Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Is any scope....

I don’t do any shooting that could ever warrant a $3500 scope. I imagine out of those who buy scopes for hunting, few people spend that kind of money. If you want to shoot steel at half a mile, you need something more than what I need to hit the vitals on a deer at 250 yds.

I find this kinda poverty mentality quite annoying and self-limitimg.

Maybe a guy drives a $2500 truck that he paid cash for 20 years ago, doesn't have a mortgage, and maxes out his annual ira contribution.

All that is possible with a sub 100k income.

Or maybe he makes 3-10 times that. If so, good for him.

There's nothing wrong with having nice things if you're passionate about a craft, or respect the handiwork of those that are.

So yeah, people are buying them so that's what they're worth.

They’re worth it if you are always able to make your shot without equipment limitations. Marginal optics can limit you at times. I agree that there is a law of diminishing returns in optics, but the saying still applies. Buy once, cry once.

I’m in the PRK and have hunted out of state many times on a certain private ranch in Wyoming. By the time I fly out there, pay meals and lodging, hunting fees in addition to out of state tags I find that the cost of my equipment is the least of the costs over time. In 2000 I bought a Blaser rifle topped by a Schmidt and Bender riflescope. It cost a lot, but I’ve had twenty years of use. I’ve never been limited by my equipment and I’ve hunted in every condition you can have in Wyoming. And for those of you that live there, you know it covers a lot!

I think that a lot of people confuse an aiming device with a telescope. If one doesn’t dial, the most important thing in a scope is durability and ability to hold zero. Like anything else in life, different requirements demand different features and the importance of those features varies by requirement. So, if you’re competition shooting at long range, other factors and requirements apply.

I like nice stuff. I thought about buying a Blaser, I may yet still. On the other hand, for many years my main rifle was a Husqvarna 98 30-06 in a Basner stock with a Weaver Grandslam 4.75. It was accurate enough. It was bullet proof. It was dead simple. I could reliably hit anything I wanted out to about 400 yards. I would have taken that rifle anywhere and hunted pretty much anything without being limited by my equipment. Got the scope on sale for less than $200. Paid $350 for the rifle and about $250 for the stock. I bedded it myself. Less than $1000 for the whole rig.

Once again, nothing wrong with spending more. Spend as much as you like. On the other hand, recognize that in most cases it’s simply because you want to and not because you need to. It’s the same reason my wife drives an Escalade instead of a Yukon. She wants the Cadillac. She doesn’t need it and it offers nothing something cheaper wouldn’t do just as well but she wants it.

I can afford a dozen or so of them my question was are they worth it!!

Mike

Everyone has the freedom to value things as they see fit. If a person places a certain value on an object and is willing to pay it then yes, it's worth it....to them. I can't say how much something is worth to someone else or the value it will hold for them. I can evaluate something for myself and my circumstances but I can't value it for someone else.

Some folks will always buy the most expensive there is in whatever they are buying not matter what.

Only you can answer that to your satisfaction. I've already explained why they are worth it to me as a competitor. But that is from my perspective.

What is your perspective? Why would you want to examine a top tier optic if you are content with what you have?

Is it just about price?

2 competing philosophies of business:

#1 It is morally wrong to allow a fool to keep his money.
(Often attributed to P. T. Barnum)


#2 Treat others as you would like to be treated.
(Jesus Christ.)

Your situation is where I find myself thinking they are actually worth it. I have been looking into the long range games, necessary equipment, process to be competitive if you will and started investigating the equipment lists of top shooters at various F-class or PRS matches from online reports. I was a little surprised at how much the top tier glass had gone up over the last dozen or o years, I normally pay no attention to it because I don't use it! When I competed it was with iron sights shooting service rifle 20 years ago.


Some are sounding offended by my question and that is not the point. I'm not jealous or calling them crazy for spending it just getting a perspective.


Also wondering if they are driven up by the GWOT to a certain extent.


MIke

Very good!

Overall, I spend about equally on guns and optics. What would you have for optics if you had as much money into them as you do guns? I have some guns with no optic and some with an optic that cost me twice what the gun cost. Guns for a given task are going to cost some amount. A rifle for whitetail from a treestand in the woods won't require as much expense as an F-class competition rifle. For all the purposes that I have for a rifle, the requirements can easily be met for about $700 -- take a new Tikka T3X. If I bought it used or on sale, I could probably get a terrific rifle for my needs for $500. I spend more than that on rifles because there's some other things that turn me on. Bob Lutz had this theory about cars -- basically, everybody's actual needs are easily met by a wide variety of cars on the market, so what's left to sell cars amounts to "turn-ons." So besides the basic Tikka/Savage/Ruger-American that will do just about everything that anybody needs done outside the higher levels of competition, combat, or other professional work, we have turn-ons like Walnut, CRF, novel lug designs and bolt-throws, alternative actions (lever, falling block, top-break, doubles, semi-auto), and we have a huge variety of different cartridges. There are dozens of cartridges that do everything the others do but each turns one person on more than another.

So what I find is that once I have what I need, more money still on the gun rarely nets a meaningful increase in performance or other advantage. Additional or different cartridges cost me a lot for components and tooling and there's not likely to be any justification for it in the outcome. Optics, on the other hand, are different. No matter how much I spend, there is always more to be had by spending still more. Since I don't own a lot of guns, I don't even have to consider buying and mounting a lot of optics. I can only look through one at a time, and so my preference would be to spend as much as I'm willing on one optic rather than many. The only thing that keeps me from buying a $3500 riflescope or a $7000 riflescope is opportunity cost. I have other non-firearm related things to spend on. But as far as firearms are concerned, an optic is the one area I wish I could somehow accumulate value without just accumulating junk scopes. I think a lot of people of modest means find it easier to buy more guns and fill up their safe with tens of thousands of dollars in guns. Other people, also of modest means, accumulate tens of thousands of dollars in reloading gear, presses, dies, and components. I have enough guns. I haven't bought one for over a year and I have at least one that I'd sell. I have enough reloading gear too so long as I don't adopt another cartridge which will invariably do the same thing as the ones I already have. The last thing I want is more scopes. I have two and absolutely no use for the lesser one. On the other hand, I would gladly take one that is better than my best.

Can't really say since I don't know what goes into building one. How many can do it? If it takes a rare artist, yes.

Fortunately a $350 will do for GA deer.

I also have to keep in mind that this is the "Hunting Optics" section, with emphasis on "Hunting," where people are not trying to stack 20 rounds back to back onto target with a 5-inch bullseye and have to contend with mirage and other atmospheric vagaries that affect vision and the ensuing marksmanship. Within that context< I can see that for most people here, such optics are not needed or worth it. My hunting rifles do not have multi-kilobuck riflescopes. However all my competition rifles do, well except for my NM AR-15 left over from my Service Rifle days and my CG-96 from my Palma days.

That said, if I were going on an expensive hunt, I would probably upgrade a "hunting" riflescope to a higher tier for dependability and to also make sure it can handle any possible scenario with ease; not limited by darkness, distance, conditions.

Hmm maybe it should just be the optics page! Never hardly post here so didn't notice...

I was going through the list...$1500 action, $400 barrel, $2000 stock/chassis, $3,500 scope, $500 annealing machine, didn't even look at rests, it costs money to drink liquor and ride the train!!!



Mike

Indeed it does. My match F-TR rifle was about $7000, and it's seen 6 barrels @ $650 each, chambered and fitted. About one per year.