Rifle Scopes At what magnification do high dollar optics really come into their own?

[mmahoney]

I've been looking through more and more high end optics lately and personally can't tell any difference in the IQ of a $300 3-9x33 Leupold vs. any scope at a higher price range in the low magnifications. Is this a real phenomenon or just my aging eyes catching up to me?

I can see a night and day difference between inexpensive and expensive scopes at high magnifications, though. Is there a standard magnification where high end ED lenses start to seperate themselves?

 

[FUNCTIONAL]

looking through briefly and using for a time are two different things when we talk about scopes.

more expensive scopes will handle mirage better, see more detail and color and gather more light at early morning, end of day, cloudy days, etc. Once you crank up magnification your upper end will be more useable than a cheap option. Cheap options tend to loose resolution and/or get cloudy. This is a very blanket statement and some high dollar scopes handle certain things better than others and not as good in other areas.

I had used a razor g2 for 2 years before I spend a year behind a S&B and just recently started shooting the gun with the razor on it again. When shooting them side by side for a few rounds you might not notice much but after some time you notice what you couldnt notice and at this point I almost cant stand my Razor because of what I now notice I lack compared to the S&B.

 

[19Scout77]

5 minutes is insufficient. Look through a cheap scope all day at varying powers and do the same a different day with a good scope. Report back on how your eyes and head feel.

 

[A&8's]

1st thing is to take them outdoors and look thru them. You'll see a difference. Also, higher end will make images clearer in shadows. So, look for an object a few feet inside a tree line.

 

[Fig]

4X

 

[b6graham]

distance to target
mirage
trace
low contrast
fine details

if you're talking a deer stand rifle and 75 yard shots. then sure

but get out to 200, 500, 800 and counting antlers or finding targets or reading and cutting through mirage becomes much more difficult with a shit scope

 

[Glassaholic]

If you don't see a difference then be happy with your $300 scope - pursuing optical excellence can get expensive very fast. One thing I will point out, many "cheap" scopes perform very well at lower mags in bright daylight, but compare them after the sun goes down and you'll begin to see a difference, the question is if you never shoot in poor lighting and only use 3-9x SFP then you're probably going to be just fine with your Leupold.

 

[Mute]

Where high dollar optics come into their own is not at specific magnifications but in less than idea shooting conditions where lesser optics won't allow you a good, clear view of your target that you will be able to get with the better optic.

 

[Tokay444]

Their entire range.

 

[frank320]

When scopes are performing at their optical/turret center and lower magnifications, i have found the difference between tier 1 vs mid tiers harder to discern. The differences are there, though subtle and takes a keen eye to know the difference. The difference between tier 1 scopes vs mid tiers becomes very obvious when you start hitting the mechanical endpoints of the scopes. i.e when you start dialing the turrets to the end and have the magnification at max zoom, the tier 1 scopes retain their clarity much better than the lower tiers.

For example, when i dial a scope's elevation up close to the endpoint, dial windage 5-6 mils or so to one end, and magnification 25x, my Minox ZP5 retains almost the same clarity vs when at optical/turret center, but my Vortex Razr Gen2's image suffers, especially at the edges. Without both scopes side by side, it is harder to tell, but when you have them side by side, the difference becomes obvious.

 

[7WSMShooter]

Also, it’s not just the optical performance. Take the 300$ scope and dial up to engage a target at 1300 yards. now dial back to your 100 yard zero and shoot. Are you back on target? And do that 15-20 times day for a 3 day weekend. Seen scope after fail to do that from all price ranges. if the scope isn’t Tracking, doesn’t matter if you can see it or not. Might as well be a spotter.

 

[b6graham]

most $300 scopes cant even dial to 1300 which makes it even harder to compare

 

[acudaowner]

not that I have much proof or a way to verify anything but I love my scopes all year round at any mag whether they are considered by others as high dollar or not one a 5.8 x40 that cost 3k that was 3k less at the time to what I saw as its closes rival and offered a brighter and crisper view and one 5x 50 that cost 1500 + shipping . Both I can and have used both for 2 years now and at no time had a single complaint about either in any season yea when mirage is really bad I have to back them off a little , but that's only a few days per year not to mention zero tracking issues so far , most of all I loved watching friends who paid more money for scopes that like there scopes so much they sell them to buy something else every year or so never satisfied with there purchase . Are my scopes perfect no anything could be better , but I am happy with what I got for what I paid I could not be happier with them in the way they have worked so far , and look forward to many more years of use god willing .

 

[7WSMShooter]

graham right, yardage Number was just thrown in there.
Yep, so run it up to its max elevation. And then try It. I’ve seen cheaper scope break just by doing that. Playing around at the range and that happens, it sucks a little. That happens at a match or hunt that you’ve spent considerable time, effort, and money to get to and it the amount of suck you’re about to embrace escalates. I’ve had it happen with more Affordable scopes, and had it happen with unaffordable scopes. Find a brand that’s known for its tracking and reliability, get the recticle that you like and go with that scope.
I’ve had three scope break on me in comps. Two in one day. First one 45 min into the first day and the 2nd on the backup rifle in the middle of day 2. The 2nd scope might have been my fault as I face planted with my pack, rifle, and 220lbs of fat Ass onto scope on boulder. Regardless, you get what you pay for with most things in life, and with glass go for the best and most durable you can afford.

 

[Steel head]

Outside good glass blows away cheap glass at all levels.
I remember being at a short range and looking through a very high level spotting scope and thinking Meh.
Then when I got to use that spotting scope out in the woods at targets from 1130 to a mile I was thinking ?

 

[FjallJager]

I have everything from a Meopta 6-24 ZD $2000 scope to a blister pack Tasco.

The Meopta makes the $1200 Leupold VXIII LR 8-25 sitting next to it look like a cheap POS.

Optically you can only do slightly better than the Meopta in Kahles/Swarovski, Zeiss/Hendsolt, Schmidt Bender, IOR, Minox and Leica. Mechanically you are getting what that other $1000-2000 gets you.

I don't personally believe that there are American or Japanese Alpha scopes for Glass. Maybe Alpha for everything else, but not glass.

Everyone's eyes are different. I need a lot of eye relief because of my astigmatism. In the binocular world while I think Leicas Geovids are leaps and bounds better than the Minox, Vortex, and Nikon's I own. They aren't as good as the Swarovski EL or Zeiss top end stuff for what I need.

I would say that rifle scopes have similar issues.

Everyone has to figure out what they need and what they can use. I am not saying that every scope has to be an Alpha. I am not in that financial bracket.

I recently bought a 2nd hand Weaver 30mm 3-15x56 for $250. I bought it sight unseen from someone I trust and it was a good buy. I have it on a little 16 inch barreled 308. It is really clear, and pretty light weight. It will probably get used to train the kids how to shoot, their Grandad's Ruger 10-22, that I have tricked out for them.

In that same line. I bought a Bushnell 2.5-10x50 Legend last year for about $180. It has mushy turrets, isn't very clear and kind of sucks. It is a 2018 or 2019 model scope. The Weaver was probably made 10-15 years ago. But the Weaver is really nice.

You never know what you will find.

 

[chevy_man]

Your eyes are a large part of the equation.

Vortex gives me horrible eye strain. Don't know why, but they do.


I notice my Mark 5 can see through the mirage better than my cheaper scopes. It has better resolution as the sun goes down. Easier to see into shadows. Easier to see at distance.

I sat with a s&b and mark 5 both on 25x. I couldn't pick out a difference at 2/3/400 yards. I moved up where I could see 1500, and the resolution at targets going out past 1200 was slightly sharper with the s&b. Soon as the mirage started up neither was noticibly better.

The most important thing to take away from that was to MY eye, I was served just as well with the Mark 5 and putting the cost difference into other gear.

 

[Rob01]

I ran S&B PMIIs on my match rifles from around 2006 to around 2015 so I have a lot of time behind them in a lot of conditions. A lot of time behind a lot of high end optics from Hensoldt on down but S&B was my main go to. I went to the Vortex Razor II when they came out and put it up next to the S&B 5-25 and my eyes couldn't tell the difference. Been using the Razor II since 2015 and never felt like I lost anything. Actually like features and reticle better. Both were mechanically sound and tracked perfectly. Guess the moral is to me that when you get to a certain level there is a lot of nit picking. Pick a reticle and features you like and use it. Tracking is the most important part of a scope.

 

[FjallJager]

I have two pairs of Vortex binoculars, both are Talons that aren't made anymore.

The 8x42 has pretty usable eye relief, but I'd rather have an 8x42 with 20mm of eye relief.

 

[FjallJager]

I ran S&B PMIIs on my match rifles from around 2006 to around 2015 so I have a lot of time behind them in a lot of conditions. A lot of time behind a lot of high end optics from Hensoldt on down but S&B was my main go to. I went to the Vortex Razor II when they came out and put it up next to the S&B 5-25 and my eyes couldn't tell the difference. Been using the Razor II since 2015 and never felt like I lost anything. Actually like features and reticle better. Both were mechanically sound and tracked perfectly. Guess the moral is to me that when you get to a certain level there is a lot of nit picking. Pick a reticle and features you like and use it. Tracking is the most important part of a scope.

How old are you? My eye sight changed about 3 or 4 years ago at 39-42. I am 45 now and it seems to have settled down.

I have this philosiphy that what worked at 30 doesn't work at 40-48 (whenever your own eyes change). I don't think I ever noticed how bad my Leupold fixed power 4x was when I was 20. At 45 I have the same scope and it is an abomination.

Never saw the point of the 8x42 first Generation EL's I bought in 2005 to go on an African safari, I had some Nikon Gold Monarch 8x56's that were just as awesome to me. I just knew all the cool kids had them. Sold them when I got back. I fight every pair binoculars I have when I hunt. I know I need to upgrade, but don't want to pay the price of admission. I am sure I'll end up with some kind of 8x42 Alpha German/Austrian before the end of the year.

 

[Rob01]

Older than you

 

[FjallJager]

Did you have the same problem in your 40's?

 

[Rob01]

Not really. I have worn glasses since I was 20 and never had my eye sight go bad on me at anytime since then. Had prescriptions change over the years but always corrected and never effected vision through optics.

 

[Glassaholic]

I have this philosiphy that what worked at 30 doesn't work at 40-48 (whenever your own eyes change).

I would tend to agree, in my late 40's is when my eyes got worse, mostly presbyopia but I also have a prescription for night vision (light sources are almost double/overlap) which also helps me see at distance with more clarity. Not sure if it's age/eyes but I seem to more perceptive or rather more dependent on better glass, but I also feel I've lost some visual acuity and the better glass helps with that. There is clearly a connection between eyes and optics and I often wonder if some of the disparity we see/read about different opinions may be affecting by how an individual "see's" certain things and has preference for a particular look.