I'm now shopping for a new rig and need a scope for either a .338RUM or .338Lapua. Although both calibres are suitable for long-range, the rig will be a general purpose piece used under a variety of circumstances, often at twilight and close range.

My previous rifle was a .300RUM with Burris Signature illuminated dot reticle, and it was superb.

The ATN and Barska names are new to me, but they offer some features, (like illuminated reticles), at competative prices.

How do their optics compare with Burris, Leopold, and Swarovski?

Are ATN and Barska scopes reliable?

Most cheaper (economical) lines of scopes usually don't hold up well to the heavy recoil of the shoulder busters you've mentioned. The priceier scopes can afford to put more beef into the erector tubes, springs and screws that hold everything together and in alignment.

Having said that, the latest whitetail fell to a customized Swede 6.5x55mm with a Barska 4x12x56 with German reticle and illuminated crosshair. Extensive bench time was put in prior to the hunt and it has held together (except for the front lens cover falling apart) since.

Bought a promotional 10x25 binocular made by Barska some time back that went to pieces in my hands when taken out of the shipping box.

You pays your money and takes your chances!

I bought a Barska 6-24X Mildot scope to put on my varmint rifle when I got it (figuring that it would only be used in fair weather and good light to shoot paper and prairie dogs). The image quality in the center was OK, but quickly deteriorated towards the edges. Also, it was about impossible to get rid of paralax and keep a clear picture. It only took me about a week to get tired of the extra eye strain, and I ordered a Nikon Monarch.

Bottom line is that the Barska was a waste of money, and I would have been better served by putting the $70 towards the Nikon in the first place. In my opinion, you are comparing apples to oranges when trying to measure the Barska optics against the quality names you mentioned.

amndouglas