I’ve brought this up before, but I keep hearing that assertion. It says you can never pay more to accessorize a gun that the price you paid for the gun. It should always be less. I’ve had people mention their free guns– gifts. “I didn’t pay a dime for the gun, so how can I justify X?” or “I only paid 100 dollars for this Carbine back in the ’60s…!” (Never mind that it may now be worth 800 or more)
There are high-end optics that cost more than almost any firearm made, except for some of the fine double rifles, and you aren’t going to be using these optics on a fine double rifle. Ditto for some of the hand-made flintlock longrifles and such, and a few boutique rifles. There are also sound systems that cost more than a lot of used cars, so I guess you have suffer with an inferior sound system until you can afford a more expensive car to put it in. A friend of mine once had a $50K sound system in his apartment, so I guess he was really breaking the rules.
The way I see it, if you paid some low price for your rifle, and it does the job you need of it, then you now have more money to spend on a good optic. I don’t see a conflict here. It’s all about the setup you want, not some spreadsheet of arbitrary rules based on relative prices of the components.
If it makes anyone feel better, I once had a 150 dollar stereo in a 100 dollar car, with a 500 dollar set Michelins under it. Can someone make the case that I should have restricted myself to crapy tires because I only paid 100 bucks for the car? I put over 100K miles on that car too, which included some rather long road trips – you want to me run retreads on it? Uh; no. It had well over 200K on it when it finally died a violent death, otherwise, 20 years later I might still be driving my 100 dollar 1963 Dodge 330. What’s your problem?
ETA, From comments; “You are not accessorizing your rifle, you are accessorizing your SCOPE!” That is a better way to look at it. Get a great scope and find a rifle that’s good enough for it. Then you have something.