Been to that site before. He is not verbose just full of himself. He is very opinionated but not that well educated. He has some real biases based on experiences of long ago that still rule his world. He hasn't kept up with the changes the companies have made. What was isn't necessarily what is. Way too many errors and misconceptions there for me.
You get what you pay for in optics. Buy any of the top brands in their best models and they all perform well. Been using Bushnell Elite 4000 for past 10 years and now 3200 (and yes the rain guard works as good as advertised) and like them better than the big L's. They have slightly better FOV, similar eye relief which when hunting tight cover with variables it is big plus. Unfortunately, I recently took off a V-II 3x9x40 and am sending it back to factory. Since day one, the clarity has been questionable, parallax dizzy and isn't even close to the Elites. Just a bad one I guess and just my luck since big L has never let me down before. S happens to anyone. Then again I have had a Tasco 13/4x5 on my 870 slug gun for 12 years and keeps taking the pounding...go figure. My son had same one on his slug gun and fell apart in less than one season..literally fell apart, lens popped out on his last shot at a buck (luckily it was the clincher). I like the slightly longer tubes on the Elites for my Ruger no. 1 7RM. Would I buy another Leupold..yes but would probably buy the Elite first.
It wasn't so much the guy's opinion on optics themselves that interested me, I have Burris an Leopulds an one fixed power Bushnell that never have given me any problems atall. Although, I also have two SportView 3 X 9's that lasted one trip to the
range. Didn't even bother sending them back to the factory. What interested me was the way some of these companies will start out building(or having built) a decent enough scope in Japan say, then once it's gotten good reviews, move the manufacture to some other country where the quality control isn't near as good, selling them at the same price an making bigger profits. Been to a lot of sites where there's talk about scope's(outside of Leopold, Burris an other, to me, top line scopes) where one guy praises Brand X to high heaven, an another Curses it to tha bottom of ****. Bet any money that can be traced to where it was made an when. Found the manufacturing PRACTICES some of these companies use, rather than the optics interesting. Doesn't hurt to know that, especially if you're just gettin into hunting/scopes.
Yup ya gotta talk about what IS today not what WAS once upon a time. Tasco did it and went belly up after switching makers.
I don't judge a company's products by the bottom of the line products like the Bushnell Scope Chief. If anything in those lower lines holds up I think you're lucky. I don't waste money on the lower lines from such folks who have a whole bunch of different priced lines.
Once I made that mistake. I bought a Bushnell Banner probably back in the late 60s and it was a trash scope. I judged Bushnell by it for a lot of years after that. I now know better and rate them up near the top.
Scopes have been and continue to be one shooting subject that is plumb rotten with mis-information and flat out B.S. You don't have to buy the most expensive line out there to get a good scope but with few exceptions you won't be wasting your money if you decide thats what you need. I've used $26 Tasco pronghorns on a 22 and they work great but the ol' 06 will knock the crosshairs right out of em. The optics on the Swarovski, Zeiss etc. are fantastic but way outta this ol crackers budget. I have recently discovered Swifts and have been very impressed. :shock:
A forum community dedicated to the great outdoors and hunting enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about hunting, fishing, survival, archery gunsmithing, optics, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!