Cheap scopes vs expensive

[Muskett]

There is cheap, which can mean so cheap they are a heap of trouble.
There is inexpensive, which may well give all anyone really needs, especially for air rifle ranges.
There is mid range where superior glass, coatings, and build, come into play.
Then there are the very expensive top end scopes, which may well be over kill for air rifle use.

Cheap is just that.
The inexpensive and mid range is where there is a heap of competition.
High end has the extreme cost that may or may not be justified for the application.

The best high end scopes can deal with very tricky light conditions that aren't really apparent at air rifle ranges. Repeatability and build quality are very high, and they generally deliver for decades. For certain applications they have their place.

In recent years there has been some excellent improvements in both the inexpensive and mid range categories. Many manufacturers are following trends and fashions more closely, as seen by the proliferation of FFP scopes over SFP scopes and more reticle designs thanks to improvements in glass etching.
Scopes make good money as manufacturing them has never been less expensive, but in a crowded market more is spent on the marketing to get them sold. Prices reflect what price the market can handle, and if anything scopes are expensive for what they are even though they can be really good. Sure a lot of the costs now are marketing, after sales service/warranties, import charges, agent mark up, VAT, and retail mark ups. Which adds a lot of costs beyond just the manufacture. However, the consumer is getting what they are asking for, with plenty of choice.

Basically decide what you want for the rifle you have, for what you envisage the combo is going to be used for. Do try and match the weight, features, and scale, to the rifle at least.

[junglie]

Are more expensive scopes lighter? I find that the mountmaster seems heavy is that because it's cheap.

Not always I have an exellent old german pecar champion 8x45 that weighs a ton as it has a steel tube but exellent glass on it. Origially an expensive scope I believe but a mate found it for £20 at a car boot for me. I also have a cheap little simmonds 8 point 1.5-5x32 that cost less than £30 with mounts in about 1990 that has been on numerous springers over the years & is still a good little lightweight scope & used regularly.

[Muskett]

Are more expensive scopes lighter?

Not really as they are built to the task. S&B and Zeiss top end are on the heavier side as they are built for law enforcement. Zeiss Conquest, Zeiss's mid range are a lot lighter. Swaro scopes tend to be light enough as they are generally made for high end hunting rifles, though still very strong. Night Force, another law enforcement styles scopes, tend not to be too heavy but for some reason quite bulky.

Part of the heavy or light is in the actual glass. Modern lenses are so much lighter than the old "lead" glass.

Steel bodies tend to be heavy, but the very best might use titanium now. Everything else is aluminium, but even aluminium comes in different thickness and weight.
Softer materials are less abusive on cutting machinery and tend to be lighter.
Tube size adds weight and bulk, and the bigger the better is in fashion not that it adds much to the plot.

And then the quality and weight of all the internal parts. All adds up.

The biggest top end Vortex are like bricks, but their mid range far lighter even with similar features.

So really there is far more to scopes and how built for their target application. Again its what you want from your scope and what to choose to match the rifle.

[Barryg]

Thanks for all the info, guys.

It would be nice to have a lighter scope with the TX it already weighs a ton, also I really like this type of reticle in the pic as I once had an old Japanese Nikko Stirling with it. I am guessing that it would be expensive?

[Muskett]

That reticule struggles to sell, as it s poor at delivering the kind of precision now demanded.
That design is fast, but far too easy to get elevation out as its far too easy to "push into" the target. Really a close range, point blank, hunting reticule. They were made that way because when crosshairs were "wire", actually physical rather than etched, then they were beefy enough to be robust. One reason the military used to like them too.

They do come up on older scopes, quite good quality ones too. Most sellers should bite your hand off just to move one on.

[Muskett]

I have several Bushnell Legend Ultra 1" tubed scopes, because they "ain't heavy". Now out of production because Bushnell has followed the fashion of 30mm tubes.
30mm doesn't really add anything much to performance other than giving more space, more bulk, and added weight. More space for features and easier construction.
Importantly they had the short range side parallax I was looking for. The glass far superior to say many Hawke or Mambas.

Leupold used to make excellent 1" scopes. They too have moved on, as nearly everyone has.
The old 1" Zeiss Conquest scopes were superb, but didn't have the parallax adjustment down to air rifle ranges.

Which comes to one of the big issues when it comes to air rifle scopes. In the not so distant past the better glass rarely had the parallax for air rifles. Thankfully, things have got better, but nothing is cheap.
Parallax for close ranges puts a lot of demands on scope design and complexity. To get those right rarely can be done for peanuts.

[AdeC]

Thanks for all the info, guys.

It would be nice to have a lighter scope with the TX it already weighs a ton, also I really like this type of reticle in the pic as I once had an old Japanese Nikko Stirling with it. I am guessing that it would be expensive?

The Walther ZF 6x42 has that reticle. Decent scopes for under £100

[Barryg]

The Walther ZF 6x42 has that reticle. Decent scopes for under £100

Thanks, just checked it out but the reticle looks a bit different it doesn't have the point.

[MrGreengrass]

I have several Bushnell Legend Ultra 1" tubed scopes, because they "ain't heavy". Now out of production because Bushnell has followed the fashion of 30mm tubes.
30mm doesn't really add anything much to performance other than giving more space, more bulk, and added weight. More space for features and easier construction.
Importantly they had the short range side parallax I was looking for. The glass far superior to say many Hawke or Mambas.

Leupold used to make excellent 1" scopes. They too have moved on, as nearly everyone has.
The old 1" Zeiss Conquest scopes were superb, but didn't have the parallax adjustment down to air rifle ranges.

Which comes to one of the big issues when it comes to air rifle scopes. In the not so distant past the better glass rarely had the parallax for air rifles. Thankfully, things have got better, but nothing is cheap.
Parallax for close ranges puts a lot of demands on scope design and complexity. To get those right rarely can be done for peanuts.

I also have a 25mm SF Legend HD and the glass is as clear and bright as some much more expensive
scopes .

[gsxrman]

Not sure if cheap v expensive works 100% as some cheapish scopes are certainly good enough and some quite expensive scopes are junk.
My 10p worth. If you spend around £1000 for a half decent rifle (Daystate, Air Arms or HW etc) then I would assume that you would want to get the best YOU can out of that rifle.
A rifle of that calibre should be capable of quite small groups at a decent range. Air rifle range sub 12 is defo out to 55 yards plus. Therefore a scope is required to help deliver that.
A 4 or 6x BSA scope is just not going to cut it. My 14 year old can hit spent .22 cartridges, laid down, on the firing pin base at this range with an R10 and a Bushnell 18x scope. He wouldn't be able to do that with a murky glass, crap reticule low mag scope. Now if you are using a 50 year old springer and shooting tin cans in the garden then the murky glass, crap reticule low mag scope would be ok.
For me a scope needs quality glass, as I am lucky to still have eyesight that can tell the difference. Smooth operation and well built innards so the scope stays true, on zero at varying mag and ranges when adjusted to suit. I have seen many a £5-700 FT scope need re zeroing almost every time out as temp and light changes etc.
Suppose its like Hi Fi separates, where the AMP, media player, speakers and inter connects should be of same quality and probably cost.
Like having a full frame DSLR camera and putting a nasty lens on it, you are never going to get the best out the camera.
If you are shooting at 25 yards and happy with 1" groups then you defo don't need 40x Bench Rest Leupold, but then again you don't need a Daystate Revere either.
I've heard people say I would never spend more than £50 on a scope and then buy a HW100, but a scope shouldn't really be judged on what it cost but rather what it can deliver.
There is a place for all, its what suits your situation.

[Muskett]

All the above.

I got through, seen through, a fair few scopes over the years. Some scopes just do behave better, don't get fuddled with tricky light conditions, and give that crisp image everyone loves. Most scopes are OK, and unless put next to a cracker most people wouldn't notice the difference. I've try to keep scopes that are excellent for price/build/crispness so long as they have the features I need for a combo.

Couple of examples:

Bushnell Elite, were excellent scopes, a bit like a cost effective Zeiss Conquest. But neither gave low enough parallax for air rifles.
Simmons WTC were in the 1990's excellent scopes, but don't have enough features and not that bright compared to today.
I do love a Optima Moonlighter from the 1980's, but glass does age and looking through one now they aren't crazy good...read pretty poor. Once they were the bee's knees.
The Bushnell Lengend Ultras I have are bright, but, like so many lower mid range scopes, they have pretty narrow and fussy eye boxes especially if you zoom about.

And then do you want to fit a NV Ad-On? The old Mambas and Sidewinders were pretty great for those. However, the Mambas in daylight weren't up to much, and the Sidewinder is one bulky feature rich scope that is hard to justify lugging around when hunting.

Who doesn't like a low mag fixed super glassed crisp scope? Dept of view can be great, and wow super bright. But low mag just can't do pellet on pellet at 35m. Tiny targets demand higher magnification at range.

Lastly, with so many scopes out there it really is difficult to recommend what is "great" this month. When a "great" scope is found the manufacturers either change something or discontinue it.
Leupold used to be a class act. I'm sure they can still make a great scope, but will charge for it. Vortex is starting to lose its charm. Both seem to be chasing profit rather than just give the best they can. Sadly, they aren't the only ones, and in truth most brands and manufacturers fall into profit before performance eventually. New and sexy isn't always better than do it really well once and stick with keeping it great.

Presently, I have more scopes than rifles, and thats after a clear out. Some scopes are too good to let go of. There is a hobby in scopes.