So I was reading the Schmidt and Bender thread and I got to wondering. What makes a scope worth $2000-$3000?

Don't get me wrong I get that there is a huge difference in a $200 scope vs a $700 scope. I get that ACOGs are hell for stout with good glass and what that means as far as cost.

Where I start to not understand is when we get into high end US Optics, S&B, Elcan etc.

There has to be a level of dimishing returns, no????

I can easily tell you the difference between a $10 bottle of wine and a $25 dollar one. I can tell you the difference between a $25 and a $50-70 bottle of wine......then we start to get into the gray. I have had $200 and $500 bottles of wine and I simply don't have the refined palate to understand barring the collection value.

Do I simply not have the eye to understand why a high end S&B or US Optics command the money when "cheaper" Optics have proven just as durable and useable?

So what makes. $2000 scope? What makes it better then an arguably solid higher end $1000-1200 scope or even a $600-$1000 scope?

Read this.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...0601935/m/4890078914

Generally speaking, they don't get better with age.

And, sadly, allowing women to partake of even my most expensive optics has never resulted in an empirically significant increase in sex appeal.

I'm sure Fritz will be along to explain that the above is a definite sign that I am not spending enough on my optics. He might just be right :

Ferrari : Club
Optics : Rifle Range

Usually when you move up in price you are getting at least one of the following upgrades:

1) More glass and better quality glass. I remember being very surprised when a Leupold engineer told me that a high end scope could have as many as 16 pieces of glass inside.

Optical fidelity also goes up as you go in price--with lenses giving truer color and less distortion, particularly along the visible edges of your FOV.

2) Size of the scope. A bigger body means more range for adjustment in the erectors. You will notice that the very high end scopes have large tube diameters. It used to be that 1" was the standard. Now 30mm is the standard and the higher end scopes feature 34-35mm tubes. This allows more adjustment for windage at the extreme elevation ends. But it also raises the materials cost as everything has to be bigger including the lenses themselves.

3) Better hardware in the erectors--the last thing you want is a $2500+ scope that cannot hold zero. Yet, the adjustments on a $2500 mil/mil scope have to be as fine as the adjustments on a $600 mil/mil scope. However, you'd expect the $2500 scope to stand up to a lot more abuse and yield greater longevity (won't wear out, or shake loose).

4) Features. Some reticles are patented, so they cost more to include in scopes (licensing agreements, etc). Moving the parallax adjustment from the objective to a side turret. Adding illumination, zero stops, options for presets etc.

There's probably some I'm missing, but it's quite likely that someone with little experience in high end optics would not be able to tell the difference.

I would consider myself a relative novice, but look long enough through a very nice piece of glass like the Vortex Razor and Razor II lines, & S&B's stuff and you will be able to tell a difference.

The point of "diminishing returns" doesn't lie in the optic, but in the user. I put a Vortex Crossfire on my .22lr. Let's just say, it's not the greatest scope ever, but it was cheap and went on a cheap rifle. That .22 will never be shot beyond 100 yards.

If you have a .308 that you will only shoot at known distances of 600 yards or less, and only on 4-6 times a year, you may not be served well with a $2000+ optic. That's your point of diminishing returns. However, if you are a frequent rifle competitor and get out to 1000+ yards with your 6.5 Creedmore and have already invested 3000+ in your rifle, topping it off with a $400 scope would be like feeding your Ferrari with kerosene.

If you look through a cheap scope and are happy with what you see, that's fine. Just be careful in educating yourself on upgrades because, sometimes the more you know the more money you have to spend to make yourself happy.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: LDD,

Also remember that some of the higher end scopes and mounts are made for folks that throw themselves and their gear out of planes to get to the range and subject their optics to stresses most shooters will not have to deal with. They also expect said scopes to perform on everything from 5.56mm-.50 BMG. I suspect that .50 BMG proofing a scope might add to the cost. The corollary to that is that Uncle Sam (you, me and the other taxpayers)foot the bill for those optics, which also raises the cost.

No. You can afford to buy wine.

RMD

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:
Just be careful in educating yourself on upgrades because, sometimes the more you know the more money you have to spend to make yourself happy.

Excellent discussion, LDD, and very perceptive final comment that applies to so many things.

Aside from glass clarity and durability, one of the attributes of high quality optics are consistent and repeatable tracking.

Being able to twist knobs through large ranges of change for elevation and windage, then crank them back and have everything track the correct amount of MRADs or MOA.


Not such a big deal for short/medium range optics where a few clicks are lost in the typical group size of practical shooting.

A very big deal when you are shooting small targets at extended range and doing a lot of adjustment. Horus type reticles are increasingly popular it seems, but a high end scope needs to track with absolute precision.

Thanks lots of good reading.

There is a point of diminishing return on everything, dependent on how you use that thing.
Scopes, wine, cars, all the way down to toilet paper. You could wipe you butt with silk hankies every time...

For someone like me who uses scoped rifles almost exclusively to kill deer-sized game inside of 300 yards from an elevated tree stand, that point is around $400.

There are a laundry list of differences, which include:

Construction materials/ability to withstand external abuse
Lens quality
Lens coating
Zero Stop
Locking turrets
Windage
Reticle selection
Accurate tracking
Amount of internal elevation adjustment

The list goes on, but those items are most important to the type of shooting I do, and the reasons why I choose the glass that I do.

Scopes are the aiming portion of our entire shooting system -- which includes rifle, ammo, targets, distances, shooting conditions, environment, and shooter skill. And maybe as important as anything else, shooter's performance expectations. Think of the scope as both the steering and the tires of a car, rather than as wine.

First and foremost, the scope should be matched to the user's needs. And it must stay within his budget.

Take the guy who wants to shoot 12-ounce Pepsi cans at 25-50 yards with a $200 Ruger 10/22. He's willing to spend another $50 for glass at Walmart, and wants to pay no more than $.05 per round. All in all, this is a reasonable plan. Pepsi cans are dropping like flies. But then a problem arises when Ruger guy reads the webz -- a guy with an Anschutz match rifle, Schmidt & Bender PMII scope, and $.30 per round Eley ammo hits the logo of Pepsi cans at 175-200 yards.

Ruger guy now asks how he can shoot one-hole groups at 50 yards. Five long threads later, lots of targets, $1,000 of rifle & scope upgrades, lots of frustration, said Ruger guy realizes he can't hold a candle to said Anschutz guy.

This is a classic case of component mismatch within the Ruger guy's overall shooting system.

Getting back to a car analogy, many people are fine with an econobox -- 4 wheels, heat & A/C, gets them to work, picks up groceries, doesn't break down. The econobox doesn't work for the guy who races on the weekends, constantly trying to shave a few tenths of a second off his lap times. For the racer-dude, that mongo-engine Corvette with the uber-sticky tires is what he saves for.

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:
And, sadly, allowing women to partake of even my most expensive optics has never resulted in an empirically significant increase in sex appeal.

I'm sure Fritz will be along to explain that the above is a definite sign that I am not spending enough on my optics.

I don't know if expensive glass equates to attention from attractive members of the fairer sex. But if it does, count me in for Tangent Theta glass on an APA Paragon rifle at the next Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition photo shoot.

This thread has been very helpful. Reading this along with actually handling a few of the scopes that I've been considering has brought me lightyears ahead.

Some of you guys really know your stuff, and I appreciate the time you take to explain it to beginners like me.

I top out in the $4-550 range with scopes. Included are a few bought used that may go above that range. For the average hunter(daylight) I don't see the NEED for the $2k scope.

That's not to say they aren't somewhat better/clearer. I've not had a problem going to the last legal minute with my Ziess Conquest or a Leupold VX-3 type.

I was even a bit late to scopes themselves. My 1st 10+ years deer hunting was with open sights. For the average 30-75 yard shot, it hardly matters.

If the next guy has a $2k scope, just fine by me. Of course the expensive gear doesn't mean an easier time hanging game on the buck pole.

Someone without much shooting experience especially with scopes might not appreciate or be able to take advantage of expensive optics.

However, it is a mighty fine treat if you are a long time user of low to mid range scopes when you try a truly fine optic. I've been a rifle shooter for 20 years. Most of that time was spent with Nikon monarchs and Leupold vari x 2s and early on some Tasco and Simmons and Bsa scopes. My nicest scope was for the longest time, a Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x. Last year I treated myself to a Vortex Razor gen 2 4.5-27x and it was super exciting. The build quality is excellent and the brightness and clarity is amazing. Perfect tracking in the turrets. Built like a tank. I swear it could be used as a hammer lol it is my upper limit I don't believe I could ever appreciate any optics above it or ever justify paying that much. Kind of how I settled on this. It's a joy to use though I love it.

I am a firm believer that you get what you pay for with optics. The optical clarity, lack of chromatic aberration, durability in construction, and consistent tracking are far greater in the high end optics. S&B, Kahles, Hensoldt, Steiner, Nightforce, Leupy mk6 and mk8, and now Vortex's high end lines - these command a premium because they are better. Even within these top options there are certain ones that shine brighter than the rest.

Life is about choosing what options are important and how much you can spend. Pick the features you need/want, set your budget, look through various optics and pick one that satisfies your largest number of needs/wants and fits your budget.

I think the single largest confounding variable in selecting magnified optics is the end user's lack of understanding re: their actual needs and the various options in optics that are available. I was certainly in this group up until I bought my first magnified optic, used it, shot other optics owned by friends and learned exactly what I want/need.

Trial and error is not cheap when it comes to optics, but it provides the best education. As such, I recommend buying used high end optics so that you can afford to buy, sell, and trade until you're fully educated on your particular needs, wants, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:
The point of "diminishing returns" doesn't lie in the optic, but in the user.
<snip>
Just be careful in educating yourself on upgrades because, sometimes the more you know the more money you have to spend to make yourself happy.

I think LDD hits the heart of the issue. Yes, there is a name brand premium on the price of high-end scopes, but they are also really good scopes. It costs a lot of money in design and manufacturing to enhance that last 1% of performance, but most folks would be hard pressed to tell the difference under normal use. However, spend enough time on web forums and you'll be convinced that anything less than a $2000 scope will be like looking through frosted glass at night.

For example, I shoot my .308 target rifle a couple of times of year at ranges not exceeding 500 yards and almost always in good light. Realistically, any decent scope would do just fine, but I dropped the coin on a Vortex Razor. Why? Because internet. Spending time on gun forums is both educational and wallet draining.

ETA: I'm not saying the high end scopes aren't better, because they generally are. But for me it's like owning a Bugatti. What's the point when the speed limit is still 70 mph whether I'm driving a Camry or a Veyron? If you have the means, you will enjoy the equipment. Just don't convince yourself that you need it (unless you're a competition shooter).

To me, it's intended use basically.
The heavy barreled 243 target rifle has a Leupold fixed 30x scope and it was some coin.
Some of the 22lr rifles have Bushnell glass on them. Squirrel hunting and some light target shooting for those. No need for super expensive glass on the 22 rifles.
Could I go all out on the 22 rifles? Sure but it's like putting lipstick on a pig to me.

The biggest change I experienced with my switch to a pair of Nightforce scopes on my 2 LR rifles was the Repeatability of adjustments.

I started the afternoon sighted in at 100 yds with my scope adjustments both set at "0".
After adjusting up 30 or 40 MOA and adding windage back and forth....DOZENS of times. At the end of the day, when set back to zero, I AM at zero again. NO drift at all. When I need exactly .25 MOA to hit where I want...adding that adjustment DOES give me EXACTLY that .25 MOA.

Someone else said it before me...Senseless to put a $400 scope on a rifle built for utmost accuracy. No expense spared for accuracy in the build, then commit optical homicide by adding marginal glass. Stupid in my opinion.

Scope quality and price is pretty much on a Logarithmic scale. To get a little better you have to pay a LOT more, and the incremental quality improvements get worse at the upper end.

Fortunately we have some really good scopes with near phenomenal warranties available from a couple companies at reasonable prices. There are also some even better scopes at stupid expensive prices.

My advice is to figure out a reasonable budget and then stretch it as far as you can for the glass but don't feel the least bit ashamed if you can only afford a $500 scope instead of a $3000 one........dj


As far as wine goes, I'll properly decant a $10 bottle of wine bought at a discount to make it taste as good as a $25 bottle. I tend to at least try 91+ point wines I can buy for under $20. :-D