Something to think about!

[montana]

I have been contemplating the equipment suggestions from other Grendel owners on this forum. Have many of us including myself been doing a disservice to some newer members by becoming gear snobs. I know I have been guilty of it myself in the past so I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to be disrespectful. Does a new Grendel owner with limited funds need a $800 - $2300 scope when a $200 scope would serve their needs just fine? Does having all the bells and whistles going to improve the need of the owner or rather the individuals ego? I have seen this in my shooting club and it left a bad taste with some new shooters that never returned. We are trying to correct this as I write. I have been with limited funds in my past and know how it can be when the equipment isn't the best. I decided to put my money into ammo so my skill would improve and it was the right choice. Today I can afford the best but I realized how important my ability to afford practice ammo not equipment made all the difference. Maybe some more help could be given to reliable yet more affordable equipment that could work within a certain budget. I know all about buying junk and throwing away money but I have used some great equipment that served my needs with out spending my kids college money. If I'm out of line please let me know but it is something I was thinking about.

[LRRPF52]

Great points. This is one of the main reasons why I like Vortex, but we've seen the industry respond to Vortex's product line-up and price-point strategy.

You can get your sub-$200 optics from Vortex and still have a great little hunting scope, especially the little Diamondbacks. I just replaced my age-old Weaver scope that was on my .270 Winchester with a little 1.75-5x32 Vortex Diamondback with BDC reticle. The glass is very clear, FOV is great, and we'll see what it does on the old .270 Win., which gets taken out maybe once every 5 years just for fun.

Primary Arms has a lot of deals on imported optics made in developing world factories, with a lot of positive reviews.

The Leupold VX Hog 1-4x20 with Pug Plex reticle can be had for $229.

There is no reason to spend a good chunk of change if the working man needs a decent, quality, reputable scope. With companies like Leupold and Vortex, you can get a lot of glass for a peasant's scrapings.

Am I going to show up to a precision rifle match with a Diamondback? No I am not. Would I have reservations about hunting medium game with it? Not at all, within certain distances. The BDC reticle on mine will be interesting to see how it correlates with the .270's trajectory.

[LRRPF52]

I would also add Nikon and Burris to the list of decent and affordable scopes that will serve fine for hunting.

For those that are inclined to buy cheap when it comes to optics, I would suggest saving a few more pennies and get a scope from a manufacturer with a reputable name, with excellent warranty services, and the best glass you can get for the price.

Avoid the gun-show grade Russian and Chinese knock-off garbage that will break on you, often right out of the box. There are brands that are known turd performers, with gears that don't track, reticles that fall or cant with recoil, and really low-grade alloys throughout the construction.

If you see pot metal, metal shavings, and porous packaging that is similar to the pewter handle dragon knives, steer clear.

[lead chucker]

I couldn't agree more! I build my rifles as I want to use them. If a $200 scope will suite the purpose im going to use it for then thats what I get. That goes for barrels and everything. You can build a nice shooter for $500 to $600 or you can go all out for $3000+. A buddy wanted to build a blkout for plinking and so forth, so we scrounged parts and some were quality parts where they needed to be and some were cheaper. When the dust settled he had just over $500 in it. It shoots great and he is happy as hell!

[mwilkins]

I agree with everything stated above and am a subscriber to both sides of that fence. With a $150.00 Nikon P223 BDC scope on a 22LR, a Vortex PST FFP on a .223 (I got to admit, this is a pretty damn nice scope), a NF on my Grendel and a USO on a 338. Each scope serves its purpose for the rifle it is intended for but each scope is also appropriate in price range as to the capabilities of each build. By all means do not sell yourself short on optics for a specific build. Also do not fall to peer pressure by what those around you may have. The chest thumping uber ego gets the best of a lot of people at times.

[sneaky one]

As Montana stated- get what You need. I recently bought a 1x4 x20 Vortex CrossfireII on sale at Midway, $150.00.. I shoot my shorty 40 only in hunt spots to 80 yds. It is an upgrade to it's predecessor.
I see the need- as L52 stated- for better scopes at longer ranges, the ones only some of us actually shoot at. Spend more on ammo- components to reload, also try the Friendsville dry fire device- it may help you to shoot better.
My long range scope is an older Bushnell 6x18 x44 unit.. Never loses it's zero- even thru all the magnum rounds I shot under it. $ 50.00 from Gander mtn., years ago-demo unit.

Shop around guys.

[dmsims21]

My opinion,

With scopes, you pay more money for certain things.
1. Lens quality
2. Reticle robustness (won't move due to recoil )
3. Reticle tracking / return to zero
4. Target turrets
5. Tube diameter
6. So tough you can use it as a hammer
7. Bells and whistles
8. Other

Not all of those are needed for every application and every rifle. A scope on a 6.5 Grendel AR isn't going to experience the recoil beating that it would if it were mounted on a magnum caliber bolt gun.
If you are just going to zero a hunting rifle at 200 yds, you don't care if the reticle adjustments track perfectly, return to zero, and that each click is exactly 1/4 MOA.
If you don't need to quickly dial adjustments, for different ranges and wind, you don't need big target turrets. I occasionally shoot at longer ranges, but I have time to screw off the caps and make adjustments. I use a BDC reticle for hunting. The smaller, capped turrets are more robust, lighter, and less likely to get snag on branches.
Tube diameter just gives you more windage and elevation adjustment.

[biodsl]

Don't sell yourselves short, guys. Almost without exception, when someone on this forum asks about glass, forum members ask "what's your intended use". When the poster says hunting, the forum steers them to lower power, lower priced optics. Often though the answer to the question is "hunting, target shooting and maybe occasionally steel at 1000 yards". It's pretty difficult to make a $200 recommendation if that's truly the criteria.

Part of the problem may be the cartridge it's self. The Grendel is so damned capable, it almost demands a better optic.

[Heywood]

I see this in most forums to a degree way beyond what happens here. When I had questions people often asked what do you want to spend? On other forums people throw out the best. Often as a way to justify their own purchases. When people as my opinion, I tell them what I like. Often it may be top tier, other times it is not. I see that here and it is a good thing.

[rabiddawg]

Absolutely buy what you need.

There was a time when i couldnt justify (read afford) nice things. Now my business allows me to buy a few nice things if i want them. I bust my butt and i am not going to appologize for buying myself something somone else cant afford.

We all have limits depending on where we are in life. I would love to have that $7000 s&b, but i cant justify (afford) it. Some folks can; i dont begrudge them.

I considered buying value priced ar's when i bought my first one but i realized they just dont have any resale value compared to a perceived higher quality name. They may work fine; just not for me.

If you want to see snooty, head over to a boating forum.

This is by far the best online community i read.

[davidj]

I have been contemplating the equipment suggestions from other Grendel owners on this forum. Have many of us including myself been doing a disservice to some newer members by becoming gear snobs. I know I have been guilty of it myself in the past so I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to be disrespectful. Does a new Grendel owner with limited funds need a $800 - $2300 scope when a $200 scope would serve their needs just fine? Does having all the bells and whistles going to improve the need of the owner or rather the individuals ego? I have seen this in my shooting club and it left a bad taste with some new shooters that never returned. We are trying to correct this as I write. I have been with limited funds in my past and know how it can be when the equipment isn't the best. I decided to put my money into ammo so my skill would improve and it was the right choice. Today I can afford the best but I realized how important my ability to afford practice ammo not equipment made all the difference. Maybe some more help could be given to reliable yet more affordable equipment that could work within a certain budget. I know all about buying junk and throwing away money but I have used some great equipment that served my needs with out spending my kids college money. If I'm out of line please let me know but it is something I was thinking about.

+1

[jurassic]

When it comes to optics on a budget, Nikon has been getting my money lately, although the recticles they use cause me heart burn. I need to have an objustable ocular/eyepiece. I'm ready to take the next step and jump up to a Nightforce with a lighted reticle, my old eyes need all the help they can get.

[Big J]

Has anyone ever fondled Hawke Optics. I've been looking at them for a few weeks now. They look solid for the money.

http://www.hawkeoptics.com/hawke-riflescopes.html

[NugginFutz]

When it comes to optics on a budget, Nikon has been getting my money lately, although the recticles they use cause me heart burn. I need to have an objustable ocular/eyepiece. I'm ready to take the next step and jump up to a Nightforce with a lighted reticle, my old eyes need all the help they can get.

+1

You don't have to spend a king's ransom on your equipment, so long as your expectations are reasonable.

My 6-18x40 Buckmaster (was under $350) has glass that belies the scope's price point. Very bright, clear and quite usable. Just yesterday, using this scope, I was able to score 12 of 20 hits on a 12" x 18" plate @ 750 yards with a 55gr 5.56. That was with the scope dialed down to 6x, and using only the mildot reticle for holdover and windage. I had absolutely no trouble resolving the plate in front of the berm at that magnification, and was able to see most of my hits. (Not a lot of kinetic energy left in those 55 gr pills at 750).

Like Jurassic says, though, The Nikon reticles can (and often do) leave me a little frustrated. Such nice glass - such thick cross hairs. I do understand that they now have some finer target reticles, but their mildot is still coarser than I care for.

Are the Nikons my goto scopes? No. I still prefer the Vortex over either my Buckmaster or M-223. Reason? Reticle, range of adjustment, etc. In other words, a lot of bang for the buck. If I only had a $400 budget, though, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend either the Nikon or a lower end Vortex. I'd just tell the shopper to keep their expectations real.

[NugginFutz]

Has anyone ever fondled Hawke Optics. I've been looking at them for a few weeks now. They look solid for the money.
http://www.hawkeoptics.com/hawke-riflescopes.html

I haven't but these guys have...

http://www.snipercentral.com/hawke-optics-frontier-4-16x42mm-sf/

They seem to place a fair amount of value on this one, although I couldn't find it on the mfr's site.