I have seen the differance first hand. I have a Leupold 4.5X14 40MM VX-3 with a 1" Tube on my 300 WSM. My Stepdad has a Zeiss Conquest 3.5X10 44MM with a 30MM tube on his 300 WSM. We were at the range, in the middle of the day (Sunny) With my scope on 14 and his on 10, i could clearly see the bullet holes in the paper much better with his Zeiss than i could with my Leupold. IMO, dont skimp on your glass. I did, and now im wanting to sale my Leupold to buy a Zeiss.

Not arguing for either brand, as I think both are fine choices, but comparing a 30mm and a 1 inch tube isn't a fair comparison. the 30mm will always convey more light, add to that fact the larger objective...well it's just not a fair comparison.

My comparisons have all been 1 inch tubes and the part that isn't fair is how much better the Zeiss is than the lupe.

X2

I have a remington 700 bdl, middle of the line leoplod scope, swarovski binos, and swarovski spotting scope. My buddy has a $4000+ custom rifle. He can not shoot any better with it than he could before he got it. Not saying he is not a good shot just saying his low end rifle shot just as well. Spend ur money on what you use the most. Binos and/or spotting scope.

Well, I'm glad you have found what you like. I have a plethora of scopes on different guns, and my current favorite is my Leupold Long Range Target 6-20x50...but that may just be because it's on my favorite rifle. I do also have a conquest and like it very much as well.

Yep, laugh ON!

sorry, but that is an innacurate statement
30mm tubes allow for more adjustment and are stronger (though how many 1" tubes actually fail?)

I am a firm believer in spending as much as you can possibly afford on good glass

Why have a gun that will shoot 1000 yards and scope that can only see 300. Spend the money on the glass.

even a bushnell banner can see 300yds in lowlight conditions when game cams show it is dark.

Some time ago an article appeared on the Remington website that was written by a guy who worked as a guide in the Midwest. As he put it, "I learned that when a guy showed up with a fancy rifle and expensive scope, the hunt would most likely include plenty of four letter words and missed opportunities. On the other hand, when someone showed up with a well-worn rifle and fixed power scope, there would be meat to pack."

Why have a gun that can shoot 1000, glass that can see 1000, and a person that can only shoot 300?

I'll save my money on the glass! Until I'm rich that is!

I agree with txvarminter I have a lupe and zeiss and the zeiss always wins. Then again I also do alot of night varmint hunting.

I like a premium scope on my rifles. I have expensive rifles as well as cheap ones, but they all shoot good, and with the exeption of the rimfires, they all wear a higher end scope. If all shots while hunting were in broad daylight with no clouds, most any scope would work, especially if you had good binocs. I can tell a big difference between my Simmons scope and my Leupolds and Kahles when it comes to light transmission, and thats the selling point for me.

What I want to know is what Wal-Mart can I get a new 700 for $300? lol

The Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 is the best value out there IMO for a full size rifle. Has been for a few years now.

I believe in quality optics. That said I can't justify a grand for a scope. Buy the best you can afford.

My biggest problem with this thread is all of you who are looking at something that you aren't shooting at with your rifle. If the light is so low you can't ID the animal, or at least have to struggle to then you haven't yet made the decision to shoot. If you can't see the animal that well, how can you see what is beyond it? Basic gun safety says you never point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot and always know whats beyond your target.

Use your binoculars or your spotting scope. If you are that serious about trophy hunting you better be better at judging than looking through your scope. Being safe and responsible is far more important than shooting in the first or last couple of minutes of shooting light or any trophy for the wall.

I think I just found my new scope!

http://cgi.ebay.com/Hensoldt-Carl-Zeiss-...=item2ea5e7c675

I can improve my shooting but a rifle and scope are what they are. Its hard to out shoot your rifle but shooting can improve with quality equipment.

To each his own but I couldn't disagree more.

The problem is people think bins are for just looking at something they already spotted with the naked eye. Binoculars are for FINDING game, yes even in the thicker brush of East Texas or hill country. I have found many deer (and a couple I killed) that I guarantee you I never would have spotted with the naked eye, or if I had it would have been too late.

I do agree once a shooter buck is in the open its not time to be looking at him through the bins, you need to have the gun out.

As to the original question, yes, I would rather scrimp a little on the rifle than have to scrimp on the optics for it, and have done exactly that.

It's not always about pure image quality, high quality scopes also have better made internals and adjustments, seals etc.

To me the gun is only as good as the scope mounted on it. Does it require a $1000 scope, not at all, but it does require more than a bubble wrap wal-mart special scope.

Bill

I bought a Savage 270 with the Accu-Trigger, and put a Zeiss 3x9 on it, for my main hunting gun. I dont have to worry about scratching the black synthetic stalk, and I couldn't ask for much better optics. My pretty guns are in the safe...safe

I guess nobody wants to hear about my Bushnell binoculars or my Tasco scope that I use on my Savage from Kmart. That all cost less than $300 when I bought it, the scope was part of the rifle package. I was going to change it but I haven't missed a shot in over 20 years so I guess I will keep them.

Higher recoiling calibers are the hardest on scopes. A cheap scope on a 243 may last forever but on a 300wm you may be asking for it.

We have several dependable accurate guns that were around $200 25 years ago. Mostly Ruger M77s. Those exact same guns (hawkeyes) are well over $500 now. Of course you could buy a nice pickup back then for $14K as well. lol

Inflation is a beach.

So I guess if someone spends a little more money on their rifle and/or scope, they're probably not much of a hunter? Another classic.

I prefer to see it the other way, based on past experience. Just because a hunter happens to carry a cheaper rifle and scope, it doesn't mean he/she isn't as good at hunting and harvesting deer, as the one who spends a lot more.

I think it's a balancing act. I have a wide variety of scopes on our rifles. My savage heavy barrel has a 4.5-14 Leupold, real nice...and a good match. My PSG-1 had a Schmidt-Bender, again a good match.

My EDCrifle is a Remington 750 Carbine, topped with a Burris Fullfield II. The Burris has been tremendously reliable and durable, and matches the gun well. The carbine produces hunter grade groups out to 300 yards, but begins to wash out beyond that...not much need for a 800 scope for it.

If someone had a 1000 to spend, I'd suggest 500 on gun, 300 on optics/base/rings/ and 200 on ammo to practice with....