No, the devil (or anyone else for that matter) would be far smarter than you.

Gee, could be....seems awfully complicated in contrast with the simple Leupold warranty.

I just never seem to hear about the GREAT Simmons no questions asked lifetime warranty...

Probably because in many cases you can buy a NIB Simmons for the cost of shipping to and from the repair facility.  Huh?

Don't know who you do your shipping through, but $150 sounds kinda high for a rifle scope one way (they pay for shipping it back).  I know this from EXPERIENCE (see post above).  Even if you're talking about the $50 scopes, shipping one way still wouldn't be CLOSE that much.  Guess this goes along with that SMART thing I mentioned before.  [stick]

Actually, I was being more subtle about it, I was considering the number of times you'd have to send one back, multiplied by the amount of shipping back and forth.  Sorry, I should say what I mean. [rolleyes]

Best friend had a Simmons 44mag or some such, it went back three times to be made right, finally they told him it wasn't supposed to go on a muzzleloader.  He spent $45 in shipping, plus they wanted to bill him $20 for the repairs when he told them it was on a muzzie...supposedly that was outside the warranty.  He told them to throw it away.

I gave him one of my VX-II's that I scored in a trade.  No issues since then.

He actually swapped between the VX-II and a 1970's vintage VXIII from a target rifle, but likes the 3-9 VX-II better...

This is getting back on topic quick, and without any name calling or flaming one another.

IBTL???

[LOLabove]

Oh, come on.  The mod told me to stop calling names and I will.  I'll stick to the facts if Shivan does.

Please see all my posts above.  If you have something to add that illustrates a different view, please do.

I guess the corporate website is not enough?  Also, just to make sure, does the written warranty in your Simmons or Tasco scope literature say "Lifetime", or is it qualified with "Limited Lifetime"?

It would appear from the corporate sites of both Tasco and Simmons that they both offer limited lifetime warranties, which can/will change at the companies discretion.

Just like Tasco's are now covered by Bushnell, but at a cost, despite the previous literature that stated a limited lifetime warranty.

Again, this is not about exceptions to the written warranty, lying to claim you are the original owner, maybe getting a free scope, maybe getting a bill.

This is about Leupold spelling it out plain and simple in all pre-packaged scope literature, all corporate websites, all dealer lit, EVERY time you see the Leupold Riflescope warranty it reads very simply, and you know EXACTLY what it means.

I can get cash refunds at Home Depot without a receipt, does that mean they will do it with everyone?  Same goes with the FREE warranty service you may or may not get with Simmons or Tasco.

I have presented those facts above, quoted from their corporate prescence on the web.

[b]Legendary Loopy Quality[/b]

Gentlemen, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, the folks running Leupold now are not the same ones who were running the Leuplod we all grew up with and learned to love. It's now apparently being run by a bunch of MBA's who are focused on short term profits. (Before the flames start; I have an MBA myself. I also remember what a bunch of buffoons most of my classmates were.)

About four years ago when I got my SR-25 my only scope decision was which Leupold to buy for it. I settled on one of the then new 30MM variables. It had not occured to me that a Leuplod, new design or not, would be anything less than superb. Hoo boy; was I in for a surprise. The short story is that the scope would not work; the factory could not make it work after three attempts, and I ended up returning it and getting a Shepherd; which by the way has performed flawlessly for years.

Have you taken a look at their "tactical" CQB scope? Does that thing look to you like it had any shooter input whatsoever in the design stage?

My point being that although I used, with great satisfaction, Leuplods exclusively for decades, until they ditch the current management cuties and re-install shooters at the helm, I'm done with Leupold.

Luck,

SD

you know you just do it to get everyone all riled up! [:d]

There is a world of difference between a safe queen and equipment abuse. Unless your using your scopes to drive tent stakes into the frozen michigan ground, you shouldnt have broken 8 of them. But some of those michigan Beer Camps get pretty rough I guess...

What an informative thread.  So far we've learned:

  (a)  sksarfal has bought 8 POS scopes, broken all of them and can't understand why people spend money on Leupolds;

  (b)  Shivan is an a****** and/or gay;

  (c)  Dataphotoguy hates Paypal and Shivan, although not necessarily in that order.

  What was this post originally about anyway - I forgot.

:)

Well, thank you for noticing. Now get back in your hole.....[stick]

[;)]

Pippin and Woodrow1976:

It has been over 20 years but I will try and recall where all 8 broke.

First scope was a Tasco fixed power 4 x 32 mounted on a 22 semi auto.  Reticle wire broke and returned it to the store and got a new one.  No abuse - just shot it.

2nd was the replacement Tasco.  Same failure.  Took back to store and got a new one.  Use it now as a spare if I buy a new gun and need a temp. scope.

3rd Tasco was a WC 2.5 - 8 x 40.  Only scope that I feel like I abused.  Mounted on a 30-06 and was walking with it slung and went to step over a tree branch and kicked the power ring with my boot.  Power ring slid off.  Scope still held zero.  Sent it back to Tasco and got a new one.  

4th Tasco was a 3 -9 x 40 Mounted on a 12 guage slug gun.  Reticle twisted in scope.  Maybe I was asking too much from this Tasco (This is a joke Shivy! take a deep breath before being a jerk).  Sent it back to Tasco after the Bankruptcy and still got a new one.

5th Tasco was a 2-8 x 32 Compact.  Reticle twisted.  Was mounted on a 10/22.  My guess is the bolt slamming the bolt stop was too much for it.

Bushnell 3 -9x40 mounted on a black powder gun.  Would not hold zero.  Thought the gun was a smoothbore until I switched scopes.

1) If you can't type my whole screenname then skip it all together.

2) I never said a 3-9 doesn't belong on a slug gun, you may want to direct your tripe in the correct direction.

Thanks.

Simmons 3-9x32 mounted on the 10/22.  Reticle wire broke.  Returned to store and got a new one.  Mounted it on a black powder gun and the reticle broke.  Returned to store and got a new one.  

Other than the one Tasco I did not drop, drag, kick or otherwise abuse these scopes.  Maybe it was expecting too much for the cheap variables to live on the slug gun or the black powder gun.  (Another deep breath shivy)  QCMNGR seems to believe that variables do not belong on slug guns.  I tend to believe now that the cheap variables do not belong on anything with a heavy kick.  I do find it hard to believe that a Loopie variable can withstand magnum rifle recoil but not a slug gun.

Simmons 3-9x32 mounted on the 10/22.  Reticle wire broke.  Returned to store and got a new one.  Mounted it on a black powder gun and the reticle broke.  Returned to store and got a new one.  

Other than the one Tasco I did not drop, drag, kick or otherwise abuse these scopes.  Maybe it was expecting too much for the cheap variables to live on the slug gun or the black powder gun.  (Another deep breath shivy)  QCMNGR seems to believe that variables do not belong on slug guns.  I tend to believe now that the cheap variables do not belong on anything with a heavy kick.  I do find it hard to believe that a Loopie variable can withstand magnum rifle recoil but not a slug gun.

1) I like to think I learn from past experience (note that I did buy the Loopie).  You act like a jerk I will treat you like a jerk.  

2) I was just guessing what you would find to be an ass about.  My mistake.

Unfortunately I have no more room at my house with the fiance, three cats, and the occasional cricket, but if you want to be my internet puppy could you at least learn how to type out my complete name?

It's not that I mind, it's just that we aren't close enough yet for you to project your pet names and lifestyle choice on me.

Thanks.

Hmm, I guess you can't read the admonishments above, by staff and mods??  In three posts you've made three separate personal attacks on me.  No problem really, I can handle you as my internet puppy too.  I usually take the others out for a walk around 8pm?  What size collar do you wear?

And it only took eight scopes to determine this?


 
And he's right in this case. See below for where cheap variables belong.



Cheap scopes belong in the trash can.
Or sell them on eBay, lotsa suckas!  



It's not a question of durability.
Leupold actually makes several variable specifically for scatterguns & smokepoles.
It's this thing called paralax.
Look it up.



Yes, albeit  s l o w l y.

Leupold seems to have developed an almost slavish following when it comes to their scopes. I've never understood the fact that people feel the need to buy super-expensive scopes when something less/cheaper will do.

My personal beliefs (and not that any of us have enough experience to come close to an objective opinion anyway) is that there are two kinds of scopes:
1) Cheap, sub-$100 scopes where corners have been cut which will compromise the scope in some way, and
2) Decent scopes which perform as advertised.

If you look at the 3-9x40 scope, which is arguably the most popular scope out there, you'll notice that a majority of complaints centers on scopes costing less than $100. For about $200, you can buy a Leupold VX1, Nikon, Bushnell Elite series, or a couple of others. All fine scopes. Is a Kahles, Swarovski, or Zeiss really [i]that[/i] much better to warrant a pricetag of up to $1000 ? I just don't see that.

The incremental quality from $50 to $200 is big enough to make a difference, but between $200 and $1000 ? Fact is that there is no objective standard by which a scope is measured, such as how much recoil it can take, how many times it can take that recoil, repeatability of adjustments, a quantifiable measure of the optical quality, etc. It could certainly be done, but you'll never see it - scope manufacturers wouldn't be able to justify their really expensive scopes.

I should have said:

[s]A[/s][red]That[/red] variable scope is the wrong scope to mount on a slug gun.

and

[red][b]Your test method is not statistically significant.[/b][/red] You could, "hammer a nail with it" and it would be just as valid.

sksarfal: What the hell is going on with that 10/22 ? Does it have a .50 Beowulf conversion kit on it or something ? That gun has broken more scopes than I was able to count...

Z - I agree, to a point.
Anyone buying a super-cheap scope is asking for trouble. I'd set the lower limit at $200.

That said, I generally spend nearly as much (or more) on the optic for any given weapon as I do for the actual firearm. It's false-economy to continue putting cheap optics on guns and expect them to work as needed, when needed.

The deer ain't shootin' back, but I'd rather go home with a trophy or meat for the freezer than a story about "the one that got away". [:D]
And are you sure that you won't ever need to use your rifle to defend yourself and your family?

Ask yourself this:
What is the scope worth to you if you are able to complete your hunt and get your deer, vs what it would be worth to you if it fails on you in the field, and you never get to fire a shot? A quality Leupold 3x9x40mm VXII only costs $250 or so.  It's 10 times the quality of any Simmons, and isn't gonna fail you in the field and ruin your hunt.  You don't need a 50mm scope (and if you do, then NO cheap scope is going to be adequate).



Things to remember:
The bitterness of poor quality far outlasts the sweetness of low price.

You get what you pay for.

Caveat emptor

Answer = YES!

Field testing by the end users hold up the "standard".

It's no surprise that you can poll the owners of Leupold Mark 4 scopes and you'll get a standard response in 99.9% of the cases.

Is an Unertl USMC 10x worth $2500?  Definitely.

Is a US Optics USMC 10x worth $2500, you bet.

Is a gun that DOES hold up to safari grade recoil from 416 Rigby's, 375H&H, etc , year after year after year, decade after decade, that is saying something.

My buddy Jack's dad died in the early 80's, he used a Remmie BDL bolt action in 30-06 with a Leupold scope for damn near 20yrs as the story goes...rebarreling the gun three times, but never having to change the scope.  It held a zero and was a set it and forget it type deal.

The gun, as it sits on the wall, will still shoot to point of aim at 100yds -- it will do it all day long.  The scope is something like 40 years old.  Still clear....

Slavish?  Maybe.  Reason to be?  You bet!

Worth it?  The scopes I have given away for free to guys who just needed a scope add up to one new VariX-III, I've done the math.  Not one of them held zero on my .270Win 700ADL...

Tasco World Class, Tasco Pronghorn, Bushnell Sportsmen,  Bushnell Trophy, Tasco World Class #2, and several other models.....none of them ever broke, but they always needed to be re-zeroed after doing nothing more than laying in a gun case for a month.

How silly is that?

I was also a practical optics buyer, with the "good enough" attitude.  Until I scored a heavily used Mark4 10x for $700, I was changed FOREVER.  This is both a good thing and bad thing....good because I have optics that will take more abuse than I could ever think to dish out and bad because they cost as much, or more, as some guns I own.

BTW, hunt at dawn or dusk with the $200 scope, then hunt the same time with a Swavorski...

You will be able to count deer flies on the hide with the Swavorski, Zeiss, or S&B -- you might be able to make out the number of points on the buck with a lesser quality scope.

I've seen it, and it's gotten clearer over time.

Whatever rationale one uses for subpar optics will work for them, but don't expect it to fly with the people who have "been there, done that..."

The only thing a Tasco is better than, is a set of irons. YMMV.....  

Exactly what I said.



Not the 7mm RemMag. I hope not anyway. That's what the AR's are for.



Therein lies my main argument. I wasn't talking about the differences between a $50 Tasco and a $200 scope, but between a $200 scope and something much more expensive. [i]That[/i] is what I believe falls into the category of reverse false-economy. I would like to see a QUANTIFIABLE difference between a $200-250 scope and a $600-1000 scope that would have a PRACTICAL impact on a scopes perfomance. Sure, I get a $1300 scope when I buy a Zeiss V/VM, but is it really WORTH (in materials/quality/features) $1000 more than the Leupold VXII? Have you ever seen any manufacturer give ANY measurable performance metric data on their scopes?

Anecdotes from one person are not statistically valid. Nor did you give PROOF of the other claims you made. And I wasn't comparing Tascos to Leupolds like you imply I did.

I'm not saying you're wrong in the claim you make - just that there's no scientific proof of it. Case in point - the $2500 Unertl scope. You claim it's definitely worth it. Based on what criteria? Because the military is willing to spend that much money for it? Are you saying that a Leupold VX2 is not going to allow me to take a deer without thinking about the inferiority of the VX2 compared to the Swarovski? I've looked through those scopes and your eyes must be a heck of a lot better than mine to notice that much of a difference.

Statistics?  This isn't emotional but it really boils down to what I can see when I look at optics.  Anecdotal?  In the abscence of the "scientific", which usually ends up being bullshit anyway, the anecdotal evidence, as witnessed firsthand is pretty compelling.

I don't need you to believe it, or not believe it, but there it is....

As to taking a deer with a VX-II, you sure will be able to take a deer.  I hunt early in the morning just after first light and often hunt just before the sun sets.  Optical quality, durability, repeatability are all critical components to a top quality scope.  Proof?  If you don't accept anecdotal stories of statistical significance, then we are at an end to this conversation.

Read up on the US Optics "tests"....throwing it across a parking lot, hammering nails, kicking it around, etc....still holds zero, and still functions flawlessly. Anecdotal evidence BTW, as the force of the throws wasn't calibrated, but the effect is there to be assessed.

I can see a difference in optical quality in a disposable camera lens and a quality camera by Nikon too...I can also see a difference when looking through a set of $400 Leupold binocs and a set of $1000 Zeiss binocs....

End users and the stories they tell fill the void of the scientific proof.  For a look at how scientific means jack shit -- look at the fire ratings on gunsafes. [whacko]

True. But many of us hunt deer/elk/moose in bear/lion country.
I pose this question to those who would put a cheap scope on their hunting arms:
How much would you pay for a clear, accurate, functional scope if you or your hunting partner had an encounter with a bear or a cat?
Would it be worth an extra $150?




I meant no offense.  I was just trying to build on your post.  I think that we agree for the most part.



Here's an example of where a more expensive scope is different (better) IMO:

I have a Premiere Reticles Gen2 3.5-10 M3 LRT on my Bushy varminter ($800).
I could have bought a VXII or VXII 3-9 for half (or less) the price.

Would it do the same job? - For the most part, Yes.

But I would give up side-focus (paralax), Mil-Dot reticle, BDC compensation, 30mm tube, etc.
Sure, I could shoot groundhogs without all those fancy features, but they definitely make it easier for me to fire accurately.

Maybe it is mostly a 'perceived' difference in quality, but I don't think so. At any rate, for me, it's cheap insurance.



And another:
Used to be, I'd buy a new set of binoculars every year or two. Redfield, Tasco, Bushnell, and others I don't care to remember, all around $100 a pop (a good bit of money at the time). Before long they would fog, were fuzzy, hard to focus, had loose lenses, etc.

I finally broke down and bought a set of Swarovski (SP?) 10x40's from SWFA, Set me back around $600 about twelve years ago, IIRC. I've dropped them on shale rock, in mudholes, in snowbanks, and they ride in the back seat of my truck 24/7/365. But I still have them, and they worked just as well earlier tonight glassing corn stubble for whitetails as they did when they were new.

I hate to think how much game I missed just because I couldn't [b]see[/b] the animals.

Well, since we are telling stories, here is one for you all to chew on.  I've shot 2 deer, every year, for the last 5 years (one year I got six deer but we won't go into that here)  with on gun (30-06) with a $150 SIMMONS on it.  I always take it to the range every year to make SURE it is still zeroed.  Never had to touch the adjustment.  Always been right on.  Is this statistical fact?  Does this PROVE anything?  You be the judge.

Allright Here's my two cents worth.  DaPhotoGuy what were all those shots.  Were they 600 yd shots taken at first/last light or were they 100 yd shots taken in the middle of the day?  How many deer have you had to pass up because you couldn't see them?  You'll never know because you didn't see them.  Shivan is not saying there is no use for discount scopes just don't plan to use them hard.  I'm a Vari-XIII kinda guy right now, I'd like to spend more but you taxpayers just don't pay me enough (joke).  For you guys saying that the clarity is as good on a $150 simmons as it is on a $1200 swarvoski have you ever compared these scopes somewhere besides the showroom?  A fuckin' $20 tasco will look almost as good as a Vari-XIII in those conditions.  Get those same two scopes out in the field comparing the racks on deer at 600 yds in first light with a morning mist and tell me which one is better.  Now take that Vari-XIII and compare it to a higher priced scope and you'll still be able to tell the diffrence.  To sum it up when you buy a scope buy the absolute best you can afford.  If you hunt in the middle of the day and your shots never go past 150-200yds.  That low-end Leupold will probably be the best scope you ever buy and last till your death.  If you hunt in the Pacific Northwest where your scoping from ridgeline to ridgeline and often shooting that way too, maybe you oughta save your beer money and buy some top-shelf optics.  I guess that last statement is the deciding factor in how much scope you need.  If you drive around in your pickup swillin' beer with you buddy until the game comes on hoping to blast a deer buy a crap scope you're a crap hunter anyways.  If you hump for 5 miles at 0300 to get set up on a trail that you've been glassing for a month prior to opening day and are gonna be in the woods till last light get something worthwhile.  You don't wanna see that monster through a broken/fogged scope.

Really? 2 deer for the last 5 years?  [wow]

So 14 deer? In 5 years?  Impressive.  I'll have to count the marks around the maple tree in deer camp next time I go, they stopped in '98 when they had made a few revolutions around the trunk of the 3' diameter tree.  Just wasn't fun any more.

Here's a visual:

[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..
[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s]..[s]IIII[/s].................................................................

Each "I" represents one deer taken out of the farm...

Does your story "prove" anything?  Other than you like to buy sub-par optics?

Not really.

Of the 140 or so marks attributed to Guy on the maple, all but the last three or four were taken with irons on a beat up 30-30.  By his own admission he's passed on so many deer in first light or last light that he KNOWS his number would have been higher had he been able to SEE them.

He chose Leupold VX-III 1.75x6, when he finally scoped the 30-30.  He loves it, 'cause now, before the sun comes up he can pick up the roosts of the turkeys, and he's got a crude map of the best roosts on the farm...he just sits there and scopes them until the sun comes up.

Statistical?  Nope.  Ordinary occurence with top shelf optics?  Yep.

Only an irresponsible and unsafe hunter would use his rifle-mounted scope to [b][i]identify[/i][/b] objects/his target.  If you are “scoping” anything just to see what’s out there you should be using binoculars.

Sorry, Shivan.  I mean no disrespect to you or your hunting buddies.  You’re obviously very seasoned and successful hunters.  This issue is just a pet peeve of mine.  I knew a man who was killed by another hunter a few years ago because the hunter used his rifle scope to identify what was in the bushes.    

No offense taken, I use binos, he's old school.  We are on private property surrounded by mountain sides all around.  We hunt in designated areas coordinated before we leave out for the morning.

He is able to freely scope any area he hunts with no fear of background.  The background is pre-cleared by the hunting area assignments and none of the areas overlook the central path system they cut on the property, so there is no chance I would roam in to Guy's area, and if I did we all know where the stands and blinds are so we would either radio over that we are coming in or get in a sight line of the stand WITH BLAZE ORANGE on...but no one has ever needed to cross areas since I've been there.

On other property this may be dangerous and irresponsible...only things moving in Guy's "area" would be game or trespassers.

I know what you mean, which is why I use binos, but not everyone who buys quality scopes can afford quality binos too.....[;)]

I'll make one last comment here:

A scope manufacturer uses a certain quality optic, chooses certain materials to make the scope, and manufactures it according to some degree of quality. Each of these is absolutely measureable. As the US Optics site shows for the optics portion alone, there's chromatic and spherical abberations, Coma, Field Curvature, Distortion, Brightness, etc. Each of these is quantifiable and not subject to interpretation and applies to every scope made by any manufacturer. Similar quantifiable parameters exist for every other aspect of a scope's design. Yet, no scope manufacturer has chosen to come up with any. When I buy a car, I can determine the 0-60 time, 1/4 mile time, the braking distance, roadholding, etc. I can use those parameters to distinguish which features are of importance and make an educated buy.

Next, you need to determine how meaningful these numbers are in comparison to the ability of the human eye to actually see that difference. An analogy: even the cheapest CD player has S/N ratios well over 70dB, yet the human ear can only distinguish 35dB.

End users comments, when comparing two scopes which have decent optics (take if you will the VX2 or 3 versus the Zeiss V/VM0 are notoriously fickle. Unless you're doing a true blind test, how do you know that your impression isn't influenced by your knowledge of the scope. There's no accredited scientific comparison which would test products in such a manner.

I'm simply advocating that scope manufacturers produce meaningful performance numbers which will allow the end user to make an educated decision. It may turn out that for those hunting situations described by woodrow1976 that the money spent on a certain optic really IS worth it. At the same time, it may turn out that the $150 Simmons is fine for hunting 2-3 deer every year, year after year. It may not be adequate for 500 yard shots, but in central Texas, you'll never take a shot like that. Call me cynical, but I firmly believe that scope manufacturers don't want those numbers because it allows them to use the confusion to lure end uers into spending too much money because "you get what you pay for."

{Forest Gump]And that's all I've got to say about that.[/Forest Gump]

Yep, and as I directed you to investigate scientific measurements done to test the fireproofing of gunsafes.

Here is a vehicle you can search on to put your mind at ease Subaru WRX, and will show that any "scientific" testing done in the auto industry ends up being pure bullshit when the day is done.  Manufacturer claims 0-60 in x.xx seconds. 1/4 in xx.xx.  Braking distance in xxx.xx feet.  C&D tests same car and gets a.xx in 0-60 bb.xx in 1/4 and Braking in ccc.xx feet.  Hmm?  How can that be?

Road&Track does the EACT same tests and gets yet a third number set.  How?  Simple test 0-60, why are three numbers different, some materially different?? It's scientifically controlled right??

How does one calculate the fire rating for a gun safe?  Simple right?  Turn the blast oven on
for 2000* and tell me the time it takes to cook the inside of the safe up to 350*.  Right?  Simple...

Well not so fast, some labs slowly roll the temps up to 1600* then claim they can resists temps up to 1600* for 10 hours.  But in actual execution the safe can't withstand 1600* for over 10 minutes because only the last 10 minutes of the 10 hour "rating" was done at 1600*.

So in the scope industry who will set the standard?  What is meaningful criteria that Bubba the Hillbilly will understand when buying a scope, what is useless information for the average consumer?

Well, there are figures available for light transmission.  Problem is one lab tests it with one spectrum and another uses another spectrum or intensity.

Wanna know what it really boils down to:  Will you write the check or not?

Even given all the scientific data you care to shake a stick at, there will STILL be this argument.  Wanna know why?  There will still be dudes who say, "Oh, I can't see $600 dollars difference in that there Lee-o-pulled, and this here $39.99 Tasco World Class."

The items that Leupold offers that make me write the check:  M1 and M3 adjustment dials, side focus, custom reticles, lifetime NO QUESTIONS scope warranty, totality of the personal experiences with the Leupold brand, optical clarity and light transmission, quality of the scope.

These will be different for everyone.  If a $1000 scope was the same as a $200 scope, there would be no $1000 scopes.  Think on it.

[size=6]Where is the rebuttal to the warranty links and quotes I provided for Simmons?  I asked you specific questions about the warranty and you say they are different.  Proof?[/size=6]

Wasn't me. That was an argument you had with one of the other guys. As far as testing is concerned - you obviously must have a controlled environment to make the data meaningful and repeatable. I'm not arguing with you about the warranty issue. That's certainly an important factor. I have a Bushnell Elite 3200, with its [url=http://www.bushnell.com/productinfo/riflescopes/bulletproof.html]Warranty[/url]

Yeah, I knew it wasn't you, I separated the two thoughts, but figured I should make a whole other post....I edited the thing before this post.

The Bushnell 3200 is a pretty darn good scope for what it costs.  I gave one away here as a membership drive prize drawing.

The 10x40 mildot was $189....pretty good price.  Not sure I would have ended up liking the target knobs they use, but OK for the price.

[size=6][red][b]I ALREADY TOLD YOU WHAT THE WARRENTY IN FRONT OF ME SAYS![b][/red][/size=6]  Do you want me to mail you a copy of my warranty?  [rolleyes]  This coming from the same guy that says ". . . any "scientific" testing done in the auto industry ends up being pure bullshit when the day is done."  We should all just take your word on everything, right Shivy?  [whacko]

BTW, two deer every year is all you're allowed to take per-rifle season in my area of Nebraska so that pretty fucking good!  My statements prove a $150 scope can shoot MOA for 5 years straight with no adjustments necessary.  Comments made by others on this post TRY to say it won't.

[rolleyes]  So when I asked, "Does it say LIMITED LIFETIME WARRANTY?"  with no response.  That was an answer?  Notice how easily Zhukov was able to provide the Bushnell warranty.  I guess you are the only one singing the praises of the Simmons no hassle, lifetime warranty...funny that the one experience I was directly involved in with Simmons and the warranty of their scopes it didn't play out as no hassle.  Odd really.

Yep, I said exactly what I meant about the supposedly "scientific" testing in the auto industry, in so much to dispute the tests that were mentioned.  I can test my car tomorrow using a set of criteria that includes strapping a trailer to it with 1000lbs, then report the 0-60 times with a tiny footnote about the testing methods.

But even not getting so crazy in the testing methods, the "scientific" tests done for a car's performance in the auto industry/auto mags can be used as nothing more than "guidelines".  Do some homework, check your car in three car rags and let me know if they all come out the same.  Mine doesn't.  Nor does my fiance's, nor does my best friend's or his wife's, nor does my boss', or my boss' boss.....they may be testing the same thing, but it is FAR from gospel, and at the end of the day means absolutely nothing if you can't drive like the editors do, or don't use their methods.

Just like light transmission tests for optics...of which you [b]can[/b] find results.  The problem is that Leupold uses one method that shows X transmission, but when Zeiss tests the Leupold scope and reports the two results the Zeiss has better transmission despite the Leupold test stating the opposite.  Then you have Bushnell or Nikon come in and do separate tests and state they have the test results that matter....

Do you think they would agree on a testing method?  Doubtful, does that make a $150 Simmons transmit light as well as a $1000 Swavorski?  Not on your life.

BTW, you can also do recoil tests on scopes too, but saying your scope can handle the recoil of a 300 Win mag for 10,000 shots means nothing if I don't know the bullet weight, the weight of the gun, whether it was shot while in a mechanical vise, full loads, MV, etc......so if one scope claims it is 50BMG rated and one scope doesn't claim that, but does state it can handle 375H&H which one will stand up to more recoil?

A Simmons mounted on a AR-50 with the huge brake will probably fair better than the same Simmons mounted on a McMillan bolt 50BMG with small muzzle brake.  Hmm?  Considering the AR-50 probably weighs twice as much, has a more efficient recoil reduction device and thus less recoil force on the shooter and the scope.  But the statement is still true, the Simmons would hold up to the 50BMG.  Right?  [rolleyes]

Again, I will make this statement -- if you don't get it that is fine; I am done with this thread.  It's not meant to be profound, it's not meant to be a solid unassailable argument.  It is what it is.

[green][b][size=4]If there were absolutely no difference in a $200 scope and a $1000 scope; there would be NO $1000 scopes.[/size=4][/b][/green]

There are people who know 10,000x what I or you do....I guarantee without a doubt that they don't use Simmons or Tasco, and it has nothing to do with the price tag.

If you want to convince yourself that a $150 Simmons is every bit as good as a $1000 Zeiss knock yourself out.





   

Your statements indicate that ONE cheap scope shot 'minute-of-deer' for five years.

One question - How many rounds are fired annually?

If you're only shooting a few rounds at the range and a couple more at live targets, it will take a while before the poor quality of your Simmons rears its ugly head. Just cross your fingers that it doesn't manifest itself when you have a true trophy in your (non-functional) sights.

"The only thing a Tasco is better than, is a set of irons."


Don't know that I agree with that - atleast the irons WILL hold a zero, and won't fog up!!!


  - georgestrings