Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Cheap Rifles and expensive scopes

The rifle can be no more capable than its sighting system allows it to be. I want a scope that adjust like it should, holds zero and returns to zero, no matter what it costs. Fortunately, there are some that will do that and not cost you your first born son. I have had some not inexpensive scopes fail me though.

John

John, thanks. Yours is an interesting question and it has received the anticipated wide variety of opinons/experiences. IMHE, the abilities among shooters vary as much as the replies. I might have answered differently 45 years ago but, at this point, my eyesight, etc. are probably as determinant as the equipment - maybe moreso.

There is some rather expensive stuff here and some that was seen as "cheap" when it was made quite a while ago - but no rifles that have been made cheaply more recently. Only one non-wood stock, and that happened for a good reason. Over a period of almost 60 years, only one scope has failed and, in that case, the entire windage adjustment setup simply fell apart.

A lot of water has gone under the bridge. If a rifle here functions as it should and shoots dead-nuts great with whatever scope is on it (and some are "cheap"), expert opinion, high-end brand, market value,etc. are not in mind.

Have a great trip.

Can't the positions of the two, rifle and sighting system, be reversed in that statement and it remain just as true?

Sure it can. But not uncommon nowadays to find relatively inexpensive rifles that shoot pretty well. A bunch of folks have found good accuracy from Savages, Ruger Americans etc.

Combine a scope that tracks as it should, returns to zero and holds zero with a reasonably good shooting rifle and you can do things that would have most mainstream hunters shake their heads in amazement.

Generally speaking, if you're starting with an inexpensive rifle that shoots well, you'll spend more on the optics than the rifle if you want the qualities I've listed above. SWFA is the obvious exception.

John

That happens mostly because the crosshairs aren't properly leveled.

I've often mused that, if Rugers were manufactured by the "Murray Z. Finkelstein Rifle Company," they wouldn't possess a fraction of the cachet they seem to enjoy.

I've got several Weaver classic K's and V's and can't tell much difference optically between them and my Leupold vx-1's. If anything the Weavers might be a tad better. The Leups eye relief is noticeably longer than the Weavers but the adjustments are better/more positive in the Weavers.

Yeah, lever-action Finklestein in 45 Rappaport

I have a Leupold Vari X III 2.5-8x on my Ruger American .243. It seems to be a good combination and shoots well. What's not to like?

In the universe of under $400 rifles, I liked the discontinued Marlin X guns in both their OEM configurations and with Savage 110 series replacement barrels installed on them. Most of my X guns have Bushnell 3200 and Simmons Whitetail Classic scopes mounted via B-Square rings and the Weaver-style bases that came on the rifles.

I don't care for the Remington 783s. They are ugly and, for me, they don't sell for enough less than 700 ADLs to offer any particular incentive to buy them.

I have 9 RAR-Predators and like them in their OEM configurations, but like them a little more when they're bedded in Boyds Heritage style laminated stocks. My RAR-Predators have Nikon and Sightron scopes mounted via Warne rings and the Weaver-style bases that came on the rifles.

My collection of "modern affordable" rifles includes the following:

Ruger American .22 Magnum standard model, 4-16x Kruger Optical K4.

Ruger American .223 Remington standard model, 2.5-10x Nikon Monarch 3.

Ruger American .243 Winchester All-Weather, 10x40 Bushnell Tactical.

Savage Axis with .22-250 factory and .250 Savage E.R. Shaw barrels,
3-9x Redfield Revolution.

Ruger American 6.5 Creedmoor Predator, 3-9x Burris Fullfield II 30mm.

Ruger American .300 Blackout Ranch, 4x Spartan Mk4 Nightvision.

T/C Venture Compact .308 Winchester, 6x38 Weaver K6.

Oh, and a Remington 722 .257 Roberts with 6x36 Leupold M8. The 722/721 was the rifle shooters complained about being "cheap" back in the day, but is now considered a classic. There's also a Marlin 81 with a Colorado-made 4x Redfield.

Worse scope i have seen was the Challenger line from Weaver,when they were trying to keep up with all of the import scopes back in the 80's.

best cheapest scope i have is one sold by K-Mart around the same time.
I have Weaver,Redfield,Simmons and Leopold and they each have their place.

just need to find a rifle for the 12x fixed leopold now.

I forgot some Nikon scopes back when they were first put on the market,got 12 for 125.00 ea.and wished i had bought more.

I bought a Ruger American Predator I 6.5 Creedmoor a while ago. The main reason I bought the rifle was that I had about 1,000 123 gr Scenars left over from another rifle. Seemed like a better alternative than selling the bullets.

Interesting thread. The last rifle I purchased was a bargain rifle that I got a great deal on. A Cabela's special Savage 10T tactical in .308 Win that cost me just $429 after rebate. I then did something unprecedented, at least for me. I spent almost double the price of the rifle for the scope, grabbing a Leupold Mark 4, 4.5-14x40 LR/T with mil-dot reticle on sale at the local Sportsman's Warehouse.
I try to go mid range on my scopes, favoring Leupold and Redfields. But also have gone bargain hunting on both quality (Zeiss Conquest 3-9x for $279 on sale) and price ( a pair of Intensity 6.5-20x44 scopes for $89 each on closeout. They work fine, btw) My favorite "cheap rig" is my Marlin XL7 in .270 Win, which wears a Nitrex 3-9x40. The rifle is a tack driver, light and easy to carry. I think I spent $239 for the rifle and $99 for the scope. It typically outshoots my Model 70 .270WSM with a Zeiss Conquest.
One of my buddies, who I respect greatly, said he would much rather have a $1000 scope on a $100 rifle than a $100 scope on a $1000 rifle, because you have to see the target in order to shoot it. He is a die hard Leupold fan. I'm n the futue, I will probably buy Leupolds, but I have no plans to replace any of my Vortex, Nikon, Burris, Nitrex, or even my Intensity scopes at this time.

My RAR .308 functions perfectly, the OP can replace a magazine real cheap, or whittle on it until it works.

If I were trying to limit myself to only a few rifles, I would only buy the more established models. But that is not the case, so I have some cheapies like Tikka and RAR and they both work smoothly, and are among my accurate "keeper" rifles.

I usually buy scopes because of the clarity and reticle choices. The way I decide which rifle to hunt depends on the reticle for the area.

I bought a Trijicon lighted green dot with plex reticle which costs nearly twice as much as my RAR, and I like the combo and will probably keep them paired this way for stuff like hogs.

I was going to post on this thread but saw this and now I don't need to, my sentiments exactly.

I was in my LGS, and had just installed a S&B on a M70 EW 300 WSM. There were two African pros on some kind of promotional tour and one guy yelled to the other "Look at this rifle...this guy got it "right"!"

Now the EW is not a "cheap" rifle but these guys were Mauser snobs from Africa...

Read what you want into that.... but both said Americans get it all backwards in that they hunt with expensive rifles but second rate optics and "cheap" scopes.

One said their big Kudu were mostly all killed at dark and to them the Zeiss, Swaro and S&B optics were what they liked to see clients carry. They said you don't need expensive rifles; put the money in great optics and reliable mechanics.

Hey I did't say it.....they did.

I have had inexpensive rifles that would outshoot rifles that were considered top of the line, and I've had inexpensive ones that were junk as far as I'm concerned. Same way with scopes. I have had very good results with an old Tasco World Class and a Simmons 44 Mag, and consider them to be very reliable glass. On the other hand, I've had some expensive scopes that did not live up to their billing. But, for the most part, you get what you pay for.....and that applies to everything. As to the old saying that you have to see it before you can shoot it, which implies that you need a more expensive scope than a rifle, if that rifle is not reliable and accurate, then the best scope in the world isn't going to help you.

He probably flashed his headlights at a drag ass in the left lane on the way to the range too.

I could not agree more!