Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/4/2003 12:12:55 PM EDT
Hypothesis: When considering the purchase of optics for your firearm, never spend LESS than 45% of the value of the gun for the optics excluding red-dot devices like holosights and aimpoints.

Just wanted to collect other members thoughts on optics purchases because of some bad experinces I have had with optics. When trying to think about the mistakes I made, it was about pinching pennies and that is why I chose to use a percentage of value for the hypothesis. This also works well because as the price of the gun increases, the accuracy should also increase theoretically and the use of better optics will optimize the accuracy potential.

Hopefully, this discussion can help other members who are considering the purchase of optics avoid my previous mistakes.
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 12:19:11 PM EDT
Only examples I can think of that may fall outside your hypothesis: Weaver Grand Slam scopes And buying a $300 rifle and then putting $135 scope in it.... Hell, my Marlin 444P should be wearing a much better scope, but the Bushnell that is on it holds the zero -- so far. Everything else is wearing Leupys....at $600+++. YMMV.....
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 12:43:31 PM EDT
The rule I go by is, Spend AT LEAST as much on scope/rings/bases as you did on your rifle.
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 12:46:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By QuietShootr: The rule I go by is, Spend AT LEAST as much on scope/rings/bases as you did on your rifle.
View Quote
So if I buy a $2000 semi-custom M700, what do I buy? [;D] [uzi][peep][grenade]
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 12:51:37 PM EDT
Probably a Loopy M3-10X with Premier Reticles Gen-2 mildot conversion, Badger Ordnance MAX-50 rings and Badger Picatinny base. Then start looking at Simrad KN-250s...
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 1:06:46 PM EDT
Start out with a Nightforce NSX 3.5-15x50 for around 1200 dollars, or you can buy a Schmidt und Bender Police marksman 2 4-16x50 for 2300 dollars or really ant up your cash reserve and purchase an US Optic SN3 with what ever your heart desire as option and spec for as little as 2500-3000 dollars. Okay, I can't afford any of those at this time, but your guideline for getting a scope rest on your requirement for the shooting platform you are mounting it to. always get the best possible scope within your available fund, never skip on scope quality, if you have to save for a bit, then take the time to save the money for a quality scope instead settle for a cheap scope and regret it later. and always remember, the optic is only as good as the person behind it. practice and practice.
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 1:12:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By QuietShootr: The rule I go by is, Spend AT LEAST as much on scope/rings/bases as you did on your rifle.
View Quote
I agree with this. Now, if I had the $$$ to practice what this preaches, I would be a happy man!!! [:D]
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 1:20:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By metalrocks: never spend LESS than 45% of the value of the gun for the optics excluding red-dot devices like holosights and aimpoints.
View Quote
Crap, that means I didnt pay enough for my TA31 [shock]
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 1:24:13 PM EDT
The following is Just My Humble Opinion. USO is hype...kind of like the Korth revolver. Yeah, they're nice, but are they worth two to three times what a top-of-the-line Loopy demands? I don't think so. Plus their less-than-stellar customer service is a factor to consider.
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 1:31:33 PM EDT
I prefer to simplify the equation a bit further: Buy the BEST optics/mounts that YOU CAN AFFORD. I paid $909 for my AR, and spent $529 on optics. If I had more I would have spent more, but my family finances COME FIRST. Happy Shooting.
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 2:11:19 PM EDT
At least 45% of the weapon price? Hmm...how about less than 50% of the down payment on your first house? [:)]
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 3:17:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By new2ars: I prefer to simplify the equation a bit further: Buy the BEST optics/mounts that YOU CAN AFFORD. I paid $909 for my AR, and spent $529 on optics. If I had more I would have spent more, but my family finances COME FIRST. Happy Shooting.
View Quote
Sounds like you did well in selecting your optics and it matches the hypothesis also. I also agree that family finances come first. With that said, if a person elects to use $200 optics because that is what they can afford at the time - IMO they could end up sorry they didn't wait (read saving) for better optics and they'll be out more money in the end. In my case, the optics I could afford are now worthless and I'm spending more money on optics again :(
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 3:19:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dawg180: At least 45% of the weapon price? Hmm...how about less than 50% of the down payment on your first house? [:)]
View Quote
Sounds like you got some great optics considering the aount of down payment on the house :)
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 3:22:11 PM EDT
Korth revolver, haven't heard that name in ages... [:)]
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 3:23:42 PM EDT
Crap, that means I didnt pay enough for my TA31 [shock][/quote] Negotiating a better price or finding a great deal on an item always helps! Yet the thought remains - original value of optics still 45% or greater.
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 7:48:51 PM EDT
Depends on what you're going to do with your rifle - like putting $2500 racing slicks and wheels on the Yugo to go grocery shopping function does make a difference. I've been shooting rifles for the better part of 25 years and have run across too many people that thing that a $1000 US Optics scope is going to outshoot me with my "free" iron sights - possibly - but probably not! If you're shooting freehand the scopes aren't that important - if you're shooting benchrest at 600 yards then yes, glass is going to help. Give a 16 year old kid a $500,000 F1 race car and let him race an Indy driver in a stock $50,000 Vette for a few laps and I'm betting on the veteran every time. The AR15 is more accurate than 98% of the shooters that shoot it. The other 2% are guys who actually shoot the thing in competition, have spent hours and hours and years practicing the art of the rifle. I choose my optics based on quality and function - not price. Does a pair of $180 rings work any better than a pair of $100 ones? Possibly but does it really matter to me? Once I make the President's 100 I'll start to worry about such things but until that time I'll be happy with my choices. For what it's worth I have an Aimpoint Comp ML on my CQB weapon, a Trijicon TA50-4 on my designated riflemen's rifle, and national match iron sights on my competition rifle.
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 7:55:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2003 7:56:19 PM EDT by Morpheus]
Optics are for pussies. Real men use iron sights. [Just kidding, sort of.]
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 10:02:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Paul: The AR15 is more accurate than 98% of the shooters that shoot it.
View Quote
Paul, you are a very wise man! I think the point metalrocks was trying to make was ",if you are going to buy a $1000+ rifle, then put decent optics on it."(or maybe he was just trying to justify dropping that big wad of cash on a scope the other day [:)] )
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 4:10:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2003 4:24:51 AM EDT by JTinIN]
Darn have to get something in night vision (maybe with IR) to put on the M16 [;)]. As by these rules have to spend close to $4500 for the scope system (guess other option is putting an ACOG on every upper). Agree not to go budget on optics, however, for most of us at the $500 point can get a good "red dot with mount" (Aimpoint M2 or an "evil" Eotech ... which almost followed me home this weekend), while around a grand plus will get one into "not bad" optics (ACOG T31/T11 or Leupold MK4 scope).
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 4:22:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Morpheus: Optics are for pussies. Real men use iron sights. [Just kidding, sort of.]
View Quote
You mean 3rd Worlders and crusty old farts
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 6:26:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2003 6:32:57 AM EDT by DaPhotoGuy]
Originally Posted By metalrocks: Just wanted to collect other members thoughts on optics purchases because of some bad experinces I have had with optics.
View Quote
Please, tell us all about your bad experiences with cheaper scopes and what kind they were. I've only owned the higher end Simmons scopes but they have all held their zero perfectly after years of deer hunting. The recoil of a 30-06 would seem to punish a scope more than a little .223 I ask this question because there seem to be a lot of scope sluts on this board that think unless you spend $600+ you can't shoot SUB MOA. [BS] I spent $650 on my Lo-Pro Classic and $230 on my Scope/Rings combo. Spend more on your scope if you want, it's your money, but for most of us I think it's money spent with no advantage. I did spend $320 on my EoTech because I felt it was better than the Aimpoint but that was just a personal preference. Never had cheaper red dots so I couldn't compair.
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 6:32:57 AM EDT
i spent 750 on my new bushy M4 and only 300 on an EOtech.......i got another 37 bucks to spend now to keep up on that number :) YEHAAAAAAW......i love a good reason to buy more stuff for my rifles!!!!!!! later, riggs
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 6:45:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DaPhotoGuy:
Originally Posted By metalrocks: Just wanted to collect other members thoughts on optics purchases because of some bad experinces I have had with optics.
View Quote
Please, tell us all about your bad experiences with cheaper scopes and what kind they were. I've only owned the higher end Simmons scopes but they have all held their zero perfectly after years of deer hunting. The recoil of a 30-06 would seem to punish a scope more than a little .223 I ask this question because there seem to be a lot of scope sluts on this board that think unless you spend $600+ you can't shoot SUB MOA. [BS] I spent $650 on my Lo-Pro Classic and $230 on my Scope/Rings combo. Spend more on your scope if you want, it's your money, but for most of us I think it's money spent with no advantage. I did spend $320 on my EoTech because I felt it was better than the Aimpoint but that was just a personal preference. Never had cheaper red dots so I couldn't compair.
View Quote
It's not about shooting sub-MOA. It's about quality and repeatability. Is your name accurate to what you enjoy and maybe have as a hobby? If so you will understand that I can buy a $5 Kodak disposable and take snapshots, or you can buy a $9000 Nikon and shape shots, work depth of field, filter glare, etc, etc, etc.... It's not that both parties won't have a picture at the end of the day, it's what you want to have that does what you want. Shifting zero and non-repeatable scope adjustments are free, they come with just about every "cheap" scope there is, some more so than others -- you actually have to pay to get your zero to stay put and your scope to return to zero after adjusting 80MOA for a shot...... Do sub $300 scopes even have 80MOA of travel? [;D] I have optics matched to what I want from them. On my $300 Marlin hunting rig a $100 Bushnell scope fit the bill since it will be utilized inside 100yds and will be a "holdover" vice adjustment of the actual scope. On my two precision rigs I have a Leupold Mk4 M1 10x mildot and a Leupold M1LR 4.5-14, they do what they are advertised to do.
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 6:46:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Morpheus: Optics are for pussies. Real men use iron sights. [Just kidding, sort of.]
View Quote
Morpheus, I’m not entirely sure how to interpret your comments. If your sentiments are that everyone who owns a rifle should learn how to shoot with iron sights, then I definitely agree with this point. It is the basic training that helps make a rifleman. On the other hand, if you truly believe that anything other than iron sights is irrelevant in the real world I’d totally disagree. I think the assertion you make abut optics being for (foul language) greatly offends most LEO and military snipers and many AR15 members that choose to use optics for precision work. If there are that many people purchasing and using optics, and in fact a board on AR15 dedicated to the discussion of optics, then I think there are far more proponents in favor of optics than not. Obviously each person must choose for themselves the best solution for their rifle. If you choose iron sights for everything so be it. It was unnecessary, to incite those that use optics with the foul language reference because they differ from your opinion.
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 7:05:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Paul: Depends on what you're going to do with your rifle - like putting $2500 racing slicks and wheels on the Yugo to go grocery shopping function does make a difference. I've been shooting rifles for the better part of 25 years and have run across too many people that thing that a $1000 US Optics scope is going to outshoot me with my "free" iron sights - possibly - but probably not! If you're shooting freehand the scopes aren't that important - if you're shooting benchrest at 600 yards then yes, glass is going to help. Give a 16 year old kid a $500,000 F1 race car and let him race an Indy driver in a stock $50,000 Vette for a few laps and I'm betting on the veteran every time. The AR15 is more accurate than 98% of the shooters that shoot it. The other 2% are guys who actually shoot the thing in competition, have spent hours and hours and years practicing the art of the rifle. I choose my optics based on quality and function - not price. Does a pair of $180 rings work any better than a pair of $100 ones? Possibly but does it really matter to me? Once I make the President's 100 I'll start to worry about such things but until that time I'll be happy with my choices. For what it's worth I have an Aimpoint Comp ML on my CQB weapon, a Trijicon TA50-4 on my designated riflemen's rifle, and national match iron sights on my competition rifle.
View Quote
Paul, You made some excellent points. I agree that the experience a vetran possesses is worth more than the latest gear. However think of the possibilities of a vetran with the latest gear. Your analogy of the race car is useful because it shows the potential available in the hardware. Granted the 16 y/o cannot get the most out of the equipment even though the F1 out performs a stock vette. However, the race driver in an F1 turns faster times than he can turn in the stock vette. I also agree there is a point where the additional money spent on equipment returms smaller and smaller benefits in performance. (Marginal benefits or returns for those interested in economics). Following your anaology about the Yugo you dont really need a $1500 Nightforce on a $40 BB gun. The main point I was trying to make is that there is some minimum value that should be spent to get quality optics that will have longevity for the user. I intended to make this point so others would not make the same mistake I dd and get low quality optics. So it is now the experienced guys sharing with the less experienced so they don't make the same mistakes and can save money in the long run.
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 8:28:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SHIVAN458: Is your name accurate to what you enjoy and maybe have as a hobby? If so you will understand that I can buy a $5 Kodak disposable and take snapshots, or you can buy a $9000 Nikon and shape shots, work depth of field, filter glare, etc, etc, etc....
View Quote
Good power of observation. My name is my hobby/profession. See [url]http://midwestglamour.0catch.com[/url] After a certain level of quality, it doesn't make a difference what camera you have, your pictures will look the same. A $600 camera can take exactly the same pictures as a $5000 camera. I consider the people that spend $5000 + on their camera gear to be gear whores as they really don't need it to get the shot. The only difference (like the scopes) may be a ruggedness factor. I've never dropped a scope onto a hard surface so I couldn't tell you if a Loopy would hold it's zero and a Simmons not. I don't have the kind of money to test that theory. All I know is my Simmons shoots year after year after year on a 30-06 and holds it's zero perfectly. For me, that's what's important. [b]I agree with you[/b] that if the scope doesn't have the features you need (like repeatable windage adjustment) then you need to spend more to get them. For me, I zero at 200 yards (typical shooting distance where I hunt) and adjust my point of aim for longer shots. Guess it's true, get a scope that does what you need it to do. People shouldn't jump on a newbie for saying he likes a Simmons or a Bushnell. If it works for him for what he needs it to do, it's a great scope. They also shouldn't immediately tell a newbie they need to spend $600+ on a loopy when they don't know if that's what he needs.
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 8:49:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DaPhotoGuy:
Originally Posted By metalrocks: Just wanted to collect other members thoughts on optics purchases because of some bad experinces I have had with optics.
View Quote
Please, tell us all about your bad experiences with cheaper scopes and what kind they were. I've only owned the higher end Simmons scopes but they have all held their zero perfectly after years of deer hunting. The recoil of a 30-06 would seem to punish a scope more than a little .223 I ask this question because there seem to be a lot of scope sluts on this board that think unless you spend $600+ you can't shoot SUB MOA. [BS] I spent $650 on my Lo-Pro Classic and $230 on my Scope/Rings combo. Spend more on your scope if you want, it's your money, but for most of us I think it's money spent with no advantage. I did spend $320 on my EoTech because I felt it was better than the Aimpoint but that was just a personal preference. Never had cheaper red dots so I couldn't compair.
View Quote
DaPhotoGuy, The scopes that I have had go bad are all Tasco World Class target scopes - three in total. They are 10-40x with 50mm AO. They were all purchased for $189 to $230 each. One was on a .223 the other two on .308 when they went bad and would not retain zero. I like to holosights also. I have the original Bushnell units that are a little longer than the newer EO tech versions. I did get the 2x magnifier for mine. I left red-dots out of consideration in the hypothesis since they seem to be used for CQB and the price point for them is lower than telescopic.
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 9:00:35 AM EDT
Now I feel like such a tightwad. I only spen about a sixth as much on optics as I baid for my Barrett.
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 9:03:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2003 9:04:56 AM EDT by SHIVAN458]
Originally Posted By DaPhotoGuy:
Originally Posted By SHIVAN458: Is your name accurate to what you enjoy and maybe have as a hobby? If so you will understand that I can buy a $5 Kodak disposable and take snapshots, or you can buy a $9000 Nikon and shape shots, work depth of field, filter glare, etc, etc, etc....
View Quote
Good power of observation. My name is my hobby/profession. See [url]http://midwestglamour.0catch.com[/url] After a certain level of quality, it doesn't make a difference what camera you have, your pictures will look the same. A $600 camera can take exactly the same pictures as a $5000 camera. I consider the people that spend $5000 + on their camera gear to be gear whores as they really don't need it to get the shot. The only difference (like the scopes) may be a ruggedness factor. I've never dropped a scope onto a hard surface so I couldn't tell you if a Loopy would hold it's zero and a Simmons not. I don't have the kind of money to test that theory. All I know is my Simmons shoots year after year after year on a 30-06 and holds it's zero perfectly. For me, that's what's important. [b]I agree with you[/b] that if the scope doesn't have the features you need (like repeatable windage adjustment) then you need to spend more to get them. For me, I zero at 200 yards (typical shooting distance where I hunt) and adjust my point of aim for longer shots. Guess it's true, get a scope that does what you need it to do. People shouldn't jump on a newbie for saying he likes a Simmons or a Bushnell. If it works for him for what he needs it to do, it's a great scope. They also shouldn't immediately tell a newbie they need to spend $600+ on a loopy when they don't know if that's what he needs.
View Quote
Yeah, I use a simple Canon EOS setup that cost me $900 for the body, the telephoto and the 30-80 zoom. I used it to snap some pics at my friend's wedding. While the professional photog was admiring and cataloging shots in his $6000 Nikon digital I was getting candids that he missed. The picture they chose as their front page for their wedding album is of them kissing as the introductions of the bridal party were going on....I know the guy never had a chance to match my shot, b/c he is in the picture BEHIND them. [slap] They paid him the minimum and used about 6 rolls of the 10 I took. I know exactly what you mean...... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Back on topic....I used to buy what I could afford but kept having to replace scopes when they stopped working right, I got tired of buying $200 Bushnell scopes only to have them shift zero after 50 shots on my .270 after only ever being on the bench to shoot. So I traded for a Leupold Mark 4 and had found the light. Much clearer and the adjustments were spot on. I never knew how important it was until I got the chance to shoot at several different stations on a 300yd "tactical" rifle range. Dialing in the elevation was critical and going from 224yds to 100yds was easy since 100yds was already my zero setting. You simply dial it back down to zero and it IS zeroed. Two shots touching at the 100yd target with 3 shots done at other distances in between. There was some ribbing going on with guys using other, cheaper scopes, they were generally frustrated doing this, and asked that we stop moving back and forth so much. [;)] I like the Weaver Grand Slam scopes at about $299 for a 3-10x40mm, very clear and very bright, optical quality about as good, maybe better than the Leupold VariX-III line, but the lack of exposed turrets, and their ability to repeat most of the time, but not all of the time is why I won't compare them on the same plane as the VariX-III's. I would happily use one on a field hunting rig, at WHATEVER the cost of the rig. A $2000 Sauer, a $1500 Kimber or whatever would easily wear a Weaver GS scope, for me. Cheers.....Ed [beer]
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 12:08:27 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 5:02:54 PM EDT
i just bought the night force and think it's great. swfa has good prices. i bought what i could afford at the time. don't skimp. buy the best you can. no sense in buying crap you won't be happy with later. a buddy bought a great leupold. he loves it. he also bought the best he could afford. we're both happy.
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 8:12:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SMGLee: Korth revolver, haven't heard that name in ages... [:)]
View Quote
i'm still hunting for a 4" MR73 stateside!
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 10:52:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2003 10:55:55 PM EDT by Morpheus]
Originally Posted By metalrocks:
Originally Posted By Morpheus: Optics are for pussies. Real men use iron sights. [Just kidding, sort of.]
View Quote
Morpheus, I’m not entirely sure how to interpret your comments. If your sentiments are that everyone who owns a rifle should learn how to shoot with iron sights, then I definitely agree with this point. It is the basic training that helps make a rifleman. On the other hand, if you truly believe that anything other than iron sights is irrelevant in the real world I’d totally disagree. I think the assertion you make abut optics being for (foul language) greatly offends most LEO and military snipers and many AR15 members that choose to use optics for precision work. If there are that many people purchasing and using optics, and in fact a board on AR15 dedicated to the discussion of optics, then I think there are far more proponents in favor of optics than not. Obviously each person must choose for themselves the best solution for their rifle. If you choose iron sights for everything so be it. It was unnecessary, to incite those that use optics with the foul language reference because they differ from your opinion.
View Quote
As you correctly surmised, my point is that everyone who owns a rifle should learn how to shoot with iron sights. It is the basic training that helps make a rifleman. That's all I meant. I [b]do not[/b] believe that anything other than iron sights is irrelevant in the real world. Sorry if my "foul" language offended you. I was just trying to be flippant. I meant that to be obvious. No offense intended.
Link Posted: 8/6/2003 4:33:59 AM EDT
Top Top