Author Topic: 3 little bears - over priced, under priced, & just right (Read 11605 times)

Don-T · « **Reply #30 on:** May 25, 2007, 04:59:47 PM »

My dos centavos....

Underpriced: Bushnell 3200 and 4200, Nikons
Just Right: Any Weaver
Overpriced: Leupolds and just about anything from Germany, Russia and China
That said, my best scopes are Loopy and Bushnell. My "American" Millett is made in China and has tracking woes and my Mueller has typical Chinese optics (fuzzy at the sides) and a humungous fat reticle for a 4-14 scope. My old Japanese Tasco's are pretty decent for cheap.

rickt300 · « **Reply #31 on:** July 15, 2007, 06:00:50 AM »

I have 3 Leupold 4x scopes I gave around $120 each for used. They have reasonably good optics, are reasonably compact and have never changed zero on my unless I was turning the knobs. I have been using one of these scopes since 1986. I have 3 3x9 Bushnell Banners I got for $28 each when Oshman's sold out to Sport's Authority. I put one on a heavy barrel 22-250 and it has clear glass, tracks perfectly and does not change impact as the power setting is changed. This rather heavy rifle fell 3 feet onto a roll of carpet directkly on the scope and muzzle hit the concrete. Big ding on muzzle. The scope required 12 clicks up to get it back on target and it has stayed there since. I have a Nikon Pro Staff 3x9 that has great glass, tracks perfectly and holds zero now. The rifle bounced around in the back of a truck on a elk hunt for 10 days and it's zero changed 2 inches. Sent it back to Nikon and whatever they did it now is as tough as a Leupoold. It also holds zero as the power ring is turned. My one and only Mueller is a good scope for what I use it for though it is a bit rougher than the other scopes as far as adjustment goes. I feel these scopes are all "cheap"compared to the performance they give. My opinion of overpriced scopes are that BSA, Tasco and Simmons would be overpriced if they were free. I could be wrong on the Simmons upper end scopes but I have never used one. My number one need in ascope is ruggedness, second usable glass, third, does not change zero for any reason and I don't like really bulky scopes. I have no need of high powered scopes over 9x.

HEAD0001 · « **Reply #32 on:** July 15, 2007, 07:35:02 PM »

IMO you guy's are missing the most important thing. When you buy a scope, if you buy quality-then you are buying it for life. I have a couple of Zeiss scopes that I bought 25 years ago. I can sell them tomorrow for three times what I paid for them, and I would have people standing in line to buy them. I bought a couple Swarovski's five years ago, their value has went up a full 50% or more.

I have some older Leupold's and Redfield's that are over thirty years old. They are great scopes, but if I wanted to resell them-well you know would happen. First question would be how old are they? I would have to give the Redfield's away to sell them!!! Leupold and Burris will hold their value because of their warranty, but they do not appreciate like the high end glass.

I have two sets of Swarovski Binoculars(SLC's). I have a pair of 8X56's that are 7 or 8 years old. I was offered a $500 profit for them the other day. When was the last time some one offered you a proflt like that for anything except high end stuff.

One of my favorite scopes is a W. German made 3X9X40 that I bought 20 years ago for $400. I could easily get $1,000 tomorrow, but it is not for sale.

Go ahead and spend $100 to $400 on a low end scope and use it. But just consider what it will be worth in ten, twenty, or thirty years. Why not buy the good stuff, and get to enjoy it for the next thirty years or more, and have something worth three times as much as well???

It is nice having a dozen different rifles and scopes. But IMO I would rather have one top quality rig, than ten medium or low quality rig's. Tom.

Cement Man · « **Reply #33 on:** July 28, 2007, 02:29:30 PM »

Head,
I'm not saying you are wrong - because the nice thing about these goofy guns and optics is that whatever you like is right for you. I completely disagree with you though.
First, I'm 61 years old and I have doubts that I'll be needing a scope in 30 years. However, I don't even want to keep this year's model for 30 years because I like the benefits and the economics of continued improvement. I don't think a $400 scope is low end. In my opinion, today's $400 scopes are generally functionally superior to any 30 year old model - and certainly provide more value (however you define it - and that's different for everyone) for me anyway, than the very expensive imports. To me it is a sight - and I value precise repeatability, good optics, durability, and absolute reliability. Modern $400 scopes from several manufactureres fill the bill for me, and I have several at half that price that I trust to the max.
As far as an investment goes, tripling your money over 25 years (if you can) is about a 4.5% annual return. My retirement savings has averaged over 8% over the past 25 years - a sevenfold return. I'm glad I hunted with "low end" scopes that have I have enjoyed and have never failed me, and now the difference in my return enables me to buy pretty much whatever I want and a nice rifle to go with it. (I'm glad I "missed the most important thing", as you say.
Now I grant you, it is nice to have a treasured rifle rig and I respect that you place your value on it. There is a lot to be said for that. Enjoy! But I like buying new things when I feel like it, and my needs are better served with $400 (or less) scopes that keep getting better all the time. I'm waiting for one of those new Nikon Monarchs with the side adjustment!

davem270win · « **Reply #34 on:** August 02, 2007, 06:37:40 AM »

I think it comes down to 'business'. You make a good product, care about quality and customer service, and you build a reputation - but eventually the management/ownership changes, the bean counters take over and realize they can now make a profit on the good will and reputation that's been created. Quality goes down, service goes down, and it takes awhile for everyone to catch on. Probably the best example is the Winchester Model 70.

I'm using Leupold, Weaver, and Mueller. I think Leupold's are overpriced, Weavers are about right, and Mueller may be a little underpriced.

A.J. · « **Reply #35 on:** August 18, 2007, 06:28:48 AM »

As Doorgunner said quite a ways back on this thread, the Pentax Gameseeker is under-priced. The optics are bright and clear. The multiple reticles are invaluable for a hunter with a good laser rangefinder. It comes with a lifetime warranty, and cost me including shipping under a hundred bucks. I'm 54 years old, and while I hope to make an Elk hunt and other hunts when my retirement kicks in, right now I'm confined to a little deer and maybe hog hunting. A box of shells will probably last me 15 years. If I ever DO get an extra $2000 in my pocket, I'll either put it towards a hunt, or an Alaskan cruise (unless my wife insists on going with me), but not to buy an expensive replacement for my Pentax that is working just fine.

lngrng · « **Reply #36 on:** August 19, 2007, 03:32:11 PM »

Well folks,
I'm here to tell ya that the pickiest, most finicky fella's out there are the Benchrest shooting crowd! Clear optics are extremely important, but the #1 item of importance is point of impact that never shifts. The guns used will literally shoot five shots into one hole all day long, but if the crosshairs move the least bit, you are in trouble. If you look at the equipment lists for the 100 and 200 yard shoots, you will see four to six times more Leupolds than any other brand. Are these scopes perfect? No, but the are still the best for this game. Benchresters are continually complaining about scopes being the weak point of their equipment, but the leupolds are still the scope of choice.
As for the 1000 yard Benchrest crowd, The Nightforce scope is the scope of choice, with the leupold a close second. The drawback in the Nightforce series is that they weigh twice as much as all other scopes. They are, however, bulletproof, and are typically used on the .50 BMG rifles, as are the Mark-4 Leupolds.

I guess what I am saying here is:
1- Buy the best scope you can afford.
2- The warranty period and ease of getting repairs made are important if you shoot a lot.
3- The choice of reticles, both standard stock and custom, is important.
4- If you pay $1,000.00 for a rifle, should you spend $129.95 on the optics?

The most important items on the gun are the optics and the nut on the trigger!

eye shot · « **Reply #37 on:** August 20, 2007, 07:03:50 AM »

I agree Leupold is a close second, even years ago they were a close second to Redfield!

demented · « **Reply #38 on:** September 07, 2007, 10:58:29 PM »

If clarity was the only concern when buying a scope, life would be a lot simpler. I use Leupolds and freely admit that other brands seem clearer. The deciding factors for me are repeatability, endurance, holding zero. Do cheaper scopes shoot the same POI whether on three power or nine? Some don't. Can you go up or down a few clicks and know the scope repeats each time? Will it begin to shift impact after being used for a few years? Not arguing that many of the scopes mentioned here will do the job, I have confidence that my Leupolds will.

elmer · « **Reply #39 on:** October 06, 2007, 01:57:12 AM »

I guess scope quality differences would be more apparent at longer range, but last weekend I was practicing with two rifles. One was my trusty old 30-06 with a Bushnell 3200 on it and the other my new 7mm-08 with a Leupold VXIII. I have practiced with both before, but not side by side alternating between them. At 100 yards I had to really look to see a difference. I won't spend the money the Leupold again.

IRA51 · « **Reply #40 on:** October 06, 2007, 12:16:22 PM »

Leupold VXIII and up are fantastic scopes. VXII and down are so so. If you buy a new Leupold get the VXIII and up and your good to go.if you can't spend that much than your left with a lot of choices and Leupold ain't one. sad to say but the compitition kicks thier but in that price range . a dollar ain't worth what it used to be on the world market anymore.

no guns here · « **Reply #41 on:** November 05, 2007, 12:38:54 AM »

I think the idea of value is related to your use of the scope. How, when and where you use it determines the relative value of each piece to YOU! For 99% of the deer hunters in 99% of America, a 4200, VX-II, Buckmaster or whatever will suffice. Can you tell the diff between it and a high end Leupold at the range on a bright clear day? Maybe, maybe not... 30 minutes after sundown? Most definitely... I hunt in Germany right now. I'm really stuck because I can't afford a Swarovsky, S&B, Kahles or other 1500 Euro scope. I can afford a $250 scope. We've set down at night and compared several brands of scopes outdoors against life sized and life like targets of roe deer. I can state for a fact that all of us ( I think there were six) experienced hunters preferred the more expensive scopes for viewing at night. Keep in mind that in the US we get (normally) 1/2 hour before daylight until 1/2 hour after sunset. Here we can at times hunt all night (pigs). I don't INTEND to hunt at night (wife doesn't care for me being out all night), but I don't want to limit myself. If I were planning on staying in Europe for much longer, I'd come up with the money somehow for the high end scope. It would definitly be a good value for ME in that situation. Since I know that the majority of my future hunts will be in the US, I'll probably buy another scope that'll serve okay in the US and I'll just have to forego hunting here at night. I've killed plenty of deer with a 10 year old Tasco World Class 4-16. It definitely loses out to the Nikon in the evening. The NIKON loses out to my Vari-X III's later, just before end of shooting time. The Vari-x III's lose out to the Kahles at 0100 with only a half moon and partly cloudy and a black hog against the wood line.

ngh

steveus · « **Reply #42 on:** December 01, 2007, 05:43:42 PM »

I believe the Sightron scopes right now are some of the best quality for the buck.
Steve

*ROCK-MAN* · « **Reply #43 on:** March 21, 2008, 03:14:48 PM »

Man this topic just won't die.Update to my earlier post.
Daughter still has the Sightron SII on her rifle 3-12X42 and loves it
Wifey moved from the Redfield(my bad) to a Bushnell Elite 4200 4-16X40 and loves it
Me(and you'll think I'm crazy) went from the VXIII (didn't like the varmit reticle) to a VXII LRD 6-18X40and I love it
I would really like to know how many posters berating the luppys actually have one. hehehe
Or how many hunters use them over others.
Rock

victorcharlie · « **Reply #44 on:** March 22, 2008, 02:41:59 AM »

The last 3 scopes I've bought have been VX-III's......

*ROCK-MAN* · « **Reply #45 on:** March 22, 2008, 05:59:15 AM »

I really liked the glass on my VXIII and the macnification was great 4.5-14 but being a deer hunter I should have gone to the store and looked through one with the varmit reticle but it was such a good deal on e-bay I jumped on it.I had been watching them a long time for a good buy.I traded it at the local gun show for the VXII and a little cash back and the LRD reticle is a little thicker but I still have the extra aimpoints so all's well.
With the 6-18 I got a little more mag on the long end and maybe it will come in handy on a trip to colorado this year.

rem700-3 · « **Reply #46 on:** June 26, 2008, 03:30:31 PM »

I have to say I am impressed with the Mueller line. I had not bought anything but Leupold for over 20 years and a friend gave me a Mueller to try on my .17 hmr, I loved it I now own 6 of them and several people who have used mine have bought thier own. Are they a leupold or Swarovski ? no, but man the quality for the price on a hunting rifle is hands down.

Troyboy · « **Reply #47 on:** July 31, 2008, 01:32:49 PM »

Seems to me you buy what you can justify. Id say the rule of spend on a scope what you spend on your rifle makes sense. A 1000 scope on a 300 rifle seems absurd. A 300 rifle with a 300 scope give or take seems about right.

kyelkhunter3006 · « **Reply #48 on:** July 31, 2008, 02:34:20 PM »

That's as sensible a solution as any, IMO. I try to buy with that in mind.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #49 on:** August 03, 2008, 04:38:32 AM »

If all that's being used to determine what category the scope fits into is price based on clarity and or light gathering, this is one area to rate. But what about durability, shockproof, holding zero,etc.

A scope that you can take out of the box and compare to another based on how good the optics are is only one aspect of the quality to price aspect.

victorcharlie · « **Reply #50 on:** August 03, 2008, 05:20:30 AM »

Quote from: cabin4 on August 03, 2008, 04:38:32 AM

If all that's being used to determine what category the scope fits into is price based on clarity and or light gathering, this is one area to rate. But what about durability, shockproof, holding zero,etc.

A scope that you can take out of the box and compare to another based on how good the optics are is only one aspect of the quality to price aspect.

A lot of wisdom in this comment no doubt. Warranty and customer service is another big consideration.