Cheap scopes vs expensive

[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.

[madcarlos]

I bought the bushnell elites 41650 a few years back, It's a lovely scope and the image was far better than the sidewinder I had , Bonus for me was not mil dots , However its back in the box, it’s a very big scope. If I ever did try bench shooting then I may use it in time to come, Got a few other big scopes but I've reverted back to smaller ones.

[Bellycrawler]

I think a good scope will improve a poor gun but good gun will never improve a poor scope.poor as in quality. My ratting scope is a Hawke Sports HD. Excelent clear Optics at 10yds onwards. Worth £25 & a £1000 scope will not better it for its use. My long distance scope is worth £600 & a clear sharp image at 100yds + yet it does not do any better than my hawke HD at 10yds. Simple answer is get the best for the job in hand, get vfm, don't overkill, don't buy absolute rubbish. If a cheap low quality scope works money is wasted trying to improve it BUT if you can't hit a barn door spend the pennies for better quality.

[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?

[Travis299]

This excellent scope weighs 21.9 oz.

[fife]

I honestly think that you get what you pay for, I think a good gun such as s daystate wolverine etc, deserves a canny scope , seen lots of good guns rapids agt gun with cheap scoped on and they wonder why it doesn't shoot that accurate, atv bob

[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.

[angrybear]

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?

I reckon You'd probably see the difference with the Airmax range £180 -£220 ish, rather than need to pay £300+, but as I said before, it's often only when you go back to a cheaper scope, having got used to a better model,
that you notice where it's not as good, & a fair bit of the quality is just in the feel.

[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?