Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics $1000+ riflescope save your hunt??

Just wondering how often people run into situations where they were able to get the animal cause they have a super premium $1K or more scope on a hunting trip and there is no way a $200-$400 scope would have allowed you to make the same shot.

Just wondering cause I have never found myself lacking and needing anything more than a VX-II or VX-III. Honestly most of my game up here in AK has been shot with a Simmons 3-9X40 el cheapo model and seen some pretty gnarly weather. Since then I upgraded to a VX-III not because I needed to but more it was teh middle of winter and hunting season was over and I had cash burning a hole in my pocket.

So if we were all forced to hunt with nothing but say a Leupy VX-II or the like do you think you would be less successful in taking game? Sometimes I think we get wrapped up in the mental shannagins that the more we spend on our rifles the more successful we will be and I am no exception.

However when I honestly sit back and think about it I think I would be just as successful with a $300 Stevens rifle with a $200 VX-II scope on it than with a $1500 rifle and a $1000 scope.

Do you think you would be more succesful had you taken that $2000 difference and used it for more days off from work and spent more days in the field?

alaska: This should cause a stir.........

If all rifles cost $2k and all scopes cost $1k plus, most of us would be in a peck of trouble;or at least we likely would own fewer rifles than we do.That said rifles and scopes are no different than trucks,household appliances,wristwatches, or any other manufactured goods.

They are made to perform a function amd designed/manufactured to be sold at a certain price point.If money were no object,and there was no profit motive,makers would be free to spend as much as they want making something with little regard for what they sold it for....But the economic world does not work that way, so we get scopes and/or rifles that may be made to a certain price point and along the way,some items may be made with looser tolerances, cheaper materials,lesser quality glass,less QC,etc,etc.Same goes with the rifles.

OTOH, there will always be a market(albeit a smaller one)for scopes made with better glass that allows us to see better,and mechanics designed to take a beating and demonstrate greater durability.If we are objective, we know this.

Lesser priced items may perform the same function,get the job done just as well,sometimes even for a very long time,and IME dollars spent don't always equate to rugged durability,at least in scopes,as some of the tougher ones were also of modest price, and I have had expensive scopes of certain makes crap out on me.

That said, I have rarely, if ever,seen a $200-$400 scope that had the optics of $1000+ scope;at least those taken into the field and actually used over a period of time;not compared in a store,which is a pretty poor way to evaluate optics.Today as the technology has given us better optics and mechanics at a lower price point, it seems the gap has closed,but if you use enough scopes under enough circumstances, the differences will show up eventually.

I have never had a scope cost me an animal in the field because I could not see it well enough;but I do know people to whom it has happened. I have had a scope crap out mechanically during a hunt and it is no fun.

But optically this stuff is not hard to figure....just a matter of taking a high end scope out a few evenings,in the field,where there are deer or other game and comparing them under varying light and field conditions. Anyone who thinks there are no differences in scopes is not looking real hard.

On the other hand, one of the most difficult things to determine in advance is knowing how long a cheap scope is going to last;how much abuse it will take; or exactly when a cheap part in a rifle is going to fail at the wrong time.The more you shoot, and hunt, the greater the liklihood you will see these things happen. Some inexpensive items are very durable and some are not;some will get the job done, and some will not under challenging light conditions.It most certainly can happen.

There are lots of arguments on here about scopes and rifles and other gear because of a common human failing.....people judge everything based on their own limited experiences,and if it hasn't happened to them, it can't happen at all...if they see fine through a $200 Rifleman scope,then everyone should and they can't understand how a Zeiss Diavari can be better......if they have killed deer or black bear at dusk with a $300 scope it isn't possible that someone else could not, or that a S&B or Swaro could possibly provide an edge of some sort....I think you get my drift....

Likewise with rifles....if they never had a problem with a particular design, or never experienced a cheap part fail to work,then no one could,and the complainants are FOS.....I could go on....narrow-mindedness is the hobgoblin of taking other peoples experiences or recommendations as gospel instead of finding out things for yourself.

What's the bottom line? Buy the best you can afford in rifles and optics....don't think that just because an item is "more expensive" that it is "better",because frequently it takes a quantum leap in price to obtain a really measurable increase in durability,construction, and performance over a lower priced item.Unfortunately there is really only one way to find out what works and what doesn't,and that is to use it yourself....but along the way, never assume you have all the answers either

As a general,broad based rule,you get what you pay for;that is usually the way the world works,whether we like it or not.

Thanks for the well thought out write up Bob. I agree with you in that you get what you pay for. Just got to thinking with a reality check in that I would likely be just as successful in the field with a $600 and scope rifle setup as I would say some of my other setups that break the $2000 mark.

It was just me thinking outloud or typing I guess. I get out and hunt a fair amount here in Alaska in fact only spent 6 days at my house between August and October the rest was out hunting out of spike camps and the like so I do put my stuff through the ringer vs. the average deer stand hunter with their rifle and optics so I have a fair idea of what things can hold up to.

That said personal experience often takes precedence on people's opinions. If a guy breaks a Swaro Z5 on a hunt one time his view might be a little jaded towards swaro scopes as a whole, or at the same respect if a guy shot a B&C antelope with a S&B scope he feels that is the only way to go for long range antelope hunting.

I laugh when i think of what my brother and I used to hunt with for gear and rifles going up in high school. In rural Alaska he'd be armed with his savage 30-06 topped with a sweet Simmons scope and I would have a Rem. model 7 topped with a POS Nikon. But we were still out getting it done and too naive to know that we shouldn't have been out there on our own backpack hunting for caribou, sheep, and grizzly bears. Or off wheelering looking for moose. Put some how we still managed to both kill B&C caribou, moose, and my bro got a top 10 all time B&C grizz all before we were 20 years old and without any help in the field from our dad other than being able to drive us to our drop off locations and pick us up several days later.

People make due with what they have and everyone still gets it done.

I guess my main question for all of this is:

Do you honestly feel you would be less successful as a hunter if you were forced to use say a $500 rifle and a $300 scope?

Or maybe another way of putting it is your hunt success very much attributed to using high dollar scopes and rifles or do you think you would be just as successful at taking game with a much lesser setup?

Above lies part of the answer to your question.


In my case I can honestly say there have been two occasions where a better scope would have helped. My eyes were openend three years ago when I was crusing a couple of gun shops with a good friend. He's an optics buff. He suggested I look through a particular model. I did and was simply amazed at the image clarity. He laughed and said to wait until I tried it during the last hour of an afternoon hunt.

Anyway...fast forward to the next season. I'm hunting that year in a local club with fairly strict antler restrictions. They had a large tract of land and were getting great results with their program.

Twice that season I had shooters visable in my binos....I transitioned to my riflescope and couldn't get the shots...couldn't 100% confirm which deer was my shooter. These were in the last few minutes of the hunts on logging decks and thinned timber. It may have been very different in a large open food plot.

This current season has been a bust due to some ill-timed ankle surgery. The only plus is that while sitting around on my butt, I'm not spending a bunch of $$$ on hunting. I chose this time to go ahead and upgrade my scope on my main rifle.

There you have it.....funds were available...scope shopping ensued.


Around here still hunting is big. I do zero man drives or stalking. I'm a confessed arse sitter in a climber or ladder/box stand. There is a premium on dusk/dawn sit times. I wanted to enhance my capability for these times.


I can't afford a real Ferrari to scoot around in....but I could afford to put one on my rifle.


I will not spend large amounts on a rifle, though. In my opinion a truly awesome performing bolt gun can be had for well under $600 or even less. I can certainly understand the guys who like the custom deluxe models and I see the appeal, but I'm very happy with an affordable gun that I can find a 1" load for.

alaska: The answer, for me to the second question is "yes".I've owned and hunted with rifles valued in the thousands.But they have not allowed me to do anything that I honestly could not have done(and have done) with a stock M70 or Ruger M77 and a 4X Leupold.

The most important factor for me has always been rugged reliability.Rifle and scope have to work and hold POI,and they cannot break.

I think soo many of the arguments on here about scopes are d/t where people live and hunt.

As Dub spoke about, here in the deep South, especially Alabama, its rare to kill a big buck in good light. It happens, but it is rare. The deer here move very late, so a quality light gathering scope is very important. This is not the case in many parts of the nation.

Most people could hunt their entire lives with a $400 rifle and $200 scope and fill an ark with the game the combination would kill. Some of us loonies just enjoy trying different things that end up costing alot of money, but none of us NEED them.

I have cheap rifles and GAP and GreTan customs. I have scopes from a Tasco on a .22 a Leupy varix II, Mk IV, Swarovski, and SB PMII. They all serve their purpose. Everyone has to decide if that $1000 or more scope is worth it to them and their application. For general hunting I believe spending anywhere from 200-500 will do all you willever need out of a scope however when its the rut in Alabama and I hunt foodplots, I hunt with the best optics I own.

JimD.

True! I don't take 4X Leupolds to Alberta to hunt those whtetails up there.

When I was young I was blessed with 20/10 vision and was perfectly satisfied with inexpensive Tasco scopes. Then one day, I was deer hunting and saw a buck at about 300 yards. I could tell he had a rack but couldn't determine if it was a decent rack. In those days I was very poor and was using $50 Bushnell binocs. I couldn't count the points through my binocs or looking through my Tasco scope. I knew he was a legal buck but didn't know that he was a 3x3 until after I shot him.

Over the years, my vision has deteriorated, although still quite good when corrected with glasses. I now use Leupold and Zeiss scopes and Swarovski and Zen Ray binocs. Even with my deteriorating vision, I can see better through good optics than I could through cheap optics when I had great vision.

I guess my main question for all of this is:

Do you honestly feel you would be less successful as a hunter if you were forced to use say a $500 rifle and a $300 scope?

Or maybe another way of putting it is your hunt success very much attributed to using high dollar scopes and rifles or do you think you would be just as successful at taking game with a much lesser setup? [/quote]
It's always been more about the Indian than the bow. Now having said than, that same Indian with great equipment would be in tall cotton..........

I also grew up hunting whitetails in Alabama and Jim hit the nail on the head. I hunted with whatever my granddad would allow me to use. Most of the time it was his 3006 or 3030 with crappy tascos from Walmart. They were good for a while, but eventually there would be a problem with the nitrogen or after shooting it more than a couple of times the zero would be off. It certainly wasn't the guns that were the problem. I later went into debt on a really expensive Kahles scope and it was like night and day. Both situations I killed big deer, but I was able to do it more comfortably, that being the key word, with the better optics.

I don't have any $1000+ dollar scopes, so I can't commment on that. However, I've also never been out in the field and seen a deer and thought, man I need a better scope to take this shot.

To be honest, and I almost hate to post this, but my two biggest deer I've ever killed have been with a Tasco Bucksight that cost $30 from Walmart.It shoots to the same poi year after year, it is pretty clear, and pretty decent in low light. Is it clear or good in low light compared to a $1000+ scope? No. Is it clear or as good in low light compared to a $200 Burris FFII? No, but it's not far behind, and when I can't see with it anymore, I can't legally be hunting anyway, so I don't see the need for something more. I do worry about it failing as I've read soo many stories online about how bad they are, but it's worked perfectly for me and tracks pretty well too. I'm not sure if it's repeatable as once I sighted it in I left it there. Tracking and repeatability is another thing that more expensive scopes often do a lot better than cheap ones.

All of that being said, I generally prefer to use something of a little higher quality that a Tasco, but that's just proof that you don't need to spend $1000 on a scope to kill big deer. I'm perfectly happy with my Burris FFII and imo there are a lot of options in that price range that are great when it comes to reliability, and very good when it comes to glass. I see no reason for something better unless you just want to spend the money. I can see long after legal shooting hours with the Burris.

I've never not been able to take a legal shot due to my equipment. I have seen a few cheap scopes in the under $100 price range that I feel I wouldn't be able to take shots with in low light even when it was still legal to shoot, however, I've seen lots of others in the under and over $100 price range that are just fine.

The Bushnell Banner line is one of the ones I've looked through where I think the scope might actually limit me in hunting. I had a friend last year who could see several deer in the field, but couldn't find them in his scope.

The Tasco is just not like that. If I can see it with my naked eye, I can see them in the scope and usually better than with my naked eye. With the Burris FFII I can see stuff a lot better through the scope than with my naked eye.

I also would like to point out that 98% of the guys I hunt with use cheap optics mostly from Simmons or cheap Bushnell's, a few use Tasco's or other similar scopes, and it's very rare that they seem to have problems with them.

I bought a Swaroski PH 2.4x10-42 because I couldn't see hogs well enough at dark+30 to kill them with a Luppy 4x. That scope will let me kill hogs on a moonlite night. Otherwise, my only real need for hyper expensive optics would be night vision or thermal night sights. I even shoot old Weavers that I get rescue from the local gunshops throw away box and have rebuilt for $80 bucks.

A lot of hyper expensive optics have a large EGO or mine is bigger than yours factor built in. YMMV

Usually better than with the naked eye isn't saying much for any optic. I use optics so I can see a lot better than with the naked eye.

Got cheap stuff, kills game, happy hunter.
Old 32Spl Model 64 kills game, no scope, happy hunter.
Simmons was an EXPENSIVE scope when purchased. All I could afford. Never failed.
Tasco the same and Burris, and Bushnell and Nikon - You get the picture.
Today, Got some expensive stuff, custom wildcats of my own design, new whiz bang glass and still a happy hunter.
Even wear Gortex. Old 1957 red/black wool coat no longer fits and became too drafty from battle holes and brier pulls.
Gotta say, some of my best and most difficult shots were with cheap stuff. Took game that could no longer be seen with naked eye due to settled in darkness with cheap stuff.
Never made a long shot in my life.
Longest was 437 yds. Cheap rifle, hand loads, and very cheap scope.
Can't say I'm one a bit more successful nor happier with the expensive stuff. I like it, though.
It certainly doesn't make ME a better hunter.[b][/b]
Had two scopes fail during my lifetime. Both LeoVX111. They were VERY expensive (for me) when purchased but in failure mode in the field they were far less valuable then that old, scratched glass, reliable, used when purchased, $18.00 Simmons on my 243 that took so many deer.
Got cheap stuff I still use. Got expensive stuff I use. I can hunt, be successful, and happy with either. I do prefer the expensive.
Crotchety, highly opinionated, ole guy's observations.
Thanks
Jim

Save a hunt? I can't prove that. But can say that growing up hunting woodlands and being able to afford tasco's and bushnell trophy's, I missed shot opportunities due to disappearing wire reticles (sun) and disappearing deer at dusk (lack of light transmittence). Fast-forward 20 years and just don't have time for that bullchit. As long as the mounting dimensions cooperate, I look for used high-end glass for prices +/- what new mass-market optics cost, and be done with it. They can't defy the laws of physics, they don't kill critters by themselves, but sure enough know that I can't hit what i can't see and am not excited about losing opportunities because saved $100 on a purchase from 4 years ago, you know?

All you need do is refer to Barness's testing of various scopes during low light conditions for both resolution and brightness. While the $1000 plus scopes do resolve better under those conditions, the differences are tiny when you look at the chart he uses.
Far more important during low light hunting are the shooter's eyes, and the amount of magnification the scope can use during such times. The more magnification one can use, and still see anything, the further one can see and make the shot. Assuming he can see the scope's reticle under those conditions. E

I would say I've tagged a couple bucks that MIGHT not have been tagged with truly cheap optics. I say this because they were right on the fringe of what I could do with what I had. One, with a 2.5-8 Leup, and one with a 1.8-5.5 Conquest. Neither scope is far outside the $300 the OP mentioned. I guess that's a point that bears mentioning. I'd up the $300 to $400 and say- you can buy a LOT of scope, for $400 these days...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, same is true for optic clarity. I am now having my first custom rifle. I have shot Rem 700's most of my life and have had a T/C for about 6 yrs now. I am now reloading and am having my first/last custom rifle built in .280ai. If that will not kill it, I will not be hunting it. Just as I am ready to spend some $$ on a rifle, I am prepared to spend some $$ on the complimentary optics. My Nikon Monarchs have been with me for many years, but now I see a Swaro in my future. There have been some shots that were questionable late in the PM as light was fading where the Nikon just wasn't clear enough for me to take a quality shot, I am hoping to resolve that with my next scope purchase, but be assured, I will look thru it and see how the scope fits 'my vision' before I purchase it.......

There are Swaro AV's out there right now for about $800- last year's model basically. I bought a 3-10x42. Try Doug at CameraLand first, if he can't help then I got mine at Natchez.

Or just buy one of the new models <grin>.

I'd also look awfully hard at the S&B Summit and Zeiss Victory if I were looking at Alpha scopes with money being (almost) no object.

Money is always an object!