Many of us loose sight of the fact that a rifle scope is a "sight" and not a photographic or viewing only device. Really great glass (highly corrected) is nice, but not absolutely necessary, since we're not taking photos or using for extended time viewing. A guy in the woods doesn't need great "1000yd" resolution. Good enough is good enough. What is most important is mechanical reliability, and a scope with a good track record mechanically AND fits your pocketbook will be your best choice.
While certainly not the rule, but rather an exception, there are times when you need to have that "1000 yd resolution" to pick your target out of a crowd. Easy enough to identify the trophy animal with a good bino, but under adverse conditions (i.e., low light) a lesser scope might not be able to discern what you could find in your binos. This is just one example of an advantage to having quality glass on your rifle.
Well, as many experts here have stated, a good 6x42 is all you really need. And, it really should be a Zeiss or Schmidt & Bender. But if you're too cheap to spend your kid's college fund on hunting equipment, a Leupold will get you by and a Sightron is ok as long as you buy it now with the $100.00 rebate. I sold this stuff for 35 years, and believe me I have no problem with buying, using, and recommending high end optics. When I took "real" photos, people would ask me why I used/needed a Hasselblad just to take pictures. I would tell them "Because I can't afford anything better". Well, the same applies to rifle scopes, automobiles, and just about everything else I buy. You really can't beat using/having the "best there is" and in a perfect world, we would all drive Bentley's and use Schmidt & Bender's. I would be willing to bet any amount that far more animals are missed (even in dim light) due to mechanical issues than optical quality.
