Cee skinyore, esso maywhore.
- Thread starter KevinWood44
- Start date
What a delightful read this was, I feel like a business maven after reading such nuanced thoughts.
Now that the storm's over, i'm fixing to go sit on the porch and enjoy a smooth Perdomo 20th Anniversary cigar, and some Oyster City Tate's Helles beers and some good tunes...
Also, just an FYI, if yall smoke cigars, and don't have one of the Area 419 CNC aluminum cigar holder ashtrays, you're missing out. The way it's designed, the ashes don't stick to it, and it just wipes out 100% clean with a dry cloth, and does not retain ANY smell. Best ashtray I've ever used.
He had to add the markup for his bail money and fines...
Shit the whole time I was reading this I thought I was on Airgun Nation optics thread reading how a Vector Veyron is better than Nightforce 
“Worst value” is an awfully amorphous ask for this crowd.
Something cheap can be a poor value and something expensive can also be a poor value.
For example, a $1 Pez candy dispenser can be a poor value if you buy it and it doesn’t work as expected.
Maybe better question framing would be something like, “If the best optical performance is paramount [or tracking, or durability, or between $1k-$1.5k, or whatever, etc etc.] then what is the price point where diminishing returns really kick in?”
Given my (limited) scope experiences, it seems that if one is looking for the best optical performance, after $2k your dollar really starts to buy less and less. For reference, I own a couple Vortex 4.5-27’s ($1800 new some years ago) and a S&B 5-25 ($2999 new from Eurooptic six months ago).
The S&B isn’t a great value. But it is optically better!
But, given a totally open-ended “worst value” question, I think the aforementioned Quigley-Ford (specifically the 5-20X50 DUAL FOCAL PLANE SCOPE for the low low price of $3,049.99) might be the all-time worst scope value that I’ve ever seen lol.
Other contenders (for me) would be this Schmidt Bender PM II 5-45x56 High Power MT2 Tremor3 .05 mrad Riflescope 666-911-532-I1-H5 that was selling last year for ~$8750 (now only $7580
).
Or maybe this 3-27x56 PM II High Power FFP Tremor3 MT II MTC LT / DT II+ ZC LT 0.5 cm 669-911-532-I5-H5 takes the “worst value” cake (last year was $8270!!!).
I mean, in absolute dollars, in 2022 those last two S&B’s were approaching Flips-level S&B price inflation and in 2023, they still are not far off!
Edit: just to be clear, I am NOT making fun of Eurooptic (they are pretty great), but I am mocking the S&B-mandated prices that EO had no control over.
Something cheap can be a poor value and something expensive can also be a poor value.
For example, a $1 Pez candy dispenser can be a poor value if you buy it and it doesn’t work as expected.
Maybe better question framing would be something like, “If the best optical performance is paramount [or tracking, or durability, or between $1k-$1.5k, or whatever, etc etc.] then what is the price point where diminishing returns really kick in?”
Given my (limited) scope experiences, it seems that if one is looking for the best optical performance, after $2k your dollar really starts to buy less and less. For reference, I own a couple Vortex 4.5-27’s ($1800 new some years ago) and a S&B 5-25 ($2999 new from Eurooptic six months ago).
The S&B isn’t a great value. But it is optically better!
But, given a totally open-ended “worst value” question, I think the aforementioned Quigley-Ford (specifically the 5-20X50 DUAL FOCAL PLANE SCOPE for the low low price of $3,049.99) might be the all-time worst scope value that I’ve ever seen lol.
Other contenders (for me) would be this Schmidt Bender PM II 5-45x56 High Power MT2 Tremor3 .05 mrad Riflescope 666-911-532-I1-H5 that was selling last year for ~$8750 (now only $7580
).Or maybe this 3-27x56 PM II High Power FFP Tremor3 MT II MTC LT / DT II+ ZC LT 0.5 cm 669-911-532-I5-H5 takes the “worst value” cake (last year was $8270!!!).
I mean, in absolute dollars, in 2022 those last two S&B’s were approaching Flips-level S&B price inflation and in 2023, they still are not far off!
Edit: just to be clear, I am NOT making fun of Eurooptic (they are pretty great), but I am mocking the S&B-mandated prices that EO had no control over.
Last edited:
It's the same as why people spend $8000 on an AI when you can buy a factory Savage that shoots every bit as well for well under $2000.
Why do people spend $250k on a piece of shit Range Rover, Mercedes, Porcshe when they could get something Japanese that will out live them for a 1/4 the price.
Why buy a Rolex or a Louis Vuitton handbag? (I know most of you cucks here have matching handbags with your husbands).
You can get equally high quality alternatives that are considerably cheaper, it just doesn't have the name or the prestige of the Name.
Sunk cost fallacy and fashion, pure and simple.
Well, that’s what makes it an interesting and funny question, right?
“Value” means something different to everyone, and everyone prioritizes a different aspect of a thing to “value.”
Me? For bolt-action rifles I value overall fit and finish, bolt-feel, and having a two-stage trigger pretty highly, so I don’t care for ze filthy Savages.
But if you value total-amount-spent and precision-per-dollar over everything else, then yeah, Savages probably rank pretty high.
In regards to that Quigley Ford blasphemy“Worst value” is an awfully amorphous ask for this crowd.
Something cheap can be a poor value and something expensive can also be a poor value.
For example, a $1 Pez candy dispenser can be a poor value if you buy it and it doesn’t work as expected.
Maybe better question framing would be something like, “If the best optical performance is paramount [or tracking, or durability, or between $1k-$1.5k, or whatever, etc etc.] then what is the price point where diminishing returns really kick in?”
Given my (limited) scope experiences, it seems that if one is looking for the best optical performance, after $2k your dollar really starts to buy less and less. For reference, I own a couple Vortex 4.5-27’s ($1800 new some years ago) and a S&B 5-25 ($2999 new from Eurooptic six months ago).
The S&B isn’t a great value. But it is optically better!
But, given a totally open-ended “worst value” question, I think the aforementioned Quigley-Ford (specifically the 5-20X50 DUAL FOCAL PLANE SCOPE for the low low price of $3,049.99) might be the all-time worst scope value that I’ve ever seen lol.
Other contenders (for me) would be this Schmidt Bender PM II 5-45x56 High Power MT2 Tremor3 .05 mrad Riflescope 666-911-532-I1-H5 that was selling last year for ~$8750 (now only $7580
View attachment 8187982
Or maybe this 3-27x56 PM II High Power FFP Tremor3 MT II MTC LT / DT II+ ZC LT 0.5 cm 669-911-532-I5-H5 takes the “worst value” cake (last year was $8270!!!).
View attachment 8187983
I mean, in absolute dollars, in 2022 those last two S&B’s were approaching Flips-level S&B price inflation and in 2023, they still are not far off!
Edit: just to be clear, I am NOT making fun of Eurooptic (they are pretty great), but I am mocking the S&B-mandated prices that EO had no control over
You could sum up your entire post with 2 words derailing this thread back into MBA finance 101 lol...
Opportunity Cost
Your understanding of quality doesn’t comport with reality. A Savage is barely adequate. An AI is high quality. Savage is Chevy quality, nowhere near Toyota.
If we are talking about scopes, German scopes are nicer to look through than Japanese. They have better, more forgiving eyepieces. They have better depth of field. They perform at a higher level all around.
I’m far, far from defending Savages (ha) but on the subject of the definition of the pretty-much undefinable word quality:
It is an interesting read.
I wise man, far more successful than the sum of every twat in this thread once said, "price is what you pay, value is what you get."
A good question to ask now would be, how many sub 1000$ optics have all the features, track reliably and have good enough glass for most weekenders to connect at 1000 yards, how many are good enough for a mile? Competitors probably want the best they can afford, but weekenders want something to work and still keep their marriage intact.
Value can be so subjective and added up in several different scenarios.
Value can be so subjective and added up in several different scenarios.
Athlon tac 5-25x56,$800,Athlon Helos 6-24x 56 $629
I agree on both of those. I have both lol.
Last edited:
I quit cigarettes and cigars on January 29, 2018 but I am there with you in spirit. Take a drag for me. I had been smoking since May 25, 1982 and it was time for me to stop it.Now that the storm's over, i'm fixing to go sit on the porch and enjoy a smooth Perdomo 20th Anniversary cigar, and some Oyster City Tate's Helles beers and some good tunes...
Also, just an FYI, if yall smoke cigars, and don't have one of the Area 419 CNC aluminum cigar holder ashtrays, you're missing out. The way it's designed, the ashes don't stick to it, and it just wipes out 100% clean with a dry cloth, and does not retain ANY smell. Best ashtray I've ever used.
However, I did a lung cancer screening study for my doctor about 4 months ago. Clean and clear. I got stinking lucky. However, my teeth were bad and I just got rid of those and got some new store-bought teeth. Such is life.
Brings back memories. I did a book report on that book in 1982.
Attachments
Isnt it interesting how things work? I remember when USO was the greatest thing ever and I even got in on a group buy off this site. I still have the SN3 from the group buy. Its sitting on my 50BMG.
USO makes a really good solid scope now. This site just gives them no love.
Us optics 1-8 ffp: bad fish eye, dim and small reticle on 1x, reticle is BDC for 69gr with Mils built in. When it was above 4x it was fine for shooting distance but the 1x sucked. It was something I was sent to review so luckily i didn’t pay for it.
Sig Juliet6 magnifier. Heavy and light gathering was rather poor. Not compatible with the PA Microprism, which I was thinking would be perfect for it with all the ranging marks and the chevron. Way too heavy of a setup if used with a Romeo8T.
Sig Juliet6 magnifier. Heavy and light gathering was rather poor. Not compatible with the PA Microprism, which I was thinking would be perfect for it with all the ranging marks and the chevron. Way too heavy of a setup if used with a Romeo8T.
Well, let’s see. His YouTube site is TibasaurusRex and his reviews are called RexReviews. What should people call him? Tibo? Saurus?Funny you guys call him “Rex” like you’re best friends
What the fuck actually is your point?
I think people call him "Rex" because that is his name. Just like they might call the president "Joe" because that's his name.Funny you guys call him “Rex” like you’re best friends
I am the only one who is different. People call me Senor Pendejo. That is not my name but it is an apt description.
JFC! I came here to get some knowledge for a new scope purchase but all I see is a bunch of purse swinging bitches that want to flaunt how much their optics cost and how the poors can’t hang! Hope you all feel superior now that you’ve argued on the internet.
Well it made you get your first post on the site in 12 years! Lol
You talking the ts-8?
I mean you have a point. Their china line is... Chinese.
The FDN line is the only place you should be looking at for USO. The t series ought to be discontinued or OEMed out of Greeley or something. The FDN doesn't fish eye, is lighter than most scopes in it's class and has good reticles. They track well too.
USO sank itself hard with the B series, and has unfortunately been largely forgotten. Call me a simp, but I like my FDN 25X a smidge more than my 7-35 ATACR.
Used prices on the FDN are a fantastic value, but I understand if $3600 new makes people nervous when the shadow of the b series tracking issues still looms.
Last edited:
Well, the short and easy answer is, yes, they do feel superior. This is aside from whether or not the arguments over the various optics have validity or not. Some people just need to feel superior and they do that by flaunting their superiority and trashing others. But I can tell you definitively why they do that. It is because it is a day that ends in the letter 'y'.
I have been on different forums. I was even on a dog forum and the purse-swingers over there argued over what they feed their dogs. If you did not spend hours per week making meals with the eye of a Cordon Bleu graduate or did not exclusively feed raw, you simply did not care about your dog and were a reprehensible human being and obviously did not have the financing to properly care for a pet.
And breed rescues? You have to have a home site visit on par with that of human adoption.
Point being, humans need, pathologically, I suppose, to feel superior to others and that is often accomplished by the histrionics, yea, verily, the great wailing and gnashing of teeth.
I must say, however, you provided a most piquant bon mot. Tasty, delicious, goes good with ketchup, too.
And now, for the purse swingers, here is your vindication.
Don't say I never gave you anything.
"Sometimes, explaining optics is like this:"
Don't say I never gave you anything.
"Sometimes, explaining optics is like this:"
The economics of “marginal utility” would tend to dictate that the most expensive scope is the worst value.
Six one way, half a dozen the other way. Marginal utility is when the consumer perceives a vaue or added value within a budget. In which case, it would seem the greatest value is mid-priced scopes. With a number of acceptable qualities and cross-over usefulness.
However, I think your point is good because at the most expensive scope, how much more value could there be to gain marginal utility?
Already in here, we see people that need the certain features. Others want that magical glass. Which is as subjective as people's vision.
This thread has helped me I’ll say that. It’s made me veer away from a Leupold MK5HD. I’m pretty set on a Razor Gen III now.
People love, love, love to crap on Vortex. The Gen III recently made the new world record long distance shot of 4.4 miles. Pretty dang good for a "shit" optic.
I have several mid to lower range Vortex scopes. A couple gen I PST’s, a PST II, Diamondback Tactical, and a Strike Eagle 5-25 and have nothing but positive to say about Vortex. I was able to shoot with a Gen II Razor Years ago out to 800 yards and was fairly impressed with the quality and clarity of glass. And yes, I am the poors lol.
That’s a really complex way to say Razor III is the best value.
Your arguing with DoucheBag2000
When you argue with a idiot they drag you down to their level then beat you with experience there
You are stupid
That's two stupid post that are off topic. If there is a third you won't be posting for a while.
The fact you lump porsche in with Mercedes and Range Rover.
Smfh
You should
Do research or own some things before you type.
I also have Vortex optics. I just STFU to avoid the horseshit. I have been trying to cut down on my daily ration of horseshit and keeping my mouth shut (figuratively) helps that. Last time I mentioned a Vortex optic was on my cheap rifle that shot a .54 in spread right out of the box and not even using the best ammo for that rifle.
So, lessons learned.
I don't even have a purse. Unless we count my tactical bag a purse. A manly purse, I guess. It was also inexpensive. I am a poor.
Last edited:
Friends don't let friends buy Leupold.
Similar threads
