Top best & worst rifle scopes

[Hannibal]

Best value for the money goes to Leupold. As to worst? Well, if you spent more money filling up your SUV and lunch than you did for a scope, I suspect you get what you paid for. Savvy?

[John Allen]

My favorite is Leupold followed by Nikon.

[MBTcustom]

My opinion.
You get what you pay for. Most of the cost of US Optics, Nightforce, or Schmidt and Bender is for toughness and more importantly, repeatable target knobs that you can shoot the round robin repeatability test and return to zero.
Most of us don't care about that. What we want is a scope that will stay where we set it once it has been dialed in to zero.
All scopes do this to varying degrees of repeatability, especially for hunting accuracy. What I have found is that almost any scope that is purchased for less than $200 cannot be trusted to deliver session to session zero less than about 1MOA. Your zero could shift that much between range sessions.
What I have found is that $400 is about the break over point for session to session zero of less than 1/2MOA. (Fingers crossed, so far so good).

I've owned and or used most of the scopes on the market that cost less than $400.
The brands that I have enjoyed the most and defer to are as follows in order from most prefered to least, with very little differance between them. Nothin on the list sucks.
1. Leupold (VX 1,2 or 3) had a rifleman go bad on me.
2. Weaver
3. Burris
4. Vortex
5. The new Redfield
6. Higher end Simmons
7. Bushnell Elite series.

The main point is that I didn't start getting into good quality reliable glass till I raised my cap to $400. If the most you are willing to spend is $150, then you will settle for good enough for hunting and informal target practice scopes.

At the end of the day, you just have to realize that the scope is a parallel system. It can bring no accuracy to an accurate rifle. It cannot help the accuracy of the system, and it can very easily hurt. If your rifle is a 1" gun and you put a scope on there that has a 1/2" accuracy capability, you are only able to depend on 1.5" accuracy.
In other words, the more you pay, the more assurance you have that the scope will not jack with the accuracy potential of your rifle.
The problem is, making a mechanism like a scope so that it will take all the shock and temperature change that the rifle goes through is not an easy thing to achieve. Instead of being made of rigid steel bolted together under 600lb of pressure with only one moving part that could be used to tow an 18 wheeler down the road (such as the rifle it is mounted to is constructed), it is made of lightweight aluminum, with delicate adjustment knobs and glass lenses, held together with wispy threaded containment rings, and assembled in a laboratory environment. This delicate measuring instrument is strapped to the top of your rifle with a bracket that is often made of anodized aluminum and secured with the smallest screws you are likely to find on the gun.
The fact that we can buy something that does all this and is anywhere close to repeatable for less than twice the cost of the rifle is a miracle of modern manufacturing.
However, in conclusion let me reiterate: You get what you pay for, and it's worth every penny.

[reloader28]

I've owned a few Bushnell, Tasco, Simmons and the like They are the worst of the worst. Will never own them again.
I have a couple Nicons and really like them.
I bought a Sightron for $160 one time and have been extremely happy with it.
I'm most happy with the Scheeles scopes I have. And a no question return policy.

My brother is into long range shooting and hunting. I mean LOOOONG range. 1000yds is baby stuff. He shoots that with his 243. You do NOT want to know how much he spends for a scope. It darn sure is needed for that though.

[35Whelen]

Zeiss Dialyte
Kahles
Are two top end scopes that I own. I also have a Leupold VXR with the red fibre optic dot that I like very much. My eyesight isn't what it used to be, and if it hadn't been for friends offering screaming deals on the two high end scopes, I never would have bought them. The clarity of the glass has to be experienced to believe.

[Geppetto]

Boy,

As previously stated a number of times, that is going to be Really dependent on what you want to do with it. The first deer rifle i used (One of my Dads guns) was an M77 with a Tasco scope on it. I shot many deer with that rifle anywhere from 10 to 200 yards. Worked great, never has lost its zero, but its now getting fairly dull. Worked great for a long time and did exactly what it needs.

Would it have been worth spending 3X more on that scope? Probably not, I wouldn't have shot any more deer with it that I did. I didn't have any misses I can blame on the scope, only my young inexperienced self.

On the other hand, I bought a nikon monarch for a new rifle and man, that thing is clear and well built.

[seaboltm]

Here is my test. Go to midwayusa.com. Do a search for "rifle scope". On the left, keep clicking options until you are on the page

Optics>Rifle Scopes>Center fire Rifle Scopes>Variable power

It shows just under 900 results. I switched to show 96 results per page, or about 10 pages worth of scopes. I did a sort by price, low to high. Avoid anything on page 1. There are decent scopes on page 2 (towards the bottom) but I would start my selections on page 3 towards the bottom of the page. In general my price range stops at the bottom of page 4. There will be many good, affordable scope options on pages 3 and 4 such as Burris, Nikon, Leupold, etc.

[micky_blue]

Zeiss
Kahles
Vortex
Leupold - (mine are old)
Burris

[jhalcott]

My biggest gripe with Leupold scopes is the way they are priced EVERY where! You do NOT find any cheap Leupold scopes in the stores or on line. They ARE excellent scopes and MY favorite. Handgun scopes are another story, I have many makes and models of these. I do not count the fake Leupolds in this.

[youngmman]

I love Leupold but there are many other very good scopes, Nightforce and Vortex for example. However, I recently bought a Nikon, Monarch 6.5X20 30mm and am very pleased. It is intermediate priced at around $550 and of very good quality, IMHO.

I would stay far away from the low priced budget brands. In optics you get what you pay for like in most other things. I think Nightforce is way over priced for most models however, again, IMHO.

[Love Life]

Best:
Schmidt & Bender
Kahles
Steiner
Nightforce
Leupold

Worst:
Countersniper...

It really depends. I watched a man win a 1,000 yd F/TR match with a Nikko Sterling scope...
I used a Tasco 6-24 varmint scope for a long time on a 308 learning to shoot distances. I still have that scope.

For a good, solid scope where your return on the money is legit I would recommend Leupold. Especially if you are active military.

[runfiverun]

I have been buying vortex scopes recently, but have used a lot of leupolds and would buy another one without issue.
if I could afford a nice niteforce scope for a target rifle I would get it.

I have bought bushnells and Nikons and such over the years and have had good and bad luck with them all.
but across the board I have done better with the vortex and leupolds as far as hunting and longevity.

[dougader]

I bought a Simmons 4X and put it on a Ruger 10/22. It blew the seal the first time out at the range. The recoil of that .22 LR is something to behold, right?

I had a Leupold Vari-X II, 3-9x40 on a Ruger M77 in 30-06 and it was a rugged, fine scope. I took a mule deer at 400 yards with that scope and the bullet hit right where I expected it to hit. But, compare that old Vari-X II to a guy's Vari-X III 3.5-10x50 and man, what a difference. The light gathering ability of the Vari-X III is incredible; like turning on a light switch inside the Vari-X III.

I bought a used Remington 700 BDL in 30-06 and it came with Nikon 3-9 scope and it really has been a decent scope, but nothing like the Leupold.

My 338-06 came with a 4-12 Fujinon scope on it. Junk from day one.

I like the rimfire Nikon scope I got on my newer 10/22. Nice scope for under $200.

[quilbilly]

On the lower end, I have really liked my Swift scopes on my 22 Hornet and 7mm TCU and my Tasco's have served OK. Of course on the upper end of price, I agree with the above. The worst - there is a reason I think BSA stands for "broken scope again". I have a very old Bushnell from the days the company belong to the Germans (Leupold I think) and after almost 45 years, it is still sterling.

[centershot]

What goodsteel said! Oh, and Nightforce? There is a very good reason why they cost what they do. Ask the Israeli military why they dumped their Leupolds for Nightforce and they'll tell you "Nightforce don't break!" I got that from an ex-member of the IDF sniper unit. ANY of them WILL break, I've had three Leupolds go back for repair, but I still buy them. Good scopes, great warranty. Even considering the broken ones, I can't complain!

[Love Life]

In the price level Nightforce is playing in, I would choose a different brand of scope.

[michiganmike]

Like an other respondent, I think very highly of the Burris for the money. Also, I recently mounted the Leupold entry level scope on my Ruger 77. It likewise is very accurate. Both have good warranties. And this fall I mounted a Konus scope on my Remington 870 slug gun. It was inexpensive and is performing like a champ for me.

Earlier this year I bought a Fat Max torque screwdriver for mounting my scopes. I wouldn't mount another scope without it. A great tool.

[shdwlkr]

Well I have
simmons, bushnell, another cheapy, viper, leupold vx7(3), vx3, cds, redfield, and afew more I can't remember who made. I buy based on what I am going to put them on and for what use I plan on using them for.

[jaysouth]

Best under my roof:

1. Sheperd 3-10X(can't afford another one)
2. Leupold VX-2 3-9
3. Ties with Leupold for clarity and definition, Steel Weaver K-4 (old one)
4. Inexpensive scope with good glass for load development under covered range. Mueller APV
5. Loaner, Tasco Bantam 2 1/2X

[Petrol & Powder]

Optics is one of those areas where you get what you pay for!
That doesn't mean you have to spend a fortune to get a good scope but it does mean that it's damn near impossible to get a good cheap scope.
There is only so much the manufactures can do to get the cost of the scope down and when you are trying to drive the costs down you quickly reach a point of diminishing returns where the quality must fall off to unacceptable levels.
That doesn't mean you have to go out a buy a $2000+ Schmidt & Bender just to get an adequate scope but it does mean that you have to spend some money to get a decent scope.
I've seen many rifle/scope combinations that were crippled by the poor quality of the scope & rings.
I agree that if you're going to buy a scope and can't afford a decent one, save up your money until you can buy a decent one. Otherwise you are just throwing money away.
Leupold are solid values and you can't go wrong with them in my experience. I particularly like the fixed power versions.
Nikon makes some good stuff and I had one that was as good as any Leupold in its class.
The old Weaver scopes were good but I've mixed feelings about the new ones.

In my opinion, you are throwing money away with the low end scopes. No matter how much you try to justify the cost savings the quality is just never there. The optics are never as clear, the waterproofing is never as good and most of all - they will not hold a zero. Some folks will claim a cheap scope will hold a zero but I've never had such luck.