I visited a neighboring deer camp this weekend and looked in the corner of the cabin to see a $300 wal-mart remington 700 .270 with a $1,600.00 Zeiss scope on it.

I started to chuckle at it and realized the guy was right on track with spending more on optics than the gun.

Any body do the same thing?

No, but I agree he's more right than I am with my Remington LTR tactical and burris Fairfield scope. Having a hard time explaining to the wife why my starter scope needs to be upgraded because I've never come home without a dead animal.

I guess she's sort of got a point too.

I'm of the opinion that more money should be spent on glass. That said, I don't do it because I can't afford a grand worth of scope! I have several decent Nikkons and a couple Bushnell 4200's. I'm a big fan of the 4200. The glass is outstanding for a mid range scope.

I'm a firm believer in putting as much money as possible in glass. Like Cody, I can't afford $1,000.00 for a scope, but I won't buy a cheap one.

My wife bought me a new rifle last year for my birthday...Remington 700 SPS Stainless .270wsm just like i requested. then she said don't you need a scope??? i said yeah the one i want is $1,700 she got a little upset. needless to say i have a sweet set up!

It's all about light transmission. A gun can be shot anytime, but it takes a quality scope to be able to correctly identify your target (doe or spike? - AR legal buck or not?) from the first minute of legal shooting light until the last minute.

u can go buy u a 200 dollar gun and a 1000 dolllar gun, if u put em both on sand bags and u notice any real significant difference between the pattern on paper, then that is something amazing. Most large bore rifles will shoot the same wether u paid 100 bucks at the pawn shop, or a grand at cabelas. only thing that changes is durability, and their brand. i say spend th money on glass. now when talking about small bore rifles like .22, u can notice things out to 100yrds.

My mentality is: I need a scope to get the job done... usually that is in the $100-500 range. More than that I might as well use the money to purchase another rifle. Spend the money on binocs or a dang good spotting scope if it's a matter of IDing the target in low light conditions.

Whatever the price of a gun or scope, it's only as accurate and effective as the capabilities of the one shooting it.

Personally, I don't think the average hunter needs a $1000 scope. I mean we aren't even allowed to shoot deer in really low light and if you shoot hogs you can just get a feeder light so what is the point really?

True dat. I bought an $800 scope for my last new rifle, then smartened up a few days later, and returned it for a $400 scope. Then used the extra cash to buy a new turkey shotgun.

I've always been told to put as much into the optics/scope as the gun. Works great for me.

Legal shooting hours - 1/2 hr before sunrise and 1/2 hr after sunset IS really low light, particularly on cloudy days.

Just last year I helped a young hunter get his first deer with my rifle - Browning A-bolt 270 with a Leupold LPS 3.5-14 x 52mm. A spike appeared with 5 minutes left of legal shooting time on the last day of his hunt. There was 2 minutes left when he got a clear shot and dropped him. That was one happy hunter and a very relieved and gracious dad.

Check out the amount of light available at those hours and you'll see what I mean. Here's a chart to calculate the times for your area...

http://stardate.org/nightsky/riseset/

I believe a person needs to put good optics on a rifle, how much they want to invest in is up to them. I've yet to spend more than 500 on a scope and I most likely never will the Burris and Nikon line of scopes have served me well. I've got a couple of Leupolds and a Ziess and I don't see 1000-dollar difference between them and the Nikons or the Burris but that's just me. Others may feel completely different and that's they're choice Zeiss and Swaro make some fine scope's. To some a rifle isn't complete unless it's got a fine Zeiss or a Swaro sitting on top of it, that’s just the way they are and I don't blame them. The high end scopes are kind of like Rolex watches I've got a Stainless Submariner that I wear daily, It's almost 30 years old, my other is a stainless Daytona that’s a over 25 years old neither have ever had to be worked on since they were purchased. That’s what you get when you go to the top end side of scopes, they'll last a life time and still work as good as the day they were purchased.

I would spend $1500-2000 on a pair of binoculars for sure. Mainly because your eyes spend a lot of time looking through them and quality glass causes less eye fatigue!!

But when it comes to scopes, I just can't see the need for a $1000 scope. There are plenty of $300-400 that are worthy of sitting on any rifle. Then I would take the rest of the money and buy another gun!!

I'll accept a Chevrolet rifle and a Ford scope. But I demand a Mercedes binocular. Put your money in the things you use the most.

True, you should have a good pair of binoculars too, but many a trophy buck has been allowed to walk because the hunter looked through his binocs before picking up his rifle. I read once you have 5 seconds to identify a trophy buck and shoot before he's gone. More often than not, I have found that to be the case.

Just this past weekend the old rancher that owns our lease was downplaying the use of binocs on big bucks for the reason above, and I couldn't have agreed with him more.

Besides, what good is id-ing him with binocs if you can't see him clearly in your scope? Granted, nobody NEEDS a $1,000 scope, but they sure are nice to have.

A pair of 10x40 Zeiss ride with me daily.

Maybe if they are bagged in you won't notice a significant difference. But then again it all depends on what is significant to you. I promise you that if you go buy a $200 gun with a trigger that takes a tractor to pull, and a $1000 gun with a crisp easy trigger the difference on the paper can and will be very significant.

Granted, but there is also no sense in inhibiting one's capabilities. So wouldn't it make sense to buy equipment that exceeds your capabilities so that you know for sure it's never in your way?

The more accurate the rifle, the better the chance that it can help make up for any mistake or misjudgement that you make!!! In other words, I would rather be the weakest link!!!

That may be right but I shoot off the rack guns (rem 700, ruger m77 ect) and cheap scopes and have no trouble hitting what I'm shooting at.

I have said for years that I would rather have a $200 gun with a $700 scope than a $700 gun with a $200 scope.
To prove my point this year I got married, built a house, and have a wife in college. Funds are low and I need a scope for my 7mag. I usually buy Zeiss but I don't have the money so I buy a very nice Nikon Monarch for several hundred less. This morning I'm in the blind at legal light a BIG bodied buck walks in at 120 yards. It's overcast as all get out and I can't tell through the scope what he has on his head. If I had had my Zeiss I would have been able to tell for sure but with the Nikon can't tell and I'm not a fan of taking a shot without full knowledge of what it is. So that being said I'm going to sell the Nikon and another gun if I have to in order to get a Zeiss. MONEY WELL SPENT.
IF YOU CAN'T SEE IT YOU CAN'T SHOOT IT.

And there ya go. Thanks for chiming in txvarminter. I was beginning to think I was a one man band here.

PS I've always been a Leupold fan. Guess it's time to check out this Zeiss stuff.

I've put Zeiss and Leupold up side by side in low light conditions and the Zeiss always wins. I do a lot of varmint hunting and looking at a set of eyes 150 yards away in the bushes over a red spotlight will tell you real quick that there is a difference in glass between scopes.