First off I'm going to start off by saying that I'm not trying to make a point, I'm just asking a question.
I have a Millet LRS on my Remington 700 SPSV in .308. I like it a lot. It has 140MOA of adjustment, to me it's really clear, 25x magnification, and it wasn't to expensive at $450. I just bought a Remington 5r in .300Win Mag so of course I'm looking for a scope for that. I'll start off by saying that I've never used a scope more expensive then the Millet I have now, but I have looked through some $1000-1200 Leupold's. My budget for a scope is higher this time around so I've been looking at the $500 to $1000 range, where last time I was trying to keep it at or below $500. The clarity on the Leupold's that I saw for double the price of my Millet were not any clearer and they had less features. So I started looking at the Bushenll Elite's, some of the cheaper ($600-800) Zeiss scopes and of course the Vortex Viper's. They all for the most part seem to have all the common features of a good scope. My problem with most of them is that there seems to be a lack of elevation adjustment on almost all of them. Since I will eventually (when my skills develop) will be shooting the .300WM past 1K, I would like to have as much adjustment as possible. Other then the Millet LRS and TRS, the only other scope I find with a lot of adjustment are the Super Snipers. Which would be nice if I was interested in a fixed power scope. I know there are MOA bases and stuff like that, but I don't know why a scope that costs a lot more money would have less then half the adjustment. So I guess my questions are: Why is that? and since I haven't personally used a scope better then the one I have, what are you getting for the extra money? I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it or claim that one scope is better then the other, or that a $400 scope is as good as a $1000 scope. But it just doesn't make sense to me. Thanks.
I have a Millet LRS on my Remington 700 SPSV in .308. I like it a lot. It has 140MOA of adjustment, to me it's really clear, 25x magnification, and it wasn't to expensive at $450. I just bought a Remington 5r in .300Win Mag so of course I'm looking for a scope for that. I'll start off by saying that I've never used a scope more expensive then the Millet I have now, but I have looked through some $1000-1200 Leupold's. My budget for a scope is higher this time around so I've been looking at the $500 to $1000 range, where last time I was trying to keep it at or below $500. The clarity on the Leupold's that I saw for double the price of my Millet were not any clearer and they had less features. So I started looking at the Bushenll Elite's, some of the cheaper ($600-800) Zeiss scopes and of course the Vortex Viper's. They all for the most part seem to have all the common features of a good scope. My problem with most of them is that there seems to be a lack of elevation adjustment on almost all of them. Since I will eventually (when my skills develop) will be shooting the .300WM past 1K, I would like to have as much adjustment as possible. Other then the Millet LRS and TRS, the only other scope I find with a lot of adjustment are the Super Snipers. Which would be nice if I was interested in a fixed power scope. I know there are MOA bases and stuff like that, but I don't know why a scope that costs a lot more money would have less then half the adjustment. So I guess my questions are: Why is that? and since I haven't personally used a scope better then the one I have, what are you getting for the extra money? I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it or claim that one scope is better then the other, or that a $400 scope is as good as a $1000 scope. But it just doesn't make sense to me. Thanks.
