Curiosity post about high end glass

[bohica17]

As title says I’m curious about high end glass. The best glass Iv looked through was all military lupy glass. Currently on my rifles have Burris xtr 3 and a Athalon helos gen 2. How big is the difference from what Iv seen compared to TT, ZCO, NF, SB? Is it life changing ? Just wrapping my head around spending 2k plus on a scope.

 

[GenericBadGuy]

When you spend $4,500+ on a scope, it's less about glass quality and more about ensuring you aren't associated with the poors.

 

[aslrookie]

I think any scope worth a shit looks good in daylight/sunny conditions. After that usually higher end scopes manage chromatic aberrations much better.

In cloudy conditions, rain, looking into shadows, etc will all be much better with higher quality glass. Example, mid tier japanese glass could not see steel targets during a pissing rain storm. My kahles glass could see it. Not clear as day, but I could at least shoot at the target. People with gen 2 razor could not even see the target.

It’s all subject. Is it worth another $1000 over a gen 2 razor? Not really.

 

[aslrookie]

I have a 5-25x Mk5 now. No complaints.

 

[Covertnoob5]

Is it life changing? I guess that depends on what you need it for. Similar example as above, was shooting a match in rain and heavy heavy fog. There was a target at the top of a hill about 700yds. Several competitors with tier 2 and lower glass (MK5, razor 2, bushnell, etc.) could not see the target at all. They literally walked off the stage with a 0. I was barely able to see it with my 840 ZCO. A buddy with his TT could also barely see it. I was able to shoot the stage and get my points tho. So in that sense yes it’s worth it. I’m also able to make more precise observations as to my hits on steel with ZCO/TT than my MK5.
You just see and notice more things with nicer glass. I know several people that have upgraded from MK5/Razor 2 level glass to TT’s and once they start shooting with it in more dynamic conditions they really start to notice how much more they’re able to see. FOV, color, contrast, DOF, distinctive mirage, etc.
If the majority of your shooting is on a square range and in nicer conditions, sure you’ll see a difference but you probably won’t appreciate it. If you do any kinda of dynamic shooting/competition then yes you’ll eventually appreciate it.

I think something for people in general to realize is this, if you’ve never spent a decent amount of time shooting matches with a lower tier optic, it’ll be hard to truly appreciate a tier 1.
For all my car people, if you started with something fast and you never drove something slow like a Honda civic how can you ever truly appreciate something like a lambo aventador or Tesla plaid acceleration.

 

[TheOE800]

First time I spun a Tangent turret, I came.

 

[Hickswr]

I have a 5-25x Mk5 now. No complaints.

I’ve never looked through one of those but read where others rank it on par with Burris XTR3 and Razor Gen 2 quality glass.

What have you compared the MK5 against and what is your opinion.

I currently have a Burris XTR3i and have no complaints with it, but just stating that doesn’t contribute anything positive to the OPs question.

 

[GIXXER2000]

I have S&B Kalhas Zcomp Tract Vortex and Eotch scopes. I have looked though NF TT and March scopes at matches. The thing to remember is not all top tier scopes look the same to everyone. I wear glasses and am 59 some my eye are getting older so I prefer S&B and Zcomp then Kalhas followed by the others. If you can go to the your range and look though as many scopes as you can before you buy and see what YOU LIKE BEST not what some guy or a write up says. Good luck on the scope hunt.

 

[ShootnFool8]

Never looked through TT. Have ZC, and a ATACR. For me it's when the mirage really picks up. Is where I see the difference. Enough for me to see that, now I just want that better glass. But, I'm sure everyone has their opinions.

 

[Krob95]

When you spend $4,500+ on a scope, it's less about glass quality and more about ensuring you aren't associated with the poors.

This. I do not want to be associated with the pheasants. Coyote TT T3 gang

@OP. For real tho. I could never wrap my head around expensive optics. I figured a 400 dollar vortex viper hst was just as good as a atacr 7-35. Boy howdy I was wrong. High end glass is worth the money. Be it a ZCO, TT, S&B, razor gen3. Even a mk5 would be a step up. You owe it to yourself to invest in quality optics man.

 

[CK1.0]

I seem to have mid-tier eyes apparently.

I’ve spent some time looking through TTs and ZCOs… and the only thing I’ve noticed is that I prefer my Razor HDG2’s reticle and the fact that I wouldn’t really give a shit if I managed to break it (I’d just buy another one… except I probably wouldn’t have to since Vortex would probably just send me a new one.)

I probably would be better served with LASIK over better glass, maybe later lol.

 

[hafejd30]

One of many threads asking the same,

The short version:

TT is worth it

Everyone else is too busy resetting their turrets back to 0 with tools to comment

 

[mrmarklin]

Some have commented on the Alpha glass usefulness in competition. It’s also useful, and maybe even more so, when hunting in twilight conditions and early in the morning. Most decent glass looks about the same in the middle of the day. It’s when your angle to the sun becomes an issue that Alpha glass wins.

 

[Glassaholic]

As title says I’m curious about high end glass. The best glass Iv looked through was all military lupy glass. Currently on my rifles have Burris xtr 3 and a Athalon helos gen 2. How big is the difference from what Iv seen compared to TT, ZCO, NF, SB? Is it life changing ? Just wrapping my head around spending 2k plus on a scope.

How big is the difference is very difficult to answer as a lot depends on you, for some the difference is big and for others not so much. The alpha glass you mention is definitely a step up from the other glass; however, is it enough to justify the cost? Again, only you can answer that, but you can’t just go look through a scope at the range on a nice day, you need to spend time with the scope in difficult light and that will tell a much better story. I will say this, the latest mid tier glass from Japan and Germany is looking better and better and definitely narrowing the gap. Scopes like the Razor Gen3 6-36 and the new Steiner T6Xi are a couple I’ve had experience with and have really impressed.

 

[Glassaholic]

Some have commented on the Alpha glass usefulness in competition. It’s also useful, and maybe even more so, when hunting in twilight conditions and early in the morning. Most decent glass looks about the same in the middle of the day. It’s when your angle to the sun becomes an issue that Alpha glass wins.

Two different things here, low light and flare/halation control, the latter is the one weakness with TT IMO, the 5-25 has struggled when the sun gets low and is shining on the objective I’ve had the sight picture almost completely wash out at times, this is where the sunshade can really help. That being said, the TT is one of the brightest scopes in low light with amazing clarity and contrast.

 

[CSTactical]

Is it life changing? I guess that depends on what you need it for. Similar example as above, was shooting a match in rain and heavy heavy fog. There was a target at the top of a hill about 700yds. Several competitors with tier 2 and lower glass (MK5, razor 2, bushnell, etc.) could not see the target at all. They literally walked off the stage with a 0. I was barely able to see it with my 840 ZCO. A buddy with his TT could also barely see it. I was able to shoot the stage and get my points tho. So in that sense yes it’s worth it. I’m also able to make more precise observations as to my hits on steel with ZCO/TT than my MK5.
You just see and notice more things with nicer glass. I know several people that have upgraded from MK5/Razor 2 level glass to TT’s and once they start shooting with it in more dynamic conditions they really start to notice how much more they’re able to see. FOV, color, contrast, DOF, distinctive mirage, etc.
If the majority of your shooting is on a square range and in nicer conditions, sure you’ll see a difference but you probably won’t appreciate it. If you do any kinda of dynamic shooting/competition then yes you’ll eventually appreciate it.

I think something for people in general to realize is this, if you’ve never spent a decent amount of time shooting matches with a lower tier optic, it’ll be hard to truly appreciate a tier 1.
For all my car people, if you started with something fast and you never drove something slow like a Honda civic how can you ever truly appreciate something like a lambo aventador or Tesla plaid acceleration.

This post above sums it up well!

Most scopes look decent under good conditions, once conditions experience mirage or fog than a better optic might make a difference.
And beyond the optic/glass discussion, with the higher tiers you typically get higher quality materials, tighter QC, more durability, more reliability, more consistency between samples.

 

[aslrookie]

I’ve never looked through one of those but read where others rank it on par with Burris XTR3 and Razor Gen 2 quality glass.

What have you compared the MK5 against and what is your opinion.

I currently have a Burris XTR3i and have no complaints with it, but just stating that doesn’t contribute anything positive to the OPs question.

See my post above the one you quoted

 

[db2000]

ZCO is amazing. If you like the reticles, I’d recommend that. You can always recoup your money (+/- $200) if you get one used in the PX. Prices have been stable for years.

 

[Thorbeast]

I looked through a TT once, I didn't notice anything special, but we were shooting steel at 700.

I'm happy with my atacr level glass. To be honest, I'm sure I'd he happy with xrs3 glass too.

It just doesn't matter as much as people say.

I'm sure if you spend hours bird watching with your scopes you'll find the differences and fret over them, but that isn't me.

 

[shields shtr]

it's less about glass quality and more about ensuring you aren't associated with the poors.

This. I do not want to be associated with the pheasants. Coyote TT T3 gang

This is true, I once perused the countless threads that are all the same about glass quality, realizing I might be a poor.

Then I started buying scopes to get the best "bang for the buck", and confirmed I indeed was a poor.

Then I started buying scopes that were used as the comparison for the scopes that I was getting the best "bang for the buck", and thought "maybe I am not a poor".

Then I got into Thermal and Night Vision and realized since I don't have the same budget as a second tier military (Canada for instance) and realized I was now again a poor.

Life is tough over here in the first world...

 

[GenericBadGuy]

This is true, I once perused the countless threads that are all the same about glass quality, realizing I might be a poor.

Then I started buying scopes to get the best "bang for the buck", and confirmed I indeed was a poor.

Then I started buying scopes that were used as the comparison for the scopes that I was getting the best "bang for the buck", and thought "maybe I am not a poor".

Then I got into Thermal and Night Vision and realized since I don't have the same budget as a second tier military (Canada for instance) and realized I was now again a poor.

Life is tough over here in the first world...

You know what's really fucked? I ended buying 3 Vortex Gen 3s for my rifles. I had to look in the mirror yesterday when this thread came up and accept that I too am a poor .

 

[Matt ironwood]

As title says I’m curious about high end glass. The best glass Iv looked through was all military lupy glass. Currently on my rifles have Burris xtr 3 and a Athalon helos gen 2. How big is the difference from what Iv seen compared to TT, ZCO, NF, SB? Is it life changing ? Just wrapping my head around spending 2k plus on a scope.

I think leupold makes nice scopes, I used to only run leupold, I still run a vx111 on my air arms tx200 air rifle.

I’ve owned meopta. Which I think under 1000ish is the best scopes. Glass and quality of build,

I’m now running Leica, zeiss, Schmidt bender zenith, Schmidt bender classic, and a night force atacr 5-25.

I also just ordered a tangent theta 315 lrh.

I haven’t looked through a tangent yet, but confident in my decision. I have looked through numerous zero compromise. Z co are awesome scopes as well and worth their asking price.

U can only hit, what u can see. It’s simple, and yes, premium glass, makes a huge difference in seeing, and it is easiest to appreciate in low light scenarios. Schmidt benders, even the classic, I paid 1300 on sale from eurooptic, sees clearer and longer in low light conditions then my night force atacr,

I love my atacr, and wouldn’t replace it on the set up I have. But I also have it set up for the range, and wouldn’t waste my time trying to hunt with it in low light scenarios.

Is the atacr a bad scope? Hells no, it’s awesome. But it is not as good as glass as the Schmidt benders. Even the cheap classic. The zeiss is just as good of glass in the evening looking under the shadows of trees, phenomenal!

My Leica is awesome, excellent glass, not on par with the others, but it’s only the amplus. Not their top scope.

I love looking through the zeiss. I always am left feeling that the image is so sharp, but it’s not in my opinion as good as the Schmidt.

Leupold, is a good value, u won’t regret the purchase, phenomenal company, that can sell low end, to high end scopes with out pushing the life time warranty that they also have. I feel they offer a quality, and over good scope u won’t regret at every price point, but there’s always something that is better one place or another. But bad by no means. I was told their coatings emphasize a red tint, which are eyes unconsciously prefer, I don’t know if this is true.

Great glass is worth it, save up and buy one scope. U will see. I no longer waste my money on rifles. U can buy a rifle today that shoots very small groups for under 1000.00. I spend it on glass,

 

[mrtoyz]

Break yourself in with a used S&B for $2500 and work you way up from there if needed

 

[Matt ironwood]

Break yourself in with a used S&B for $2500 and work you way up from there if needed

That’s used pmii used pricing, that’s definitely a good place to start

 

[TheOE800]

You know what's really fucked? I ended buying 3 Vortex Gen 3s for my rifles. I had to look in the mirror yesterday when this thread came up and accept that I too am a poor .

Coulda been one coyote Theta T3.

 

[Dave62677]

Try look at a dark object from 1500yards with mirage condition. U can see where your money go.

 

[Secant]

Coulda been one coyote Theta T3.

Being a poor or using a T3 is the Sophie’s Choice of precision rifle

 

[pineoak]

When you spend $4,500+ on a scope, it's less about glass quality and more about ensuring you aren't associated with the poors.

Spoken like a true poor.

When you have experienced the luxury of true quality, you just can't go back.

(Which is why I try not to fondle beautiful expensive objects of desire I lust for as I can't afford to pay the price for doing so)

 

[GenericBadGuy]

Spoken like a true poor.

When you have experienced the luxury of true quality, you just can't go back.

(Which is why I try not to fondle beautiful expensive objects of desire I lust for as I can't afford to pay the price for doing so).

It's funny I just let your mom expierence the luxury of true quality and she can't go back.

 

[pineoak]

It's funny I just let your mom expierence the luxury of true quality and she can't go back.

It's like I'm being insulted by someone still finishing junior high.

Maybe learn how to spell while you're busy vomiting out juvenile "your mom" type stuff.

AR15.com misses you

 

[Chickentoast]

I've had a lot of them including TT, ZCO, and S&B. I think the sweet spot is where you're at with the XTR3. The next level for value IMHO is the G3 Razor. Above that price, are they better, yes, for many reasons explained above by others. Is it necessary for anything practical, absolutely not. For rough comparo, the jump in quality from Helos to XTR3 is bigger than from XTR3 to G3. And the jump from G3 to TT/ZCO is truly tiny.

Better analogy: The Helos is like getting laid, period. The XTR3 is banging a hot girl next door type. The G3 is banging a model. And a TT/ZCO is banging a famous model.

 

[GenericBadGuy]

It's like I'm being insulted by someone still finishing junior high.

Maybe learn how to spell while you're busy vomiting out juvenile "your mom" type stuff.

AR15.com misses you

Yes, indeed, the Hide has certainly taken over as the pinnacle of mature, respectful discourse for gun fora.

 

[Krob95]

This is true, I once perused the countless threads that are all the same about glass quality, realizing I might be a poor.

Then I started buying scopes to get the best "bang for the buck", and confirmed I indeed was a poor.

Then I started buying scopes that were used as the comparison for the scopes that I was getting the best "bang for the buck", and thought "maybe I am not a poor".

Then I got into Thermal and Night Vision and realized since I don't have the same budget as a second tier military (Canada for instance) and realized I was now again a poor.

Life is tough over here in the first world...

I mean I’m high end day scope rich. But thermal is a rabbit hole my low salary cannot afford

I've had a lot of them including TT, ZCO, and S&B. I think the sweet spot is where you're at with the XTR3. The next level for value IMHO is the G3 Razor. Above that price, are they better, yes, for many reasons explained above by others. Is it necessary for anything practical, absolutely not. For rough comparo, the jump in quality from Helos to XTR3 is bigger than from XTR3 to G3. And the jump from G3 to TT/ZCO is truly tiny.

Better analogy: The Helos is like getting laid, period. The XTR3 is banging a hot girl next door type. The G3 is banging a model. And a TT/ZCO is banging a famous model.

Wrong. Guaranteed to have 10+ more points added to your score with a tangent or ZCO. That alone is worth it and practical

 

[DownhillFromHere]

Like most things, return on investment in optics is not linear. In good lighting/environmental conditions at shorter ranges, an $800 Vortex Strike Eagle 5-25x56 works as well as a gen-3 Razor 6-36x56 at nearly quadruple the price. In those same conditions, there is almost no discernible difference between my $3k gen-3 Razors and my $4k ZCO.

It's when light conditions are bad - low light, high mirage, high contrast, etc - that the top tier glass shows its strength. An earlier post recounted a 700-yard target that was invisible with mid-tier glass but could be engaged using top-tier glass - that exemplifies the biggest practical advantage. I have had identical match experience with my older gen-2 Razors versus my ZCO.

Last year, I shot a little rimfire mini-Palma/F-class match (paper targets at 100 yards). Dark drizzly morning with occasional brief downpours. With the gen-3 Razor (which is arguably at the low end of top-tier glass or very top end of mid-tier) on my Vudoo, I could see the white rings on the black target centers and, more importantly, I could see the bullet holes. The guys running mid-tier glass couldn't... and the few people running low-end glass just aimed at the middle of the black blob.

In such poor light, my ZCO gives better contrast than the gen-3 Razor. But is that advantage worth the additional $1000 cost of the ZCO? That's an individual choice.

It's worth noting too that evolution of manufacturing processes has enabled vastly improved optical quality at much lower prices than was available ten years ago. That's why the aforementioned Strike Eagle is a better optic than the first-gen Razor at less than half the cost (inflation adjusted).

 

[mikeshaw2]

I keep reading these threads and seeing justifications for spending WAY too much on a scope. I can tell you from experience in my short PRS journey that it isn't the scope making me miss.

It's my poor position building, etc that is the problem

Till it's the scope holding me back, I'll keep buying lower end scopes

M

 

[TheOE800]

I’m okay with showing up to an event with an $8k+ rifle system and finishing lower quartile. I sure as hell saw those misses, you know it.

 

[DownhillFromHere]

I’m okay with showing up to an event with an $8k+ rifle system and finishing lower quartile. I sure as hell saw those misses, you know it.

^^^ THIS! My sentiments exactly!!

 

[Ezana4CE]

I've had a lot of them including TT, ZCO, and S&B. I think the sweet spot is where you're at with the XTR3. The next level for value IMHO is the G3 Razor. Above that price, are they better, yes, for many reasons explained above by others. Is it necessary for anything practical, absolutely not. For rough comparo, the jump in quality from Helos to XTR3 is bigger than from XTR3 to G3. And the jump from G3 to TT/ZCO is truly tiny.

Better analogy: The Helos is like getting laid, period. The XTR3 is banging a hot girl next door type. The G3 is banging a model. And a TT/ZCO is banging a famous model.

Now as a high-end virgin, here’s an analogy that I can get behind.

 

[CK1.0]

I think what's worth pointing out here that the rifle/scope is the cheap part of all of this for most of us... so if you want to partake in some Gucci glass, do it.

For most of us, if you add up what we spend on ammo/reloading, and then gas back and forth to our clubs/matches, taking time off from work to shoot, plus what just a few matches a year costs... then the difference between the cost of high-mid-tier glass and Gucci glass becomes pretty small in comparison.

 

[A Aron]

This is a Rorschach test and I'll bet there's a psychoanalyst in this crowd who sees a gold mine!

 

[M4orturnate]

Unpopular opinion here. Im actually kinda disappointed with high end glass. Ive shot multiple matches that had targets in shaded areas that i couldn't resolve. Ive also had sunlight wash everything out. The reason i keep the zco is its really good at everything. Good turrets, good reticle, wide fov, forgiving to get behind, etc. Honestly if i never upgraded from a g2 razor i dont think id have scored any extra hits.

 

[MakeSawdust]

I seem to have mid-tier eyes apparently.

I’ve spent some time looking through TTs and ZCOs… and the only thing I’ve noticed is that I prefer my Razor HDG2’s reticle and the fact that I wouldn’t really give a shit if I managed to break it (I’d just buy another one… except I probably wouldn’t have to since Vortex would probably just send me a new one.)

I probably would be better served with LASIK over better glass, maybe later lol.

LASIK is definitely worth it if you are a candidate. Went from seeing slightly better than 20/20 with contacts to 20/10 after lasik. They said my results were not normal, but my wife also improved significantly (worse to start and still worse after, but definitely an improvement). One thing they did not warn me about, low contrast color situations get worse for you eyes to sort out. It is noticeable enough that I thought it was happening and then read some peer reviewed studies to see if it was normal. I was not warned about that. Overall, I am still able to see a lot more downrange to help match scores after lasik than with corrective lenses.