Rifle Scopes 2014's Best Scope ShootOut

[Lowlight]

@11:11

Here are two prime examples of your logic,

1. NF NXS Series and this Test...

Do a search and read the comments regarding the NXS series. Nobody liked the "look" of the NF, they said it was flat, no pop, it didn't wow them. You try explaining resolution and they still want the color and pop. These pages are filled with knocks to this scope, all after that "first look".

2. IOR, they have great glass, impress from the first look and people all compare them to the highest quality scope because that Romanian Glass. Well they don't hold up, in fact in my Precision Rifle Class last weekend another went down by 10AM. I told the owner of the scope to, "tell Val, Frank from SH was here when it died".... the best glass in the world is meaningless of the scope will not hold up to everyday use.

The fact people weight the "look" or first impressions staring out the gun shop window is the problem with all of you arguing the merits of glass. Every scope out of the box looks great, and some have great "pop" out of the box. Problem is, those coatings will degrade under use, sunlight, cleaning, etc, all degrade coatings, and cheaper scopes that look great fall apart faster. That is what happens when scopes start to look foggy after a few years of use, meanwhile the $3000 ones look the same.

Adjustments, Durability, Quality of the Coatings, along with reliability are the primary concerns. So if you were walk into a shop and see the Wow factor of IOR over the Flat look of the NXS you'd be tempted to go with WOW over Bland...and you'd be mistaken on several levels.

I mean hell, we have threads called, "Not WOW'd by my S&B" here... so the nature of ignorance being spread is contagious and does more harm than good. You have to put things in the proper context and you have to understand the use and features, as well as the track record of the mentioned scopes.

I will tell you this, and it's not bragging, I have every single scope on that list, that I personally own, except the IOR. I have the Hensoldt, the 3-27x, the Kahles, Beast, ATACR, etc, plus many more not included, like the Vortex 4.5-27x and I will tell you that are all outstanding scopes, and I am not married to any of them, never have been. Here, 2009, me tossing a S&B on camera to the horror of the viewing public,




That is it in mid-air ....

These tests are important but understanding matters more, just saying, well, these guys said, X is better optically does not paint the picture or tell the tale. If 2 people like Y and 4 people liked X does that still mean X is better and by how much ?

 

[Lowlight]

@jonaddis84

Jon is exactly right, comparing 9s and 10s doesn't mean the one voted 9.5 is better than one which might have been 9.35, cause there are 6 others out there who think the 9.3 is better than the 9.5.

 

[11:11]

We're probably all on the same track but with different ways of saying it. Whenever I read a test / study like that, I also do other investigative work for my final decision. In the end it's my decision, based off of the most information I can find. Also, part of my investigation is what all the top guys maybe using, but their are sometimes more sensitive matters there. All in all, it comes down to reputation, personal experience, test like this, and what everyone is using for me...I have found that the majority in the long haul will gravitate to the top pick over all ( hence the popularity of S & B 5-25x56mm )... "Other people," Lowlight is right, they will buy the first WOW thing, that's new, they see. I think sometimes us guys, tend to forget, not all the shooters or soon to be shooters, have the same experience with gear as we may have.

 

[Rattler56]

Reviews are fun to read and when you dissect them there always seems to be a hint of personal choice
by the reviewer no mater how scientific the review is.
I think we all choose scopes by our personal preferences, hell we have to live with them.

 

[calz]

We're probably all on the same track but with different ways of saying it. Whenever I read a test / study like that, I also do other investigative work for my final decision. In the end it's my decision, based off of the most information I can find. Also, part of my investigation is what all the top guys maybe using, but their are sometimes more sensitive matters there. All in all, it comes down to reputation, personal experience, test like this, and what everyone is using for me...I have found that the majority in the long haul will gravitate to the top pick over all ( hence the popularity of S & B 5-25x56mm )... "Other people," Lowlight is right, they will buy the first WOW thing, that's new, they see. I think sometimes us guys, tend to forget, not all the shooters or soon to be shooters, have the same experience with gear as we may have.

Couldn't agree more. I'm just trying to provide whatever I can to help people make informed decisions. I'm not trying to frame this as "the definitive word" ... just a helpful, independent comparison.

I'll be the first to admit that a sample size of one isn't ideal, but this is $70,000 of scopes, and if I got 5 of each to test that would be $350,000 of scopes. I'm not okay borrowing that much, and it would have taken a lifetime to test 90 scopes. I figured giving this my best shot (which I think was pretty good) was better than nothing. Honestly, I wish manufacturers provided this kind of info for a real comparison, but they don't.

I probably should have started with the mechanical tests, or other tests that were directly measurable. Didn't mean to get everyone so fired up ... honestly just trying to help. I don't have a dog in this fight, and there is no hidden agenda. I'll refund anyone's money that is unhappy with my field test. (That's a joke)

I personally just know how long it takes me to save up for one of these high-end scopes, and I wanted to leverage my blog to help get some scopes to test, really with the heart to help fellow shooters who were in my same shoes. Absolutely, you should talk to other people, read other reviews, and see what the pros use. Remember, I'm the same guy that published the "What The Pros Use" series, which was the first data-driven approach to analyzing the scopes the top 50 PRS Shooters use (link below). So I obviously believe that is something to consider.

Best Rifle Scope ? What The Pros Use | PrecisionRifleBlog.com

Don't give up on this field test yet, even if you don't agree with the optical tests. The rest of the tests, including the VERY important mechanical tests, were directly measurable. I think those will provide some insight.

 

[sharac]

Thanks Calz can't wait for next parts of your analysis. Regardless of anyone's opinion only religious fanatics and dumbfucks will not take away a ton from this free and informative riflescope review.

 

[sharac]

calz's here the test I would like to see, cover up the scope so the shooters can't tell who's it is,

You don't read much do you? It was exactly how it has been done. With people judging without knowing which one they judge...

 

[Rattler56]

Must of missed that.
Yap your right missed the double blind part, thanks.

 

[Why1504]

I have a Nightforce Beast on order and when I first saw the results here I was a bit disappointed. However, after going back thru the results and thinking about how I selected the Beast, it confirmed I chose the right scope for me. I can't wait for it to be delivered.

FWIW, I think the testing here was done well. Performing this type of analysis is very difficult. I can't imagine doing it without compensation.

 

[Dead Nutz]

You have to take things like this test with a grain of salt. It's only natural to root for your particular brand. If your brand does really well then there will be those that will gloat and say "I told ya so", and if your brand winds up on the bottom you'll scream "these test don't prove nothing". That's only natural. The bottom line is if you were happy with your SCOPE before this test then you shouldn't let these things get to you.

 

[Lowlight]

@calz,

your test set turned out very well, it's people's reaction and the weight they place on it that are the problem.

You succeeded in what you set out to accomplish, but unfortunately the ignorance of the end user and how to use the data will throw shade from several directions. Maybe with the rest of your efforts released it will balance it out. I mean people are already linking it as the authority with scopes not even covered. How it helps when the question is not covered escapes me, but there you have it.

You'll find it carries a lot of weigh, that can be a double edge sword, too many emphasize glass and will power that part beyond everything else.

 

[MMAJunkie]

Having spent a fair portion of my professional life involved in ASTM and testing laboratories a test is just a test and doesn't always mean you will like one better than the other. Just like when a motorcycle magazine tests a bunch of sport bikes and picks a winner. It usually is not the one I prefer to ride for a variety of reasons. The test is really nice and I am shocked that someone would do this much work and then give away the data. Bravo for the author as I also write magazine articles and there is no way I would do all of that without a paycheck at the end. Its a solid test with lots of good data for sure.

 

[NevadaZielmeister]

Couldn't agree more. I'm just trying to provide whatever I can to help people make informed decisions. I'm not trying to frame this as "the definitive word" ... just a helpful, independent comparison.

I'll be the first to admit that a sample size of one isn't ideal, but this is $70,000 of scopes, and if I got 5 of each to test that would be $350,000 of scopes. I'm not okay borrowing that much, and it would have taken a lifetime to test 90 scopes. I figured giving this my best shot (which I think was pretty good) was better than nothing. Honestly, I wish manufacturers provided this kind of info for a real comparison, but they don't.

I probably should have started with the mechanical tests, or other tests that were directly measurable. Didn't mean to get everyone so fired up ... honestly just trying to help. I don't have a dog in this fight, and there is no hidden agenda. I'll refund anyone's money that is unhappy with my field test. (That's a joke)

I personally just know how long it takes me to save up for one of these high-end scopes, and I wanted to leverage my blog to help get some scopes to test, really with the heart to help fellow shooters who were in my same shoes. Absolutely, you should talk to other people, read other reviews, and see what the pros use. Remember, I'm the same guy that published the "What The Pros Use" series, which was the first data-driven approach to analyzing the scopes the top 50 PRS Shooters use (link below). So I obviously believe that is something to consider.

Best Rifle Scope ? What The Pros Use | PrecisionRifleBlog.com

Don't give up on this field test yet, even if you don't agree with the optical tests. The rest of the tests, including the VERY important mechanical tests, were directly measurable. I think those will provide some insight.

I wanted to make this very clear. This is the most amazing test of its kind to date. You have done EVERYONE a great service in assisting them in their decision making process. You have broken down the important aspects of the rifle scope and then people can decide which aspect of the scope is most important to them and which scope performs well in that aspect. I am blown away at the lengths you went to test these scopes.

Let the others bitch because their scope did or did not do well. In the end, it is the purchaser who decides which scope is best. It is unfortunate that there are people on here with ulterior motives that work to mislead the purchaser. Your testing has no sense of those motives and seeks the pure truth.

For all of this, I thank you Mr. Zant. You are doing great and KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK!!

 

[alpine44]

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.

George and Co. are in the business of selling rifles, not optical equipment. I would suspect that their choice of NOT putting cream-of-the-crop optics on their guns may be a smart marketing move. If they place well with a scope that has a lesser reputation than their rifles, people will think "These rifles must be very good if those guys can win with those optics". If on the other hand, there would be S&Bs on their guns, some people would think "Sure, topped with an S&B almost anything will shoot well".

I agree that if the test would have started with the mechanical quality, we would have less of this brew-ha-ha. A scope that looses zero or does not track repeatably is a show stopper, whereas stellar resolution is a "nice to have" feature. I think that is clear (no pun intended) to everyone.

The reality is that you do not need much optical quality to hit a piece of paper or a painted steel plate in bright daylight. But that is only one segment of the rifle scope market. Frank mentioned the 8x56 scopes being popular in Europe, the historical market of Zeiss and S&B. Germany, the home of both companies, allows boar hunting at night but without artificial lights or NVG. When you are trying at night to place a reticle on a dark boar against a dark background, optical quality is suddenly very high on your priority list. Zeiss/Hensoldt (the 'old' Hensoldt) have served that market for centuries and learned a thing or two in the process. S&B started about half a century ago and carved out their corner of the market by initially providing products for a large mail order outfitter. Zeiss started to put 'tactical' turrets on their scopes only recently. S&B caught on to that a little earlier and established themselves well the LE and military community. But is anyone really surprised if these companies rank top in optical performance if this is in their DNA so to speak?

What surprises me is how high Nightforce ranked in terms of resolution. I admit that I was very underwhelmed when I looked through these scopes but you cannot argue with how much detail the testers could resolve. What matters optically is not how pretty it looks but what detail you can see (or not) - if you care about optical quality.

 

[alpine44]

I wanted to make this very clear. This is the most amazing test of its kind to date. You have done EVERYONE a great service in assisting them in their decision making process. You have broken down the important aspects of the rifle scope and then people can decide which aspect of the scope is most important to them and which scope performs well in that aspect. I am blown away at the lengths you went to test these scopes.

Let the others bitch because their scope did or did not do well. In the end, it is the purchaser who decides which scope is best. It is unfortunate that there are people on here with ulterior motives that work to mislead the purchaser. Your testing has no sense of those motives and seeks the pure truth.

For all of this, I thank you Mr. Zant. You are doing great and KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK!!

I second that.

Thank you very much Mr. Zant for your efforts to be as objective as possible and for all the work invested.

 

[kombayotch]

George and Co. are in the business of selling rifles, not optical equipment. I would suspect that theire choice of not putting cream of the crop optics on their guns is a smart marketing move. If they place well with a scope that has a lesser reputation than their rifles, people will think "These rifles must be very good if those guys can win with those optics". If on the other hand, there would be S&Bs on their guns, some people would think "Sure, topped with an S&B almost everything will shoot well".

Or, maybe since George designed the reticles, and gave a lot of input into the specs for those scopes, the GAP guys though "hmmm, these guys actually listened to us and built scopes exactly to our specifications, maybe we should run them on our rifles!"

 

[Dead Nutz]

Part 2 has been released. It looks like some of the more popular scopes on this site fell a little farther down the list.

 

[orkan]

It is unfortunate that there are people on here with ulterior motives that work to mislead the purchaser.

Everything's a conspiracy!!!! What's next mr. internet arguing guy... you say "Well I wasn't talking about you, but if the shoe fits!!!!?"

No one can possibly sell, and be honest at the same time, right? What's it like being a superhero in a world of villains? lol

Do you have any idea how valuable this test is going to be to dealers from a sales standpoint? I'm legitimately blown away by the fact this guy is giving this stuff away for free. The section on field of view for instance. That's pretty valuable. Even if the numbers aren't exact, and you apply a 10% window of error to account for human eyeball error, and another 5% to account for differences in magnification, they still have some value. Nowhere else is there a list of FOV numbers for as many different high end scopes. I expect much of the tests to be published in the future will have some very tangible results as well. Those QUANTIFIABLE results have real value. Unquantifiable results have no value. Shame you can't see the difference.

 

[orkan]

Hey Cal... any reference to tunneling in this series? I would have expected it in this last section.

 

[alpine44]

Having spent a fair portion of my professional life involved in ASTM and testing laboratories a test is just a test and doesn't always mean you will like one better than the other. Just like when a motorcycle magazine tests a bunch of sport bikes and picks a winner. It usually is not the one I prefer to ride for a variety of reasons. The test is really nice and I am shocked that someone would do this much work and then give away the data. Bravo for the author as I also write magazine articles and there is no way I would do all of that without a paycheck at the end. Its a solid test with lots of good data for sure.

And once you take a paycheck from a publisher who takes checks from advertisers, there is a very high likelihood that the "unbiased' test is becoming nothing than another infomercial.

 

[glockdan78]

I have a Nightforce Beast on order and when I first saw the results here I was a bit disappointed. However, after going back thru the results and thinking about how I selected the Beast, it confirmed I chose the right scope for me. I can't wait for it to be delivered.

FWIW, I think the testing here was done well. Performing this type of analysis is very difficult. I can't imagine doing it without compensation.

I took my beast out to 1600 yds the other day in the hot Texas sun. Had my Schmidt 5-25 and a buds premier 5-25 to compare to the beast with. You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference if you didn't know the reticle. You won't be dissatisfied with it

 

[TravelingMan]

You said it right,, "After going back through" you realized your choice was right for you!! That's the point here!! Use test's like this to help make your final decision on what fits you, wallet included... That's how I make all my gear choices, not just based on what's new and the WOW factor, or not by what "Bryan Morgan or Lowlight uses." Sorry Lowlight and Bryan, it was a compliment if you think about it... Just do a little research on your on, then average that choice out with what other research you find says.... In the end, you'll have your final choices, then you can let the wallet or pocket book make the final...

I have a Nightforce Beast on order and when I first saw the results here I was a bit disappointed. However, after going back thru the results and thinking about how I selected the Beast, it confirmed I chose the right scope for me. I can't wait for it to be delivered.

FWIW, I think the testing here was done well. Performing this type of analysis is very difficult. I can't imagine doing it without compensation.

 

[TravelingMan]

I tell you what, them magazine articles helped me make my final choice on which crouch rocket to choose!!! GSXR-1000!!!!! But, other research on my part as well, like I've been saying.. I think I have a pretty balanced system on how I buy and choose my gear... I've been more than happy most of the time.. I chose the Honda 300 4x4, for my first 4 wheeler when I was 15yrs., and still use it to this day, with only having to replace the front diff. gears... I made a great choice by investigating what to get, even though at the time it didn't score #1 in the magazines.. The old Yamaha Kodiak 400 4x4 beat it out... I based my choice back then on dependability and I knew you couldn't break that particular Honda back then... Make your choice's with a little investigation and not what your "American Shooting Idol" use's, LOL!!!

Having spent a fair portion of my professional life involved in ASTM and testing laboratories a test is just a test and doesn't always mean you will like one better than the other. Just like when a motorcycle magazine tests a bunch of sport bikes and picks a winner. It usually is not the one I prefer to ride for a variety of reasons. The test is really nice and I am shocked that someone would do this much work and then give away the data. Bravo for the author as I also write magazine articles and there is no way I would do all of that without a paycheck at the end. Its a solid test with lots of good data for sure.

 

[TravelingMan]

Also you need to remember, Mr. Gardner isn't a stupid business man.. I'm sure his decision to partner with Bushnell, had something to do with the fact that Bushnell is a very well known multi- million dollar company.. By working with them, he really can benefit in the future as well as now.. It's like when Bushnell and Realtree Camo work together on a range finder for bow hunting... You see these types of partnerships in the hunting industry all the time.. Matter of fact, I get pissed at it some, because I would like to see the best work with the best, based on function!

George and Co. are in the business of selling rifles, not optical equipment. I would suspect that their choice of NOT putting cream-of-the-crop optics on their guns may be a smart marketing move. If they place well with a scope that has a lesser reputation than their rifles, people will think "These rifles must be very good if those guys can win with those optics". If on the other hand, there would be S&Bs on their guns, some people would think "Sure, topped with an S&B almost anything will shoot well".

I agree that if the test would have started with the mechanical quality, we would have less of this brew-ha-ha. A scope that looses zero or does not track repeatably is a show stopper, whereas stellar resolution is a "nice to have" feature. I think that is clear (no pun intended) to everyone.

The reality is that you do not need much optical quality to hit a piece of paper or a painted steel plate in bright daylight. But that is only one segment of the rifle scope market. Frank mentioned the 8x56 scopes being popular in Europe, the historical market of Zeiss and S&B. Germany, the home of both companies, allows boar hunting at night but without artificial lights or NVG. When you are trying at night to place a reticle on a dark boar against a dark background, optical quality is suddenly very high on your priority list. Zeiss/Hensoldt (the 'old' Hensoldt) have served that market for centuries and learned a thing or two in the process. S&B started about half a century ago and carved out their corner of the market by initially providing products for a large mail order outfitter. Zeiss started to put 'tactical' turrets on their scopes only recently. S&B caught on to that a little earlier and established themselves well the LE and military community. But is anyone really surprised if these companies rank top in optical performance if this is in their DNA so to speak?

What surprises me is how high Nightforce ranked in terms of resolution. I admit that I was very underwhelmed when I looked through these scopes but you cannot argue with how much detail the testers could resolve. What matters optically is not how pretty it looks but what detail you can see (or not) - if you care about optical quality.

 

[TravelingMan]

Right on, it's not rocket science!!!!

Or, maybe since George designed the reticles, and gave a lot of input into the specs for those scopes, the GAP guys though "hmmm, these guys actually listened to us and built scopes exactly to our specifications, maybe we should run them on our rifles!"

 

[calz]

Hey Cal... any reference to tunneling in this series? I would have expected it in this last section.

I thought about that, but never came up with an objective way to quantify it. I noticed it on some, but couldn't think of a way to objectively measure how much or how little each scope had ... so I excluded it from my tests. I did have a 4 week peer-review period prior to the tests where A LOT of people gave me feedback on the test, and was hoping someone would suggest a way to do it, but none did.

I realize this is probably not what you were hoping to hear, but I know ILya Koshkin did a really thorough review that looks into optical aspects like that and CA, among other stuff. I trust his opinion more than my own when it comes to optics, so I'd suggest checking that out. I actually meant to link to this article in my results and forgot to. I'll go back and add it, but here it is in the mean time:

High End Tactical Scopes, Part IV: The Heavyweights » OpticsThoughts

 

[orkan]

I thought about that, but never came up with an objective way to quantify it.

I must have missed that where you were asking how to quantify it. I wouldn't think it too hard. Turn the magnification ring until it fills the occular, beneath that magnification it tunnels, above it it doesn't. Give each scope a tunneling stat. For instance, S&B 5-25 - Tunnels : Yes - From 5-7x ... or something like that. That little bit of data would be extremely valuable to people that have no experience with the scope they are considering, but don't like tunneling.

 

[Lowlight]

For the tunneling, most find that location within the magnification range where the FOV ceases to increase. Then record where it stops, as in with the S&B 5-25x it's around 7x so along with your true magnification at the High End, you would include where it stops opening up at the low end.

So you'd say,

S&B 5-25x is actually a 7.2x -24.8x

There is post on it here:
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...51-schmidt-bender-pm-ii-5-25x-true-5-25x.html

 

[11:11]

That's interesting, talking about the tunneling part. I never knew that!! Or realized it!

 

[MMAJunkie]

And once you take a paycheck from a publisher who takes checks from advertisers, there is a very high likelihood that the "unbiased' test is becoming nothing than another infomercial.

I have never written for a gun magazine but have for a variety of other magazines including Motorcyclist, Sport Rider, Motorcycle Cruiser, Two wheel Tuner, Motorcycle Consumer News, Throttle Nation, Motorhome, Trailer Life and Good Sams and of that bunch not once have I ever been asked to bend any of my testing one way or another. On occasion an editor will ask me to "include" a particular product in a test or product round up but not one of them have ever asked me to show favoritism toward anything

 

[Dead Nutz]

[QUOTE. No one can possibly sell, and be honest at the same time, right?

Have you ever sold or tried to sell a SCOPE you personally thought was a POS?

 

[orkan]

[QUOTE. No one can possibly sell, and be honest at the same time, right?

Have you ever sold or tried to sell a SCOPE you personally thought was a POS?

Yup. ... and I told them my opinion of it when I sold it. I've sold IOR's, Hawke, barska, and various others I have thought were a POS. Usually they were one-offs, consignments, or stuff I purchased to test. Every customer knew exactly what they were getting. Despite trying to talk people out of them, they still bought them because they were a fit for what they wanted.

I've never endorsed a scope make/model and stocked them in our store without believing in them completely. I can say that for any of our products actually.

 

[Beiruty]

Calz,
You did great work and assuming the loaned scope is randomly selected, your testing is unbiased as it is double-blinded and you have no financial interest by conducting the tests. I suggest at the end of the analysis, is to include a 2-D scatter chart final score/price (street or MSRP) this way we can have a sense for best scope for your dollars.

 

[Dead Nutz]

Yup. ... and I told them my opinion of it when I sold it. I've sold IOR's, Hawke, barska, and various others I have thought were a POS. Usually they were one-offs, consignments, or stuff I purchased to test. Every customer knew exactly what they were getting. Despite trying to talk people out of them, they still bought them because they were a fit for what they wanted.

I've never endorsed a scope make/model and stocked them in our store without believing in them completely. I can say that for any of our products actually.

Honest, but no integrity. Willing to accept money for something that you believe is not worth a crap.

 

[Dead Nutz]

QUOTE: 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?[/QUOTE]

 

[orkan]

I see logic is lost on you as well. If you plan on attacking my integrity, you better pack a big lunch.

You're new here I see. I'd suggest you start applying a little logic to your arguments, or you're going to have a very hard time.

 

[Lowlight]

His poking has not gone unnoticed, the next will get him a one way ticket.

 

[Rob01]

His example of honesty is showing his integrity -

Why in the hell would anyone have a problem with the example? Some people can't afford or are unwilling to spend on an item and looking thru their own very personal value / quality POV.. Giving them good feedback but providing items in their personal value space is a service, period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. Dead Nutz is just another in a long line of trolls. Don't sweat his BS Orkan. He is the only one who believes it.

 

[Magnumdood]

Logic takes a holiday

Honest, but no integrity. Willing to accept money for something that you believe is not worth a crap.

How you came to the above conclusion from the below quote...

Yup. ... and I told them my opinion of it when I sold it. I've sold IOR's, Hawke, barska, and various others I have thought were a POS. Usually they were one-offs, consignments, or stuff I purchased to test. Every customer knew exactly what they were getting. Despite trying to talk people out of them, they still bought them because they were a fit for what they wanted.

...is a complete mystery.

Just reread Orkan's last sentence in that post...and apply your garden variety of simple logic. Orkan in more professional terms told people that he did not care for nor recommend the bottom rung boat anchor scopes, going as far as to try and talk him and his business out of sale to insure the customer knew what he was buying. THAT sir is a working definition of integrity. Gun stores don't necessarily have a monthly order of BSAs, or Hawkes; they probably get most of that bottom tier of scopes from trades made with customers. Pull yer head out.

 

[calz]

Calz,
You did great work and assuming the loaned scope is randomly selected, your testing is unbiased as it is double-blinded and you have no financial interest by conducting the tests. I suggest at the end of the analysis, is to include a 2-D scatter chart final score/price (street or MSRP) this way we can have a sense for best scope for your dollars.

Great idea. Hadn't thought of displaying that data as a scatter chart. That might be a great way to visualize it. I might even try to create one of those "magic quadrant" diagrams like the Gartner research group produces.

 

[James7800]

Thanks for doing all this work, calz

Wow, just saw your measurement for the S&B 3-27 only went to 22.4 magnification. Hope that just turned out to be a bad scope....

Having seen the results for the high magnification limit, I kind of wish you had the time to check the accuracy of the low end as well.

 

[Ranger822]

[MENTION=63862]calz[/MENTION]

Great effort. I really appreciate the thought and effort you put into the project.

Maybe I missed it somewhere but will you consider redoing the tests to add other scopes not originally included or add new scope that have recently come to the market? It would be interesting to have a retrospective comparison to some of the older scopes, as Frank alluded to earlier in the thread, perhaps to demonstrate how far scopes have come in recent years, but maybe to also show there are some sleepers out there that represent great performance and value even if the don't win the sexy prize. Because the Premier scope wasn't included it would be interesting to see how the older scope compares to the Tangent Theta and perhaps to see how older scope companies like Schmidt & Bender fair against themselves; new versus old. Being able to provide some measure, if that is possible, of efficacy of the scope overall would be interesting. My view is there are lots of scopes expensive or otherwise that can very useful to the shooter despite CA and such. I like the idea of a value chart that serves to show objective and subjective performances versus costs, new and/used. I think there are lots of great used scope bargains that will serve shooters very well. Your test results represent another great resource for folks to use in making an informed decision on what scope they want to pursue. It has already helped to take pause and think more about what I consider important in a scope choice.

 

[11:11]

Hey calz, above Ranger822 mentioned the old Premier and the new Tangent Theta.. I'm sure you already thought of it but maybe you could compare the newer model to the old when you get your hands on a Theta? Contact them about what your doing again and show them the attention it's getting, and that it could be great for their bottom line.. Keep working, but not to hard,, Great Job!!!

[MENTION=63862]calz[/MENTION]

Great effort. I really appreciate the thought and effort you put into the project.

Maybe I missed it somewhere but will you consider redoing the tests to add other scopes not originally included or add new scope that have recently come to the market? It would be interesting to have a retrospective comparison to some of the older scopes, as Frank alluded to earlier in the thread, perhaps to demonstrate how far scopes have come in recent years, but maybe to also show there are some sleepers out there that represent great performance and value even if the don't win the sexy prize. Because the Premier scope wasn't included it would be interesting to see how the older scope compares to the Tangent Theta and perhaps to see how older scope companies like Schmidt & Bender fair against themselves; new versus old. Being able to provide some measure, if that is possible, of efficacy of the scope overall would be interesting. My view is there are lots of scopes expensive or otherwise that can very useful to the shooter despite CA and such. I like the idea of a value chart that serves to show objective and subjective performances versus costs, new and/used. I think there are lots of great used scope bargains that will serve shooters very well. Your test results represent another great resource for folks to use in making an informed decision on what scope they want to pursue. It has already helped to take pause and think more about what I consider important in a scope choice.

 

[calz]

[MENTION=63862]calz[/MENTION]

Great effort. I really appreciate the thought and effort you put into the project.

Maybe I missed it somewhere but will you consider redoing the tests to add other scopes not originally included or add new scope that have recently come to the market? It would be interesting to have a retrospective comparison to some of the older scopes, as Frank alluded to earlier in the thread, perhaps to demonstrate how far scopes have come in recent years, but maybe to also show there are some sleepers out there that represent great performance and value even if the don't win the sexy prize. Because the Premier scope wasn't included it would be interesting to see how the older scope compares to the Tangent Theta and perhaps to see how older scope companies like Schmidt & Bender fair against themselves; new versus old. Being able to provide some measure, if that is possible, of efficacy of the scope overall would be interesting. My view is there are lots of scopes expensive or otherwise that can very useful to the shooter despite CA and such. I like the idea of a value chart that serves to show objective and subjective performances versus costs, new and/used. I think there are lots of great used scope bargains that will serve shooters very well. Your test results represent another great resource for folks to use in making an informed decision on what scope they want to pursue. It has already helped to take pause and think more about what I consider important in a scope choice.

Thanks for the encouragement. I actually tried to design tests that were 100% repeatable, in hopes that these might become a set of standard benchmark tests. The idea is that I chould test other scopes in the future and be able to compare them back to this original set of results. That's still theoretical at this point, but I tried to be forward thinking in how I approached this so it's at least feasible.

I like your idea of new vs old or other bargin scopes. My original plan was to do another test like this in the fall to cover scopes in the $500-1500 range, and also add a few that I wasn't able to include in this round (like the Tangent Theta, Vortex Razor HD Gen II, S&B 3-20).

But honestly, I'm not sure I'm up for that at this point. This was a lot of time and effort (even more than originally expected), and it doesn't seem to be received as well as I expected. Although some critiscm is always expected, if people don't feel like this is helpful ... it may be my last one. I guess we'll see what the consensus is after the full results have been posted.

[MENTION=105687]11:11[/MENTION]
And yes, I've already been in touch with Andy at Tangent Theta. They actually helped me develop and refine some of these tests. Great guys over there, and like a few others on here ... Just based on my conversations with them, I'm expecting their new scope to be a strong competitor. Those guys know what they're doing and it seems like their attention to detail is pretty incredible. Andy said he'd like to send me a scope to test when they go to production, but last I talked to him they had a few final details they're still working out.

I was hoping this would be a way for new and unknown companies like that to really showcase how their scope compares to the better known brands, regardless of their marketing budget. I lead a small business myself, so I can appreciate the opportunity for a fair, unbiased comparison. It could fast track the market's confidence in a new, but solid product. That makes the whole market more competitive, and when that happens we all win.

If nothing else, I think this kind of approach would be helpful for our industry, so maybe it will encourage some other guys to pursue this type of data-driven comparison for other areas of the firearms world.

 

[dbransco]

But honestly, I'm not sure I'm up for that at this point. This was a lot of time and effort (even more than originally expected), and it doesn't seem to be received as well as I expected. Although some critiscm is always expected, if people don't feel like this is helpful ... it may be my last one. I guess we'll see what the consensus is after the full results have

I would like to give a big thank you to the assclowns that potentially ruined this for us. Why would you feel the need to criticize someone's hard work so badly. I for one am grateful for your work calz and hope the few internet surfing basement dwellers haven't deterred you from future tests.

Thanks

 

[User22]

I say everyone that really appreciated calz's report on these scope's, send him a personal PM if you don't want to post publically!! This is the kind of test's that force manufactures to compete and improve products, and not hand us trash!! And guess what, I've been told personally that certain people were nervous about this test coming out when it did.. That's good! Maybe they will improve their product so it will come in #1 next time.. And calz, stay true and don't take anyone's money...

 

[BlkZ06]

I second that.

Thank you very much Mr. Zant for your efforts to be as objective as possible and for all the work invested.

Count me as one who did a double take on the rankings on the glass-part of the test. Despite what others say, 6 people looking thru each scope at a controlled target and with controlled lighting DOES mean something, at least to me.

I have to give it more weight than simply reading posts from guys who picked up a scope off a table and looked at a convention center ceiling then report that "Scope X had GREAT glass."

 

[Eben]

Cal,
Your reviews have been well received by this consumer, and helped me avoid the S&B 3-27, although it may still be a sale if they wake up and either improve the model or get a functional example to you.
Keep up the great work, thanks!

 

[User22]

That's an idea!! This community has the power to cause these company's to respond.. So, lets get Schmidt & Bender to explain itself, why the x27 model really wasn't an x27 model.. They should let us know why model X didn't really have the "27 power zoom advertised. Hell, in reality, wouldn't that be false advertisement??? Just saying..

 

[Lowlight]

The odds of S&B responding are pretty slim, and they'd have to have the scope back to say for sure. If you sent it to Jerry you'd probably get a response, but Germany, doubtful. My guess is, the scope is off, which most can argue, at $6k it shouldn't be, but can happen.

Vortex has really been one company that takes this stuff seriously. Most companies would point to their big dollar testing equipment and say, our machines says otherwise. Again, to beat this horse, NF used to argue their resolution was much higher than the common opinion on theses boards. I agreed it was their lack of pop and not their resolution. Still people beat up NF over the NXS line. Now this will spin that back in their favor.

March is here you might get Jim to respond as many considered it a scope with stellar glass, yet the test put it below the NXS. Do search and find how often the opposite is said.

Companies rely on numbers, not opinions. They have testing equipment to counter opinion with hard data. I think people continue to get off track. The only real anomaly is the magnification and possibly the overall ranking of the S&B 27x, otherwise you're probably putting a lot of weight on a split hair. It's 2014, your not gonna see hung swings in opinions, or quality. Like already mentioned it's probably 2.8 line pairs vs 2.7, 2.9, etc, and not 2.8 vs 3.4. Very small discrepancies that people believe to mean more than they really do.