Cheap scopes vs expensive

[Murphy]

Usually sharpness and build quality.

I have some £200 binoculers and some that cost 10x that.

They are way better but not 10x better.

[rapidresponse1]

ive had some decent cheap scopes over the years

[maximus]

Its diminishing returns Barry. For my purposes its not worth having anything better than a 25mm tube hawk airmax with a/o or vortex diamondback 2-7×35, they are good enough for me. I think a/o is definitely worth having to focus at the higher mags. A 4-12×40 25mm tube scope is as big of a spec that I want though, its a personal preference i guess.

[Barryg]

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

[maximus]

I'd say yes generally spec for spec. I tend to go for light scopes on the heavier rifles though I have got an airmax 4-12×40 ao on my prosport which is a bit heavier than I'd like tbh.

[MrGreengrass]

Build and optical quality.
Had a £3k Kahles, built like a nuclear sub but weighed a ton.
in the real world, not any better than the Bushnell 8-32 or Big Nikko on an airgun ,so off it went.
Most of my other scopes are Bushnell Legends ,
some old Falcons and a couple of Hawkes

[matt w]

I've just brought a compact 10 x Vector Optics fixed mag to try FT. I was going to buy something more than 4 times the cost. Can I see the target any better with the more expensive scope...... nothing worth mentioning. Now I can buy another three scopes and still have change.

[angrybear]

First off is to define what you class as cheap/expensive,
Take the Hawke Vantage range £69 - £429, I'm not going to say that £429 is cheap, but that scope is still part of Hawke's lowest H2 class of glass,
Sidewinders that used to be their best are now their middle H5 class £469 -£649, their highest class of H7 glass starts at £699 & tops at £1119.

If you mean the difference between, say a £50 mountmaster & a £190 airmax of the same spec, it's probably got a better external finish, a thinner crisper ret,
maybe a more user friendly adjustment system with less free play/slack, possibly assembled with low friction bushes rather than metal/metal which will wear over time.

If you go up to something £300+ you get smoother/finer adjustment side focus systems, more choice of ret's, & much more detail to them, turrets that are capless lockable single hand adjustment with better more positive feel,
maybe better glass coatings for less glare & threaded for a sunshade, maybe even go FFP.

12-15 years ago I was more than happy with my "Hawke sport 30/30 or basic mil dot ret" scope, because they were so much better than open sights,
but now they appear so basic with fixed PX, thick clumsy rets that obscure so much of the target on aim it's a wonder I hit anything.

It's like triggers, You only really notice the shortfalls when you go back having used something better.

[Barryg]

If you mean the difference between, say a £50 mountmaster & a £190 airmax of the same spec, it's probably got a better external finish, a thinner crisper ret,
maybe a more user friendly adjustment system with less free play/slack, possibly assembled with low friction bushes rather than metal/metal which will wear over time.

As I have said I know nothing about scopes so I am probably missing something because the two cheapy's seem very nicely made accurate, clear, smooth and solid, the mountmaster is old perhaps one of the first and I paid more back then than they are now but it might just be pot luck if you get one that is OK and the old Simmons also seems fine and it is much lighter.

It seems that I would have to pay about £300 plus to really notice a big difference


I know it's hard to see in a picture the external finish but where do I look to see the lack of quality?

[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.

[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