Why do people buy match grade rifles and then put crap optics on them?

[Disposable Heart]

My favorite is a guy that comes out to the range sometimes with a 400 dollar GSG-5 with damn near 20 mags for the thing and a 300 dollar Aimpoint on top. Its like a magic trick, he pulls the mags out of damn near everywhere, always has his cargo pants loaded with em! I am waiting for him to walk over to someone, clap his hands, reach behind the guy's ear ear, and pull a mag from out behind his ear!

This, or the guy that has a dedicated .22 upper, plinks all day (rapid fire) and has more stuff than what the upper is worth in accessories (an Aimpoint on a very expensive ring set up alone costs more than the upper!).

 

[Mike Elzinga]

DH, you remind me of an early story from my youth....

I was at the range with an uncle when I was maybe 12 or 14. 2 guys walk up and set up at the table next to us and pull out enough stuff to make my head spin. Sigs, Glocks, various 1911, SBR's, and several AR's. They then break out bags of ammo like I had never seen. We always shot lead bullet reloads and here these guys had several thousand rounds of factory new stuff. (OMG!) Then, without setting up any targets they blasted away at the backstop. Shooting from the hip, rapid fire, whatever they could just to get this ammo burnt up. They didnt hit anything or do anything of any validity, but man they were COOOOOL!!!

I doubt I will ever forget that, or hearing my uncle make fun of them on the ride home, as long as I live.

 

[haldir]

Good story Mike. I know my Dad would have gotten a kick out that too. His idea of getting his shootin' eye in shape before squirrel season was to get out his .22 and shoot maybe 5 or 6 times at a stick on one of our trees offhand. ALl of them would be within an inch or so and that was it for practicing that year. He grew up during the Depression and could not have imagined someone shooting up that much ammo at one time.

 

[cce1302]

I get where you're coming from, melensdad. I haven't gotten around to buying a good centerfire bolt rifle yet, but when I do, I'm not going to put crap on it. Right now, I have a $175 10/22 with a $200 scope on it, and a shotgun with a Simmons shotgun scope on it, because they match. They are 100yd scopes on 100yd guns.

 

[youngda9]

How much more accurate is a high dollar scope than a mid to low dollar scope? I doubt very much...the accuracy is in the rifle and in the ammo used in that rifle. With modern scopes being good, I don't think you get a lot more with an uber-expensive one.

 

[cce1302]

How much more accurate is a high dollar scope than a mid to low dollar scope? I doubt very much...the accuracy is in the rifle and in the ammo used in that rifle. With modern scopes being good, I don't think you get a lot more with an uber-expensive one.

You get a much brighter, clearer picture, higher resolution, better, more accurate adjustment, less fogging, more durability, better eye relief.

I was gonna define all these things, but here's a sight talking about binoculars that explains them all and some more.
Meade Sports Optics - How to Select the Right Binocular

 

[cce1302]

Also, your crosshairs don't break off and fall to the bottom of your scope, plus you can choose what reticle you want to use.

Don't forget, your rings and mount are just as important as your scope. A $1200 scope attached to an $1800 rifle won't give you any kind of accuracy if you buy a $10 set of noodle rings and mounts.

 

[youngda9]

You get a much brighter, clearer picture, higher resolution, better, more accurate adjustment, less fogging, more durability, better eye relief.

Well sure, but my question was how much more accurate would the scope be. 1%, 5%, 10% ?

The things you mention are mostly asthetic.

Just playing devils advocate here. Is there any data of groups shot with similar scopes(same power and crosshair type) of the cheap, midrange, and expensive variety that show if there is a discernable accuracy difference that you could point me to? I'd like to know the answer to this as well.

 

[melensdad]

The things you mention are mostly asthetic.

Well I don't know of any 'studies' but I don't think it is accurate to consider those things aesthetic. Accurate turrets, with finer adjustments help tremendously at longer ranges and can easily make the difference between hitting and missing. Also noted was durability which has nothing to do with aesthetics. Not mentioned was repeatability, something that is critical in with precision rifles. Its more than just a clearer sight picture, but as distances go out, that also makes a pretty big difference in being able to see what you are aiming at and even to see your hits/groups. Hard to do that if your sight picture is dim or blurry at distance and certainly that is not aesthetic.

Again, these things don't matter much at short ranges, but get out there to 400, 600 or 1000 yards and these things become critical for precision shooting.

 

[GetA2J]

How much more accurate is a high dollar scope than a mid to low dollar scope? I doubt very much...the accuracy is in the rifle and in the ammo used in that rifle. With modern scopes being good, I don't think you get a lot more with an uber-expensive one.

I would like to offer my services for this comparison testing.
Send all your best scopes and rings to me, also send some cheaper scopes and rings and I will test each one with different rings and measure the groups and keep a journal and post results in a thread right here on INGO!!!




Seriously!!!

 

[shooter521]

Is there any data of groups shot with similar scopes(same power and crosshair type) of the cheap, midrange, and expensive variety that show if there is a discernable accuracy difference

You're not going to be "more accurate" with one scope vs. another, given all the same variables – that's not how scopes work. Where you will see the differences (and what you pay for in good optics) will be in clarity, brightness, eye relief, accuracy and repeatability of adjustments, and overall durability.

Good article about scope features and selection from Chuckhawks.com:

On Riflescopes

 

[GetA2J]

Good article about scope features and selection from Chuckhawks.com:

On Riflescopes

SSHHHHHHH! I'm workin' it here!!!

You're ruinin' my thang!!!

 

[Metro 40]

.

 

[melensdad]

I think you found the answer to your question. There are a lot of people who buy match grade rifles simply because they are "match grade." They are not necessarily interested in shooting tiny groups at long ranges. They are interested in owning something that CAN do that. (Kinda like owning a Porsche that will never see 175 mph) Nobody who is serious about long range accuracy will put a low end scope on a custom match rifle. There are a whole lot of people who buy guns who will never use them for serious purposes. If gun purchases had any correlation to common sense, the firearms industry would be in a world of hurt.

Using your analogy it would be far more accurate if you stripped the $250 high performance tires off of each wheel and slapped on some re-treads.

Just as a crap scope will prevent the shooter from using the rifle to anything close to its potential, the crummy tires on the Porsche will prevent the car from reaching its top speed because the rubber will strip off those tires long before the car reaches its limits.

 

[Metro 40]

.

 

[dburkhead]

Using your analogy it would be far more accurate if you stripped the $250 high performance tires off of each wheel and slapped on some re-treads.

Just as a crap scope will prevent the shooter from using the rifle to anything close to its potential, the crummy tires on the Porsche will prevent the car from reaching its top speed because the rubber will strip off those tires long before the car reaches its limits.

That further analogy only works if the car doesn't come with tires in the first place. Nobody took a high end scope off the match rifle to put on a cheap scope.

More closely is the fact that most "performance" cars have tires that are actually pretty poor (in terms of actual racing tire type performance) than what's available out there, even among "street legal" tires. For example Hoosier Racing Tire is pretty much the default for sports car racing both both road racing and autocross in classes where there is no "treadwear" limit (it's complicated). (Kumho, BTW, makes a line of racing tires that's a strong second to Hoosiers--or was when I followed the sport.) The tires are "stickier" (better traction) than anything that comes on a street legal car from the factory. They also have a short road life ("stickier" tires means softer rubber, which means they wear out quickly) which makes them quite costly to drive.

So someone with cheap optics on their high-end rifle is someone who didn't pull off the Goodrich Z rated radials from his car and put on Hoosiers or Kumhos (and change them every couple of months).

 

[knobcreeknut]

you have to remember that this is Indiana, and most people around here consider 300 yards to be a looooong shot. we are not a state of rifle shooters. you see alot of rifles capable of extreme true long range accuracy that will never be used for more than 100 yards, and will not see 500 rounds downrange in there life. you also have a large easy access to good rifles, but try to find someone that stocks zeiss, lieca or swarovski optics. if you are lucky enough to have a good rifle and good optics, youprobabaly have to travel a great distance to find a place to use it to it's full potenetial. Many of the shooters I know don't even understand minutes of angle. it is just a phenomena of our geography.

 

[Chefcook]

Again, going to the actual subject of the thread, this is about precision rifles. The implication being that people who buy those rifles are interesting in shooting tiny little groupings at very long ranges. That said, I think you'd easily notice the difference in the optics when you sight in a pie plate sized target that is a half mile + away.

I have a Ruger #1 25/06. This was my first rifle I have had it since I was 12 years old. I consider it to be A precision rifle easily capable of .25" groups well past 500 yards. I originally had a Liesenfeld scope on this rifle. We acquired this scope off of a modern Carl Gustav .308 hunting rifle that my father purchased at the PX in 1972 while we were in Germany. The Germans were always renound for the quality of their optics especially in cameras like Leica and the sort. I never knew the value of this scope however my father swore it was at least a $600 optic. To make a long story short the scope was so temperamental about eye relief and placement of the eye, field of view etc. that I was never able to actually shoot a decent grouping with it. I replaced it when I was around 15 with a simple Bushnell 3x9x42 hunting scope that at the time cost about $40. Then I had my .25" groups. Now I am far from an authority on the subject of optics. I have never tried an Eotec or any scope that would cost anything like as much as the rifle, and to be honest the reason is a matter of economics. If money were of no object of course I would only buy the best. However In my experience the most expensive isn't necessarily the best. I recently came across a Christmas catalog for the very rich where they had cigarette lighters and whiskey flasks that cost a $1000. And small gourmet meat and cheese packages that were $500. Are they really better than others costing $60. I mean Hickory farms is kinda hard to beat. Once again I am not saying that a $1200 Eotec wouldn't have advantages over a $100 Ncstar scope. But I have found that the less expensive scopes I own work just fine. And that the quality in allot of them is surprising to say the least, especially with my Ncstar products. I have an Olympic arms K-16 with a simple Ncstar tactical holographic sight. At the ranges I have thus far been able to conduct tests I am extremely impressed. Once I acquire a scope suitable for longer range shooting (and it will be like a Bushnell,Tasco,Ncstar or something else I can afford) and have also worked up the hand load this rifle likes to shoot. I have absolutely every confidence that I will be able to achieve noteworthy accuracy at 400+ yards. Now the question as stated being at a half mile that's 880 yards. I once at Fort Dix Nj watched a staff Sargent bounce coffee cans around at that range with open sights. So why do people put cheap optics on a precision rifle. Its economics simply stated. I had to skimp and save and do without things for a month to afford my K-16. Incidentally I did not choose my K-16 because of the price. I found threw my research it to be of superior quality to many of the other offerings available on the market today. In short I went looking for an Olympic Arms I did not want a Panther Arms or Bushmaster etc. And I will do whats necessary (as in the same)to add good functional optics in time. But I will base my decision and my research on how well the scope functions and not how much it costs. Or how many bells and whistles it has. ...JC

P.S. I do consider my Olympic Arms K-16 a precision rifle. She may not be capable of 880 yard shots due to the caliber. But I am proud to call myself the owner of this quality firearm...

 

[cce1302]

I have a Ruger #1 25/06. This was my first rifle I have had it since I was 12 years old. I consider it to be A precision rifle easily capable of .25" groups well past 500 yards.

Really? .05 MOA? What BR competitions have you won with that gun?

 

[tyler34]

inline with the op's question, I'm not made of money and the gun probably put a hurt on the piggy bank therefore I have to get an optic that is affordable and works for ME. is that to say I will keep that scope and never get anything better? no but it works for the time being, plus going to the range without top-notch optics is better than not going at all.