Cheap scopes vs expensive

[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.

[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.