Need some help here on how to tell the difference between the newer Tasco World Class scopes made in China and the older one made in Japan. I've seen lots of reports of satisfied users for the Japan-made Tasco, but far less for the recent Chinese version.

The reason I need to know is that a guy is selling a rifle I want with a World Class scope mounted. He won't break up the set, and I would probably buy it at the price he wants if it had a decent scope.

I have too many cheap scopes in the closet taken off other rifles to have one more cluttering up my limited gun space.

There is no sticker or stamp on the scope showing where it was made - is there any other way to tell?

The World Class Plus that I own has this sticker on the bottom of the eyepiece bell. It came on a rifle I purchased but it is quite clear and bright. Not your typical Wal-Mart Tasco.

I have a NIB Tasco World Class Plus Target Scope 10-40 X 50mm . It was Made In Taiwan and has very high Quality Optics ( I think the biggest bargain Tasco made ) and so marked in small black lettering on the side of the Eyepiece . I also have a NIB Tasco 5-20 X 50mm which were the last BDC Reticle Tascos made ( came with two different Yardage marked Elevation Knobs ) . It was made in Japan but there is only a Sticker near the Windage & Elevation Knobs . The Optics are good , but not in the same ballpark as the Target Scope . Had a friend that laughed at Tasco Scopes until he Tested the Target Scope , then bought one for his SAKO Varmint Rifle . I think he said he paid about $250 many years ago .....so they were not cheap .

I purchased a Tasco World Class 3-9x 40mm brand new from a local gun shop in 1995. Still have it in its original box (it crapped out a few years ago after 765 rounds on a sporterized #4 Lee-Enfield). No place on the box or the original paperwork that came with it (copyright 1990) can I find where the scope was made. However; on the ocular (eyepiece) bell of the scope printed in real small letters it says: "MADE IN KOREA" printed in black letters on the semi-matte black finish of the scope. It's hard to see but it's there. I don't know when the Japan production stopped or when Chinese or whatever else production started but this one's from Korea. If you study yours very closely maybe there will be something like that on yours.

The older World Class scopes of the 70's through the 80's and maybe even into the 90's were decent scopes in their day. Much better than the Chinese made versions made later. But even if you get one of the older World Class scopes it is going to be 20-40 years old and there is a good chance the rubber seals or other parts are worn out. Even if in perfect condition a new $200 VX-1, Redfield Revolution, or Burris FF-II is going to be a much better scope.

Optics have really improved within the last 30 years and many of today's entry level scopes are as good the better Leupold's of the 1980's.

czech1022,

Here is some info on Tasco as well as Tasco compared to others. YOu will see the Tasco is quite comparable.

4/10/11

I took the new Tasco to Bob�s Accuracy Shop. He snickered at the idea I would buy a Tasco 4-16X World Class. Everyone knows they are trash. He tried to convince me it would not hold zero if the magnification was changed. After installing it in his scope fixture he ran the power to 15X. I asked him why and he told me a cheap scope would blur out at its highest setting. I turned it up and it was beautiful. Bob was very surprised.

He has a grid on a tree about 100 yards from his bench mounted scope fixture. There was no discernable point of impact change throughout the magnification range. He knew adjusting the parallax would change the crosshairs. It didn�t. He did some impact testing to see how it would react to recoil. Again no change.


January 10, 2012
This afternoon right at sunset I set out some scopes in no particular order on the sandbags. From left to right were Weaver 6-24X40, Swarovski z5 5-25X52 ( the fourth one is a keeper), Tasco World Class 4-16X40, and Bushnell 4200 4-16X40. I adjusted them to the lowest setting which allowed me to see the forks on the antlers about 131 yards away. Then I adjusted the A.O. or side focus to give as clear an image as I could get and re-did the magnification setting. I recorded this info.

After I did that I asked my son-in-law to adjust them for his eye and I recorded the info. John told me the Bushnell was the sharpest but the Swarovski was very close. He then went on to say it was close between the Weaver and the Tasco. The info follows.

Ringman:
Weaver � 8 3/4X
Swarovski � 6 3/4X
Tasco - 7 1/2X
Bushnell - 6 1/4X

Son-in-law:
Weaver � 6 1/8X
Swarovski - 6X
Tasco - 5 7/8X
Bushnell - 7X

FWIW... Optically my Korean built World Class was always nice for something in Tasco's price range. Don't recall what it cost in 1995 but I was low on money at the time and needed a scope for that rifle, and was planning on getting something better in a couple years or so. It wound up being on that rifle for 12 years because it was better than I thought it would be. So then it was; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Late in 2007 it died,(lost zero, wouldn't hold zero, etc.) but it was decent while it lasted. The rifle now has a Redfield Revolution 4-12x 40mm which I like a lot better. But the cheap Tasco was nice enough for something in that price range so I feel that I got my money's worth out of it anyway.

I still have two of the Japanese Tasco's from the late 70's. Both are still clear and bright and work perfectly. They Both say Japan on the bottom of the ocular bell and on the inspection sticker located on the underside of the turret saddle.

Anyone can say what they like about Tasco scopes but they're still cheap scopes. They were cheap when made in Japan and they're cheap now. The ones made in Japan are now old and cheap. So, if I were you, I would offer the price of the rifle with no scope or a cheap scope.

This. Something I was told years ago still is true. You get what you pay for in optics. Not saying that the tasco wont work, but its not comparable to swaro, elites ect. Yes I have owned multiple WC scopes, all but 1 crapped out in a very short time. They are ok optically, but I have never found the results that ringman has.

This is something I was told years ago but discovered it is not true. That is you get what you pay for in optics. Not saying that the Tasco wont work, but its not comparable to swaro, elites ect.,but they hold their own with them. Yes I have owned multiple WC scopes, and none crapped out in a very short time or a long time. They are surprising optically, and a few have found the results that Ringman has.

When I adjust my Tascos they actually move the point of impact. When I adjusted my Swarovski z5 5-25X52 the first time, it didn't move. I adjusted it again and the point of impact moved too much. That is not getting what you pay for. I purchased and either returned or sold three z5's before I kept the one I have.

When I purchased my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 I returned the first for warranty work because it was blurry above 25X. When it came back it was blurry below s7X or 8X. I returned it for a refund. Months later I purchased the one I have now. It is fine. Again that it not getting what you pay for.

These companies have to charge so much for their stuff because the number of returns compared to the Tascos.

I've never owned a Tasco myself, I have replaced them for my Dad when they wouldn't hold zero. That was an old "Mag IV" and it live a happy life of about 10 years on an 8mm Gibbs before it let loose. My Dad had a gunsmith friend who passed away some years back that swore by them. He was usually on a budget himself and felt that they were a good value(of course that was 20 years ago). Also replaced a China made World Class that lived a short life on a Savage 30-06 for a buddy, I replaced Dad's with a Revolution, think we replaced the other one with a Nikon of some sort(My buddy already had the scope THINK it was a Buckmaster, not that it matters). Don't really care for their product line myself, but if you have good experience with them why the hell not? That's why I stick with Weaver and Leupold...

I lost confidence in Tasco scopes when I missed a chip shot at a coyote. It turned out that the scope which had been sighted in just a few days before was shooting 10 inches high.

I presume you are aware that Tasco scopes are now marketed by Bushnell?

I'll tell you about my last experience with Bushnell. I had a Bushnell handgun scope that supposedly had a lifetime warranty. It broke when used on a heavy recoiling handgun and Bushnell wouldn't honor the warranty saying it had been "abused."

Other scopes can break. I broke 2 Thompson/Center Recoil Proof scopes and both were promptly replaced without complaint. I also have broken several Leupold handgun scopes and all were promptly repaired under warranty.

So, I have no use for Bushnell scopes or for Tasco scopes. And getting back to the original question, Tasco scopes are cheap scopes whether made in Japan, China or Taiwan. If you're lucky, they'll work for awhile.

I am in no way arguing that you have had good experiences with them. I have not. I have never to this point had one of my swaros, zeiss, leupolds, elites ect fail. The glass on the high end is unreal compared to lesser scopes. I have killed whitetail with cheap scopes including world class scopes so I know they work too, but I have much more confidence in my swaros and zeiss scopes. Zero failure rate makes me a believer in the upper end scope. To each his own. If they work for you that's great. Buy what you like and be happy. Happy shooting.

When l went to Alaska Tascos were on the two rifles that went. This was after years of Burris and Leupold. To many failures. My custom rifle carries a Swarm z5 because the forth one is what l expected from the first. It is definite my best low light scope; which is what l had in mind when l started checking them.

Where and who makes Tasco is irrelevant to me. Other cheap scopes have been junk for me. Even Burris is no longer something l will buy.

I have better than 35 Leupolds. My first one was purchased in 1975 to replace a Trashco that would never hold zero on my magnum. Not one of the Leupolds has ever been in the shop?

My only Leupold I have is as good as scopes get. Leupold replaced its predecessor because it failed due to recoil. But then every brand fixed and variable prior to this one failed due to recoil. .454's are hard on scopes. It destroyed about a dozen.

I'm not sure its any harder on them than my .378 Weatherbee. Still has it original used 1.75 X 6 mounted on it.

Every .454 owner knows my kicker kicks harder than your kicker.

I heard from my friends brother in law's father that the tasco's track and hold zero as well as the very expensive Night force scopes and that the optics for all NF and Tasco scopes are made in the same plant and that the guts of both scopes are almost identical. He also said the Army almost gave the new sniper scope contract to Tasco over S&B but the Germans promised to kick back 20% of their scope prices to the Solar Power initiative in the US. If you get a chance to peer through a Tasco side by side with a S&B the similarity is obvious to anyone. As a matter of fact its rumored that Zeiss owns a big stake in Tasco and uses them as sort of an optics skunk works as they have some real optical geniuses working there. He further goes on to say that in a pinch you can dismount the world class 3-9 x 50 and it will function as a perfect "butt out" tool on medium to large deer.

Buying the outfit as you describe I might allow $25 for the scope if I really like the guy. No matter how good it might be you won't be able to get $50 out of it max. Probably a lot less. It's still a Tasco. Having said all that I have what is probably a Chinese Tasco I bought in 2000 because I needed a usable scope and had no budget. It's been on both an Interarms Mark X 25-06 and a Ruger Ranch Rifle. The 25-06 would stay inside an inch at 100yds with the loads I used. From what I hear and see if a Tasco lasts for the first hundred rounds or so it'll probably last a lot longer. FWIW

Not a wc as the post originally inquired about but my early production Tasco Titan has excellent glass and tracks as well or better than any scope I've used and I've had a fair # of brands to judge against: Burris, Bushnell, Docter, Leupold, Meopta, Minox, Nikon, Swarovski, Zeiss and likely some I've forgotten. Not all Tascos are created equal and they certainly aren't all junk.

For what you pay for a Tasco, they certainly give you your money's worth.. sure there are plenty of 'better' scopes.. at the same time Tascos have worked for plenty of hunters over the last 40 plus years....

and their failure rate is no better or no worse than many other brands...even in the mega high buck range....

myself, I have been able to see just as well out of many Tascos as my Leupold, Weavers, etc...

Wouldn't trust one to hunt with... OK paper puncher just don't be too disappointed when it gives up the ghost... It will

Before the World Class there was the World Class Plus. Lifetime warranty. Total bullshit.

I have had a World Class Plus MIJ scope on my .30/06 for nearly 20 years and even after a couple of trips across the world has never required re-sighting.
An ex Leupold Rep told me once, that that scope had the same lenses and turrets as the Leupold Vari-X3. It is a very clear and reliable scope in my experience.
John

I'd hunt with open sights before trusting a trasco.

ya know, I bet you could take many of the Tascos that have been available over the years, especially the World Class and World Class Plus... put the lenses and mechanics from them in a different scope body... jack up the price 500 to a 1000% and then you'd have the same folks who piss on Tascos all the time, rant and rave of how good these new expensive scopes are...

its all in the mind.. and too many people think $$$$ is better than $....

I use to love to watch these rich kids in college talk about how great their Heineken beer was for instance, and who in their right mind would drink some Budweiser or Schlitz etc...

so after they had a few, when it was "time for another beer", I'd jump up and tell them I was going to the Fridge, let me get that for ya...

then I'd go and pour a beer that we picked up for a $1.00 a six pack in those days ( Bud was $1.80 a six pack) into his Heineken bottle and take it back to him.... and then bring up the question of what makes Heineken so much better.. as he would tell ya the taste etc... while drinking the $1 a 6 pack beer in his Heineken bottle... and never noticed the difference....

not all Tasco scopes are necessarily great, but not all are necessarily bad... certainly a hell of a lot better than a Barska or BSA or many Simmons, who also have some good scopes at times in their product lines...

I have several of each, but 4 power Tasco Pronghorns, and 4 power Simmons Whitetail Classics... both products have good optics and have held up on anything they have been mounted on...and the Simmons I have mounted on my 300 Win Mags and my 338 Win Mags... they are optically as clear as the 4 power Leupolds or Weavers I have also...

bottom line, being a scope snob.. doesn't mean you are right...

PS: Ghostman, this wasn't aimed at you.. it just happened to follow your post is all...I respect your opinions, as it is your hunting rifle and scope choice.. not mine..and I am not going to criticize whatever works for someone else...nor should they criticize what works for someone else either...

and for the guys that rag on Ringman, I've been at the range and ran into him when he is out playing with his optics and some of this rifles and wildcats... he gets a lot of criticism on the campfire here by some...

but actually being there, and seeing first hand some of the stuff he is talking about... even if it might conflict with someone else's opinion or experience... I haven't seen where Rich has been posting a lot of fluff/BS on here...

and Rich is also a guy who is a pretty darn good shot.. I've spotted for him on some small targets out at 500 and 600 meters, and he knows what he is talking about....

what he posts is from experience, not what he reads in some magazine article promoting some expensive product...

Seafire it's not about $$ or being a scope snob, It's about QUALITY. When I was a lot younger and definately not as well off financially I bought Tasco and Bushnell scopes because they were the only brands I could afford at the time. I ended up wasting a lot of money on cheap optics that fogged up, didn't track worth a darn, lost zero, had reticles break, had lousy eye relief etc. etc.

As I got older and increased my financial status I promised myself that I'd buy the best quality scopes I could afford. I don't go overboard on spending but I don't skimp on scopes either. I evaluate optics 1st hand and choose them based on what suits ME not what others are using. At present most of my scopes are in the $3-800 range and consist of Zeiss Conquests, Trijicon Accupoints, Nikon Monarchs, Leupold VX3, Kahles CL and a Redfield.

If a person cant tell the difference between a Bud and a Heineken or a Tasco and a Zeiss they're either kidding themselves or have no taste for quality.

Absolute truth. While I crave a good deal as much as the next guy, I have come to realize that the only people worse than gear snobs are those who try to defend low quality gear by belittling those who disagree.

The is a point being missed here.
A Japanese Tasco World Class Plus is not the same scope you get in Walmart for $40. "Tasco" is a brand name not a scope model name.

I once received a, what was 25 years ago, very expensive German scope that had a scratched lens straight out of the box. Today's scopes are not generally the same as we had to select from 25 years ago.

Do any of your remember the very prestigious but extinct scope brand called Pecar?

If you don't keep an open mind and listen to people who speak from experience and not whim, then life will become very predictable and your audience will shrink.

I do speak from experience and my experience greatly differs from anyone trying to tell me how a tasco compares to a swaro, elite, leupold ect. I've owned them all and can say from first hand experience that the difference is huge. I am in no way saying that a tasco wont work, they will. As I said before I have harvested deer with them. To try and show me how the optics are close is a freakin joke. I was able to tell a big difference between the swaro and the new zeiss hd5. The swaro bested it. I promise you the hd5 will hands down beat any of the lesser scopes I've owned. I'm not a gear snob, I'm just relaying my first hand experience. I will also add that if what some of you are saying is true, why would anyone buy a $1000 scope? I sure as heck wouldn't as I'm not rich by any means. I just believe in you get what you pay for in optics and so far its held true.

if that was targeted at me, I wasn't trying to belittle anyone.. but if it came across that way to you, then accept my apology... it wasn't my personal intention...

I'm still confused by the whole Bud vs Heinekin, Tasco vs Zeiss idea. Which scope is the Heinekin? I'm not a huge Tasco fan, although I do like my Tasco Titan, but I'd rather hunt with a Wal-Mart Tasco than try to choke down a Heinekin. That is one of the worst beers I have personally ever tasted!

I have owned one Tasco World Class, MIJ. It was on a Ruger M77 I bought. Not a bad scope at all. While I have Zeiss, Leupold, Sightron, Minox, Burris, Weaver, and Swarovski on current rifles that old Tasco is still doing fine about thirty years after I got it. Its been on two rifles.

The only scopes I have ever had trouble with were Denver made Redfields late in their tenure as an independent company, one Burris scope made in Greely Colorado, and a Weaver made in Asia. I always understood that Tasco was just a marketing company down in Florida. Their scopes were made by numerous contractors all over the world, probably mostly in Japan or Asia in the early days. Some were good, some were not.

Like my hunting partner's K-Mart binoculars made by Steiner, things are sometimes better than you think.