Back in 2014, I decided that my eyes had aged enough that it was time to give up my fascination with cheap scopes. I had a bunch of scopes from the 70s onwards that I'd acquired under various circumstances. I doubt I'd paid more than $30 for any of them. Between them and my aging eyes, I'd lost a good 10 minutes of hunting on either side of the day. All I was seeing through the scopes was mud.

I had room to experiment. I bought a Bushnell Elite 3-9X40, a Bushnell Trophy 4-12X40 and a Bushnell Banner 3-9X40, all with the Dawn to Dusk Coatings. Along the way, I compared them to a few other scopes-- Leupolds and the like, and I really couldn't tell the difference. All 3 scopes ended up being just fine. I think the Elite went for $320, the Trophy cost $200+ and the Banner went for well under $100. I successfully hunted with all 3 over the next couple of years. When it came time to buy the next scope, I bought a Banner and at last count, I've purchased 6 more since. I've also now got 2 Banners in 1.5-4.5X32 mounted on shotguns. My sons and my granddaughter now have Bushnell Banners mounted on their deer rifles.

Granted, I'm not all that demanding. Most of the deer I take are shot within 200 yards. Most of my hunting takes place in fairly mild conditions, and I am never more than a half mile away from a warm cabin. Still, I've gone 8 years and I have nary a complaint. All the scopes are easy to adjust and keep their zeroes. I seldom have to make adjustments from year to year unless I'm changing the load.

My question to y'all is this: what am I missing? What would I have gained if I'd doubled or tripled my optics budget?

There's got to be something that my old eyes ain't catching. What is it?

In your case probably nothing. You don’t have any serious demands for a scope.

" . . . I'm not all that demanding . . . "

That's the difference.

IME, the Japan Bushnell Elites were tough scopes for set it and forget use. Was a time I didn't give them their due because of the Bushnell name; however, I learned the hard way that the brands I thought were the best were actually inferior aiming devices.

I don't have as much experience with the Korean mid range Bushnells, but a few guys I know ran them with the circle X reticle on slug guns and heavy recoiling levers. They stated that they held up well while a lot of other scopes wouldn't take the recoil.

From my experience with a few banners back in the 90's, they are extremely weak scopes. I remember the last one (the straw that broke the camels back) I bought only lasted a few hours before it went tits up. I took it back to the store and got my money back. I swore them off at that point. Others failed as well. I ran them on 10-22's and a 22wmr. I tried to give them a chance, but with that kind of performance, they are garbage. If you really want a good strong reasonably inexpensive rifle scope, try the Burris FFII 3-9x40 and do yourself a favor and get the one with the ballistic plex reticle. You'll be glad you did.. I'd also like to add that the Bushnell elites are excellent scopes, but don't trust them for dialing. They also didn't make a useable ballistic type reticle, so you are forced to "set and forget" it. Limited on your range as well. Set for MPBR or the like. I much prefer the ballistic plex reticle on the Burris.

I had good luck with a Bushnell Banner on my mid-day varmint rifle, but at dusk you couldn't see half of what I could see in the shadows along a woodline 200 yards away with my Zeiss Conquest. The Conquest easily gives me 30 minutes or more shooting time as darkness falls.

Just ordered another on clearance on Amazon. After taxes was $115.

I have 13 japanese bushnell elites. I probly wont need another scope in my life. I started upgrading to them about 20 years ago. I have owned about every brand there is . They work with my eyes but everyone is different.

↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑

Bushnell Trophy XLTs, now discontinued, have served me and my kids well for a good while on .22s, airguns, and one CF. Don’t know about the new ones. Still, today I swapped out the one on my grandson’s rifle for a $100 Fullfield II, which I regard as more rugged if nothing else.

Had a Banner on a .22 for several decades, but finally retired it for a T-XLT. Too many t-shirt cleanings had taken their toll.

Tired eyes want illumination in every scope, and plan to repace accordingly.

Shaman, I was never very demanding of optics until I started having issues. Cataracts in both eyes, then I started paying close attention to eyewear and optics. I made the mistake of buying a Leica, then some Swarovskis, a Kahles and a S&B. I moved the Burris, Leupold, Bushnells to AR or truck gun duty or sold them outright.

I have 3 Z6 Swaros now and about to try and locate another, 3 - 18 or a 5 - 30 BRH. The minute details and clarity sitting in the blind comparing them to Leica, Leupold, Burris really "opened" my eyes. For me, they just flat astound me everytime I get behind one. They also work for me. I do plan on investing in a March or top tier Tract FFP to see if they are everything I read about them.

I no longer have to carry binoculars to the blind with me, just a range finder. I am going to purchase a new set of the Leica Geovid Rs from Doug, possibly the 15x56 although the 10x42 will do everything I can ever need.

My old eyes ain't catching light at dawn & dusk like they once did, so I can relate. Last year NY state extended hunting hours to a half hour before sunrise to a half hour after sunset. Went to an illuminated reticle and it sure helps in low light. Except I have yet to fill a tag with the illumination turned on. Filled a doe tag at about 3:20 pm in broad daylight. Maybe this fall I could score in low light.

You're a fugking retard.

Cancer isn't going to change that.

Fu.cking savage...

My neighbor has several scopes in the $400-$600 range. He also has a 3-9 Bushnell Sportview mounted on a Ruger M77 30-06 (his go-to deer rifle). He says he keeps thinking about replacing the Bushnell but he never has to adjust it and it gives him everything he needs a scope to do. I bet for most of us we could save a bunch of money if our egos would let us shoot with scopes like those Jap Bushnells.

Just when I thought I had already seen the rudest, most heartless, post on 24CF.
Shame on you.
Rex

P.S. you did manage to spell "you're" correctly, so I reckon it could have actually been worse.

Thank you.

The you're / your thing has bugged me for awhile now. I'm finding it tougher to tolerate retards these days.

Get off my fugking lawn. Tulsi for the win...big ass or not.

It's okay. He follows me around like this. All he ever posts is that I'm a retard. He's really quite harmless as long as you don't try to sit on his park bench.


Thanks all for the comments.

Yeah, the most I do with a scope is to set it and forget it. That may be the best answer to my question. I don't do a whole lot of twiddling with them.

What I will say, in the defense of the current Bushnell Banner, is that I can now see well into the dark. I normally mount my stand a good half hour before legal hunting, and I could easily kill a deer at that time, so long as I could identify it with my naked eye.

I've taken a deer during the last minute of legal hunting with the Elite. However, I believe the coatings on the Banners are as good. I sure can't see the difference.

Most of these rude people on this forum would NEVER say anything like this in person...

Keyboard Cowboys...

Yeah because you and Baby Huey would kick my ass.

LOL

What is “legal hunting” for you? Different people have different rules, depending on where and what they’re hunting.

The difference is YOU can't tell the difference. You demands are low. I'm much like you, 75 set in my ways, frugal, don't turn turrets, don't think I need the capabilities shoot game in the next county. Most scopes in the lower price range will do a good job for you.

I'm a coyote hunter, more than avid, I usually kill coyotes in five states some years. Most of my coyote rifles shoot flat enough to hold on fur to 300 yards and if they don't they don't go out in country that offers shots that long. $500 would be a very expensive scope for me in fact I don't think I've ever spent that much on one. I've never lost a coyote due to having a low cost scope on the rifle, my Konus 1.5-6x42 works just as well as my Meopta 1.5-6x42. In 55yrs of shooting scopes I've only broken one scope and at the time it was a pretty good American made scope, it was repaired and has been on one of my rifles for 30 yrs now.

Legal hunting is not interpretive, it is set by the state. He stated what is legal in his state.

Back in the day, you could buy a very good expensive scope and easily switch it between rifles.

Still works today although fails the "Tactical test".

Where was this stated? I do not see it.

60% of the time he kills them every time...

That percentage might be high or low depending on what your definition of kill is. Ones I see or ones I shoot at.

Only saw two this day

Nice.

"It's made with bits of real Panther, so you know it's good."

not to derail the thread-is that a vintage TW200?

I guess it is going to come down to how good is good enough for an individual. I worked with a guy who told me the story about not being able to sort a deer out of the background with his bargain scope when he could see it with his normal vision.

Then there is my own example of sitting on a hillside seeing a nice buck at very last light feeding its way along on the far hillside. I had a 2.5-8x36 Leupold Vari-X lll on a .308 and shot when he was broadside. One shot and gone without a trace of a hit. The next day on the same hillside I had my 1.5-6x42 Zeiss 30mm Diavari on my 7mm-08 and looking at that same hillside where the deer was and I said to myself “What were you thinking?” There was a wall of brush that a bullet could deflect on. Optical resolution matters. That Leupold is on a seldom used .22 now.

I will only comment that there's far less optical difference between rifle scopes today than even 25-30 years ago, due to more companies using fully multi-coated optics. When I started hunting, some popular and supposedly quality American-made scopes didn't even have coated lenses!

I know some of this due to research conducted while writing about optics for the past 30+ years, including long talks with various people in the industry, often during factory visits both in the U.S. and Europe. But I also test scope optics far more formally than just looking through 'em during midday or even dusk. Some very inexpensive scopes (but not all) have optics very similar to some Euro-scopes costing several times as much.

Erich can tell you more but it's a Van Van.

Awesome bikes. I love when he posts pics of it in use. (That's what she said)

No offense but if you "upgraded" to a Bushnell Elite, Bushnell Trophy 4-12X40 and Bushnell Banner 3-9X40 you definitely haven't looked through quality glass, especially in low light.

He's not after "quality glass". He's after good enough for his job. What's wrong with that?

Kentucky's rule is a half-hour before sunrise to a half-hour after sunset.

Thank you. That's what most states use, but some are different. South Carolina, where I hunt, allows for 1 hr before till one hour after. That is a big difference and requires much more from the optics to take full advantage of that time. There are also people who hunt hogs and coyotes at midnight. That is often done with thermal scopes, but can be accomplished with moonlight on a traditional scope--these things can tax a scope even more. If what you have works for you, then there's no reason to change.

I haven’t shot that many deer at absolute first light, but one that comes to mind was on a heavy overcast morning under a heavy hemlock canopy. Legal light by my watch, but near dark under those trees. The only way I could shoot that one was to hold my scope up to the sky and follow that too fine a crosshair down to the deer. I ordered a heavy Duplex and used ffp scopes after that. We don’t get that many shot opportunities here on public land, so being prepared with better than okay equipment has worked well.

I've gone from absolute mud at dusk and dawn to being able to acquire targets well before and after legal hunting.

Windfall's situation was where I started, or even worse. That's all gone now. I can hunt right up to the ends of legal hunting without hindrance. What amazes me is that I really can't see a difference between the Elite, the Trophy, or the Banners. I'm sure there probably is.

Another problem that got solved by migrating to the Banner scopes was shooting up-sun. I have one stand in particular where I had to deal with the sun playing hell with my sight picture. Internal reflections in my scopes made about 10 degs of woods a nogo zone on sunny days for the better part of 20 seasons. This past fall, I took my buck in pretty much the center of that nogo zone. In the past, it would have been a curtain of yellow haze. I've had that Banner scope mounted on my Savage 99 for several years now. This was the first decent shot I've taken with it.

The other thing that amazes me is how they stand up to other scopes. I've been looking through other folks' glass over the years-- Leupold, Nikon, Burris, etc. Maybe it's my tired, old eyes, but the lowly Banners seem to compare well with those as well.

As far as ruggedness, I've had only one Banner fail. That was a scope that I purchased in the early 90's--well older than the current crop. A freak gust of wind tore the rifle off the rifle rack on the front porch and it clattered down about 5 feet to the concrete. Bushnell wanted enough money to fix it that I just replaced it with another scope. That Banner, btw, was nothing like the half-dozen I have mounted on rifles currently. It had miserable low-light capabilities.

I'm am not trying to sell folks on Bushnell Banner scopes. That would be pissing into the wind. Rather, I'm just trying to understand better what I'm missing.

Shaman, you are missing out on bragging rights.

If it works for you, go for it. A scope is basically an aiming device and at times it needs to be clear enough to verify points or other small issues when necessary. A sunshade will take care of sun flare issues most of the time but a scope doesn't need to be microscopically accurate to work fine in most instances. It just has to be tough enough to stand up to whatever treatment we put them through.

I prefer the Elite Bushnells for several reasons, but I have a Banner or two on rimfire rifles I've had for quite some time and they work fine for their intended purpose and would probably be fine on several of my deer rifles if I so choose...

I do have to admit I like higher end scopes, but I have a personal aversion to spending huge amounts of money on scopes like the $1500-$3000 high end Night Force, Leupold, and Bushnell LRHSi . I doubt my eyes could take advantage of the differences anyway...

He is bragging in a way. He's using throw away $100 scopes, is content and getting it done. For his style and needs, it is working. Others here have different needs. Not really about bragging rights though, the same can be said for the rest of us. If what we are using for our needs is working great, why change? I was at the range yesterday and had my typical targets stapled up and an old feller came along with a tactical looking 308 Remington 700. He asked why my "aiming point was so big". He was using a Swarovski. He said, "it just looks like a big orange blob". I said you better get a better scope then. I'm aiming at the 1/4" diamond inside the orange blob. Using one of my Nightforce rifle scopes of course.. Poor guy would have needed brail to see a target at 400...

Now that's an interesting take. I suppose in some perverse way, you're right. I got into hunting and shooting at a time when I was just a young buck COBOL programmer and really couldn't afford much, so I got used to deer hunting on the cheap. I never bought a new deer rifle until 2014-- after 40 years. I was always content to raid the bargain rack, or take some rusted up POS and try and make a tack driver out of it. That was how my fascination with cheap scopes developed. I learned early on that Tasco was a step below allowable limits and set my limits slightly above theirs.

But my question in this case was and is honest. I'd really like to know what I'm missing with a $100 scope.

Everyones eyes are different, confidence in you equipment is everything. If you comfortable using it then go for it. I have owned about every brand on the market from 39.95 to 2000.00 and japanese bushnell elites work better than anything ive used, so i use them. They match my eyes.

Over the years I've had more Bushnell Banners fail than Tascos and I think I've owned more Tascos. In fact,I have no more Bushnell Banners as the last two failed just in the past couple years and I threw them in the trash but I still have a couple Jap Tascos from the late 1970's - early '80's that still work perfectly. One of them is on a .22 that rides in the rack on my quad constantly. It holds zero tenaciously despite the rough treatment and punches out 1/2" 5 shot groups on demand from 50 yards. Optically it is not comparable to a modern Banner but it has killed a friggin ton of varmints and game over the years and continues to do so dependably.

I will take a different approach than others to discuss this topic. Invest in a high quality set of binoculars - they really are a lifetime purchase. Use them for scanning and identifying animals in conditions where your entry level scopes are not as clear as you need them to be to make a confident call on whether the animal is shooter or not. Once you decide, put your entry level reticle on the blur in the area you need to deliver the bullet and let er rip.

I feel confident in this approach, as I upgraded from an entry level set of binos to the best I could afford and the difference is absolutely stunning in every way.

While I prefer and find value in having all of my optics be higher performance, one does not "NEED" premium quality optics in both binos and scope - but at least one of them needs to be reliable in less than ideal light/conditions. If I had to make that choice, I would go with a premium binos and an entry level scope. Binos are so much easier to scan with than a rifle.

This kind of falls into the category of - "if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand." I mean that kindly, as I know yours is an honest question. I will say however, for sitting in a tree-stand, shooting whitetails under 100 yards, not much in terms of scope is needed. And really, a $100 can buy a lot of scope these days (reference the Burris Fullfield on sale recently).

So I guess, in an odd way, I've sort of talked myself in a circle right into your camp. I could easily use the Burris FF with dots for all my hunting.

Damn, I'm starting to sound like you

PS, so happy to hear about your recent cancer victory...

Nothing. You’ve said you can look through the scope and see everything you’d ever want to see, and the scope is incredibly reliable for you. It can’t get any better than that.

Since I'm the only person that use my scopes, I have one requirement... I CAN SEE out of them...

my eyes sight has always been far from perfect.... and I keep shots to 250 yds or under most of the time...

I've hunted far Northern MN for a number of years just south of International Falls...Problem up there was it was real cold frequently, so a real pain was breathe over your scope and it iced the glass over instantly....

other than that, when I picked up a scope, If it allowed me to be able to see out of it clearly enough to 250 yds....I used it...

and a lot of those were Tascos... Usually $69.00 World Class, but they consistently served me well....

which since I am the only guy pulling the trigger, I'm just fine with it.. even if others think I am a peasant with what I have...

Yeah I agree. I get what I want. There's exactly zero other people that know what I have mounted to my rifle so it's certainly not for bragging rights. Different people have different needs. Some people don't even need optics at all and that is just fine if it works for them. I've done this--think buckshot/30 yds or less.

My neighbor up the road is a snobby bastard. He claims to be a former Maine hunting guide and won't hunt with anything but Zeiss or Swarovski scopes on his custom rifles. He made it pretty plain that he thought little of my Weaver and Leupold scoped factory rifles when he first moved here but since then I have consistently dragged more and bigger bucks out of the woods than he has and I've made it a point to remind him of that fact more than once. The only thing that matters is dead meat on the ground and I couldn't care less what some snob thinks of my equipment. It works for me and the proof is on the meat pole year after year.

It's not often that I agree with Blackie !



Yep, still got a Savage youth model 111, .243, bought as a combo, with a Simmons 8-point scope. The family calls it the meat gun !

Even got a slip on recoil pad, to extend the LOP.

Butt ugly as Blackie, but ........

Put at least triple the meat down, that any of our slightly more classy rifles !

As to scopes, leupold manufactured Redfield & Burris is as high as we go, too.

As always, YMMV.

The difference, IMO low light conditions. Cheap glass is just that in low light conditions, cheap glass.

When growing up, ol' man Wayne, a fella I knew with the most and biggest bucks on the wall used an Ithaca Model 37 with a bead on the end.

He had one gun, that Model 37, and used it for everything - squirrel, rabbit, pheasant, coyote, deer.

That ol' boy could heart shoot a running buck at 200 yards with that 37 and Foster slugs.

And he always, always, got his buck.

You do you.

I’ve missed the ability to shoot deer, hit deer & the buck of a lifetime using cheap scopes on an accurate rifle. I am out early & late over 90 degrees & well below zero in steep brushy territory. A Bushnell Banner is a complete piece of crap in my opinion although so killed lots of deer with one before the reticle fell apart.

Once I had a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x 40 on my rifle those problems just went away. At less than $400 it solved lots of problems 20+ years ago. I’ve bought budget scopes but they don’t make it on my hunting rifles & missed squirrels never bother me like missed deer.

If you think a Banner is the right tool I’d suggest you invest in a Burris FF2 for a better more reliable scope for not much money. It’s your tool & $$$ but sometimes a little more money spent keeps you from having regrets for years.

Your post is interesting. I had more failure with Burris than any of the scope. When I went to Alaska because I had so much trouble with other scopes I installed a Tasco 4-16X on both 375 and a 300 Weatherby.

Personally, if I can ID the game and determine if I want to take the shot with my binoculars, I will be good with any scope which I can see the animal and the reticle. Its more important to me that it is tough and holds zero. I have noticed, the further the range, the harder it is to see that I'm on the right animal in failing light. Rarely at a shot under 200 yards will it be a problem on either side of the legal limits of shooting hour.

. . . and I've had zero trouble with Bushnell scopes. Go figure. I did have one Banner fail, but it was a freak accident. A wind gust blew my Rem 742 off of a gun rack at deer camp and it landed on the concrete from 5 feet up. The Bushnell offered to fix the scope, but it looked too far gone. The gunsmith refused to work on the rifle.

The only other real failure I had was a Simmons that came in a package deal for a new Savage 110 in 30-06. KYHillChick was shooting it from the bench and it spontaneously reverted to its component parts. I just threw it out and mounted a Bushnell Banner.

That's almost as funny as the time you blew up your lawn mower tire.

LOL

Do the world a favor and take up NetFlix as a hobby. JFC.

It's not what you're missing optically.
Some of the responses you're seeing are from guys that shoot more on a single weekend (maybe even a single outing) than you likely do in a couple of years.
If you shoot like many do here, there likely would not have been an inquiry.

This.

Anyone is welcome to use what they wish. If shooting to see if you're on the pie plate once a year and hunting with a short walk to a stand to shoot a deer at 75-100 yards is all you need, you're probably not missing much.

Shooting 100 rounds...or even 30 rounds....a couple of days a week, dialing adjustments from 100 to 500 yards, and comparing results, differences start to become obvious. When checking zero over a 4 month hunting season, usually hunting 2 days a week, some hunts being a short walk and some being a long ATV ride followed by a long hike, and the zero isn't where it was the last time you shot...again....differences start to become obvious.

Edited to add - aside from reliability, there are optical and user characteristic differences in scopes. Some of the higher $ scopes aren't as view friendly as some of the plain jane low $ scopes.

Shaman,

Today I replaced the March 2.5-25X52 with the Bushnell 6500 Elite 4 1/2-30X50 to verify groups. This scope is trusted. One brass was tight going in so I will shoot again on Monday.

This is beginning to make quite a bit more sense. Yes, I am a hunter that shoots and not the other way around. Now that I'm retired, I may make more of an effort to shoot, but it will never be at a high volume.

Thanks.

Good post.

This right here.

aside from reliability, there are optical and user characteristic differences in scopes. Some of the higher $ scopes aren't as view friendly as some of the plain jane low $ scopes.

What’s become paramount for me are accurate, repeatable adjustments. It’s been a regular optical Chinese firedrill around here of late, and those good mechanics make swapping optics in and out much easier, saving time and ammo. Ditto for mounts, and like scopes, there are good ones at various levels, from the mid-level Warn Mountain Tech to the very inexpensive SWFAs that I discovered as part of a Black Friday package deal.

Pouring over specs helps, but there’s no real substitute for actually mounting and using an optic on your gun. Plenty of good ideas have gone up in smoke after putting them in practice. Sometimes you have to kiss a few frogs to find what works.

The frogs end up in the classifieds……

They are just trying to emulate the big stick character. Base life forms think its cool. It's completely transparent and unoriginal, unfortunately that's all they have going on. Funny enough, way back, when BCR and Need One (Sonny) where around, stick was an interesting and knowledgeable fella. Few know that! Still has good info, delivery just sucks now! The copy cats have nothing, not even an original personality!

My optical demands are shifting as I age out (70 in a couple months), as are my hunting protocols. Anymore I don't make a concerted effort to get into my "spot" half an hour to an hour before sunup. If that costs me a deer, then so be it - I don't care. Ditto with stumbling out of the woods after dark. The set-and-forget Leupolds I have on my dwindling battery of dedicated deer rifles suit me just fine in the forests that I hunt. I suspect there are quite a few other brands in that mid-price range that would work as well or better. Again, I don't care.

My optical demands are quite different in another respect: paper punching with vintage target rifles, usually 100+ year old single shots. 10-20x Unertls and the like serve me well for that. In that game I am most particular. (And yeah, BSA, a 20x Unertl or Lyman Targetspot allows me to quarter that tiny black diamond quite nicely.)

What bothers me most of all though is difficulty in using aperture sights. Coupled with an excellent binocular (Leica Duovid in my case) I've never felt undergunned with a rifle equipped with a receiver or a tang sight. (So many classic rifles suffer from having their ergonomics disrupted by attaching a big hunk of glass on top of them.) That changed in the recent past with the onset of a cataract in my "shooting eye" and put me squarely in the "scope it if you want to shoot it" camp. That shall change starting tomorrow when I submit myself to the ministrations of a very competent surgeon, after enduring six months of scheduling snafu's. The goal is to get back in the peep sight game, and the rifle du jour for this year's hunting shall be a very accurate original 1929-vintage M1903 Springfield NRA Sporter - with a Lyman 48 receiver sight and nary a scope.

A lot of wisdom in this post.

Peeps are back on for me since I got “real” glasses last Winter after futzing around with corrective safety lenses for a good while. It’s possible to get the right correction by trial and error, but getting it in the right spot is very important too, and that requires the help of an expert and their gear. I ponied up for some Decots for clays, and it’s worth every penny. I can use those for rifle work too.

My distance vision is 20/35, and passed my driver’s eye test without the glasses. Up close, not so much.

Good luck with the knife work🤞🏻

True.

If it's not reliable, it really doesn't matter how good the user characteristics are. If it's reliable with poor user characteristics, it's usable but irksome. The only way to really know is to put it to use.

I switched USPSA divisions a few years back to CO and was having trouble with the dot. The doc let me bring in my dot and we fine-tuned it beyond a normal eye exam and got my dot clear for the first time. Fortunately my doc is a hunter and understood exactly how important it was to me.

I hunt where you often have to look into deep shadows on the edge of forest and into the bottom of canyons at dawn and dusk and I've found the limits of several scopes are pretty disappointing. An older Leupold 3-9 I had on a rifle wasn't able to pick up a big four point I spotted in a deep shadow with my binos right at dusk. I put down the binos and brought up my rifle and I couldn't see the deer at all... I've had similar instances with other scopes also which led me to buying better scopes for this purpose. Some turned out to be better than others. The Bausch & Lomb and later Bushnell Elites have been some of my favorite scopes for this . I'm way too cheap to spend the big bucks on some of the scopes guys on this site talk about often like Swarovski, Night Force, and the Leupold VX5, VX6, etc... so I can't speak to them . About my limit on scopes has always been in the $700 range and they have worked fine for me in just about all conditions.

One thing I look for in scopes that maybe not all look for is- living in Oregon it rains a lot and snows often during elk season and occasionally during deer season. I look for a scope with good coatings, but I especially look for scope that will survive getting drenched and still working like it is supposed to. The Rainguard coatings that the Bushnell Elite scopes use works great to keep the lenses clear in this regard in my experience and they don't leak . Lesser scopes haven't always been reliable in this regard.

This is very true, and I have posted similar comments before. The reason I have not commented on this thread so far is because this is "Hunting Optics," and as was stated, when you only take a few shots at fairly close range, you may not ever need or understand the capabilities of a higher optics and thus not be able to answer the question "What's the diff?"

I'm one of those guys who will send about 70 rounds downrange to 1000 yards in competition in a single day. This weekend, I loaded the bulk of the ammo I need for the coming Nationals in Phoenix in October. I need a minimum of 404 rounds for 6 days of shooting at 600 and 1000 yards.

I will just address one aspect, image quality or IQ. The IQ of a scope is measured by brightness, clarity (resolution) and color fidelity. Usually, color fidelity is desired most by birdwatchers and they want their optics to have a high degree of color fidelity, whereas hunters are usually less concerned about that. However, in competition, color fidelity along with resolution and brightness go a long way to reduce eye fatigue during the long use of the riflescope. Some people use their high-end binoculars and/or spotting scopes much more compared to the riflescope. They only use the latter as an aiming device. In competition, we use the riflescope as an observation device as well as an aiming device. I could be looking through my riflescope for a long time before taking the shot and I will be back on the riflescope soon after, again for what may be a long period.

If the riflescope has a low IQ, it will strain your eye trying to discern the target or the conditions. If you don't like looking through the riflescope and you much rather look through the spotting scope because it has a better IQ, you are experiencing the difference. This gets even worse when the conditions are bad, such as in the case with heavy mirage. If your riflescope can't handle the mirage and you are forced to dial down the magnification, you are being let down by the difference. Extend that for 70 rounds a day, all recorded and scored, you start to appreciate high-end optics.