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: 8/10/2005 8:01:14 PM EDT
I know, I know, you get what you pay for and if you buy quality you cry once, buy junk and cry a bunch. Believe me I know.

But, it seems there are some good inexpensive optics out there for that close to mid-range shooting that so many of us do. a We all want the S&B SHort Dot, high-end zeiss, IOR or nightforce. I know that I do and I plan on getting one, eventually. But, after putting lots of money into the rifle itself, bipod and mounts my funds are now limited and I would still like to have a solid but less expensive optic to tide me over......

There are lots of scopes out there and I know that people are using simmons, buckmasters, VX-1 ect.
LEts post some results and reviews!!! I am thinking scopes in the 1.x--4 or 5x range and under $250. Field of view, clarity, ease of use at close ranges on low magnification, eye relief would seem to be the biggest points of interest.

Come on, lets figure the best optic under $250 to drop in a LaRue mount while the mount waits for Leupold Mark 4.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 8:45:11 PM EDT
ker222, Spot on, after spending some goodly amounts of my favorite american dollars, I sadly cannot afford the quality optics that my rifle deserves, but in the mean time I too would like to see if there are some moderatly decent optics out there for under 250$
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 9:37:30 PM EDT
If it were me, I would go with a Leupold VX-I 1-4x20 and some warne or luepold quick detach rings. That will put you at less than $250 for scope and rings.

I use the Leupold VX-I and can't say enough good things about it. 75 feet FOV @100 yards on 1x, and 28.5 feet FOV @100 yards on 4x. Target aquistion is almost instantaneous for me on the 1x, and at 4x you can hit plates @ 300 yards and beyond with some ease. Even at $179, the VX-I has exceptional glass, compareable to the IOR 4x glass IMHO. If you would like any other info about this scope please let me know.

If you want to go really cheap, look into the Simmons Pro Diamond 1.5-5x20, they are becoming quite popular and can be found for less than half of what most dealers are asking.

I know someone will come along and downplay the lower priced optics as garbage, and only vouch for Scmidt and Bender, Nightforce, the Leupold 1.5-5x20 special purpose reticle. These high end scopes are great for what they are, but they cost more than a factory AR-15, sometimes 2.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 7:06:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By johndoexu:
If it were me, I would go with a Leupold VX-I 1-4x20 and some warne or luepold quick detach rings. That will put you at less than $250 for scope and rings.

I use the Leupold VX-I and can't say enough good things about it. 75 feet FOV @100 yards on 1x, and 28.5 feet FOV @100 yards on 4x. Target aquistion is almost instantaneous for me on the 1x, and at 4x you can hit plates @ 300 yards and beyond with some ease. Even at $179, the VX-I has exceptional glass, compareable to the IOR 4x glass IMHO. If you would like any other info about this scope please let me know.

If you want to go really cheap, look into the Simmons Pro Diamond 1.5-5x20, they are becoming quite popular and can be found for less than half of what most dealers are asking.

I know someone will come along and downplay the lower priced optics as garbage, and only vouch for Scmidt and Bender, Nightforce, the Leupold 1.5-5x20 special purpose reticle. These high end scopes are great for what they are, but they cost more than a factory AR-15, sometimes 2.



I've been fighting this fight for a while...I've given up understanding why certain people will always chime in about "you get what you pay for". Yes, Leapers is junk, but a $100 Sightron scope is a very good alternative for someone on a budget, and not everyone here makes $130,000 a year.

If I had the $$, I'd have Nightforce on every thing I own...but, thanks to my greed about 5 years ago when I lost an assload of money in the stock market, that day won't come again in this lifetime> As a result, I've bought some lower priced stuff. While I do agree that there is stuff out there that IS junk, you don't have to spend $800 to get a functional optic that will work for light duty.

Several people here have said good things about the Simmons Pro Diamond shotgun scopes...I believe they're 1.5x5. I have another cheapy Simmons shotgun scope...don't remember which model, but it's kinda iffy, but it's not the one people have been talking about. It was good enough to sell me on the concept of that range of magnification for an AR, though. I stuck in on my .17hmr, where I'm sure it'll be okay.

I have a Simmons Aetec which is a very good cheaper scope. I just bought a Sightron 3x9x40 mildot for $102 dealer at Midway, and I'm impressed so far with the quality of the glass. I just got this last night, so I haven't been to the range yet.

I also just got an Accupoint...it's 1.25x4. At $550, it ain't "cheap", unless you compare it to the S&B. I'd love to have another one, but I can't afford it with the 2nd chunk of my real estate taxes due in October...another $2600 I'd rather spend on an AR-50.

I've looked at the Leupy you mentioned...almost bought it, but then opted for the Accupoint...I sold 3 scopes last week, so I could afford it...a rare treat for myself.

Link Posted: 8/11/2005 10:32:44 AM EDT
Good choice with the accupoint. They are quite few and far between among the people on ar15.com, but they (accupoint) seem like a great concept. Cheaper than an ACOG, variable power, relatively low weight and short length, what more could you ask for? Which color triangle did you opt for?

The Leupold 1-4 is a good transition scope to have while you save up for something bigger and better, because you could end up selling the leupold for decent cash even when its used.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 3:31:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2005 3:56:03 PM EDT by Fenian]

Originally Posted By johndoexu:
Good choice with the accupoint. They are quite few and far between among the people on ar15.com, but they (accupoint) seem like a great concept. Cheaper than an ACOG, variable power, relatively low weight and short length, what more could you ask for? Which color triangle did you opt for?

The Leupold 1-4 is a good transition scope to have while you save up for something bigger and better, because you could end up selling the leupold for decent cash even when its used.



I got the red...it's pretty cool, but if I get another one, I'll get it in amber just to check it out.

One drag to the Accupoint is needing the LaRue mount, which adds another $215 to the equation. Nice setup once you get over the "ouch" wallet factor.


Link Posted: 8/11/2005 7:02:27 PM EDT
MSTN sells a mount for the accupoint. It is a riser with a forward extending rail that extends about 3" forward. Leaves enough room for a rear buis. Takes regular rings. I bought one for my 3 gun rifle. Works well. I'll be getting another accupoint for the Recce I am building and that one will get a Larue mount, but the MSTN mount is a good alternative and offers a little more flexibility in swapping out different scopes ( I use Warne QD rings).

I definitely love the accupoint. Simple reticle. Great glass. Great price. May not be as robust as some of the other offerings out there, but I don't jump out of choppers and guard convoys for a living either.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 7:36:48 PM EDT
lets keep it going.

Fenian is right, sooner or later there will be those who will come in with the "you get what you pay for" and say we can't possible shoot with anything less than a nightforce, maybe a leupold. But..............some of us need to find lower priced stuff or go without------so for those of us who understand:

How does the leupold vx-1 compare to the Simmons Pro Diamond??? Anyone shot them both??? WE've gotten some good info on the leupold, anyone have some time behind the pro diamond???

Any other scopes out there or are these the best two in this catagory.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 7:38:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rpmwfo:
MSTN sells a mount for the accupoint. It is a riser with a forward extending rail that extends about 3" forward. Leaves enough room for a rear buis. Takes regular rings. I bought one for my 3 gun rifle. Works well. I'll be getting another accupoint for the Recce I am building and that one will get a Larue mount, but the MSTN mount is a good alternative and offers a little more flexibility in swapping out different scopes ( I use Warne QD rings).

I definitely love the accupoint. Simple reticle. Great glass. Great price. May not be as robust as some of the other offerings out there, but I don't jump out of choppers and guard convoys for a living either.



Yankee Hill makes a very inexpensive small rail extender as well...which I found AFTER I got the LaRue...doesn't it figure?

I'm still glad I got the LaRue, though.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 7:53:41 PM EDT
CDNN has the Pro Diamond for $50. Can't go wrong with that.

www.cdnninvestments.com/simmonsscopes.html
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 4:31:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 4:46:22 AM EDT by imposter]
I have the Weaver 1-3x20 on my .44 lever carbine. The scope is made in Japan and fully multicoated. It is bright and pretty clear. The recticle, a standard crosshair, is a little too thin to be tactical. On 1x, the scope is very fast. A very good deal IMHO.

I didn't like the 1.25-4 Accudot. It was slower than my Aimpoint, even at 1.25x, and the glass was not as bright or clear as my ACOG.

I have a 1.5-6x36 Bushnell Elite 4200 on my .375 H&H. The optics are outstanding, better than my Leupold Vari-XIII or my friend's Zeiss Conquest. The scope runs about $300, or $360 with the firefly recticle. Great for everything from up close to 400+ yards.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 5:01:39 AM EDT
ATN makes a 2-6X40 scope for under $300. Has range finder, bullet drop knob and an illuminated retical. Dont know how most people feel about ATN but I like thier stuff personally
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 5:18:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 5:52:30 AM EDT
U am likely to get flamed for this but I have an Remington 870 12-gauge slug gun that I have used for deer over many years. The scope that is on this shotgun is a very inexpensive Bushnell 1.5-5x sope that I bought used when I was still in high school... Say 18-years ago or so....

The scope is not as clear and crisp as by better optics...

But it is clear enough and more then accurate enough for my use... I am pretty sure I only paid $40 for the scope all those years ago... and the scope still works fine...

I have considered upgrading this scope with a B&L Elite 3200 in 1.5-4.5x32 but spending $220 or so to replace a scope that works just doesn't make much sense...

Also, I have a Tasco Custom Shop 8-40x56mm scope on my varmint rig... I paid $300 or so for this monster scope and it likewise isn't the greatest of lenses but it still works great for varmints and is quite accurate based on how well my rifle shoots with it on the gun....

The difference between cost and quality is value... when I spend a little monet I can have a great value with lesser performance. If I spend big bucks for a high end scope, I have much higher expectations for that optic. If I have a $800 leupold scope and the optics and accuracy was no better then a $300 tasco, I would be pissed... but, if I spend the $300 and the scope fills my needs... I can still be quite happy with the purchase (even as it ralates to my $60 sluggun scope).
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 6:56:42 AM EDT
Check out the Weaver V3. It's a good true 1-3x, but it's not the 4x you described. It's around $150. A friend of mine shoots his in 3 gun matches and it's a nice all-around scope for close work and intermediate ranges.

An under-rated scope IMO.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 9:53:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 9:56:20 AM EDT by Ridge]

Originally Posted By chp5:
Check out the Weaver V3. It's a good true 1-3x, but it's not the 4x you described. It's around $150. A friend of mine shoots his in 3 gun matches and it's a nice all-around scope for close work and intermediate ranges.

An under-rated scope IMO.



+1, I have been extremely happy with my V3 ( the only change I would make is a circle dot reticle).



I also really like the Ultra dot Microdot 1.5-5X scopes, These are illuninated and very good Japanese scopes. Once again the only thing I would change would be the reticle, but the red dot is a little faster than the V3.



I'd love to give the prodiamond a try, but I have too many scopes right now as it is .

Edit: I'd also like to add that far as I know the Microdot is the lightest illuminated variable power scope you can buy at 10 oz. I think they retail for about $250.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:06:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ridge:




I'd love to give the prodiamond a try, but I have too many scopes right now as it is .

Edit: I'd also like to add that far as I know the Microdot is the lightest illuminated variable power scope you can buy at 10 oz. I think they retail for about $250.



What is that lower and upper?
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:10:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:
I agree that not everyone makes $130K and cannot afford new NF, US Optics or S&B. There are other ways to get these quality optics though. It is called SAVING your money and buying USED. I know that we as Americans hate the idea of saving our pennies and WAITING for something, but it is much better to do this than buy some POS optic just because you afford it now.

C4



I agree, to an extent. Speaking only for myself, I'd rather have 8 nice ARs now, with cheaper glass on them, than 1 or 2 nice ARs and 2 REALLY expensive pieces of glass on them.

I'm in the process now of upgrading some optics now that I've built more rifles than I have safe space for. I will be hopefully getting some more expensive scopes next year when I bail on NoVA and can afford them. For the past 2 to 3 years I have been building these rifles and shooting them, the lower priced optics like the Aetec scope and Holosight (vs. the EoTech) and the Comp C (vs. Comp M, ML2, etc), and the other lesser priced gear I've bought has allowed me to put more into rifles, and still be able to assist my tired 53 year old eyes when I head out to the range.

I just bought a $100 Sightron...$102 dealer at Midway, to be exact. Assuming it doesn't blow up, and it works ok for the 6 or so times I will have taken THAT rifle to the range before I get something better, I will be very happy.

Some folks will be very happy to have that and would never even think of changing out the glass. I'm not gonna come along and tell them they should...if it works for them, cool.

I sorta draw the line at Leapers and the other *really* cheap stuff, though, and I will suggest to folks that they spend a *little* more. But, the difference between a Simmons and an S&B may be 2 years for some folks...and if you want a scope now, there are some brands that are inexpensive, but will provide some good service, according to many folks who own them.

Link Posted: 8/12/2005 11:31:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 11:34:03 AM EDT by ker2222]
+1 on line between "Cheap Crap" like leapers and affordable quality if not tactical grade stuff. I know that there are scenarios and job descriptions that call for both optic and rifle to be able to handle jumping out of planes, being submerged ect ect. Determining the difference is what this thread is about!!!!

If a scope can handle the rigors and a good performer at 3-gun matches, if it keeps a zero after being bumped a little in the truck or thwacked by a twig in the woods and if its adjustments are repeatable after a little wind-blown dust...........its a keeper even if its inexpensive and if it can't, its cheap crap.

Let's keep the reviews coming, so far, it seems like the "winners" are
leupold vx-1
simmons pro-diamond
sightron (I'll give their scopes a big +1 too)
and now the weaver v3

And, if for those who can afford a little step up from these, the Accupoint which has gotten great reviews everywhere and fits the magnification range we're talking about but is a little higher priced.....if also still below the ACOG/Nightforce range

I'd still like to hear more from those who've really used the prodiamond and, how is the eye relief on the weaver????
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 11:57:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:
I know that we as Americans hate the idea of saving our pennies and WAITING for something, but it is much better to do this than buy some POS optic just because you afford it now.



C4



Thats kind of an unfair generalization. Where is the line drawn at POS optic? Maybe normal people see it as being completely rational to not save up thousands of dollars over a period of time just for high end optics, when they could afford something without all the unnecessary bells and whistles right now and be done with it. I know it may be hard to accept from a dealers standpoint, but not everybody wants or needs high end optics.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 11:59:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Quarterbore:

Originally Posted By Ridge:


img.photobucket.com/albums/v86/vanloch/S4200139.jpg

I'd love to give the prodiamond a try, but I have too many scopes right now as it is .

Edit: I'd also like to add that far as I know the Microdot is the lightest illuminated variable power scope you can buy at 10 oz. I think they retail for about $250.



What is that lower and upper?



+1
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 12:42:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mongo001:

Originally Posted By Quarterbore:

Originally Posted By Ridge:


img.photobucket.com/albums/v86/vanloch/S4200139.jpg

I'd love to give the prodiamond a try, but I have too many scopes right now as it is .

Edit: I'd also like to add that far as I know the Microdot is the lightest illuminated variable power scope you can buy at 10 oz. I think they retail for about $250.



What is that lower and upper?



+1



Cavarms MkII lower with home-built lightwieght upper (M&A skinny barrel) and Hiperform tube.

Link Posted: 8/12/2005 1:06:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 2:01:37 PM EDT
Just got settled into a new base and was a bit low on funds after buying a house. I was eager to get back into shooting after transferring out of Konnektikut, and into a more gun friendly state. All of my firearms were still in my home state of Washington, and a 3000 mile road trip wasn't in the near future. I opted to branch into the AK realm instead of getting a new AR and setting up again, as it would have been fiscally unsound to do so.
So, I set up a GP-WASR10 wit a BP-02 mount and a BSA red dot sight. This set up has let me participate in a couple of pistol/carbine competitions and fare O.K.
This has done a couple of things for me:
-it has let me get familiar with another weapon system and it's employment.
-It has gotten me back out on the range with friendly shooters.
-It has let me fill a void in my gun collection with less investment.
-It has kept me entertained until my family was able to come out for a visit and reunite me with my AR.

My impressions of the BSA red dot are:
+It has held up and allowed the weapon to perform faster at target aquisition.
+It has held up to at least 500 rounds of 7.62x39mm abuse. Has not lost zero.
+The dot is easily bright enough for daylight use.

Negatives:
-The glass has a bit of a wave that is notable when panning targets down range.
-The mount/optic setup do not allow immediate co-witness for BUIS. (The quick release side mount would have to be pulled off to facilitate the use of irons sights again)

All in all for $30.00 It has provided almost a half a years (albeit light) use. I am considering trasfering it to my shotgun as an interim sight, so that I can use it in three gun matches. This would fill the gap until I can save to get another Holosight or EOTech.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 2:11:28 PM EDT
I understand where you're coming from Grant, and if it were a matter of saving for a month or two, or if this was gear I was really going to bet my life on, I might agree with you. But for me, and I know there's quite a few in a similar situation, my spending on gun-related stuff over the next year or so is limited to 1k or so. Now, I could save up and buy a used, really nice $300 dollar optic, and in a couple months have one mounted on my rifle. Or I could buy a $50 Simmons, a BUIS, a rail system and a foregrip, and have my rifle in more or less the condition I want it to be in for punching paper. Or I could buy a Simmons, a Makarov and a case and a half of ammo. I'll second the distinction between the Leapers and the Simmons, and I plan to buy a nicer scope at some point in the future. But the money I spend on the cheaper scope isn't going to be wasted as long as it's a quality product; there'll always be a .22 or something lying around that I can thro the Simmons on.

I guess what I'm saying is that people expect to get different levels and quantities of utility from their money. I for one would rather have several guns in different stages of completion than one perfect rifle that I can rarely afford to shoot.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 3:26:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 4:01:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

Originally Posted By METT-T:
I understand where you're coming from Grant, and if it were a matter of saving for a month or two, or if this was gear I was really going to bet my life on, I might agree with you. But for me, and I know there's quite a few in a similar situation, my spending on gun-related stuff over the next year or so is limited to 1k or so. Now, I could save up and buy a used, really nice $300 dollar optic, and in a couple months have one mounted on my rifle. Or I could buy a $50 Simmons, a BUIS, a rail system and a foregrip, and have my rifle in more or less the condition I want it to be in for punching paper. Or I could buy a Simmons, a Makarov and a case and a half of ammo. I'll second the distinction between the Leapers and the Simmons, and I plan to buy a nicer scope at some point in the future. But the money I spend on the cheaper scope isn't going to be wasted as long as it's a quality product; there'll always be a .22 or something lying around that I can thro the Simmons on.

I guess what I'm saying is that people expect to get different levels and quantities of utility from their money. I for one would rather have several guns in different stages of completion than one perfect rifle that I can rarely afford to shoot.



1-2 month of saving up really isn't what I would call a long time (sorry). What happens when you bought all of these budget items and they either fall apart or just don't run? They you have to go back out and either buy them again or udgrade (which should have been done in the first place).

There is a difference between shooters (especially on this board) and what their goals are. I build EVERY AR with the thought of defending myself or my family with it. I would MUCH rather build one QUALITY AR a year then a couple that were not quality. To each their own though....



C4



I think you missed some of my points. I said if it were just a matter of saving up for a month or two, I might consider buying a high dollar scope. But it's not-the situation I posited would involve spending a third or more of my yearly firearms budget on one accessory for one rifle. That would be to the detriment of:

1. Other, possibly high quality accessories for that rifle that would probably do more to increase the tactical effectiveness of that rifle than the measurable difference in quality between something like the Simmons scope and a $300+ scope, i.e. one of your Workingman's Weaponslights setups that I'm actively considering getting after my inexpensive scope. Or even a BUIS-if you were going to use your rifle in a self-defense situation, would you rather have an inexpensive scope with a BUIS or a really nice scope with no iron backups?

2. Ammunition to practice with said rifle, which I think we can all agree is the key to tactical effectiveness, regardless of what sort of sighting system you're using.

3. The purchase, improvement of or practice with other weapons that might be more useful in self-defense than a scoped rifle, i.e. handguns and shotguns.

And I just don't see the likelyhood of one of the scopes we're discussing "falling apart or failing to run." I think we've already agreed that the purchase of really sub-quality optics like Leapers is to be avoided. But the scopes we've been discussing aren't "low-quality." They're quality builds of a less expensive item. They're not built for jumping out of airplanes or amphibious warfare and they probably wouldn't perform as well as one of the more expensive optics under those conditions. But I don't think that just because they cost half or a third as much as scopes that are built to perform under those conditions means they will immediately disintegrate after the first magazine.

You're right, to each his own. I'll always try to buy the best quality item I can realistically afford. But that's not because I need instant gratification or am incapable of saving money-sometimes it just makes the most sense.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 4:59:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 5:09:37 PM EDT
Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree, partner, but I will point this out.


Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

Originally Posted By METT-T:

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

Originally Posted By METT-T:
I understand where you're coming from Grant, and if it were a matter of saving for a month or two, or if this was gear I was really going to bet my life on, I might agree with you. But for me, and I know there's quite a few in a similar situation, my spending on gun-related stuff over the next year or so is limited to 1k or so. Now, I could save up and buy a used, really nice $300 dollar optic, and in a couple months have one mounted on my rifle. Or I could buy a $50 Simmons, a BUIS, a rail system and a foregrip, and have my rifle in more or less the condition I want it to be in for punching paper. Or I could buy a Simmons, a Makarov and a case and a half of ammo. I'll second the distinction between the Leapers and the Simmons, and I plan to buy a nicer scope at some point in the future. But the money I spend on the cheaper scope isn't going to be wasted as long as it's a quality product; there'll always be a .22 or something lying around that I can thro the Simmons on.

I guess what I'm saying is that people expect to get different levels and quantities of utility from their money. I for one would rather have several guns in different stages of completion than one perfect rifle that I can rarely afford to shoot.



1-2 month of saving up really isn't what I would call a long time (sorry). What happens when you bought all of these budget items and they either fall apart or just don't run? They you have to go back out and either buy them again or udgrade (which should have been done in the first place).

There is a difference between shooters (especially on this board) and what their goals are. I build EVERY AR with the thought of defending myself or my family with it. I would MUCH rather build one QUALITY AR a year then a couple that were not quality. To each their own though....



C4



I think you missed some of my points. I said if it were just a matter of saving up for a month or two, I might consider buying a high dollar scope. But it's not-the situation I posited would involve spending a third or more of my yearly firearms budget on one accessory for one rifle. That would be to the detriment of:

1. Other, possibly high quality accessories for that rifle that would probably do more to increase the tactical effectiveness of that rifle than the measurable difference in quality between something like the Simmons scope and a $300+ scope, i.e. one of your Workingman's Weaponslights setups that I'm actively considering getting after my inexpensive scope. Or even a BUIS-if you were going to use your rifle in a self-defense situation, would you rather have an inexpensive scope with a BUIS or a really nice scope with no iron backups?

2. Ammunition to practice with said rifle, which I think we can all agree is the key to tactical effectiveness, regardless of what sort of sighting system you're using.

3. The purchase, improvement of or practice with other weapons that might be more useful in self-defense than a scoped rifle, i.e. handguns and shotguns.

And I just don't see the likelyhood of one of the scopes we're discussing "falling apart or failing to run." I think we've already agreed that the purchase of really sub-quality optics like Leapers is to be avoided. But the scopes we've been discussing aren't "low-quality." They're quality builds of a less expensive item. They're not built for jumping out of airplanes or amphibious warfare and they probably wouldn't perform as well as one of the more expensive optics under those conditions. But I don't think that just because they cost half or a third as much as scopes that are built to perform under those conditions means they will immediately disintegrate after the first magazine.

You're right, to each his own. I'll always try to buy the best quality item I can realistically afford. But that's not because I need instant gratification or am incapable of saving money-sometimes it just makes the most sense.




I think you might have missed my point. Saving up for only 2 months isn't that long! I have customers that save up ALL year long (including last years tax return) to buy just one quality item. They still budget for Ammo, but they have a goal in mind and stay focused.

FYI, I have owned Tasco, Simmons and several of the other scopes mentioned this this thread. I vew them as low quality and had various issues with them over the years. I ended up replacing them (costing me more money). I wish someone would have come along and explained this to me and saved me some money.


C4



I was saying that if it would only take me one or two months of savings to buy a scope, I would do it. But it would take more than one or two months, so I won't. That is, I couldn't afford to save enough money in a couple of months, or even four or five months, to buy a nice scope and still be able to shoot, much less buy anything else. I mean, this isn't really a necessary part of the discussion, but we were having some communication difficulties on that point.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 5:20:44 PM EDT
Top Top