spend as much on a scope as the rifle?

[Bart B.]

It's easy to evaluate the optical quality of scope sights.

It's hard to evaluate their mechanical quality unless you have a collimator to put in the barrel muzzle. Or your rifle shoots no worse than 1/20th MOA.

 

[waveslayer]

It's easy to evaluate the optical quality of scope sights.



It's hard to evaluate their mechanical quality unless you have a collimator to put in the barrel muzzle. Or your rifle shoots no worse than 1/20th MOA.

Or you use a tall target test. That's easy to do to verify clicks, leupolds used to be famous for their lack of returning to zero

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Bart B.]

Or you use a tall target test. That's easy to do to verify clicks, leupolds used to be famous for their lack of returning to zero

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

A tall target test only reveals horizontal tracking errors in vertical LOS adjustments.

 

[waveslayer]

A tall target test only reveals horizontal tracking errors in vertical LOS adjustments.

Also if the scope tracks with any Cant as well, not just tracking.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Bart B.]

I hope nobody believes putting the elevation and windage LOS adjustments midpoint in their mechanical limits centers the LOS on the main tube axis.

 

[JustJake]

$500 rifle + $1K scope = a deer every year. Tag filled.

 

[ciwsguy]

Not me. All I do is shoot targets. The most expensive scope I own is a 6-24x50 Vortex FFP. Spent $340 on it. The only el-cheap-o scopes I have are 22LR BSA and Tasco. All of them do the job. There’s no way I’d put a $300 scope on a $300 rifle if the $100 Nikon Buckmaster does what I need it to do, which it does. Btw, that cheap scope on cheap rifle will shoot 0.6 MOA at 100 yards with hand reloads.

 

[stinkeypete]

I think we all agree that this is a general rule from a long time ago before optics became good, bright, strong and inexpensive.

On the other hand, you have to pay an arm and a leg to match the clarity, brightness, image non-distortion and reliability of a fixed power scope costing far far far less. After a while, most fellas set the scope to one power, anyhow.

A decent set of binoculars and a fixed power scope… good way to go. Still less than half the price of an intermediate level rifle these days.

 

[std7mag]

I'd disagree, to a point.
I'm frugal (ok, cheap lol) so don't like to spend a lot of money on limited returns.
Most of my rifles are in the $300-400 range.
I have Redfield, Vortex, Sightron, Burris & Crimson Trace scopes on my hunting rifles.
All are variable with 4-12 & 4-14 power being my prefered magnification range.
While walking, or in woods they are usually set on 4 power.
Out on the gasline, or the edge of fields, i start at 6 power.
If i see something at distance, say 400 yards, i will go up to max power if conditions and time allows.

My one "more scope than rifle" is my wife's rifle. Savage 110 FP in 223 Rem.
It's used only for range fun & matches.
Started out with a $400 Sightron STAC 4-20X50.
But those tiny .224 bullet hole are hard to see!
Ended up finding a used Sightron SIII 10-50X60 LRTD with 1/8 MOA exposed turrets.
Scope $750. Rifle $259 before some haggling & horse trading.

It's been good enough for a 2nd & (2) 3rd place finishes in short range bench rest matches.
Now if the loose screw behind the trigger could do his job.

Oh, and while you can see a difference in quality. With heavy mirage i can't see my bullet holes at 400 yards with my $125 Celestron spotting scope, or my friends $2,500 Zeiss.

 

[LOLBELL]

A poor optic can make a quality rifle preform poorly but a quality optic cannot make a poor rifle preform any better. I try to match the scope rifle/revolver combo to the task at hand.