The Law of Diminishing Return

[steve white]

I am often obsessed with the acquisition of quality gear. Particularly in optics, but other things as well. When it comes to binoculars and rifle scopes, I want representatives of the very best performers available. But if I'm honest, the very top 1% is getting out of reach (read, $3000 rifle scopes), especially when it comes to equipping EVERY rifle with a scope. What I am coming to grips with is a question of satisfaction--AND the reality that the top 1% is not THAT far above other sensible choices if I can manage to be content with what is actually good enough to get the job done.

Here's what I am getting at--I have Zeiss FL 8x56 binoculars and love the Abbe-koenig lens system. But Maven has an Abbe-Koenig system available for lots less. How good are they--well, the Mavens are rated above the Conquest HDs! And that makes one ask the question--are the top, top alpha scopes enough better to justify the purchase, when I can get actually 99% of the performance for 2/3 the price? That last top 1% is getting to look like a diminishing return. Broad band multi-coatings, phase coatings, water repellent coating, CNC manufacturing and other improvements are narrowing the gap. Heck, I have some China-made bins that are better than some older alphas I could name. And Japanese glass can be as good as it gets. But "normal" Japanese glass is INCREDIBLY good, and when's the last time even a cheap scope fogged up?
The manager of The Wild Bird store in Dallas (before it went under) told me he had ceased to stock the alpha brands because he really couldn't tell enough difference between them and some of the new entries to the field!
Then there are guns. I read an ad for a $500 rifle that guaranteed the bolt face and barrel etc would be blueprinted, squared up from the factory. Their accuracy standard may be higher than older expensive rifles that have not been blue-printed. And many of the less expensive brands are achieving accuracy good enough to suit just about anybody.
Don't even get me started on fishing reels, lol.
But I get ahead of myself. What say ye about diminishing returns? What are your "Best Buy" "Editors Choice" selections out there? (that's assuming we can ever be satisfied...)

 

[mark-hunter]

I am like you. I cant shoot what I cannot see. I want quality, for maximum performance
My optics for hunting Zeiss 3-12x56, Diavary, Swarovski Z6, 1.7-10x42.
Binocular Leica Geovid.
But this is all for hunting in all light conditions.

The point where I become economical on optics is, when I do not expect shooting at dusk or low light conditions. Those are driven hunts and target shooting (at paper), in broad daylight.
This is for driven hunt: Meopta 1-8x20
Or for shooting at target: Sightron SIII 10-50x60.
Middle class scopes.

In terms of rifles, quality does not equal the price always, and the same stands for reliability.
Accuracy is no subject, because even cheap factory rifles today can easily be 1 MOA.
For example, I wanted Mauser 98 (or clone) for Africa, so I bought old ZKK 602 in 375, vintage 1985 for reasonable money. Why Mauser 98? Because is undoubtedly reliable.

Yes, that rifle (ZKK) needed tuning up, but whatever money I through at that rifle it will never reach 14K what is required for new DWM Mauser 98, made by Mauser, Germany. And still, I have Mauser rifle for safari. And still there are some features on ZKK which are better then on new M98.

I can go on and on with the rifles.

If we speak about bolt action hunting rifles, anything above value of Blaser R8, is just luxury (or artisanship, if you will).
But higher price then that will not affect functional quality of the rifle. (like golden inlays, or fine engraving, or fine wood, which have value of course, but have no effect on quality and function)

 

[franzfmdavis]

I am with you 100%!

I think that there is a bit of confidence that goes with believing you have the best gear. If that makes the experience more enjoyable and even a fraction better in terms of performance then Im willing to invest in it.

I have been trying to put the same optic on all of my hunting rifles with the intended goal of not needing to try and remember different systems, controls or reticles.

To that end, I have three Swarovski Z8i 1-8x24 with the 4A-IF reticle and one Z6i 1-6x24 with the 4A-IF reticle. To me, these are the best hunting scopes for very close to reasonable distances.

The exception is my elk hunting gun, on which I have a Schmidt & Bender PMII 3-12x50 with the P4FL reticle. The larger tube (34mm), objective and magnification help me in very low light situations.

 

[Flipper Dude]

I’ve shot dangerous game in 3 countries and PG in 5. Never, ever shot at an animal that’s not in the salt. Scope 1-4 Nikon Monarch. Binos…,, none. Meopta meopro (?) that stay in the high rack of the truck. You might want more, but you don’t need more.

 

[coreydb]

You don't need to spend a lot of money to get quality optics. Hunting scopes prove their worth in clarity, ruggedness (ability to hold zero) and low light visibility. The recommendations from the group are proven in the field, not sponsor driven. There are many independent internet research sites that also provide good guidance. I've shot great using $$$ Leupold scopes as well as trashy $$$ ones. I've also had superb DG success with the Vortex line....believe it or not.

 

[crossone]

In order of importance, my hunting equipment is valued by me on how well it performs in the following categories.

These categories are ranked according to their (importance to me) from #1: Durable, to #9: Makes my friends jealous.

Durable, reliable, accurate, precision, high value per dollar, lightweight, nostalgic/romantic, beautiful, and makes my friends jealous.

If I can buy better boots, I'm probably 10xing my overall effectiveness and comfort than the extra $1,500 - $3k that a Swarovski binocular upgrade would cost. I can pretty much afford the best now, but the stuff I have pretty much still works as good as ever, and the nostalgia factor has improved significantly.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

I'm afraid my "diminishing return" bar is set a lot lower than most on here. I smacked up my very tired (340K miles) 1998 Jimmy last fall when I clobbered a whitetail doe on the same 1 hr stretch of Montana highway it's taken three other deer since 2010. No point in fixing it so I bought another vehicle: a twenty year-old Envoy with 190K miles but well cared for. A vehicle is something to get me from point A to point B. I can afford a Ferrari (actually more than one) but what's the point? Four thousand bucks and I'm on the road again. No expensive collision insurance or car payments to the bank to worry about. Save my money for hunting trips.

Same with my hunting and fishing equipment. I shop the sales if I need something. Built my 404 on a post war Czech vz.24 military Mauser rather than wait several years for someone else to do it for me. Saved thousands and the gun turned out great. Risked screwing it up (never built a rifle before) but would only be out of pocket less than a thousand if it didn't work out. I bought a new 1-4x30mm no frills Bushnell scope off ebay to put on it. Doesn't work out I'll only lose less than $200. I can always take it off and switch to the optional iron sights and I'm ready to go again. So far it's held up just fine. My binoculars are 10x42 "Nikon knockoff" I bought new in the box at a pawnshop. About $80 as I recall. I made a holster for them from a leather purse I bought at Salvation Army Store. They have held up great through two trips to Africa and a couple of very cold and nasty Montana hunting seasons.

 

[JimP]

Many years ago I read that the scope that you put onto a rifle should cost the same as the rifle.

But for me and with close to 60 years of hunting experience here in the western US I'll stick with my Leopold's. They have never failed me in snowstorms, rain that was blowing sideways. From early mornings to late evenings and everything in-between.

Every time that I thought that there was a problem with the scope I found out that it was just the person that was pulling the trigger.

 

[LivingTheDream]

Scope 1-4 Nikon Monarch

Thats a really good DG scope.

 

[odonata]

The OP's post reminds me of the old idiom "I'm too poor to buy cheap stuff". I enjoy hunting with quality gear that I can rely on. So I don't mind spending a bit extra (for my personal budget) to try & acquire some nice stuff. It makes me happy to both own it & use it but I'm not trying to impress anyone. I just have a penchant for walnut, blued steel & long-action classic cartridges that were designed before I was born. Affordable stainless & plastic leaves me cold even if it could be argued that it is the better value or choice. Many of my purchases are driven more by nostalgic emotion.

For the rifle, rings & scope, I average about $2,750 per rifle. This amount is higher than the guys I regularly hunt with since some of them often favor a dependable lever action. But I'm sure there's forum members here who regularly spend more than that for the glass alone. I say vive la différence & whatever makes you happy. If I had it to do it all over again, I would probably buy half as many rifles but spend more purchasing some nicer ones. I enjoy shooting everything I own so I don't have any safe queens.

I tend to favor falling-block No. 1's & 1885's (I have eight) since they work well for a lot of the hunting I do. My left-handed bolt actions are Cooper, Sako, Steyr, Winchester & Ruger. My one semi-auto is a Wilson Combat. Most of my scopes are either Swarovski or Schmidt & Bender with a few Minox, Zeiss, Leupold, Nikon & Meopta to round out the options. My favorites are my S&B 1.1-4x24 Zenith, S&B 1.5-8x42 Stratos, Swarovski Z6 1.7-10x42 & the Minox ZA-5 1.5-8x32. I use Swaro binoculars. My slings & cartridge holders were made by Els Fine Leather in SA.

 

[sgt_zim]

If it's stupid but works, it ain't stupid.

I'm happy with my Ruger #1, Zastava M70, MRC Alaskan, a bevy of Savages, a Tikka, a Sauer 100, and a Marlin.

The most expensive scope I own is a Zeiss V6, with a bunch of Leupolds from Freedom to VX5, and a Meopta Optika 5. All the gear I own does precisely what I need it to do.

I've shot deer, feral hogs, and warthogs with VX Freedoms literally in the last 30 - 90 seconds of daylight, 1 of them a 1.5-4x20 and the other a 2-7x33. Would a 50mm objective on a $3K scope work better? What's better than what's already working?

If I had a higher 6-figure income, I'd probably buy more expensive. Would it work better than what I have? I've got so much venison and pork in my freezer that I'm cooking wild game for church on Sundays, and there's still 100+ lbs left in the freezer.

When you reach a point of having stuff that works under the most adverse conditions I can throw at it...yeah, definitely law of diminishing returns.

Would I like a Highland Stalker in 7x57? Sure. Who wouldn't? But at that point, I'm buying beautiful art, not functionality.

 

[steve white]

Shimano is one company that constantly puts former top level technology into the lower price levels as the upper crust Stella models continue to improve. I would have no problem at all buying a lower grade new Shimano and feeling confident that it would stand up to whatever I asked it to do. Do I still want a Stella, or at least a Stradic--you bet I do!! But I could get by with less. OTOH, I turned down an older top of the line Calcutta bait caster because the new stuff is just so much better.

That said, I have also bought too cheap, and HAD to unnecessarily upgrade because I fooled myself into thinking I was getting free lunch.

 

[FlyGuy]

I'm an optics snob, but last year my opinion of "cheap" scopes changed.
One of my top end European scopes dropped me in the middle of a hunting trip.
I was booked for Springbok hunt two weeks later, and there was no way I could have the scope repaired in time.

A buddy suggested that I try an Arken EPL-4 4-16x44 to see me through the next trip, while my scope went to Europe for repair.
I figured that I could also use the Arken for load development purposes, as all my other scopes are lower power hunting scopes with thicker reticles.

Well... I used the Arken for that Springbok hunt, and it's now a permanent fixture on my 6.5x55.

The illumination sucks, but the tracking is outstanding all the way out to 500m, which is further than I care to shoot at game. The optics are more than sufficient too.
Twilight performance doesn't matter here in SA, as it's day and 10 minutes later it's night.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Too many folks too often equate "quality" with "expensive." At the trap club last week I saw one of the fellas was driving a brand new white Chev pickup. "Hey, Mike, I thought your new truck was black?" It was. This was a rental because his 2024 blew up the transmission. "And there's thirty more waiting at the dealership for tranny replacements." So he'll probably be driving the rental for at least six months courtesy of GM warranty. Then he observes I'm driving a different rig. "Jeezus! 2004? How long do you expect that to last?" Lasted long enough to get me home from Montana ... where there's no road salt ... or sales tax. What did he pay for that new truck? Just under $100K Canadian + insurance + interest on loan + warranty payments. And he can't even drive it. I spent $4K US for my 2004 Envoy (just about $6K Can) six months ago and and still driving it. Very nice ride too. Sure, its transmission could blow up or someone run a light and total it. Big deal. Go buy another. $4K is what, three months payments on his new truck? This outfit should last me ten years. By then I should be off the road permanently ... and in an assisted living home. Anyway, NO vehicle lasts more than ten years in Ontario road salt.

Too often a "quality" brand name just means the maker is a marketing genius. I prefer to follow Robert Frost's advice and follow the path less chosen. Yes, it's usually the cheaper route but it'll get me to the same place in the end. Maybe it's a rough road ... maybe not. Same thing with the one more traveled. Maybe less maintained ... because no need for it. Travelers will use it just because everyone else is using it. Why bother fixing the potholes?

 

[wyosteve]

This thread reminds me of what I've heard called 'meaningless minutiae, in other words fretting about things that really don't make a difference. I see it most on these forums with folks that get concerned about the speed of their bullets. So what if one is 50 fps slower or faster than another. Means nothing in reality. Same with the new 'flavor of the month' caliber. Most modern rifles/cartridges are so close in speed/trajectory that it makes no real difference. I realize, 'to each their own', but I don't waste my time worrying about those little details. Just shoot/hunt and enjoy the experience. Just my .02!

 

[cajunchefray]

I'm afraid my "diminishing return" bar is set a lot lower than most on here. I smacked up my very tired (340K miles) 1998 Jimmy last fall when I clobbered a whitetail doe on the same 1 hr stretch of Montana highway it's taken three other deer since 2010. No point in fixing it so I bought another vehicle: a twenty year-old Envoy with 190K miles but well cared for. A vehicle is something to get me from point A to point B. I can afford a Ferrari (actually more than one) but what's the point? Four thousand bucks and I'm on the road again. No expensive collision insurance or car payments to the bank to worry about. Save my money for hunting trips.

Same with my hunting and fishing equipment. I shop the sales if I need something. Built my 404 on a post war Czech vz.24 military Mauser rather than wait several years for someone else to do it for me. Saved thousands and the gun turned out great. Risked screwing it up (never built a rifle before) but would only be out of pocket less than a thousand if it didn't work out. I bought a new 1-4x30mm no frills Bushnell scope off ebay to put on it. Doesn't work out I'll only lose less than $200. I can always take it off and switch to the optional iron sights and I'm ready to go again. So far it's held up just fine. My binoculars are 10x42 "Nikon knockoff" I bought new in the box at a pawnshop. About $80 as I recall. I made a holster for them from a leather purse I bought at Salvation Army Store. They have held up great through two trips to Africa and a couple of very cold and nasty Montana hunting seasons.

I like the idea of a used thrift store leather purse for a binocular case.
I’m going to Goodwill!

 

[cajunchefray]

In order of importance, my hunting equipment is valued by me on how well it performs in the following categories.

These categories are ranked according to their (importance to me) from #1: Durable, to #9: Makes my friends jealous.

Durable, reliable, accurate, precision, high value per dollar, lightweight, nostalgic/romantic, beautiful, and makes my friends jealous.

If I can buy better boots, I'm probably 10xing my overall effectiveness and comfort than the extra $1,500 - $3k that a Swarovski binocular upgrade would cost. I can pretty much afford the best now, but the stuff I have pretty much still works as good as ever, and the nostalgia factor has improved significantly.

I’m settling into your camp.

Durability, accuracy, optical fidelity are most important to me. My eyesight is my limiting factor.
That means that optical clarity, of precision ground lenses, proper multi coated lenses are very important, but the last 1% or 4% is lost on me due to my eyesight.

Reliable performance is key as I expect the bullet to hit where the crosshairs are aimed, given a properly made rifle.
All of this is tempered by the real world variables, an MOA rifle works well for hunting within 300 yards, my limit skill.

Diminishing returns play into all of these factors.

Based on my experience, Meopta, and older Zeiss Conquest (4x model), built by Meopta with Zeiss lenses are the sweet spot of the above factors when considering costs.

I own older (early 2000s) Zeiss and Swarovski scopes and the newer select ones deliver for my eyes the same optical quality.
I have not tried the latest ones from Arken, Vortex, GPO, and others but I will.

I think optics are a very personal choice for everyone.

 

[steve white]

This thread reminds me of what I've heard called 'meaningless minutiae, in other words fretting about things that really don't make a difference. I see it most on these forums with folks that get concerned about the speed of their bullets. So what if one is 50 fps slower or faster than another. Means nothing in reality. Same with the new 'flavor of the month' caliber. Most modern rifles/cartridges are so close in speed/trajectory that it makes no real difference. I realize, 'to each their own', but I don't waste my time worrying about those little details. Just shoot/hunt and enjoy the experience. Just my .02!

I think you just made the whole point.

 

[samson7x]

Agree with you on this. I’ve got swaro binos and Maven. The mavens are surprisingly good at their price point. Regarding riflescopes, for my eyes once you get to the $1500ish range it becomes more difficult to distinguish image quality. They are all good at that level. For me, I value durability and reliability in a scope. If a scope can't retain zero and track, it's useless. As stated earlier, there's a lot to be said for confidence in your equipment. I find Nightforce to be a wonderful balance of image quality, durability, reliability, good illumination, and price.

 

[Odinsraven]

I am at the opposite end of the spectrum. I am cheap beyond belief my rifles for culling cost me on average of £150 usually with mounts and a crap scope - have some good secondhand scopes when a bargain presents itself - so my whole set up for Africa is change out of £300-00 for a fully setup rifle that works and is more accuacte than my skills!

Usually Parker Hale or similar in 7x57 - have a Lakelander that is sub moa in 7x64.

The next project is a Baikal double rifle - in 9.3x74r purchased it with scope and mount for £300 !

I prefer to spend my spare cash on hunting not the kit !