Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 3/11/2006 4:13:52 PM EDT
As I see it, there is a continuum of optics, with a "lumpy" distribution when it comes to cost, in modes of Low, Middle, and High cost ranges for most types...like Tasco/Leupold/US Optics for instance. Which do you believe in?

*****

Do you buy low-cost optics, in the view that they may be easily replaced if damaged? And the quality is pretty good anyway?

Or, do you tend to buy middle-range scopes, to get much better quality?

Or, since you are already spending good money, do you go for the best, thinking that it is better-made and thus more likely to stand up to rough handling?

*****

I tend to go to the high end of the Middle range; what about you?
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 4:39:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 5:17:36 PM EDT
The world is full of cheap shit for sale, and it's also full of people willing to buy it..... I am not one of those people. I figure out what I need, and what I want it to do, then I figure out How to get it. I have always made myself happy (really Important point ) by getting the good stuff.

If buying a $50 chinese scope makes you Happy (Important Point) then your good.

if not, then save your pennies, sock away some cash or work a weekend of Overtime...etc and make your self happy

Life's to short ..........
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 5:49:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Boom:
I am the same way. I tend to buy middle to high end optics. I have learned that if you buy cheap, you always buy twice.



same here, middle to high and that doesn't just go for optics but pretty much anything I buy
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 6:09:55 PM EDT
Buy cheap, buy twice.
I buy what suits my needs.
An optic that goes on a Mk12 SPR upper will need to be more expensive than an optic that goes on a 10/22.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 7:43:20 PM EDT
Mine is to get nearly the best. By that I mean Leupold, Nightforce, etc.

I used to get better, like Zeiss and Schmidt & Bender, but not any more.

I also like to get what the military uses. That means when I buy an Eotech, I get the night-vision model even if I don't need it.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 8:02:13 PM EDT
always buy the best i can to keep from wasting money and wasting space at the house.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 8:04:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 9:13:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rsilvers:
Mine is to get nearly the best. By that I mean Leupold, Nightforce, etc.

I used to get better, like Zeiss and Schmidt & Bender, but not any more.

I also like to get what the military uses. That means when I buy an Eotech, I get the night-vision model even if I don't need it.



Interesting! Why did you go to Middle/High Middle? That is intriguing, that a guy takes a step "down".

Not flaming, just curious.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 4:49:16 AM EDT
I buy cheap Chinese copies of good scopes cuz thats what I can afford
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 6:24:42 AM EDT
I buy the best I can afford for an application, but I also make sure that I am not paying for a name or for no incrimental quality increase. I've found IOR to be an awesome bang for my buck in optics for most applications.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 8:03:14 AM EDT
In terms of cost I put IOR in the Middle/Lower Middle range.

That is an official and certified opinion.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 8:19:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:
As I see it, there is a continuum of optics, with a "lumpy" distribution when it comes to cost, in modes of Low, Middle, and High cost ranges for most types...like Tasco/Leupold/US Optics for instance. Which do you believe in?

*****

Do you buy low-cost optics, in the view that they may be easily replaced if damaged? And the quality is pretty good anyway?

Or, do you tend to buy middle-range scopes, to get much better quality?

Or, since you are already spending good money, do you go for the best, thinking that it is better-made and thus more likely to stand up to rough handling?

*****

I tend to go to the high end of the Middle range; what about you?



I buy whatever is best for the application. Aimpoint, EOThing, Short Dot, ACOG, wtf-ever works best for what i'm doing.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 9:00:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/12/2006 9:02:08 AM EDT by AyeGuy]
Reflex sights are an exception to the rule. They have really only two cost ranges: Low and High, even though top-end reflexes are not that expensive in absolute terms compared to magifying optics. When you start stacking lenses together (telescopic sights) the price range spreads out much wider.

But an ACOG is a Middle range optic.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 9:05:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/12/2006 9:06:03 AM EDT by new-arguy]
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 1:31:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By new-arguy:
My philosophy is I dont use a philosophy... I buy what I like/want/need (probably in that order!!) at the best price I can find. If I cant afford it now, I will do without and save until I can. It took me more than 2 years to finish my AR10!



that IS a philosophy
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 2:17:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 3:09:45 PM EDT
I think you really get your dollars worth with middle and higher end Leupolds.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 4:08:38 PM EDT
I buy low and middle, then learn to shoot them to the best of their ability.
My hunting partner always tells me cheap rifle/good glass.
I have a Tacpoint and an Aimpoint. Both shoot the same. The Aimpoint is obviously better quality.
I also own a Super Sniper and it is one of the cleanest scopes I used at any price.
Bottom line: Buy what you can afford, use what you buy, and don't be a poser.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 8:15:04 PM EDT
buy nice or buy twice. I must have the best, if I cant afford it now I save till I can
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 9:26:20 PM EDT
Aimpoint Comp M and EOTech 512.

I think they're high end, top quality optics, but they're nowhere near the prices of some of the stuff that has been mentioned.

After wasting most of my teenage years shopping for optics at Wally world, I now know where to look for the good stuff.......the EE

WIZZO
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 6:28:38 AM EDT
It wasn't intended as a rule or philosophy but I have noticed I typically spend about as much on my optics as I do on my gun. $700 Rem PSS, $800 Leu 4.5-14X50... $900 Bull barrel AR, $800 ACOG... $700 M4gery, $400 Eotech... $25 Sporterized 7mm Mauser $50 Simmons :)

T
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 10:06:58 AM EDT
You get what you pay for
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 10:10:00 AM EDT
I'm starting to like cleaning up after guys who have to have "the best" when I can. They get perfectly good scopes (luppies, Nikons, etc), and feel that they can't live with themselves if they don't have the latest S&B or USO with the latest knob or widget (since you can't hit your target with last year's reticle, can you?). They end up selling great scopes for a steal - and they are warranted forever and will do everything I can (I figure if I don't hit, it's me not my equipment - I can shoot nearly as well at the 600 yard line with irons as I can with a scope).

I have few precision rifles, and few dollars to spend on them, but I'm a mid-range guy and don't ever see me being a top-end guy. I shoot a little in competition, and on rare occation drag one of my rifles out to cover an entry team or a UC on a buy (I find myself holding a ram or carbine much more often than I find myslef behind a scope nowadays - where did I go wrong?). Mil dots on a 2.5-10 Nikon or similar Luppy will do the same at 50 yards (or 20, or 90) that a 3.2-17 EREK TPAL illuminated GAP reticled USO will: let me see the target area and put a bullet where needed if I had to - God forbid.

Link Posted: 3/13/2006 3:43:22 PM EDT
I only have two scopes for a whole lot of guns. Both reflect my budget at the time (1993 and now)and what I bought them to do.

The 2nd one is the RCO I bought from Grant before deployment
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 6:47:11 PM EDT


I budget 50-75% of the price of a firearm to purchase the optics for it.

I wouldn't put a Zeiss on a 10/22, nor would I put a Simmons on my Ruger Safari Magnum

But....cheap optics catch dust in the safe just as well as expensive optics.

Link Posted: 3/13/2006 7:20:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By new-arguy:
My philosophy is I dont use a philosophy... I buy what I like/want/need (probably in that order!!) at the best price I can find. If I cant afford it now, I will do without and save until I can. It took me more than 2 years to finish my AR10!



Yep.

Even on a broke college student budget, I won't cut corners on optics or mounts.

Nothing but Aimpoint and Leupy for me in LaRue mounts.

Just got my new Leupy MR/T 1.5-5 with Ill. SPR reticle today and it will be going in a LaRue SPR-EER mount. I could have bought/built a complete AR-15 with accessories for what I'll have in the optic and mount, but I would rather have one rifle done right than 5 rifles that I was too cheap to configure the way I really want.
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 7:23:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rsilvers:
Mine is to get nearly the best. By that I mean Leupold, Nightforce, etc.

I used to get better, like Zeiss and Schmidt & Bender, but not any more.

I also like to get what the military uses. That means when I buy an Eotech, I get the night-vision model even if I don't need it.



Yeah, I have used all types and just can't justify spending twice as much as a Leupy for the most expensive optics.

There just doesn't seem to be enough difference in quality to really justify the price. Leupolds are crystal clear, durable, fit the need, and have a great warranty.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 4:12:46 AM EDT
I've bought what I considered to be good stuff at good prices. Sometimes that means used, sometimes that means keeping an eye out for stores doing weird/dumb things to change out stock (my Bushie 4200 elite 1.5x6 from gander for $180 was a treat....labeled as Bausch and Lomb...and they couldn't have that...could they now).

I'm more concerned with function over price. That being said...haven't quite made it to the $1k optics yet. No animal I need to kill needs that much attention.
Top Top