A friend of mine bought a Kahles AMR and promptly returned it after he, and several others, compared it to an ATACR and unanimously agreed that the Kahles glass was a little foggy in comparison. With so many others having more positive reviews of the Kahles, then perhaps there is an inconsistency in the glass or the coating that Kahles is using. Just a thought.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes 2014's Best Scope ShootOut
- Thread starter BullyDog
- Start date
You're not the only one. I've looked through both, and was impressed enough by the Kahles vs. the S&B that I bought the Kahles. Something just seems amiss here, IMHO.
Nothing is amiss at all in my opinion. This "test" had a very predictable result.
You take a sample size of "one" of each thing, and attempt to do a comparative analysis of the most individually subjective aspect of those things, and you can ONLY get a completely inconclusive and dubious "result."
You take a sample size of "one" of each thing, and attempt to do a comparative analysis of the most individually subjective aspect of those things, and you can ONLY get a completely inconclusive and dubious "result."
This is only the first part of a several part series. Tomorrow he should be releasing Part 2 of the optics testing he did, and then approximately once a week he will release a new writeup that talks about those other parts that you mentioned that make a great scope: accuracy and feel of clicks, ergonomics, etc. It should all end up being EXTREMELY thorough... That being said, it is still only one piece of data that we have to add to our overall opinions on these scopes. It isn't, and nor should it be, the be-all end-all of scope testing.
Yea, like WolfCobra said, he is going to stay on top of this scope thing... He mentioned that later this year the new Razor 27x and the Tangent Theta will be tested.
So this is how the test goes:
Optical Performance Results – Part 1(Finished)
Provides summary and overall score for optical performance. Explain optical clarity was measured (i.e. image quality), and provides detailed results for those tests.
Optical Performance Results – Part 2 (coming soon)
Covers detailed results for measured field of view, max magnification, and zoom ratio.
Ergonomics (coming soon)
Covers topics like weight, size, how easy turrets are to use, and includes a high-res photo gallery of the scopes.
Advanced Features (coming soon)
Covers features available on these scopes like reticle options, locking turret, zero stop, illuminated reticle, tactile clicks, etc.
Mechanical Performance (coming soon)
Covers detailed results for mechanical performance tests, like how precisely the clicks are calibrated, and features like internal adjustment range.
Overall Results Summary (coming soon)
Provides summary and overall score for entire field test.
I can only see the NF ATACR gaining ground with the remainder of this test: Can you imagine
1. Schmidt and Bender PMII 5-25×56
2. Hensoldt ZF 3.5-26×56
3. NF ATACR 5-25X56 This would be something to see.
Optical Performance Results – Part 1(Finished)
Provides summary and overall score for optical performance. Explain optical clarity was measured (i.e. image quality), and provides detailed results for those tests.
Optical Performance Results – Part 2 (coming soon)
Covers detailed results for measured field of view, max magnification, and zoom ratio.
Ergonomics (coming soon)
Covers topics like weight, size, how easy turrets are to use, and includes a high-res photo gallery of the scopes.
Advanced Features (coming soon)
Covers features available on these scopes like reticle options, locking turret, zero stop, illuminated reticle, tactile clicks, etc.
Mechanical Performance (coming soon)
Covers detailed results for mechanical performance tests, like how precisely the clicks are calibrated, and features like internal adjustment range.
Overall Results Summary (coming soon)
Provides summary and overall score for entire field test.
I can only see the NF ATACR gaining ground with the remainder of this test: Can you imagine
1. Schmidt and Bender PMII 5-25×56
2. Hensoldt ZF 3.5-26×56
3. NF ATACR 5-25X56 This would be something to see.
Talked with the Pres. of ATI (Tangent Theta's distributor) earlier this week. The first batch of TT's to land anywhere, will be at our door in about a months time.
We've made a sizable commitment, and I'm not in the least bit worried.
Orkan,
I would request that you do a test of your own, better than the subject test we are all talking about. Maybe you could do better? I mean, this guy went to great lengths to make this as objective as possible. Yes, the test results are subjective, but given several different individual's impressions, he took the best information there was.
Saying that the test is "completely inconclusive" is unfair and uncalled for. Do better, if you dare. Otherwise, shut up. Your comments smack of favoritism with no support. You talk worlds about the scopes you sell. Mr. Zant has no stake in the results. He just wanted the truth.
Meanwhile, I am looking forward to the other important aspects of a rifle scope, such as Ergonomics and Mechanical Performance. These are what really make a rifle scope a gun sight, as Frank, with his ultimate wisdom, has commented several times.
Let us applaud Cal Zant and all of the people who loaned their scopes for this amazing test.
Hey, stop reading into what I'm saying... and just read what I'm saying.
I was simply stating that a sample size of one, comparing the most subjective aspect of the scope, can NOT be used to draw ANY conclusions about any of the scopes involved.
What if he got a bad one?
That statement has NOTHING to do with scopes I sell, and everything to do with someone trying to quantify something that is damn near impossible to quantify. He can quantify for the eyes and preferences that happened to be present, but that is all. So stop trying to dramatize and draw parallels where there are none. I'd be saying the same goddamn thing if the Tangent's and Vortex's were included.
I do applaud them for doing the testing... but the "glass quality" portion could have been skipped over completely, and we wouldn't have lost any tangible substance.
I was simply stating that a sample size of one, comparing the most subjective aspect of the scope, can NOT be used to draw ANY conclusions about any of the scopes involved.
What if he got a bad one?
That statement has NOTHING to do with scopes I sell, and everything to do with someone trying to quantify something that is damn near impossible to quantify. He can quantify for the eyes and preferences that happened to be present, but that is all. So stop trying to dramatize and draw parallels where there are none. I'd be saying the same goddamn thing if the Tangent's and Vortex's were included.
I do applaud them for doing the testing... but the "glass quality" portion could have been skipped over completely, and we wouldn't have lost any tangible substance.
Last edited:
That is a very interesting perspective, seems to jive with what Frank has been saying for a while now about optical gunsights. I'm not sure I completely agree, but I'm not sure you're wrong either.
I seriously doubt he received a bad scope sample, from a distributor, knowing he's going to do this large test and post the results.. He contacted manufactures and discussed his testing methods with them.. This is the most accurate test we will ever see!! Period.. BullyDog posted up what the result may look like, and it seems he may have known more than he let onto. His wild card Zeiss scope was right there!!! Now, lets see what his Tangent Theta prediction will come to be!!!
He would have much rather seen those scopes he deems as his roughest competition do a little worse on the test. But seeing they did very well he says things like "these test are inconclusive". .......got a love it.
Optical Performance Results – Part 2 ARE IN
The Kahles K 6-24×56 rifle scope offered the widest field of view at 18x magnification with 7.2 feet at 100 yards, which is quite impressive. But the Valdada IOR RECON 4-28×50, Schmidt and Bender PMII 5-25×56, Nightforce BEAST 5-25×56, Nightforce ATACR 5-25×56, US Optics ER25 5-25×58, and Zeiss Victory Diavari 6–24×56 were all right there at the top as well.
http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/...ptical-performance-field-test-results-part-2/
The Kahles K 6-24×56 rifle scope offered the widest field of view at 18x magnification with 7.2 feet at 100 yards, which is quite impressive. But the Valdada IOR RECON 4-28×50, Schmidt and Bender PMII 5-25×56, Nightforce BEAST 5-25×56, Nightforce ATACR 5-25×56, US Optics ER25 5-25×58, and Zeiss Victory Diavari 6–24×56 were all right there at the top as well.
http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/...ptical-performance-field-test-results-part-2/
Attachments
Than that says something about quality control letting this "bad" scope through. You can't go to a store and compare 20-30 scopes to pick out the best one.
BTW: You can most definitly quantify the quality of the optics, camera lenses are reviewed/tested in the same way on sites like dpReview etc. Resolution (center and corner), distortion, CA etc can all be measured. You just need the equipment for it. I think many scope brands will have a foot in their mouth after those tests, with claims of ED glass etc. For some reason these tests have never been run on rifle scopes, despite people shelving out 3-4K if it was loose change.
A scope is not a camera lens and they use software for those tests. You can't line up a scope correctly enough to use the same software. I tried. Years ago I contacted the PH.D behind the ImageTest software which sites use to test camera lenses. They have to base line the camera itself, then add the lenses. I mean you can shine a light through the tube and measure it with a meter to read the transmission, but it does nothing for the end user.
Why people think they need to weight the glass in a scope so heavily is the biggest problem and continues to go unanswered. It's all about perception, and nobody sees the same thing.
If this proves anything it is, the glass quality of rifle scopes is not enough of a factor to consider that much. Especially when you read how many people perceived it differently.
Think of it like factory match ammo. Federal, Copper Creek, Cor Bon, Asym, SWA, all make match ammo, say 175gr. They all vary on price, not huge like scopes but enough to put it context. We can pass out this match ammo to 10 shooters with 10 different rifles and the results will all vary.
I would bet while the results above appear to vary, the reality is actually much closer to each other. It was said as much, " I thought x was better, but the group chose y.
Interestingly he did muse out loud that the 3-27x S&B might have an issue since it measured at a max magnification of 22x and not 27x... So it's possible. It did poorly enough to wonder.
Why people think they need to weight the glass in a scope so heavily is the biggest problem and continues to go unanswered. It's all about perception, and nobody sees the same thing.
If this proves anything it is, the glass quality of rifle scopes is not enough of a factor to consider that much. Especially when you read how many people perceived it differently.
Think of it like factory match ammo. Federal, Copper Creek, Cor Bon, Asym, SWA, all make match ammo, say 175gr. They all vary on price, not huge like scopes but enough to put it context. We can pass out this match ammo to 10 shooters with 10 different rifles and the results will all vary.
I would bet while the results above appear to vary, the reality is actually much closer to each other. It was said as much, " I thought x was better, but the group chose y.
Interestingly he did muse out loud that the 3-27x S&B might have an issue since it measured at a max magnification of 22x and not 27x... So it's possible. It did poorly enough to wonder.
While I don't place all my emphasis of a scope on optical qualities, there is merit for how well a scope performs in this category. As an example, I once had a USO SN3 3.2-17X44 that gave me problems with resolution. I had it on my hunting rifle and was unable to discern the antlers on a Mule deer buck at around 400-500 yards (I forget the exact distance). I could tell he had antlers, just couldn't make out the mass or how many points. My cheap Leupold Wind River 10X binos however were able to give me a better image and even with less magnification I could tell the buck wasn't what I was looking for. Through the scope, I could have taken the shot but resolution was severly lacking. And yes, I understand that some of this could be binocular use compared to the scope and isn't exactly the best comparison, but still goes to illustrate that optical properties can be important. After that incident, I started paying more attention to optics. But I still don't make that the only criteria I look for, just one aspect. How well a scope performs in many other areas is just as important.
Geb
Geb
Geb,
you made the wrong decision, wrong tool for the job.
Variable, higher power, smallish objective. It's an apples to orange comparison. Your example is not about resolution, it's about picking the right tool.
and yes it could have been a problem with that scope...
you made the wrong decision, wrong tool for the job.
Variable, higher power, smallish objective. It's an apples to orange comparison. Your example is not about resolution, it's about picking the right tool.
and yes it could have been a problem with that scope...
Agreed 100% Frank, apples to oranges. But other scopes in similar conditions have not given the same issue and I can usually count on the higher magnification to get a better idea of what I'm looking at exactly. I believe that scope had some optical problems.
Geb
Geb
I preach getting people behind the optic they are interested in all the time. I've had a few get-together deals locally so people could get behind different scopes and really get a feeling. bottom line is your eye has to be comfortable behind the scope, or comfortable with image/light going through the scope rather
Completely Wrong,
In lower light conditions the higher the magnification shrinks the exit pupil, which is why hunting scopes (especially in Europe) are 8x 56mm ... The higher you dial up, the harder it is to see in poor lighting conditions.
turning the USO down would have yielded a better view, providing it was not a problem with the scope.
One of the biggest factors for me when I look through a scope is whether or not I can get the image and reticle to both focus together perfectly.
Some scopes I have owned just will not do this consistently no matter how much I screw with the parallax/diopter. I believe the parallax adjustment on some of the scopes is so fine that finding the sweet spot is a constant hunt. One of the best things about the 5-25 benders I have is that the parallax adjustment seems to have a huge sweet spot. The kahles I owned had a very hard time finding that range if I was not extremely careful with the parallax knob.
The leupold mark 8 I previously owned also had a very user friendly parallax adjustment.
Some scopes I have owned just will not do this consistently no matter how much I screw with the parallax/diopter. I believe the parallax adjustment on some of the scopes is so fine that finding the sweet spot is a constant hunt. One of the best things about the 5-25 benders I have is that the parallax adjustment seems to have a huge sweet spot. The kahles I owned had a very hard time finding that range if I was not extremely careful with the parallax knob.
The leupold mark 8 I previously owned also had a very user friendly parallax adjustment.
We have no "roughest competition." Glass "testing" IS completely inconclusive as it is almost entirely user preference, unless you are using an extremely expensive and difficult to calibrate optical sensor to do the testing. Using human eyeballs is NOT conclusive for anyone but the person looking... period, end of story.
I'm terribly sorry you are letting your personal feelings of me, and thinking I'd sell things just to make money, get in the way of this simple fact.
If the tangent theta's show up here and don't blow my mind, I'll sell them off at a discount and drop the product line before I'd sell shitty scopes. My comments here have not one thing to do with what we sell. Got it?
Last edited:
Optical quality is pretty low on my priority scale for this category of scopes. I just need to be able to see my target clear enough to identify it and put a good point of aim on it. Most of these scopes will do that. I place much more importance on accurate adjustments that are reliable and consistent through all kind of conditions and usage.
[MENTION=5482]Frank[/MENTION]: Things like CA, distrotion and resolution are not perceived, they are absolute which can be measured empirically. The scope has it or it does not, and with a certain quantity. It's just that certain people do not notice or care about the different type of CA etc, as they would not notice in their cameras.
The comparisson with ammo is apples/oranges, as you have things like barrel harmonics playing a part. Putting a scope on rifle A or rifle B will not change these points like barrel harmonics would on these rifles.
If there is a focal point (which the exit pupil is), you have a plane for testing the image with. That plane will shift with focus and magnification, but can easily be set (your head can do it in a split second, so a mechanical slide as used in macro photography can do it as well). A camera lens and a rifle scope only differ in the fact that there is a reticle inside with some adjustments, the optics are just a system of multiple lenses like that in a camera, they just tend to magnify more than the average camera lens and have a lot less light transmission (vs surface).
The image quality may not be important to most people, I just want to point out it can be quantified if you really want. It's not voodoo.
The comparisson with ammo is apples/oranges, as you have things like barrel harmonics playing a part. Putting a scope on rifle A or rifle B will not change these points like barrel harmonics would on these rifles.
If there is a focal point (which the exit pupil is), you have a plane for testing the image with. That plane will shift with focus and magnification, but can easily be set (your head can do it in a split second, so a mechanical slide as used in macro photography can do it as well). A camera lens and a rifle scope only differ in the fact that there is a reticle inside with some adjustments, the optics are just a system of multiple lenses like that in a camera, they just tend to magnify more than the average camera lens and have a lot less light transmission (vs surface).
The image quality may not be important to most people, I just want to point out it can be quantified if you really want. It's not voodoo.
Last edited:
Right, again I agree with you. But my hunt was not early morning/late evening but was rather mid-day and bright. The image through the USO was hazy and non-distinct with blurry lines, which is why I couldn't make out the mass/number of points on the buck very well. I did dial the magnification down if I remember correctly and it helped a little, but not enough. Regardless, I'm certain that scope had problems optically. This isn't meant as a knock on USO, just that at some point even good glass can have problems that make target ID/confirmation problematic. I could see the deer well enough to make the shot, just not well enough to determine if I wanted to. And I'm not saying the optics were complete garbage either. The adjustments were spot on and it was a very reliable scope, just not as good as I believe it should have been with the optics. I've used enough other scopes to know when there is a problem with the glass.
To the OP, sorry to get this off track a bit.
Geb
Geb, please do not apologize to the OP. That douchenozzle Bullydog is LONG gone. We believe he is posting under a different name now, since he pissed off so many people in his short 30 day tenure on the Hide. Meanwhile, I really appreciate your sharing of experiences. This is what the forum was built for. Maybe I am the one to apologize to you for my antics on the first page of this thread, but that dork really rubbed me and my friends the wrong way. He seriously deserved it.
One thing I noticed that they might not have tested or will test is "Eye Relief". Not sure if it's as important for others as it is for me but I have given up a very good scope because of it. I guess it's a comfort zone thing, for me at least. I guess it just reinforces LL's and others statements that glass isn't everything. I think it should have been included.
@6Dasher
Clearly it can't be quantified to everyone's or anyone's satisfaction as this question has been asked since day one. This site has the optics reputation it does because we have explored it, not just me but others. No two people see things the same, exactly like no two barrels are the same... it's identical.
This test and thread clearly demonstrates that.
A scope is a telescopic SIGHT, emphasis on SIGHT. It is not a camera lens, (And recently it has been done on camera sites to show the average user cannot tell the difference between a $300 Nikon lens and $2000 one) where great quality optics for cameras comes into play is when you "Blow up" the image. The higher degree of sharpness becomes apparent, however for everyday use, and viewing on a computer, unless you make a living taking pictures, you will never know or see the difference.
Also we are not trying to type and color code birds. CA is meaningless to the average shooter. (Again look at TEAM GAP) Guys are cleaning up in tactical competitions right now using the Bushnell XRS which has quite a bit of CA. As well I can show you tons of it with my Zeiss / Hensoldt. It's generally considered the top brand optically but still they have much more CA than any other brand. I can demonstrate this with no less than 4 Hensoldts have in my possession including the new 3-26x. CA is meaningless to a shooter.
What you are debating has no bearing on the shooter. The only valid argument is for low light and difficult light situations when you are trying to resolve a camouflaged animal out of the shadows. (See my 8X56mm comment)
if quantifying it was easy, it would have been done years ago, yet here we are. Prime example, the results NF put on the table with this test, and people's reaction including the testers.
It's subjective, and exactly like comparing different ammo to any rifle out there. These tests require people who every bit the variations barrels do. The human mind can be tricked and we trick ourselves all the time into believing we are seeing something we are not or that what we are seeing has repercussions when they don't.
Nobody has hit on the magic formula to quantify a scope, nobody.
Clearly it can't be quantified to everyone's or anyone's satisfaction as this question has been asked since day one. This site has the optics reputation it does because we have explored it, not just me but others. No two people see things the same, exactly like no two barrels are the same... it's identical.
This test and thread clearly demonstrates that.
A scope is a telescopic SIGHT, emphasis on SIGHT. It is not a camera lens, (And recently it has been done on camera sites to show the average user cannot tell the difference between a $300 Nikon lens and $2000 one) where great quality optics for cameras comes into play is when you "Blow up" the image. The higher degree of sharpness becomes apparent, however for everyday use, and viewing on a computer, unless you make a living taking pictures, you will never know or see the difference.
Also we are not trying to type and color code birds. CA is meaningless to the average shooter. (Again look at TEAM GAP) Guys are cleaning up in tactical competitions right now using the Bushnell XRS which has quite a bit of CA. As well I can show you tons of it with my Zeiss / Hensoldt. It's generally considered the top brand optically but still they have much more CA than any other brand. I can demonstrate this with no less than 4 Hensoldts have in my possession including the new 3-26x. CA is meaningless to a shooter.
What you are debating has no bearing on the shooter. The only valid argument is for low light and difficult light situations when you are trying to resolve a camouflaged animal out of the shadows. (See my 8X56mm comment)
if quantifying it was easy, it would have been done years ago, yet here we are. Prime example, the results NF put on the table with this test, and people's reaction including the testers.
It's subjective, and exactly like comparing different ammo to any rifle out there. These tests require people who every bit the variations barrels do. The human mind can be tricked and we trick ourselves all the time into believing we are seeing something we are not or that what we are seeing has repercussions when they don't.
Nobody has hit on the magic formula to quantify a scope, nobody.
orkan;319327Hey said:
That's what all the fanboys are saying of the scopes that didn't do well in this test. "Its not tangible", "it don't matter".....etc. it's not your fault the scopes you sell didn't do well. Some brands are just better than others, don't take it personally.
Scopes of the same brand did better than ones that supposedly have better glass in them. I guess the mfg. own testing wasn't as accurate...
That ^ or the SPF scopes trick the mind ... as all the SFP scopes performed on a higher level than the majority of Front Focal Scopes, even older models which most people consider optically inferior.
Or maybe the brand, or even individual models can be identified by the reticles and the testers weren't as disinterested as thought to be...
I'll take the results with a grain of salt... lime, and a shot of tequila.
I'll take the results with a grain of salt... lime, and a shot of tequila.
LOL!
Knowing what I know of the company and the people there, the scopes design, the in-house testing procedures, the materials used, etc... I'd say the chances of me not being happy with the new TT's, are about like a snowball's chance in hell. However, there is always "a" chance.
I know Frank says most shooters don't pay any attention to CA. and if he says it, it must be true. I just wish the guy that did this test would have said why some scopes scored lower than others. If it was just preference, so be it, but if it was CA the testers was seeing and that's why they scored lower then that would be nice to know.
I say, "we at the Hide contact him regarding the scope test..." I'm welling to bet he's already on here or someone is friends with him. If so, lets try to get an answer to these questions..
Yes sir, it will be in the ergonomics section. I'm trying to group things in that which contribute to the experience of using the scope. How easy the turret is to use/read, weight, length, eye box, and a few other things.
Don't get me wrong, people will bitch about CA, but when it comes to shooting it's just a color fringing and has no effect on the shot.
If you were watching birds, or using the scope as a long term observation device, sure it would annoy, but for straight up shooting it's a non-factor, and most shooters barely exploit the potential of their gear to begin with. It's more about the Wow Factor and showing it off, than it is about going out to shoot.
If you were watching birds, or using the scope as a long term observation device, sure it would annoy, but for straight up shooting it's a non-factor, and most shooters barely exploit the potential of their gear to begin with. It's more about the Wow Factor and showing it off, than it is about going out to shoot.
I did test eye relief. It will be included in the next set of results (under the Ergonomics section). Essentially I'm grouping anything to do with the overall feel and experience of using the scope in that post.
It is entirely predictable that people are arguing with the results of a test if the product they bought does not score as well as they were hoping in a particular category or overall.
However, we are going to hurt ourselves if we pretend that optical quality is irrelevant in a gunsight. We can safely assume that companies who develop and market rifle scopes read these test results and the subsequent discussions as well. No company is going to invest into improving the optical quality if the customers say they do not care.
What would you rather have during a pistol match? A loose front sight or crappy glasses? The correct answer is: Neither!
I think these high-end scopes should be expected to deliver top notch optical quality AND mechanical precision AND sound ergonomics. Instead of arguing which scope is the winner, the shortcomings of each scope should be highlighted and the question raised whether these shortcomings are tolerable in that price range.
However, we are going to hurt ourselves if we pretend that optical quality is irrelevant in a gunsight. We can safely assume that companies who develop and market rifle scopes read these test results and the subsequent discussions as well. No company is going to invest into improving the optical quality if the customers say they do not care.
What would you rather have during a pistol match? A loose front sight or crappy glasses? The correct answer is: Neither!
I think these high-end scopes should be expected to deliver top notch optical quality AND mechanical precision AND sound ergonomics. Instead of arguing which scope is the winner, the shortcomings of each scope should be highlighted and the question raised whether these shortcomings are tolerable in that price range.
I didn't realize that man! Hey, good test!! I've been reading your blog since January, and like it a lot.. I'd like to see it grow, because you give the beginner shooter a good base of gear to choose from, and not handy cap him self by buying the wrong gear..
[MENTION=36411]alpine44[/MENTION]
You miss the point, the quality is heads and tails above where it has ever been and no test quantifies the optical quality beyond, "better or worse" there is no value to that better or worse, it's just, I like the look of this one better vs that one. You have no real number to put to that observation.
These scopes today are outstanding in every way... to say one is better than another optically, because you looked at a line on a piece of paper forgoes the work these companies do. They spend a ton of time and money quantifying the prescription. They bring in optical engineers to balance coatings and lenses to get the most of the entire scope while staying in a pre-determined price point. Now what you and others are saying is, Forget Optical Engineers, the Man on the Street can do it and tell you which one is actually better than another simply by looking at it... Utter Hogwash. All you can say is, "To my eye A appears better than B, nothing more.
We are getting top notch optics, this weekend go shopping at your local pawn shops and find a 20 year old scope and "compare it" to the bottom of the test Bushnell... then report back.
As I said, soon to be written in stone and arm chair generals will start quoting this as if they are a PH.D in Optical Design.
You miss the point, the quality is heads and tails above where it has ever been and no test quantifies the optical quality beyond, "better or worse" there is no value to that better or worse, it's just, I like the look of this one better vs that one. You have no real number to put to that observation.
These scopes today are outstanding in every way... to say one is better than another optically, because you looked at a line on a piece of paper forgoes the work these companies do. They spend a ton of time and money quantifying the prescription. They bring in optical engineers to balance coatings and lenses to get the most of the entire scope while staying in a pre-determined price point. Now what you and others are saying is, Forget Optical Engineers, the Man on the Street can do it and tell you which one is actually better than another simply by looking at it... Utter Hogwash. All you can say is, "To my eye A appears better than B, nothing more.
We are getting top notch optics, this weekend go shopping at your local pawn shops and find a 20 year old scope and "compare it" to the bottom of the test Bushnell... then report back.
As I said, soon to be written in stone and arm chair generals will start quoting this as if they are a PH.D in Optical Design.
First off, Thank you for doing this. Secondly, thank you for doing this. Can't speak for anyone else, but I come here for this. It won't make me decide, but it will help me decide. Now all we need is for someone to do this with "RIFLES", "AMMO" and everything else involved in helping us decide what can help us find our target.
Again, Thank you and Glad you're with us calz.
In case locobear didn't tell you "thank you for doing this" please let me say "thank you for doing this".
You are a fucking Dummy. It's Fucktards like you I wish to bump into every day. Fuck off and die on another Forum you Troll.
I don't know if Lowlight is actually referring to "judging a scope by it's looks" as being someone's determining factor,,, but the Man on the Streets, Utter Hogwash part, I will have to somewhat disagree with. For example, if you need to make a choice in a pinch of time, then logic, is you may want to see how the "Boots on the Ground" feel about something.. It's the man in the "trenches" that experiences the ups and downs of a product, per say. He may not have scientific evaluating type gear, but he has first hand experience. Also, in that pinch of time, after checking with "the lines on a piece of paper" plus your previous research into the product, you should be able to make a reasonable choice on what to go with. I'm speaking as the beginner shooter looking to make a reasonable decision on what to buy, price included. Yes, all the scopes are great pieces of engineering, and I would be happy if given anyone of them, but when it's my money involved, I like help in making that decision from a somewhat scientific, testing out point of view..
I think "the boots on the ground" such as George Gardner, Bryan Morgan, and all the GAP guys running the scope that ended up at the bottom of this list would agree that either super premium optical quality is not too important for our type of shooting or something is amiss.
And also, it's important to note, if all rifle scopes on the market are ranged from 0-10, we are comparing the scopes from 9.9-10.
I'm interested to see the results of the rest of the test as they are almost all able to be completely scientifically quantified. I probably would have started with mechanics as they are, IMO, the most important factor for tactical competitions, but I'm not the guy taking a whole hell of a lot of time out of my life to write this report for free.
And also, it's important to note, if all rifle scopes on the market are ranged from 0-10, we are comparing the scopes from 9.9-10.
I'm interested to see the results of the rest of the test as they are almost all able to be completely scientifically quantified. I probably would have started with mechanics as they are, IMO, the most important factor for tactical competitions, but I'm not the guy taking a whole hell of a lot of time out of my life to write this report for free.
Similar threads
