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

Speaking of VX-1s (or Is, whatever), I've got a circa-2005 4-12 that's been mounted on 6 or 8 different rifles from .204 to .308 without issue. It's on my Howa .223 now and the last time I adjusted it, it moved as expected, which can't be said for the early "new" Redfield I had. I have a sneaking suspicion that friction adjustments may be more reliable than cheap clicks.

i've been saying that around here for years and im a big A hole for it.


dave

You won't get any grief from me, I'm sure there are some pretty scopes that function well too.
I just like scopes that can stand up to clicking and don't change POI when you fiddle with the magnification or parallax adjustments.

Not to me you aren't LOL!


You and jwp are a bad influence in a good way...

Well, color me impressed with the new 30-06 RAR's first trip to the range. Here are the particulars:

RAR 30-06, $179 special from Wally World
Tract Toric UHD 3-15x42 plex
Federal Power Shock 165 gr SP blue box
Federal Power Shock 180 gr SP blue box

I went through the process of mounting the new Toric, torqued the Warne's to 25", and applied dyna bore coat because I like the stuff. I let it cure overnight for a total of about 18 hours. This is the results of my bore sighting, "curing/centering" shots, and very minor adjustments. This was NOT a scope tracking test in any form or fashion.

Here's what it looks like mounted up.....

[img:left][/img]


After bore sighting at 25 yds firing 2 shots, I hung the target at 100yds, fired the first shot with the 165gr ammo and hit high (shot 1). Adjusted scope down what I was guessing the proper amount and fired shots 2,3. Adjusted right 6 clicks for shots 4,5,6. I then shot the right target with the 180gr ammo, firing shots 1,2,3,4 that hit just below the bull. Adjusted 10 clicks up and fired shots 5,6,7. Looks to be rather promising.

[img:left][/img]

I like clarity and definition in my scopes as much as anyone, but reliability is even more important...to me. Besides, there's nothing like a whiff of moisture in some form to reduce $800 worth of optical clarity by about $799.

Neither cheap rifles nor cheap scopes hold any appeal to me. Unless the cheap rifle is a M700 donor.

It's not that I'm rich; I'm certainly not. And my idea of a "nice" rifle is likely very different than many. I don't want or require deep bluing, perfect checkering, a stock hand-carved from a walnut tree that once shaded baby Jesus... or even CRF. I DO require a rigid, weatherproof stock, stainless steel, an exquisite trigger, and low-drama accuracy.

With scopes.... while I'm trying like heck not to get sucked into the tacticool world, it's a simple statement of fact that those are the guys who have pushed the state of the art forwards these last decades. My last two scope buys have been Nightforce and it's been a bit of a revelation to see what happens if you put scope-induced mechanical imprecisions to BED. It's removing a variable from a very critical part of the whole equation. That does not suck one bit.

I've got a build in progress right now. The rifle + stock + tooling needed to make it (reamer, etc) will top $2k. The cheapest scope in consideration for it is about $1k, the most expensive, around $2k. I need the mechanical stability in the scope to do what I want to do... I'll spend as much on the MOUNT for the scope as most rifle owners spend on a scope for a hunting rifle. Present company of loons excepted of course.

Looking at the question from another angle... Joe SixPack who goes to range once a year to check zero then buys a box of random shells and goes hunting can get a really nice scope, for his needs, at a very reasonable price these days... Rifle too.

You fought tooth and nail not to believe anything was better than leupy, glad to see that you moved forward.

Disregard - no longer applicable.

Bob,

A few comments on your post about the two African pros:

On my very first safari, the expensive Euro-scope on my .375 H&H went belly-up after not many shots, and not many days of bouncing around in a Land Cruiser. The PH commented that the two brands of scopes he'd seen fail more often than any others in Africa were a really cheap brand, previously mentioned in this thread, and a really expensive brand, one of the three mentioned by your pair of pros. (Luckily, I had a backup scope along, a much less expensive 4x that wasn't nearly as bright as the expensive European variable, but held together fine on the .375--and took my first kudu on the next-to-last day despite having to thread the bullet through over 200 yards of very shady jungle along the Limpopo River.)

I have seen a few of the three brands they mention on PH's rifles, but not very many. One was the 4x Zeiss on Kevin Thomas's .375 H&H. Kevin is the PH I got to know best, over two rather long safaris, and we still keep in touch though he retired a couple years ago and is now living in Great Britain, partly because one of his sons lives there.

I have also taken several other kudu here and there, but probably the first was taken in the dimmest light. One other was taken in late afternoon, with the sun almost but not quite down--which is why I could shoot accurately with iron sights. Bright glass is very helpful on occasion in Africa, especially when hunting baited leopards, but I have also tested a bunch of scopes optically and today there are a bunch of other brands of scope that are just as bright as the three he mentions--and some that are brighter than some of the models from those companies.

I tend to use scopes that have proven themselves both optically and mechanically over a period of time, and as noted earlier haven't always found either to be strictly related to price of brand name. But often I have to "field test" scopes that haven't been as well-proven, sometimes to my regret.

JGRaider, that was a very nicely done post showing what your good work, some inexpensive equipment and factory ammo can do. It should be helpful for a lot of folks who are not picky/loonies like some of us, and maybe for some who are. Thanks.

John I have broken Zeiss and Swarovski scopes, all variables and of course a pack of Leopold variables......

I found one on sale yesterday so decided to see if anything has changed in the decade since you and I both had problems with the Swaro AV 3-9. I leaped ahead and slapped a new Z3 3-9 on my 30/06 FW and wailed away a bit this afternoon.....Lets see if I can break it. I will keep us posted

Im sure we can only discuss this stuff in the most general of terms since no matter what we use, we will find someone with a bad experience with just about anything out there. The said the 4X Leopold is a tough grinder of a scope that will withstand a lot of shooting and abuse...ditto the 3X and the 6X.

I am becoming a little impressed with that Nightforce SHV......nice optics and the turrets seem reliable. Played with that this afternoon too.

I have grown fussier about optics; I still have my fixed powers of course but as I've aged the good glass has become somewhat more important. It does not always matter but sometimes it does!

The only brand of scope I have not managed to break are Nightforce and Schmidt-Bender but then I have no where near the round count with those that I do with Leopold. It sure did not take long to break the Zeiss and Swaro variables years back....under 100 rounds as I recall.

To me a reliable scope is one that lasts the life of the barrel.

Bob, maybe your two PH's opinions' were correct and representative of much more experience than I but I've had from Tasco's, in more lean years, all the way to the three continental alpha brands and many of them.

They've been on from 17 HMRs to the 222 to the 458 Lott. The scope taking the most recoil for the longest length of time was a Leupold Vari-X lll, 2.5-8x on a 340 Wby; that was for some twenty years without a hiccup (unless I dropped it on a shale hillside which I did).

My one, ONE, failure was a FIXED power scope, not a variable, and it wasn't a Tasco, Nikon, Leupold or any other than a $1k S&B...on a 350 Rem Mag..and after only about fifteen rounds.

I'm. It sure what that means, if anything, other than any one of 'em can break.

George anything can break. I guess we have to go with weighted averages.....


A 2.5-8X Leupold is the only variable scope that I have used to shoot out a barrel. But this was years back when Leupold was one of the only games in town if you wanted a tough scope.

I can't bring myself to buy the variables any more. At least the VX 3-ish series or whatever they call them today. Who can keep up with the models? Cripes....


Give me back the old M8 4X....

I've had one budget bolt rifle. A Marlin XL7 in 270 with a Tasco 4x. It outshot about everything else I ever owned. I used it for one full season of hunting.

I'd buy a good (neither cheap or high end) rifle and fit it with a Redfield scope. The Redfields, built by Leopold, are very good optically and rugged enough for virtually any sporting use. Sure, a $2,000 or more scope will be be better, but how much "quality" do you really need or can use? I object to paying good money just for bragging rights.

OK, so bring this one back again. Thanks, djs.

I'm right there. If I can't figure out how to hit something without monkeying with the knobs, then the sumbitch is too far away.

My $0.02 is that a quality rifle is a "lifetime purchase", though I understand that is the way some view scopes.

The difference IMO, is that scopes are getting better and better, while rifles are getting worse and worse. This is because technology is increasing while craftsmanship is decreasing.

I have three Weatherby Vanguards, an early S1, a late S1, and a recent S2. They show an evident decline in action smoothness, finish quality, and overall feel.

I typically spend about 50% on my scopes of what I do on my rifles.

I have a VX-II 3-9x50 on my oldest rifle, and a VX-1 2-7x33 on my other S1. Believe it or not, the the $200 VX-1 with the smaller objective and lower power range is both brighter and clearer than the older $500 scope.

If you look at cell phones, computers, and other things that are technology driven, they are both better and cheaper than they were in the past. If you look at furniture, cars, and other things that require craftsmanship, they are more expensive and more poorly constructed than the older models.

One of the reasons why the cheaper rifles are so popular is that they cater to market demands, while the higher quality ones are slow to change. Threaded barrels, better triggers, and modern calibers are what buyers want today.

I also understand those that use a rifle strictly as a tool, that gets abused and neglected day in and day out with little care or maintenance. I enjoy every minute of holding my walnut-stocked Weatherby in the woods, but it would probably be different if that rifle lived in a fishing boat.

I'd still rather buy an heirloom grade rifle with a less expensive but still reliable scope, and upgrade it down the line when I have the funds.

Well said and true.