How much should you spend on optics?

File: soldat.jpg (63KB, 659x492px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 659x492px

>>34226063
My rule is don't total your rifle. Unless you operate with it then you only buy the best.

More than anything it depends on your caliber. You can put a real awful scope, like $50 awful, on an AR and it will probably hold zero, while the same optic would be shaken appart by a lightweight .308. You can get away with spending sub $100 if it's just for plinking or hunting at less than 200m on a light recoiling rifle. "You get what you pay for" is true, but relative to what you need it for. If your only concern is holding zero, cheap scopes can and do work.

>>34226063
For a typical hunting rifle most optics over $500 Will be superfluous. At the $1000 mark you've topped out most of your performance and the only thing that more money will buy is extra ruggedness.

This is just a very general statement. You can find some good optics for under $200. You might even get lucky with a sub 100 dollar Barska (don't count on it though).

>>34226063
If you have the means not really.
I put a $250 Nikon on a .300 Win Mag T3 lite and it asploded after one trip to the range.

File: hqdefault.jpg (38KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x360px

>>34226063
If I buy a 500 dollar tikka or mossberg I intend to spend at least 500 on the glass.

>>34226130
My concerns are brightness and weight. It's a western mountain hunting gun that's going to be used on long and far hikes from sun up to sun down. The cartridge is 6.5x55 SE, which doesn't kick much compared to others, but since the rifle is really freaking light it still has some moderate felt recoil.

I've checked out a lot of scopes and this one is just incredible. It's really light for its size and the brightness and clarity is is a noticeable step up from everything else I've looked through.

>>34226243
You're going to want something with a large intake lense in the front. Like 30mm at minimum and even that isnt enough for night shooting.

The larger the front lense the better it can gather light for dusk/dawn light situations.

To answer you question, hell no it isn't stupid to put a 200% cost scope on a rifle. It's actually usually expected that a buyer will spend 1.5 the rifles cost on glass and proper mounting for it.

>>34226269
It has a 50mm objective lens.

>>34226301
Usually good for dusk/dawn shooting. What brand? Leupold is pretty much the standard but zeiss is also very well established.

>>34226312
Swarovski

>>34226319
>Swarovski
You cannot go wrong anon. 50mm inlet is excellent for gathering light as previously stated. What it comes down to now is how you want to mount it.

You will need to know your required eye relief and the comfiest place to rest your cheek when sitting in a relaxed state and go from there.

After the mounts have been decided and all that you'll need to actually dial in the scope and set the mounts with red loctite to ensure their ability to hold a zero.

That is a fine brand.
>Swarovski offers a full statutory warranty for pieces purchased from authorized Swarovski retailer
aka dont buy it from amazon and you'll have a lifetime warranty on it anyway. Excellent scope, good intake, now you just need to mount it to your person fittings and secure it.

>>34226360
>>34226360
Glad to hear. I was showrooming at Cabelas and the salesperson seemed a little assmad that I liked the Swarovski better than his preferred brands (Leupold and Vortex). I figured they either have a higher margin on those brands or he only likes US companies. He spun some story about how they had one come back that "broke" from the recoil of a .300WM rifle 2 months after buying it, and allegedly Swarovski wouldn't honor the warranty.

I didn't entirely believe him because I could tell he was biased, but I made me a little concerned since I know prestigious brands can sometimes be a lacking in customer service quality since the products will sell themselves regardless.

>>34226619
Every asshat and their uncle has a story about something happening that may have never happened.

Fuck cabelas, use the companies actual website and support them without donating to some assholes commission.

http://www.swarovskioptik.com/hunting

There is a reason every 'AMA i work at a gunstore' thread ends in shit posting. Theyre just like used car salesmen.

>>34226619
yuro gunsmith here

I have the 2,5-10x56 Z4i on my Steyr and it's in my opinion only surpassed by the Z6i and Z8i and Zeiss Victory models.
You cannot go wrong with Swarovski.

And at least over here their customer service is nothing short of incredible.

>customer lost parts of the elevation turret of his old ass Swarovski Habicht Nova
>email Swarovski asking if they've got spare parts, unfortunately don't have any parts numbers
>they keep sending parts till we have everything.
>and they did it for FREE

>>34226974
This. I've worked on probably 20 of their optics and have yet to have any beef with them. Not a shill just being serious. Thanks eurogunsmithbroh.

Zeiss is a fucking brand unlike others. Leupold, swarovski, they are literally top of the line and anything you get from them is not only top of the line but ensured for life. Dont fuck with cabelas though. Seriously. Seriously anon that's the only stipulation, buy from them directly. Dont fuck with cabela tards.

File: IMG_5064.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>but would it be stupid to put a $2000 scope on an $1100 hunting rifle?
My Ruger 10/22 has a Magpul stock, Magpul sling, BX trigger, Green Mountain fluted bull barrel, Aimpoint Pro red dot, and a Tactical Solutions mag release, NoDak Spud front and rear sights. So basically I have $1000 worth of parts on a $100 rifle.

File: 1495945012407.jpg (83KB, 400x399px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 400x399px

>>34227126
>this unironic post
and this is why they call 10/22s money pits boys. This retard would probably ask 800 dollars for this fucking ruger 10 22 that he wasted his time effort ad money on instead of making and actually viable rifle for the same price!
Come one come all to the greatest retard extravaganza!

>>34227171
Why isn't it viable?

>>34227171
>neet reaction image

And that's why your opinion is garbage.

File: poorfags.jpg (618KB, 1256x1112px) Image search: [Google]

618KB, 1256x1112px

>>34227171

>>34226063
If you have the money, no, but you could probably just buy a cheaper one and just be happy, depending on how long of a range you shoot at.

I just picked up a $300 SWFA SS 10-42 and I love it, but I don't hunt, only target shoot.

>>34226063
I feel some people say spend half the cost of your gun, others say double. It's all about context.
Would I put a cheap 100 dollar red for on my 10/22?
Yeah probably
Would I put a cheap 100 dollar scope on my LMT?
Hell no
Would I put a 200 dollar scope on my Mosin?
Maybe, I bought it for 60 dollars

File: a fucking ramp.jpg (52KB, 746x560px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 746x560px

>>34227126
y tho

>>34227190
Simply the cartidges performance doesn't mean the expectations of anything bigger than a single coyote let alone self defense.

All be-it 22 is low recoil high capacity, short range kind of shit; but that's not always what people are looking for.

Enjoy shooting your paper from 50m while the rest of us are trying to hit dinner plates at 400m with irons. Aftermarket is just as much a cancer as a blessing.

>>34227210
So you're not a poorfag if you fanboy out and spend all your money on only one plinking gun... gotcha.
Diversify bonds anon wtf

>>34227223
Holy shit chill your autism it's for punching paper not yotes you fucking nerd.

22lr is plenty viable for target shooting at 400m in low wind.

File: DSCF9355.jpg (812KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

812KB, 2048x1536px

>>34227236
>and spend all your money on only one plinking gun
It's not like I don't have other plinking guns and it's hardly spending all my money.

>>34227011
I had no intention of buying it there. I just wanted to compare them in person.

>>34226063
As much as you want, but probably not less than 200, for a new optic.

200 - ∞

>>34227244
>Holy shit chill your autism it's for punching paper not yotes you fucking nerd.
Said who. I assumed we were talking about a scope for a rifle that would see actual use and not just babying/range use... But if you assume I'm autistic but claiming that 22 is fine for 400m shooting... please educate me.

>>34227329
Ill do you double.
https://youtu.be/Fg808TYc2Ao

>>34227425
Do you have any source of more than one account in almost completely still wind.
>doesn't move the gong or do anything but break paper
Why are we talking about this as a hunting/lethal round again?.....

>>34227425
>the one guy who goes out of his way to make precision shots
>'bruh this is everyday shit for 22 shooters, 1000 yards, 1200 yards, whatever'
lmao are you fucking stupid. two hours of setting up and planning could make a handgun hit gongs at 500y

>>34227425
hey wait you know like 99.999999 of the firearms community cant reach anything even 1/10th the shots hes making rite? do you even shoot guns?

>>34226063
SWFA SS 10x42 is the best until $1000 range price.

>>34227526
u just admitted that ur a shit shot and also poor

Expect to pay double on the scope then on the rifle. Maybe 2.5

People spend waaaay too much on rifles that they never get close to shooting well.

However you don't have zoom vision.

>>34228116
I like how you're telling me what I want to hear.

I put a 4500$ leupold on my crossman 1377. Is this reasonable?
The scope manual says its accurate to 3000 yards but i can never hit anything at that distance. Do i need to pump it more?

>>34227126
This is totally fine. If you love your 10/22 and don't want a more expensive gun, there's no reason to not make it even better for you.

>>34229757
>and don't want a more expensive gun,
I have more expensive guns.
>>34227268
the one on the left is a .308

>>34229149
lol u gone be pumpin all damn week if u wanna hit that shit lil nigga

File: 10 Savage Ashbury Precision.png (94KB, 900x176px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 900x176px

I am picking up a 10 Savage Ashbury Precision soon. I don't know much about the quality of scopes but a friend was recommending a Zeiss HD5 5-25x50 or a Nightforce 5.5-22x56 NXS. Main use would be targets/hunting/prepping because i spend too much time on /pol/. Do either of those sound reasonable or am I going to throw a few .308s down range and pop a lens out?

>>34230281
both of those are good scopes and are going to cost you a decent amount of cash

>>34230307
Both are within the budget since crypto is skyrocketing.

>>34226063
OK OP, most people here don't own 2000+ USD scopes, and they probably don't shoot past 200M. There are about 10-15 people on this board who actually own 2000+USD scopes, and I'm one of them. I'm going to tell you exactly what you're paying for when you shell out the "big bucks" and what to really look for in a long range (tactical) scope. (My experience is with tactical shooting including ranging)

1) decide if you want FFP or SFP. It's not impossible to range with SFP, but I prefer FFP for a wider applicable zoom range when ranging unknown targets.

2) It's not all about light transmission, clarity, and the lack of distortion. Although in the 2000+ range, light transmission is typically excellent and optical aberrations are well controlled. In other words, all high end scopes (at least the ones I've used) exceed the minimal level of glass quality to make a scope usable. What differentiates scopes in tactical settings are A) the accuracy of tracking B) eye relief C) durability. So basically, you're really looking at usability here, not who has the scope equivalent of a Zeiss Otus.

tl;dr? If you don't zoom or don't range, get a 500 dollar scope. If you do, and you expect rough use, you need to go into the 4 digits.

>>34230281

You won't break either of those with .308 unless you put them infront of the muzzle.