I'm looking to replace one of my rifle scopes and was wondering what everyone top 10 best and the worst rifle scope brands are.
Going strictly by ones that I've actually owned, here's a few of each:
Best- Nightforce, Weaver, Burris
Worst- Barska, BSA, anything that I've bought on a package gun, and Barska. Did I mention Barska??
Middle - Leupold (vx1's), Swift, Millett, lower-end Bushnells, Tasco, Simmons
ive only owned 3 brands of scopes.
first and worst barska....it was on a AR-15 and first round fired the front glass fell out
second was a leupold...it was nice but had sort of a gold tint to the glass and was a little fuzzy around the edges at higher powers
third and best IMHO nightforce...i own two and will never buy anything but nightforce
Best and worst in what price range? For what purpose?
Optics are not truly linear. Best at 300 is very different than best at 3K.
You could probably say that the worst is always going to be the cheap crap barska/simmons/ bsa/most anything you find at wall mart. However there are great cheap scopes and there are very expensive scopes you could not pay me to use or are just not suitable for how I use it.
Best for bechrest? Best for kicking down doors? Best for shooting 1.5 miles? Best for cramming behind the seat of your old farm truck? Best for sniping at night?
Then of course..........bushnell for $27 at wall mart will be among the worst but bushnell elite tactical will be among the best. Night force will be among the best unless you plan on cramming it behind the seat and then cost alone makes it one of the worst.
Your question needs a purpose to produce a reasonable answer.
In my limited personal experience best value in a hunting/general purpose scope are the Leupold VX-2 and the Redfield Revolution (a bit cheaper, also made by Leupold). Sightron makes some very good benchrest capable scopes for under $1,000. I have 2 and will soon be getting a third. If money was no object they'd all be Nightforce.
It's hard to say what's the best without knowing it's intended use. The Vortex Gen II is an excellent scope for a fair price and makes a great longrange scope but I'd hate to have it mounted on a hunting rig. I like vortex pst and razors, both gen I and gen II. I don't think you could ever find a better scope than the Nightforce NXS line. Of course SBs are great but I can't afford them. For hunting and shooting out to 300 yards the Leupolds are great. I wouldn't buy another BSA.
Price is a very good indicator of value and performance. Cheap is always cheap.
However diminishing returns apply. You can double the price of a scope and only get a small ( eg 20% ) improvement in performance and reliabilty.
I actually have to disagree with that.Originally Posted by Code4
A good scope might end up costing a grand but just because a scope cost a grand does not mean it's a good one.
I think most of us can agree that an exceptional level of quality at a given price determines value, not just quality at any price.
.
Have to agree on the diminishing returns statement.
I currently have a chance to buy a Vortex Viper HS-T 4-16 x 44 with MOA reticle. Glass seems to be very clear I can get it for $450 out the door. The only downside i can find is the eye relief seems to be VERY critical.
I would appreciate any thoughts on this scope.
FWIW it was purchased, mounted and taken off and traded in in a weeks time. Obviousley it didn't work for the Original purchaser
There are 3 kinds of people in this world. Those who can do math and those who can't
I have the 6-24x50 viper hs and it is a nice scope, decent glass and great tracking so far (only had it about a year) but the eye relief is VERY picky as you already noticed.
She does work good though and given the price and the no-bull warranty, If it looks like it may serve your application I wouldn't hesitate.
Despite it's picky eye relief: I would not hesitate to buy another one if shopping for a scope in that price range.
I really like German optics. Not cheap but great especially at first and last light.
Kahles
Zeiss
Swarovski
All make excellent hunting scopes. Nikon buck masters are good leupold vxii and vx3 are good as well. For target and tactical work vortex pst or swfa is good without breaking the bank nightforce and higher end vortex are good premier kahles or Schmidt and bender are better and march or us optics are better still. Your question is vague. The worst are barska counter sniper barska newer Simmons and tasco (some of their older scopes where really good) and BSA without knowing your budget or intended application it's hard to know what will work for you. I own leupold zeiss Swarovski burris swift vortex zeiss kahles nightforce and premier the kahles are my favorite but not everyone can or wants to drop 9-1500 on a scope I get that. The zeiss conquest line is my favorite sub 800 dollar scope.
For optical clarity and brightness (these are in order to what I see with my eyes working in sport optics EVERY single day) --Swaro, Kahles, Cabela's Instinct, Raazor, Zeiss, Leupold, Sightron, Nightforce, Viper, Burris.
Yes, I put NF that far down the list. The Instinct is the brightest and clearest scope I own and I have a really good sampling from the list above, even including the NF NXS.
More shooting, less typing.
Picky eye relief can be a symptom of magnification and budget design. Glass might seem clear but the eye relief issue can cause eye strain. Not a god thing. You will get fatigued during extended shooting sessions.
Another plug for Nightforce. However the Sightron SIII are one of the best values out there. The Sightron SII Big Sky is also a great optic for its class. I suggest that if you buy a used Sightron to check the serial number for manufacture date. The newer scopes are superior to their older optics in the SIII line.
i have owned 3 scopes in my young rifle shooting life at age 62 , one is a bushnell on my 17 hmr thats seemed satisfy me quit well , have a leupold vx3 and a hawke 30 sidewinder sf ,,,,,,, the leupold is 6 - 20 ,,,,the hawke is 4 - 16 that has an illuminated reticle , working with them on the bench getting them set up both seem nice , i have yet to shoot either,,,,,i talked to a few shooters on here and all liked there hawke scopes,,,give it a look,,,,happy shopping
That's a pretty loaded question- like a lot of others have said it really depends a lot on you eye and the intended purpose.
For example I have a buddy that shoots a very inexpensive scope on his 300WM, he's accurate and repeatable time after time.
Another buddy has a NF 8-32 BR that he swears by but I think is dull and blurry.
I had an older Tasco 3-9 on a 270 that was clear, bright and never lost 0, it was a great hunting scope.
I had a Weaver T36 that just never looked crisp to me.
I'm currently using a Vortex PST that is awesome.
I had a 6-24 Sightron that I wish I hadn't sold.
The March, Zeiss, Vortex, NF etc are usually good bets, everyone makes a lemon from time to time but at least with the better companies you know they'll stand behind it.
IMO, cheap optics are a waste of time and money. Same goes for mounts and rings. I usually spend nearly as much on a scope as I do for the rifle it will be used on. I've seen guys show up at the range with 700s, Savages, and Tikkas with $80 Simmons or Tasco scopes (or something even cheaper!) on them, and all I can do is shake my head. They'd be better off with Leupolds and Conquests mounted on a 770, an Axis, and a Ruger American.
I hope that's not a knock on the Axis or the Ruger because both mine shoot moa with a $150 Bushnell Trophy XLT and factory Hornady .308 150gr ammo. My rifles are "hunters." They don't need to be a $1500 rem700/leupold or tikka/conquest set-up to fill my families freezer year after year.
No, it's not really. I think folks pay more for aesthetic reasons and I understand that because I'm one of them. I actually scold myself at times for my own unwillingness to buy economy rifles, but I came into the game when blued steel and walnut was the standard and a part of my love for rifles is my appreciation for the traditional art of building them even if it's a mass production proposition. Mmmm...if that's not a clear description of my tastes and attitudes, then I'll state that one of my most accurate and treasured rifles is a Remington 788 in .222 Rem. I find it odd that so many find the 788 to be unattractive because it's not at all unattractive to me. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and we all look at value different characteristics of our hardware in the game of rifle shooting!
I WILL say that I think you'd be better served with better scopes though. I've never seen a Leupold, Burris, or Nikon fail but I've seen quite a few Tasco, Bushnell, Simmons, etc fail most suddenly. It happened to me way back when and naturally it happened during a hunt.
That's just my opinion though. Please yourself because that all that matters!
I truly believe a guy would be better off with a rusty old mosin nagant and a high end scope over an overdressed over-polished "super rifle" with junk glass. No question.
At the same time: some scopes offer better quality than others in the same price range and not all bushnells are created equal.
Lots of bad and a lots of good. Too many to list, but for a middle range I think the Vortex PST line is really nice.
Nightforce is up on top.
Worst is Speculative and a lot of times depends on the user as far as how bad it really is.
Mostly worse aer all the Chinese coke bottles probably like Barska although I have not tried them all obviously and dont want to.
IOR is also really nice although I did have one that fell apart but they replaced it. Expensive.
For me I think most important is if it tracks, and if it will hold zero and especially how clear the glass is at both ends and distortion at both ends.
I looked through a Swavorski 1-6x one time and it was so nice I had to immediately leave the store before I got out the CC.
I am trying out a Primary Arms 1-6X right now. The first one I had was fuzzy at 5-6x. We will see how this one goes, but generally a $250 1-6X might sound nice over a more expensive 1-4X mostly for the 6X end of it, but something like a Vortex PST 1-4X might have better image clarity at 4X than say a PA 1-6X at 6X etc.
I'm surprised Zeiss and Meopta haven't been mentioned.
Mike
I do not own a straight Meopta but they do make the Instinct scopes for Cabela's and the are excellent.
More shooting, less typing.
Didn't read my post ?? I mentioned zeiss twice. Lol. I have never looked through a meopta but I've heard great things about them. Zeiss conquest are my favorite sub 800 dollar scope and can be had much cheaper a lot of times.
Jamie, I respect your using optics every day. I no longer hunt deer and there are no PDs or Groundhogs here in Florida.
I noticed in your pecking order, you listed Cabelas. I suppose these are the high end models, because the low-mid are Chinese.
Although I have nearly 3 dozen scopes, none are of the the USO, NF price range.
I do have a 1970s Tasco 20X40 (all I could afford then) and it still amazes me with it's optical qualities.
I've got some Barska, NcStar, etc, I bought just to check them out and I wouldn't even use them as a hammer.
I have done a lot of A/B/C scope comparisons with several of my co-workers at different ranges, and sometimes a lower end scope will 'look' much better and be rated better than the Nikons, Burris, etc I own.
These 'reviews' are all on here......
FWIW
ron
No problem Ron. They are in fact the high end versions made by Meopta. The two I own run $649 and $749. If you get the chance to look through one I think you will be quite surprised, even with the $399 3-9 model compared to the $800+ Zeiss 3-9.
I also agree that the old Japan made Tasco's are excellent. I do not agree with most on the NF though. While they are dead crazy reliable the price tag is definitely not due to optical clarity. Don't get me wrong, nothing really wrong with the lens but they seem to be equal to most scopes in the $800 to $1K range, guess you pay the extra $500 to $1K for the durability.
More shooting, less typing.
Members who have read this thread in the last 1 days: 0
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks