Rifle Scopes 2014's Best Scope ShootOut

[Mr.T]

Stay away from the scopes that don't work properly. The Recon tracked perfectly in the mechanical test. Has an absurd amount of elevation (38 mills) and the second largest field of view of the lot. It cost less than every SCOPE above it except one. And it is the top rated 50mm objective.

In Europe the pricing spread for these scopes is way different and only scopes cheaper than Recon in this lineout are Bushnells and the smaller IOR while Vortex Razor, NF NXS and Recon are tied for price more often than not, so for us Bang for the buck ratio goes up considerably.

Whille the 'different mill' March tactical costs more than Steiner ,Khales,S&B 5-25 pushing bang for the buck way down the ladder

 

[918v]

Here we are! I was expecting it.
As a consequence, this puts into question the results of "optical performance" tests, as these depend on "18x", which was very likely set wrong.

Exact magnification isn't critical for comparing resolution and contrast.

 

[orkan]

Exact magnification isn't critical for comparing resolution and contrast.

I think it is critical. Most of my own testing has revealed it is very critical in making direct comparisons.

One of the many reasons optical quality is almost impossible to quantify, and even more impossible to "compare" to other scopes.

 

[jjrgr21]

thanks for doing this, it was a great read for sure.

 

[918v]

I think it is critical. Most of my own testing has revealed it is very critical in making direct comparisons.

How did you establish the actual resolution?

 

[orkan]

How did you establish the actual resolution?

I assume you mean magnification? I found that I couldn't be sure of what the "actual" magnification was. Objects looked bigger, or smaller, when moving from one scope to another. Moving the magnification until the objects looked to be the same size, wasn't adequate at all, and minor changes in magnification made a huge difference regarding what each scope was capable of optically on a resolution chart. Human eyes, are not up to the task of optically testing a scope, least of all in a comparative environment. Period.

Long story short: I spent a lot of money, and way more time, trying to setup a comparative scope test about a year ago. I determined there was no way to do that effectively without spending at least 20K on laboratory-grade optical testing equipment. ...and at that price, the stuff would basically be bargain basement and open to calibration errors. In light of that, I chose not to do the testing because it would leave people drawing conclusions where no conclusions can be drawn; The exact thing that has happened with this "review."

 

[Dead Nutz]

Here is some stuff I found on various sites.

The usmc mil dot is stamped on wire and the dot is .25 mil in length and hight. The army mil dot is etched on glass and is .75 moa or .22 mil. The usmc dot can be broken down into 1/8th increments, the army dot can be broken down to 10the. But the distance to the center of the dots is 1 mil on both reticles.

 

[918v]

I assume you mean magnification? I found that I couldn't be sure of what the "actual" magnification was. Objects looked bigger, or smaller, when moving from one scope to another. Moving the magnification until the objects looked to be the same size, wasn't adequate at all, and minor changes in magnification made a huge difference regarding what each scope was capable of optically on a resolution chart. Human eyes, are not up to the task of optically testing a scope, least of all in a comparative environment. Period.

Long story short: I spent a lot of money, and way more time, trying to setup a comparative scope test about a year ago. I determined there was no way to do that effectively without spending at least 20K on laboratory-grade optical testing equipment. ...and at that price, the stuff would basically be bargain basement and open to calibration errors. In light of that, I chose not to do the testing because it would leave people drawing conclusions where no conclusions can be drawn; The exact thing that has happened with this "review."

I disagree that the human eye is incapable of comparing optics: take look at the pics in this thread-

http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...-reticle-pictures-s-b-h2cmr-hensoldt-nh1.html

then tell me the S&B does not have a higher resolution than the Hensoldt.

 

[Edsel]

I disagree that the human eye is incapable of comparing optics: take look at the pics in this thread-

http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...-reticle-pictures-s-b-h2cmr-hensoldt-nh1.html

then tell me the S&B does not have a higher resolution than the Hensoldt.

The OP said...

Please, guys ... don't judge the quality of the glass based on my pictures! That wasn't the point, and the difference you see is mostly the result of focusing issues of the camera through the scope.

 

[Lowlight]

They haven't use stamped wire dots since the Unertl which was first made in 1978 ...

We all use etched reticles now and the USMC vs Army is about more than the dot design ... it was the unit used as noted, 6400 vs 6283

The dot shape and design is no different than having a dot vs hash mark, whatever it is, it is, however if you adjust the actual distance rounding the Mil to a Military Mil as used with Artillery you will have an error factor.

If a company is using 6400 it is using the military mil designed for artillery, a bit like IPHY vs MOA (SMOA vs TMOA)

Magnification matters, a bigger target image will always appear to look better. If you use a 15x scope and compare (especially at 100 yards on a reading chart) it to a 12x scope, to the average user, the 15x will be better because they can see more.

The same thing matters with the color space... if you take you digital camera which everyone likes to compare scopes to lenses. If you upset the WB you ruin the image. Image A will look different than Image B with the correct white balance, so if I take a picture and then move the WB it will change the look. Scopes have an optical prescription designed around a color space. If you take a device designed to be used Outside and stick it under artificial lighting like inside a building you risk effecting the end result because you are using the wrong WB ... Sunlight is 5600k +, Blue Sky 7000k, and Fluorescent lights are 3000k and below. We talk coatings, coatings are the key as most glass packages are pretty standard, it's the coatings that differ. If you move away from the original intent you can darken the image and make it appear less than optimal. Take it outside and it will come back to life, just like adjusting the WB.

 

[Redmanss]

We (USMC) measured to 1/10th mil when doing range estimation and leads, regardless of football or round dot type. It's all in the training.

 

[Lowlight]

The setting in a ballistic computer is to change the Mil from 6283 to 6400 so your ruler (reticle) is calibrated ... nothing more.
Reticle shape, design has no bearing.

 

[918v]

The OP said...

It doesn't matter what the OP said. What matters is what the OP did.