 9 x zoom and the lens is 40mm.
A 4x32 is a scope permanently set at 4x zoom and has a 32mm lens.
And the list goes on
2x7x40
4x12x44
6x16x50

Often larger lenses are better at dark or low light conditions.
This is a good explanation of the basics, there is a lot to scopes but this is a darn good start.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,674 Posts
A good rule of thumb:

The scope should cost about the same as the rifle it's mounted on.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
locutus said:
A good rule of thumb:

The scope should cost about the same as the rifle it's mounted on.:)
Why???

What does matching price points of two entirely different products accomplish?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,746 Posts
You can't shoot what you can't see. And you can see a whole lot better with nicer optics
that is true. however, there are a lot of GREAT scopes for a 1/3 or even a 1/4 of what the rifle they end up sitting on costs. it really depends on magnifacation,clarity, and desired usage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,526 Posts
jjfuller1 said:
that is true. however, there are a lot of GREAT scopes for a 1/3 or even a 1/4 of what the rifle they end up sitting on costs. it really depends on magnifacation,clarity, and desired usage.
That is very true. Nikon is a great example of that
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
ShagNasty1001 said:
You can't shoot what you can't see. And you can see a whole lot better with nicer optics
This is true enough but, it still doesn't explain why a scope should cost the same as the rifle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,526 Posts
lucznik said:
This is true enough but, it still doesn't explain why a scope should cost the same as the rifle.
Well would you rather have a TC Encore and put say a Nikon Buckmaster 3-9x40 and go hunt and have to go home at 6 because its getting to dark or would you rather put a Zeiss 3-9x40 for 400 more and be able to hunt out until 7 or so? That's just the way I see it. Plus they are more durable and dependable when you are at full magnification, they won't be as fuzzy. They utilize the rifle to its full potential
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,746 Posts
example: you wouldnt buy a lamborghini, then go and put 87 octane, and chevy cobalt tires on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
ShagNasty1001 said:
Well would you rather have a TC Encore and put say a Nikon Buckmaster 3-9x40 and go hunt and have to go home at 6 because its getting to dark or would you rather put a Zeiss 3-9x40 for 400 more and be able to hunt out until 7 or so? That's just the way I see it. Plus they are more durable and dependable when you are at full magnification, they won't be as fuzzy. They utilize the rifle to its full potential
Well, I suppose that's one way to look at it... It still doesn't explain why rifle price should determine scope price. After all, using your logic, that Zeiss would allow you to hunt just as long even if it were mounted on a $200 H&R single shot rifle.

On the other hand, many mid-priced scopes offer performance that even your Zeiss can't beat. My .264 Win Mag is a Winchester M70. I inherited it so; I don't know what it cost originally but, a similar M70 today goes for about $800 new. The scope I have mounted on that gun is a 6.5-20x44 Vortex Viper for which I paid $300 NiB. This scope "punches way above its weight."

The notion that gun price should be the (or even a) determining factor for scope price is just pure sophistry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,526 Posts
lucznik said:
Well, I suppose that's one way to look at it... It still doesn't explain why rifle price should determine scope price. After all, using your logic, that Zeiss would allow you to hunt just as long even if it were mounted on a $200 H&R single shot rifle.

On the other hand, many mid-priced scopes offer performance that even your Zeiss can't beat. My .264 Win Mag is a Winchester M70. I inherited it so; I don't know what it cost originally but, a similar M70 today goes for about $800 new. The scope I have mounted on that gun is a 6.5-20x44 Vortex Viper for which I paid $300 NiB. This scope "punches way above its weight."

The notion that gun price should be the (or even a) determining factor for scope price is just pure sophistry.
Next time you're at your LGS, go look at the scopes and point them in the darkest corner in the ceiling and see which one lets in more light and which is clearer at full magnification. I'm not saying there aren't great scopes for a lesser price such as vortex or Nikon but I'm not going to put a $300 dollar scope on a rifle I'm going to be shooting at long ranges. For the average hunter, a Nikon or vortex or leupold work great who usually won't shoot past 400 yards, but when really stretching it out there whether hunting or target shooting, I'd rather spend a little extra for a Nightforce or really nice Vortex, Burris or Trijicon. For me, I like to spend my money and get the best out there (perks of being single :p ) so ill spend the extra money
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,674 Posts
lucznik;1138224 The notion that gun price should be the (or even a) determining factor for scope price is just pure sophistry.[/QUOTE said:
The mustang is a good sports car.

Why on earth does a Ferrari or Lamborghini cost more???

Think about what you posted for a moment.

To say that a Vortex is all the average shooter needs, would be a defensible argument. Once a year deer hunters would be wasting money buying a S&B.

But to argue that most high dollar scopes somehow aren't higher overall quality than economy models is ludicrous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
Not sure where you got that "quote" from me but, I never typed it...

However, you need to go back and re-read what I did type. I didn't say that high dollar scopes won't in some way perform better than budget scopes. I said only that:

1) they won't necessarily add any additional shooting time to your hunt.

And

2) that the cost of your rifle should not be the (or even a) determining factor in the cost of your scope.

All the blustering about whether a budget-class scope can perform as well as a high dollar scope is entirely immaterial and completely misses the point of the question.

Thus, I'm still waiting for someone to kindly explain any logical reason why the cost of one's rifle should serve to indicate an appropriate price point for the cost of one's scope.

For example:

If I have a $200 H&R single shot, am I committing some heinous crime to mount a $500 Leupold VX-2 or VX-3 or on it?

On the other hand, if I have a $3000 Cooper custom rifle, is a $1000+ Leupold VX-7 not classy enough for such a gun? What about a $2000 Swarovski? Even it doesn't cost the same as the rifle...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,504 Posts
lucznik said:
Not sure where you got that "quote" from me but, I never typed it...

However, you need to go back and re-read what I did type. I didn't say that high dollar scopes won't in some way perform better than budget scopes. I said only that:

1) they won't necessarily add any additional shooting time to your hunt.

And

2) that the cost of your rifle should not be the (or even a) determining factor in the cost of your scope.

All the blustering about whether a budget-class scope can perform as well as a high dollar scope is entirely immaterial and completely misses the point of the question.

Thus, I'm still waiting for someone to kindly explain any logical reason why the cost of one's rifle should serve to indicate an appropriate price point for the cost of one's scope.

For example:

If I have a $200 H&R single shot, am I committing some heinous crime to mount a $500 Leupold VX-2 or VX-3 or on it?

On the other hand, if I have a $3000 Cooper custom rifle, is a $1000+ Leupold VX-7 not classy enough for such a gun? What about a $2000 Swarovski? Even it doesn't cost the same as the rifle...
I like this guy. No homo.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,674 Posts
lucznik;1139748 1) they won't necessarily add any additional shooting time to your hunt. And 2) that the cost of your rifle should not be the (or even a) determining factor in the cost of your scope. ...[/QUOTE said:
I understand your point.

I think the point most folks were trying to make, is that it seems a bit silly to spend $1000 or more on a top quality rifle and then put an "el cheapo" $200 K-Mart scope on it. When you spend that much money on the rifle, why not get a sight that will allow you to use it to it's full potential?

And I disagree that top quality glass will not add time at dawn or dusk. I've owned more than a dozen cheapies over the years, (regretted buying every damned one of them) and I can guarantee you that my Swarovski will give 15-20 more minutes at dawn and at dusk. Even compared to my medium, quality Nikons and Leupolds.

As I said earlier, for the once a year deer hunter, a $250-$300 scope is fine. But if you have a top quality rifle, you really should consider a top quality sight for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
Again, not my quote...

We'll just have to agree to disagree as to the relative quality differences between high-dollar and mid-priced scopes. I like good optics but, I don't like paying premiums for brand prestige.

But again, that's not really the question. What I'm trying to understand is the logic that dictates that the cost of the gun is a primary determinant for the cost of a scope.

I'm not suggesting putting a $100 Simmons on a custom rifle or a $2000 Swaro on an H&R. Those extremes make sense to me but, the middle of that spectrum is where I'm concerned.

In this, non-extremes, area where a high-quality rifle has been selected, it seems to me the scope choice should be based upon an examination of the scopes' various qualities (optical and physical) and the individual's available budget - which I would suggest it wise to usually try to stretch as far as possible, without incurring unwise levels of debt.

The price tag of the rifle should have little or no bearing on the question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
Jimminey Christmas!

I think we're only talking about a general rule of thumb, here.

In simple terms, the better the rifle (i.e., presumably more expensive) the better the scope (again, presumably more expensive) required to get the most performance out of the higher quality rifle. Perhaps the better scope will stand up to more challenging environmental conditions, or heavy recoil, will have better lens coatings, or any number of factors that justify paying more for a particular scope.

Perhaps the adage isn't as applicable for some of today's offerings as in years ago. Relatively inexpensive yet good products (think Savage) can shoot sub-MOA right out of the box. But if I'm investing my hard-earaned dollars in an upscale, high-quality rifle I'll be proud to shoot and own, I won't be sticking an economy scope on it.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top