Thread: Super budget scopes worth a try, or not?

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

To be honest, the question is way too generic, it is not possible to address it with a yes or no answer.

First it may help to dissect why and what in a scope that costs money. btw I am no expert, but I have been a keen consumer for many years.

1. Elements. the elements inside any optic instrument can be very cheap or expensive. Material obviously play a big part. I am not actual sure if high end scopes use expensive glass like camera lenses and binoculars, or just stick to high end plastic, given the recoil and the way guns are generally used in the wild. Coating is another big thing. High end coating is very slow and very expensive. So in the end the question is how much better Image quality are you willing to pay for. For rifle scopes, a lot of people actual take the view that image quality is not that big of a deal (as big as camera lens or binoculars) because you only need the scope to be clear enough to see the target. Usually scopes made of even the cheapest coating on the cheapest plastic lens will be good enough for hunting targets during the day. As light level fall, your view through the scope gets darker. better Elements with better coating will have higher light transmission rate and in turn allow you see better in dusk. However, the fact is the difference in light transmission between expensive glass and cheap glass is not big. I have not seen light transmission tested across different scopes but I can draw some comparison from camera lenses. Camera lens' aperture number is the ratio of the aperture to focal length, and that ratio directly affects amoutn of light that passes the lens and projects to the film (or sensor, for digital cameras). If you compare, 5 different 85mm lenses from different price points ranging from top end (8,000 for Zeiss Otus 85 1.4) to bottom end (400 for Canon EF 85 1.8), all set at F2.8 (same ratio, same aperture opening width), you will see probably less than 10% difference in light transmission.

2. Objective Size. Another way to increase light transmission is to increase the diameter of the front element, which is called the object lens. High end scopes this usually result in a few hundred dollars of price increase. Most common objective size is 40mm. larger versions are usually 50mm. A few speciality scopes go to 56mm. Usually increase in objective size also increase in weight substantially. Low end scopes tend to sport large objectives to show good value.

3. Internal mechanics . The internals are probably the most important part of a scope. it is also the part which the manufactures tells you the least. We know a few things: 1. the better the materials the better, it results in the more accurate the clicks, longer lasting internals, and less likely to go out of zero through knocks and bumps and recoil. 2. The larger the internals the better, same benefit as before. 3. Design choice is very important, some choose to have more clicks but smaller internals, some choose to have larger internals and sacrifice adjustable range. Because there is no way to tell what choices of design or materials the manufactures have made, apart from adjustable range which is usually stated, you really just have to make an educated guess based on the manufacture's reputation. Even high end scopes do not get right all the time. See this article, even big names like Nightforce, S&B, and Zeiss are a bit off. Second tier brands like Vortex and Bushnell are further off again. Yet this part is where the cheap scopes are likely to save cost because the relevant specs are not disclosed.

4. Outer body. Most modern scopes, even the cheap ones, use metal tube, There are some quality difference in metal they use but usually even the cheap ones use OK aluminium. scope bodies are not that complex so even the cheap ones usually machined well enough.

5. marketing and warranty cost. obviously no brand cheap scopes save on both fronts.

Whether a low end is worth buying comes down to your use. If you do not intend to use the turrets after you zeroed the rifle, and only intends to use the scope on a 22 LR for hunting, and intends baby the rifle. Cheap unbranded scopes actually will do OK. But for you 400-600m shots, you will be shooting at least 308 or something similar, you will have no confidence that cheap scopes will hold zero and you be certain that its tracking will be way off.

How did that Chinese 'scope that you had out being tested work out?

Originally Posted by Tahr

How did that Chinese 'scope that you had out being tested work out?

Pretty good actually. my view remains the same as I had in the review that I had done. It is definitely a low better than the class of scope OP is questioning. At its price, it is really competing against low-mid-end range of big named brands.