[MENTION=63862]calz[/MENTION] I think your math is off on the difference between min/max eye relief for the Kahles. You have it at .3 when the values are 2.6/2.8.
Rifle Scopes 2014's Best Scope ShootOut
- Thread starter BullyDog
- Start date
I guess I am one of the lucky ones. The USO scopes that I have are just as good as my Nightforce. Go figure. I love my nightforce all but the fact that the eye peace turns with the power ring. The USO, for me, has been easier to set and work with. Not only am I on paper but in the center as well.
I've had a demo, and have a new one now. I think under 100 yards the S&B has better glass. It's pretty clear when I had them side by side, but at 300 yards I could not resolve any more detail out of the S&B. The Kahles also had a more forgiving eye box, but less eye relief. Kahles had IMO better FOV (this optics shoot out agrees with that) and no tunneling.
Is it "better than S&B PMII 5-25 glass" I don't think it is, but I feel overall they have different features that make them pretty even, it just depends on what you want out of the optic.
I couldn't agree with this more. I just received a new one from [MENTION=22992]jonaddis84[/MENTION] and so far I'm very pleased in the optic and the service I received from Jon. With the number of optics I get to see and handle on the range, the Kahles does not disappoint. I feel that the glass is more than acceptable and I can't complain about it. The FOV and forgiving eyebox, I feel, balances out the less-than-S&B-glass and I can still resolve targets and clearly see what I need to make shots. I'm a fan of the parallax adjustment on top even though I had my doubts. Overall, it's a winner in my book.
Sorry, I didn't mean to cause confusion on this. All I meant by "appropriate eye relief" is that you had a full field of view, minimal black ring around the sight picture, and no scope shadow ... just like how you align your head behind the scope, but I did it with the camera viewfinder instead of my head.
Last edited:
Possibly. Ultimately, I wish I had 5 scopes of each model from random retail shelves across the country. That would certainly help smooth over any sample bias. But, the 18 scopes I had totaled around $70,000. So if I got 5 of each, that would be $350,000. Even if manufacturers would lend them to me (which they might), I don't want to borrow that much money. Plus it would take a lifetime to test that many, and the amount of time invested in this was already absurd. So, I figured testing one scope of each might still be better than nothing ... but it certainly could involve some sample bias. I would hope these high-end scopes don't have a large degree of variance in the overall quality, but they might.
Last edited:
Actually, it just has to do with the rounding. On the Kahles, at 24x the eye relief was 2.83" and at 6x it was 2.56". On the chart, I only showed one decimal place, so it displayed 2.8 and 2.6. But on the actual difference, is 0.27". But the chart that shows the difference is also rounded to only display one decimal place ... so it shows 0.3". I know this is confusing, you'd be surprised how many people have contacted me about that. I can't believe so many people are actually double-checking the match on such small details. I love it! I could just change it match to reduce the confusion ... but I honestly don't like changing data, even if it really is very insignificant. Sorry for the confusion, and I appreciate you mentioning it. If you notice anything else, please point it out. I definitely would never claim my world was completely error-free.
Mr. Zant, you are a man of character. You do all of this work for free, get a ton of crap from people who got butt hurt about how their own personal scope did not do well, and still carry on with reasonable responses. I am very impressed. The industry here needs more people like you. Well done. Thank you.
calz awesome. I liked having 6 peoples opinion under the same conditions vs. 6 peoples opinions from 6 different conditions. It helped me finalize a scope purchase. (along with a million other opinions I have read here).
keep up the good work. (and I bought it from a hide sponsor to boot!)
keep up the good work. (and I bought it from a hide sponsor to boot!)
I'm surprised they didn't talk about the NF BEAST's locking windage turret. That is an awesome feature, easily adjusted, and a benefit in running around stage to stage.
It's the difference between looking through it and actually using it on a rifle with recoil ....
It's why I don't comment on a scope until I have put more than 500 rounds under it. Theses are rifle scopes not spotters, everything works perfect when you hold it in your hand. Recoil is what separates looks good, from works good.
Not to mention the effects of weather swings, the elements, and imperfect handling. Actual use of a scope is very important, and even that won't tell the story all the time. I had a scope that took 2500+ rnds of 308 that crapped out within 50rnds of 338LM.
Not sure why you would weight the magnification ratio when you didn't verify the low end mag. Kind of violates the assume nothing principle.
Some of the scopes that started out very well are not doing as well in the latest round of tests. Instead the models like the Kahles 624 and Steiner 5-25MSR are starting to look pretty good again. This is a great test we should all paypal this guy $5
I tend to agree, here. I'm not going to worry about it too much, as it would probably take several days to gather that information and Cal probably has a life to live outside of this project.
I'm also a little bummed that the light transmission tests don't seem to have been conclusive enough to publish.
Another update for Ergonomics Summary.
The Ratings For Turret Design chart reminded me of reading Consumer Report magazine before the Internet.
Cal, What's your PayPal account name?
The Ratings For Turret Design chart reminded me of reading Consumer Report magazine before the Internet.
Cal, What's your PayPal account name?
Last edited:
Thanks ... that is exactly what I'm going for. I think that whole section was full of info that doesn't really exist anywhere else, so I saw it as my unique contribution to the shooting community. Ultimately, I don't have any agenda and I'm not trying to say what someone has is better or worse. If it works for you, great! ... You should ignore all this stuff. But, if someone is about to drop cash on one of these scopes ... that's a huge decision on most budgets. I'm just trying to provide some additional info to help support them in the decision-making process.
Last edited:
While I certainly appreciate the gesture, no need to make a donation. I'm just glad to make a contribution to the shooting community. I've learned a ton from Sniper's Hide in particular. I appreciate the kind words and encouragement.
Hey, it should be;
#1 Tasco
#2 Huskemaw
#3 Barska
????? The best of the west guys are gonna be pissed! lol
Kidding aside, thanks for taking the time to do this. Just Awesome that someone would do this.
S&B and Hensoldt are definitely showing why they cost as much as they do. Nightforce is really shining compared to the price of some of the other optics they are holding their own against; the ATACR and NSX are besting optics that cost 2-3 times as much. USO is a real surprise in this too, As I thought they would have better glass at that price-point. The Leupold tactical scopes proved once again that they are overpriced for what you get. I suspect that some of these optics would not do so well if they had to endure an "abuse test"; I have seen several Bushnell, leupy, and Vortex scopes go down in classes. Wonder if you will finish off the series by exposing them to the elements and doing "drop tests", lol.
I know you can not please everyone, but thanks for taking the time to do this and for trying to be as objective as possible.
#1 Tasco
#2 Huskemaw
#3 Barska
????? The best of the west guys are gonna be pissed! lol
Kidding aside, thanks for taking the time to do this. Just Awesome that someone would do this.
S&B and Hensoldt are definitely showing why they cost as much as they do. Nightforce is really shining compared to the price of some of the other optics they are holding their own against; the ATACR and NSX are besting optics that cost 2-3 times as much. USO is a real surprise in this too, As I thought they would have better glass at that price-point. The Leupold tactical scopes proved once again that they are overpriced for what you get. I suspect that some of these optics would not do so well if they had to endure an "abuse test"; I have seen several Bushnell, leupy, and Vortex scopes go down in classes. Wonder if you will finish off the series by exposing them to the elements and doing "drop tests", lol.
I know you can not please everyone, but thanks for taking the time to do this and for trying to be as objective as possible.
One thing that's missing is reticle thickness. Its a common misbelief that FFP reticles are always thicker that SFP reticles and always cover more of the target. In many cases it simply isn't true.
Another common misconception is that the FFP reticle covers more of the target as the magnification is dialed up. Its actually the SFP reticle that covers more of the target as the magnification goes down. Many of the popular dot reticles in the super high magnification target scopes cover more of the target that most of the popular FFP reticles when you dial the magnification down below 40x or 30x.
Maybe it would also be useful to show how much of the target is actually covered by various reticles and maybe have a sorted chart of thickness. The thicknesses of the SFP reticles at various magnifications could also be shown.
Details like the lines in the G2 being thinner at the center are also worth mentioning.
Another common misconception is that the FFP reticle covers more of the target as the magnification is dialed up. Its actually the SFP reticle that covers more of the target as the magnification goes down. Many of the popular dot reticles in the super high magnification target scopes cover more of the target that most of the popular FFP reticles when you dial the magnification down below 40x or 30x.
Maybe it would also be useful to show how much of the target is actually covered by various reticles and maybe have a sorted chart of thickness. The thicknesses of the SFP reticles at various magnifications could also be shown.
Details like the lines in the G2 being thinner at the center are also worth mentioning.
Last edited:
The reticle section is kind of disappointing. I would have liked to see photographs so people can see how the reticles actually look at say, low mid and the high end of the range. Some of the drawings don't even look like they are scaled right. The Leupold TMR that now comes with the Mark 6 3-18 is even suppose to be slightly more open in the center with a dot, not the clear aperture of the older TMR.
Then be disappointed and keep it to yourself. If you can do better, then do it. I am so sick and tired of people complaining about THE most comprehensive review of rifle scopes ever conducted. Cal Zant has blown away all other testings. He really has. Taking pictures is a great idea. Contact Mr. Zant and offer your time (for free mind you) and conduct your own testing. Good luck! I just can't wait to see your report.
This test is an amazing resource to the prospective buyer. If someone wants a certain reticle, now they can access this page and get a quick run down. Keep up the awesome work Mr. Zant.
Hey Calz, in the latest entry I think you have the information concerning the Zero Stop reversed for the two Bushnell scopes. The standard DMR 3.5-21x50 doesn't and the XRS 4.5-30x50 does have a zero stop. If I misread the new Blog post I apologize.
Sorry for the confusion on this. Bushnell has a couple models of the "Bushnell Elite 3.5-21x50" and a couple of the "Bushnell Elite 4.5-30x50". This is similar to how Schmidt and Bender has 50+ different configurations available on their PMII 5-25x56. So instead of just looking at the DMR model, I wanted to show if any of them were available with zero stop. I actually changed the label to not include DMR or XRS, but I know this was confusing. I probably should have called it out, and I might go back and do that when I get a chance.
The Bushnell Elite 3.5-21x50 is available with a zero stop option, in their ERS model. It is virtually identical to the DMR, but has the Bushnell Z-Lok feature. Here is a link to their product page for that: Bushnell - ERS 3.5-21x 50mm
But none of the Bushnell Elite 4.5-30x50 models have their Z-Lok feature (at least none that I saw). Here is the product page for the XRS: Bushnell - XRS 4.5-30x 50mm
I asked USO that directly, because after reading through the manual I was a bit confused myself. I read in the manual the EREK turret "incorporates a center screw for rough zeroing" ... but I wasn't sure if that was technically equivalent to zero stop. So I US Optics "Does the EREK turret have a zero stop feature?" Here is the response I got: "The center screw is part of the EREK system. It allows the shooter to maximize gross elevation travel adjustment independent of the elevation knob. In short there is more usable travel for shots taken at farther distances." It is actually a really cool feature, but it doesn't sound like it is intended to be the same thing as zero stop.
I'd be interested to hear what you guys thought about Double Turn turret designs. I broke those out as a feature, which I hadn't really thought of before.
The way I think about it, if you regularly get into the 2nd or 3rd revolution, you learn to double-check what revolution you're on often. Many shooters miss because they thought they were on a different revolution than what the scope really was set to. Typically, this happens when you engage long-range targets and adjust into the 2nd or 3rd revolution on the scope, and then forget to dial back down to zero before you start engaging your next targets. I’ve done it, and mental errors like that can be frustrating during a hunt or competition. It seems like a DT design makes huge strides in simplifying this, and also makes it a lot easier to design a revolution indicator, because its just a boolean indicator now (either you're on the 1st or 2nd revolution ... only two states to differentiate between). Some innovative revolution indicator designs from Hensoldt, Steiner, and Schmidt & Bender make that completely obvious. And you just need two rows of numbers on the knob. There just seems to be a lot of simplification that comes from this one small design feature.
What do you guys think about DT turrets? Important? Who cares?
The way I think about it, if you regularly get into the 2nd or 3rd revolution, you learn to double-check what revolution you're on often. Many shooters miss because they thought they were on a different revolution than what the scope really was set to. Typically, this happens when you engage long-range targets and adjust into the 2nd or 3rd revolution on the scope, and then forget to dial back down to zero before you start engaging your next targets. I’ve done it, and mental errors like that can be frustrating during a hunt or competition. It seems like a DT design makes huge strides in simplifying this, and also makes it a lot easier to design a revolution indicator, because its just a boolean indicator now (either you're on the 1st or 2nd revolution ... only two states to differentiate between). Some innovative revolution indicator designs from Hensoldt, Steiner, and Schmidt & Bender make that completely obvious. And you just need two rows of numbers on the knob. There just seems to be a lot of simplification that comes from this one small design feature.
What do you guys think about DT turrets? Important? Who cares?
Copied this off of the XRS page from Bushnell
Elite Tactical
XRS 4.5-30x 50mm
ET45305GZ
Share this:
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on email
The ultimate in repeatable accuracy, with our highest magnification range for splitting hairs at the farthest reaches. Blacked-out finish, 34mm tube, locking target turrets and zero stop.
G2 reticle
First focal plane
T-Lok locking target turrets
## Z-Lok zero stop
## Side parallax adjustment
## 1. Mil Clicks, 10Mils/Revs
## Includes 2" sun shade
I knew the XRS had Zero Stop and Locking Turrets as this is the scope I run on my rifle.
Last edited:
You guys are killing me. I was about to buy a NF NXS8-32 with the MOAR-T. I have never bought a quality tactical scope and started looking around for some more info and boy did I find it. This is one of the best comparisons I have seen. Tactical Scopes: Advanced Features | PrecisionRifleBlog.com Like its too good!
All I wanted was someone to say ya the Night Force is the best choice out there for the money and you're making a wise decision - get the 8-32! Now I don't know what to do. I have a Millett 6-25-56 I picked up at the NRA show a for years back for 200 bucks. Seemed like a no brainer at the time but didn't have a gun for it so I bought a DMSP SASS in 308. I was shooting at our local range the other day and it was over cast and I could really tell that I was shooting a cheap scope. I have always wanted a Nightforce scope and can now afford it so was about to jump. Its hard to feel like I am making a good choice as I have never held any of these scope in hand.
I will be shooting mostly off a bench and punching paper or ringing steel. I like being able to use the rifle scope as a spotter and see the holes so the high magnification is appealing . I subscribe to the buy once cry once but after looking at everything and seeing the March scopes with the huge magnification range I feel myself being pulled that direction. I really don't want to end up with a couple high end rifle scopes... Any words of wisdom or encouragement would be greatly appreciated...
All I wanted was someone to say ya the Night Force is the best choice out there for the money and you're making a wise decision - get the 8-32! Now I don't know what to do. I have a Millett 6-25-56 I picked up at the NRA show a for years back for 200 bucks. Seemed like a no brainer at the time but didn't have a gun for it so I bought a DMSP SASS in 308. I was shooting at our local range the other day and it was over cast and I could really tell that I was shooting a cheap scope. I have always wanted a Nightforce scope and can now afford it so was about to jump. Its hard to feel like I am making a good choice as I have never held any of these scope in hand.
I will be shooting mostly off a bench and punching paper or ringing steel. I like being able to use the rifle scope as a spotter and see the holes so the high magnification is appealing . I subscribe to the buy once cry once but after looking at everything and seeing the March scopes with the huge magnification range I feel myself being pulled that direction. I really don't want to end up with a couple high end rifle scopes... Any words of wisdom or encouragement would be greatly appreciated...
Yes, thank you guys. It looks like you're both correct. It's hard to extract all this info from the different formats and content from the manufacturers. That's the big reason I wanted to consolidate it and make it easy for people to see side-by-side in a consistent format. I already got the post updated. Thanks for the feedback.
Double Turn turrets are the ONLY way to go. It is one less thing you have to worry about while under stress. I have personally and have seen people miss an important shot since they were in the wrong revolution. I like big knobs where I can get my numbers quick and easy to see. The US Optics EREK is very nice. I think some very visible and easy to discern indicator is also key. Not some super micro level indicator on the inside of the barrel, like the Nightforce I had. I got "lost in the turrets" several times with that scope.
Keep up the great work Mr. Zant!!!
It's hard for me to decide sometimes which I like better, the 10 mil knobs or DT's.
I, like you, consider the March 10 mil knobs a very pleasing and simple knob. The numbers are a decent size, the click spacing just right, the feel about perfect, a super simple zero stop system, low profile and wide enough. Since the mil reticle system is commonly in thought of in 10th's, the clicks in tenths, thus the 10 mil knobs/100 clicks is most logical. These March knobs perfectly compliment the scope as well!
On the other hand I like the DT's and the MTC LT on the S&B just as much because they seem to likewise compliment their host. The click spacing is closer than 10 mil knobs but so distinct and aligned it is for the most part a non issue...unless of course I forget my old man reading glasses, haha.
I've gotten confused which rev I've been on with 5 mil knobs, 1/8 moa and 1/4moa knobs but never the DT's or the 10 mil.
I have the NF NXS 8-32X56 with the MOAR reticle , zero stop and high speed turrets on my 308 TRG 22 and AIAW. I debated for quite a while wether to go the S&B 5-25X route. But after comparing a friends S&B to another friends 8-32X Nightforce and considering I don't shoot more than 600 yards I decided the Nightforce was a better choice for me. If I was shooting 1000+ yards my choice might have been different. But I am extremely satisfied with the NF 8-32X56 scopes. I don't think you would be sorry if you choose the NXS 8-32X56 scope for your DPMS SASS. By the way I also have a DPMS SASS and have a NF 5.5-22X50 scope with ZS, HST and the MOAR reticle on it.
[MENTION=15834]steve123[/MENTION]
Couldn't agree more. If I had to pick just one turret for the best overall size and feel, it'd be the March. I did try the March 10 mil (as well as the MOA version), because I had some mechanical issues with the first scope they sent (MOA version), so I asked them to send another one and the 2nd was the mil version. I'll explain the specifics of the mechanical issues in the post I'm working on now, but all that to say the 10 mil turret seems ideal. The feel and distance between clicks is perfect for me, but they do need a better revolution indicator.
I personally prefer the DT turrent on the S&B over the MTC LT, because it seems like you have better control. However, I know a lot of smart guys that are top competitors using the MTC LT turret, so it is really just personal preference. Neither is the "wrong answer"... it's just whatever you like. But, you're right ... the click density on those is pretty high because it is such a narrow turret compared to those by March, USO, Valdada, etc. After using all these, I'm definitely becoming a fan of a wider, shorter turret.
And I'm glad the high speed turrets are becoming more standard, because that does go a long way in alleviating the need for getting into the 3rd or 4th revolution. That minimizes the problem of getting lost, although I'd like to see an obvious rev indicator in addition to the high speed turrets.
Couldn't agree more. If I had to pick just one turret for the best overall size and feel, it'd be the March. I did try the March 10 mil (as well as the MOA version), because I had some mechanical issues with the first scope they sent (MOA version), so I asked them to send another one and the 2nd was the mil version. I'll explain the specifics of the mechanical issues in the post I'm working on now, but all that to say the 10 mil turret seems ideal. The feel and distance between clicks is perfect for me, but they do need a better revolution indicator.
I personally prefer the DT turrent on the S&B over the MTC LT, because it seems like you have better control. However, I know a lot of smart guys that are top competitors using the MTC LT turret, so it is really just personal preference. Neither is the "wrong answer"... it's just whatever you like. But, you're right ... the click density on those is pretty high because it is such a narrow turret compared to those by March, USO, Valdada, etc. After using all these, I'm definitely becoming a fan of a wider, shorter turret.
And I'm glad the high speed turrets are becoming more standard, because that does go a long way in alleviating the need for getting into the 3rd or 4th revolution. That minimizes the problem of getting lost, although I'd like to see an obvious rev indicator in addition to the high speed turrets.
Similar threads
