Rifle Scopes Quality optics vs overall expense

[natesguns]

I'm not a pro, I don't claim to be the best shot or have the best equipment. I do understand that you must own quality equipment if you expect quality. I'm a sport class tactical shooter. I enjoy shooting long rang out to 1,300 yards when I get the chace and doing this takes somewhat expensve equipment, where do you draw the line? I'm currenlty using Nightforce NXS 3-15X50 MLR. Great for what I'm doing. I've looked at S&B, Zeiss, Leupy, and so on. A freind recently suggested MARCH optics, at a price on the high end of $3,000. I paid less than half for my Nightforce and I have a hard time thinking that a scope can be worth this kind of money and perform that much better. So now that I've opened the can lets here what you have to say.
Thanks for all the coments

 

[ponchair]

Re: Quality optics vs overall expense

This will go as far as your pocket book. If you want something that has a low probability of failing, then a Nightforce works great. There are just a few more features you get from a Schmidt, Henny, Premier. I wouldn't concern yourself with all the expensive optics. I have a Premier, and I like it, will it do what a Nightforce will, yep, does the Premier have better glass and some better features, yep. Thats about it. I think the Nightforce is the most rugged optic on the planet.

 

[TonyAngel]

Re: Quality optics vs overall expense

I'm a big fan of Nightforce, but certainly won't say that NF is as good as it gets; although it's certainly as good as it needs to be to get the job done, when lesser scopes might fail.

You can take this for what it's worth from a guy that's good at breaking stuff.

 

[BCP]

Re: Quality optics vs overall expense

Higher quality glass, different turrets & features. You need to ask yourself if the above factors are worth the upgrade cost.

edit: this is assuming you go from NF to say S&B, Zeiss, Premier etc...Leupold is a step down from NF.

 

[Flyingbullseye]

Re: Quality optics vs overall expense

Another question(s) to ask is why the need to change? Has the NF let you down? Having trouble sighting the target or to put it another way is it not clear enough at the distances you are shooting at? As the others said Henny, Premier and S&B are better optics but unless you are either just looking for something bigger and better or need more mag I have my doubts that buying the more expensive scopes will be worth it in the end.

Flyingbullseye

 

[Longshot38]

Re: Quality optics vs overall expense

It is all a matter of personal preference. Yes my Premier is an awesome scope and I would have no reservations about purchasing another. But is all that scope needed or is the cost necessary? Probably not. Simple fact of the matter is that the value of a particular item is more about you then any one else or market value. So if you get what you need with NF and are happy with what you have then upgrading optics probably isn't worth it to you.

If you asked me all optics are over priced. But I do see the value of the top tier optics and I will purchase at least one more Premier.

 

[fw707]

Re: Quality optics vs overall expense

I'm glad this subject came up.
I've been seriously considering "upgrading" from a NF to a Premier for better glass, F1, and a little more precise MOA reticle than the one I have.
I'd like to see opinions from more experienced folks too.

 

[Killer Spade 13]

Re: Quality optics vs overall expense

The final determining answer is the lack of emperical evidence defining one to be better than another.

At this point, it's all subjective.

Ya pays yer monies, ya takes yer chances . . .

Does an additional $1000 make it foolproof ???

 

[Icallem]

Re: Quality optics vs overall expense

I just did this, made the move from NF to S&B. It seems all of my life I have moved up in scopes. 30 years ago my eyes could not tell the difference between a 3-9 Tasco World Class and a VX 3 or whatever they made, because my eyes were good. Today, my eyes are not 20 anymore and they tell me there is a difference. The NF is good and it is going on another rifle, but when I look through the S&B my eyes think they are 35 again. I'm just glad my wife is younger and won't need the S&B for a few years!

 

[Rob01]

Re: Quality optics vs overall expense

Where you draw the line depends on you. It's your personal preference.

I run S&Bs because I love the optical quality but more so the reliability and perfect tracking added to the overall features of the scope. I have run many different scopes in the past and found S&B gives me what I want in a scope better than others. If you are happy with your NF then use it and have fun.

 

[andrew_pritch1]

Re: Quality optics vs overall expense

the features and quality seem to plateau at the 1-1.2k range after this amount the gain over cost is minimal,

yes there is amazing glass for a fortune

yes there are very durable scopes for a fortune

if they made a scope that you could drop down 3 flights of stairs attached to the rifle and it still remained intact and on zero and had a lifetime warranty that included the (we don't care how it broke intentional or not) i would spend the 3-4k on it

until that time 1-1.2k is more than enough for what we currently have available in this day and age

 

[E. Bryant]

Re: Quality optics vs overall expense

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pritch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the features and quality seem to plateau at the 1-1.2k range after this amount the gain over cost is minimal,</div></div>

There is definitely a "knee in the curve" when it comes to scope performance vs. cost. Where exactly its lies tends to depend upon the user's needs and wallet thickness.

 

[Bradu]

Re: Quality optics vs overall expense

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Icallem</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just did this, made the move from NF to S&B. It seems all of my life I have moved up in scopes. 30 years ago my eyes could not tell the difference between a 3-9 Tasco World Class and a VX 3 or whatever they made, because my eyes were good. Today, my eyes are not 20 anymore and they tell me there is a difference. The NF is good and it is going on another rifle, but when I look through the S&B my eyes think they are 35 again. I'm just glad my wife is younger and won't need the S&B for a few years! </div></div>

I took my dad shooting a few weeks back and he can't see through my Leupold scopes well enough to shoot 100 yards. He tried out the Nightforce I bought and was shooting on 22 power with no problems, I guess I better try out an S&B on one of my next rifles so he will go shooting with me more.

 

[natesguns]

Re: Quality optics vs overall expense

this subject has gone a little off path, but for the most part I'm seeing a pretty general theme. I'm perfectly happy with my Nightforcce, this scope perforems without flaw for me. I've shot out to 1300 yards with my ar-10 with results that most that don't shot can't really understand. The point that I'm really trying to prove has been argued over and over. Will the $3,500 S&B do more than the NF for me? Probably, but I'm not going to use that scope to it's full potential with the style of shooting I do. Now those who need that extra edge or just a few more fetures will need this and maybe the S&B has that option, or maybe it's the US Optic. Who knows. I could probably use the Leupy MK-4 and have the same results and turn the savings into poweder and lead.

Anyway rambuling on and on, as it's been stated. Use what you trust and like, if I'd baught the Premier I'd still want a NF or visa versa. Thanks for the comments keepem coming.

 

[SheepsClothes]

Re: Quality optics vs overall expense

A friend has a loooooow cost old 3-9 Simmons. I know for a fact it can shoot way out there. The argument of diminishing returns isn't even part of the math in how I see the question.

There is a knee at the 100 dollar mark. Then another huge one at about 800. Etc etc.

This is the same discussion we find in cars or in rifles. A .308 will go to 1000 yards with authority, but not the same way a .300 win mag will. The wifes cobalt will get her to and from, but not the same way a new 911 turbo will.

The first thing you have to decide is what options do your really need/want. After that its all emotion.

 

[M21guy]

Re: Quality optics vs overall expense

I got darn near every option I could think of wanting with a USO. I got really good glass and over all really good quality. I see very well with it. Image quality with it is better than "I" could see with a NF, but overall not as good as "I" could see with a S&B. I emphasize "I" because that is what it boils down to, it's what you see when you look through these things. People get all pissy when someone gives their opinion on the "best" glass. Maybe the NF you have is all you need? I'm not you, I'm not your optician. I don't know. You really need time behind something to see if it makes a difference for you.

 

[vonbalkenbush]

Re: Quality optics vs overall expense

This is actually a pretty good thread. I've spent time behind Leupy, Nightforce, Premier, Vortex and recently S&B. I now own and run a Premier as my primary optic. To my eyes it is better than all the rest I've looked through. But is in $1k better than my buddies NF F-1 that we we're comparing the other day? I don't know? It all boils down to "what's it worth to you?" the Nightforce will do everything my Premier will, but I feel like a gave up somewhere in the 5-15% range in resolution when shooting steel at 500-1000 yds. It also has some features I like better, but $3k is a big chunk for a rifle scope. I don't think anyone can say where the diminishing return line is for <span style="font-weight: bold">cost vs. benefit</span> when it comes to scopes. Get the best you can afford, and don't worry about the rest.

 

[ArcticLight]

Re: Quality optics vs overall expense

I've shot through NF, my USO, Tasco, and a Leupold.

I thought the eye relief on the loopy was harder than my USO, nor was it as clear (16x I think)..

NF was decent, SKRanger won a few matches with his.

I've been partial to my 11 year old USO as it's just super friggin clear optics.

Find what works...

You can get an ST-10 for a grand and change..

 

[tbugher62]

Re: Quality optics vs overall expense

Well the last benchrest shoot I was at last month ,8 out of 10 were using Nightforce the rest leupolds mostly,and these guys shoot in the same ragged hole regulary.And yes they can afford any scope avalible today to put on there $4000.00 plus rifles not including the scope.

 

[Longshot38]

Re: Quality optics vs overall expense

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nevada Hunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well the last benchrest shoot I was at last month ,8 out of 10 were using Nightforce the rest leupolds mostly,and these guys shoot in the same ragged hole regulary.And yes they can afford any scope avalible today to put on there $4000.00 plus rifles not including the scope. </div></div>

BR is a different animal then Tactical/Practical. And NF and Leupold build scopes specifically for this purpose. Where as S&B, Premier, Hensoldt, and USO play more in the tactical side of the market.