How Much Should You Spend on a Rifle Scope? | 9-Hole Reviews

[@Hondatech26]

I normally take the Bob Ross approach and buy what makes me happy lol

[@doctorcaptainalex]

Based

[@mattorama]

"Spend twice as much on your glass as your rifle" is advice from the era of "Don't spend more than a quarter of your take home income on your housing." Times have changed, Boomer logic doesn't work any more.

[@monsterman92-w2l]

The housing one is still sensible advice.

[@secondamendment1927]

@@monsterman92-w2l Great advice, just hard to accomplish with all the companies owning property, urbanization, and tax apprasial districts working together to make housing unaffordable

[@chrism2042]

I used Leupold and Night force scopes in the military, a couple years ago I sold Vortex and Nikon scopes to use Arkens scopes on most of my rifles. Your "entry" scopes. The tracking on all of my Arkens has been as perfect as the high-priced scopes, better than many "premium" scopes per the list. Out to 1200 yds with no issues. The tracking, clear glass and crisp reticle with other features was enough for me to stay with Arken. But about a year ago at the range, the rifle had not been shot since the last range trip. Daniel Defense MK12, Magpul PRS stock, Atlas bipod, Arken scope, no mag weights 12.2 lbs. It was on the bench resting on the bipod when a dude walked between the benches, bumped the rifle. It flipped off of a 42" bench, landed on the scope on the concrete. The rifle didn't get a scratch, the elevation turret and top of the 56mm objective lens took the full impact. A little concrete rash to the elevation turret knob, the front flip up lens cover blew apart from the impact on the cover hinge. 12 lbs direct concrete impact rolling off of a 42" tall bench. The objective housing and lens, perfect. I check the elevation turret, turned freely. I fired three 5 shot groups at 100 yds, still zeroed. Dial to 200, then 300, then 400 shooting hanging golf balls, then back down to 300, 200 and 100 zero. That scope is still on the same rifle with same zero, no adjustments needed since the fall. Other scopes can take that impact without losing zero or tracking, but how many? I would imagine there are many $1500 - $3000 scopes that can't take that abuse without cracking objective lens glass, losing tracking or zero. I am picking up a Daniel Defense Delta 5 Pro 6.5 tomorrow, the same shop has a Nightforce ATACR 7-35 for $3800 but I will be buying a Arken 7-35 for $600. I will not say a Arken is as good as a Nightforce, Vortex Razor or other expensive scopes, but 6x the price for very minimal performance advantage over the $600 scope?

[@9HoleReviews]

The real question is: is the performance advantage actually... "very minimal"... or is it minimal...somewhat significant...relatively significant...extremely significant, etc. The Graph at 16:45 is specifically unlabeled in terms of where these tiers sit on that value assessment, because you can draw that conclusion based on the feature set you want & need in the optic - and most will have different answers here. Using your NF 7-35 example...only the FDE optic is 3800$....the black is 3600$. Is the FDE coloration worth 200$ ? That's sort of the game that's being played but at an extreme level across every single part of the optic. There's also a question of whether a 4-20x optic with extremely clear glass would serve better than a 7-35x optic with mid-tier glass. Again, all open to what you do and don't 'need' on your feature set list. As we said in the vid, we believe the highest value is probably the mid-tier optics. They give highly functional capability for the lowest buy-in.

[@Lucysdad66]

I agree captain that is why I just bought 3 arkens it was a no brainer for me I had 3 guns that needed scoped and for the price of 1 I got 3 with mounts

[@Johnnyg67-]

Wait! You never told us what happened to the dude that walked between the benches?

[@j.t.867]

I started last year with distance shooting. Also bought arken, the ep5. Works well for what I do with it. Paired with a tikka ctr 6.5 creedmoor, I can shoot 1/2 moa at 300 yards on a good day. Also, can see the impacts on a splatter target at that distance, which is quite convenient

[@chrism2042]

@@Johnnyg67- Nothing, it was an accident

[@brandonrupp5880]

Another factor that complicates the issue is buying used optics. I realize you guys are talking about new retail prices, but the value of used optics can put some premium options in the Mid price range

[@9HoleReviews]

Very true - lots of Henry's Euro-glass has been snagged secondary market at better value.

[@Lucysdad66]

Alot of fakes out there I know I have one got it from my neighbor he was to embarrassed to use it so I mounted it on a 22-250 works good for a fake it's a top brand to I have real one's of the same brand and can't tell the one is fake. (Leupold)

[@jumrobe]

Very good and informative discussion. I think a big part of it that Henry hit on is that you won't know what you want/like until you get some time behind a mid-tier optic. The other thing is that once you get used to a certain level of optical performance that you like, it's very hard to go backwards on subsequent optics.

[@anti8.6]

Sometimes a Bushnell Banner is all the scope thats needed

[@insert-name-here3350]

I've been going climbing and even parked in front of Tangent Theta's HQ and manufacturing site for years before I knew what they were. Good to see my hometown represented so well in shooting

[@lucasblanchard47]

I really like my Primary Arms GLX 1-6 FFP scope on my 16” AR. That being said, a NightForce ATACR 1-8 is probably one of my dream rifle scopes.

[@jarvitron]

I just recently installed a Discovery Optics scope on my rifle and it is... utterly amazing for the price. Durability will of course remain to be seen but my initial impressions are very high. Nightforce and Leupold are priced much like Surefire NFA devices - the goal is to extract maximum value from the military and law enforcement community.

[@ExpatriotSilencers]

I used a 16x Super Sniper at 2000 yds. It worked just fine and that scope spent an awful lot of time in the field being banged around. The only thing I didn't like about the Super Sniper was the three setscrews means of adjusting the turrets. I don't care how expensive the glass is, it isn't going to turn 1000 yds of mirage into a crystal clear image. Spending huge money on glass is just not worthwhile because it doesn't gain you anything useful. So what if the edges aren't as good or the colour is a little off? Do those things have any effect on your ability to see the target? Nope. I have recently become a big fan of the Bushnell Match Pro 6-24 FFP scope. Good glass, good, solid turrets, extremely easy to adjust the turrets and super reliable at distance. I like the scope so much I bought three of them.

[@jameshwang4750]

The mid size truck,cost does it include rifles or just the scopes?

[@texas66]

Optics have vastly improved in the last 10 to 15 years but they seem to be improving by adding weight. I'm ready to see a good mid tier 1-10 LPVO under a pound (454g).

[@Dave123-z2h]

I think with companies like Arken that the benefits of buy a $4k scopes vs $800 are almost obsolete so paying $4k for glass on a $2k rifle is pointless in my opinion people are comparing arkens to nightforce and only difference I can discern between the two is the price turret tracking is the same glass clarity in low light and at distance is the same build quality is the same so I see absolutely no need to use the ancient rule of thumb to spend twice as much on glass as you do on your rifle just my opinion spend your money on ammo and training without proper training your optics mean squat

[@paulsimmons5726]

I’m lucky enough that my “scope needs” for hunting are easily handled by lower powered scopes like a 1.5-6 or a 3-9. I prefer Kahles scopes for their clarity and light gathering abilities; their hunting models are no longer imported which makes them difficult to find and increasingly expensive. Finding a LNIB Kahles on the internet is doable but requires a bit of research and patience. My “fun target rifle” is a ‘61 Remington 40X/22lr with Redfield Olympics, pure relaxation! I have a Lyman All American 10x for times I want to reach further but it stays in the safe because I enjoy the Redfield irons so much! My takeaway for any scope is that clarity should be your first priority when choosing a scope, all the other options are meaningless if you aren’t getting a clear view of your target!

[@GldenRetriever]

If money or lives aren't on the line, you can get away with a lot less. For me, I'm willing to pay more if it gets me what others can't do. That's how I view the march FX 1.5-15x42 dfp. Yeah, it's 2500, but you can't get any other optic in that magnification range for less and especially at the clarity it gives you among all the compromises. I'm getting a 1x (albeit 1.5x and all eyes are different) to run like an LPVO with MPVO like performance with that 42mm objective and 15x magnification. I feel my money is going into features and not just "my glass is better than your glass". When you have an optic like that this is shorter and lighter than some regular LPVOs like the credo 1-8, it really shows the marvels of engineering that encapsulates that optic. I don't have that much experience with stuff like the razor 6-36 or other "long range" or "bench rest" optics as those really aren't my thing, but as far as optics that excel in 0-1000m (which is what I look for in optics these days), I definitely get what I paid for. Maybe not in optical quality (at the cost of weight, length, magnification range, etc), but it does what I want it to do when nothing else has. (yes swaro makes something that's barely similar and there are some 2-14s out there, but that's closer to apples and oranges). That's really why there is no best scope as when you can afford good scopes, preference makes most of the decisions as you are meeting the par in all categories.

[@shooter-observer1]

what optic is that at 2:59?

[@shooter-observer1]

appears to be Viper PST, would like a scope with that reticle and a tracking top turret

[@secondamendment1927]

What I really learned, or rather relearned, from this is that I'm too poor for optics

[@alberta6368]

Any opinion on US Optics Foundation 10x fixed/first focal plane?

[@patrickgjorven7832]

For a while, US Optics was very good glass. I rarely see one on the shooting line either for the public range or at a match. I don't know about their warranty either. For what you paying for, I would certainly expect a good warranty. I would suggest a Leupold MK5 series, though for that price. See a lot of those. Has a good track record lately and has a good warranty.

[@kensmith8832]

I built a bolt gun in 2000, which cost me $3000. The best optics I could find was around $750. Update that value to today's insane market, to see what breaks the bank. The problem I ran into was a need for 10-50x, but there wasn't a good scope at that time. Most of the very expensive scopes were most a brand name ego trip, with no real advantage. I today's market, it would be good to wait about 2 years for the prices to fall to half what they are at today. I have a Bushnell scope from 1986, which will always be my favorite!

[@Bourbonlegend1990]

In extreme tier, where March Genesis Scopes or High Masters

[@Eggomania86]

Most people who run firearms hunt. Most hunters typically don't shoot further than 220 yards national average. Oddly enough most game is harvested east of the Mississippi. For woodland deer hunting you really don't need higher magnification front focal plain reticle, mil/Moa reticles and adjustable turrets. You want something that's lower magnification you do want quality glass. You want at a LPVO lower variable or medium power variable. You want ruggedness.

[@matthewconnor5483]

The magnification is more for observation then actually taking a shot. So many times I've been trying to look between the trees to get a look at what's making a sound.

[@MatthewMcCay-gx9if]

A base price Leupold,Burris and Vortex is plenty good enough for the average deer hunter.Most hunters don't need expensive scopes with target turrets for deer hunting.Get realistic guys!

[@7hart2]

Depends on the terrain. I live in the southern part of British Columbia, Canada, and typically hunt 5-10 hours away where everything is low visibility - bushwacking with occasional openings near abandoned logging spots. As I do not target mountain goats or sheep, I do not require precision glass to pick them off the other mountain spire - let alone utilize a magnum cartridge. Because of this, I run a Leupold 3-9x (German Duplex no.1) on a Tikka in 6.5x55mm Swede and a 9.3x62mm CZ550 FS as my big bore. Topped-off with a Trijicon Accupoint 1-6× with a Post Reticle. If I lived on the Praries, my choice in glass and cartridges would flip immediately to favour magnums and excellent glass. As such, I think the area one stalks, and the choice of game, determines ones requirements. Cheers!

[@Poepeestar]

A base price Leopold can handle the low light better than their expensive scope that they mentioned

[@nunyabiznes32]

@@Poepeestar While the Freedom line may not be there, I can confirm that the VX-5HD is exceptional in low-light hunting scenarios. Don't see a need for anything else.

[@rondobrondo]

With Optics, and rifles, but not handguns, I believe in starting budget. I regret spending tons of money trying to 'get the right handgun'. Cause now I have like $4000 worth of handguns to sell. Just buy a Glock or HK and be done with it. Now for optics, I spent $310 on a Primary Arms SLx Gen 4 NOVA + Aero Precision Ultralight Scope mount package, and I feel a lil embarrassed to have it, but I've never used LPVO's before and wanted to start with the new low price standard before dropping $1200 on a Vortex Razor Gen II-E

[@BronzeAgePuritan]

2x the rifle cost. Are scopes cheaper or are rifles more expensive? or BOTH?

[@FrancisBean44]

The worst thing to happen to optics is Nikon leaving the scene. Took a lot of great options and competition out of the $200-600 range.

[@Nerfhalo1]

Oh no, was this because I made a joke about the cost of the Vortex Razor on the BCM Henry shot on Practical Accuracy?

[@Pompomgrenade]

What is that? An HK quick detachment scope

[@mrshort2379]

@9-HoleReviews this all sounds like a sales pitch. Being I am just a loser & a poor, on a low low fixed income. I use what I can afford. any halfway decent shooter, is going to be able to shoot with about any scope they use. even if it is just a simple cheap 3-9x Tasco, long as it hold zero at range. The modo to buy a scope/optic that costs twice as much, as the gun you use it on. Is dumbazz modo, and it takes a dumbazz to believe it. that was spread by a salesman ans is nothing but a sales pitch, to get you to pay more for an optic, that was built in the same foreign Chinesium factory, as the Tasco. (A "Fool" & their Money are Soon Parted) Back in the beginning, hunters/snipers used crap glass with fixed magnification, with a crosshair. they did just fine. what more do you need!

[@martinsalazar5239]

My 35 dollars center point never let me down

[@IndependentArmz]

I have Good Arkens. But, I dream of getting a NF. That's just the truth. I appreciate my Arken for what it is. But, I appreciate a NF for what it is..

[@rudolphferdinand3634]

I, too, wanted an NF until I watched a guy on YT comparing his NF's $3200.00 scope against his Arken’s 5-25x56mm $600.00 using the USAF 1951 tester; what he found was that the Arken 5-25x56mm had better glass than his NF $3200.00 scope. Tract Toric, for me, costs $1,200.00 a 4-20x.

[@tenorira]

I can't see myself spending more then $250

[@flopus7]

This kind of limits you to one scope: sig msr

[@OutdoorGearCorps]

Yikes.

[@ComedyBros5]

That’s exactly how I am. I don’t get these guys dropping $500+ on a scope. However, it all depends on use. I’m only using scopes for hunting. I rarely do target shooting, but even then, why’s such an expensive optic needed? I’ve got a Tasco 3-9x40 $85 scope on my primary deer rifle. I abuse it, drop it, gets snowed and rained on, and it’s never failed me. Provides clear magnification for me and I’m able to effectively shoot 200yds all the way up to last shooting light.

[@tenorira]

@@ComedyBros5 I agree, I would have a heart attack if I dropped a 2k scope and really how many time in a year would I use it? I am fine with a SWFA gen 1 scope and I have left over money for ammo.

[@ComedyBros5]

@@tenorira It's a relief to finally find someone who shares the same thoughts as I do about this. I thought I was just being a cheapskate!

[@mhughes1160]

Well thank goodness for y t scope reviewers who do quality through the lens reviews so we can make more informed decisions For $3500 I should be able to see tits on a flea at least one mile away . LoL 😂

[@ExpatriotSilencers]

Scope cost is irrelevant because there will always be mirage.

[@mhughes1160]

@@ExpatriotSilencers With 25 bing-bangs to put glass on cost is most relevant . LoL 😂 💸💸💸💸💸💸💸💸

[@Dukenukem777]

I’m thinking I’d get an ACOG

[@tmgjurassic3738]

Everything scales poorly at the edges, diminishing returns.

[@ralfrude3532]

Simple answer: Enough.

[@kehaitao5148]

Before I think there is the budget scope which can do everything, but in reality, dollar for dollar….

[@brunoterlingen2203]

Not once did you comment on price differential between FFP and SFP optics - shame!

[@Jooglesberry]

Dozens of dollars

[@jjgriffin3275]

With how nice glass is these days. I see no reason to spend more than 600 on a new scope. If you are in the top 10 in the competition shooting world then you are sponsored anyway. BUT the rest of us poors 600 you can get great glass for what you are going to do from hunting to target shooting.

[@jsog6]

Shoot what you carry. Carry what you shoot. In the Texas hill country, the longest shot for my area is 75 to 100 yards. My rifle of choice in my Marlin 336- 35 Remington with a Nikon Pro-staff. When we hunt in Colorado I use a savage scout in 308 with a Vortex. I never shoot 300-1000 yards. To each his own

[@phillipg9345]

A coworker of mine invited me over to some private land and I brought along some of my toys. His package deal rifle came with a $50 scope, maybe. I blew him away with my $170 vortex crossfire ll 4-12x. Blew him away again with my vortex hst 4-16x. He has yet to see my nightforce nxs 5.5-22x lol. That nightforce is like my 4th child but I don't think I'll spend that much on glass again.

[@andreashannon3928]

Used a 400 dollar Vortex out to 1860 Yards, But the experience made me say I would never do that kind of work with such poor glass again. Got my first Schmidt a few months back. As far as I am concerned it was worth every penny.

[@jangchief]

Seems like a scam to make high end money for nominal improvements.

[@Mrgunsngear]

🇺🇸

[@Rico11b]

You're joking, right? Spend as least as possible so long as you can get good glass and good turrets. Pay attention to the principle of diminishing returns. You have way too many tiers listed. Paying 5k for a scope doesn't mean it's better than a 2k scope. Again, the principle of diminishing returns. Anything under $400 bucks is a waste of time and energy, and anything beyond $2k is just stupid unless you're an active competitor in PRS or F-Class or long range Benchrest and the scope is given to you.

[@mrmcbeth]

My answer: as much as you can.

[@9HoleReviews]

I like this thought process - interestingly, others in the comments suggest, "as little as you need to". It's always interesting to see where people fall on this.