New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The $1500 Question
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

The $1500 Question

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  1 2>
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/22/2007 at 17:36
mwyates View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1196
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?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/22/2007 at 17:45
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8045
I think you are thinking very clear on the latter.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/22/2007 at 19:45
mwyates View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1196
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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/22/2007 at 20:00
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8045
That is an excellent combo, 3-9x42 and the Kimber. What caliber, another .260 or maybe a WSM?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/22/2007 at 20:29
wildnorthern View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: November/27/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 32
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+.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/22/2007 at 21:07
mwyates View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1196

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.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/22/2007 at 22:57
wildnorthern View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: November/27/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 32
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.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/22/2007 at 23:26
canine View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: December/31/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 38

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!!!!!



Edited by canine
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/22/2007 at 23:47
www.technika.nu View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: August/02/2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 611

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

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2007 at 01:31
gozarian View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: April/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 158
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!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2007 at 03:12
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10966
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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2007 at 07:35
CBM SC View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: February/19/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 11

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 !!

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2007 at 07:36
jonbravado View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: October/05/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1131

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

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2007 at 08:11
mwyates View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1196
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2007 at 08:16
jonbravado View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: October/05/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1131

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

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2007 at 11:13
wildnorthern View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: November/27/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 32

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.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2007 at 11:27
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555
With a budget of 1500 I would prefer to spend 500 on the rifle and 1000 on the scope and mounts.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2007 at 11:55
Urimaginaryfrnd View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Resident Redneck

Joined: June/20/2005
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Points: 13875
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2007 at 12:59
mwyates View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1196

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.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2007 at 15:41
Obi Wan Kenobi View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/21/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 186

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.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2007 at 16:18
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555

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 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!

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2007 at 16:44
www.technika.nu View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: August/02/2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 611

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

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2007 at 18:21
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856

 

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

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2007 at 19:30
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436

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."



Edited by lucznik
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2007 at 19:51
Narrow Gap View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: August/16/2006
Location: Afghanistan
Status: Offline
Points: 125
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.
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "The $1500 Question"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Best value at $1500 price point CornFedHusker Rifle Scopes 10
BEST SCOPE BELLOW $1500 MARKET PRICE EMIN007 Rifle Scopes 4
best tactical/hunting scope under $1500 EMIN007 Rifle Scopes 3
A do all scope for $1500? SavageHunter11 Rifle Scopes 15
$1,500 for Elk Rifle and Scope mwyates Rifle Scopes 7 12/18/2005 12:01:17 PM
Nightvision question zunrj5 Tactical Scopes 1 12/19/2005 3:48:23 PM
RIng Height Question twilson Rifle Scopes 2 1/18/2006 3:24:12 PM
IOR illuminated reticle question. bluetentacle Tactical Scopes 3 1/9/2006 3:05:56 PM
Bushnell 4200 6x24 40mm--question ceylonc Rifle Scopes 4 11/20/2006 9:23:28 AM
Question about 20 MOA base and 22-250 Sc00ter Rings and bases 3 2/20/2007 10:49:36 AM


This page was generated in 0.328 seconds.