Rifle Scopes E.D. Glass the new marketing term for optcs?

[thehun]

I understand that optics have different quality prescriptions and such...however I think ED now is getting thrown around a bit too much.

Take the newly released Strike Eagle 5-25x56...its touting ED glass...when asked Vortex about it...they simply say...well its not up to PST standards...

Back in the day having ED glass meant something but I think now...its the cool-aid term that everyone wants to market...maybe I am wrong...but I am seeing this trend a bit too much.

 

[gr8fuldoug]

FWIW the 2 totally meaningless terms (strictly for marketing) are:

HD - High Definition

UHD - Ultra High Definition

These are an opinion not anything to do with a specific glass type. It's like saying new and improved.

Just thought I'd post this for general intel

 

[thehun]

Agreed...but saying extra low-dispersion glass used to mean something tangible in an optic...

 

[koshkin]

It still does. However, having ED glass does not guarantee any particular quality of the image. That is guaranteed by the overall system design, assembly, material selection, baffling, etc.

If everything else is done right, with ED glass, it is easier to minimize chromatic aberration and cut down on the number of specific glass elements you used (i.e. you can dial in correction for chromatic aberration with fewer pieces), but that is largely it. In practical terms, that makes the most difference on high magnification.

There is a lot that goes into overall image fidelity beyond glass selection.

ILya

 

[beetroot]

Just make sure you get a scope that uses aircraft grade aluminium.

Bearing in mind aircraft aren't actually made from 6061 ally.......

 

[thehun]

Aircraft grade and mil-spec...the two terms ninjas like to bring up all the time.

 

[smoothy8500]

How come we never see "X-treme" used in marketing anymore?

 

[Friday]

If the new strike eagle isn’t up to pst standards than I would say it’s on par with a tasco because the pst scopes I owned were trash optics. Glass was about a C- at best.

 

[thehun]

How come we never see "X-treme" used in marketing anymore?

Because that is so 1990s...lol...

In seriousness though I am not talking down on people that can only afford these type of optics...there is nothing wrong with it...until they think it is superior to all others due to the marketing crap they have been fed...

 

[918v]

Just make sure you get a scope that uses aircraft grade aluminium.

Bearing in mind aircraft aren't actually made from 6061 ally.......

Schmidt & Bender is made out of aircraft grade aluminum.

 

[ken4570tc in WY]

Schmidt & Bender is made out of aircraft grade aluminum.

So are beer cans!

 

[LeftyJason]

Another one that I'm annoyed at is the juxtaposition of claiming that forged or billet is better. Forged= smashed roughly into shape before machining. Billet= cut out of barstock.

 

[Denys]

Another one that I'm annoyed at is the juxtaposition of claiming that forged or billet is better. Forged= smashed roughly into shape before machining. Billet= cut out of barstock.

That's an interesting point, especially when it comes to riflescope tubes. I love how some people here immediately think that 7075 aluminum is the best way to go for a riflescope main tube. That may be so for people who stamp and extrude the metal, it's not the case for the ones that precisely machine the tubes from bar stock. And there are more grades than 6061 and 7075.

 

[Rob01]

Yup ED, HD, UHD are just terms many companies use. Marketing is part of this game. Always has been. Not specific to the new Strike Eagle.

Product Description

Product Description | Camera Land NY

cameralandny.com

Product Description

Product Description | Camera Land NY

cameralandny.com

Product Description

Product Description | Camera Land NY

cameralandny.com

Product Description

Product Description | Camera Land NY

cameralandny.com

Product Description

Product Description | Camera Land NY

cameralandny.com

 

[Denys]

Yeah, I don't think so. The description you linked to that talks about the benefits of HD glass does not match what ED glass does. So, in my limited view of the world, HD or anything else that is not ED, is not Extra low Dispersion glass. ED glass does not improve light transmission. When they want to say ED glass, they say ED glass.

 

[308pirate]

Just make sure you get a scope that uses aircraft grade aluminium.

Bearing in mind aircraft aren't actually made from 6061 ally.......

The skins are not made from 6061. But a lot of structural and mechanical shit inside them is.

Things you learn in 10 years of making airplanes...………...

I will say this, "aircraft grade", like "military grade" is a meaningless term invented by marketing and advertising people who have no fucking clue about the subject.

 

[308pirate]

Another one that I'm annoyed at is the juxtaposition of claiming that forged or billet is better.

99.9999% of the lemmings who repeat that bullshit couldn't explain what a billet or a forging actually are and how they're made. Nor can they articulate when and how is each one better than the other.

Gun forums are rife with technical ignorance and misinformation.

My favorite is using a heat treatment process to "protect" highly stressed parts like actions and barrels from corrosion without having the first fucking clue about the effects of a hard case on the mechanical properties of a component that the OEM made without one. I've said this several times, I will not ever buy a firearm that has been subjecting to nitriding (or any other thermal process) by anyone other than the OEM. As far as I'm concerned the metallurgy has been altered from the OEM design without due dilligence and the firearm is unsafe and unfit to use.

But 26 years in manufacturing engineering have made me that way.

 

[Rob01]

Yeah, I don't think so. The description you linked to that talks about the benefits of HD glass does not match what ED glass does. So, in my limited view of the world, HD or anything else that is not ED, is not Extra low Dispersion glass. ED glass does not improve light transmission. When they want to say ED glass, they say ED glass.

Just linked a lot of scopes that mention ED or the others in their descriptions. It’s used in many company’s descriptions.

 

[Rob01]

That will cure ED. LOL

 

[Zorrosdens]

YOU ARE RIGHT!! Well that was a mistake, wrong thread, moving it to Motivational thread. My bad, but it was a perfect topic you’re right there ?. ?.............I shoulda’ let it stay, that was a right on perfect pitch comment ??.

 

[koshkin]

Yeah, I don't think so. The description you linked to that talks about the benefits of HD glass does not match what ED glass does. So, in my limited view of the world, HD or anything else that is not ED, is not Extra low Dispersion glass. ED glass does not improve light transmission. When they want to say ED glass, they say ED glass.

For some companies, HD is just a marketing term, while for others HD means it has ED glass in it. There is no rhyme or reason to it. I suspect that since most marketing people can't spell optics even if they are copying it form somewhere, HD and ED sounded similar to them and they used it interchangeably. Since stupidity is contagious, and everyone heard that HD TVs were better than standard, it stuck.

ILya

 

[beetroot]

The skins are not made from 6061. But a lot of structural and mechanical shit inside them is.

Things you learn in 10 years of making airplanes...………...

I will say this, "aircraft grade", like "military grade" is a meaningless term invented by marketing and advertising people who have no fucking clue about the subject.

A lot of components are yes, but what major structural components.

I'm not knowledgeable on military aircraft but all structural components on big civil aviation aircraft are 7075, steel or composite.

 

[308pirate]

all structural components on big civil aviation aircraft are 7075, steel or composite.

Really, are you absolutely sure that no structural components at all are made of 6000 series aluminum?

 

[beetroot]

Really, are you absolutely sure that no structural components at all are made of 6000 series aluminum?

Would I bet my life on that statement? No.
Admittedly I know very little about general aviation, military or helicopters so chances are you are correct.

I made the post as a very generalised comment that the marketing of aircraft grade aluminium implies that your rifle scope is made from the same materials that a 747 is made from, which for the most part incorrect.

Regardless I'll try defend my comment.
Ignoring new carbon fibre aircraft, as far as I'm aware and the notes I have on hand suggest that:
-all sheet metal and extruded aluminium components are made from 7075-T6 aluminium (skin, frames stringers etc)
-steel and titanium is used where there are especially large structural loads or physical size is an issue (landing gear, engine pylons)
-steel and inconel is used where heat is a major factor (engine pylon structure - jet engine internals are made from all sorts of materials)

Pre-787/A350 composites were widely used for aerodynamic panels that are non-structural or used for flight controls that whilst structural in a round about way, are not transferring loads in the same way engine pylons or landing gear are.
Now a aluminum fitting for aileron or landing gear door may well be made machined from 6061, I've never specifically asked.

I'm happy to be proven wrong as I'm not a machinist, sheet metal worker or structural engineer, and am always happen to learn more about topics that aren't my area of expertise.

 

[mmlook]

For some companies, HD is just a marketing term, while for others HD means it has ED glass in it. There is no rhyme or reason to it. I suspect that since most marketing people can't spell optics even if they are copying it form somewhere, HD and ED sounded similar to them and they used it interchangeably. Since stupidity is contagious, and everyone heard that HD TVs were better than standard, it stuck.

ILya

"ED" is a Schott marketing term for their high Abbe glass, right?

I've never seen it used anywhere else.

 

[koshkin]

"ED" is a Schott marketing term for their high Abbe glass, right?

I've never seen it used anywhere else.

ED stands for Extra low Dispersion. It is a common term used by all glass manufacturers. There is nothing specific to Schott in it.

ILya

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

is it a Tactical scope?

?

 

[srt-4_uk]

I made the post as a very generalised comment that the marketing of aircraft grade aluminium implies that your rifle scope is made from the same materials that a 747 is made from, which for the most part incorrect.

As someone who actually does work on 747s, yes, there is 6061 on it. Not nearly to the extent of 7075 but still there.

 

[Denys]

Just linked a lot of scopes that mention ED or the others in their descriptions. It’s used in many company’s descriptions.

And you did exactly right. Let's have a look.

The first link is to an Athlon Ares. In the description you find this:
"HD Glass: HD Glass gives you better light transmission, brighter, and sharper image. "
That is exactly NOT ED glass. So here the term HD Glass is pure marketing hype.

The second link is to another Athlon Ares. Same description is used:
"HD Glass: HD Glass gives you better light transmission, brighter, and sharper image. "
Marketing hype.

The third link is to an Athlon Cronus, much more expensive. In the description you see this:
"ED Glass: Extra Low Dispersion glass significantly reduces chromatic aberration giving you an utmost bright and sharp image with true color reproduction. "
That is real ED glass and they actually say what it's for. Notice they do not use the term HD glass.

The fourth link is to a Nightforce ATACR. In the description you see:
"Chances are, you’ll never forget your first look through the ED glass of our ATACR™ 5-25x56 F1. "
Notice that they state ED glass, not some other frou frou marketing term.

The fifth link is to a Zeiss Conquest. A control-f search of ED or HD returns nothing. I did find this snippet in the description:
"Optical Performance Higher definition glass, enhanced with T* light transmission coatings and LotuTec® protective lens coating (all in a 30mm main tube), "
Higher definition glass, marketing hype and it's not ED glass.

Your examples were well chosen and do show that if the glass is ED, the marketing will point it out. If it's anything else, it's hype. At least in these examples and many other I have seen.

 

[thehun]

Lets just say...I've tried some of these ED glass optics and none have beaten my LRTS....I truly believe now that to make a leap from the LRTS...I need to step up to an ATACR, SB PMII etc...

 

[Denys]

"ED" is a Schott marketing term for their high Abbe glass, right?

I've never seen it used anywhere else.

Actually, ED glass was first developed by Nikon in the mid-1960s as a replacement for the expensive and fragile fluorite crystal glass that was used to eliminate CA. They used ED glass in their camera lenses instead of fluorite glass. I believe Canon was doing something similar but they seem to have stayed more with fluorite than Nikon. CA shows up as you move away from the middle of the lens and your lens bends the light more, like in telephoto lenses. All my Nikon camera lenses feature one or two ED glass lens elements. Nikon also makes camera lenses with ED, Super ED and fluorite glass or combinations of that. When your camera lens approaches $10,000, chances are there's some fluorite crystal glass element in it.

As ILya says, ED is a term widely used by many manufacturers nowadays.

What's interesting is that photography benefited greatly from the use of ED glass, but since the advent of digital photography, CA is not as much of an issue as it can be dealt with with a click during PP. However, it's always nice to have the best possible contrast and color fidelity in the original exposure and not have to rely so much on PP for the final result.

 

[Fig]

Aircraft grade and mil-spec...the two terms ninjas like to bring up all the time.

Having used literally everything Mil-spec at one point (including the cloths on my back), to me “Mil-Spec” means shitty and mass produced.

 

[brianf]

mil spec is usually the same materials but to a different tolerance spec
if you buy a box of bolt2 and washers for example
they are still stainless allen cap and stainless flat washers
the washers will either have a larger or tighter specth then the "normal" box but all the washers in the box will fit those dimensions
or less washers will be out of spec depending how you look at it

 

[acudaowner]

they can call anything anything they want only when they start using terms like extreme or fancy terms don't mean its bad it also don't mean that its good . hd , ed sound like erectile-dysfunction and no one is running to stores looking to get that , but on a rife scope it could be nice I mean the differences between my no nothing special sightron and my delta hd are as evident as nigh and day as are the differences between the delta and the i.o.r crusader almost just as easy to see but as it becomes a nicer and nicer view the price goes up that much more still I think its nice to have a balance between quality and price , maybe if I hit the lottery I would care less .

 

[thehun]

Problem I see with all these fancy marketing though is many people fall for it...than they proceed to say their $300 optic is as good as a Schmidt and Bender...

In firearms, PSA...perfect example...great company that offers quality components for the money...but there are people that will argue that their $500 PSA AR15 is on par with a SCAR, Tavor etc...

That is when I lose it....I have no problem with getting what you can afford but to argue it is a bit as good as top tier stuff...I just stop listening...

 

[mmlook]

Actually, ED glass was first developed by Nikon in the mid-1960s as a replacement for the expensive and fragile fluorite crystal glass that was used to eliminate CA. They used ED glass in their camera lenses instead of fluorite glass. I believe Canon was doing something similar but they seem to have stayed more with fluorite than Nikon. CA shows up as you move away from the middle of the lens and your lens bends the light more, like in telephoto lenses. All my Nikon camera lenses feature one or two ED glass lens elements. Nikon also makes camera lenses with ED, Super ED and fluorite glass or combinations of that. When your camera lens approaches $10,000, chances are there's some fluorite crystal glass element in it.

As ILya says, ED is a term widely used by many manufacturers nowadays.

What's interesting is that photography benefited greatly from the use of ED glass, but since the advent of digital photography, CA is not as much of an issue as it can be dealt with with a click during PP. However, it's always nice to have the best possible contrast and color fidelity in the original exposure and not have to rely so much on PP for the final result.

wow, ok

I just did a search of "ED glass" a whole bunch comes up under the astronomy/telescope groups

goes to show how much I pay attention to the glass brochure's these days

When I pull up the glass catalogs in Zemax and Code V, I can sort by a lot of stuff, but ED is not one of them ?

I can't seem to find the Abbe(Vd) ranges either for ED, ELD, SLD

 

[koshkin]

Actually, ED glass was first developed by Nikon in the mid-1960s as a replacement for the expensive and fragile fluorite crystal glass that was used to eliminate CA. They used ED glass in their camera lenses instead of fluorite glass. I believe Canon was doing something similar but they seem to have stayed more with fluorite than Nikon. CA shows up as you move away from the middle of the lens and your lens bends the light more, like in telephoto lenses. All my Nikon camera lenses feature one or two ED glass lens elements. Nikon also makes camera lenses with ED, Super ED and fluorite glass or combinations of that. When your camera lens approaches $10,000, chances are there's some fluorite crystal glass element in it.

As ILya says, ED is a term widely used by many manufacturers nowadays.

What's interesting is that photography benefited greatly from the use of ED glass, but since the advent of digital photography, CA is not as much of an issue as it can be dealt with with a click during PP. However, it's always nice to have the best possible contrast and color fidelity in the original exposure and not have to rely so much on PP for the final result.

What you are describing is lateral CA. There is also longitudinal CA that is not confined to the edges. DIgital correction of CA produces a variety of unwanted digital artefacts, so the current trend in digital camera design is to reduce CA as much as possible in the optic even though it may cause some significant geometric distortion. Geometric distortion correction, while not lossless, is less invasive than CA correction.

ILya

 

[Denys]

What you are describing is lateral CA. There is also longitudinal CA that is not confined to the edges. DIgital correction of CA produces a variety of unwanted digital artefacts, so the current trend in digital camera design is to reduce CA as much as possible in the optic even though it may cause some significant geometric distortion. Geometric distortion correction, while not lossless, is less invasive than CA correction.

ILya

That makes perfect sense because whenever an algorithm does stuff a in file, especially interpreting and correcting data, stuff can and does happen. Digital cameras do some of the correction on board, when you set it to record as JPEG. I shoot in RAW and Lightroom does a great job of correcting CA if you need it to, but since all my lenses have ED or Super ED elements, I don't bother with that. Well, there is that one long telephoto that does not have ED, but I don't use it anymore. I don't even know where it is, I'm such a pack rat. But that is why I was saying that it's always better to start with the best picture fidelity you can get to start with.

 

[dcmdon]

I completely agree with the original poster.

20 years ago, all the best Nikon lenses and spotting scopes were ED, and you paid thousands for the privilege of using one. They also painted them tan to differentiate the ED products.

Now it seems that you can buy a tan painted ED branded lens for $500.

 

[thehun]

Yup. Maybe it is my luck lately...but I have seen some high end names fail in final QC in the last three years as well...while other low-mid range brands have stepped up their game. Trijicon for example...my last 3 ACOGs had either major dirt specks, bad reticle etching or unwashed prisms with fingerprints inside the optic...along with an Accupower, which had the same issue as my NXS, with dirty internal optics (wonder with all the demand LOW has now that they are dropping the ball here and there). Meopta on their Optika6 line had mil elevation turrets with MOA windage turrets installed (thats the one where I scratched my head and really said...how on earth does that get passed QC if you have QC in place)...had another optic with the reticle off center to the left by nearly a full MIL...Elcans having tons of dirt particles inside (which is FYI a-Ok by Elcan as long as the dirt isnt within the reticle center)...sorry but for what they are charging for optics...Elcan should have more strict QC on that front...none of my Primary Arms prism optics have any of these dirt particles present ever, even after 5K rounds, so if Primary Arms can achieve that at the price of $250 bucks...Elcan should be able to do it at $2000+.

I don't know...maybe I am too picky or my eyes are too sensitive to stuff...but I feel that all companies who charge more than Chinese made Primary Arms should have better QC on ALL FRONTS...but lately...that has not been the case...for me...with $1200+ optics...exception...Bushnell LRTS...

 

[Denys]

I completely agree with the original poster.

20 years ago, all the best Nikon lenses and spotting scopes were ED, and you paid thousands for the privilege of using one. They also painted them tan to differentiate the ED products.

Now it seems that you can buy a tan painted ED branded lens for $500.

As far as I know, all Nikon (Nikkor) lenses are black and have been black since the were first produced. Certainly all the ones I ever bought are black. Nikon started putting ED glass in their optics in the late 1960s. They also have lenses with fluoride crystals glass.

Canon is the manufacturer that has lenses in a color other than black; a type of eggshell white, which could be viewed as tan. Canon's version of ED glass is called UD and Super-UD glass. Ultra low Dispersion glass. They also use fluorite and I believe they used fluorite crystal glass before they came up with their UD, and Super-UD glass. Any Canon lens with one or more fluorite crystal glass elements is eggshell white.

Warning: I'm not very familiar with Canon optics, but that's what is at their website.

 

[Tokay444]

FWIW the 2 totally meaningless terms (strictly for marketing) are:

HD - High Definition

UHD - Ultra High Definition

These are an opinion not anything to do with a specific glass type. It's like saying new and improved.

Just thought I'd post this for general intel

It’s density. Not definition.

 

[Tokay444]

Just make sure you get a scope that uses aircraft grade aluminium.

Bearing in mind aircraft aren't actually made from 6061 ally.......

I’ve cut 1000s of aircraft parts in 6061.

 

[ToddM]

The term "Marketing Hype" persists for a reason, rarely does the average off the production line product live up to it. Personally I consider the term redundant. Honest professional reviews died decades ago, aside the few that spend their own $ for product, you basically can't trust much reviewed by a magazine or influencer. Just think about when the last time you saw a magazine or influencer say something bad about a product, it's all slightly different shades of glowingly positive. Ask yourself if you really believe all those products they get sent are always amazing? We know some companies are hand picking samples they send out so it's hardly a "average" example. Give a bad review and companies will blacklist you, or pull their ad dollars. On the Hide if you pay attention long enough there are certain people singing the praises of the same company's products over and over that you'll find out they have some direct relation to. Then you have intentionally misleading marketing, like when Cooper Arms first started making rifles and having dealers display tiny tiny group sizes targets, which everyone assumed to be shot at 100 yards, but in reality were shot at something like 40 yards. Kimber was another one where if you had an accuracy problem with their rifle, they'd take it out of the stock and fire the barreled action from a fixed vice setup at 50 yards, yet we know the stock/action interface significantly impacts accuracy. A newer example in my opinion is the new Vortex Strike Eagle 5-25 scope, all their marketing talks about how much elevation adjustment it has, a massive 110 MOA......unless you actually use the zero stop, then you only get 47 MOA. Seems they "accidently" forgot to mention that anywhere but in the manual). I've even seen product pages and reviewers support this saying things like "If you chose to use the zero stop you'll only lose "a bit" of elevation" A bit? that's over 60%.

It's really unfortunate no one is doing independent lab based optical tests on shooting/hunting optics under controlled conditions. They've been doing them for decades on camera lenses testing chromatic aberration, distortion, light transmission, edge to edge resolution, flare, etc under controlled lab conditions. Even if you get 10 guys at a range with a couple dozen high end optics unless they are all resetting those optics for their own eyes it's a crap shoot. Just like they test these across ranges in a zoom lens the same could be done for scopes across the power range, some drop off massively in resolution as you crank the power up. The same could be done for reticle accuracy (which I think is pretty good) and click value (which is probably not so good). The fact we have no metrics and standard evaluation of these things just keeps letting manufacturers get away with putting out lower quality and more sample to sample variation.

Camera lenses even at the highest prices are known to have noticeable variation from sample to sample, I'd be willing to bet binoculars, spotting scopes, rifle scopes do as well. Back in the day many photographers would buy 3-4 samples of a lens, even professional lenses, test them out on their camera and keep the best one. Many simply sent them right back to Canon still new in the box for calibration to their specific camera body, something Canon offered to their professional shooters and then later to everyone for a price.

 

[thehun]

Companies market to "trigger" buying demand...face it...80-90% of firearm owners are truly clueless as to what to buy for their needs...

People tend to salivate over things that look tactical...just go to a gun shop and see...they play Barbie doll dress up with Ruger AR556s...slap on some Sightmark crap and sell it for $1200 package all day long...it has a LAAAZZZEEEER...Mil-Spec optic (per Sightmark marketing)...Caldwell cheapo bipod...CAA loosey goosey stock...and a vertical grip with a flashlight...its the world we live in...

Many on here belong to the 10% of firearms owners that actually care about proper gear (which doesn't mean its always the most expensive)...

 

[Glassaholic]

It's really unfortunate no one is doing independent lab based optical tests on shooting/hunting optics under controlled conditions. They've been doing them for decades on camera lenses testing chromatic aberration, distortion, light transmission, edge to edge resolution, flare, etc under controlled lab conditions.

ILya probably has the closest equipment to be able to do this but part of the issues between testing rifle scopes and testing camera lenses is that with lenses you have a calibrated sensor providing the evaluation, from here you can form a baseline and with digital images have software that can make analysis. The is nothing in the sport optics industry (at least nothing the majority of us could afford) that would allow this type of testing with rifle scopes, this is why scope "reviews" are so subjective. Frank would like to setup a numbering system and start doing scope reviews more similar to lens reviews, but again, without having proper equipment with controlled conditions you are still relying on the reviewer to give you their honest analysis and in the end I still think people will find more value in subjective reviews but will find value in the numbering system for quick reference, but in most situations we are not like lensrentals.com who can order 20 samples of the same lens and perform DXO Mark type analysis across a broad range of samples, how many can spend $35,000 to buy 10 ZCO scopes and perform an analysis on all of them. This is simply not feasible for our niche market (compared to photography) and so I feel we'll always have the subjective reviews.

I am currently finishing up a review of the Schmidt 5-45x56 and the March 5-42x56 High Master and found the resolution to be so close between the two that I had to throw up my resolution sheets and perform detailed analysis at various magnifications to truly see if one scope performed better than the other. My testing showed a winner by a small margin (don't ask, it will be coming in my full review that I'll post on opticsthoughts.com) but what if the sample from one company was superb and the sample from the other was sub-par, I could only know that if I have multiple samples I can compare with but since I don't I must give the results of the samples in hand. A recent example of this sample variation was the first Burris XTR III 3.3-18x50 I purchased, the first time on my testing platform I was not impressed at all, optical clarity was definitely lacking and a few contacts later I was shipping the scope back to Burris who confirmed the sample I sent in fell below their standards for the XTR III (but obviously made it through QC in order to get to me through a dealer) and they shipped out a replacement model that performed far better than the first; however, had I decided just to stick with the original scope my analysis would not have been good at all.

What can we learn from Hide reviewers and members who post about their experiences with scope X? If 10 shooters are saying scope X is amazing and a couple shooters are saying scope X sucks, then it would behoove the owners of the poorly performing scope to contact the manufacturer and send it back in to be evaluated. Sure, it does stink if you just bought a brand new scope and it has issues out of the gate, but if you purchase from a Hide dealer it's most likely if you catch this in the first week or two, they will gladly accept a return and ship you another scope (my plug for buying from Hide dealers who offer superior service).

Just my 2 cents on all this

On the topic of ED glass, yes, acronyms for glass or glass type get thrown around mostly by marketing to encourage sales. A better identifier of quality glass is the price, in general, in the optics world you "get what you pay for" and outside of a few exceptions this is usually the case with sport optics as well.

 

[army_eod]

It is a lousy term. It means erectile dysfunction. I will never buy one.