Rifle Scopes CAST YOUR VOTE: What's the best long-range scope?

[calz]

In a few weeks, I’m starting a large field test for popular tactical scopes in the $1,500+ price range (plan to test $500-1,500 scopes later this year). Like my rangefinder field test, I plan to have a very objective, data-driven approach using a series of empirical tests that focus on:

• Optical Quality (resolution/clarity, contrast, brightness, etc)
• Mechanical Precision & Repeatability (tracking, return to zero, internal adjustments etc)

Here are the 17 scopes I'm planning to include in the $1500+ price range field test:

• Bushnell Elite Tactical 3.5-21x50
• Bushnell Elite Tactical 4.5-30x50
• Hensoldt ZF 3.5-26x56
• Kahles K 6-24x56
• Leupold Mark 6 3-18x44
• Leupold Mark 8 3.5-25x56
• March 3-24x52 FFP
• Nightforce NXS 5.5-22x50
• Nightforce 5-25x56 ATACR
• Nightforce BEAST 5-25x56
• Schmidt & Bender PMII 5-25x56
• Schmidt & Bender PMII 3-27x56
• Steiner Military 5-25x56
• US Optics ER25 5-25x58
• Valdada IOR 3.5-18x50
• Vortex Razor HD 5-20x50
• Zeiss Victory FL Diavari 6–24x56

But before I start testing, I thought it’d be fun to see what the general opinion of the shooting community was on these scopes. Since this is one of my favorite long-range forums, I was hoping to see if you guys would help me out.

I created a poll with just 2 questions:

• Overall Performance: Which scope will perform the best overall in the field tests, regardless of price?
• Value: Which scope will provide great performance in the field test (i.e. end up in the top 50%) for the lowest price?

If you'd like to cast your vote, please visit: http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/03/13/best-tactical-scope/. Thanks for your help!

 

[NevadaZielmeister]

Voted.

 

[mercracing]

Voted. Will be interested in reading the results.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[q-wagoner]

Voted. And thank you for putting this together. Your blog is a great source of info!

Q,

 

[Flyingbullseye]

Voted. How come Premier's 5-25 s left out?

 

[Adam B]

why didnt you just do a poll using this site?

 

[calz]

I intended to include Premier, but after some research discovered they'd been bought out by Tangent Theta, which has discontinued the line of Premiere scopes. However, Tangent Theta is planning to release a new scope that sounds very interesting. They've agreed to send me one to test in a couple months when they release it and I plan to run the same series of benchmark tests on it so you can compare it to these other scopes. I'm trying to make all the tests completely repeatable.

And I honestly didn't know you could do a poll within a forum without being an admin. I guess I've never seen someone do that.

 

[Wyfox]

Looking forward to the results, you should add the new Vortex Razor line to the list.

 

[calz]

Yes sir, I've been talking to Scott at Vortex about that new line, but really it's a similar story to Tangent Theta. Scott said the Vortex Razor HD Gen II 4.5-27x56 just is not quite ready for release. He thought it would be in a couple months, and I'm sure it will be one that I can test at that point and add to the results. I took a look at some of the prototypes at SHOT, and it looked promising.

March scopes also has a new version of their scopes coming out in a few months. But ultimately, I figured if I waited on all these there would always be some new scope coming out right behind them. That's when I got the idea to try to devise a series of completely controlled, repeatable tests that I'm hoping can evolve into benchmarks that will allow me to compare new scopes to all the others I've tested previously including this massive original set of 17 that I'm about to test.

I essentially went with George Patton's approach: "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." I just didn't want to hold out on those new models before I started. I think this will be very valuable just with the 17 I was able to gather, and then I'll add more as they're released.

 

[JGorski]

I think this Sightron 8-32 w/2-MOA ret. should be included as well, I'll put it up against anything. And under 1K.

 

[calz]

Awesome. Thanks for the tip on the Sightron. I'll try to include it in the round 2 field test I'll be doing a little later this year. Essentially I've decided to break it up into two categories, scopes over $1500 and then $500-1500. I plan to do the high end field test in the spring, and the mid-range field test in the fall. That will give me a chance to include more scopes and be more thorough in each group instead of trying to test 40 scopes at one time.

I'm intending for all the tests to be repeatable, so you'd still be able to compare scopes from the 2nd test to those in this 1st test.

I do appreciate the tip. I actually think it will be much harder to narrow the $500-1500 range to just 20 scopes. I did see Sightron was one of the best selling scopes on MidwayUSA within the zoom range I was targeting, so hopefully I'll be able to include at least one of their models in the next round.

If anyone else knows of long-range scopes that should be considered, please chime in. My general guidelines are scopes with an option for a tactical reticle (hash marks on vertical and horizontal axis), at least 18x zoom on the high end, and 6x on the low end. I'd appreciate any tips. Thanks!

 

[Long_Action]

I dont see what the point of this survey.... Not like people voting have owned or even looked through 30% of the scopes on your list!

 

[FALex]

IOR Valdada but no SSHD?

 

[calz]

The point of the poll is really to just collect what the general view is out there and then see how that lines up later with the actual empirical results from the tests.

I definitely plan to include the SSHD, but since most versions of that scope fall below $1499 I'll include it (or maybe a couple models of the SSHD) in round 2 of this field test.

I'm very excited to see what it can do, because I've heard so many people recommend it.

 

[ShtrRdy]

I'm need to refrain from voting since I've only looked through a few of these. I was wondering why IOR wasn't included though?

 

[Bender]

What? No Huskimigiggers?

 

[samnev]

I have several of the scopes on your list but my favorite is the Nightforce NXS 8-32X56 with ZS, HST and MOAR reticle which is not on your list.

 

[calz]

I'm need to refrain from voting since I've only looked through a few of these. I was wondering why IOR wasn't included though?

The Valdada IOR will be included. It's included in the list.

 

[calz]

What? No Huskimigiggers?

My gunsmith recommended Huskemaw Optics, but he thought their highest end scopes were right at $1500. I just looked after I saw your comment and they actually do make a "Tactical Blue Diamond 5-30×56" model that is listed for $2800 on Bear Basin. I might try to contact them and see if they'd like to include their scope in this.

Since I don't have any experience with Huskemaw, do you guys think they could be in the same class as these other scopes?

 

[calz]

I have several of the scopes on your list but my favorite is the Nightforce NXS 8-32X56 with ZS, HST and MOAR reticle which is not on your list.

I had a few general guidelines when I was deciding which brands and models to include:

• Has a tactical reticle (marks evenly spaced on the horizontal and vertical axis)
• At least 18x zoom on the high-end
• At least 6x zoom on the low-end

Honestly, I'm not drawing a hard line on any of those, but I simply wanted to try to narrow my focus a little so that I was testing somewhat similar scopes. Those seem to represent what the majority of long-range hunters and tactical competitors are using, which is what most of my readers are. The 8-32 is certainly a GREAT scope, but just a little more specialized. And also, I already have 3 Nightforce scopes represented, and I'm trying to keep this balanced. Ultimately, I think the 8-32 will have comparable performance to the 5.5-22 NXS scope I'm already including (in terms of general optical clarity and mechanical precision/repeatability).

 

[remau308]

My gunsmith recommended Huskemaw Optics, but he thought their highest end scopes were right at $1500. I just looked after I saw your comment and they actually do make a "Tactical Blue Diamond 5-30×56" model that is listed for $2800 on Bear Basin. I might try to contact them and see if they'd like to include their scope in this.

Since I don't have any experience with Huskemaw, do you guys think they could be in the same class as these other scopes?

Simple answer...no

I would really love to see you include the illustrious Counter Sniper....just to stop the spread of their ignorance.

 

[fx77]

Sounds like a great idea to compare the scopes. What are the objective repeatable criteria by which a scope will be rated according to the parameters set?

So many reviews are entirely subjective.. I like ABC of this scope and not DEF compared to another scope... A is brighter than B, but to my eye only. The resolution at X yards is better again subjective to the viewer's experience. There is no way to easily do the test blinded and prospective or randomized, so how is one not subtly influenced by the reviewers selection biases ?
Just askin'

 

[mdmp5]

The Hensoldt you listed has probably been handled by about 3 guys on this site and shot by maybe one, probably Nathan Hunt. I think you should scrap it and add the 4-16x56 and or the 3-12x56. They are both 3k scopes, while the unicorn is over 7k. It may be a great piece of equipment, but how many guys are gonna drop that coin?

 

[rw496]

Tag

 

[ryu_sekai]

Tag

 

[kombayotch]

No Counter Sniper???

 

[calz]

Sounds like a great idea to compare the scopes. What are the objective repeatable criteria by which a scope will be rated according to the parameters set?

So many reviews are entirely subjective.. I like ABC of this scope and not DEF compared to another scope... A is brighter than B, but to my eye only. The resolution at X yards is better again subjective to the viewer's experience. There is no way to easily do the test blinded and prospective or randomized, so how is one not subtly influenced by the reviewers selection biases ?
Just askin'

I couldn't agree more, and I'd be embarrassed to tell you how much time I've spent thinking about this. I really enjoy economics (although I haven't been formally trained in it), so I definitely understand exactly what you mean by selection bias. I'm committed to making the tests as objective as possible, but the short answer is that my tests won't completely negate it, although I am trying a few techniques to minimize it. Most of my tests are 100% data-driven, but since these are optics (and I don't have $50k in lab equipment), there will be a 2 out of the 13 tests I'm planning to run on each scope where someone will be looking through the scope trying to determine how much detail they can make out. I'm doing two completely different types of tests to try to offset any bias from one test (one will be similar to FinnAccuracy's resolution test, and the other will be similar to the Snellen chart approach I used to rank optical quality in my rangefinder field test).

In each of the two tests above, I plan to get at 3-5 different people to run through the tests and I plan to do that at different times (so one person's answers/comments don't influence another tester). I hope to get some people that are long-range shooters and familiar with high-end optics, and others that aren't at all familiar with them. I wish I could do this blind, but since I'd like the user to be able to adjust the diopter and parralax ... I don't think I'll be able to do blind tests here.

Since both of those are related to testing scope resolution, I hope to include one more test focused on that aspect that is much more empirical. The idea for this 3rd resolution test came from a few articles I read about how they test optical resolution of camera lenses. It's kind of complicated, but the 30,000 foot view of it is that I would center & focus a high-pixel DSLR camera through the scope at a camera lens test chart. Then I could blow up the images in PhotoShop and analyze them for resolution, clarity, edge to edge crispness, color contrast, color trueness, and distortion at max/min elevation adjustments. I would fix many of the camera settings (aperature, shutter speed, focal length, ISO, white balance, etc) so I didn't introduce bias in the photo settings. I've purchased a light meter to ensure that targets are lit evenly with the same luminosity for this as well. At least that is my idea, it hasn't been proven yet and as far as I know has never been done before.

Like I mentioned, so far I have 13 different tests that I plan to run and about half of them are focused on optical performance and half on mechanical precision/repeatability. The others are very data-driven, so even if you don't see value in how optical resolution was tested ... there will be a lot of other good data in there. For those 3 optical resolution tests I mentioned, I'm hoping that you'll be able to see a clear pattern in the results of the different tests and multiple participants, which will build more confidence in the results than you could get from any one of them alone.

I hope this gives you an idea of the extent that I'm going to on this. I know most scope reviews are very subjective, but I'm putting a lot of effort into this one being different. I plan to try to keep my opinion to myself, and just present the data. I actually try to do that on all of my posts, and is something that I hope makes my website different. And these are definitely not "perfect", which is why I'm framing this as a field test and not a lab test. I still believe there will be a lot of great data that will fall out of it that will provide new insight.

In all honesty, I'd love any input from you guys on this. Is there a better approach?

 

[krummarine]

tag for future reference

 

[NevadaZielmeister]

Okay, I am confused. How is it that, as of date and time of this post, there are 28 votes for the Nightforce BEAST? I mean, do 28 people actually have hands on experience or is this just a wish list of how people want the BEAST to do well in the tests.

Meanwhile, awesome work on the part of the OP. Thank you for putting in so much effort to give us unbiased reviews of these high end rifle scopes.

 

[bogeybrown]

I was curious about the BEAST entry as well. I'm assuming it's a MOA version being tested?
As for the votes, I refrained from voting because I only own a few scopes on the list and likely would have been guilty of a "wish vote" for the BEAST simply because I'd hate to have waited this long for it to suck.

I'm looking forward to the test though, because I had finally reached a scope/rifle equilibrium only to upset the balance again with some recent purchases, so there's a few on the list that are in my "try something different" pool of contenders for upcoming purchases. Especially with Steiner now on promotive with a worthwhile discount.

 

[BigJimFish]

Wow, that is quite a massive undertaking. Being a writer of reviews myself I understand the commitment of time and effort that entails as well as the logistical difficulties of setting the whole thing up. Props to you.

You should add the S&B 3-20x, USO 3.2-17x to the voting even if you are not putting them in the review. To me, these are the most compelling offerings from these two makers. Adding the new Tangent Theta stuff to the voting is also a must as those new adjustments do feel excellent.

 

[calz]

Wow, that is quite a massive undertaking. Being a writer of reviews myself I understand the commitment of time and effort that entails as well as the logistical difficulties of setting the whole thing up. Props to you.

You should add the S&B 3-20x, USO 3.2-17x to the voting even if you are not putting them in the review. To me, these are the most compelling offerings from these two makers. Adding the new Tangent Theta stuff to the voting is also a must as those new adjustments do feel excellent.

Hey thanks, BigJimFish. I read A LOT of your stuff, and appreciate all the time and effort you put into this. We all benefit from it. I know this will be a massive amount of work, but I think it will also be enlightening. I also know I have the potential to make a few manufacturers mad, which is completely not my intent. But I do plan to publish the data exactly like it happens in the field, so it might happen. Luckily I don't have to worry about sponsors, since I'm completely independent (just a passionate OCD hobbyist ... this isn't a business for me).

I put a lot of weight on your recommendations, since you've handled pretty much every scope on the planet. Because this is going to be so much work, I was trying to limit it to only include 2 scopes from each manufacturer. I did bypass that for Nightforce, since the NXS, ATACR, and BEAST are all so different. I originally was going to include the S&B 3-20, but I thought the 5-25 and 3-27 would probably give a good indication of what to expect from the 3-20 as well. With S&B I was a little more confident in that because they actually make all their scopes in-house and their QA process is the same for all of their models (or so I'm told). Do you know if that's actually the case?

When picking out which models to test I came up with guidelines to target scopes that had a tactical reticle and at least 6x on the low end of the zoom range and 18x on the high end. I'd personally like a little more on both ends of that spectrum ... 1-50x would be ideal! I just came up with those basic guidelines because I wanted to compare similar scopes, instead of the 3-14x from one manufacturer and the 8-32x from another manufacturer. That 6-18x seemed like what most general-purpose, long-range scopes covered ... but there is nothing magical about those numbers.

Having said all that, do you think the the glass or mechanics on the USO 3.2-17x is better than the USO 5-25x? Is there something different about those models, or do you just prefer that zoom range?

Thanks again, and I'd appreciate any thoughts you have.

 

[calz]

I was curious about the BEAST entry as well. I'm assuming it's a MOA version being tested?

I'm actually not sure about the specifics of the test unit they're sending. My contact at NightForce has been in Europe for a show, and really just said he'd be willing to send me a BEAST to test for this as he was getting on the plane to leave. We didn't go over any specifics, but I believe he will be back in the office at the end of this week and we'll be able to figure out those details then. Sorry I can't give any more specifics at this point. I've been asking all the manufacturers to try to get the scopes to me by the end of this month, so I should know very soon.

 

[oinco]

It would be interesting to lasso someone(s?) who has absolute zero experience behind a riflescope and perhaps is a camera glass nerd to give input without the emotional involvement that seems to haunt all optics reviews? (not pointing fingers at all, but brand recognition and product cost influence all reviews period.)

I think the poll/results here already highlight issues with optics reviews.

 

[calz]

It would be interesting to lasso someone(s?) who has absolute zero experience behind a riflescope and perhaps is a camera glass nerd to give input without the emotional involvement that seems to haunt all optics reviews? (not pointing fingers at all, but brand recognition and product cost influence all reviews period.)

I think the poll/results here already highlight issues with optics reviews.

Ha! I'm with you ... I'd read that for sure. If you catch one let us know!

 

[NevadaZielmeister]

It would be interesting to lasso someone(s?) who has absolute zero experience behind a riflescope and perhaps is a camera glass nerd to give input without the emotional involvement that seems to haunt all optics reviews? (not pointing fingers at all, but brand recognition and product cost influence all reviews period.)

I think the poll/results here already highlight issues with optics reviews.

Yeh, his hame is Ilya Koshkin and he is a regular contributor to this forum.

Here is his link on Sniper's Hide: http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/members/koshkin.html

And here is his website: OpticsThoughts

He states in his blog :"The bulk of my professional career has been spent working with or around cameras, so I have some amount of experience with them."

His work is very fair and his reasoning is sound. Enjoy.

 

[Flyboyzack]

Voted. I opted for the RAZOR in the value category, and the SB for the best overall. I've never used a SB, but have a RAZOR.

 

[BigJimFish]

I read A LOT of your stuff, and appreciate all the time and effort you put into this. We all benefit from it. I know this will be a massive amount of work, but I think it will also be enlightening. I also know I have the potential to make a few manufacturers mad, which is completely not my intent. But I do plan to publish the data exactly like it happens in the field, so it might happen. Luckily I don't have to worry about sponsors, since I'm completely independent (just a passionate OCD hobbyist ... this isn't a business for me).

Thanks, I'm glad you find them usefull. As for making the manufactures mad, I expect you will, I certainly have. No big loss. It cuts the time it takes to do future reviews when some companies opt out. As for the sponsors, it is worth noting that Frank has never mentioned anything to me regarding special treatment for anyone nor has he made any suggestions that could conceivably have been made for such a reason. I can't imagine nothing has been said to him by sponsors on that point so props to him on that point. Similarly none of my reviews have been paid though I do do some design consulting work on reticles. This is fully disclosed in the reviews of the applicable products.

I originally was going to include the S&B 3-20, but I thought the 5-25 and 3-27 would probably give a good indication of what to expect from the 3-20 as well. With S&B I was a little more confident in that because they actually make all their scopes in-house and their QA process is the same for all of their models (or so I'm told). Do you know if that's actually the case?

Sorry, I don't have any inside dish on this. I would make the same assumption you have. My penchant for the 3-20x is due to it's magnification range, cost, and newer design. I believe that this is now the heart of the PMII line. The 5-25x is an old platform and though that means proven it also means less magnification range (from a review standpoint it probably makes the 5-25x indispensable as a benchmark as well). The 3-27x has an impressive magnification ratio but the cost being what it is I have little interest in it.

When picking out which models to test I came up with guidelines to target scopes that had a tactical reticle and at least 6x on the low end of the zoom range and 18x on the high end. I'd personally like a little more on both ends of that spectrum ... 1-50x would be ideal! I just came up with those basic guidelines because I wanted to compare similar scopes, instead of the 3-14x from one manufacturer and the 8-32x from another manufacturer. That 6-18x seemed like what most general-purpose, long-range scopes covered ... but there is nothing magical about those numbers.

Seems reasonable, choosing what to line up is never easy and is much harder in a roundup type review.

Having said all that, do you think the the glass or mechanics on the USO 3.2-17x is better than the USO 5-25x? Is there something different about those models, or do you just prefer that zoom range?

The short answer is yes. I prefer the smaller, lighter package as well as the zoom range. I also find the 3.2-17x to have a more comfortable eyebox and to be just generally more comfortable to be behind. This may be part the range but turning a 25x down to 17x does not yield the same effect. I am inclined to think the 3.2-17x is a better design. I might also add that I am inclined to think the 3.2-17x is a very good design.

 

[BigJimFish]

Oh, I didn't notice that that Razor is the old one. I know they are still selling it but the HD II's looked far more compelling to me. They will be hard to beat in the price/performance category for the weight insensitive user. I would drop the Razor HD for the HD II.

 

[calz]

Oh, I didn't notice that that Razor is the old one. I know they are still selling it but the HD II's looked far more compelling to me. They will be hard to beat in the price/performance category for the weight insensitive user. I would drop the Razor HD for the HD II.

Yes sir, I tried to talk the guys at Vortex into sending me one of the Razor HD Gen II scopes, but they only have prototypes at this point. Their R&D team thought it would still be a couple months until they were ready to release that new line of scopes, which I can respect. But I hope to run all these same tests on that new 4.5-27x56 when it is released. I did get to handle one at SHOT a couple months ago, and it looked promising. I'm trying my best to make all the tests repeatable so I could use them as benchmarks and add new scopes to the comparison over time.

 

[BigJimFish]

Yes sir, I tried to talk the guys at Vortex into sending me one of the Razor HD Gen II scopes, but they only have prototypes at this point. Their R&D team thought it would still be a couple months until they were ready to release that new line of scopes, which I can respect. But I hope to run all these same tests on that new 4.5-27x56 when it is released. I did get to handle one at SHOT a couple months ago, and it looked promising. I'm trying my best to make all the tests repeatable so I could use them as benchmarks and add new scopes to the comparison over time.

Ah, I feel your pain. I waited 2 years on the 1-8x review for the S&B and premier that both ended up being indefinitely delayed anyway (read not commercially viable at this time at the cost we would have to charge to make it). I don't expect that will be an issue with the Razor Gen II's. I am in the same holding pattern with review samples of the BEAST and Burris XTR 2 though. There will be lots of demand for all three of these optics. I'm still thinking about reviewing a Razor Gen II this year. Have lots of stuff on my plate but it does fit very well with the scopes currently lined up. I swore I was going to take it easier this year after the crazy amount of reviews I did last year. That does not look to be happening.

 

[Lowlight]

All the sponsor want is a fair shake and the ability to fix a problem if it comes up in the review before blasting them.

They all realize that not every product is designed for every man out there, and that with some things there are compromises. As long as you put the compromises in context and don't take unfair shots at them, you won' t see them complain.

If you run across a problem, they want first crack at fixing it, and even if you say you had a problem, if they fixed it, it needs to be mentioned as part of the review. "Hey we came across "X" with "Y" scope and the company fixed in 7 days and had it back to us and everything was good after that" . I have had scopes that failed on me in a review... it happens. I have had scopes that died less than 30 days after a review was finished, that happens too. Which is why now, I don't do a review over the course of a weekend. I want a minimum of 1000 rounds under the scope before "officially" saying anything ... The boring part is constantly rezeroing the same scope over and over and tracking test it... I will do 5 or more changes, and test tracking every time, it's boring shit and sucks, but it has to be done. I move it from rifle to rifle, switching calibers, so it's not just the same thing. They will all work great with a 308 or something put it on a 338 or 300WM and they die... so it helps changing it up.

Glass wise, if you are getting people to give opinions, cover the scopes so only the objective and eye piece are sticking out. Once people have a name on their mind the opinion follows that name too closely of what they expect. If you try to make it as blind as possible and/or give them a set of criteria to follow you'll get better results. Put boards out with quotes on it at 100, 200, 300 etc so people have to read every line. Or use the Finn Accuracy chart and make them score it.

Out of the box, almost everything looks great, water, sun, etc, can screw the coatings up on lower quality scopes so you want to submerge them, leave them outside, etc. Time can tell a difference too. Stuff might be great today and fall off hard later.

But I never fear sponsors, I just communicate with them as best as possible before hand.

 

[calz]

All the sponsor want is a fair shake and the ability to fix a problem if it comes up in the review before blasting them.

They all realize that not every product is designed for every man out there, and that with some things there are compromises. As long as you put the compromises in context and don't take unfair shots at them, you won' t see them complain.

If you run across a problem, they want first crack at fixing it, and even if you say you had a problem, if they fixed it, it needs to be mentioned as part of the review. "Hey we came across "X" with "Y" scope and the company fixed in 7 days and had it back to us and everything was good after that" . I have had scopes that failed on me in a review... it happens. I have had scopes that died less than 30 days after a review was finished, that happens too. Which is why now, I don't do a review over the course of a weekend. I want a minimum of 1000 rounds under the scope before "officially" saying anything ... The boring part is constantly rezeroing the same scope over and over and tracking test it... I will do 5 or more changes, and test tracking every time, it's boring shit and sucks, but it has to be done. I move it from rifle to rifle, switching calibers, so it's not just the same thing. They will all work great with a 308 or something put it on a 338 or 300WM and they die... so it helps changing it up.

Glass wise, if you are getting people to give opinions, cover the scopes so only the objective and eye piece are sticking out. Once people have a name on their mind the opinion follows that name too closely of what they expect. If you try to make it as blind as possible and/or give them a set of criteria to follow you'll get better results. Put boards out with quotes on it at 100, 200, 300 etc so people have to read every line. Or use the Finn Accuracy chart and make them score it.

Out of the box, almost everything looks great, water, sun, etc, can screw the coatings up on lower quality scopes so you want to submerge them, leave them outside, etc. Time can tell a difference too. Stuff might be great today and fall off hard later.

But I never fear sponsors, I just communicate with them as best as possible before hand.

Yes sir, that is great advice. I especially like your advice about mentioning it as part of the review. That seems like a great approach to honor the manufacturer and the reader.

I'd love to cover the scopes. Do you think people should be able to adjust the parallax or diopter adjustment, or should one or both of those be fixed? That is my only holdup on covering them up. I completely agree that true blind tests would be the best way to go about this. I also have a few people that I work with that know NOTHING about scopes, and the brands wouldn't mean anything to them ... so I could use them to test as well, and it is kind of "blind".

Thanks for the tips!

 

[fdkay]

IOR Recon, just to piss people off

 

[jkonzal]

I wanna think my vote would be for the NF BEAST, but there is just one little problem.......

 

[Doc68]

In a few weeks, I’m starting a large field test for popular tactical scopes in the $1,500+ price range (plan to test $500-1,500 scopes later this year). Like my rangefinder field test, I plan to have a very objective, data-driven approach using a series of empirical tests that focus on:

• Optical Quality (resolution/clarity, contrast, brightness, etc)
• Mechanical Precision & Repeatability (tracking, return to zero, internal adjustments etc)

Here are the 17 scopes I'm planning to include in the $1500+ price range field test:

• Bushnell Elite Tactical 3.5-21x50
• Bushnell Elite Tactical 4.5-30x50
• Hensoldt ZF 3.5-26x56
• Kahles K 6-24x56
• Leupold Mark 6 3-18x44
• Leupold Mark 8 3.5-25x56
• March 3-24x52 FFP
• Nightforce NXS 5.5-22x50
• Nightforce 5-25x56 ATACR
• Nightforce BEAST 5-25x56
• Schmidt & Bender PMII 5-25x56
• Schmidt & Bender PMII 3-27x56
• Steiner Military 5-25x56
• US Optics ER25 5-25x58
• Valdada IOR 3.5-18x50
• Vortex Razor HD 5-20x50
• Zeiss Victory FL Diavari 6–24x56

But before I start testing, I thought it’d be fun to see what the general opinion of the shooting community was on these scopes. Since this is one of my favorite long-range forums, I was hoping to see if you guys would help me out.

I created a poll with just 2 questions:

• Overall Performance: Which scope will perform the best overall in the field tests, regardless of price?
• Value: Which scope will provide great performance in the field test (i.e. end up in the top 50%) for the lowest price?

If you'd like to cast your vote, please visit: CAST YOUR VOTE: What is the best tactical scope? | PrecisionRifleBlog.com. Thanks for your help!

I didn't see barska or counter sniper on the list!
Some Sunday sarcasm for you all....

 

[tsonda]

Did not cast a vote because I don't have any time behind any of them. But I am definitely looking at results as I am in the market for a high end optic

 

[calz]

Hey, I've finished itemizing all the tests I plan to run on these scopes, and I'm really needing some feedback from you guys to help me make these tests the best they can be. This is a massive undertaking, so I want to see if anyone has ideas for how to improve upon what I'm planning to do ... before I actually start testing (probably start April 13th).

If you know of a tweak to one of the tests that would make it more reliable or meaningful, please tell me. If you know of a different approach that would be more repeatable or less error prone, please tell me.

There are a couple simple guidelines for the feedback I'm looking for:

• Can’t require buying more than $100 in equipment (unless you’re also sending me a check). I’m doing this all on my dollar, and I’ve already spent hundreds on this test … so I’m on a budget.
• Can’t require a ridiculous amount of additional time to setup or conduct
• Can’t require an elaborate test environment
• Can’t require more than 5 people to conduct

Thanks!
Cal

 

[FourNineThree]

Voted.

 

[JayCarver]

Just wanted to say thank you in advance for going through the work of this test, looking forward to seeing the results.