Who's tried a random cheap sight / scope from eBay?

[boingk]

Pretty much what the title says - who's tried a random cheap sight or scope from eBay? For reference sake I'm talking about $150 and less for a variable power scope and $50 and under for a red-dot. Lets help the budget conscious and new users steer clear of garbage, maybe find a few hidden gems hey?

Feel free to use this thread to discuss or post a quick review / experience of whatever budget optics you've used.

I'll kick off with some Nikko Sterling Mountmaster's in 4-12x40. I bought them off eBay about 7 years ago for around 60 bucks a piece including the freight from Britain. I've got one fitted to a Marlin X7VH in .223 and the other a .22 Magnum. Both shoot well, and although they aren't the clearest things around they are fine in any sort of daylight out to say 200m.

The finish is decent, the adjustable power works fine and feels good to use, the eye relief isn't terrible, and they work just fine with any mounts I have.

The down side? The crosshairs are very sensitive and seem to have a mind of their own. They are best up to about 8 power, crisp and dark, but beyond that turn fuzzy. If you point them at something you'll hit it, but its just a strain on your eyes you don't want or need. Often I find that they go fuzzy on a previously clear setting after adjusting the power a bit, such as between targets at the range.

Are they good for the money? Yeah, I guess so... they're a functioning 4-12x40 optic. Would I recommend them? Hell no!

For the record, I've long been a champion of Leupold optics after using them for years and never having an issue and seeing multiple 'good brand name' scopes of similar price fail or simply not be as good for the money, but I'm now wondering what the other end of the market brings.

- boingk

[marksman]

IMHO its really up to the person whos buying, what they are happy with
unless like one a friend bought, a chinese knock off that flew to bits after a couple of shots from his 300wm

[Harrynsw]

Don't waste your time and money. Cheap scopes have bad glass, they can move after you zero them and can't take any impact.

You will regret it. Save for a bit longer and get something a bit nicer.

[bladeracer]

I have probably more than two dozen optics. The cheapest being the ubiquitous Chinese 4x28 for under $10. If it were the only scope I had it would be okay. The reticle is out of focus and has a red tinge, but I tried it on my air-rifle and it works remarkably well. It holds zero, it adjusts fine, and it shoots decent groups. I've never used it on anything else though, I bought it to mount on a spirit level as a rudimentary dumpy level.

My air-rifle came with a scope that is even worse than the 4x28 though, I found it sells on Ebay for about $10 so it's no surprise.

I bought a 3-9x40 for about $30 to replace it.

I have two $60 Bushnell 6-24x50's that are useful to drop onto things for 5esting ammo, both are fine.

I have a couple of really nice old Japanese 4x32's that came on secondhand rifles, but I don't have anything I want to use a fixed 4-power on yet.

I have eleven Bushnell AR Optics 4.5-18x40's that are my primary optics on everything, brilliant scope that does everything I want a scope to do, and for about $300. I have not been able to fault them in any way at all.

The only scope I have that I consider unusable is a 3-9x40 Redfield Revolution. I think they sell around $300 but it came free on a package rifle. I sent it back once and it is now possible to zero it at least. But I find I have to re-zero it every time I use it so it doesn't stay on any rifle, just goes on when I'm testing something then goes back on the shelf. Very nice glass is the only reason I haven't cut it open for a display piece.

I've been testing a Visionking 10-40x56 on my RPR and am impressed with it. I think I paid about $350 before the dollar fell apart. VK impressed me enough that I also bought their 1400m rangefinder and am waiting on their $60 3-9x40 to try on my air-rifle.

I have a 10-40x50 scope for similar money that shoots very well also. These are monsters though not suited for hunting rifles but would make good varmint scopes.

I have a few other odd ones I picked up.

I also have a bunch of cheap Ebay lasers, red dots, and holographic sights, all of which are excellent.

I can't agree that being cheap or Chinese equals being junk, although it can happen. But it can also happen with more expensive products.

If you only own one or two rifles then it's not too bad to put a $1000 scope on them. But when you need more than a dozen, for most people those price tags should be put to more sensible use in my opinion.

[rc42]

I bought what claims to be a "Bushnell" 3x42 red/green dot scope for about $70, what a POS
Magnification is certainly not 3x, maybe 1.2x at best and the dot moves as your eye moves but has to be aligned with a small circle in the middle of the view anyway so it's harder to use than a standard illuminated scope and much worse than a real red dot.

I got a Browning $95 red dot, genuine article and works really well and a couple of 3-9x40 Tasco "World Class" scopes from a gun fair for about $100 each, both fixed parallax but for low use plinking rifles they are ideal.

I have a Walther 8-32x56 (about $450) on a Walther LGU field target air rifle which is a passable quality scope and actually well matched to the rifle and a Nikko Stirling 10-50x60 (about $900) on a Savage B22 that I play at bench rest shooting with, it's actually a very nice scope.


The cheap stuff is OK for plinking and it's fun to have different scopes and red dots but I'd never consider anything more serious and certainly not hunting with something low quality that probably wouldn't hold zero if a leaf fell from a tree and hit it.

[Bugman]

Only once and never again. You know what they say....you get what you pay for. AND, especially in this climate, I would not buy anything that was made in China if I could help it.

[Harrynsw]

I have probably more than two dozen optics. The cheapest being the ubiquitous Chinese 4x28 for under $10. If it were the only scope I had it would be okay. The reticle is out of focus and has a red tinge, but I tried it on my air-rifle and it works remarkably well. It holds zero, it adjusts fine, and it shoots decent groups. I've never used it on anything else though, I bought it to mount on a spirit level as a rudimentary dumpy level.

My air-rifle came with a scope that is even worse than the 4x28 though, I found it sells on Ebay for about $10 so it's no surprise.

I bought a 3-9x40 for about $30 to replace it.

I have two $60 Bushnell 6-24x50's that are useful to drop onto things for 5esting ammo, both are fine.

I have a couple of really nice old Japanese 4x32's that came on secondhand rifles, but I don't have anything I want to use a fixed 4-power on yet.

I have eleven Bushnell AR Optics 4.5-18x40's that are my primary optics on everything, brilliant scope that does everything I want a scope to do, and for about $300. I have not been able to fault them in any way at all.

The only scope I have that I consider unusable is a 3-9x40 Redfield Revolution. I think they sell around $300 but it came free on a package rifle. I sent it back once and it is now possible to zero it at least. But I find I have to re-zero it every time I use it so it doesn't stay on any rifle, just goes on when I'm testing something then goes back on the shelf. Very nice glass is the only reason I haven't cut it open for a display piece.

I've been testing a Visionking 10-40x56 on my RPR and am impressed with it. I think I paid about $350 before the dollar fell apart. VK impressed me enough that I also bought their 1400m rangefinder and am waiting on their $60 3-9x40 to try on my air-rifle.

I have a 10-40x50 scope for similar money that shoots very well also. These are monsters though not suited for hunting rifles but would make good varmint scopes.

I have a few other odd ones I picked up.

I also have a bunch of cheap Ebay lasers, red dots, and holographic sights, all of which are excellent.

I can't agree that being cheap or Chinese equals being junk, although it can happen. But it can also happen with more expensive products.

If you only own one or two rifles then it's not too bad to put a $1000 scope on them. But when you need more than a dozen, for most people those price tags should be put to more sensible use in my opinion.

Wow, what a collection!

[bladeracer]

I have probably more than two dozen optics. The cheapest being the ubiquitous Chinese 4x28 for under $10. If it were the only scope I had it would be okay. The reticle is out of focus and has a red tinge, but I tried it on my air-rifle and it works remarkably well. It holds zero, it adjusts fine, and it shoots decent groups. I've never used it on anything else though, I bought it to mount on a spirit level as a rudimentary dumpy level.

My air-rifle came with a scope that is even worse than the 4x28 though, I found it sells on Ebay for about $10 so it's no surprise.

I bought a 3-9x40 for about $30 to replace it.

I have two $60 Bushnell 6-24x50's that are useful to drop onto things for 5esting ammo, both are fine.

I have a couple of really nice old Japanese 4x32's that came on secondhand rifles, but I don't have anything I want to use a fixed 4-power on yet.

I have eleven Bushnell AR Optics 4.5-18x40's that are my primary optics on everything, brilliant scope that does everything I want a scope to do, and for about $300. I have not been able to fault them in any way at all.

The only scope I have that I consider unusable is a 3-9x40 Redfield Revolution. I think they sell around $300 but it came free on a package rifle. I sent it back once and it is now possible to zero it at least. But I find I have to re-zero it every time I use it so it doesn't stay on any rifle, just goes on when I'm testing something then goes back on the shelf. Very nice glass is the only reason I haven't cut it open for a display piece.

I've been testing a Visionking 10-40x56 on my RPR and am impressed with it. I think I paid about $350 before the dollar fell apart. VK impressed me enough that I also bought their 1400m rangefinder and am waiting on their $60 3-9x40 to try on my air-rifle.

I have a 10-40x50 scope for similar money that shoots very well also. These are monsters though not suited for hunting rifles but would make good varmint scopes.

I have a few other odd ones I picked up.

I also have a bunch of cheap Ebay lasers, red dots, and holographic sights, all of which are excellent.

I can't agree that being cheap or Chinese equals being junk, although it can happen. But it can also happen with more expensive products.

If you only own one or two rifles then it's not too bad to put a $1000 scope on them. But when you need more than a dozen, for most people those price tags should be put to more sensible use in my opinion.

Wow, what a collection!

At least when I say I've had no problems with cheaper Chinese scopes I can back it up

[SCJ429]

I bought a Vision King 8 - 25 x 50 scope to see how bad they are. The glass is a little milky but usable, the tracking is a little off and moves to the right as you move the elevation up. I started it out on a 22 and then moved it to a 7mm Rem Mag. It hasn't fallen apart yet so I am thinking of trying it on a 45/70. For $150 I was suprised that they could produce a scope that was usable for the price. While it is nothing to write home about, it has done the job. I wouldn't buy another one but I have got my money's worth. It would do the job on a cheap rifle.

[bladeracer]

I bought a Vision King 8 - 25 x 50 scope to see how bad they are. The glass is a little milky but usable, the tracking is a little off and moves to the right as you move the elevation up. I started it out on a 22 and then moved it to a 7mm Rem Mag. It hasn't fallen apart yet so I am thinking of trying it on a 45/70. For $150 I was suprised that they could produce a scope that was usable for the price. While it is nothing to write home about, it has done the job. I wouldn't buy another one but I have got my money's worth. It would do the job on a cheap rifle.

I also found the VK turrets to have lateral bias as they near the extent of travel (the "box" is hitting the sides of the tube). If you can zero near the centre of travel it's not a problem though.

[SCJ429]

You are on the money there BR. I had to use 30 MOA cant to get it on paper.

[Stix]

You are on the money there BR. I had to use 30 MOA cant to get it on paper.

I guess this demonstrates people have a different opinion on what is acceptable, & what one classes as having "done the job" or "got moneys worth"

To me, you buy a scope to work as is specified/expected...in other words, if you are dialling for elevation & it moves the POI in a horizontal direction, along with being inconsistent in its tracking/click value...then it is not performing to what it is sold as or intended.

I also think that to purchase these kinds of items & be accepting of them having faults, is encouraging of more companies to knowingly produce & sell faulty, or a less than acceptable quality at higher prices.
And we see this as time goes on--scopes are cheaply produced & the onus is on the individual to prove they are working correctly.
In other words, by purchasing these inferior items & accepting you only got 500 shots out of it, or that it doesnt perform as specified (or whatever), you are enabling & encouraging dishonest marketing & unscrupulous trading....

The other thing ive never heard anyone mention, (admittedly it would be hard to quantify), is the overall cost of these poorly produced items...i mean in the way of consumables & barrel life as well as ones time & fuel costs ... ....

It just doesnt compute with me to buy something faulty, & then be accepting of it--which encourages dishonest people & allows them to profit from this dishonesty....i mean sure, buy something cheap that is marketed as more than likely to not perform as specified, but to be accepting of less than as is specified i see as ultimately cutting ones nose off despite the face--if not in the short term certainly in the long run.
And lets face it---if these scopes were marketed as such, i dare say the sales volume of them would decrease immensely...

I bet if one could come to a total of all these costs from such scopes in the country/world, & have Govts directly litigate the respective companies & CEO's for all costs incurred, you would end up with an equally competitive market as exists today, with a much much lower percentage of faulty items....& maybe less homeless people if the money we are seemingly willing to put in the pockets of openly dishonest people, were to be donated to a better cause.

So to the OP...id say dont buy one---youre only promoting the very thing you are worried about--that is to likely be getting ripped off & being disappointed with an considerably less than ideal product....especially if you have to purchase a pic rail to get on paper ( ) & put up with less than accurate tracking.

Im not trying to be argumentative to those who choose to buy these stupidly cheap scopes--because it is tempting--...im just giving my opinion...

[bladeracer]

I wouldn't call this unacceptable. My VK10-40 only has 20MoA of adjustment each side of center so it behooves the user to ensure he mounts it as close to centered as possible. You need a 20MoA rail to zero it at 100m so you can use the full 40MoA of adjustment anyway. The "box" only hits the tube at the extreme edge of the adjustment, say 45MoA+, beyond the +/-20MoA limit specified by the manufacturer. I've never experienced it with my AR Optics when dialing up the full 105MoA of elevation, but I suspect most manufacturers simply put a stop in before the box can touch. Without a stop it would have to touch inside the tube eventually. If VK had put a stop in at the specified 20MoA I wouldn't have encountered this at all, it just allows to go a little further than expected.

To me, I find it incredibly stupid to throw $1000+ at a scope that resides in the safe for 360 days of the year as so often happens.

You are on the money there BR. I had to use 30 MOA cant to get it on paper.

I guess this demonstrates people have a different opinion on what is acceptable, & what one classes as having "done the job" or "got moneys worth"

To me, you buy a scope to work as is specified/expected...in other words, if you are dialling for elevation & it moves the POI in a horizontal direction, along with being inconsistent in its tracking/click value...then it is not performing to what it is sold as or intended.

I also think that to purchase these kinds of items & be accepting of them having faults, is encouraging of more companies to knowingly produce & sell faulty, or a less than acceptable quality at higher prices.
And we see this as time goes on--scopes are cheaply produced & the onus is on the individual to prove they are working correctly.
In other words, by purchasing these inferior items & accepting you only got 500 shots out of it, or that it doesnt perform as specified (or whatever), you are enabling & encouraging dishonest marketing & unscrupulous trading....

The other thing ive never heard anyone mention, (admittedly it would be hard to quantify), is the overall cost of these poorly produced items...i mean in the way of consumables & barrel life as well as ones time & fuel costs ... ....

It just doesnt compute with me to buy something faulty, & then be accepting of it--which encourages dishonest people & allows them to profit from this dishonesty....i mean sure, buy something cheap that is marketed as more than likely to not perform as specified, but to be accepting of less than as is specified i see as ultimately cutting ones nose off despite the face--if not in the short term certainly in the long run.
And lets face it---if these scopes were marketed as such, i dare say the sales volume of them would decrease immensely...

I bet if one could come to a total of all these costs from such scopes in the country/world, & have Govts directly litigate the respective companies & CEO's for all costs incurred, you would end up with an equally competitive market as exists today, with a much much lower percentage of faulty items....& maybe less homeless people if the money we are seemingly willing to put in the pockets of openly dishonest people, were to be donated to a better cause.

So to the OP...id say dont buy one---youre only promoting the very thing you are worried about--that is to likely be getting ripped off & being disappointed with an considerably less than ideal product....especially if you have to purchase a pic rail to get on paper ( ) & put up with less than accurate tracking.

Im not trying to be argumentative to those who choose to buy these stupidly cheap scopes--because it is tempting--...im just giving my opinion...

[bladeracer]

You are on the money there BR. I had to use 30 MOA cant to get it on paper.

I mounted my VK on the RPR expecting it to be pointing at the ground due to 30-minute rail (standard on the RPR rimfire), but was surprised that it was not. It occurred to me that perhaps in a high-mag scope they centre the reticle somewhere below actual center to be more useful. When I finish testing it on the RPR I'll put it on one of my centerfires and see if that is the case.

[Stix]

I wouldn't call this unacceptable. My VK10-40 only has 20MoA of adjustment each side of center so it behooves the user to ensure he mounts it as close to centered as possible. You need a 20MoA rail to zero it at 100m so you can use the full 40MoA of adjustment anyway. The "box" only hits the tube at the extreme edge of the adjustment, say 45MoA+, beyond the +/-20MoA limit specified by the manufacturer. I've never experienced it with my AR Optics when dialing up the full 105MoA of elevation, but I suspect most manufacturers simply put a stop in before the box can touch. Without a stop it would have to touch inside the tube eventually. If VK had put a stop in at the specified 20MoA I wouldn't have encountered this at all, it just allows to go a little further than expected.

To me, I find it incredibly stupid to throw $1000+ at a scope that resides in the safe for 360 days of the year as so often happens.

You are on the money there BR. I had to use 30 MOA cant to get it on paper.

I guess this demonstrates people have a different opinion on what is acceptable, & what one classes as having "done the job" or "got moneys worth"

To me, you buy a scope to work as is specified/expected...in other words, if you are dialling for elevation & it moves the POI in a horizontal direction, along with being inconsistent in its tracking/click value...then it is not performing to what it is sold as or intended.

I also think that to purchase these kinds of items & be accepting of them having faults, is encouraging of more companies to knowingly produce & sell faulty, or a less than acceptable quality at higher prices.
And we see this as time goes on--scopes are cheaply produced & the onus is on the individual to prove they are working correctly.
In other words, by purchasing these inferior items & accepting you only got 500 shots out of it, or that it doesnt perform as specified (or whatever), you are enabling & encouraging dishonest marketing & unscrupulous trading....

The other thing ive never heard anyone mention, (admittedly it would be hard to quantify), is the overall cost of these poorly produced items...i mean in the way of consumables & barrel life as well as ones time & fuel costs ... ....

It just doesnt compute with me to buy something faulty, & then be accepting of it--which encourages dishonest people & allows them to profit from this dishonesty....i mean sure, buy something cheap that is marketed as more than likely to not perform as specified, but to be accepting of less than as is specified i see as ultimately cutting ones nose off despite the face--if not in the short term certainly in the long run.
And lets face it---if these scopes were marketed as such, i dare say the sales volume of them would decrease immensely...

I bet if one could come to a total of all these costs from such scopes in the country/world, & have Govts directly litigate the respective companies & CEO's for all costs incurred, you would end up with an equally competitive market as exists today, with a much much lower percentage of faulty items....& maybe less homeless people if the money we are seemingly willing to put in the pockets of openly dishonest people, were to be donated to a better cause.

So to the OP...id say dont buy one---youre only promoting the very thing you are worried about--that is to likely be getting ripped off & being disappointed with an considerably less than ideal product....especially if you have to purchase a pic rail to get on paper ( ) & put up with less than accurate tracking.

Im not trying to be argumentative to those who choose to buy these stupidly cheap scopes--because it is tempting--...im just giving my opinion...

Fair enough Blade...
I cant help but think you took what i said personally...but thats ok...

& my main point was re unscrupulous traders...but i think you know that...

I respect your opinion about that much money being tied up in not often being used...just as i respect peoples choic to spend more on a scope than my everyday rifle & scope is worth...im sure they get as much satidfaction out of feeling they havent risked a wayward shot on injuring an animal on the only few shots they get in a year with their Swarovski...

[bladeracer]

No, I didn't take anything personally, I just prefer to respond from my personal experience rather than generalizing. I ignored your comments about unscrupulous trading as I find it a huge stretch with little relevance to reality. You may have a point, but in my own experience I'm not seeing it.

Companies will sell junk product regardless of whether people complain or not. Keep in mind that these cheaper products are often sourced from exactly the same manufacturers and simply branded and packaged differently. I tend to have more respect for the companies that sell it for less, than I do the companies selling the same product for twice the price simply because they put their own brand on the packaging.

Other than the very lowest priced scopes, I can't label any of those I own to be junk or not up to the expected standards, if anything the overall market tends to show these cheaper ones to be better bang for buck than the expensive ones. Does a $1000 scope do it four times better than a $250 scope? Not that I've ever seen, not even twice as good. Better, yes, sometimes, but significantly better than I need, nope.

I wouldn't call this unacceptable. My VK10-40 only has 20MoA of adjustment each side of center so it behooves the user to ensure he mounts it as close to centered as possible. You need a 20MoA rail to zero it at 100m so you can use the full 40MoA of adjustment anyway. The "box" only hits the tube at the extreme edge of the adjustment, say 45MoA+, beyond the +/-20MoA limit specified by the manufacturer. I've never experienced it with my AR Optics when dialing up the full 105MoA of elevation, but I suspect most manufacturers simply put a stop in before the box can touch. Without a stop it would have to touch inside the tube eventually. If VK had put a stop in at the specified 20MoA I wouldn't have encountered this at all, it just allows to go a little further than expected.

To me, I find it incredibly stupid to throw $1000+ at a scope that resides in the safe for 360 days of the year as so often happens.

You are on the money there BR. I had to use 30 MOA cant to get it on paper.

I guess this demonstrates people have a different opinion on what is acceptable, & what one classes as having "done the job" or "got moneys worth"

To me, you buy a scope to work as is specified/expected...in other words, if you are dialling for elevation & it moves the POI in a horizontal direction, along with being inconsistent in its tracking/click value...then it is not performing to what it is sold as or intended.

I also think that to purchase these kinds of items & be accepting of them having faults, is encouraging of more companies to knowingly produce & sell faulty, or a less than acceptable quality at higher prices.
And we see this as time goes on--scopes are cheaply produced & the onus is on the individual to prove they are working correctly.
In other words, by purchasing these inferior items & accepting you only got 500 shots out of it, or that it doesnt perform as specified (or whatever), you are enabling & encouraging dishonest marketing & unscrupulous trading....

The other thing ive never heard anyone mention, (admittedly it would be hard to quantify), is the overall cost of these poorly produced items...i mean in the way of consumables & barrel life as well as ones time & fuel costs ... ....

It just doesnt compute with me to buy something faulty, & then be accepting of it--which encourages dishonest people & allows them to profit from this dishonesty....i mean sure, buy something cheap that is marketed as more than likely to not perform as specified, but to be accepting of less than as is specified i see as ultimately cutting ones nose off despite the face--if not in the short term certainly in the long run.
And lets face it---if these scopes were marketed as such, i dare say the sales volume of them would decrease immensely...

I bet if one could come to a total of all these costs from such scopes in the country/world, & have Govts directly litigate the respective companies & CEO's for all costs incurred, you would end up with an equally competitive market as exists today, with a much much lower percentage of faulty items....& maybe less homeless people if the money we are seemingly willing to put in the pockets of openly dishonest people, were to be donated to a better cause.

So to the OP...id say dont buy one---youre only promoting the very thing you are worried about--that is to likely be getting ripped off & being disappointed with an considerably less than ideal product....especially if you have to purchase a pic rail to get on paper ( ) & put up with less than accurate tracking.

Im not trying to be argumentative to those who choose to buy these stupidly cheap scopes--because it is tempting--...im just giving my opinion...

Fair enough Blade...
I cant help but think you took what i said personally...but thats ok...

& my main point was re unscrupulous traders...but i think you know that...

I respect your opinion about that much money being tied up in not often being used...just as i respect peoples choic to spend more on a scope than my everyday rifle & scope is worth...im sure they get as much satidfaction out of feeling they havent risked a wayward shot on injuring an animal on the only few shots they get in a year with their Swarovski...

[boingk]

Cheers for all the replies and first hand info, gents, you especially bladeracer!

To me, I find it incredibly stupid to throw $1000+ at a scope that resides in the safe for 360 days of the year as so often happens.

That's kind of what I'm getting at. I'm not expecting the thing to be indestructible, perfectly crystal clear and not perhaps have the odd inconsistency (like my fuzzy Nikko crosshairs sometimes after magnification adjustment) but if they're reasonable overall and hold a zero then they're usable.

I guess this demonstrates people have a different opinion on what is acceptable, & what one classes as having "done the job" or "got moneys worth"

To me, you buy a scope to work as is specified/expected...in other words, if you are dialling for elevation & it moves the POI in a horizontal direction, along with being inconsistent in its tracking/click value...then it is not performing to what it is sold as or intended.

I also think that to purchase these kinds of items & be accepting of them having faults, is encouraging of more companies to knowingly produce & sell faulty, or a less than acceptable quality at higher prices.

It just doesnt compute with me to buy something faulty, & then be accepting of it-

Im not trying to be argumentative to those who choose to buy these stupidly cheap scopes--because it is tempting--...im just giving my opinion...

All good mate no arguments here!

I think there will always be a 'bottom of the market' and demand in that segment though. Hell, people drive Ssanyong and Musso and other random asian cars, don't they? And these are things they entrust their famile's lives with at 110kmh. Same argument applies to most products.

Buying something to 'work as expected' isn't always as simple as it sounds. If it holds a zero and you can reasonably adjust the point of aim and magnification with the scope I would call it 'operational'. Obviously you will encounter inconsistencies at the lower end of the market when comparing it to anything above it. Does it mean the scope is any less functional once set up properly for the rifle? No. Does it mean that buying a more expensive scope would provide you with an easier / more time efficient setup procedure, better overall user experience and potentially longer service life? Almost deafeningly YES!

If the thing doesn't hold a zero, can't be reliably dialled in, won't fit a rifle without using specialized mounts and not informing the user of that etc... then yeah, thats BS and I hope you paid by PayPal so you can get your money back.

This thread is more about what experiences people have had with Scope X. Like I said above, I would call my cheap Nikko's usable, but definitely not recommend them to anyone actually looking for an optic... specifically because they are not terribly clear and have peculiarities in use.

Keep those reviews coming gents, any other close cheap scope hoarders out there?

- boingk

[TassieTiger]

I.

To me, I find it incredibly stupid to throw $1000+ at a scope that resides in the safe for 360 days of the year as so often happens.

:

And yet others, would treat those 5-6 days a year as gold, cherishing every minute and wanting to use absolute quality componentry to ensure they are squeezing the best of the time...
You can take an old beat up f4i cbr600 to PI and run 1.45’s To 1.50s all day long With decent rubber, or you could take a new s1000rr and let the bikes advanced elects/products make that 1.45 easy as...but the cbr6 is still a pos and worthless lol.

[boingk]

Ah, motorcycles, now we're talking. To be honest I've always been the bloke on the sh!theap that still manages to do fairly well, and have a good time. As they say, "your mileage may vary". Next steed will probably be an MT09, hellava bike if you haven't ridden one I highly suggest it.

Back to the point, I recently got a Discovery Optics 1-6X20 for my Ruger American Ranch. It looks a decent little scope and is fairly clear and without artifacts. I like it so far, plus it has that elusive 'feels good' quality to it. Maybe its just slightly too heavy and that's what I'm picking up, who knows, anyway overall its a winner so far.

A bit more field testing and I'll be able to tell you some finer points of it. The best part? It's only $150 shipped from eBay. Not cheap but definitely inexpensive for what you get.

- boingk

[targetshooter900]

Bought a 30$ holographic red dot knock off thing once. Literally broke after the second shot. Just stopped working entirely. Wouldn't recommend

[Blr243]

If you buy a 40 dollar eBay scope and it does not work u can take it out in a boat fishing and use it to dong big snapper prior to putting them in the esky

[straightshooter]

There are a number of categories of cheap chinese scopes on ebay.
Firstly there is cheap junk which is inferior in just about all areas.
Second is obvious "knock offs" which may be OK or for a while, or maybe not, more likely the latter.
Third, and these appear only from time to time, are genuine brand name scopes that may be a manufacturing overrun or were QC rejects, often for cosmetic reasons and not worth being reworked. If you get in early enough these can be a real bargain but alas the warranty, should you ever need it, is next to nonexistent.

[boingk]

There are a number of categories of cheap chinese scopes on ebay.

I'd also say there is a fourth category; those brands that are legitimately trying to enter the market with their own product and are doing it at a reasonable price.

Yes, warranty is one big downside of all this type of thing - it breaks, then good luck with your return!

- boingk

[TassieTiger]

There are a number of categories of cheap chinese scopes on ebay.

I'd also say there is a fourth category; those brands that are legitimately trying to enter the market with their own product and are doing it at a reasonable price.

Yes, warranty is one big downside of all this type of thing - it breaks, then good luck with your return!

- boingk

Although It’s a pain...buyer protection on eBay / PayPal is there for 30-60 days and if seller has excellent feedback they will do anything to protect thst...
I’ve still got a cheap eBay POS scope that I can’t bring myself to purposefully kill lol

[Mattraff]

8 years ago I bought a very cheap NC Star 2-7X32 LER scope to mount on my Mosin Nagant m44. I have had if zeroed at 500m for years now and every time I take it to the range I hit the gong at 500 shot after shot. I initially bought it as there was not much choice for a LER scope and there still isn't really unless you want to spend many hundreds. Maybe I got lucky with it but if you put a brand name on it you would not question it.
Cheap Chinese stuff is hit and miss generally with most times being miss. I was in China in 2018 and looked at a few scopes and in the shop they have ther C grade quality products on display but if you ask for better quality they will get out their B grade and if that's not good enough the A grade stuff will be shown. Their A grade stuff was all labeled as Swarovski or Zeiss and to be fair seemed to be very good quality with very clear and bright glass but at $400 there is no way I would have bought it.

[bladeracer]

8 years ago I bought a very cheap NC Star 2-7X32 LER scope to mount on my Mosin Nagant m44. I have had if zeroed at 500m for years now and every time I take it to the range I hit the gong at 500 shot after shot. I initially bought it as there was not much choice for a LER scope and there still isn't really unless you want to spend many hundreds. Maybe I got lucky with it but if you put a brand name on it you would not question it.
Cheap Chinese stuff is hit and miss generally with most times being miss. I was in China in 2018 and looked at a few scopes and in the shop they have ther C grade quality products on display but if you ask for better quality they will get out their B grade and if that's not good enough the A grade stuff will be shown. Their A grade stuff was all labeled as Swarovski or Zeiss and to be fair seemed to be very good quality with very clear and bright glass but at $400 there is no way I would have bought it.

I use the same scope for rifles that don't easily mount conventional scopes. It's on my Rossi 92 currently during load development, very handy to have.

[mickb]

Not sure where it fits on the scale of cheapness but I looked through a mates artic fox red dot on a 22LR/410 combo and it made targets quite a bit darker at 50m. He went back to using irons on that gun.

[boingk]

Back to the point, I recently got a Discovery Optics 1-6X20 for my Ruger American Ranch. <snip> A bit more field testing and I'll be able to tell you some finer points of it.

The finer points of this scope included good optical clarity... but horrific windage and elevation adjustments. Just horrible. I opened a claim with eBay and got refunded my money including postage, and get to keep the scope. It'll be a nice little spotter not, thankyou very much...

Bought a 30$ holographic red dot knock off thing once. Literally broke after the second shot. Just stopped working entirely. Wouldn't recommend

I bought a Victoptics 1x18 Red Dot and it is brilliant on my straightpull 12G. I must've let off 50 rounds in as many minutes the other day and the thing is still kicking along fine. I can only fault it due to the brightness not quite being as good as I'd like it on a full-sun day with harsh light ground cover (think bluemetal / crackerdust) but otherwise it's brilliant for the money.

8 years ago I bought a very cheap NC Star 2-7X32 LER scope to mount on my Mosin Nagant m44

I use the same scope for rifles that don't easily mount conventional scopes. It's on my Rossi 92 currently during load development, very handy to have

Thankyou gents, I've just used the refund from my dodgy Discovery to get the NC Star LER unit. I knew I started this thread for a reason.

- boingk

[Bremen]

I bought a Victoptics 1x18 Red Dot and it is brilliant on my straightpull 12G. I must've let off 50 rounds in as many minutes the other day and the thing is still kicking along fine. I can only fault it due to the brightness not quite being as good as I'd like it on a full-sun day with harsh light ground cover (think bluemetal / crackerdust) but otherwise it's brilliant for the money

Thankyou gents, I've just used the refund from my dodgy Discovery to get the NC Star LER unit. I knew I started this thread for a reason.

- boingk

Where did you buy the red dot and NCStar; eBay?
Keep us updated on their longevity.

[boingk]

I bought a Victoptics 1x18 Red Dot and it is brilliant on my straightpull 12G.

Where did you buy the red dot and NCStar; eBay?
Keep us updated on their longevity.

Shall do mate. I'm still using the red dot and its going great. I got it off ebay but they've moved to their own site. The sight I bought is here: https://vector2007.com/collections/vict ... ptics-1x18

The NCStar was indeed off ebay. Arrived quickly and has no faults. Just need to fit it to something and test before the 30 day Paypal protection goes.

Cheers - boingk