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

Got it. My understanding of your point was tacit and I could have worded it better. From what I gather Tasco used to market some decent scopes but today their stuff is mostly inferior. Is that correct?

As some may know, I generally do not follow the crowd. I look at my rifles as tools only, not something to stare at and admire their beauty, or chastise for the lack thereof. If they consistently work as designed, they get used. If not, they get fixed/sold.

Cost usually isn't the bottom line for me, as I've had S&B scopes that I hated, and Burris FF scopes that I liked. Makes no difference to me the brand on the tube, or rifle for that matter.

All that said, when deciding on a scope, I usually start at the mid priced stuff, and stay away from the $1500 stuff anymore because I see no benefit....been down that road and made a complete 360* circle, and back to mid priced stuff. I am doing that right now, deciding what to put on a couple of RAR's (30-06 and .243) that I bought for $179 each. I will probably try out the new Tract Toric/duplex reticle combo. Just going to guess that this combo will kill the crap out of whatever it's pointed at, numerous cull aoudad and mega hogs. If I'm wrong I'll let you know.

I'm always a day late and a dollar short when it comes to those Walmart deals.

At $179.00 you'd almost be hard pressed to mount a scope that cost less than the rifle. My scopes are in the $350.00 to $650.00 range. I also feel the same about diminishing returns after a certain price point.

I've just about decided to buy one of the LH RAR's in .243 since I've got a lot of .243 ammo and components already.

I'll more than likely put a Redfield Revolution 2x7 on it since I've had good luck with the two I own.

I can't really justify a more expensive scope for that rifle yet.

A cheap, ugly rifle can still function and be as accurate as an expensive rifle. A cheap scope, on the other hand, is just a POS waiting to fail at a critical moment.

You can skimp on rifles, but always spend as much as you can afford on glass.

I've always felt the same way but I've been disappointed lately because it seems more and more the more expensive scopes are using cheaper and cheaper parts and labor to maximize profit.

My contribution to this would be to say that we had a really bad experience with a Tasco scope. It fogged on us during a hunt, and then when we went to take the elevation cap off, the whole guts of the adjustment mechanism came out with it. I've never owned one since. I don't have high end optics, just good scopes that I know work. Not a Leupold in the bunch. Older Weavers work just fine for me.

As for the lower end rifles, I've never had a Ruger, so no dog in this fight. No matter how many guns I've bought, sold and traded, I always come back to what got me there. A Savage 99, and Dad's old Mauser. They just feel right. When there's a comfort level, there's a confidence level too, and I would trust either of these rifles with my life. There's a buttload of deer that didn't exactly like finding themselves in front of either one of them.

IF I had to choose.....

I'd rather take a $100.00 dollar saddle on a $50.00 horse.

I can break in any horse and get it to ride.

VX-2's are upper league and Trashco doesn't compare, and scopes go south more often than rifles.

If you can afford it, it's hard to go wrong with Nightforce or US Optics.

Not a personal attack at you BarryC, but I also see no need to put tactical scopes on my hunting guns, but that's just me. Guess I'm a simpleton.

I know about some good older Tascos, but to be honest haven't tried any in so long I don't know about the newer models.

I know a guy that is an editor for an outdoor magazine. They are sent rifles by sponsors for them to test. They received one very expensive rifle that would fire upon closing the bolt. I'll bet a RAR would not do that. Poor quality control happens no matter how expensive the scope, or the rifle.

As to the RAR, the magazine is the weak spot, for sure. I have three that all started to give me fits, with a full load. If you only put two in, they work fine. Ruger replaced them and the new ones have not failed yet, but have not been used much, either. It appears that they have put weak springs in them. Other than that, mine has been great for over 900 rounds.

I have been hunting, target shooting and handloading for my rifles since 1953. I got my first buck with my handload then.

There are 8 extra scopes in the cabinet including a Hensoldt and four Zeiss.

A Swarovski is on a pet. A Lyman was my first. A scope has never failed on me in use.

I can see the strategy in starting out with a good scope on a cheap rifle with the idea of upgrading the gun later. Some of the starter guns are cheaper than an Encore barrel, and pretty much all of them are cheaper than a re-barrel. VX-2s and FXs are kinda the bottom end of my optics choice these days and currently also the top. While apparently they do crap on occasion, they haven't crapped on me yet.

I would like to add a VX-6 to one of my rifles eventually.

You're very lucky. I've had a Nikon go "sproing" and several Leupold scopes go bad, mostly by losing their ability to track well. I've noted that the 3x9 Leupolds seem to be particularly bad about tracking properly. Up 4 clicks moves POI 2" up and 1" right, things like that.

Although I will admit to having screwed down rings farmer tight most of my life. Since I got a torque wrench and limit tightening ring screws to no more than about 25-26 inch pounds a lot of scope problems have gone away. But even mounted properly and stress free I still see "variable" tracking on some Leupold 3-9 variable scopes.

My fixed 6X Weaver, on the other hand, is dead nuts accurate. 4 clicks on either axis moves POI 1 inch at 100 yards exactly along that axis, all the time.

I would think that if you shoot at long range regularly and have a cheap rifle that will reliably group your shots into 1/2-3/4 MOA, why not put the best scope on it that you can afford--especially if it is chambered for a cartridge that generates significant amount of recoil with the loads that you use. I don't shoot a lot at long ranges and I can't warm up to cheap rifles. Most of my preferred scopes start with the mid-range Leupolds and their equivalents and go up from there. But, hey, it's not your money so why worry about it?

Yep! A while back I picked up a Sako Finnbear 270 in like new condition for $700. It looks to have less than a box of ammo fired through the rifle. I topped it with a Zeiss Conquest that was on sale for $299. I think I've got one hell of a lot of quality for just under $1000. 😎




Shod

I don't believe he shoots very much.

It probably brands me as a hopeless Luddite, but I'm a set-and-forget user. I don't expect hunting scopes to stand up to being run up and down the dial and don't need them to either. I'd get an SS for such work. The other well-known Leupold virtues are more important to me. I've had some others that were fine in most ways, but their eye-relief and eyebox shortcomings showed up in the woods.

I've seen some good things said about the current Weaver Ks, so if I were trying to save money, I might give one of them a shot.

Rifles come and go, esp the cheap ones. Try the rifles out then sell them. A good scope will get the best out of them.

Good scopes are not sold but go on to the next project.