You and my dad have a lot in common... When he hit his 60's he started to listen to me a little bit. Eyes just wheren't what they use to be. At 66 he broke down and found a special on a Ziess Conquest... He is a huge fan of the differance it makes for him. He has hunted his whole life and all over the US. He always thought if it shoots good whats it matter? To him now the cost is very justified. Even today he says its the best money he ever spent. Just a thought

x2

This is a good common sense approach. You will never get 10 hunters to agree on any subject!!

Money is money.. Never heard anyone knock on someone's hunting ability because of the lessor value of thier optics. Question is if you have ever hunted with a higher end optics.. If you have and still think the cost doesn't equal the value then cool, no worries, nuff said. But I have never not had someone brag on the differance mid to higher end scopes made when looking through my rifles vs theirs. does the increase cost worth it, thats an individual question, but its an option that everone should atleast compare before saying ya or nay. IMO

Buy what u makes u happy, but if the shot of a lifetime presents itself I want to be able to count on my euipment and that confidence is priceless!

Bushnell binoculars?!? Heck I can't afford those I have a set of Simmons ($9.99 at Cabelas).

The eyes do get old, I am totally blind in my left eye, corrected 20/20 in my right. On Christmas eve I will have been blind in the left eye for 5 years. In those 5 years I have shot 11 deer, no misses and none have moved more than 10 yards. As long as I can see out of the Tasco it will stay where it is, along with the Bushnell. As a kicker I am in my 60's and I do listen, if I need it I will upgrade, but until then, no.

And I bought the good ones, with auto focus. I think they were $20 or $30.

I couldnt agree with you more. Like i posted before, i didnt compare Leupold to Zeiss till after i had already bought the Leupold, if i had, you can bet your money, i'd have a Zeiss right now!

I can buy any of them, but I prefer to be realistic, like have good Leupold's on 4 and burris on 3 more, than have 2 real Zeiss or SB scopes and four with junk on them

I'm gonna need some windex on the "real" Ziess thing.

Even if the $430 3x9x40 Zeiss conquest I use isn't somehow a real Zeiss, to my eye it is the best scope for hunting situations Ive used.
I own a few scopes double to triple the cost of my Zeiss.
My eyesight isn't getting any better with age, I can use all the help I can get.
Sooner or later they will all be sold or traded and replaced with a "real" or not $400 ~ $550 Zeiss, guess it proves there is a sucker born every minute.

+1. passthru doesn't bandy words. Carve this statement in stone! Your binocular and spotting scope are for sizing up. Your rifle scope is for shooting the trophy you've ALREADY judged. When you evaluate an uncertain target with your scope, you are pointing a weapon at a deer (maybe) but perhaps a cow or even a person.

Your both exactly right!

Anyone who uses their riflescope to identify what something is doesn't deserve to own a gun.

Bill

I'm interested by this thread. I've never put any money into optics. Every rifle I own has the scope that came with it (I have a good many guns, difficult to explain how I got most of them, but I've never purchased a deer rifle). I hunt with a variety of guns, but seem to most use either my 7mm and 243 (mainly because I came into a bunch of ammo for both). I have a 6mm that I really like as well, but it needs a new scope and I've been considering buying one.

Seeing all this discussion, I do have a question for those of you who seem so pro-optics:

Do you have otherwise good eyesight?

I ask this because I have a friend who, like you, is very pro-optics and makes fun of my cheap bino's and scopes. That said, I've sat in a blind with him a few times and see deer with a blind eye that he was to find with his $1,500 binos.

I don't shoot bucks outside of about 250 yards. I just don't see the point of a shot longer than that in the terrain I typically hunt. Most shots are less than 100 yards.

I could afford expensive optics, but wonder whether it's worth my money for my needs. Obviously, I can see the difference when I pick up a pair of expensive glass and compare it to my Bushnells, but not enough difference to spend the money. I'd rather use the extra cash towards hunting trips, new feeders, stands, cameras, or even golf clubs.

I learned that good optics are very important a long time ago. After I got out of school, on my own, and made my own living, I bought a nice rifle. Very excited but didn't have enough money for a quality scope, so I got a cheap TASSCO. Bad mistake. Two wounded animals later, a gunsmith told me it was all in the scope. With the cheap scope, I shot in groups of about 10" (very inconsistent)@ 100 yards. Put a good Nikon on the rifle and started punching out the bulls-eye @ 100 yards. No more wounded animals. Valuable lesson learned.

I have perfect 20/20 vision (after lasik several years ago) in both eyes. Good eyesight has nothing to do with it. High quality or poor quality optics for that matter will not correct/compensate for poor vision. If its blurry with the naked eye all a pair of bins or riflescope is going to do is make it 8 or 10 power blurry object.

You are just better at spotting game than your friend.

High quality optics shine when glassing for several hours each day (less eyestrain, etc.), when lighting is bad, and ESPECIALLY in the quality of the construction. It's not all about the image itself.

You'd rather spend money on golf clubs????!!!! I don't even what to say to that! ( I'm just kidding man)

Bill

Why TF would you shoot at an animal with 10" groups?

Well, I guess I'm just in such a whitetail mode right now and thinking about the terrain I hunt. Shot placement isn't an issue for me, so I guess from the standpoint of optics helping shoot better I don't need any help.

I know I'm in a small minority when it comes to my ability to see things so well with a blind eye as it's been proven to me time over time when hunting with others, so the idea of upgrading my optics isn't really something I need to do given the areas I hunt.

That being said, I do own a very nice spotting scope, though it hasn't come out of the closet in several years. I used it when I used to hunt mule deer in west Texas. I'd have to look over great distances to find them. The places I hunt whitetails don't give me the opportunity to see over about 300 yards in any direction. Just too much terrain change, brush, trees, etc.

As for golf, every man needs as many hobbies as he can get. Deer hunting is by far my first choice for activities, but golf comes next, and above other hunting or fishing. In fact, the name I use here "KennyLee" is a golf reference to a character in a book based on golf that's one of my favorites. I have to have something to do when it isn't deer season and there is only so much filling feeders, planting food plots, scouting, etc. that you can do Feb-Sept!

I may have to rethink my optics someday. Glad I found this forum as there is more good information here than I have seen other places.

Kenny,
Like many (most?) of the posters here, I am a trophy hunter. When I spot a deer, I want to size up his mass, points, kickers, stickers, etc before I decide to pull the trigger. Good, high end euro or japanese binos allow me to evaluate a buck better than cheap glass. Given a choice, I'll take a great bino, like my Leicas, and save money with a mid-priced riflescope because once I raise my rifle, I've already decided which deer I want to shoot, having just sized him up with the Leicas. Perhaps you aren't into scoring your bucks and are just looking for a hard antler for meat--and this is fine, if it works for you.
Now, when I'm culling does for meat or management, I still like my high-end binos. I don't want to make the mistake of shooting a buck fawn when doe hunting, and the Leicas help here too.
I want to spend my money on the things I use the most. I shoot the rifle seldom. I use my riflescope rarely. But I LIVE behind my binocular.

I have a $600 Browning A-Bolt .300 WSM with a $1,000 Zeiss Conquest 3-12x56mm scope on it.

I use my spotting scope on deer inside 100 yards all the time.

yeah... but my weatherby with my zeiss scope shoots a lot better than any of my other guns

1. You guys are 100 percent correct, use the bino's and spotters for glassing...

2. Where I hunt, I am well aware of my target area and whats beyond it, so when I see a buck, I am switching to firearms optics.... I can make a safe view of a deer with a riflescope without taking the safety off or endangering anyone...

3. I would never use the riflescope to look at unidentified targets or in unknown terrain/background......unless the target was a threat or possible threat (different situation)

Well, I too would consider myself a trophy hunter. Definitely not a meat hunter as I'm the only one in my family that will eat venison (another discussion all together and frustrating one for me at times). I'd consider myself a pretty picky trophy hunter as I haven't pulled a trigger on a buck (other than culls) in 4 years, while seeing many deer that would be trophies to others (though a trophy on my place may not be on yours).

I'll say I haven't had many instances of "ground shrinkage" or "surprises" in several years. In fact, the last case (one of two) of "ground-shrinkage" I had was hunting with the same guy I described above, him spotting for me on his ranch, using his high-dollar bino's. I didn't carry a pair that day and still wish I had. That "160-170 inch mature deer" he described ended up being a 130 inch 2 year old that shouldn't have been shot. The shot was dead into the sun and I really couldn't tell much about the deer and should have never shot, but it was his place and I trusted his judgement. Never again. I guess it could be argued that if I had a more high powered scope, I could have told more, but by the time the deer gave me a shot he was close to 375 yards and I was hunting with a gun I was comfortable with at that distance (300 Weatherby).

What I'm trying to determine is whether spending $1,000 to 1,500 on a pair of binoculars is really going to greatly increase my chances of seeing that trophy over the $150+/- pair I use today. Lord knows I've spent $1,000's on other things to improve my chances over the years, but none of that has been binoculars. I guess I could take my spotting scope with me, but I don't know that it would really make a huge difference given the terrain I choose to hunt a majority of the time and I like to travel light going from the truck to the stand.

Maybe it's just that I haven't looked at the right binoculars. Like I think I mentioned, I have only ever "used" one pair of expensive binoculars in the field and it was just one day. But, that day, I couldn't tell a massive amount of difference. Based on the guy who I was with, I'm certain he bought whatever the most expensive pair they had in the store was because that's the kind of guy he is. Of course, as we all know, cost doesn't always equal quality.

I'm not trying to argue, just explaining my perspective so I hope you take it that way. It'd be nice to be able to go use a pair in the field rather than spend $1,500 to find out what I think on what I'm considering a gamble at this point. Can't help it, guess I'm just cheap that way.

I'm glad this discussion came up as it's something I had been thinking about lately. A new blind versus some high quality binoculars with the biggest reason being low-light conditions.

I think for me, the top of the line optics come into play glassing brush, and distances. You say distances don't come into play for you, but the extra clarity for glassing brush is worth a bunch. May give you a little better chance of seeing that random ear or leg through the thick brush. Also could help you tell how good a buck it is in the brush. Once you have had quality glass you won't ever be able to go back. Mandatory equipment for guiding.

Very good point and well said.