Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Real World Difference Between a $500 and a $1000 Scope?

Over the course of the last year or so, I have been on a bit of a journey to replace what would be considered "average" guns with higher quality stuff. After reading, listening to, and maybe moreso conversing with certain people on this forum, I decided to get something I would be happy with for some time. I started the journey with a Sako 85 Hunter, got rid of that and ended up with a Sako 85 Bavarian. After a month of looking at what I felt was a very pretty wood oil finished wood stock, I was convinced that I would inevitably beat it up during hunting season, and get mad about it. So I got rid of it, and got the gun I deep down really wanted, a Cooper Jackson Hunter (stainless/composite stock)

Now to my question. I currently have a Zeiss Conquest 3x9x40, that I picked up about 7 months ago, on this new rifle. Like many, I consider this to arguably be the best $500 scope on the market, but now I am pondering on putting a different scope on this gun.

In your experience what is the real world performance difference between a $500 scope and a $1000 scope such as a Zeiss HD 5, Swaro Z3 or even a Trijicon Accupoint?

I look forward to your answers, particularly from people who use $1000 (or better) scopes.

PS: I'm in Canada so the prices are a bit higher than you good folks would pay for the same in your fine country.

its hard for me to find a problem hunting with a $5-700 rifle scope as I am a middle class guy an average "wood" and I am hunting middle class average deer. I like to look down my nose at the cheap Bushnell's and NC Star's etc and honestly some are pretty bad. At the same time the man with a $2500 Swarovski likes to look down his nose at my $500 Conquest. We all buy the best that we can and we all do a good job emotionally justifying our decisions. Granted the optics in an expensive swaroski usually beat those in a Conquest, but not the Z3 a guy I hunt with has one of these 1 inch diameter tubed devices and I cannot see much difference in it over my Conquests. Save your money until you are in the +$2,000 range. You might also find that the trip from frosted glass in a $59 riflescope to a working device in a $500 riflescope is a a lot more distance for the money than the $500 to $2500 trip regards improved performance.

We do this stuff for fun so for me its not really about need its about want and I am always willing to waste my money on that little extra benefit or feature that will give me that perceived extra help in the game fields.

In my personal opinion, and now a practice of mine, is that I don't see the value in hunting scopes that cost loads of money. In particular Nightforce, S&B, Swaro Z6, Zeiss Diaviari, etc. Now they do have fantastic glass, but many of them have a reticle that has such thin wires you (maybe I should say "me/I) can't even see them in low light. Only your eyes will tell you if it's the same for you. I also do not personally like dots, hashes, etc on tactical scopes like NF for the same reasons. Also, glass nowadays in the $500-$1000 scopes is excellent, and will get you well past legal shooting light. This is the class of scopes that appeal to me. None of them are bulletproof though, especially the variables no matter what they cost. If you want something you can bet the farm on, reliability wise, check out the fixed powered scopes like the FX3, Meopta 6x, etc. Hope this helps some.

I share the opinions of the others here in that glass today is good enough that I am unable to distinguish between an $800 scope, say and a $1,400 scope. I'll admit I don't know a great deal about optics except I like them to be clear and reliable.
I would add that Mule Deer has written a wonderful book on optics and it should be a part of every rifleman's library.

John Barsness, Optics for the Hunter


Product Details
Hardcover: 225 pages
Publisher: Safari Press (November 8, 1999)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1571571566
ISBN-13: 978-1571571564
Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.3 x 1 inches
Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
Average Customer Review: 4.8 out of 5 stars See all reviews (12 customer reviews)

Because my scopes are used primarily for hunting big game, I don't insist on the finest of glass but look first at durability and weight. I wait all year for hunting season and spend $$$$ for a couple good annual hunts that could be ruined by a less than adequate scope but I don't need the absolute optimum glass to take a moose or caribou at my hunting distances.

I've owned and used the Trijicon Accupoint with post/triangle and really like that reticle for hunting but those scopes are heavy.

I too would recommend JB's book. Sound advice for the hunter.

IMHO, unless you are putting a scope through military style abuse, most scopes over $350 or so will work for 99.9% of all hunters. Keep in mind that a scope isn't the glass you do your searching for game with, that is what binoculars are for.
A scope has to be clear enough to see the game you are planning to shoot, the crosshairs have to be sufficient to place the shot where you want at the range you are shooting, and the internals have to be reliable enough to adjust the crosshairs, focus, and stay waterproof as long as you own the scope. That describes an awful lot of lower end scopes.
If you want or need mildot ranging, laser range finding in your scope, or other bells and whistles I guess that needs to be factored into your decision on pricing, but I've never personally seen the need for the extreme scopes except to enrich a lot of scope makers these days.

My $200 Leupold Vari-X II's have been extremely faithful tools for all of the years I've used them and the Bausch & Lomb, Bushnell Elite, and Nikon scopes I've used have also been more than sufficient for my uses and I don't baby my equipment. They have all adjusted properly, been very clear when needed, and helped me make some very long shots and some very short shots when required. What more do you need except bragging rights?

There is a lot of really sub-par equipment in the low end of the spectrum, but I'm pretty sure we aren't talking about that stuff in this thread anyway.

Bob

SNS2, stocks are made to be refinished. I hunt birds with a Churchill double shotgun. Hunt game with a fancy wooded 308. If the stock gets scratched, that's what stock makers are for. to refinish them. The Brits hunted with DRs etc with fancy engraving, gold inlays, etc. and if they got dinged or scratched, send them to the stock guy to refinish, or reblue it, if the bluing got messed up. When I got the Churchill, it was 55 years old and needed a ding taken out of the barrel, the bluing redone, the stock refinished, etc. so had that stuff done, and now have a beautiful gun again. To me a plastick stocked , stainless rifle is a "tool" and no pride to be had in it. As one guy has said, Lifes too short to hunt with an ugly gun.

I pretty much understand and agree with the observations on the scopes. I read a write up on the degrees of difference between, say the $300 level scopes, and the $2000 level scopes, and it seems they'd be more applicable to a spotting scopes use. At 300 ys, with a $300 or so scope,you can see there's a buck deer out there. With the $1000 scope, you can see horns, and might even be able to count points, with a $2k one, you can see the sun glint off the points, and count them. But who needs that kind of clarity on a hunting scope.

About $500

I kinda' jumped on the Swaro Z3 bandwagon back when LL Bean had them for 30% off. I got the 3-9x36's for $525 each and bought 4 of them. But I really can't tell much difference between them and the VXIII's and VX3's. I'll put my second-hand Leupy's up against them any day. The Z3's are nice, but no way I'd pay $1,000 for one.

The discontinued Conquest 3-9 is one of my favorites as well. Got 2 of those from Cabela's for $300 when they were selling them out. Great deal for a great scope.

I got off the Z3 (SwaroA, same thing) bandwagon a couple of years ago. Only scope I've ever had go bonkers during a hunt, while shooting at a big buck.

I may be jumping off with you someday. I'm too old to do big hunts, but if I did, my scope would be a Leupold VXIII or 3, probably in the 2.5-8 or 3.5-10 variety.

sns2,

I read a couple of the posts and figured I would chine in.

So far there has only be a couple scopes at the range as good as my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 for resolving detail and being as bright. Both were Leupolds that cost considerably more. One went to 14X and the other went to 20X. Not even in the same league if you are trying to see the last little detail before you fire the shot. They could not track any better for sighting in because the 6500 moves the impact the correct amount and the correct direction.

On the other hand I recently returned my Swarovski z5 5-25X52 because it would not track to sight in the rifle. It took a total of two weeks from the day I mailed it till it was back in my hands. (Excellent service.) They told me they replaced a spring and the silver eagle that was no longer on the side of the two year old scope.

Both my Bushnell 4200 4-16X40s match the z5 in resolving detail up to 16X. I have confirmed this on deer antlers 131 yards away in the woods and on four eye charts 127 yards away.

The only reason I keep the z5 is because it is no heavier than the 4200s at 18 ounces and goes to 25X. To me the Swarovski z3 is a step down from the z5. In fact just about everything at the range is.

I am a firm believer in you do not get what you pay for. You get what you shop for. The only way to know if something is the best value for your eye is to compare it with something you know is good.

I wish you years of fun hunting.

I tend to agree with JimmyP............most people I run into who purchase premium optics are those which like to brag about their equipment, and in so doing makes them feel better and superior to others. And that usually extends to most things in life in direct relation to wealth. There is without a doubt, much advantage/difference in the first $500 spent...........very little gain per dollar there after, especially once you get above $1000.

I own the very best optics available when it comes to binoculars and spotting scopes-where it really counts IMO.

My rifle scopes on my big game guns range in price from $750-1000 and I feel they are at a quality level where spending more on glass in not going to make any difference in a hunting or shooting situation. I am not a turret twister but if I were I would consider spending the cash on a Nightforce for the accuracy of the adjustments (not the glass).

I have Zeiss Conquests, Swarovski Z3's and Sightron S3's and feel these are some of the best scopes all things considered in their price ranges.

The Z3 has the best glass I have seen under $1000 but the Conquest and S3 are so close as to not make any real difference.

I have not used a VX6 Leupold or Conquest HD5 so can't comment on them, I would assume they would be near or at the level of the Z3 optically. The VX3 Luepold takes a back seat optically to the scopes I listed., So do the Nikon Monarch and Bushnell Elite scopes to my eyes.

For me I think in the $300-$500 range the leupy VX3s and conquests are great scopes and I've had good luck with them. For most of my guns though,I've settled on the sweet spot being swaro Z3's; to my eyes they're a step up, I love the 4a reticle and I'd have to spend another $500+ to find very little gain over them.

I personally like what my eyes can see well out of...

and sad to say, I don't see any better out of $1,000 scopes or $2,000 scopes than I do any Leupold I have, and only marginally better than I can see out of some of the Bushnell, Nikon and heaven forbid, the lowly Tascos on certain guns...

I think we all would like to afford the spendy stuff, but not all budgets allow it, or not every one would spend if, even if it wasn't a problem...

I look at a rifle as a tool, and nothing to brag over... I want it to work, not look fancy and expensive...

best of luck to the OP for finding what he is looking for....
I think what is best for him, is what he best thinks fits his needs, not what fits other folks braggin rights...

It seems to me that the playing field sort of levels out around $500 and you pay very big $$$ for very small improvements after that. I'm talking improvements that most hunters would need a resolution chart to tell the difference under hunting conditions.

The one exception for me is paying more for features or magnification range you may want. For example, when I get the cash a good 2X-12X range would be great for me. In my hunting I might jump a deer extremely close in thick growth, or hunt a cut over where a few hundred yards is a good possibility all in the same day. I also don't own dedicated target rifles but enjoy playing at long distance on the shooting range with my hunting rifle.

It depends upon the type of scope you're looking for. If you're searching for a 3-9x40/42 or something in that range then you're not going to gain much by going above $500, there's some really good glass for under $500 in that power range. However, if you're looking for something that tops out at 20-25X with turrets then $500 isn't going to get you much, you're going to have to go a lot more $$$ to get something decent. Same thing if you're looking for a 50-56mm objective, you're not going to get good glass in a serious low light scope for $500.

Personally my eyes cant tell much difference. Let me tell you a story that changed my mind though:

My father has Macular degeneration. He is a die hard hunter of 50+ years. He had been a die hard Leupold fan for as long as I could remember. I few years ago we were at the range shooting our rifles. Now pop is a crack shot. Always posting the tightest groups for as far back as i could remember. Not this day. He shot horrible groups, and the more he shot the madder he became. The last group was so bad he unloaded his rifle and literally threw it at the truck. He said: "if i cant shoot any better than that, I might as well stay on the couch!"

This scene was more or less repeated for 3-4 range session. Finally he told me that he couldn't see the targets. Said they where all blobs to him. Out of disperation he order a Swarovski scope. I'm not sure which one, but it was like a 2-10x50 approx. Suddenly it was like old times. He could see the targets and out shoot all us whipper snappers again.

So for My father the Swarovski scopes are worth every single penny. He was at the point of quitting hunting all together. No one knows how long his eyes will hold out before he has the same problem with the high end glass. None the less, it has given him 2 extra years already and thats priceless to me.

Someone here said you DO NOT get what you pay for. I whole-heartedly agree! Optics are so 'easy' to play around with, in terms of performance characteristics, that any 5 people might choose a wide array of scopes & prices points as the 'best glass,' depending upon what the maker has biased the scope for/to, and depending on the conditions or 'test.'

I shoot with a bunch of folks with over-$3,000 scopes, and down to just a couple or few hundred dollar scopes. Mine are in the middle somewhere. Can I see the difference? Sure, I can see differences, but frequently multiple scopes at any given price point look just as different from one another as do those at the top and bottom of the market. For example, one person's sub-$100 Tasco's image one day was noticeably brighter than another person's $3,500 U.S. Optics' image. OTOH, I have a Weaver and a Leupold of essentially the same selling price whose images are similarly different, if that makes sense.

The Tasco mentioned above didn't/doesn't have 'better glass' than the USO necessarily, it's just engineered to provide a very bright image. It has poor resolution vs the USO, and extremely poor low-light characteristics, but in decent or better lighting, it 'looks' terrific! ...unless you're looking somewhere relatively near a bright light source...

So, IME, the 'real world' difference is very highly subjective, and may depend upon the circumstances of use.

Good luck finding what you're looking for.