How do you know a scope is good?

[Steyr]

I'd never spend more than say, £300 on glass - doesn't matter what rifle I had. Total waste of money ...

To you maybe. But I thoroughly disagree with you

[Muskett]

My hobby is shooting, half is rifle shooting. I have scopes from different price ranges. My high end scopes are superior in nearly every way to my more inexpensive scopes. I've owned probably 100 scopes over the years, though tend to keep good ones especially if it suits and I keep the rifle.

My Zeiss combo is 15 years old and still fantastic.
My Leupold combo is 28 years old and still delivering, and bright.
Same goes for the similarly aged B&L scopes I own.
I have two 30 year old Tascos and they remain very nice.
Two Optimas, neither are that bright.

I've had good results with relatively recently purchased Bushnell scopes. I regret selling my Hawke Sidewinder. All the Zeiss I've owned were superb, even the Conquests (I have one kept for some future project, just couldn't part with it I liked it so much). Swaro are sublime.
I fancy a Vortex, high end one.

As I've said modern manufacturing can produce very good scopes for not that a high outlay. But the real tests is in the field in varying light conditions. The more tricky the light the more the high end scopes shine through; cut through the glare or peer into the darkest gloom.
If you have never had a really great scope you have missed something in the hobby/sport. Bit like never actually getting proficient with iron sights.

[harvey_s]

Any price range... how can you tell if a scope is reliable in that the zero does not wander, that it is not adding in some other variable to throw shots and drift? How important is crispness all the way to the edge when only the central 25% is actually used in the act of aiming?

I know the more expensive scopes have better optical clarity and so-called 'light gathering' but how important is this in just aligning the sights with the point of impact?

How does one 'judge' a scope?

The advice I have seen is vague, mostly along the lines of 'try a bunch of them out'... and reviews even say that very expensive scopes are not all that good. I understand how to assess a rifle or pistol but have no real idea with scopes.

Consequently I have relied on old Japanese Tasco 2-7x32 AO scopes that I know are good because they were used by many FT shooters in the 90s. They seem good quality, but they are old tech now... or are they?

Theres so many contradictions here it's difficult to know where to start...

First off you say at any price range...but then you resent paying for the best optical clarity on the basis you only want use 25% of the image...

You mention reliability of holding zero...most scopes will, but whether the turrets are good enough to allow 'dialling' is another matter and again spending more can buy you a better product.

You mention about light gathering...but again you don't want to pay for the best glass to get extra shooting time at dawn/dusk.

If you don't want to spend then you're not ever going to get the 'really good' - but you can get 'good enough' and as long as you're OK with accepting there will be limitations with that that's fine.

The upshot is good optics cost money - how much you value that is up to you...

[Muskett]

Add to the above.
My Leupold has been on my Anschutz 1710, bar a change in ammo with a few clicks either way, it has held zero and doesn't ever need to do more. A very bright scope for its size.

My Zeiss Victory target turrets on a Rem 700 5R Milspec .308 tracks perfectly and held zero through horrific weather conditions. It handle all light conditions and does exactly what I need it to do. The same scope would be £2k now.

My Zeiss Conquest HD tracks perfectly and a neat little scope. When it comes to target turrets and tracking then Night Force is really the start line for full bore rifles. Or a top end brand that builds to the standard demanded, S&B or top end Vortex, Leupold. Not every mid range scope will keep track over time. In fact few do and some just comes down to luck. I wouldn't trust any budget scope to track well, or hold track precision for long.
If you don't need to track then there are some nice glassed budget scopes. Zero and leave alone. Use their ladder reticule or aim off. 100m isn't going to test any glass in good light, though bright glare and dusk might. I sold my MTC Mamba light because it couldn't handle glare; great NV add on scope though.

Last point. How tough are you on your kit? Budget scopes are pretty soft and don't handle rough treatment well. Top end scopes should do decades of heavy use. The budget scopes would be in the bin by then. Some scopes have to be pampered which might be fine in the back garden or on the range. Sometimes I venture further and then I'll take the combos that are up for an adventure; that can't be done on the cheap.

[stillair1]

To you maybe. But I thoroughly disagree with you

Yep once you have looked through high end scopes, it grinds me looking through some of my cheaper stuff.

[Steyr]

The basic principle is you have a choice....
If you want cheap .... buy cheap. If you want mid range.... then go for that.... if you want to sell the wifes kidney... then sell it.

I have tried many scopes. As a rule, you will get EXACTLY what you pay for.

The job or jobs you want the scope to do is your first parameter. If your plinking tin cans, then Swaro or S&B PM2s etc. are a smidge out of your level of monetary commitment.

Materials used, methods of engineering employed, degree of accuracy/tolerance, bells n whistles added... like ANY precision tool, you get what you pay for.

If there is one rule I will say, the better the quality, the more chance of longevity paying you back and serving you well over time.

A good scope works as well on an air rifle as it does on a LR rifle... close focus allowing.

Its really up to the individual to make the decision as to what you want to spend. Its not as though you have no bloody choice is it.!!!

So if you want to spend cheap with change for a paper bag of chips... you crack on. If you want to spend on something that will let you see a target your normal vision can no longer see and last a life time... then fair play.

As I say all the time, give a scope to 10 shooters and you get 12 differing opinions back.

Its subjective but youe eyeball is the best decision maker you need to (ironically) listen too

[Bladerunner too]

Just to put my pennies worth in, If it has a Christmas tree ret in it ,sling it ,too much going on. an as for the "you get what you pay for" is not strictly true , (albeit the more you pay the better the chance of a good scope) i had two scopes the same and one was miles off with its range finding numbers .

[Geezer]

Notwithstanding Hsing-ee’s rather playful approach to this thread, there’s good advice here from, among others, Muskett, Jesim (wow, that auto-corrects to Jesus) and Steyr.

My scoped rifles bear a mix of older 80s Japanese glass, basic (M8/Vari-X2) Leupolds, and one or two Filipino Simmons have crept in at times. Mostly bought used, because I don’t need/want fancy reticles, IR, or even AO, and when I’ve got one with target turrets I basically set them at zero and leave them alone rather than dial in every small change in range.

We can easily overstate the “you have to look through it, all eyes are different” thing. It’s true. But 99% of users will see a similar difference between poor, adequate, excellent, and awesome glass. The personal eyesight thing is probably most apparent at the adequate/excellent overlap (your eyes may prefer your £250 scope, someone else may prefer their £150 or £500 one). But in most cases it should be marginal.

For example, it’s pretty well established, in a much bigger market, that the best binos are made by Zeiss, Swaro, and Leica. And that they are all awesome and the choice of where to put your four-figures is personal. But, while a case can be made that some Japanese binos a lot cheaper are very nearly as good, no rational human being has ever suggested that his £75 Chinese zoom bins from a catalogue are better than the German/Austrian premium brands because his eyes are special.

[Muskett]

My last few points.
Every scope has some luck built in. Some don't have much luck in them, so don't deliver for long. Its extremely rare in top end scopes and the manufacturers will bend over backwards to put it right. Surprisingly there is a bit too much luck involved in medium priced scopes as the odd one do go wrong. Have two identical and one is great and one not; luck. Budget then its luck if you have a good one that really lasts.
The more features the more to go wrong.

I really like a basic plex to aim with. Nice close plex is hard to beat.
Most ladder reticules aren't very useful. I never had a use for mildots. Horus, graph paper dots are too busy, though there are some multi dot systems coming through that are better.

Best glass betters poor even if the poor has a huge objective.

Forgiving eyebox really only given with large top end scopes. Most mid range high mag scopes are very eyebox critical at their higher mags (the list is long, Leupold, Bushnell.......)

Most of my scopes are SFF. My next scope will be a high end FFF, for a specialised reason.

Illuminated reticules only if you know you might use them. They don't need to be bright.

Over x24 and glass struggles, and fine focus is very critical. If you aren't going to use x30 then don't buy into it as a lot of compromises have gone on to get it.

Keep it KISS, or know why you must have something more complicated. Put the money into build quality and the glass. One of my really great buys was a fixed mag Zeiss Conquest 6x42 with a plex reticule.

[Steyr]

My last few points.
Every scope has some luck built in. Some don't have much luck in them, so don't deliver for long. Its extremely rare in top end scopes and the manufacturers will bend over backwards to put it right. Surprisingly there is a bit too much luck involved in medium priced scopes as the odd one do go wrong. Have two identical and one is great and one not; luck. Budget then its luck if you have a good one that really lasts.
The more features the more to go wrong.

I really like a basic plex to aim with. Nice close plex is hard to beat.
Most ladder reticules aren't very useful. I never had a use for mildots. Horus, graph paper dots are too busy, though there are some multi dot systems coming through that are better.

Best glass betters poor even if the poor has a huge objective.

Forgiving eyebox really only given with large top end scopes. Most mid range high mag scopes are very eyebox critical at their higher mags (the list is long, Leupold, Bushnell.......)

Most of my scopes are SFF. My next scope will be a high end FFF, for a specialised reason.

Illuminated reticules only if you know you might use them. They don't need to be bright.

Over x24 and glass struggles, and fine focus is very critical. If you aren't going to use x30 then don't buy into it as a lot of compromises have gone on to get it.

Keep it KISS, or know why you must have something more complicated. Put the money into build quality and the glass. One of my really great buys was a fixed mag Zeiss Conquest 6x42 with a plex reticule.

Gotta to say I agree.

[FPoole]

It would seem that the more you spend on a scope the better it will be. Lets face it, a very high end scope buyer is going to be really picky about his scopes performance. The manufacturer would seem to also care more about their product being just right, when it comes to high dollar scopes. I have the best I can afford in my Bushnell 4200 Elites. I have 2 that are 8-32x40 and 1 that's 6-24x40. One has spent 20 years and 150,000 shots on a springer and it is still very clear and it clicks to the right elevation every time. I use them for FT and they are about the clearest scope I've ever looked through. This includes big Nikkos and Sightrons. The only scope that looked as good to my eyes was an old Nightforce 36x FT scope.

[Muskett]

I have two Bushnell HD Legends and very pleased with them (NV use), though they are eyebox tight at highest mag. I had a Bushnell 6500 and that was a very well made and bright scope; should have kept it as it was so well built.
However, Bushnell don't do the best target turrets, so best without.

NF make very good scopes indeed. For no good reason I've never owned one.

One for the oldies, the Simmons WT Classics. The early ones were very well built for the times and good value. Compared to some recent manufacture of budget to mid range they aren't that bright. In the 1990's they were my fall back scope, but now I have non.
I don't think Tasco made a good scope after 1995. Optimas before that; very much of their time.

For old airgun collectors then finding the rifles is easy, finding period scopes that lasted far more tricky. Those budget scopes didn't hold up well. Its easier to find an old high end scope that did, but few in the day were fitted to an air rifle so not really correct.

[gsxrman]

How do you know a scope is good?
Very difficult to answer as people look for or are willing to accept different levels of quality.
Most people will judge a scope by its glass.
If your eyes cannot tell the difference between exceptional glass and reasonable glass you are going to struggle with assessing this quality.
You cannot judge a scope by its price.
Better grades of glass and inner working gizmos generally cost more.
I have a fixed 35x Bench rest Leo on my Ripley, but still think the optics on my 6-24x B&L are crisper, both absolutely bomb proof build though, and the B&L was half the price of the Leo.

[Kes]

Yep once you have looked through high end scopes, it grinds me looking through some of my cheaper stuff.

I've looked through Zeiss, S&B, Leupold etc. as well you know. Can't see what all the fuss is about.

Like Musky says, if it's superior light-gathering qualities that you require for your particular shooting preference then yeah, pay a few hundred/thousand more for that extra 40 mins or so that it might give you. (No sarcasm intended there btw). For bog-standard day time shooting and acceptable visual clarity though, (especially at airgun ranges) I'd go with a mid-range (or even cheaper) scope and save money for other stuff. For me, it's a no-brainer.

[Muskett]

The 6-24x B&L. The Long One!, is a gem. I have one and I nearly bought another for no other reason other than being so impressed with it. Hard to find now.
I have a little 2-7 B&L on my Theoben Fenman and though it needed reparallaxing (lucky it could be) is just perfect. Other late B&L I've been less impressed with. Now part of Bushmell some modern design are very good indeed though its the case of be selective. The last 1" tubed side parallax Bushnell Legend Utras I have two of because they do NV and pretty well made. Bright too though struggle a bit at dusk compared to a Zeiss Conquest (Ultras half the price though).
1" tubes are less common as 30mm have taken over as the standard. Probably makes the design to lens easier. The more clicks isn't a big reason other than for those who really need to dope a lot of drop.

Different ranges in a brand can give marketably different results.