seems about right, but the kahles not being ranked higher is strange to me, I when I take it and a 5-25 schmidt outside it seems to be neck and neck.
Very surprised by this as well. The data seems a little erratic other than the top 3.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We want to see your skills! Post a video between now and November 1st showing what you've learned from Frank's lessons and 3 people will be selected to win a free shirt. Good luck everyone!
Create a channel Learn moreseems about right, but the kahles not being ranked higher is strange to me, I when I take it and a 5-25 schmidt outside it seems to be neck and neck.
Notwithstanding these caveats, aperture wins, and wins big. If you buy the finest 90 mm fluorite refractor in the world, do not be chagrined if a junior high school student shows up with a home-made 6-inch Newtonian that blows it clean out of the water: The 6-inch I made at 13 puts my world-class 90 mm fluorite to shame. There is no contest, and it's not because I was a master optician at 13, it is because six inches is bigger than 90 mm, hence intrinsically better.
Then hang on to your pennies for a bit. New reticles are coming is what I was told straight from them. I too want something other than the Gen 2 XR and mildot. I had replied that they should look at the MSR and they said it's in the running.
Rye daddy - did they give you any indication if the new reticles could be retrofitted to older PR scopes?
Rye daddy - did they give you any indication if the new reticles could be retrofitted to older PR scopes?
I'm curious how the NF ATACR and NF NXS have rated better optical clarity than the Beast. Hasn't everyone been saying, including NF that the Glass was upgraded and clearer? Would really like to get Franks take on this.
I'm curious how the NF ATACR and NF NXS have rated better optical clarity than the Beast. Hasn't everyone been saying, including NF that the Glass was upgraded and clearer? Could this be right?
seems about right, but the kahles not being ranked higher is strange to me, I when I take it and a 5-25 schmidt outside it seems to be neck and neck.
A buddy of mine has a Kahles with the MSR, Its a really nice reticle.
We put our rifles side by side, His Kahles and my Premier
We went back and forth, looking at each, on the same magnification range. AND, the premier was noticeably sharper, brighter, and just looked a little cleaner. When side by side, the kahles seemed a little foggy to me.
BUT, then we put the Bushy XRS next to it, And although the bushy tracks and performs great, it was lacking in all optical criteria to both the premier and kahles, Not even close.
I would say the kahles and premier are close, edge going to the premier in about all categories.
I was under an impression that all tested products are somewhere in the "above countersniper china knockoff" category, so using subpar in the contex of these scopes is rather inapropriate. Even the worst performing scope in THIS test will perform (bar serious mechanc flaws) adequately and WILL NOT be a limiting factor in rifle/shooter system. But i guess many just simply want to have best of the best based on what other say and not their own needs and experiences.
I'm curious how the NF ATACR and NF NXS have rated better optical clarity than the Beast. Hasn't everyone been saying, including NF that the Glass was upgraded and clearer? Could this be right?
I'm no optics engineer, but as I've read in the past SFP scopes have a clarity advantage over FFP scopes, all else being equal. Seems the differences seen in this one off evaluation show that, to a minor degree.Yep. Add me to the list of people who'd appreciate a possible explanation for how the ATACR is rating higher than the BEAST when they have either the same glass or the BEAST has "better" glass depending on who answers the question.
I'm no optics engineer, but as I've read in the past SFP scopes have a clarity advantage over FFP scopes, all else being equal. Seems the differences seen in this one off evaluation show that, to a minor degree.
Yep. Add me to the list of people who'd appreciate a possible explanation for how the ATACR is rating higher than the BEAST when they have either the same glass or the BEAST has "better" glass depending on who answers the question.
There are a lot of factors that go into looking at something, especially with a scope. This is why it gets repeated over and over, these tests are subjective. Using several people helps develop an average but we all still see it differently which is why many default to eye test charts.
I think the reason we see SFP scopes do better is a trick of the brain, call it an optical illusion. Because the reticle stays one size, the mind thinks what it is seeing is better, or bigger. When it adjusts with the magnification like a FFP we tend to perceive it as providing less information.
If you're second guessing you choice off this, you misunderstand the point. It's not bird watching, it's a tool, no different than a wrench. Open, Box, Adjustable, Crescent, they all have their purpose. Clearly guys are winning matches with the Bushnell, it doesn't hinder their ability to beat 99 other shooters or more when it comes time put bullets on paper.
These are elaborate eye test, we are inserting a scope to see if we get an advantage, or even just stay the same. Scopes are about so much more than spotters. Tracking, adjustments, features, Reticles, eye box, magnification, it goes well beyond looking through them as it's a sighting system, not just an observation device.
I wouldn't sweat it, it shows that everyone sees things different and you have to see it with your own eyes. It's why I stopped talking glass and focus on use. The glass all works, it's the features, and use that changes everything.
That is a factor, was each scope completely adjusted for each tester?
I have no idea the answer... But it can be a big factor.
Also was anything done to "time" the magnifications to try and measure it prior. Just using the markings can be a big issue. We're they all calibrated to 10x or was one 9.5x, another, 10.2x, another 10.8x, etc. this can be a factor too.
This too, REALLY unexpected.
I was very surprised to see the Kahles 624i score in the bottom 30%....
This is contrary to my own expeience with this scope, compared to the Schmidts and NFs that I also own, as well as to the considerable anecdotal high marks here on the Hide, both with the Gen I and Gen II glass versions of the 624i.
optics planet.
Same here. Especially since I just bought one. lol
Assuming you are not a rookie and have certain amount of competitions under your belt, do you feel that your current equipment is hindering your ability to perform snd if so why do you have it/ bought it if it does. Reading a test by someone (regardless of methodology and effort) on the internet is better measure and more relevant to you than your 1st hand experience? I understand you being sarcastic but there are plenty of people who continually chase their tail buying new and newer tech gizmos and gadgets all the while lacking in building THEIR shooting skills. Don't have one iota problem with wanting best of the best, hell if i were to compete against you i'd be thrilled. I'm not afraid of the guys with new items at every match, silent types with old beat up gear are the ones to look at and be "afraid of".
Same here. Especially since I just bought one. lol
It was a foregone conclusion people were gonna disagree, still a very good test and shows what you might want to look at when judging for yourself.
Read on here just last week where people say, they only needed 5 minutes with a scope to form and opinion and while they may have indeed formed an opinion looking out a shop window, or down their local KD range, it misses much and leaves a lot to be desired. There is a reason optics companies have a variety of test equipment, and and don't leave this to chance, or do it by eye.
The more disagreement, the more discussion, then 6 month latter it will be written in stone and taken as gospel.
Exactly dead nuts on the money with this statement.I wouldn't sweat it, it shows that everyone sees things different and you have to see it with your own eyes. It's why I stopped talking glass and focus on use. The glass all works, it's the features, and use that changes everything.