If the rifle costs $1000, the optic you put on it must cost at least $500 or else it's gay.
If the weapon costs $2000, then the optic you put on it must cost at least $1000 or else it's gay.  And so on.  Denoting rifle scopes only, not red dot sights, reflex sights, ect.

I've gone through the cheap sights and scopes and they do suck.
Quality scopes/sights = resale value
Cheap scopes/sights = losing money when you find out it sucks and/or breaks
Most of the gear snobs here don't like the meprolight reflex and it does suck compared to an Aimpoint, but I have killed more with it than any other sight I've had (because it was on my gun the longest not because it was great).
But, if you only want to spend $75 on a scope for an ar15 then why didn't you just buy a mini14?
That being said, I'm about to buy a TA33 acog with the cash I wasted on ff rails, flip up front sights, etc, etc, enter top-of-the-line name brand here____ !  All this stuff was on my civilian, hunting, shtf lightweight carbine making it heavier than a 20 inch Hbar.
I guess I was a tactical poser with all that cool stuff, and I admit I wanted it to look just like ones I'd seen in pictures of special forces guys.
A quality scope with features you can't get from a cheap scope can enhance your ability. Free float rails, vertical grips, and expensive stocks can't do a damn thing to enhance the average joe shooter like myself.
If I depended on my carbine for a living, I would use the best stuff available.

How many of us here depend on our AR's for our lives?  I hope I don't, but if shtf, and I needed to take a long shot, for example 900 yds at a prairie dog, I have better tools for the job, just like I have better tools for close range work.  As I recall, 400 yds max effective range for 223/5.56.  The AR has its limitations, as it also has its usefulness.  I've done it in the past, but I don't see myself taking 400 yd shots with my AR unless a better tool isn't available.  That's why my target rifle has an expensive scope, 1-1/2 lb trigger, etc...

I won't make a blanket statement that cheap scopes suck, but it truly depends on what you are going to be doing with your rifle/optic combo.
Since the original poster named several brands of magnified optics, I presume he's speaking of scopes for precision use with his AR. If you plan on shooting a 100yds or 200yds where the drop is minimal and never have to crank on the elevation knobs to dial in your dope, etc-the $30 Tasco may very well work just fine. However, if you shoot varying distances from 200-700yds and crank on the knobs repeatedly to readjust your dope or find obscured targets-then yes, I will say that cheap scopes (not inexpensive) do suck. They more often than not will not track correctly, the reticles don't subtend correctly or they lack the resolution to clearly see a target at extended ranges. When shooting long range, I've seen more than a few that didn't necessarily go tits up and outright break into pieces, but when the shooter cranks in say 16.5MOA for his shot at 650yds, 16.5MOA isn't reflected on the target or when the shooter brings his scope back to his original zero, it's not in the same spot it was when he initially started. Everybody has to start somewhere, and quality optics often times don't come cheap but if you plan on seriously using the optic for the tool it is (instead of setting it and forgetting it, which generally won't work if shooting long range) it's going to cost money.
I'm currently using a Schmidt&Bender PMII 4-16x50 on my bolt rifle and a USO SN4 w/ Doubler on my Mk12 Mod1. Do I look down on everyone because they don't have one on their rifles-no and quite frankly I don't care what they use. Can I do everything I'm doing with the S&B and USO with a $700 Leupold, $300 Super Sniper or $175 Bushnell 10x? Yes, Yes and Yes and I presume they will last just as long. With that said, the S&B and USO have obviously better glass with much better clarity, resolution, gives less eye strain than the above and are noticeably more robust. They also have first focal plain reticles so that I can range, lead and holdover targets at any magnification (with the Bushnell and SS being fixed mag, this doesn't matter). Can a BSA 6-24x50 or $30 Tasco do everything that my S&B and USO will do-I will make the blanket statement of absolutely not. They may work at first, but I would bet a years worth of pay to say that they will fail eventually. Failure to me doesn't mean it outright breaks as much as if it won't track, I know that the scopes I'm running will last a lifetime and will be bombproof. I use my gear on more than a grassy range and it gets knocked and dragged around quite often.
If you're looking for a scope that you intend on taking to the range and shooting at known, fixed ranges where the only time you'll be making adjustments on the scope would be for sighting it in-then the cheaper scopes may very well work fine (I run a cheap Bushnell on my 10/22). If you know you'll be doing more than that or even if you aren't at the time-but know that you will if given the chances-spending a few dollars more on a quality optic won't kill you. I'm a frigging cop, if you think I just went out and bought a USO or S&B scope on a whim, you're sorely mistaken. I had to bust my ass and scrape my pennies for those and to ME, they are worth every penny spent.
DvlDog, just because you see it being used in the box doesn't mean that it's the best tool for the job. I can pound nails in with a monkey wrench, but a hammer is usually the better tool for the job. Like you said, AAFES doesn't sell all the popular name brand gear that you will often find on the internet and troops don't make much money as it is, so they go with what they can. Would an 8541 prefer to use the Tasco bought at the exchange for his job or the Unertl they had or S&B they are currently using?


As I said earlier, it really depends on what you plan on doing with your gear. Just because you're not going to war with it doesn't mean that some of the shooting disciplines you enjoy doesn't require quality gear.

Quoted: If the rifle costs $1000, the optic you put on it must cost at least $500 or else it's gay. If the weapon costs $2000, then the optic you put on it must cost at least $1000 or else it's gay.

Very Ignorant (and possibly gay) statement.  At least you explained why.  Oh wait!... No you didn't.  

I have  become kinda a snob on optics in the last few years, although I had many cheap scopes
on my hunting rifles and all proved fine and always had a freezer of venison to prove it.

Now I have gotten more into bench shooting and you just have to spend money on glass.


Buy the best  scope you can afford  

Quoted: Quoted: If the rifle costs $1000, the optic you put on it must cost at least $500 or else it's gay. If the weapon costs $2000, then the optic you put on it must cost at least $1000 or else it's gay.   Very Ignorant (and possibly gay) statement.  At least you explained why.  Oh wait!... No you didn't.

Don't be that guy. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that an old rule of thumb is to use a scope that costs half as much as the rifle its mounted on.

I just don't want to worry about my equipment, better built scopes cost more because they've been tested a lot more extensively (water resistance, fog proof, drop resistance, etc.) and they almost always have excellent warranties to back them up.  All of which cost money.

Try sending back a cheap scope you buy to the manufacturer, then do the same with Leupold, USO, Trijicon, some of the money you spend doesn't seem justifiable until you realize wow, now I know why I paid more.   Go to the range and see how dim and distorted some of the el cheapo scopes are, then look through your ACOG or USO SN3, same happy realization.  You accidentally drop the rifle with the scope attached from the tailgate or bench, both suffer some cosmetic damages, but both still work fine except now they have more character, you'd be hard pressed not to be happy you made a wise investment.

For plinking on a .22, or for a kid's first rifle, sure thing, our first cars weren't our dream cars.

Find ways to make your money buy the best you can afford. Purchase a better quality scope,  used on the EE. Then practice and practice some more, and when the shot needs to be made, your ready. Price can be an indicator of quality. Get the best you can afford, even if you have to save up a little longer. You will be happy in the end.

I have a USO on GA Precision 7RM, but my most used  is a lowly <$100 Simmons shotgun scope with that diamond turkey-plex reticle.    The thing just plain works.


CHRIS

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If the rifle costs $1000, the optic you put on it must cost at least $500 or else it's gay. If the weapon costs $2000, then the optic you put on it must cost at least $1000 or else it's gay.   Very Ignorant (and possibly gay) statement.  At least you explained why.  Oh wait!... No you didn't.   Don't be that guy. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that an old rule of thumb is to use a scope that costs half as much as the rifle its mounted on.

bullshit... so i have a custom mauser $7000 and a lupey 3x9 $300 am i gay?

Quoted: bullshit... so i have a custom mauser $7000 and a lupey 3x9 $300 am i gay?

Nope, I'd say you were gay for spending $7000 on your custom Mauser.......

ETA: Use whatever the hell you want. Generally when you see someone posting asking for advice on what optics to consider, one of the first questions asked-if it hasn't been established already by the original poster-is what's the budget. You generally then get responses with suggestions that fill that budget.

Just as you are tired of hearing people say that "cheap scopes suck", conversely-I'm tired of hearing folks like you judge those that choose to obtain better optics.

You say that your BSA, Tasco, Simmon,s Gibbons all work fine-how do you use your scopes? Before you toss out advice to people about how great the cheap scopes are because they work, you might want to explain how your scopes are "worked" because when they are worked hard-they generally will fail. The only thing I've gathered from your original post in how you use your scopes is that they are at least mounted on a rifle.

You're in Texas, you have more than a few precision rifle ranges within the state. I'll be at TacPro in June and Rifles Only in October, feel free to come and show me how well they "work" after a day or two of getting knocked around, constantly getting cranked on, etc.

I always heard it was use a scope twice as expensive as the rifle lol

Yeah.

Cheap scopes do suck.

Sorry.

I've had cheap scopes.

They suck BAD.

IMO, unless it's a 22 plinker then put on a good scope.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If the rifle costs $1000, the optic you put on it must cost at least $500 or else it's gay. If the weapon costs $2000, then the optic you put on it must cost at least $1000 or else it's gay.   Very Ignorant (and possibly gay) statement.  At least you explained why.  Oh wait!... No you didn't.   Don't be that guy. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that an old rule of thumb is to use a scope that costs half as much as the rifle its mounted on.

You missed my point completely.  That was not directed at his idea of spending half of the rifle's value on a scope.  That may be an okay guideline. But to say that there is anything wrong with not spending 1/2 the rifle's value on a scope is foolish, and to label it as "gay" is indeed ignorant.  Hence my rebuttal of calling his statement gay to prove a point.  Furthermore, for him to make such bold a statement and not have any supporting information is just childish.  So before you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about, why don't you try putting a small amount of thought toward what I might have been trying to get at.

What argument? If there was an argument there I would consider it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If the rifle costs $1000, the optic you put on it must cost at least $500 or else it's gay. If the weapon costs $2000, then the optic you put on it must cost at least $1000 or else it's gay.   Very Ignorant (and possibly gay) statement.  At least you explained why.  Oh wait!... No you didn't.   Don't be that guy. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that an old rule of thumb is to use a scope that costs half as much as the rifle its mounted on. bullshit... so i have a custom mauser $7000 and a lupey 3x9 $300 am i gay?

Thats messed up. If I had a $7000 Mauser I would put a Schmidt and Bender on it like it deserves.

A rifle is only as good as its sighting system.

OK i think we can ALL agree on one thing.....

on a 22LR, it doesn't really matter if you've got $60 glass sitting on there or $1000 glass sitting on there.  Recoil won't really mess with the scope.  The only risk to a cheap scope on a 22LR is you hitting it on something.

And if you're 50% of rifle value applies to all rifles, then my savage Mark II 22LR should have a $50-$80 scope mounted on it .

I dunno I personally believe that cheap scopes are AOK on 22's, the major difference between a cheap scope vs an expensive scope on a 22 would be durability in terms of accidental damage (i.e. the idiot factor or stupid factor).  Yes a cheap scope may not be as clear or sharp, but on a 22LR where you're shooting 100yds at most usually, what difference will it really make.

Quoted: Thats messed up. If I had a $7000 Mauser I would put a Schmidt and Bender on it like it deserves.

Agreed.

A rifle is only as good as its sighting system.

True, but a rifle is also only as good as the person shooting it.

i dont want to get in the middle of all this hostility but i have to say i have an aimpoint clone(from 1337 tactical) that the glass is very clear on,and its zeroed within 2" everytime i reattatch it which is good enough for me right now.thats not to say its as good as any of the sights mentioned previously,but for my skill level as well as many others cheap sights work and when my skill improves (as does my wallet) i will undoutedly invest in a high quality sight.let us not forget no matter if your sight is $50 or $1000 its still the same eyes looking thru it with the same amount of skill,just my opinion.

Back when I was new to AR's I bought a carry handle scope for my RRA A2 carbine.

The cost was about 40 dollars from a funshow end of day purchase.


Chinese? Yep!

I can still kill quarters at 100 yards with it so... IT SUCKS!

What can I tell you? Sure, I'd like to have a <insert name brand badass scope>
but WHY?




ETA: OK, so even if it does break I can still do just about as good with iron sights so

height=8

Quoted: height=8 Quoted: height=8 Quoted: height=8 Quoted: If the rifle costs $1000, the optic you put on it must cost at least $500 or else it's gay. If the weapon costs $2000, then the optic you put on it must cost at least $1000 or else it's gay.   Very Ignorant (and possibly gay) statement.  At least you explained why.  Oh wait!... No you didn't.   Don't be that guy. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that an old rule of thumb is to use a scope that costs half as much as the rifle its mounted on. bullshit... so i have a custom mauser $7000 and a lupey 3x9 $300 am i gay?

Yes... for owning a $7000 Mauser.  I hate you.

Quoted: ETA: OK, so even if it does break I can still do just about as good with iron sights so

LOL yeah I'm with you...eff the optics, shoot with irons.  It's all shooter then and no crutches for you to be leaning on.  Call me crazy but I actually prefer irons.....

I'm tired of seeing people who have bought cheap optics trying to make themselves feel better about their purchase.  It is a fact that quality optics cost more.  If you can't afford them or don't see the need to spend X dollars on optics, then don't.  

I fail to see how this topic has gone 4 pages...

I find it bad form to make fun of another man's gear.  If it works for them, then that's all that counts.

My $200 BSA is on the way. I am sure an upgrade is in the future but I blew my wad on the rifle so that was my budget for now. Flame away, my skin is titanium coated!!!!!!!!!

Quoted: I'm tired of seeing people who have bought cheap optics trying to make themselves feel better about their purchase.  It is a fact that quality optics cost more.  If you can't afford them or don't see the need to spend X dollars on optics, then don't.   I fail to see how this topic has gone 4 pages...

Kinda like if every gun magazine had nothing but shotguns, and you wanted a magazine that had articles on ARs or what ever.
Doesnt make the shotgun cheap or useless, it just something different,no need to run shotgun down cause you owned a AR. (something another along those lines)

I have shot next to people with high dollar scopes, their groups wasnt as good  as mine with cheap tasco.

Usely, most scopes is more accurate than the shooter using them.

Doesnt make either scope bad,does it?

I have some scoped rifle older than the poster here, their still working as good as the day I'd installed them.

Cheap or low priced, doesnt always mean it is bad or worthless.

Maybe we need two optic forums, one for posers and one for the average guy.


TG

Quoted: I have shot next to people with high dollar scopes, their groups wasnt as good  as mine with cheap tasco. Usually the first thing I'd blame would be the shooter or the rifle he's using, so I'm failing to see how what optic he used has any bearing on you both shot Usely, most scopes is more accurate than the shooter using them. If it's sighted in and never shot past a given distance, you are absolutely correct. Make use of your scope for precision shooting past 100yds though and it's not always the case-not enough to make it "usually". Doesnt make either scope bad,does it? Once again, it depends what you're doing with it. Cheap or low priced, doesnt always mean it is bad or worthless. Absolutely correct and has been said more than a few times in this post already. Maybe we need two optic forums, one for posers and one for the average guy. So because someone buys quality equipment that costs more money, he's a "poser"? Maybe we need the other forum for the bitches and whiners who want to stroke themselves regarding how great any of there equipment is from top dollar to bargain bin..... TG

I'll be the first one to admit that shooters who are the variety that just take there equipment to the range, set up on a bench or the firing line and shoot at a paper target at a 100yds (maybe 2), can save a lot of money by not buying the higher dollar equipment. For a 100yds does the shooter really need an ACOG for his AR or a Nightforce for his bolt rifle? Probably not, but it's his money and he's free to spend it however he wishes, just as you are. I wouldn't call him a poser because he chooses to buy that stuff. Since it really is nobodies business what one buys, I detect a hint of jealosy from those that call others posers based on their equipment and not having a clue about the person using it-because why would you take the time otherwise to post for something that makes no difference to you whatsoever.
You can bitch about shooters recommending optics that have a known track record which typically costs a little money and I think it would be wrong to recommend something that doesn't. Because you have used 1 or know 2 other guys with them that worked fine doesn't establish a proven track record. Usually the person asking has already provided or has been asked what there budget is. Others will recommend optics (or any item based on the budget). The recommendations will be based on scopes usually with a proven track record.

Quoted: Back when I was new to AR's I bought a carry handle scope for my RRA A2 carbine. The cost was about 40 dollars from a funshow end of day purchase. Chinese? Yep! I can still kill quarters at 100 yards with it so... IT SUCKS! What can I tell you? Sure, I'd like to have a <insert name brand badass scope> but WHY? ETA: OK, so even if it does break I can still do just about as good with iron sights so

Adjust it for 400 and let me know how you do.

Quoted: Cheap or low priced, doesnt always mean it is bad or worthless. Maybe we need two optic forums, one for posers people who are serious and one for the average guy cheapasses. TG

Quoted: I'm at a point in my life where I consider a Leupold Var-X II to be a barebones, cheap scope...

LOL

The more you read the higher the standards become!

I just bought a Leupold VX-I that I really had to debate on before I purchased. I justified it by rationalizing that it was a stop-gap, and in a few years I'll buy the scope I wanted to buy (but costs five times what the VX-I did!).

Quality costs money. Sometimes you find deals but for the most part... Quality costs money...

/off to read the rest of the thread

Quoted: Quoted: Back when I was new to AR's I bought a carry handle scope for my RRA A2 carbine. The cost was about 40 dollars from a funshow end of day purchase. Chinese? Yep! I can still kill quarters at 100 yards with it so... IT SUCKS! What can I tell you? Sure, I'd like to have a <insert name brand badass scope> but WHY? ETA: OK, so even if it does break I can still do just about as good with iron sights so Adjust it for 400 and let me know how you do.

More importantly-then back to zero, then out to 300 then maybe out to 500 and then back to zero. Do that over a years worth of shooting and then tell me how great it is.

MacMan-everybody has to start somewhere. You may very well find that it works for you or it may be just what you said it was-something to fill the gap until you can go for something better....

Lawman: I've got better glass, which is why I was so hesitant to "settle" for the VX-I... I just can't swing the $1200+ glass I want for it right now...

Hopefully it does exactly what I want it to do and I don't have to replace it!

I guess every Forum has it's own set of "Optic Snobs". That being said folks should get what they can afford. Can't tell you how many times I have seen shooters try to buy their way to Master class. I just ordered a $65 Bushnell 1x4 scope. Not my first Bushnell. All the ones I have are just as clear and bright as the higher priced scopes I have on some bolt guns.
Can I afford a $1,500 scope? No problem - can buy 10 of them and not even flinch. I just choose not to. I did order an EOTech 512AA just for grins. $312 seemed like a pretty good deal to me.
I have several ARs. The ones I play the games with and a couple for more serious things. The serious guns have iron sights.
I do get a pretty good laugh when I see pictures of some ARs posted here. They have every optic, red dot, holo and flashlight known to man hung on them. They look like they weigh 20 lbs. My simple mind would get confused as to which one to use first

YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!!!!






almost forgot, Cheap Scopes suck and suck again.

I see the Leupold VXIII as the botton line, or the Nikon Monarch (which Isee as a good bit better), and I go from there.
I have fooled (good term) around with cheap scopes. I could have a gargae sale! And they are in a box.

If you don't want to spend the bucks on them, fine. I understand, bit whay start a thread asking the question you ask?

Just STFU and and shoot with what you got and dig it. Don't start some stupid thread asking for us to justify your decisions.

GROW UP and accept your decisions.

It's really that simple.

Good Luck
Bill

some of the cheap scope are just plain crap but of the cheap scopes i must say simmons is a really good scope i have one and its been used or several differant uppers and several thousand rounds and that sucker is still right one target is been dropped a quite a few times also something you dont do withs something you can do with the really cheap quality eurolux type scopes.

i thinki paid $57 for it at walmart i know looking through a leupold they is alot of quality in the glass but it not all that bad.

So is this considered a cheap, shitty scope?  It's the one I'm thinking of buying for my DPMS LR 308.

I have held it in my hands along with Burris's best offereing and some Mark 4 Leuy's.

Hands down it was brighter and clearer than Burris's top $775 XTreme Tactical scope.  I mean an immediate HUGE difference.
Bushnell's claim on these scopes is 95% light transmission and I can tell.

It looked to be as bright and clear as the $1,100 Mark 4 Leupold with maybe the reticle not being quite as crisp as the Leupold.

What do you think?  I don't have $1,200 for a scope, but I don't want crap either.  One thing I was not thrilled with was eye relief seemed a little short, but certainly usable.

Please only respond if you've actually looked through one of these or it's close brothers.

Bushnell 6-24x50 Elite 4200 30mm Rifle Scope Mil-Dot $569.95

Brahmzy, I wouldn't call that scope cheap, but it's still too new to tell if it is of great quality or not. Now, the Bushnell 3200 10X that the variable is based off of is one of the best scopes for the money (my opinion). The adjustments are very true, the glass is good and the reticle is subtends correctly.

However, the 3200 10x is a fixed model and the one you are looking at is a variable, which are like night and day in the way they operate. I really hope that everything about it works as advertised because if it does-it'll have the potential to easily outsell the Super Snipers which seems to be the standard that most compare economical scopes to. The one thing I have heard about them that turns me off a little is the lack of internal elevation, which is nothing that can't be corrected with a canted base if you really want to stretch it's legs. Accuracy International has a great mount for AR's that has 28MOA built into it. Since it's made for S&B scopes, you'll need the reducers to bring it down to 30mm-but they are of quality and I wouldn't hesitate to use them, unlike other brands reducers.

Shitty is a strong word, even if one doesn't like something. Name calling, childish.

IMHO, that is a very nice scope. I have two of the Nikon Monarch 3.3-10x44, very comprable and a tad cheaper. One on a Bushy V-Match and the other on a M1A.
They too have 95% light transmission, which is close to the maximum possible.
The difference in the ultra-high end scopes is the contrast and defination,
which shows up the best in dark shodow areas.

Nice scope, IMHO.

Good Luck
Bill

Quoted: i have also seen a lot of turd brain wannabees with high end scopes too! but some awesome shooters with cheapo scopes.

Yep, and I know of a lot of BSA RD42s that were used by several "poor" guys in the 82nd in the middle east.

I have Aimpoints now, but used the same BSA for work for 6years with no loss of zero.  My buddy's Aimpoint went to shit in less that 200 rds.  Came back from Aimpoint and crapped out again within a month........

Was at a sniper course last month and saw 2 new Leupold Mk 4s fail too. Price and brand may be a good indication of quality but...

I have a different view on this that i don't think anyone has mentioned yet.  

Im a gun nut, not an optic nut.  Whenever I get ready to put something new on any of my weapons, I research what is the best and see how much it will set me back.  As I'm about ready to buy it, i come back to earth and realize if buy something that cost half as much I blow the savings on something else that goes BANG (preferably something that doesn't need an optic). Maybe ill actually buy some more ammo and go shooting!!!  I really have no experience with really great $1000 plus optics or cheap $100 optics because I pick up the middle of the road $300 to $600 stuff and have yet to regret it  All i know is if I subtract the cost for the best snob optic from what I end up buying, i can put a new glock, 1911, shotgun, tax stamp, can or something else the gun lobby wants to take away if they get the chance.  

If you have not shot good optics then I suggest not doing it.  Much like listening to high end audio gear it will ruin your perspective forever and what was once good enough will always seem to pale in comparison to the high end gear.  You will never be satisfied again.

There's nothing wrong with cheap scopes if they work for you.
You do get what you pay for though.
I never really understood this, until I looked through a really nice scope compared to a lower end Tasco I had; the difference was amazing. The resolution was much higher, much more clear. I still have some cheap optics I use when my longest shot is 100YDS in broad daylight, but there really is no question that when you need to see what you are shooting at a long way off or in lower lighting quality glass is where it's at.
Good warranty's are also a nice "extra" with better scope manufacturers. That Barska fogs up, what are you gonna do, mail it back to Russia? Good luck with that.

Just had to chime in. I have used surveying equipment with good optics. I have paid extra to get better quality binoculars when some freinds had bought $30 Tasco and laughed at me for buying Minolta, Swift or Leupold. I know the difference. That said I have not spent over $250 on a riflescope yet. I have a $80 Bushnell on a Ruger 30.06 M77 that has not been adjusted in 17 years and is still on target. Eventually I will upgrade the optics but it is not a priority right now. What I have works and I have been able to spend more money on guns and at the moment I don't have much available  for that. Less than half my rifles even have scopes, but that may change when I get to the age that my eyes dictate otherwise.

I had a friend tell me about watching a man sight in a rifle from a bench that was suposed to be a tack driver with a good scope on it. Never could get it right. He took a break and lit a ciggarette when an 80-year old man walked up with a 03 Springfield. The man took the Springfield and fired a group offhand, iron sights at 100 yards. The first man looked through his spotting scope, threw down the ciggarette and walked off in disgust.

Quoted: ...Good warranty's are also a nice "extra" with better scope manufacturers. That Barska fogs up, what are you gonna do, mail it back to Russia? Good luck with that.

The Barska I used last weekend for a 4-day precision rifle class was made in China, not Russia.  Their warranty department is in California,  and although I have not needed to send it back (it took 450 rounds of .308 last weekend just fine,  and consistently tracked dead-on - almost every shot involved cranking the elevation back down to zero and back up where it needed to be,  and I used the entire travel of the scope multiple times as we were shooting out to 1000 yards.)

The problem with the warranty on the cheap scopes is that they don't repair, only replace.  Back before I upgraded from BSA to Barska (yes, I know how that sounds, but we are really talking about $200 scopes instead of $80-$100 ones),  it was normal to buy a scope and then send it back to the BSA warranty service location in Florida 2 or 3 times just to get one that didn't have dirt or dust inside the optic AND to get one where the reticle was straight vertically and horizontally with the turrets.  Out of the box - dirt in the scope.  1st replacement was clear, but reticle canted about 10 degrees counter-clockwise.  2nd replacement dirty again.  3rd one seems fine.

Warranty on Leupold, US Optics, etc. means that they will make it right.  Warranty on lower-end chinese scopes means that they will send you new ones until you get one that works or you get so tired of the process you give up.  But,  they do have warranty and it is pretty quick - usually 7 to 10 days from when I send off the crappy scope until I receive a different one in the mail.