Let me start by saying that with powderburners I consider myself a middle of the road scope buyer. I have pretty much mantained that trend with my air rifles. I notice that many airgunners tend to buy a good rifle and then cheat themselves by purchasing the cheapest scope they can find. It is not uncommon for someone to spend more on a scope than on a rifle when it comes to powderburners. I am amazed when I see some folks asking about airguns scopes and the budgets they want to limit themselves to. On my rifles I probably AVERAGE spending 2/3 on rifle and 1/3 on scope. I see many people trying to get by on spending 10 or 15% of the air rifle cost on scope. What are your thoughts on scoping an airgun? As with most trends there seems to be exceptions, in this case the exception looks to be the FT guys. Your thoughts and comments on the subject is appreciated.
would you put low end shock absorbers in a Chevy Silverado, Toyota Tundra or a Ford F150?
on my 34's I can put a $20 to $30 mount and a $50 to $60 scope from Walmart but on my 48 and 460 I would not dare put that kind of $$ in the setup
BLK or Dampa Mounts for those BIG BOY's, $70 to $90 on mounts and Minimun $100 to $150 on glass
the Dampa mount (Sports Match) has 3 screws to the rail and will absorb the recoil, will not address barrel droop but if your air gun is high power with little droop you can put a $100 scope on it and it will survive
warren
PS: you get what you paid for
and remember "it's 30% the gun and 70% the shooter"
to take a season to perfect my hold and accuracy with iron sights and pay attention to what you guys are doing with scopes. when i have it figured out i will invest in the best scope and mounts i can afford. my gun is a diana 52 and they are known scope eaters. i want to avoid that frustration if i can.
One of the reasons for this discussion is to see if this is fact or fallacy. I am starting to think certain guns get this reputation because people insist on mounting cheap scopes with inferior mounts and rings. What may work on a mild mannered rifle may not survive on a magnum springer. I think it's the need to match the mount, rings and scope properly with the rifle.
I was not going to respond because I have very limited experience, but I bought a used 52 this spring. I've mounted a BSA 3-12 scope ($80 from Sportsman's Warehouse) and have been using it for over four months. It seems quite solid - the scope has not given me any issues though I think the first mount was not up to snuff. With a $70 mount, it is going strong after about 3000 pellets. I've been to the bsaoptics web site, and it seems there is a lifetime warranty on this 'cheapie' scope.
First, sometimes the rifle buyer is pretty much tapped out dollar wise. They may not have that much more to put into a scope. Second, and maybe foremost, there are a lot of posts here and elsewhere singing the praises of cheaper scopes. Maybe quality in low end scopes has gone up. Maybe the ranges at which they are used do not bring out deficiencies in the scopes that would show up at two or three hundred yards. But a good many shooters seem to be recommending them.
I'll admit, I'm as guilty as the next guy. I can see laying out some serious coin for a nice rifle, but kind of balk at $300 or so for a scope. There are two things, in my mind, to consider when buying the scope. First, how much scope are you going to need? If high magnification, then pay the money for a better scope. Seems many people like the cheaper variables but usually caveat their review with something negative about the usability of the top power. And I have picked up some 36X Simmon's that cut out so much light you thought you were shooting at twilight. That's a function of lens quality and design, both of which are short-changed or compromised in the cheaper scopes. Second, where will you be using the scope? If in serious competition or packed along on a very expensive hunt, you want the best you can afford.
I have some "good" scopes, "ok" scopes and a 24X Tasco that is really not that bad but I picked up very cheap so what the hey? If I get down to one or two guns, then by all means I will top them with Leupolds.
Now, with receiver sights, throw out the above and buy the best you can afford. And those are not nearly as expensive as a top end scope.
Somewhere on the net there used to be a great thread on the progression of scope manufacture from Japan to the Philippines, to South Korea to China.
Nice post Red Feather.
I have settled on the Hawke line and all of the one's I use are under $300.00.
I think these scopes are a real value.
I am an avid photographer and look at glass differently than some. Some of my camera lens cost more than my camera body. The camera is only as good as the glass and I think that holds true for rifles and scopes as well.
low refractive index glass and large diameter objective lenses are expensive. and precision alignment of the glass in the tube is all important. look at the cost of some of the high end cannon and nikon lenses. also snieder large format lenses. very expensive and they are made in high production numbers. scopes should be looked at in the same way. a cheap scope can't possibly have
the construction quality and image quality you need to enhance shooting.then there is the longevity issue. cheap scopes can't be expected to hold up to the forces generated by spring powered air guns. i don't know where the price point is that denotes "quality" when it comes to scopes though. the leapers scopes seem to get very good reviews and the cost of many are pretty reasonable.
maybe one strategy is to not buy any more "features" than you really need but strive to buy quality and proven performance in spring air gun use.
I have seen people spend a lot of money on a body and then slap a $100. lens on and wonder why there photos aren't up to snuff. It's the glass that makes the difference. Of course the photographer has to know what he or she is doing.
I don’t think that your looking at it right. I myself by the best glass for my cameras I like Canon L glass for looking at the stars I use Meade and Tele View and high powered center fires Zeiss is my brand. But lets take a look at air guns first off so what if there is a little (CA) chromatic aberration and if the edges are a little soft no big deal right. On a air gun your not taking a 300 yard shot and in reality most people with center fires aren’t shooting passed 100 yard. So you see things like photos require good glass as well as astronomy and long range shooting. A mid priced air gun probably, if set up right will still hit the center of a dime at 35yrds. So a $400 + scope is over kill and might not take to double recoil of a springer. My M 54 and Panther Pro both are tack drivers with low cost glass.
I too use L glass on my DSLR.
I am not advocating putting a $400. scope on a $400. rifle. I am saying that putting a sub-par $100. scope on that same rifle might be asking for problems. There has to be a REASON that we read about so many scope failures in the forums.
I find it odd that people who shoot powder burners talk about scopes lasting for decades and people who shoot air rifles talk about scopes lasting so many shots. I am not willing to buy a scope and have to repalce it every year or two.
Years ago, when Swift was making really good airgun scopes, I bought a few. Heck, with Marty McNaughton we even specced them for Swift! If someone produces something you specced, the LEAST you can do is buy one! ROFL!
Anyway, I have the best Swift scope ever made for recoiling airguns: it's the 2-7X32 that has a spring loaded objective. It has withstood MANY rounds from MANY airguns. It is not a scope for X shots, it's a scope for life. It costed US$300 from the factory, way back in 2001.
I also have a first generation HorusVision scope on custom drooped BKL mounts. It costed US$800, from the factory also, mounts were US$150. It has been on top of many powerful airguns and is still clicking impeccably, right now it found it's place on top of a Steyr LG-110 HP in .20" cal. that is accurate all the way to 100 meters.
The BSA 10-50 X 60 "Hubble" is for FT on top of non-recoiling airguns (JW Crosman 2100 and Steyr LG-100), it works as good as new, perhaps better.
I now have a Leapers 3-9X40 on my D-54 on stock BKL D-4 mounts. And a Leapers Bug-Buster is on top of my girlfriend's HW-95 on Leapers mounts.
Latest purchases are: a Russian catadioptric scope 10-50X50 that is incredible, but will need a very special mount to go on top of any gun. Hopefully, this will release the Horus for springer use, and a fixed 10X Viper MTC that I hope to put on top of my D460.
I used pistol scopes on Benjis in a Scout mount fashion and I try to find the RIGHT scope for the job, regardless of the cost, as long as I can afford it! LOL!
I do not think I would pay US$3,000 for a Schmidt & Bender scope, though; and I have not found that the Zeiss's opticals are really that good above the Horus's.
Image may not be as important in an airgun as in a camera or telescope, but extended shooting sessions (300-500 shots in an afternoon) do impose an eye strain when using cheap optics. And this leads to poor performance, no matter what the shooter wants to do.
My final word on this is that you should not care what the trends are. Do what is best for you, and if it is out of your financial reach for the time being: THINK.
Do you really need something right now or can you save a little more and get something for life?
Hector said: "Image may not be as important in an airgun as in a camera or telescope, but extended shooting sessions (300-500 shots in an afternoon) do impose an eye strain when using cheap optics. And this leads to poor performance, no matter what the shooter wants to do.
My final word on this is that you should not care what the trends are. Do what is best for you, and if it is out of your financial reach for the time being: THINK."
I certainly agree about eye strain and cheap optics.
The reason I care about the trends is I believe many people are being discouraged by their first air gun experience due to problems partly created by cheap scopes and mounts. If you peruse the forums I think you will find proof of this. If people are encouraged to buy quality to begin with they will find our sport more enjoyable and will be more likely to stick with it.
You guys are right on about extended shooting sessions. But I think most here that have the time to pull off 300-500 shots in a sitting already shoot with better guns and glass. The image of having one of my Zeiss scopes slip and get all marked up from sliding in its mount. All of my center fire guns have lapped mounts. I guess if I were to take a leapers weaver mount and use some high quality rings and lap them I could trust the hold on a good scope. Back to were I was going for the ones here that are taking small game 5-20 shots a week. A good low cost Leapers or Center Point would work well.
I guess inexpensive scopes have improved a good deal in the past ten years. There are still one or two things to look out for, although they aren't readily apparent. For instance, bigger is not always better. The larger the front lens, the more photons it can "gather". (Like the dots that make up a newspaper photo, the more photons you have, the clearer the image is when enlarged. Also brighter.) Those photons are then focused down into a cone onto the next lens. Some cheap scopes don't have enough internal clearance to transmit the entire cone, effectively cutting the outer edge off. This means a cheap 50mm scope may be only transmitting as much light as a 40mm.
Another thing is the quality of the glass. I once found a pair of Japanese "battleship" binoculars in an antique store. They weighed about twenty pounds plus and had objective lenses the size of grapefruits. I asked a local camera shop about restoration. He told me that, after about $1000 worth of work, they would probably be no better than a pair of high-end large binoculars with modern lenses. Really good lenses, aside from correcting for aberrations, transmit more light. A 40mm scope with good lenses will outperform a 50mm with cheap ones. On a variable scope, they mean being able to use all of your power settings instead of having a 6x24 that you only use as a 6x12.
One scope brand I'm not seeing mentioned here (maybe I missed it) is Leupold. They warrant all of their scopes as airgun rated and offer lifetime service. Not that expensive, either.
If I was a bit strapped for cash,I would sooner purchase quality second hand optics, than buy a cheap new scope that is built to a price.
I have a couple of (real)Japanese zoom scopes bought second hand that have lived most of their lives on big springers and are still going strong.
I think that quality pays in the long run, not just for scopes, but for most things.
Another thing is that names mean little, but the country where it is assembled says a lot.
Just my 2cents worth...
"There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on price alone is this man's lawful prey."
Or, if you prefer:
"It is unwise to pay too much, but it is unwise to pay too little. When you pay too much, you loose a little money; that is all. When you pay too little you sometimes lose everything. Because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing you bought it to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot. It cannot be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run and if you do that, you will have enough to pay for something better."
Unfortunatly, I agree with Hector: I didn´t have had good experiences with 3 (three) Leupolds EFR3-9 x33, in 350 Magnum and other springers. The problems were the recurrent: impossible to keep the zero and dispersion (other accuracy factors were under control: JSB Exact pellets, clean bores, adjusted stock screws, etc).
I´m STILL searching for THE scope for magnum springers.
He ¿Is/Was? a good airgunsmith specializing in powering up and, more importantly, accurizing Crosman 2100 and 2200 's. With one of those guns I won the Mexican FT Nationals in 2003. The shootout was against a Super10 in .20" cal. I was shooting a JW gun in 0.177", the day was windy and the shootout was at 50 meters.
My current favourite barn-pigeon-popper is a JW2100 in .25" cal.
If you ever come across one of his guns, buy it. You won't regret it.
I love my Bugbusters, and is the only scope I will buy from now on. Have a nice Bushnell on my 34. but a bug buster with a recant mount is the greatest!
Dave@vabch
