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

I know you get what you pay for and these are only $149 ........but has anyone tried them or similar super budget variable scopes? My guess is replies will be don't bother but thought I'd ask just in case they're actually acceptable compared to other <$500 scopes.
https://www.trademe.co.nz/sports/hun...0140b6c4f2ecd3

Depends. It might not dial very well but i couldn't imagine how a 22 would kill one.

Nonononono! want a translation? NO!

One of the first scopes i bought was a cheap job, when you turned up the magnification the reticle spun around inside the scope body. Its a gamble, it might do the job fine or you might have just wasted $150. If you buy a cheap scope and it breaks you're likely going to end up buying something more expensive after that anyway so yeah, imo buy it once buy it right.

depends on what you want it to do and how serious you are about shooting . . . if all of your gear is cheap, it will fit in nicely.

If $150 is all you can afford or justify, IMO you are better off buying a better quality scope second hand.
Or hold off and save more.

What do you want it for ?

For .22 shooting on range or spotlighting possums or day shooting rabbits, you don't need much ruggedness nor resolution but you do need close focus, so a cheap scope can work pretty well. I use a Leapers 3-12x44 on my air rifle and its just fine. It's rated for air rifle recoil. I don't dial it though. And I wouldn't take it out for deer. So, it can be done ultrabudget for some applications.

For deer hunting in NZ mountains you do need reliability and waterproofness but not dialling and not parallax. If your budget extends to $400 then I'd recommend an entry level Leupold or a Redfield. I wouldn't use those on a springer air rifle.

As has been said, what will it be used for? Plinking on a farm or range, fine. Spend $100s if not 1000s on helicopter to the top of the southern alps looking for a lifetime trophy to be let down by your scope not so good.

I find all the real cheap scopes go blurry at high magnification so it just becomes a waste of time having it, better off looking for something with less magnification.

I agree, horses for courses. The cheap scopes that I have had work ok at the bottom of the zoom range but are terrible towards the top. This makes buying a 6 - 24 x power cheap scope useless as anything above 12 x they start to lose clarity so really you don't have a 6 - 24 x power scope but a 6 - 12 x as that's all that is usable.

I have had good runs out of some cheap stuff and also had it fail on occasions. "You pays your money and you takes your chances"

Plinking and the odd walk round a farm then cheap will do the job.

High volume shooting ( central Otago rabbits ) cheap scope will die sooner or later and it's probably sooner, also it loses it's zero a lot.

Generally I find tough conditions needs a tough scope and that comes with a bigger price tag.

the nikko Stirling scopes are not terrible you can often find them cheap, i have a 4x eagle on my 10/22 its up to the job slaying possums.

Apparently, according to some of the Whangarei NRA club members, the Discovery scopes that you get off AliExpress are really good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cheers. I wasn't thinking of this scope in particular. It was an example and it more just a general question about what really needed as there's such a massive spread in prices.
I don't have any gear yet and first thoughts had been $1500 new rifle plus $500 scope but seems many shooting open high country opt for $1500 - $2000 scopes. Like VX-5HD.
That's 10 times the prices of these cheapies and 4 times the $500 scopes that possibly (probably?) still be ok for high country 400-600m shots.
So much to learn!

Originally Posted by uk_exile

Cheers. I wasn't thinking of this scope in particular. It was an example and it more just a general question about what really needed ....
That's 10 times the prices of these cheapies and 4 times the $500 scopes that possibly (probably?) still be ok for high country 400-600m shots.
So much to learn!

400m is difficult and you won't be able to do it reliably with a $500 scope. Try it on gongs and see. To shoot an animal at 500m you would need a scope in the $2000 to $4000 range. It needs accurate adjustments tracking,parallax , zero stability with power change and to a lesser extent sharpness at high mag at least 12x. Plus it needs to withstand several thousand practice rounds.

For a $500 scope 250m is a reasonable expectation.

Weaver superslam are an example of a good budget scope with features you need for 500m shooting. They are more like $1500 landed in NZ I believe. They compromise on brightness and field of view but will do the job. Another budget brand with a very good reputation no frills and good features is the American SWFA which are bigger and heavier but rugged.

Originally Posted by uk_exile

Cheers. I wasn't thinking of this scope in particular. It was an example and it more just a general question about what really needed as there's such a massive spread in prices.
I don't have any gear yet and first thoughts had been $1500 new rifle plus $500 scope but seems many shooting open high country opt for $1500 - $2000 scopes. Like VX-5HD.
That's 10 times the prices of these cheapies and 4 times the $500 scopes that possibly (probably?) still be ok for high country 400-600m shots.
So much to learn!

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.