Print Page | Close Window

The $1500 Question

Printed From: OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc.
Category: Scopes
Forum Name: Rifle Scopes
Forum Description: Centerfire long gun scopes
URL: http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=5949
Printed Date: March/29/2024 at 10:01
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: The $1500 Question
Posted By: mwyates
Subject: The $1500 Question
Date Posted: February/22/2007 at 17:36
I've been looking at all these scopes that are $1500 or more and I just keep thinking I can buy a nice rifle and scope for that.  I know they are really good and all but if I was going to spend $1500 I think I'd have to by a $900-1000 rifle, something different from what I have, and a $500-600 scope to go on it.  Am I not thinking clearly here?



Replies:
Posted By: tahqua
Date Posted: February/22/2007 at 17:45
I think you are thinking very clear on the latter.


Posted By: mwyates
Date Posted: February/22/2007 at 19:45
Or, if you really want to go all out on a scope, how about $650 for a Kahles KX and $850 for a Kimber 84 or 8400?  Can anybody give me a good reason to spend it all on a xope instead?  Except Chris, of course.  He'd have a good reason


Posted By: tahqua
Date Posted: February/22/2007 at 20:00
That is an excellent combo, 3-9x42 and the Kimber. What caliber, another .260 or maybe a WSM?


Posted By: wildnorthern
Date Posted: February/22/2007 at 20:29
Better yet, buy a tikka versus the kimber and save another $200 or you could save money buying a savage if you don't mind an ugly gun, lol.  Kimbers are nice but are known to be inconsistant for accuracy.  Some are sub moa, others are moa+.


Posted By: mwyates
Date Posted: February/22/2007 at 21:07

I've got 2 Kimber 260's, so I'd probably get an 8400 in 30-06.

 

I've had 7 Kimbers and all shot great.  I haven't heard about any accuracy problems.  I've looked at Tikkas and they just look cheap to me; like a bunch of parts stuck together that don't match.



Posted By: wildnorthern
Date Posted: February/22/2007 at 22:57
Originally posted by mwyates mwyates wrote:

I've got 2 Kimber 260's, so I'd probably get an 8400 in 30-06.

 

I've had 7 Kimbers and all shot great.  I haven't heard about any accuracy problems.  I've looked at Tikkas and they just look cheap to me; like a bunch of parts stuck together that don't match.

 

Spend time talking with guys into accuracy and you will hear plenty of complaints about kimbers.  I hear more negative things about kimber accuracy then positive.  Hear nothing but good things about savage and tikka accuracy for medium priced guns and hear all positive for sako which would be in the same range as kimber.



Posted By: canine
Date Posted: February/22/2007 at 23:26

A wise man once told me that a rifle is only as good as the scope that you put on it!!!!!

 

If your optics fail you have a very expensive club to swing at your game!!!!!



Posted By: www.technika.nu
Date Posted: February/22/2007 at 23:47

Mywates

 

If you are buying on a budget why do you then buying new stuff? or want to buy brand new?

 

I have always bought on a budged and by buying second hand I always end up with owning my higher value items than I would if it's brand new.

If you of some reason would have to sell, then you will get your money back if you bought it second hand, but new NO.

 

So the question of getting a 1500 scope or a 500 $ scope is all about if you want big field of view, sharpest possible image, good low light capabilities.

 

It's not that a 500$ scope is as good as a 1500$, you normally gets what you pay for.

If you gets used to the optical quality from the big best european houses, you would never ask this question.

 

So I sugest that you borrow out some scopes and try them against each others, espesially in low light.

 

Regards Technika

 



Posted By: gozarian
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 01:31
Wildnorthern has got it down, those Tikka T3 Lites in stainless are the cats a_s!  You can pick one up for under $600 and get a new Kahles KX on it with a set of Talley Lightweight (2 piece ring/base combo) and really get it done!  Bang for the buck, they are flat out the best rifles going!


Posted By: koshkin
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 03:12
I think you are  pretty much right on with this one, mwyates.  For a hunting rifle, I do not think there is a truly compelling reason for a $1500 scope unless, the price difference is irrelevant to you.

ILya


Posted By: CBM SC
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 07:35

I just went through a lot of this getting a new rifle !!

 

I wanted a Kimber Montana .7mm WSM with a Ziess Diavari 3x12x56 !! I was going to sell several guns I don't use and a target bow to get it !!

 

Started researching and realized the .7mm WSM is not the best WSM choice . Figured out the Kimber may not be the ultimate tack driver for the money !! Scope was the toughest call..........still kinda want that scope !!

 

I ended up with a Tikka T3 Lite stainless .270 WSM ($499) and picked up a display model Swarovski PV 3x12x50-30 mm ($1000) !! I am very happy with it so far ..........but I could have saved another $300-$700 by getting a Meopta Meostar(3x12x56) or Nikon Monarch(3.5x10x50) on sale .............and really could probably tell no practical difference in performance !!

 

Thinking about the Tikka T3 for $499 and Nikon for $305 ...........sure makes me think that would be a hell of a gun for roughly $800 !!



Posted By: jonbravado
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 07:36

if i had the money and wanted the best bang for the buck, IMO, of course:

 

TIKKA T3 - lots of choices of caliber, synthetic or wood (beautiful, no less)

absolutely accurate (with guarantee), wonderful action and trigger.

under 600 bucks, usually. synthetics are around 450 or so.

 

Moestar OR Kahles KX series: 500 - 700 depending.

bright and beautiful.

 

leupold mounts - 60 bucks

 

mounted and boresited, ready to go: around 1250 - 1400 bucks.

 

i just spent 1250 on mine and couldn't be happier w/ the setup.

 

but you know, if i had the money, i would buy zeiss diavari's for all my weapons ;)

 

J



Posted By: mwyates
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 08:11
I know the Tikka is a good rifle, I just couldn't get past the appearance.  Looks like the receiver, barrel, and the bolt are all made out of different materials and not machined very weell.  I didn't like the feel of the stock, either.  Kimber fits me perfectly.


Posted By: jonbravado
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 08:16

are you referring to the synthetic stock or wood? i think that that walnut stocks are excellent on the tikka's.

 

and the T3's action is some of the smoothest you will find. did you pick up the T3, or some other tikka?

you are the FIRST i have heard w/ a negative comment on the T3, if so..........

 

to each his own, though.

 

kimber make a fine rifle now adays, but i have held and shot some DUD kimbers before.

can't say that about tikka OR sako.

 

J



Posted By: wildnorthern
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 11:13

Sako is well known for accuracy and top of the line actions.  I am sure there are lemons but you never hear about any.  Might want to check them out.



Posted By: Trinidad
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 11:27
With a budget of 1500 I would prefer to spend 500 on the rifle and 1000 on the scope and mounts.


Posted By: Urimaginaryfrnd
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 11:55
Very few people have a need for a scope over $500. but that doesn't mean that people dont want them.  Its kind of like nobody really ---needs---- a Hummer or a Jag.  When you talk about really expensive specialty optics for the military or law enforcement there are valid reasons to spend lots of money for special features. For the rest of the world - walk closer or anti up.

-------------

"Always do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do".
Bobby Paul Doherty
Texas Ranger


Posted By: mwyates
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 12:59

It was a synthetic T3 I was looking at.  I did have to send one of my Kimbers back, an early Montana, because they had drilled the wrong size holes in the receiver for scope mounts,  They had it back to me in a little over a week, including shipping both ways.

 

I know I'm different.  I bought a T/C Encore and absolutely hated it.  Couldn't stand they way it felt in my hands.



Posted By: Obi Wan Kenobi
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 15:41

Originally posted by mwyates mwyates wrote:

I've been looking at all these scopes that are $1500 or more and I just keep thinking I can buy a nice rifle and scope for that.  I know they are really good and all but if I was going to spend $1500 I think I'd have to by a $900-1000 rifle, something different from what I have, and a $500-600 scope to go on it.  Am I not thinking clearly here?

 

Yates, its just my opinion but I would rather do things the opposite. Its like buying a brand new Ferrari 599 Fiorano then putting cheap tires on it. If someone can't buy both premium rifle & scope, I'd much rather buy a mid priced 600$ great shooting rifle such as a Remington 700 or even less on a good shooting rifle like Savage & spend 1000 on great quality glass.

 

I've seen people buy expensive rifles & huge caliburs. Things like Sako & Tikka 300 win mags then they put less than desirable glass on it & can't see anything once the sun starts to set.

 

With the way rifles & premium factory ammo are made today, most rifles shoot just fine for most any hunting situations. A 400$ Savage will put a bullet in a deer's kill zone at 200 yards just as good as a 800$ Tikka, but the same can not be said about scope quality.  A 500$ Vari X Leupold is a joke compared next to a 1000-1500 Zeiss, Swaro or Kahles.

 

So personally for me if I had to pick a combo I'd go with mid price rifle & premium scope rather than premium rifle & bargain scope.



Posted By: Trinidad
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 16:18

I definetly agree with Obi Wan on this track of thinking. Here is another great post I pulled on on this subject on a discussion we had a while ago on this same very budget for a set-up.

 

Chris Farris
TEAM SWFA - Admin
TEAM SWFA - Admin
Avatar
www.RifleScopes.com

Joined: 01/October/2003
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2430
Posted: 05/September/2006 at 16:51 | IP Logged Report Post http://www.opticstalk.com/edit_post.asp?M=Q&PID=26365&TPN=4">Quote Chris Farris

lucznik wrote:

Is your .300 win mag a $300 budget Savage or a $2000 Weatherby?

 

There's little point in spending around $2K to top the Savage off with a Swarovski and you also should not cripple the fine Weatherby with an $80 Simmons.

 

With many exceptions, the general rule I have gone by is that a scope should cost at least 1/2 as much, though not more than 2X as much as the rifle onto which it is being mounted.

 

I have to respectfully disagree.

 

If you had $1500. total to spend, which would you choose.

A.  Savage / Swarovski

B.  Weatherby / Simmons

 

Or if you say you would never buy either, put yourself in this scenario.

 

Your hunting with two other people in your camp that have already tagged out.  It's remote with no chance or time to get to a town.  You dropped your rifle off a cliff right after you spotted a 400" elk.  You go back to camp and tell your two companions what happened and they both graciously offer you the use of their rifles simultaneously.

 

Buddy A offers you the Savage / Swarovski combo

Buddy B offers you the Weatherby / Simmons combo

 

I'm taking the Savage and both buddies to help me pack out my new trophy!



Posted By: www.technika.nu
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 16:44

I can't understand why every so often is the price on the scope put in relation to the price of the rifle.

The two things does not have with each others to do.

 

I prefer a really good scope on a sporterized mauser rifle where the scope would cost 15 times as much as the rifle, as to put a 250 dollar scope on a 500 dollar rifle.

 

Regards Technika



Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 18:21

 

Just make sure your Tikka doesn't have a stainless barrel. They had some issues.



Posted By: lucznik
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 19:30

Interesting to have one's comments taken out of context...

 

Actually I still stand by what I posted. There's little point in spending around $2K to top the Savage off with a Swarovski and you also should not cripple the fine Weatherby with an $80 Simmons. With many exceptions, the general rule I have gone by is that a scope should cost at least 1/2 as much, though not more than 2X as much as the rifle onto which it is being mounted. I should perhaps clarify that personally, I usually try to lean toward at least the middle (if not the more expensive end) of this pricing spectrum if at all possible.

 

Actually, I probably should have clarified a bit more all around (and in the above quoted thread I think I may have but, nevertheless) and so I shall here.

 

Originally posted by <SPAN =bold>www.technika.nu www.technika.nu wrote:


I can't understand why every so often is the price on the scope put in relation to the price of the rifle.

The two things does not have with each others to do.

 

They actually more to do with each other than you might think. Both a super-expensive scope on a cheap rifle and a super-cheap scope on an expensive rifle are both indicitive of the same problem: misallocation of funds.

 

For example, let's take Chris's above quoted question:

 

Originally posted by Chris Farris Chris Farris wrote:

If you had $1500. total to spend, which would you choose.

A.  Savage / Swarovski

B.  Weatherby / Simmons

 

Chris actually then gave the correct answer; Neither.  Each represents a failure to properly couple rifle and glass. In example A the owner should have put more money into his rifle, even if it meant buying a less expensive scope.  In example B he should have bought a more moderate rifle and invested the difference in better glass. With $1500 you will be far better off to spend something like $600 - $700 on each and have a nicely balanced package with high-quality being the hallmarks of each part of the system rather than spending top dollar on one part only to sacrifice quality in another.

 

Which one I would choose to borrow in the event of a catastrophic failure of my own equipment is not germane to the question of making good choices in one's own equipment purchases.

 

And as I mentioned, (then and now) there are many exceptions to this "general rule."



-------------
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?


Posted By: Narrow Gap
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 19:51
Roy that problem has been fixed by Sako/Tikka, and that problem was fixed about 3 to 4 years ago I can't recall the exact date.


Posted By: Trinidad
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 20:26

Sorry Lucznik if i took your comments out of context, I realy liked this senario/rational and post that Chris presented in relationship to set-ups

with this same budget. I failed to notice that you were also involved in this disscusion and meant nothing bad by my post. I do disagree though

that a Savage and a Swarovski is a mis-match in the way that a Weatherby and a Simmons is. It is my opinion that Savage rifles are underated

and more accurate than other rifles costing 2 to 3 times as much.



Posted By: mwyates
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 20:39
No scope ever made will make any rifle shoot better; and, you can't hit what you can't see.  We forget a lot of times what a rifle scope is for; it's not a viewing instrument, but a sighting instrument.  If you can see what you need to shoot and can do it consistently (durability) the scope has done it's job perfectly.  If you buy a great rifle and a $500, or even a $200 scope that will do that, why pay more?  Sure, a pretty picture may be nice, but if that's what you want, get your binoculars.  That's where $1500 is money well spent.


Posted By: pyro6999
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 20:44
if you have a crappy barrel in a $2000 rifle and a $1500 scope on it you still wont hit anything either.

-------------
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead"

343 we will never forget

God Bless Chris Ledoux
"good ride cowboy"


Posted By: lucznik
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 20:49
Originally posted by Trinidad Trinidad wrote:

Sorry Lucznik if i took your comments out of context, I realy liked this senario/rational and post that Chris presented in relationship to set-ups with this same budget. I failed to notice that you were also involved in this disscusion and meant nothing bad by my post.

 

No worries.

 

 

 



-------------
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?


Posted By: www.technika.nu
Date Posted: February/24/2007 at 00:07

Originally posted by mwyates mwyates wrote:

No scope ever made will make any rifle shoot better; and, you can't hit what you can't see.  We forget a lot of times what a rifle scope is for; it's not a viewing instrument, but a sighting instrument.  If you can see what you need to shoot and can do it consistently (durability) the scope has done it's job perfectly.  If you buy a great rifle and a $500, or even a $200 scope that will do that, why pay more?  Sure, a pretty picture may be nice, but if that's what you want, get your binoculars.  That's where $1500 is money well spent.

 

Depends what you hunt, where I hunt its not much point of going out with a 200 dollar scope as you wouldent be able to see anything as it's to dark.

Since the Wild Boar made the reappearance in this part of the country (we are allowed to hunt in the middle of the night) many people have upgraded their guns with best quality scopes.

I would also go that far to say that the ratio is probably 1:10 if we compare the number of owners of best quality scopes to lower grades. 10 Zeiss/swarovski on every low grade scope.

 

When it comes to binoculars those are extemely easy compared to scopes to buy second handed for a low price.

At least if you want a good low light glass.

One of the strongest glass ever is the 7x50 Zeiss BGA, that is used in many military organisations as well as coast guard, and many of those have been manufactured so the second hand price if very low.

Usally they go for around 400-500 dollars second hand.

Here is one:

http://cgi.ebay.de/Fernglas-Zeiss-West-7x50_W0QQitemZ290084047531QQihZ019QQcategoryZ26079QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem - http://cgi.ebay.de/Fernglas-Zeiss-West-7x50_W0QQitemZ2900840 47531QQihZ019QQcategoryZ26079QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZVi ewItem

 

Regards Technika



Posted By: wildnorthern
Date Posted: February/24/2007 at 05:41

Your rants on savage make me laugh, day in a day out ANY savage will out shoot ANY weatherby, remington, ruger, winchester, kimber or browning.  Yeah they aren't pretty or prestigious but tack drivers nonetheless.  I don't own a savage or plan on buying one but I do have great respect for there accuracy/quality.  

 

Buying a weatherby is like buying a corvette with a prism motor in it.  You spend a lot of money but the performance just isn't there.

 

 



Posted By: tahqua
Date Posted: February/24/2007 at 06:21
Originally posted by wildnorthern wildnorthern wrote:

Your rants on savage make me laugh, day in a day out ANY savage will out shoot ANY weatherby, remington, ruger, winchester, kimber or browning.  Yeah they aren't pretty or prestigious but tack drivers nonetheless.  I don't own a savage or plan on buying one but I do have great respect for there accuracy/quality.  

 

Buying a weatherby is like buying a corvette with a prism motor in it.  You spend a lot of money but the performance just isn't there.

 

 

 



Posted By: wildnorthern
Date Posted: February/24/2007 at 06:36
Originally posted by tahqua tahqua wrote:

Originally posted by wildnorthern wildnorthern wrote:

Your rants on savage make me laugh, day in a day out ANY savage will out shoot ANY weatherby, remington, ruger, winchester, kimber or browning.  Yeah they aren't pretty or prestigious but tack drivers nonetheless.  I don't own a savage or plan on buying one but I do have great respect for there accuracy/quality.  

 

Buying a weatherby is like buying a corvette with a prism motor in it.  You spend a lot of money but the performance just isn't there.

 

 

 

 

You best talk to folks, gunsmiths and do some reading cause that statement is just plane ignorant.  I can see how one would be defensive though.



Posted By: tahqua
Date Posted: February/24/2007 at 06:55

I know the Savage's are shooters, see them at the club all the time. But any day against any gun is pretty tough to swallow. I know better because I see it, and that's not being defensive about any particular gun. There are shooters in every brand. Savage has just happened to come up with a winner and I am glad for them. They have upped the ante for all the manufacturers.

MWY wants a Kimber and that is far better than a Savage IMO. The lines are cleaner, the wood is much nicer and the gun has a classic action. Whether it is less or more accurate can be debated to no end. I know Kimber shooters who get sub MOA groups everytime with factory fodder. For a hunting gun that's all one can ask. That's a smart $1500 every way in my book.



Posted By: canine
Date Posted: February/24/2007 at 07:46

Just spend alot of money and have the exact gun you want made for you!!  Chris is awesome,  a really down to earth guy and willing to take all the time in the world to talk to you on the phone and walk you through all of your options.

 

http://www.longshotriflesllc.com - www.longshotriflesllc.com

 

He is building one for me right now.

  • 300 WSM
  • Winchester mod 70 action new Pre 64 style
  • Broughton 7.1 contour 5c barrel
  • McMillan A-5 stock
  • Badger brake and badger bolt knob

 

This will be sitting just below the new IOR Valdada 4-14X50 Tactical illuminated MP* that I just ordered!  Now all I have to do is wait.



Posted By: tahqua
Date Posted: February/24/2007 at 08:54

Nice website, canine. Show us some pics when you get set up. Sounds like a nice stick you'll have. Those bolt knobs seem to be a hot item right now.



Posted By: wildnorthern
Date Posted: February/24/2007 at 08:57

No arguement from me, savages aren't pretty to look at and doubt I will ever buy one.  You don't have to do much searching to see savage or tikka win most out of the box accuracy tests.  Most shots at 100 yards and under any gun will do. 

 

If I wasn't buying a ceasar guerini maxum I would be placing my order for a sako.  I like the nicer stuff too



Posted By: tahqua
Date Posted: February/24/2007 at 09:19

Ceasar Guerini does for stack barrels what Kimbers and the like do for rifles. Nice wood and blue is always pleasing on the eyes.

That maxum is way over the $1500 limit, though.



Posted By: ceylonc
Date Posted: February/24/2007 at 11:41

I guess there are a lot of factors that go into the "value' of a rifle, both functional and cosmetic.  I for one love the look of Kimbers and hope to one day own one.  However, I don't have the nuts to order a brand new one and hope that it's good.  I'll probably buy one used from a friend/acquaintence where I've see the accuracy that particular can produce...

 

With this said, I have to say that Savage is an amazing value IF out of the box accuracy is of prime importance.  However, their synthetic stocks, while functional, are crap from a cosmetic standpoint and I can see where it would turn off a lot of shooters who value beautiful wood, clean lines, etc.  I personally own two Savages and both are tack drivers.  I got rid of the tupperware stock on each & went with Bell & Carlson aftermarket stocks that are every bit as good or better as the synthetic factory models used on Tikka, Winchester, etc.

 

My problem now is that the "custom" bug has bitten me!  I built a 6.5x285 out of a Stevens 200 action & Lothar Walther barrel.  Now I am lusting after custom builds from the likes of Chris @ Long Shot Rifles and George @ GAP.  BIG TIME EXPENSIVE for me (over $2,500).  What keeps me in check is the fact that both Savage rifles are already shooting 5-shot groups @ 100yds at just under 1".  Sub MOA out of a factory barrel at 20% of the cost of a custom job that might give me .5" MOA.  Hard to justify an additional $2K unless you just want a prettier rifle with pedigree...



Posted By: tahqua
Date Posted: February/24/2007 at 12:03
Versus the Ceasar Guerini the Long shot is a deal and the Kimber is a steal. It's pretty amazing what you can put together, optics and rifle, for the price compared to a stack barrel. The 8400 and Kahles comes in cheaper than most Citori and Beretta OU's. That is good value.


Posted By: lucznik
Date Posted: February/24/2007 at 14:01
Originally posted by wildnorthern wildnorthern wrote:

Your rants on savage make me laugh, day in a day out ANY savage will out shoot ANY weatherby, remington, ruger, winchester, kimber or browning.  Yeah they aren't pretty or prestigious but tack drivers nonetheless.  I don't own a savage or plan on buying one but I do have great respect for there accuracy/quality.  

 

Buying a weatherby is like buying a corvette with a prism motor in it.  You spend a lot of money but the performance just isn't there.

 

I'm not sure that using Savage as an example of a low-budget gun quite qualifies it as a "rant."  I never said that they can't shoot well or that it would be a mistake for someone to buy one.  I simply alluded to the fact that they are very much budget-class rifles and therefore, it would be a bit unbalanced to mount one with a scope costing $2000+. Whether or not they are "more accurate" then other makers out of the box remains a question that has never been researched in a difinitive or scientifically valid way so; I'll refrain from making (or accepting) any outlandish claims.

 

That being said, I personally, have never seen a Savage that did anything for me.  Fit and finish has always proved very sloppy,   build quality has always appeared to be lacking (at best,) the laser etching on the bolt has always struck me as tacky, the "accutrigger" looks ridiculous (which is not to say it doesn't work, just that it's unsightly,) and in short, they are just down-right ugly rifles. Sure, I've read about how wonderfully accurate they are but then again, I've also read where Simmons, Tasco, BSA, and the like make "world-class" optics. The Savage's "legendary accuracy" has certainly not inspired very many to place it on their list of "most coveted" firearms. If they had, it would command a higher price.



-------------
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?


Posted By: tahqua
Date Posted: February/24/2007 at 17:59
Back to clear thinking, I think I am going to by a "Black Betty" of some sort. Preferably an M700 VS but a PSS will do for the right price. I am going to put TPS mounts on it with a 10X SS. My 25 year old HK91 has left me with a ton of brass, dented with the fluting burns, and I have the .308 dies. That should get me in well under $1500 and I think it will be the whip!


Posted By: jonbravado
Date Posted: February/26/2007 at 09:15

i am of the school of if i have 1500 bucks - spend 600-700 on the rifle and sink the rest into the best glass i can afford.

 

in defense of savage.......i recall reading an article in field and stream or outdoor world, or something - where they compared

browing A-bolt - savage bolt - remington 700 - and maybe one other like winchester or something.  savage outshot them all.

 

i have owned savages and haven't had a lemon yet - and for the money (THAT's the key) they are remarkable.

 

if i had all the money in the world for a HUNTING rifle.......i would still buy tikka or sako, though.....and invest in the highend glass.

 

sub MOA guaranteed is more than adequate for me.

 

my 2 cents.

 

J



Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: February/26/2007 at 11:07

Regardless of the rifle's cost or quality level, there's a minimum base level of scope I would mount on any rifle, even a cheap rifle:  the Elite 4200, VX-III, Monarch, etc. "mid range" class of scopes in the $250 - $600 price bracket.  I will occasionally buy a much more expensive scope, but almost never one below that level, because I've become accustomed to the level of optical performance that class of scopes provide.  When I spend more than that on a scope, it's generally because I have some specialized need that a $1200+ scope is significantly better able to fulfill, justifying the extra expense in my mind.  Otherwise, if I had a $1500 budget for rifle and scope, I'd personally spend about $900 on the rifle and $600 on the scope and mounts, or maybe $750 for both rifle and scope.  A good quality $600-class scope in a suitable configuration will not be a handicap under any conceivable "normal" hunting situation in North America.  If I were hunting at night, I'd be more inclined to spend $1000 on the scope and $500 on the rifle, but for the average big game hunting rifle, I don't feel at all like I'm risking a once in a lifetime shot by wandering into the vast wilderness with only an Elite 4200 mounted on my rifle.



-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: jonbravado
Date Posted: February/27/2007 at 12:40

+1 on the elite 4200 - i have brutally mistreated mine and it holds up just fine

same w/ the zeiss conquest.

 

i haven't roughed up my nikons or meopta yet, but i am not gonna put on my kids gloves with em either. hehehe.

 

bottom line: GOOD scopes are a lot tougher (with good mounts, of course) than people think.

 

J




Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net