Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles why do hunters get talked into ........

When I use a $50 scope the rings don�t matter much, unless my intent is to later replace the scope.

When I use a $200-$350 scope I opt for more expensive rings. Unfortunately quality doesn�t come free and you often/usually get what you pay for. If you want to chance rings that may be misaligned and/or machined to generous tolerances, and have poor support from the manufacturer, go for the cheapies. Tight tolerances, extra features and good factory support will cost more.

My first scope was a $49 (or was it $39?) Bushnell 3-9x Sportview, purchased in 1982. That scope performed yeoman�s work until 2001 when I finally replaced it. Everything I shot using that scope died quickly, but optical quality really sucked. The last time I purchased a used rifle it came a newer model of the Sportview and optical quality was so poor, compared to the scopes I normally use these days, I took it off immediately.

Have never had rings or bases fail but have had scope failures (Bushnell and Leuold). The Bushnell was a throw-away because factory repair cost considerably more than a new replacement scope; the Leupold, purchased used, went back to the factory and was fixed for free.

As a result of my experiences, my recommendation is to buy quality. If $50 scopes and $15 rings are all you can afford, get them. For most, however, $150-$200 for a scope (new or used) and $65 for rings and bases is within reach. My Marlins all sport Warne Quick Detach rings and bases ($65), my Rugers have Ruger rings ($75 when I need a different height), my lone Remington has Leupold rings and bases (can�t recall the cost) and most of my scopes are used Leupold ($100-$350).

I�m not an equipment snob but have come to recognize and appreciate differences in quality. There is a great deal of difference between the cheap stuff and the moderately priced stuff. There is also a great deal of difference between the moderately priced stuff and the top-end stuff, but the cost/benefit ratio is not as great as between the cheap and moderately priced stuff. IMHO.

Coyote: Good post.

Ngrumba: I ordered the 470 (over the 450) mostly for brass availability. I've shot Blasers & Chapuis and seen Kreighoff,Rigby, H&H, and WR. Once I saw the Heym I was done for. The Blaser was a 470 with a LH stock and it felt better than the Chapuis in .375 with a RH stock.
FWIW, I find the 470's recoil to be less than the 416 Rigby with full loads. Some of this I know is fit, but also the 416 is "faster" and "sharper" -- I can shoot more per session without tiring with the 470. Mostly I've always wanted one and now was a good time as an Africa trip is about 1.5-2.0 years out

+1Coyote!

SRW brings up a fair point. There are some posters here that make it sound like anything less than a custom leup 30mm tactical sitting in $200 rings and bases will not function. I submit most of us would disagree with that.

The simple fact that you are at this site implies that you are a gun geek. A Rem 700 that shoots sub moa is a good rifle. It is also not overly interesting. A custom rifle is generally more interesting to this crowd. Custom rifles are not inexpensive. Human nature is to talk about that which is interesting. I believe that's why a lot of the posting here involves cool but expensive hardware.

However, there are some people here (like elsewhere in life)who do like to play "mine's bigger". A gentleman should always respond tho their insecurity with grace.

A gentleman wouldn't mention it

did i forget to mention that these rifles have taken somewhere between 175-200 whitetails, 10-12 bear,and at least 2000 groundhogs.

and 280rem,for most hunting you dont gain a thing by buying better glass . most shots are within 200yds on deer , and you need very little power for that, infact most whitetails i've takin i really wouldn't have needed a scope at all.

someone said there first scope was a bushnell sportview,i have one i bought new in about 1980-81 i had it on my 700 rem til i fell and scratched the side of it up. i still use it ,its on my cva hunterbolt muzzleloader and i've killed 30plus deer with it on that gun.


the most expensive scope i own is on my rem xp100 in 221FB
,its a burris 2-7 . ofcourse i bought for half price at a yard sale still in the box.

Well you must be the luckiest sum's a bitch to have taken all that game and shot that many rounds without so much as a hick up with that fine selection of optics ya run...I'd be in line for a PowerBall ticket if I was you....

+1

Put any of that glass on a 300 or 338 see how long it lasts. I'm thinking the over-under be 3 shots

There's a prime example of what I'm talking about...you're not capable of understanding the answers to the questions you've asked.


ditto dvdegeorge!

Horse and water come to mind....

Hadn't thunk of it that way, but yep!

Unfortunately these days, it's getting even harder just to lead the horse to water, much less drink ...

there's some damn stubborn horses around these here parts ...

Don�t get me wrong, I�m not bashing Sportviews. When I got my first one back in 1982 the $39 or $49 I spent for it was a stretch financially and I seriously considered using sticking with the iron sights on my Ruger 7mm Rem Mag. As it turned out the Bushnell Sportview rode the 7mm Rem Mag for 20 years and took a lot of game. Further, based on the abuse it survived, was a fairly rugged piece of equipment.

There is a reason you can still buy Sportview scopes new for $39, and it isn�t because they are top quality. It isn�t because they are nitrogen filled or have 1/4� click adjustments or quality optics that deliver brighter, crisper and clearer images. It isn�t because they are manufactured to tight tolerances or have a great warranty,

I agree better optical clarity doesn�t count for much on a bright day when a deer is standing in the open at 200 yards, but not all shooting is done in bright conditions or even at deer. Quite frankly, my Sportview was a PITA in low-light situations and when trying to shoot tiny groups at long ranges it was far from my first choice.

Thanks, but I�ll take my Leupold, Burris or even my Simmons scopes every time. By the way, you can buy them used, too � and most of mine were.

Question � I�m going to assume your Burris 2-7 cost a bit more than a $39 Sportview (still available at swfa.com as today). If there is no advantage, why did you spend the extra money?

So if a person doesn't shoot one of those big magnums, does he have to spend a lot of cash on a scope?

A 7 mag probaby doesn't qulaify as a big magnum, but I ran a Weaver V-7 that cost about $60 on it for over 15 years without a hick up using Weaver bases, shooting about 100-150 rds a year.
I think alot of guys refer to hersay when talking about scope failure. How many scope failures have you actaully encountered in your life?

Have had $18 Busnells on rifles up though Leupold VX-III on rifles. Interesting ,the only scope that went south was a Leuopld 3-9x. All took a lot of scabbard beating.

The first deer I killed was with a .410 shotgun shooting a 45 colt 250 gr lead bullet out through that smooth bore at about 40 yds. Yea it can be done

I run what I run from personal experience.Have had cheap Bushnell,Simmons,Tasco and Weavers crap on me ,and usually it was at a most inopportune time...Run what ever works for you

Wow, 100-150 rounds a year! How do you find the time?

bwinters, the simmons has held up to over a 100 rds a year for the 5-6 yrs.and that light 110 savage in 7mm mag has plenty of
recoil.

coyote hunter, i only payd 125.00 for the burris new in the box,some guy bought and sold the same week,he said he just didnt like it.

280rem,i'm beginning to wonder if your capable of anything........

Of the group of 5-6 hunters my dad elk hunted with from the early 60's through the 70's, the guy who killed the most elk used a beat-up M721, with a RIMFIRE scope, and his handloads consisted of whatever brass he could scrounge (regardless of brand) what ever kind of powder worked (he would sometimes be shooting 2-3 different powders), and any bullet--just as long as was 180 grainers.

My dad has been using a M77 06 he bought in 1969, with a mid 60's Bushnell Scopechief......the last time it was sighted in on paper was the early 90's (I know, I'm the one who did it).......that rifle has probably accounted for 30+ elk.

It's about the hunter.....something we don't pay much attention to on these websites..........

Casey

Based on what I've read so far about your ability to evaluate and understand the capabilities of various guns and optics...I'll take that for what it's worth. Nada!

So you have between 1500 and 2250 rounds through that tube....Barrel has to be showing accuracy problems by now....