Author Topic: 3 little bears - over priced, under priced, & just right (Read 11603 times)

Zachary · « **on:** April 27, 2007, 05:22:09 AM »

So, as the story goes for the 3 little bears, one bed was too hard, one bed was too soft, and the third bed was just right.

Let's apply this to scopes. All scopes should fall under one of these 3 categories: over priced, under priced, and priced just right.

Some of you may be asking, is there such a scope that is UNDER priced? Well, yes, I think so, but before we get to that, then let's talk about the obvious - scopes that are OVER priced.

Of course there are varying degrees to this, but the most overpriced scopes have to be the Swarovski PH, Zeiss VM/V, and the Schmidt & Bender scopes. These are near $2000 scopes (depending on magnification, of course). Are they excellent scopes? Yes. No question. Are they the best scopes? For those who have used them and have compared them to many other scopes (such as myself with some limited experience) I can answer a qualified yes. However, is a Swarovski PH at $2,000 equal, dollar for dollar in terms of quality, over priced? IMHO, heck yea!

What about "mildly" overpriced scopes? Comparatively speaking, I would include all Leupold scopes. For example, a Leupold VX-II is about in the same class as a Nikon Buckmaster and Elite 3200, yet the VX-II is noticeably more expensive.

As for scopes that are priced just right, I would say this group would have to go to the Elite 4200s.

Now, as for scopes that are UNDER priced, I would say this group goes to the Zeiss Conquest (and in particular the 3x-9x-40mm) and the Nikon Monarchs and Nikon Buckmasters (especially the newer Buckmasters with the upgraded optics with 92% light transmission.)

I'm sure that the Die Hard leupold fans are going to have their say, as they have every right to do so. Keep in mind, however, that I also own several leupold scopes. Again, they are very good scopes. I'm just saying that IMHO they are mildly overpriced compared to other scopes in the market.

So, what do you guys think?

Zachary

Cement Man · « **Reply #1 on:** April 27, 2007, 07:12:29 AM »

Zachary,
Great topic! I also think you just lit a match near a gas can - it will be interesting to see the responses you get. In general I agree with you, but I think the issue is defined by value instead of price. If something sells at a given price - from a business perspective it is priced right. Worth is determined by what someone will pay for something. Of course everybody has their own conception of the value of something. I think one thing that skews the clarity of value in optics are the deep discounts, sale prices, wide variety of definitions of lense coatings, "brightness",etc. also - tracking systems, promotional gimmicks, and non-standard testing etc. and the perpetual model changes. It can be hard to make good objective (no pun intended) decisions.
Since I own my own definition and conception of value, I can say that I certainly do agree with some of what you said. I don't think the value of what I get is proportionate to the price in many instances. For instance, although I think the best Euro scopes are indeed superb, I don't value them 4 times more than my 4200 Bushnells, as the comparative prices might suggest. I am completely happy with the 4200's and think they are a superb value and give me 100% of what I want in a scope. I have a Bushnell 3200 10X fixed with mildot reticle that has beautiful optics, seems like I could use it to pound tent pegs with, and has Rainguard to boot. It cost under $200 and I trust it to the max. I don't recall the Leupold "equivalent" to it, but it was about 4 times the price as I recall. For me, I just don't see 4 times the value. Somebody else? Buy it and enjoy it! I'm happy for you and I won't be posting any "it ain't worth it" remarks either - because to someone else, the value is there.
I own about every brand of scope commonly found in the U.S. and I think some are fantastic values - far above what their prices would suggest - Simmons, Weaver, Bushnell, Burris, Redfield, Mueller, Nikon, Sightron - I have had great results with those brands. I have had wonderful results and service from Leupold as well, but that is not the first choice for me in terms of value. They make a fine product, back them well, and have earned a great reputation. I own a few of them and have had no problems - but I don't always see the value commensurate to the price. For whatever it is worth, I read an article by John Barsness that rather informally compared return rates of various brands and Leupold was at the low end of return statistics, which speaks well of them, but they weren't the only company with the good stats. I think a lot of companies make fine scopes nowadays, and at a variety of price points. I stay away from el-cheapos in bubble packs, but I think there are some surprisingly good scopes for very reasonable prices. I thnik we have lots of great choices at reasonable prices now. Just my opinions...

Ahab · « **Reply #2 on:** April 27, 2007, 10:31:22 AM »

I think Zachary and Cementman have valid points. I too own Leupys, and other than buying another because it may have a certain reticle not available elsewhere, I'll probably buy whatever gives better value. Weather it's a scope or a gun, I just can't be so narrow minded to devote all my attention to a single manufacturer of an item when there are many that may be the same or better for a lessor price.

Graybeard · « **Reply #3 on:** April 27, 2007, 11:01:54 AM »

From my personal experience I'd rate the Mueller line of scopes as being under priced really. I have only limited experience with them but they really do seem a super bargain for the price. I'd also toss in Bushnell Banner scopes as being somewhat under priced for the value given.

Leupold since they started controlling the selling price rather than letting it float definitely are over priced and I have to assume the folks selling them are making a killing on them. Before price fixing by the manufacturer they always sold at substantial discounts below MSRP but now anyone who sells below or advertises prices below that are cut off and not allowed to sell them anymore.

doorgunner · « **Reply #4 on:** April 27, 2007, 07:01:10 PM »

Overpriced: Zeiss (german made), S&B, and Swarovski, Leupold VX-III and VX-II, Leupold Rifleman.
Underpriced: Nikon Pro-Staff, Pentax Gameseeker, Bushnell Trophy.
Just Right: Leupold VX-1, Burris Fullfield II.

victorcharlie · « **Reply #5 on:** April 28, 2007, 01:36:16 AM »

The old line of Nikon Monarch UCC's are clearance priced in most retail stores.........I bought a 3.3 X 10 X 44 for $299........I'd say while stock last these are under priced.

Burris Fulfield II at $209 with bino's are under priced.

Luckyducker · « **Reply #6 on:** April 28, 2007, 03:25:01 AM »

I tend to agree with most of what has already been said. And I don't mean to high-jack this thread, but has anybody else had the experience of looking through a certain brand and model of scope that is generally thought of to be of good/decent optical quality and to you it seemed you were looking through the cheapest POS on the market? I have looked through the Elite 3200 and I thought the sight picture was absolutely terrible but everybody else brags about the optical quality of it. I usually just keep my mouth shut but this gives me opportunity to ask other folk's opinion. This is not the only brand/model of scope this has happened with but it is the only one that comes to mind now.

Just read a post that came up while I was typing and it reminded me of the Burris Fulfield series of scopes. This is another one that just looks terrible with my eyes. I know I am in the minority here but I see what I see.

kudzu · « **Reply #7 on:** April 28, 2007, 04:30:43 AM »

Well, I 'm real suprized, at least so far. Everyone has so far agreed that some scopes, however, great scopes are over priced. Leupy for one, for me is in this group.
Of the Ziess products I have looked thru. Very nice, but not 3-4 times the scope vs. $$.
Breaking down even more. Some line of scopes within themselves are over/under prices. Where a3x9x40 will be a great deal, step up to a 3x9x50 and the quality/value factor shifts greatly.

I have to also agree with luckyducker. I've looked thru "high end" scopes that just were not clear to me.
Thru my eyes the clearest scope to me has been a Bush.4200 2.5x10x50.

Zachary · « **Reply #8 on:** April 28, 2007, 05:39:02 AM »

Yes, it's interesting how not all people see a particular scope the same way. I'm not sure if it's because of age or anything else, but people do see things differently.

By way of example, remember the previous Leupold Vari-X IIIs? They used to be the top of the line of all the vari-x series (I think only the LPS had better glass). Anyway, many people think that the optics in the Vari-X IIIs were outstanding and the best. Well, back then, I guess that I could say that they were great optics, but I wouldn't necessarily say that the Vari-X IIIs were the best. During that time (about 2 or 3 years ago), I thought, and still think, that the Nikon Monarchs and Elite 4200s were/are much better. Now, I think that the newer VX-III series are noticeable better (in terms of optics) than the previous Vari-X III series. Do I think that the new VX-III series is better than the Nikon Monarchs and Elite 4200s? Well, honestly, I'm not sure. At the very least I can say that I think that the newer VX-III series as just as good (again, optically) as the Monarchs and Elite4200s and maybe, just maybe, slightly (but ever so slightly) better.

It's also interesting how the Vari-X III glass now belongs to the VX-II. So while the older Vari-X III used to cost (say) $450, that same glass that is now in the lower level VX-II now sells for about $270 (again, just approximate numbers). As such, I feel sorry for those who bought the Vari-X III right before the VX series was introduced (ie. me). So the new VX-III series has noticeably better glass (again, at least through my eyes) than the Vari-X IIIs.

One thing is certain...the glass used in scopes are getting better.

Zachary

Prebanpaul · « **Reply #9 on:** May 02, 2007, 06:28:54 PM »

Hello,

First i would like to clear something up with the Greybeard. I am a dealer for leupold and can sell my scopes even at a loss if I so chose to with no reprecutions from them. Secondly a high end scope nets the same as a high end gun. IF it is sold on the internet you make a %5 profit. If you sell it in your store you are lucky to make %15 profit.

Now for someone naming a swarovski and or some ziess scopes as over priced. That just depends on two qualifiers. One how do you get your scopes, and then what are the condtions you are shooting. I.E. for those not following. i picked up a Browning Trophy abolt hunter the other day with a leupold 3.5X14X50 LPS scope with side focuse in near meant condition for a $1000 at a gun show. Sold the gun and got $830 dollars for it. That means that I now have a dealer cost $767 LPS scope for $170. Not bad. 2nd point, take this on. You are sitting in Ohio with me on the side of the hill. I point out to you the ground hog at 600yrds in the field. You go to take a shot. You have a bargain scope. It is 730pm and the sun has started setting. Your bargain scope has now failed you. What is the value of your scope now.

The above for mentioned has happened a many of times in the field with friends family and clients. My high end Zeiss and Swarovski and now Leupold still work. You cant hit what you cant see..

PS bargain scope sightron.......... Leupold lenses some one elses tubes. Very very good optics.

Graybeard · « **Reply #10 on:** May 03, 2007, 05:59:34 AM »

If you say so. Seems rather strange tho that Jon of the Optic Zone was told by Leupold he could no longer sell them when he tried selling below their set pricing and ONLY when he agreed to not do that anymore was he again allowed to sell them.

fastbike · « **Reply #11 on:** May 03, 2007, 06:09:43 AM »

I have a Burris Fullfield II and while I wouldn't say it's terrible, to my eyes my Nikon Prostaff offered a "better picture". I also felt the Nikon had better controls at < half the price. The Burris gives me a clear enough picture, but there is a definite feeling that the Nikon was brighter and clearer even though it was the low-end for Nikon.

Quote from: Luckyducker on April 28, 2007, 03:25:01 AM

I tend to agree with most of what has already been said. And I don't mean to high-jack this thread, but has anybody else had the experience of looking through a certain brand and model of scope that is generally thought of to be of good/decent optical quality and to you it seemed you were looking through the cheapest POS on the market? I have looked through the Elite 3200 and I thought the sight picture was absolutely terrible but everybody else brags about the optical quality of it. I usually just keep my mouth shut but this gives me opportunity to ask other folk's opinion. This is not the only brand/model of scope this has happened with but it is the only one that comes to mind now.

Just read a post that came up while I was typing and it reminded me of the Burris Fulfield series of scopes. This is another one that just looks terrible with my eyes. I know I am in the minority here but I see what I see.

Cement Man · « **Reply #12 on:** May 03, 2007, 12:24:39 PM »

Quote from: Prebanpaul on May 02, 2007, 06:28:54 PM

. 2nd point, take this on. You are sitting in Ohio with me on the side of the hill. I point out to you the ground hog at 600yrds in the field. You go to take a shot. You have a bargain scope. It is 730pm and the sun has started setting. Your bargain scope has now failed you. What is the value of your scope now.

I agree with you Prebanpaul, there are scopes that will help you better to shoot groundhogs at 600 yards at dusk (IF you can do it). Since I don't do that, I don't value or need that requirement. I hunt deer, elk, and varmints at lesser ranges during legal shooting hours and have never been "underscoped" in terms of quality or brightness, not even close. For my spotting, I use good binocs, and my riflescopes have never failed to enable me to make the shot. I'm not sure what a "bargain" scope is, but I would say I kind of stick in the mid-priced bracket. I don't think, in your example, that "your bargain scope has now failed you". I think the shooter has failed to choose the right scope for extraordinary circumstances. (I am not implying that in your example, you were talking about after hours shooting - just saying that my scopes work for me under all legal circumstances)

I just won't buy a $800 scope for what I hunt, when I get great results from far less expensive scopes. I don't criticize those that do - I'm happy for you. I match my equipment to the job at hand, and to my budget.

BTW - I agree, I have 4 Sightrons - love 'em.

CM

kyelkhunter3006 · « **Reply #13 on:** May 06, 2007, 09:14:38 AM »

Over-priced: Just about anything made in Germany (except Zeiss Conquest), everything made by Leupold, and any of the cheap Chinese junk scopes that try to copy quality products.

Priced right: Conquests, Bushnell 3200 and 4200, most of the Nikon line, Burris Fullfield and Signature, Sightron, Weaver Grand Slam.

Under priced: Bushnell Trophy and Banner, Weaver Classics.

There are other makes and models that can be in the above categories, but the one's I've listed are what I've used.

pastorp · « **Reply #14 on:** May 06, 2007, 07:02:13 PM »

Byron

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #15 on:** May 07, 2007, 08:42:25 AM »

I can order Leupold scopes cheaper from my local gun shop than I can get them anywhere else. I have gone to several gun shops and looked at Leupold scopes and the prices for the exact scope that my local gun shop had, was any where from $35.00 to $65.00 more at other gun shops. So dealer to dealer the price will change. When I buy a scope the first one I look at is Leupold. My second choice would be Nikon.

Grubbs · « **Reply #16 on:** May 10, 2007, 04:03:19 AM »

Overpriced---All Leupy's, High end Euro stuff, Nightforce
Just Right--Conquest, elite 4200, Pentax Lightseeker, Burris Signature
Too Cheap--Burris FF II, Nikon Monarch, Weaver Grand slam

These are the ones I have personal experience with.

*ROCK-MAN* · « **Reply #17 on:** May 10, 2007, 01:42:14 PM »

Over priced- swaravski,zeiss,leupold
Just right-bushnell elite 4200,nikon monarch,burris fullfield II
Under priced for the value sightron SII
junk no matter what price-tasco,bushnell sportsman,bsa and the low end of all others
Scopes in my house-Wifey's 270 has a redfield 3-12x44 Daughter's 243 has a sightron SII 3-12x42
My rem 700 bdl 30-06 hmmmmm Leu 4.5-14x40 varmit
no-one talking about the redfields?

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #18 on:** May 14, 2007, 12:04:03 AM »

Quote from: *ROCK-MAN* on May 10, 2007, 01:42:14 PM

Over priced- swaravski,zeiss,leupold
Just right-bushnell elite 4200,nikon monarch,burris fullfield II
Under priced for the value sightron SII
junk no matter what price-tasco,bushnell sportsman,bsa and the low end of all others
Scopes in my house-Wifey's 270 has a redfield 3-12x44 Daughter's 243 has a sightron SII 3-12x42
My rem 700 bdl 30-06 hmmmmm Leu 4.5-14x40 varmit
no-one talking about the redfields?

That's because Redfield is making some crappy scopes these days.

Graybeard · « **Reply #19 on:** May 14, 2007, 03:51:48 AM »

Redfield "makes" nothing these days. They folded several years ago. The same folks who own the Weaver and Simmons names own the Redfield name. They are importing scopes under all three names and as far as I'm concerned the Simmons is junk as well and I've not been pleased with the few Weaver scopes I've bought since they took over the name.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #20 on:** May 14, 2007, 07:24:40 AM »

I know Redfield is no more, but you can still get a scope with Redfield on it. But like I said they are crappy scopes.

kyelkhunter3006 · « **Reply #21 on:** May 14, 2007, 10:48:14 AM »

I've had a couple of Weaver Classics and a Grand Slam since the change, and they are as nice other scopes at similar price points. No problems with them at all.

bluebayou · « **Reply #22 on:** May 15, 2007, 12:41:49 PM »

One store that I talked to said that Leupold has "MAP" pricing and that you cannot sell below that. The MAP price for the Leupold VX-2 that I bought was $359. I had negotiated the price on the phone when I ordered it. I could get the scope anywhere online for that price. The dealer had marked it at $385 when I went to pick it up in Louisiana. They were good to their word and went to the MAP price that we agreed to.

The word around the campfire was that Wal-Mart started selling the Rifleman because Leupold wouldn't budge from their MAP price on the VX-1 and that was a way to have a lower price point scope. I don't know if that is true because others started selling the Rifleman about the same time. The dealer cost is different between the Rifleman and VX-1 though.

*ROCK-MAN* · « **Reply #23 on:** May 16, 2007, 03:33:19 PM »

Have you guys tried lookin through those new redfields or goin off of hearsay?Japanese optics.My wife has one on her Howa 270 and she won't let me replace it.After using it a little last year I agreed with her.I have a 3x9 tracker from the old days I need to find somethin to put it on to.
JMHO
Rock

*ROCK-MAN* · « **Reply #24 on:** May 21, 2007, 08:46:10 AM »

Mounted my VXIII 4.5 X 14 - 40 varmit reticle on the ole 79' rem 700 bdl 30-06 this weekend and took her to tha range.
Boy Howdy that thang shoots.Used the hornady light mags for the first time and when I quit shootin the last 2 three round groups were sub MOA.
I'm ready to go huntin now but I guess fishin's gonna have'ta to for awhile.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #25 on:** May 21, 2007, 11:07:20 AM »

what you see through a scope is the important thing for sure , but if you travel , for certain if you travel out of the USA then the extra cost to get a scope from a company that has few problems my be a bargain at any price ! I have a Leopold with a gash in the front of the tube , and it still works , i got it on a gun i traded for so i don't have any idea how it got it , but it must have been a hard lick ! I'm not sure others would fare as well , haven't seen any hit that hard yet ! It might be wise to see some of the cost as a form of insurance or peace of mind !

nomosendero · « **Reply #26 on:** May 21, 2007, 04:41:23 PM »

Quote from: *ROCK-MAN* on May 16, 2007, 03:33:19 PM

Have you guys tried lookin through those new redfields or goin off of hearsay?Japanese optics.My wife has one on her Howa 270 and she won't let me replace it.After using it a little last year I agreed with her.I have a 3x9 tracker from the old days I need to find somethin to put it on to.
JMHO
Rock

Interesting, you are the first that I have seen that actually has the new Redfield. The specs. look good, but I wanted to see how good they really are. I have not read tests as yet, but I would like to see the real facts.

kyelkhunter3006 · « **Reply #27 on:** May 22, 2007, 09:25:40 AM »

Is it one of the brand new models (since Meade redesigned the rifle scope

), or is it one of the previous models that got discounted, like the Golden 5 Star, Illuminator, etc? The new line is very high priced, up with the European top line brands. Most of the new ones have MSRP of $1000 or more. Just curious.

*ROCK-MAN* · « **Reply #28 on:** May 23, 2007, 01:40:36 PM »

I wish I knew and you have whetted my curiosity now.Only markings other than the power and magnification is JAPAN AJ and the serial number so it was made in japan?It appeared to be brand new when I picked up the rifle at the gunshow.The emblem is an R inside of a set of crosshairs.

kyelkhunter3006 · « **Reply #29 on:** May 25, 2007, 11:16:44 AM »

That is one of the discontinued models. The new scopes have a set of wings with Redfield across them as the new emblem. I have to say, I had one of the Japanese made Golden 5 Star scopes, as well as two of the Illuminators, and they were very fine scopes. I loved the Illuminators, they were the brightest scope I've looked through. I could tell a definite improvement over my Elite 3200's. They also were the second highest rated scope in Outdoor Life's Gear Test several years ago. The scope that beat it was one of the big Zeiss variables (not the Conquest). The only reason I got rid of the Illuminators was that the eyepiece was so long, I couldn't keep from almost smacking my eye each time on the light 30-06's I had them on.