Rifle Scopes 2014's Best Scope ShootOut

#201
I don't own a Henny, S & B, or a Zeiss. I'm not sure how I'm even getting on paper.


I was mildly pleased to find out my NXS will resolve USAF lines at a really high level. Now if I could shoot somewhere that had USAF lines on their 1000 yd targets, I could seriously fuck some shit up.
 
Last edited:
#202
I own the March scope and also NightForce and also a Steiner at 56mm. They are all great scopes in their own ways.

The overwhelming point to take away from the March vs. others in this test is basically that aperture wins. So in testing you see clearly that 56mm objectives are clustering at the top and the smaller objectives (the March is 42mm) are clustering at the bottom. This is almost certainly due to the objective size as an overwhelming factor. A 42mm scope is not going to resolve as well as bigger objectives. This is just the crux of it.

These tests are great data. But this kind of testing should be comparing scopes of same objective size and divide the scores out that way because it is confusing. The 56mm objective scopes have a huge advantage in terms of perceived brightness, contrast and resolution over the smaller scopes. There are no two ways about it. Aperture wins.

In the case of the March, it certainly does have good glass in comparison to other scopes. But it's not going to go toe to toe with scopes of the 56mm size when it only has a 42mm objective. Now March's larger scopes probably will do fine, but this test didn't have that to consider.

Then again, if you have to haul a rifle up a mountain on a hunt, I'd rather have the March on it than a 56mm monster. The March scope is considerably lighter and more compact.

For that matter, if there was a Zeiss 72mm scope in this test I suspect it would do better than all the rest across the board in terms of contrast, resolution, etc. I'd stake money on it in fact. Why? Because aperture wins. But who really wants a 72mm scope on their rifle except for specialized applications?

To list an example of aperture size and resolution, I suggest looking into this age old debate in telescopes of aperture size vs. portability. If you can handle the bigger aperture, then that is what you should get if you want best performance. But if you don't want the size and bulk of the bigger scopes, then get the smaller one and realize the performance is going to be very good, but not as good as the larger scopes on average.

Below is an example of how aperture affects telescope performance. Yes the 25" telescope is great, but it's significantly larger than the 12.5" scope. It's always coming down to aperture size vs. portability.

Obsession Telescopes / M13 Comparison

M13_comparison_760px_PNG.png
 
Last edited:
#203
What i've found from this test is that there are plenty of people unable/unwilling to read. Comprehension test of readers .. EPIC FAIL.

There is not a thing missing from both parts of the test everything was explained and results also put into perspective (obj. diameter for example) and are available for anyone to read upon or judge by themselves. If Calz decides to put raw numbers in public one can also make his own weighed preference model out of it. I SIMPLY cannot understand why people constantly put all scopes into same basket and while going into minute details about handloading, shooting equipment they are unable to wrap their head around simple concept that riflescopes are compromises that there is not a brand out there that is perfect for every use (bar CounterSniper of course but that is another topic) and that you primary goal when in store for riflescope is its intended use PERIOD and secondly you come to the price you're willing to pay. If anything people should be ECSTATIC that a <50obj is even in a contest against 50 and 56 objectives (what do you think Zeiss x72 model would do in such a test or if lighting was a bit on the low side). I'm sure there will be even more moaning and pissing when other parts are published where there might also be some surprises waiting...
 
#204
XOR said:
I own the March scope and also NightForce and also a Steiner at 56mm. They are all great scopes in their own ways.

The overwhelming point to take away from the March vs. others in this test is basically that aperture wins. So in testing you see clearly that 56mm objectives are clustering at the top and the smaller objectives (the March is 42mm) are clustering at the bottom. This is almost certainly due to the objective size as an overwhelming factor. A 42mm scope is not going to resolve as well as bigger objectives. This is just the crux of it.

These tests are great data. But this kind of testing should be comparing scopes of same objective size and divide the scores out that way because it is confusing. The 56mm objective scopes have a huge advantage in terms of perceived brightness, contrast and resolution over the smaller scopes. There are no two ways about it. Aperture wins.

Valid points, but I would point out the ior recon 4-28x50 is doing quite well in the test with a 50mm objective. It came in 5th in the first test ahead of five scopes with a 56mm and one with a 58mm. But it would also be fair to note that it has a 40mm tube.

In the Second test it came in 2nd (measured field of view). Not sure if the large tube diameter helps in that regard or not.
Click to expand...
 
#205
Dead Nutz said:
Valid points, but I would point out the ior recon 4-28x50 is doing quite well in the test with a 50mm objective. It came in 5th in the first test ahead of five scopes with a 56mm and one with a 58mm. But it would also be fair to note that it has a 40mm tube.

In the Second test it came in 2nd (measured field of view). Not sure if the large tube diameter helps in that regard or not.
Click to expand...

Yep. I understand. Not trying to defend everything here. Just pointing out that the aperture size is going to largely determine the resolution and detail the scope can resolve at the most optimum conditions. In telescope land that is something called the Rayleigh resolution limit:

Resolution and Seeing

But really in terms of a rifle scope I think the mechanics and ergonomics actually trump pure optical performance. Great optics are fine, but mean very little if the scope cannot track well and isn't reliable in the field. So the ergonomics and mechanics test that Calz posts will be the most telling.

Also, when I look at the charts and I see the smaller objectives at the bottom in terms of resolving that is not a surprise. Aperture wins. What is a surprise is when you see the smaller objectives ranking higher than larger objective scopes. That's actually a really important detail in terms of gauging quality of the larger optics.

Finally, I really appreciate the work it took on the part of Calz to put all this together. I'm sure it was a lot of work and is valuable information.
 
Last edited:
#207
Very, very interesting study indeed.

However, I can see a bit of a fundamental problem with the methodology of measuring scopes magnification (which leads to probably incorrect 18x point, which invalidates a number of the study results).

Disclaimer: criticism to follow. Maybe I am wrong all along, and am missing something obvious -- feel free to point it out (I always gratefully recognise my mistakes).

***

I tried to find an explanation to "less than stellar" optical performance figures for S&B 3-27. With this kind of price tags they better be goddamn perfect, I reasoned, each piece going out of QC, and a gross outright lie as to the max. magnification -- actual 22 instead of announced 27 -- would be a reputational suicide for the company.

Not actually owning a S&B 3-27x, I played with my 3-20x, to see what kind of conclusions one can draw from the method described in the study.

First, a bit of <i>Captain Obviousness</i>:

* The scope's magnification is dependent on the distance from the eye to the eyepiece of the scope. You move your head closer to the eyepiece -- the image gets bigger -- this is your basic human "zoom in" and "zoom out" mechanism.

* Therefore, a "3x zoom" qualification for a scope is only valid for a given eye relief distance. Specs eye relief distances may be different for different scopes.

* "Don't trust the numbers written", yes. For example, the specs of the S&B 3-20x state eye relief of 90 mm. The actual eye relief, where the image completely fills in the eyepiece, at some magnification is closer to 70-80 mm.

* Assuming 90 mm eye relief (that is -- roughly 110 mm to the human eye's focal plane), it is very difficult to respect this constraint with a DSLR camera. The actual focal plane of the camera is inside the camera body, at the back. Add 30 to 40 mm for the actual camera, another (at least!) 30 to 40 mm for the lens; what's left is maybe 40 mm (~1.5 inch) between the camera lens and the scope's eyepiece. At this distance, it appears to me very difficult, if at all possible, to catch at the same time the full image through the scope *and* the non-magnified reference target outside of the scope tube. It is very likely that the DSLR snapshots for the study were taken at a distance well above the recommended eye relief for most scopes.

Conclusion:

Methodologically speaking, in order to really "compare apples to apples", it would have made sense to measure each scope's "perfect" eye relief (e.g. calibrate by the low end of magnification), and make all other measures, such as "true" 18x respecting this (scope's specific) eye relief. In that case, using a compact (non-DSLR) camera would be appropriate, to make sure the camera hardware does not get in the way and limit the minimal distance to the eyepiece.

What actually makes me think that these considerations were not taken into account during the study, is the obvious discrepancy between the "measured" max. magnification for the S&B 3-27x and the field of view figures for the same scope. The FoV is directly proportional to magnification. The ratio between the highest and lowest FoV = 38.7/4.4 = 8.8, which is rather closer to 27/3 = 9 of the announced specs (in reality, it may be a 3-26.4x scope), and does not correspond much to the 22.4/3 = 7.47 ratio that we should have had with the study's 22.4x "measured" figure.

As mentioned in the beginning, this methodological flaw -- failure to account for the scope's specific eye relief -- invalidates many of the study's conclusions (and I would guess it is too late to redo it all).

By the way, the FoV measurements give a much better idea of the zoom range of the tested scopes (rather than relying on the "measured" high end and specs low end). The graph of zoom ranges then looks slightly different from the study results.

prb-zoomrange-fromfov.png


The difference between the blue (claimed) and red (actual) lines pinpoints the "cheaters", where specs don't match reality; really surprising to see the gap for S&B "the King of the Hill" 5-25x -- it does look more like a 7-25x (or 5-17x ?), which many people suspected to be the case, but now, thanks to precisionrifleblog.com, we have figures.

***

Impatiently waiting for the mechanical tests results...

P.S. I wonder if eyebox @ different magnifications has been measured as part of the ergonomics tests; that's another area potentially full of surprises.
 
Last edited:
#208
ptosis said:
Very, very interesting study indeed.

However, I can see a bit of a fundamental problem with the methodology of measuring scopes magnification (which leads to probably incorrect 18x point, which invalidates a number of the study results).......
Click to expand...

Good points ptosis, but I think you may have a flaw in assuming the camera was too far away from the scope. I would think that the point of view for the camera would be at the camera's objective lens, not at a point inside the camera body (Just like a 1x scope is 1x from the objective lens, not from where your eye is).

I would think that if his method were flawed we would have seen a lot more discrepancies. As it is most of the scopes measured very close to the advertised magnification, with just a few being off and then the glaring S&B result. I'm not sure what to make of it at this point.
 
#211
I applaud ptosis for looking at the data and the testing methods critically. That's precisely how you make better tests in the future, and validate the results you already have. We need more like you to improve this sport to the best of our ability.

That being said, I'm not convinced that the error shown in testing was a result of poor data gathering processes. I am far from an optical engineer, but the relative closeness of the other scopes tested when compared to their claimed zoom values really makes me question why it would only be the S&B that saw large amounts of error. If "it is very likely that the DSLR snapshots for the study were taken at a distance well above the recommended eye relief for most scopes", why don't we see errors in many of those designs which were tested? It isn't simply an issue with larger zoom ranges, as the results from both the Hensoldt and the Bushnell XRS were fairly close to the claimed values.

The BEAST and the ATACR both appeared to have nearly identical results, as well as the S&B PMII. Perhaps there is a common factor between them causing an error in analysis, if there indeed is one? I can't think of anything they have in common that they don't have with other scopes in the test off hand...
 
#212
James7800 said:
Good points ptosis, but I think you may have a flaw in assuming the camera was too far away from the scope. I would think that the point of view for the camera would be at the camera's objective lens, not at a point inside the camera body (Just like a 1x scope is 1x from the objective lens, not from where your eye is).

I would think that if his method were flawed we would have seen a lot more discrepancies. As it is most of the scopes measured very close to the advertised magnification, with just a few being off and then the glaring S&B result. I'm not sure what to make of it at this point.
Click to expand...
I guess you are right, point granted, thanks, my brain was short-circuiting.

(I just remembered taking photos through scopes, and getting full eyepiece image at distances which would not work if the relief was calculated to the camera's focal plane.)

Now, what I would guess has happened, the camera relief distance was indeed close to 90 mm, pretty common for modern scopes specs, and most scope manufacturers more or less respect this number for their zoom figures. S&B, as I can judge by my 3-20x, do not; the actual eye relief is significantly less than that (I had to change the calculated mounting arrangements on my rifle for this reason).

This being said, the main point still holds -- zoom figures of a scope only make sense for a specific (calibrated) eye-relief distance, and the calibration job has been skipped in the study.
 
Last edited:
#214
WolfCobra said:
The BEAST and the ATACR both appeared to have nearly identical results, as well as the S&B PMII. Perhaps there is a common factor between them causing an error in analysis, if there indeed is one? I can't think of anything they have in common that they don't have with other scopes in the test off hand...
Click to expand...
As mentioned here, I would bet on a too-short eye relief distance. S&B just doesn't seem to respect the advertised 90 mm.
 
#215
LOCOBEAR said:
Either that or he really had some time to kill. No offense to ptosis. It is something to think about.
Click to expand...
On top of me being naturally a maniacal paranoid nitpick, my job description basically says "maniacal paranoid nitpick" (which does not facilitate remission).
I would guess it sort of rubs off to anything I do.
 
#216
ptosis said:
On top of me being naturally a maniacal paranoid nitpick, my job description basically says "maniacal paranoid nitpick" (which does not facilitate remission).
I would guess it sort of rubs off to anything I do.
Click to expand...

[MENTION=105035]ptosis[/MENTION]

You're Swiss, being maniacally precise is your national contribution to the world at large. We love you for it. It's that fussiness over details that provided us with Sig pistols and a bunch of expensive wrist watches. Keep it up.


[MENTION=63862]calz[/MENTION],

I understand your reticence at expanding on the study in the future based on some of the initial reactions to the first part of your test. Let me echo the sentiments of a number of the other members who sincerely applaud your effort and who are deeply thankful for the review. Keep in mind that this is a "forum" as opposed to a blog, and as such over 100,000 people are nothing more than a keystroke away from throwing an opinion out there; informative, helpful, or otherwise. Unfortunately we see too much of the "otherwise" at times.

I think you were dead on when you recognized a potential misstep in starting with "Optics Performance" because of the inherent subjectivity of the human eye/brain perception. Guys drown in the overflowing river of threads that continue to hash out "who has the best glass" when at the end of the day most of the people are swimming in the wrong place to begin with.

Lowlight nailed it when he said that a lot of us buy high-end scopes to show them off and for the "hey, look at what I've got" factor rather than because we're really going to get an extra $2k of performance out of a "lesser" brand. With that consumer model, a lot of guys get emotionally invested in "their team" because no one wants to hear that the scope they paid $4k for isn't at the top of every chart.

As someone else pointed out, we're comparing "9.5-10" scopes and seeing a "statistical" difference that isn't really discernable to most people, in much the same way that statisticians will resort to going to the 3rd of 4th decimal point in order to have a visual spread on a bar graph when there isn't any difference in the whole numbers.

I'm now a subscriber to your blog and have been reading my way through the entire "What the Pros Use" series. I enjoy your analytical approach to the sport while still interjecting some common sense to help with extrapolating the data.

When you tell an unbiased truth, you're going to get resistance from people living within a biased reality. I hope that doesn't stop you in the future from continuing to present your results for review.
 
Last edited:
#218
In first half of 2015 i will buy a new scope , i was with a short list, Kahles 6-24×56 and IOR RECON 4-28×50 after this test i added NF ATACR 5-25X56 .
I can compare side by side Kahles and IOR but near me NF is not so common ....waiting for tracking test them i will calculate and average factor from optical and mechanical quality and i will divide the price with this factor .

In this moment if i take in consideration overal optical performance from the test i get

NF ATACR 5-25X5 ---2350/86=27.32

IOR RECON 4-28×50--3000/82=36.58

Kahles 6-24×56--3000/74=40.54

So in this moment NF ATACR (only factor who make me not to declare now NF as the winner is the field view, i use same scopes for hunting also for shooting so field view is a factor I take in consideration ) have best price per quality unit or in american style best bang for the buck :)

Looking forward for the rest of the test.
Thank you PrecisionRifleBlog.com for all your effort.

P.S. hahah i'm very subjective regarding optics , is first time when i put NF in front of IOR or Kahles ..my mind stil refuse to grasp...NF in from of Kahles..come on .
 
#220
James7800 said:
Good points ptosis, but I think you may have a flaw in assuming the camera was too far away from the scope. I would think that the point of view for the camera would be at the camera's objective lens, not at a point inside the camera body (Just like a 1x scope is 1x from the objective lens, not from where your eye is).

I would think that if his method were flawed we would have seen a lot more discrepancies. As it is most of the scopes measured very close to the advertised magnification, with just a few being off and then the glaring S&B result. I'm not sure what to make of it at this point.
Click to expand...

I concur. I was careful to set up the camera for appropriate eye relief. And I also didn't just do this one time per scope ... I did it at least twice, and if the max magnification didn't align with what the manufacturer claimed, I actually did it 3 times, on 3 separate days, with a complete tear-down and setup between each photo. I even did it at different distances to see if that caused variations. The results agreed. I never want to publish anything that could potentially make a manufacturer look bad without ensuring I was thorough on my end.

ptosis said:
P.S. I wonder if eyebox @ different magnifications has been measured as part of the ergonomics tests; that's another area potentially full of surprises.
Click to expand...

Yep, I did measure the eye relief at the min and max magnifications and that will be included in the next batch of results. I grouped it under "Ergonomics", which is really what I am thinking of as the experience behind the scope. It could have gone in optical performance just as easily, but that post was already pretty large. This one is actually turning out to be too. Lots of video to help everyone get the view from behind the scope, plus a lot more charts based on info that is directly measurable. And once again, full transparency in how the data was gathered.
 
#221
jonaddis84 said:
[MENTION=50912]TRAC[/MENTION] don't forget you're comparing two first focal plane scopes to a second there
Click to expand...

Thank you for the head up , only FFP for me , i did not even considered ATACR is not FFP .
Not an excuse for me but i considered an NF only after reading this test results, i should read more about all technical specifications regarding NF models.
 
#222
Aha! The author of the study! First of all -- 1000 x thanks for the great work that you have done! As with your excellent tests of laser rangefinders, the approach is thorough and objective, and very informative; a really unique and delightful approach (especially refreshing in the ocean of opinionated ramblings that Internet hardware "tests" and "comparisons" usually consist of).

calz said:
I was careful to set up the camera for appropriate eye relief.
Click to expand...
Just for me to understand the method -- how exactly do you define "appropriate"?

Also, how do you think can be explained the contradiction between the 8.8 zoom ratio derived from FoV measurements for S&B 3-27x and its 22.4 measured max mag? Is it, in reality, a 2.5-22.4x scope? Maybe some kind of a weird optical phenomenon (extreme tunneling, where image size shrinks, but FoV increases)? Any thoughts?

Disclaimer: Please do not take my posts in this topic as some kind of trolling; I really am very grateful for the terrific research that you share with us all, and really think what I have written in the first paragraph. I am simply trying to reconcile what I think is contradictory in experimental data. Maybe I am missing something crucial in understanding optics (am by no means an optics engineer, just have a few rather rusty basics from college physics course). In any case, I would be very, very grateful for knowledge and science that you would care to share.

Yep, I did measure the eye relief at the min and max magnifications and that will be included in the next batch of results. I grouped it under "Ergonomics", which is really what I am thinking of as the experience behind the scope.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely great news, thanks! And -- yes -- this is definitely ergonomics; a fundamental part of the definition of "easy to live with" scope.
 
Last edited:
#223
calz said:
I concur. I was careful to set up the camera for appropriate eye relief. And I also didn't just do this one time per scope ... I did it at least twice, and if the max magnification didn't align with what the manufacturer claimed, I actually did it 3 times, on 3 separate days, with a complete tear-down and setup between each photo. I even did it at different distances to see if that caused variations. The results agreed. I never want to publish anything that could potentially make a manufacturer look bad without ensuring I was thorough on my end.



Yep, I did measure the eye relief at the min and max magnifications and that will be included in the next batch of results. I grouped it under "Ergonomics", which is really what I am thinking of as the experience behind the scope. It could have gone in optical performance just as easily, but that post was already pretty large. This one is actually turning out to be too. Lots of video to help everyone get the view from behind the scope, plus a lot more charts based on info that is directly measurable. And once again, full transparency in how the data was gathered.
Click to expand...


Was wondering if you considered that the 3-27 S&B was defective and tried to reach out to Eurooptics(If you haven't already) or S&B for a replacement. Are they aware of the ongoing test you are performing with a scope that resulted in such poor ranging results? If not, I would think once Eurooptics gets it back they would call S&B to relay the results, knowing that the actual range of the scope is not as advertised selling it would probably be impossible. I would think for $7K, along with S&B's history, that it was a defect that slipped through and would be really surprised if those were the actual results of all their 3-27's. After all, it is referred as PMII "High Power" version.

calz, just read your paragraph on the 3-27 and clearly says you did not mention it to Eurooptics. Maybe they would want to hear this from you instead of another member, just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
#225
Yesterday I spoke to Euro Optics in regards to the Rianov units from them. We briefly talked about the 3-27x in the test and I suggested it go right to JerryR to check it out and they agreed.

They are aware of the anomaly with the magnification and are looking to have it sorted out.
 
#227
HodgdonExtreme said:
To put things in perspective here:

Objective lens surface area:

42mm : 1385mm^2
50mm : 1963mm^2
56mm : 2562mm^2

That means a 56mm obj has an 85% advantage over a 42mm obj, but only a 30% advantage over the 50mm.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Do you think the 40mm tube in the IOR is making a difference? I would think the obvious answer is yes, but wanting your input.
 
#228
HodgdonExtreme said:
To put things in perspective here:

Objective lens surface area:

42mm : 1385mm^2
50mm : 1963mm^2
56mm : 2562mm^2

That means a 56mm obj has an 85% advantage over a 42mm obj, but only a 30% advantage over the 50mm.
Click to expand...

Some errors in the above calculations

42mm : 1385mm^2
50mm : 1963mm^2
56mm : 2463mm^2

So 56mm obj has an 43.77% advantage over a 42mm obj, 20.3% advantage over the 50mm.

Got my atention because of 80% advantage over 42 mm .
Anyway very good point HodgdonExtreme .
 
#229
TRAC said:
Some errors in the above calculations

42mm : 1385mm^2
50mm : 1963mm^2
56mm : 2463mm^2

So 56mm obj has an 43.77% advantage over a 42mm obj, 20.3% advantage over the 50mm.

Got my atention because of 80% advantage over 42 mm .
Anyway very good point HodgdonExtreme .
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction - I fat fingered the "2562" instead of the correct 2462, and did not use correct formula for "percentage increase". I also used the 3.14 approximation for pi.

Still, another way to consider the difference in objective lens square area (which is HUGE in terms of optical performance):

The 56mm lens has 1.25 times more than the 50mm lens, but 1.78 times more than the 42mm one.
 
#237
SmoothOperator_87 said:
Brilliant reading, wish the gen 2 razor was in this
Click to expand...

Me too, it would have taken the heavyweight title at 48oz IIRC. I have one on order and I'm interested to feel a 3lb rifle scope once it's mounted. Also, I guess the elevation turret on the BEAST really is "that" big.
[MENTION=63862]calz[/MENTION],

Once again, beautiful bit of work, and the amount of data you provided and extrapolated is incredible. I don't know that I've ever seen a "click density" breakdown before, but I found that insightful. Would it be possible to provide "total travel per revolution" as well as "clicks per revolution"? As you noted in the study, the click VALUES varied widely, so I don't think I'd be the only person interested in how much travel you get per rev as opposed to clicks. I dial "numbers" until I need to maybe count a click or 2 beyond, but I don't really work in "clicks".

Keep it coming, very very good stuff.
 
#238
These tests keep reminding me why I liked that March 3-24 so much, well part of the reason is the 10Y min parallax. Man I wish they'd contract to have Horus reticles put in them or else make a nice christmas tree reticle!!! I really hate those huge mil numbers .75 mil off to the right in the FML1 reticle!!!!!

Also noticing S&B 5-25 striking a good all around balance. No wonder it's still so popular.

I kinda wish the S&B 3-20x50 were in this test too.
 
#240
Calz, thank you for your time and effort. I reviewed your results and they are helping me to zero in to what scope I plan on buying based upon my needs. Also, your posting encouraged me to research further the different aspects of scopes before I spend approximately 2 to 3 thousand dollars. I found it amazing that you have spent a tremendous amount of time and effort to provide us with your results. Thanks again. I look forward to the final conclusion of your research.
 
#241
Great review ! Just so you know you need to change the Khales on the "Distance in eye relief between min. and max. magnification" chart to the .02 range instead of .03.
I'm sure your getting cross eyed from all the results ;)
 
#242
Posting under at least 4 different names: Bullydog, Travelingman, User22, and 11:11, on this thread alone, this Asshole has posted 32 times!!! I wonder how many other names he has? What's up with this?
 
#244
pawprint2 said:
Posting under at least 4 different names: Bullydog, Travelingman, User22, and 11:11, on this thread alone, this Asshole has posted 32 times!!! I wonder how many other names he has? What's up with this?
Click to expand...

we blocked the IP and searched, that is it. I found an Auto Alert like the old UBB had, so we'll be taking steps to update vB to block and out these guys like we originally had prior to the change.

On the shoot out, I think they might have to look at the magnification issues based on the adjustments of the scopes, so there may be a few clarifications necessary. What the guys were talking about above might have merit, I think part one may get revised. (At least it should be)
 
#246
Barn Side said:
Surprised to see how poorly the Kahles 624i did in optical clarity, especially after many posters saying the glass was better than the S&B PMii 5-25.
Click to expand...

I wondered about that myself. I have had several of these scopes and while I don't claim to be any kind of expert or have the ability to run these detailed tests, my personal rating of the optical clarity would be different. I wonder if there really is a lot of difference from scope to scope that could explain this?
 
#247
Have you guys contacted Leupold about the eye relief on the 3-18x? What you measured is WAY off of spec. Their site lists 3.8 and 3.9". The test showed almost a 2" difference...
 
#248
Sir,
I thought I understood scopes but I now know I just touched the surface. Can anyone explain why USO scopes did so bad? I was always told they were the best in the industry and only the top of the line S&B would beat them out. I have the Nightforce ATACR and I like it all but the fact when you change the power settings it turns the complete eye peace. I was hopping USO would have done better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

carbonbased
Flare / Glare / Backlit notes on 4 scopes (NX8 4-32, Razor Gen II 4.5-27, Razor LHT 4.5-22, S&B 5-25)
Replies
10
Views
456
carbonbased
carbonbased
J
Rifle Scopes Best High-Magnification LPVO for my use case?
Replies
57
Views
3K
Burdy
Burdy
longshot2000
Top 10 Scopes for Mk12 Rifles in 2023
Replies
11
Views
3K
A.Redd
A
gr8fuldoug
Rifle Scopes New GPO Centuri Riflescopes
Replies
0
Views
154
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
Rifle Scopes DNT 7-35x56 FFP Riflescopes
Replies
246
Views
9K
eamars
eamars
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts