Quality Optics? worth it? REVIEW.

[hank4elk]

So I asked last year and you guys were right. Yes. They are that much better.

I had a fine Zeiss scope on the rifle and wanted to upgrade binos & rangefinder from medium grade stuff.
Found a Leica 1600b RF, NIB,for half what many were asking for used. Perfect for my scope & country. Hell the glass in it is better than most binos I have tried.
The Zeiss 10x42 Victories are excellent glass. Again I found them,like new,for way less than many were asking. Night & day difference. The clarity,colors, ease of use, etc are excellent. I can see an elks colors at dawn,not just find them, now.
Hell, I now have to wait half an hour for legal shooting light. LOL I can see the neighbors,5 mi away...ez.

I was very impressed with my buddies 8x30 Swaros he brought to hunt with. Perfect for this PJ country and could pick up elk at a distance.

Thanks again.

 

[Trial153]

You can rarely go wrong buying quality optics or boots. I would use a cheap bow before I used cheap glass

 

[elevatorman]

More important to me than the world's best glass quality is some other features like zoom ratio and field of view and turret system. I've missed a good opportunity or three due to a cheap 3-9 on 3 and a deer moving by quickly up close and had way too little field of view and too much zoom. I'm currently using a Leopold vx-6 2-12 on my rifle and its incredible how much more I can see. Definitely helped me get a good shot on my buck this year at around 25 yards. But my understanding is the quality of design has some to do with field of view too. In other words how wide you can see at 3 zoom in a good scope like my vx-6 versus how wide you can see in an El cheapo 3-9 at 3 zoom can be quite different.

I bought my scope for the zoom range. Not the glass quality. Not recommending cloudy junky glass but I can only see spending crazy money for glass in binoculars or spotting scopes where you'll be using it for hours and hours and your getting a return from your investment. A riflescope though probably gets a grand total of 5 minutes of use in a year. It's hard to justify the money to me. There's comes a point of diminishing returns.

 

[Redman]

I was ruined years ago when I shot an Anschutz rifle with a Schmidt & Bender scope on it. Most beautiful gun I have had the pleasure to shoot and to this day have yet too look through a better piece of glass. One day I will have a Schmidt & Bender scope if I have to sell both kidneys to do so!

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

I was ruined years ago when I shot an Anschutz rifle with a Schmidt & Bender scope on it. Most beautiful gun I have had the pleasure to shoot and to this day have yet too look through a better piece of glass. One day I will have a Schmidt & Bender scope if I have to sell both kidneys to do so!

U might need one of your wife's kidneys also to cover it. Damn fine glass tho.

 

[Boarmaster]

As a reformed gear junkie I can say that I have plenty of regrets on purchases of gear over the decades. One regret I never had was the money spent on quality optics. Leica Rangefinder , Luey and Swaro scopes and swaro binos. Solid performance and satisfaction for over 15-16 years on most of it. I might start updating next year. If I do I will do the same thing.

 

[ludville1]

Once you have experienced quality glass, it's hard to go back to "decent" glass. To upgrade to quality glass is money well spent, IMO. Speaking of Leica, it's top shelf glass. I have a Leica CRF 1000R rangefinder, and recently bought a Leica Amplus 6 2.5-15x 50i for my new Browning X Bolt White Gold Medallion...no regrets here.

 

[TN2shot07]

Have any of you guys had experience with some of the high quality glass in a lighter scope? I have a model 7 project sitting in the safe for the off season. Right now I’m leaning toward another vx3 2.5-8 or the Maven 2-10 (11-12 oz). I wouldn’t mind spending a little more but I got the rifle with the intent of something light, not really interested in adding half a pound.

 

[Don Fischer]

I think the necessity for fine glass is way over played. People pay a lot of money for something they somehow think it is better, stands to reason they would say it is! But wonder how many of them actually have equipomrnt to test the difference in the quality of the glass? My though is none, but they paid a lot so it must be better. If I took my $200 Vortex and put it on a rifle and killed a deer at say 600 yds, with one shot, would it be any less dead than the same deer killed with a high dollar scope. High dollar scope are designed generally for one reason, to make the manufacturer money! That manufacturer is certainly going to claim it better than some less expensive scope. I doubt they would say you can see just as well as brand x but you get to pay more! Imagine for example leupold telling you their lens is as good as Tasco's! May or may not be, I doubt it but the measure of the scope is more internal works than glass quality! yet glass seem's to be all anyone wants to talk about mostly. Probably because that is what they can see.

 

[rjthehunter]

I think the necessity for fine glass is way over played. People pay a lot of money for something they somehow think it is better, stands to reason they would say it is! But wonder how many of them actually have equipomrnt to test the difference in the quality of the glass? My though is none, but they paid a lot so it must be better. If I took my $200 Vortex and put it on a rifle and killed a deer at say 600 yds, with one shot, would it be any less dead than the same deer killed with a high dollar scope. High dollar scope are designed generally for one reason, to make the manufacturer money! That manufacturer is certainly going to claim it better than some less expensive scope. I doubt they would say you can see just as well as brand x but you get to pay more! Imagine for example leupold telling you their lens is as good as Tasco's! May or may not be, I doubt it but the measure of the scope is more internal works than glass quality! yet glass seem's to be all anyone wants to talk about mostly. Probably because that is what they can see.

I totally agree with the scope glass. Sure it's nice to have a gin clear image. But at what price? $500-$1,000 gets you a hell of a scope in almost any brand. But then you start looking at the top of the line scopes, you're looking at $2,000 - $3,000. The internals aren't any better, it's just slightly clearer. The most important think a scope can do is hold zero under abuse. Then if it can do that, accurate tracking is a necessity if it has turrets. As long as the glass is good, it's good enough for a rifle scope. People who spend huge $$$ on scopes must just need an excuse to spend a few grand.

I'd rather spend the money on better binos. I spend most of my time looking through those anyway. Or a spotter. If I'm looking through my rifle scope, it's usually for a pretty short period of time.

 

[shrapnel]

I do like the higher end optics as they not only deliver better images, they are also well constructed and perform accordingly.


The best rule of thumb is: if you can’t see the difference, don’t spend the money.

 

[ludville1]

I do like the higher end optics as they not only deliver better images, they are also well constructed and perform accordingly.


The best rule of thumb is: if you can’t see the difference, don’t spend the money.

Very well said!

 

[Boarmaster]

Have any of you guys had experience with some of the high quality glass in a lighter scope? I have a model 7 project sitting in the safe for the off season. Right now I’m leaning toward another vx3 2.5-8 or the Maven 2-10 (11-12 oz). I wouldn’t mind spending a little more but I got the rifle with the intent of something light, not really interested in adding half a pound.

For myself I would likely stick with the Vx3 2.5-8. I have one on my lighter woods rifle If ,i was going try or just wanted something different then I might try a swaro z3 3-9x36 at 12 oz’s . It a totally unqualified comment on my part as I have never owned the swaro in that size. I do have a Z3 3-10x42 with
i really like. But, not sure I like it at almost twice the price of my VX3s.

 

[D4570]

I agree in part.
Good glass is very important, If I was springing for an African hunt or an Alaska hunt you bet I'd go for it.
But most of my guns are lower guns Most way south of $900.
Hard for me to spend $2000 on a scope on one of my junkyard guns.
A good Leopold $300 scope lets me shoot 500 yards and I don't feel like I have keep the set up in the gun case as to not harm it.
JUST me.

 

[TheJason]

I spent way over budget in a pair of Zeiss 10x40 Classics about 25 years ago. I’ve never regretted it.

 

[ludville1]

Here is a recent, real world comparison of a $200 scope and a $1500 scope. I hunted all of the firearm season (November 15-30) here in Michigan with a Leica Amplus 6 2.5-15x 50i ($1500) on a new hunting rifle. Then came muzzleloader season (December 2-11). My inline muzzleloader is topped with a Vortex Crossfire II 3-9x 50 V-Brite ($200) which I bought a couple of years back. As one would expect, the optical difference is staggering. I put this cheap scope on the muzzleloader because I knew that it would "get the job done", and because I haven't hunted the muzzleloader season for years, because between archery and firearm seasons, I never have a buck tag left. Well, this year due to various reasons, I had a buck tag left. The Vortex is decent in full daylight, if you don't mind some flare, and keep your eye perfectly centered in the eye box. It also held zero after 10 shots using 100 grains of Blackhorn 209 behind a Hornady SST 250 grain bullet. But the difference in low light, clarity, and contrast was almost unbelievable. As luck would have it, a decent buck showed up at 8:48 am on December 3rd, and the muzzleloader with the Vortex quickly put him down...the Vortex did it's job, so there is that. Not knocking Vortex, as I have had 6 of the Viper XBR crossbow scopes, and they are great. I am already searching for a replacement for the Crossfire II, and it will probably be a Leupold of some sort. Like Shrapnel said..."if you can't see the difference, don't spend the money".

 

[TheTone]

I never knew what I was missing until
I got my swaros and a tripod

 

[Don Fischer]

There are people out there that like their Tasco just fine, are they wrong? I would guess that there are also more people that can affrod a Tasco than can afford $1000 for a scope much less $1500! Some where between the two is the best scope for the individual!

 

[longbow51]

I'm all for letting anyone buy whatever he or she wishes as long as its legal. Not knocking the Tasco guys, nor the S&B guys.

 

[ludville1]

I actually have a Tasco 3-9x 40 on a Ruger 10/22, used for plinking and pest control. In those applications, it works just fine.