So can we talk about budget optics for a second? > you always

You're right, just buy Leupold scopes. Even rich white safari hunters who spend tens of thousands on weapons and scopes tote of Leupold's durability and functionality.

>>35014401
I don't trust you, it sounds like you are ironically shilling.

>>35014421
I'm not, Leupold makes high end to common man scopes. Their 3-400 dollar scopes are what you're looking for.
Isn't this what you wanted anyways? Someone to tell you that you're right and what brands sell affordable and reliable scopes?

>>35014438
No, I want to know why high end scores are shilled so hard when they are completely unnecessary.

>>35014359
Burris scopes are as nice and bright as Leopolds, have the same lifetime warrantee, are made in the US, and run $150+.

>>35014448
Because it's a hobby and they are nice to have when you have the budget to afford them. Men spend far more money on different hobbies trust me.

>>35014359
>> you always pay twice as much for the scope as you did for the gun
literally nobody says this

Scopes should cost half the value of your rifle max. Period. Anything more and you're overpaying. The best glass in the world won't make a piece of shit rifle into a precision shooter.

Is the SWFA Super Sniper a meme, or is it as good a value as people say?

Also, Vortex Diamondback: Yay or nay?

I'm thinking of one of these, or a Leupold VX-2, for my Ruger Predator.

>>35014359
if it zeros and holds a zero, it will work, cost be dammed.

>>35014484
The SS is literally the best value scope you can easily obtain if you buy them used from samplelist. The only better values are buying used from retarded fudds and getting scopes for free or due to pricing errors.

If you buy them new they're on par with vortex or leupold stuff, maybe slightly better.

>>35014462
Yea, but the thing is i see people telling this retarded shit to soccer moms buying an axis for their kid's Christmas.

It's not like people say this to this shit to guys dropping over a grand on a brand new xbolt.

>>35014483
Some retard says this every time I hold a gun at bass pro, not just the clerks either.

>>35014359
Just get a PA scope. They have a variety now, for different purposes, and all the options. Swfa is still the go to for great quality beginner scopes, but now that PA has their shit out for a while, I would recommend them over SWFA unless you want a fixed power

File: wy2523fs.jpg (586KB, 616x1600px)

586KB, 616x1600px

>>35014359
I paid like 200 something for my leo scout scope...works just fine for me

If you want a long range scope for target shooting, your budget options are:
-SWFA 10x or 16x or 20x
-Primary Arms FFP Mil-mil 4-14x44

The next thing beyond that is slightly better at the Vortex PST FFP 6-24 gen1 or their gen2 5-25 PST. Get the EBR2C.

Anything beyond that is past diminishing returns and not (IMO) worth it unless you've burnt out 3+ barrels and are a fucking great shot.

>>35014742
So this would be a good option, then?
https://swfa.com/catalog/product/view/id/111420/

>>35014742
What about hunting whitetail?

Just a bushnell 3-9 junker?

>>35014453
>as bright

I've used alot of Leupolds and burris's, and that is not even remotely true

>>35014805
/looks stubborn

They look the same to ME. Actually the only scope I ever used that was brighter was a Nikon, not a Leo.

>>35014833
Well alright. If it works for you. Nikons are pretty good too, but I didn't notice a marked difference between them and Leupold. Also, Leupolds are made in Oregon

>>35014510
That's because:
1. Nobody likes soccermoms. Including other soccermoms.
2. They're gullible enough to believe it and either rich enough or fiscally irresponsible enough to go ahead and buy way too much scope, and everybody knows it

And yes, people tell that to the guy buying the $1000 hunting rifle too. Why do you think things like the VX-6, Z6i, the entire Huskemaw line, NF SHV, etc exist?

>>35014359
>most hunters don't need a 1000 dollar infrared scope with surround sound and a cup holder.
You're right, but they do need clear glass with good coatings, and that doesn't come cheap.

t. Swarovskifag.

>>35014484
The Super Sniper is one of the better entry-level target/tactical scopes. It's a no-bullshit fixed power scope that does one thing very well and nothing else.

I personally would spend the extra $100 to get a Vortex Viper HS, it's an all-around upgrade (cheapest scope with true ED glass, which can matter) for not much more money and comes in better magnification ranges for most hunting (IE, 2.5-10x).

>>35014852
Not all of them, not any more. If it's not a VX-R or Mk-series it's made in the Philippines now.

>>35014940
Gay. well at least I'm in the clear.

And at least it isn't China.

Go to a LGS or Cabelas and look through some scopes.

Look at one scope that's $100. Look at another scope that's $400. Look at another that's $1000.

The differences are highly distinct. The more a scope costs, the better it looks and performs. More time and effort went into ensuring it was built well, more money went into the glass to ensure it has a good and clear image.

Most rifles will shoot 1 MOA or something well enough and by and far are pretty similar.

A $200 Savage Axis will perform just as well as a $1000 Sako.

You won't hit shit at 1000 yards with a $200 muddy and foggy scope, but you'll hit it all the time with a $1000 clear scope.

>>35014359
>implying $1k is a large sum of money when it comes to optics

Honestly if you used the internet just a bit, you could find some decent options starting at around $250+. You can find some absolute garbage for $500+ as well. Just do a bit of research before you buy.

>>35014756
No. Get https://swfa.com/swfa-ss-hd-10x42-tactical-30mm-riflescope.html - First focal plane, fixed 10, mildot reticle/adjustments. The problem with yours is it adjusts by 1/4" instead of mils - if you are doing real shooting you'll need to be able to do holds w/ your reticle or dial it out with your adjustments

>>35014359
>you don't NEED
There's that word again.
Sure, you will do just fine with a Bushnell on a brightly lit 100 yard indoor range.
But I can clearly see the difference between a low-end Nikon, Leupold and my Kahles, plus there's a lot of features you won't find on a cheap scope. Now I don't think dropping 2.5k was necessary for my intended purpose but I don't regret it. Unless it goes on a long range (500+) rig, I'd be fine with scopes in the 1000-1500 range. However I will never buy something in the 300$ range, I dont need eye cancer.

>>35015070
> Now I don't think dropping 2.5k was necessary for my intended purpose
If your intended purpose was jacking off over it maybe.

You clearly do not regard weapons as tools, why should anyone care what you think?

You gonna shoot rabbits and stomp through swamps hunting alligators with that 2500 dollar scope?

How big was the rack on that paper deer you shot the other day bruh?

>>35014987
Like most things, there's a point of diminishing returns. After a certain point you're seeing SIGNIFICANT jumps in price for very little if any gain in quality. For scopes, it's in the lower third of the price range (which is still ~$600, since some scopes run up to $3000+).

I own nice scopes, I own ultra-gucci scopes, and I own cheap POS beater scopes. I can cay with absolute certainty my $500 Viper HS 2.5-10x has clearer glass than my $900 Leupold Mk 4 1.5-5x, and is "close enough" to my $1800 Huskemaw to only be able to tell in really crappy conditions. Are there other features that justify big jumps in cost besides glass clarity? Fuck yeah, reticle choice alone has caused me to opt for a $300 more expensive optic over the cheaper option. Good turrets are worth their weight in gold, custom turrets are worth several times their weight in platinum for long-range hunters.

>>35014359
it's mostly shit
an expensive scope is nice, but a cheap scope that holds its zero will be fine for most. hitting a deer/elk sized target at 100 yards isn't hard, and you don't "need" a high end scope to do it. when you get into situations where your optic is preventing you from making a shot, that's when you should consider an upgrade.
>t. used irons/bushnell scope for many successful years of hunting deer and coyotes

>>35014781
if it holds its zero after firing your gun, it'll work

>>35015095
t. mad he can't afford nice things just because he wants to

>>35016993
If I spent 2500 on a plinker I would uncritically kill myself dude.

You better have that thing on a Barrett 82a1 shooting ragheads every weekend or you wasted your fucking money.

>$1200 night vision scope
How adorable, you think that's a real thing.

But to answer your question OP, you are indeed correct. For what most people use them for, yes a $200 Bushnell will be just fine and dandy. However there is a market for people who need $4000 optics, and yes, most of the people who buy them don't need them.

>>35017070
To be fair 1200 dollars would buy someone an AN/PVS-4 which while out of date and the size of a watermelon is a pretty big jump up from waving a flashlight around in the dark. Would I claim the PVS-4 is a capable hunting scope? Not exactly, but if all you're doing is zapping hogs and coyotes it's adequate and in a pinch you could unmount it and beat something to death with the big bastard.

I don't have much in the world of scopes, I've always been on the assumption that one should do their research and find a scope that meets their own personal intersection of affordability and capability. That may be Swarovski for some and Primary Arms for another, just don't buy an NCstar and expect it to be a world-beater. I'm a giant fucking autist however and my scopes usually end up era correct for my rifles, so I deal with Kollmorgen, Litschert, Unertl, Weaver, Zeiss, and Bausch & Lomb. Current rifle is a 6.5x55 varmint rifle in a 1960's Weatherby style stock with a 6-24x FFP B&L external adjustment scope.

>>35014453
Burris is dim and blurry compared to Leopold, as well as being heavier and having tons of scope shadow.

Burris is not known to lose zero or be flimsy, and despite some out of spec ring-base connections (pry em open) I love using their weaver z ring.

>>35014359
That post made me laugh

>>35014940
False.

All of them are made in the US.

>>All Leupold riflescopes are given an individual serial number. Counterfeit scopes often use a fake serial number, all identical serial numbers, or incorrect numbering convention. If you find a scope that is suspect, simply write down the serial number and call 1-800-LEUPOLD to ask if the scope is authentic. In most cases, we can confirm a scope’s authenticity by its serial number.

Leupold riflescopes are all designed, machined, and assembled in our Beaverton Oregon manufacturing facility. We do not have any other riflescope manufacturing facilities or offices anywhere in the world. So if you come across a Leupold riflescope being shipped into the United States from China, it is a very likely a counterfeit.

We encourage all consumers to protect intellectual property and combat counterfeits by reporting suspected counterfeits to www.iprcenter.gov/referral or by sending us detailed information using the Ask a Leupold Expert form and selecting “Counterfeit Issue” for the “How can we help you?” question.

File: IMG_0153.jpg (52KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1024x576px

>>35017041
>>35016993
I somehow agree with both of these posts

>>35014359
Go for a Redfield. Bought by Leupold to have a budget version for sale - made in the USA and Redfield is good quality. The price is excellent for saving some dough. Too bad they no longer make the old wideviews though - those are so fucking good.

i troll the local gun traders to lowball people on vortex pst series. so far i've had a lot of luck getting great scopes for cheap.

File: 1503602790863.png (159KB, 960x480px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 960x480px

$139.99 with coupon code STRIKEFIRE OP

They also have a $179.00 with 10pmags

http://palmettostatearmory.com/vortex-strikefire-ii-red-dot-4moa-red-green-dot.html

>>35017870
Yes, I have a Redfield 3-9x50 with Accu-Range Reticle mounted on my Weatherby Vanguard Sporter .270 Win.

It's zero'd for 200 yards and shoots magnificently.

>>35017670
Yeah so why do I work for a sporting goods store that sells new-in-box Leupold scopes hand-delivered to us by a Leupold representative, and they say "Made in the Philippines" on the boxes?

>>35014359

Lol, poorfags will never know what a good optic is like. 1000$ for an NV scope will be shit, you're still in the normal, nice magnified glass range. Nicer optics means greater clarity at range, I can see in better detail than my friend's spotting scope, significantly better at the same magnification, it means significantly better lighting which is important early and later in the day, it's brighter through it in low light than the naked eye, it means greater durability, not just broken or not broken but holding zero when struck or over time, it means more consistant MOA adjustments for dialing in to specific ranges, and lastly it means I can make fun of poorfags.

You don't have to spend on a nightforce to have a good optic though they can be worth it depending on what you're doing. The upper tier Leopolds in the $900-1300 range are great for long distance elk hunting.

Hunting inside of ~400 yards,
>>35014401
is actually right about the Leopolds in that price range. They're perfect and you will see a difference in use compared to other standard 3-9x.

Shoot with ironsights until you literally can't make thtem out

>>35014359
It's old school advice, it's not that applicable anymore. China used to only make absolute dogshit products. Now China can make some decent products. You no longer need to buy some Swiss masterpiece to get an optic that doesn't make things look like an impressionist painting past a few hundred meters.

>>35021711
They're frauds... Call Leupold and get to the bottom of this.

Good luck man.

>>35016993

No, he's right, spending that kind of money on hunting optics is dumb. There's no way I'd stick a 2.5k optic on anything other than a pampered long range rig, and for <500m hunting you've got the VX-1, Diamondback etc all around the $300 range. Gucci? No. But if you keep the features to a minimum you can bring tough, clear glass in at that price.

>>35015335
How is the huskemaw? I thought of getting one but couldn't find a reputable reviewn outside of that shitty site that shills them hard...