scopes,scopes scopes.?

Question

whats a good scope? I really havent had interest on a high dollar scope. Too me a 100 dolar scope is just as good i havent had any problems. Or am i wrong is a more expensive scope really better. fill me in on scopes. just bought me a 22-250 bull barrel ruger m 77. whats a good scope for that particular rifle.

Answer 1

Good scopes are worth the money. With rifle optics you really get what you pay for, clarity, focus, light gathering, duarbility, repetability of adjustment, all are better in the high end scopes. You don't have to pay a thousand dollars but spend 300-400$ and get a good quality scope.

Answer 2

It sounds as if you are planning a bit of varmint hunting. If this is the case, you really do want a decent scope. You will aslo want a higher magnification than you would use for deer hunting. I wouldn't consider anything less than a Leupold scope. If you take a cheap scope or even a mid priced scope to the field and look at something about 400 yards away, you will immediately see the difference between a cheaper scope and a good scope. Looking through them in the store doesn't show you much, you must try them out in the field where they will be used. I always say to figure out what is the absolute most you can pay for a scope and then buy the next better scope. You will never be sorry for buying a good scope but you will be sorry for going cheap on your optics. You get what you pay for.

Answer 3

Just exactly like everyone's said already, you get what you pay for. Clarity, power, accuracy, durability, and also, for some, repeatability. The best scope I've found that covers all of these pretty well is actually sort of an oddball. There's a company that bought rights to a Navy contract design scope, and is now marketing it to the public. I bought a 10x42, and was so impressed by the clarity, accuracy, and(oops) durability, that I bought a 20x42 for my target rifle and put the 10x42 on my Bushmaster XM15E2S. I can say for a fact, they're capable of zeroing on a target, you can turn the dials all the way up and down, left and right, return them to their zero, and they'll hit the same spot. Clarity isn't as good as a Leopold, but it's certainly not a problem to see through either of them. They're nitrogen filled, with multiple ports accessible to recharge them should something happen, which as careful as I usually am, does seem to happen. But when it does, these scopes don't care too much. You can drop them, drag them, and abuse them, and they'll still hold their zero. If not, SWFA does certainly stand behind their products, and the SS Series of scopes is certainly no exception. If you can afford to throw a few extra bucks in, I'd suggest going for a SS 10x42, or even a 16x42. They're all great scopes for the money, and no matter the resolution, the Mil-dot ranging has been very accurate. I've been able to calculate random distances within a few yards using only the mil-dots on the reticule and a chart with measurements, mils, and ranges.

http://www.swfa.com/c-231-super-sniper-rifle-scopes.aspx

Answer 4

You get what you pay for, really you do. I learned that not long ago.

I have a Savage Model 12FLV (F-Synthetic Stock, L-Left Hand, V-Long Range Heavy Barrel) I had a Nikon Prostaff scope mounted on it, before I had to send the gun back in for repair. The scope wasn't mine to keep, so I went out and bought one. What I bought was a Center Point 4x 16x 40mm scope. Mounted and bore sighted it. Thought it was fine when I dialed it in at the range. However, I took it out coyote hunting a few weeks ago. I then realized, what kind of junk of a scope it was. The clarity of the glass was very poor and the eye relief was so bad, that I had trouble looking through the scope. That's what you get for buying a cheap $80 scope.

I'm now leaning toward buying a Nikon Prostaff 3-9x50mm or a Leupold of the same power and size. A Nikon Prostaff 3-9x40mm will run $150.

Answer 5

You get what you pay for. You have a varmint rifle with the ability to shoot a long way. You need to invest in a scope that has a good bit of magnification at least 9 power with a 50mm objective. My choice of scope is a Leupold 4.5x14x50 w/30mm tube. The tube diameter is what gives you the ability to see a little bit better after dark. You have a pretty expensive rifle so why not complete the package with a fairly decent scope.

Answer 6

You basically get what you pay for.
If Tasco fills your needs, fine.
If you need more clarity, or durability,
or better light transmission for dawn & dusk hunting,
a bit more quaity might be worth the $ to you.
Theres a fairly big difference between a $100 scope
and a $300 one , the differences do get smaller
beyond about there though.
If you're asking, i'd say that a Ruger 77 Heavy bbl.
in 22-250 deserves at least a Simmons, or better,
a Weaver, in say 4-16x x 50 AO.

Answer 7

I usually spend around $100 tops for a scope... I cant see spending $1000..... I like konus scopes.... thats what i use.... I have a $30 Simmons and what a piece of junk that is.... to me a $100 scope suits me fine..... does the job just right....

Answer 8

Swarski (sp?) is the most expensive scope
Then Leupold is a very good scope
Then Ziess (sp?) is pretty good

I wouldnt even consider any other brand than these, since it is very hard to see at the last part of dark with other scopes!

Answer 9

Tasco is a good scope for the money try the tasco world class or the pronghorn they are both really great scopes the world class is around 100 and the pronghorn is less but dont let price fool you these scopes are just as good as any out there.