Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Price point of diminishing returns for hunting scopes

My dumb azz will head to northern BC this fall with an old 2.5-8 Vari-X III on a Cliff LaBounty rebored 338-06 POS Rem 700 I bedded into a McM KS (Remington) MR stock. For 15 days looking for goat, elk and moose with the luck of the draw for mountain caribou, wolf and black bear. So far a handful of elk, black bear, grizzly and nilgai with a few lesser critters have dropped to the combo.

For a set and forget you will awesome glass for under $800.

It seems to me that "diminishing returns" has a pretty straightforward meaning, that as you spend more the incremental improvement per dollar becomes less and less.

With that as a working definition, I've owned or at least used scopes from cheap ones to very high end. I think that in new scopes the Burris FFII represents a good, reliable and effective choice for hunting, and I own three of them. Cheaper scopes than this have not proved to do the job for me, so the return for dollar spent on them has been effectively zero.

Spending more than the Burris FFII can give improvements in some areas, but it seems to me I'm getting less and less for each additional dollar. I would rate the Meoptas I own or have used above the Burris for example, the various German scopes higher still, but there's definitely less and less improvement per dollar, so IMHO the price point beyond which I see diminishing returns is at about the level of the Burris.

A quite separate and different question is "how much do I need to spend to get a scope which is good enough" , and the answer to that will depend on what you want it for. Whether, for example, you want it to dial repeatedly, or to use it in very low light. How critical you are too, of things like colour rendition or the quality at the edge of the field, and perhaps how good your eyesight is. How rugged the scope has to be too. Perhaps pride of ownership too.

I personally have been happy with medium-priced scopes, for what I use them for, though I have several European-made ones and have used others. I have a mate who won't be happy with anything short of "alpha" glass. Each of us is free to choose what we like.

I think the difference today is that a lot of gun owning hunters do a lot more shooting than in past generations. I grew up with lots of people that hunted, but very few of them actually shot much. Most rifles were shot to check zero for the coming hunting season and that was it. Now it’s incredible how busy shooting ranges are. On average, we all have more leisure time, better work/life balance and more information. This all leads to more hobbies like shooting.
I’m 51 and I hunt as much or more now than I did in my thirties, but that doesn’t involve much shooting. But I do spend a whole heck of lot more time shooting my rifles than I ever did. Because of that my expectations for my “hunting scopes” are a lot different than they used to be.
Which means my hunting scopes are capable of a lot more than is required for the actual shooting I do while hunting.

The VX-1's, 2's and 3's all have excellent eyebox (important to me in a hunting scope), eye relief and glass. The Freedom scopes are VX-2 glass and eyebox, and at ~$175 are a lot of scope for the money. And no, none of my Leupolds have exploded in a mushroom cloud and lost zero (least not that I'm aware of). Most of my older Leupolds adjust accurately (but not all), most newer ones don't (but some do). The Burris FFII 3-9's have just good enough glass and eyebox, and at ~$150 are a lot of scope for the money. I haven't owned mine long enough to have an opinion of their longevity/reliability.

In my slightly humble opinion, it's still hard to beat the Leupold 2.5-8x36 for an all around hunting scope on a lightweight rifle here in the west--even at their current price.

This is an excellent thread, For me it's a few Weaver classic's, Ziess Conquest's (Discontinued ones) Meopro's and yes some Leupolds. RJ

Everyone's eyes are different and the point of diminishing returns is pretty subjective. What one person thinks is a great scope may be a POS to another.

The older I get the more I've come to appreciate good glass as well as good reliably internal mechanics. I don't twist turrets and if I need a scope for distance shooting I'll choose a BDC type reticle and run data on a ballistics calculator for yardages. The ability to set and hold zero is a must.

Over the 45+ years I've been hunting I've owned many brands of scopes from low end to Alpha glass. I prefer European made scopes mainly for the glass quality, but Japanese glass is getting pretty close in quality.

The bottom end of my hunting scopes are Meopta Meopro/Zeiss Conquests. My upper range scopes include Leica ER, Swarovski Z5 & Zeiss Victory. Could I get by with lesser priced/quality scopes, probably, but I've been down that road before and am not going back. I'd rather have an $800 dollar scope on a $200 rifle than vice versa. Between accurizing and handloading I can get a $200 dollar rifle to shoot. You can't improve glass quality or mechanics on a scope.

Unless it's just for target shooting at known distances, I'd have to ask what's the most dependable range finder for the money before I could consider which scope has rock solid repeatable dialing.

For example, I'm using a fairly low end, by Fire standards, Nikon Prostaff-5 2.5-10x40 on my slow twist 223. It has terrific field of view at low power, that is noticeably bigger than the 3-9's that I've used. And the contrast is fantastic.
It also has the zero-reset tuurets feature that seems designed for dialing, but also BDC reticle. I've yet to test it's repeatability.
I put it on the 223 because the rifle came with high/rear medium/front rings so the bolt handle clears the large ocular..

I didn't really choose this scope as much as it chose me by being on clearance for around $100
I'm happy with it so far even though it's extenal dimensions are bigger and heavier than I normally would have chosen. Could I have gotten a more effective scope by spending 5 or 10 times as much? I don't know....

Some day when I feel the need to upgrade to a more modern rifle with a fast twist and heavier barrel, I may run down the road to SWFA and pick up a true turret twister....and a range finder.
But for now I mostly limit myself to mpbr or less depending on the target.
If I hunted a couple or few hundred miles west where the range was bigger, I'd set up appropriately...which for me would probably entail switching from a .243 to a .270 before a dialing scope would come into play.

Now if I had a heavy recoiling rifle that I used for dangerous game, I'd probably spend several hundred dollars on an appropriate 30mm 1-6 or so scope. But my VX1 shotgun scope in 1-4x20 hasn't puked yet on my little 30-30 hog flusher.
I could actually use that 1-4x20 on about half of my rifles and be well equipped. YMMV

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/scopes-that-do-it-all/

Rings and mounts and their installation are at least of equal importance as the scope they hold, if not more. I've had a couple of very old and very cheap scopes fail years ago. But my most recent sighting snafu, several years ago, came with an ever so slightly loose mount.

Ed, sounds like a great rifle that will get the job done and quite the trip planned. Share some pics, that is beautiful country!