-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes ED Glass and Super ED Glass
- Thread starter Iron Worker
- Start date
Companies can call their glass the “most super duper ED UHD shiznit” if they’re so inclined. There’s no standard other than it being some variant of “low dispersion” glass. This is a simplified answer. There’s others that know a great deal more than I.
Both brands have great glass but there’s so many other factors that make for an overall great scope. ZCO is just next level compared to most anything available at its price. They’re frequently $3400 in the PX and just incredible.
Here’s Nikon’s explanation.
Both brands have great glass but there’s so many other factors that make for an overall great scope. ZCO is just next level compared to most anything available at its price. They’re frequently $3400 in the PX and just incredible.
Here’s Nikon’s explanation.
Extra-low Dispersion Glass | Nikon
Super ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass is the result of an alternative glass manufacturing technology developed by Nikon to overcome chromatic aberration.
www.nikonusa.com
Deon Optical was the first riflescope maker to use ED glass in their offerings starting about 14 years ago. In their current offerings, all non-LPVO riflescopes have ED or Super ED glass. Over time, many other manufacturers copied Deon and started offering ED glass in some of their scopes. Sometimes they call it something else and some even try to pass off their XYZD glass as ED glass.
A few years ago, Deon introduced the next level of ED glass in a few of their scopes. They call it High Master. Essentially, they use Super-ED glass and High Transmission glass in their optical system to reduce CA while maintaining a high degree of light transmittance.
The ultimate CA controlling glass is pure fluorite crystal glass. However, that type of glass is fragile, difficult to make and polish and is also affected by environmental factors (heat/cold). Not something that would do well in a riflescope. ED glass does not have the same degree of CA control compared to pure FC, but it's much better than traditional glass. This was invented back in the late-60s early-70s by Nikon (and others, I'm sure) for their camera lenses. Sometime later, Nikon created Super ED to try to get closer to pure FC. In fact, Super ED contains a lot of FC in the formula.
I understand there are varying grades of ED and Super ED glass from different sources, and of course, it's all shrouded in mystery. Intentionally.
It has recently come to light that the Super ED glass used by Deon in the March scopes, has a definite advantage over regular ED and especially traditional glass, and this is what Deon terms "shimmer protection." Let me explain.
I'm an F-class shooter (boo, hiss, get out of here) and as such I stare at the same target at every match, everywhere I go. About 12 years ago, I bought an NF NXS 12-42X56 for my F-TR rifle. As usual, when the mirage got bad (and in South Texas, it has a tendency of doing that, all the time), I would dial down from 42X to the low 30s, sometimes a little further down. A few years later, I bought a March-X 5-50X56 with ED glass to replace the NXS. It didn't really register with me for a while, but I was always at 40X, day in and day out, year-round, and at any venue. I did not attribute this to ED glass at the time; I just figured the March was much better than the NF.
8 years later, I acquired a March-X 10-60X56 HM. This one has 2 Super-ED glass elements in it; the two largest lens elements right at the objective. After a little while, I found myself shooting at 50X all the time, regardless of mirage conditions. Now, I realize that PRS shooters are not concerned with mirage, and they stay at about 25X maximum so "shimmer protection" is not a concern for them, but in F-Class (boo, hiss) mirage is a huge concern and anything that can mitigate it in any way is welcome and the Super ED glass used in the March-X 10-60X56 HM does better in heavy mirage conditions, compared to their ED and especially traditional glass.
That said, in good conditions, it's very difficult to discern IQ differences in the high-end glass. But when the mirage comes out to play (havoc), things become interesting.
A few years ago, Deon introduced the next level of ED glass in a few of their scopes. They call it High Master. Essentially, they use Super-ED glass and High Transmission glass in their optical system to reduce CA while maintaining a high degree of light transmittance.
The ultimate CA controlling glass is pure fluorite crystal glass. However, that type of glass is fragile, difficult to make and polish and is also affected by environmental factors (heat/cold). Not something that would do well in a riflescope. ED glass does not have the same degree of CA control compared to pure FC, but it's much better than traditional glass. This was invented back in the late-60s early-70s by Nikon (and others, I'm sure) for their camera lenses. Sometime later, Nikon created Super ED to try to get closer to pure FC. In fact, Super ED contains a lot of FC in the formula.
I understand there are varying grades of ED and Super ED glass from different sources, and of course, it's all shrouded in mystery. Intentionally.
It has recently come to light that the Super ED glass used by Deon in the March scopes, has a definite advantage over regular ED and especially traditional glass, and this is what Deon terms "shimmer protection." Let me explain.
I'm an F-class shooter (boo, hiss, get out of here) and as such I stare at the same target at every match, everywhere I go. About 12 years ago, I bought an NF NXS 12-42X56 for my F-TR rifle. As usual, when the mirage got bad (and in South Texas, it has a tendency of doing that, all the time), I would dial down from 42X to the low 30s, sometimes a little further down. A few years later, I bought a March-X 5-50X56 with ED glass to replace the NXS. It didn't really register with me for a while, but I was always at 40X, day in and day out, year-round, and at any venue. I did not attribute this to ED glass at the time; I just figured the March was much better than the NF.
8 years later, I acquired a March-X 10-60X56 HM. This one has 2 Super-ED glass elements in it; the two largest lens elements right at the objective. After a little while, I found myself shooting at 50X all the time, regardless of mirage conditions. Now, I realize that PRS shooters are not concerned with mirage, and they stay at about 25X maximum so "shimmer protection" is not a concern for them, but in F-Class (boo, hiss) mirage is a huge concern and anything that can mitigate it in any way is welcome and the Super ED glass used in the March-X 10-60X56 HM does better in heavy mirage conditions, compared to their ED and especially traditional glass.
That said, in good conditions, it's very difficult to discern IQ differences in the high-end glass. But when the mirage comes out to play (havoc), things become interesting.
The discussion by Denys is impressive.
A lot of folks below this level, claim they have this or that "widget" in their optics, which may or may not be true, and regardless of whether they have the skill sets to use that technology to its best advantage.
March reminds me of Contax-Yashica by Kyocera which were very innovative folks whose cameras were designed by the Porche Design Group, using Carl Zeiss lenses made under license in Japan. My Contax AX was/is one of the most innovative cameras ever produced. The Carl Zeiss lenses made under license were every bit as lushly damped, and equaled the performance of their German versions, although some folks always claimed they could tell the difference bet. the lenses.
Folks who have OCD (real bad), and too much time on their hands, who are nuts enough to love working out problems in math/trig usually get into this, but luckily that's who you have running these top tier outfits.
Before I got the High Master 4.5-28X52 from March, I'd read everything I could about them, and reading the discussion about their head optical designer impressed me a great deal.
marchscopes.com
Particularly impressive was the mention of this obscure line, and what he's discussing in this quote.
.........."40 years ago, we handwrote the aberration diagram and designed lenses by calculating every single ray of light using a pocket calculator. Our job was to use the calculator throughout the day. But now thanks to the computer it instantly calculates hundreds of rays of light and we can even print out an aberration diagram."..........
The classical term for what he was doing is "ray tracing", where he was using a pocket calculator, to trace the path of a single ray of light, which gets pretty involved (computers now do this work),so his skill sets and those of March involve not only innovation in the newest types of glass but their incorporation into formulas that produce brilliant IQ.
This link includes some of the optical "mumbo jumbo" involved in this, and I'm not suggesting anybody read it, it's enough for folks unfamiliar w/the subject matter to briefly/quickly scroll down to get an impression of how much detail is involved that these folks master in producing the best. That's the point, a lot of folks can do this, the folks behind these top tier scopes are the best at it.
Image Formation by Lenses | Physics (lumenlearning.com)
Now having said that, If what you see becomes interesting, by all means keep reading.
I picked March as my 1st top tier scope for a number of reasons, which is by no means a slap at the other outfits, indeed there are other scopes out there that others rate w/better IQ.
The bottom line is that March reminded me a lot of my Contax gear, and I just thought it fitting to give them a shot.
The payoff was when I brought the scope home and opened the box and started handling this "jewel". Looking through this thing is dynamite.
I did this shot of the scope a few days after I got it.
A lot of folks below this level, claim they have this or that "widget" in their optics, which may or may not be true, and regardless of whether they have the skill sets to use that technology to its best advantage.
March reminds me of Contax-Yashica by Kyocera which were very innovative folks whose cameras were designed by the Porche Design Group, using Carl Zeiss lenses made under license in Japan. My Contax AX was/is one of the most innovative cameras ever produced. The Carl Zeiss lenses made under license were every bit as lushly damped, and equaled the performance of their German versions, although some folks always claimed they could tell the difference bet. the lenses.
Folks who have OCD (real bad), and too much time on their hands, who are nuts enough to love working out problems in math/trig usually get into this, but luckily that's who you have running these top tier outfits.
Before I got the High Master 4.5-28X52 from March, I'd read everything I could about them, and reading the discussion about their head optical designer impressed me a great deal.
Meet the March Scope’s Top Lens Designer – Nishikubo | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation
MARCH Scopes Official Site
marchscopes.com
Particularly impressive was the mention of this obscure line, and what he's discussing in this quote.
.........."40 years ago, we handwrote the aberration diagram and designed lenses by calculating every single ray of light using a pocket calculator. Our job was to use the calculator throughout the day. But now thanks to the computer it instantly calculates hundreds of rays of light and we can even print out an aberration diagram."..........
The classical term for what he was doing is "ray tracing", where he was using a pocket calculator, to trace the path of a single ray of light, which gets pretty involved (computers now do this work),so his skill sets and those of March involve not only innovation in the newest types of glass but their incorporation into formulas that produce brilliant IQ.
This link includes some of the optical "mumbo jumbo" involved in this, and I'm not suggesting anybody read it, it's enough for folks unfamiliar w/the subject matter to briefly/quickly scroll down to get an impression of how much detail is involved that these folks master in producing the best. That's the point, a lot of folks can do this, the folks behind these top tier scopes are the best at it.
Image Formation by Lenses | Physics (lumenlearning.com)
Now having said that, If what you see becomes interesting, by all means keep reading.
I picked March as my 1st top tier scope for a number of reasons, which is by no means a slap at the other outfits, indeed there are other scopes out there that others rate w/better IQ.
The bottom line is that March reminded me a lot of my Contax gear, and I just thought it fitting to give them a shot.
The payoff was when I brought the scope home and opened the box and started handling this "jewel". Looking through this thing is dynamite.
I did this shot of the scope a few days after I got it.
Last edited:
Here is a link to a news item at Deon that talks about the "shimmer protection" from ED and especially Super-ED glass.
And here is an article that talks about the use of ED and Super-ED glass in the March riflescopes.
And here is an article that talks about the use of ED and Super-ED glass in the March riflescopes.
see here what the riflescope is?
I'm not clear on what you're saying. You quote one sentence out of my discussion w/a reference to what looks like a poll based on 709 responses.
On top of this box you've included below my quote, is the phrase "Rate how important each element is to a scope's overall performance"
Are U kidding???
EVERY piece of glass in an optical system affects the performance of every other piece of glass in that system. They sink or swim together.
How can U have any piece of glass/lens element/lens group in an optical system and not affect the performance of that system, it's impossible.
If a piece of glass is incorporated into an optic, it's either improving the performance of that system or fucking it up, there's no such thing as a piece of glass in an optic "that ain't doing nuthing." If a piece of glass is in an optical system, believe me, it's doing something.
If you want clarification re the sentence of mine U quoted, when I refer to "others" that means just a few folks, that I listen to after I begin to feel comfortable that they know what they're talking about. I don't listen to 709 people about anything.
Maybe I've got this wrong/misunderstanding the point you're trying to make so I'll wait 4 your respone before I say anything else.
On top of this box you've included below my quote, is the phrase "Rate how important each element is to a scope's overall performance"
Are U kidding???
EVERY piece of glass in an optical system affects the performance of every other piece of glass in that system. They sink or swim together.
How can U have any piece of glass/lens element/lens group in an optical system and not affect the performance of that system, it's impossible.
If a piece of glass is incorporated into an optic, it's either improving the performance of that system or fucking it up, there's no such thing as a piece of glass in an optic "that ain't doing nuthing." If a piece of glass is in an optical system, believe me, it's doing something.
If you want clarification re the sentence of mine U quoted, when I refer to "others" that means just a few folks, that I listen to after I begin to feel comfortable that they know what they're talking about. I don't listen to 709 people about anything.
Maybe I've got this wrong/misunderstanding the point you're trying to make so I'll wait 4 your respone before I say anything else.
I have a single March scope for National Match highpower rifle competition, and bought a duplicate for my son.
I was taught early, when it comes to optics for long range buy the best you can afford.
My personal one-off spotting scope experience comes from using the Kowa 821 (standard glass) to 823 (Prominar fluorite HD), to 883 (also Prominar fluorite), as well as the premium Highlander binocular spotting scope (fluorite lenses).
Your highest-index premium fluorites have superior clarity, allowing you not only to see fine difference in mirage, but also different layers from surface to trajectory apogee as you follow your bullet's trace.
I was taught early, when it comes to optics for long range buy the best you can afford.
My personal one-off spotting scope experience comes from using the Kowa 821 (standard glass) to 823 (Prominar fluorite HD), to 883 (also Prominar fluorite), as well as the premium Highlander binocular spotting scope (fluorite lenses).
Your highest-index premium fluorites have superior clarity, allowing you not only to see fine difference in mirage, but also different layers from surface to trajectory apogee as you follow your bullet's trace.
@Convex I'm as confused as you are about the grid that MM007 posted, but perhaps for different reasons.
In my mind, anyone who said that optical performance is not "VERY important" should be ignored from that point forward. That also goes for the next question about the importance of mechanical performance. If the respondent does not say "VERY important" to that question also, (s)he should be ignored.
This survey of 709 people shows that at least 302 of them should be ignored, perhaps more if some of the 407 in the first question did not respond properly to the second question.
In my mind, anyone who said that optical performance is not "VERY important" should be ignored from that point forward. That also goes for the next question about the importance of mechanical performance. If the respondent does not say "VERY important" to that question also, (s)he should be ignored.
This survey of 709 people shows that at least 302 of them should be ignored, perhaps more if some of the 407 in the first question did not respond properly to the second question.
what is more important? to have best glass, and your scope can't hold zero, or have average glass and you have perfect mechanic.
if you are stupid and you dont know that riflescope is primarly a mechanical device, you are lost in space.
just like alex wheeler's test show, how march and nightforce f-class scopes sucked at holding zero, just like you should be worried primarily about mechanical component of the scope and the next thing is optical performance. and not vice versa.
if you are stupid and you dont know that riflescope is primarly a mechanical device, you are lost in space.
just like alex wheeler's test show, how march and nightforce f-class scopes sucked at holding zero, just like you should be worried primarily about mechanical component of the scope and the next thing is optical performance. and not vice versa.
If you are paying as much money as these scopes cost, you should not be satisfied with anything other than excellent performance both optically and mechanically.
I have not idea who Alex Wheeler is, but I have a lot of mileage with March scopes. They are very well made and hold zero exceedingly well. As well as anything else out there. Out of a couple of hundred or so scopes I have laying around, I can think of at least six March scopes and zero retention on these six have been flawless. Historically, I think I have seen one March scope that needed to go back for mechanical issues a few years ago, so it is probably about on par with other competing brands in the same price range.
ILya
I thought I would drop this off here for information purposes.
I realize it's an SFP scope and it's F-class, but it's germane to this thread.
I realize it's an SFP scope and it's F-class, but it's germane to this thread.
They outlawed Barska at all national and international shooting competitions because it gave shooters an unfair advantage, but they’re so expensive that only the richest can afford them.
I’d start and end with Barska. Everyone else is playing for a distant second place.
I’d start and end with Barska. Everyone else is playing for a distant second place.
Couldn't we all be so lucky... You're not missing anything. I used to get into arguments with him and that Cortina dude over on LRH all the time. Everyone would kiss their asses like they were rockstars, and then would defend them tooth and nail, and acted like they were the shining pinnacle of shooting, if you disagreed with what they said to do, or how they do things. It's cult-like...
This post above is funny…Aren’t some of Alex Wheeler’s builds, World Record Holders?
And now you’re on SH, as the Unofficial President of the Arken Optics fan club… do we get a decoder ring and autographed photo if we join?
Yeah, it's right next to the strap-on your wife uses to peg you every night.
nice.I thought I would drop this off here for information purposes.
I realize it's an SFP scope and it's F-class, but it's germane to this thread.
but we must have in mind, that they shoot with SPONSOR equipement.
rest of us dont.
That is completely incorrect in this case. While there certainly are sponsored shooters (and they wear shirts that list their various sponsors,) and some of them actually do well, Tim is not sponsored by anyone but himself. I believe that is true of the first 3 or 4 (or more) places in F-Open this year. Tim's insistence in not wanting to be sponsored is because he wants to be able to use what he considers to be the very best equipment, so he buys it himself. He has at least 2 March-X 10-60X56 HM scopes, which he acquired as he divested himself of other brands.
I had been testing the March prototype for a couple of months and arranged to have Tim use it for the Nationals. I know Tim. He is an extraordinary shooter. He is a gifted marksman who is disciplined and methodical in his approach. We knew that mirage was going to be a big issue in Phoenix, especially after they actually had some rain. The conditions didn't disappoint.
The reason the prototype did so well in the mirage is because of the Super ED lenses and a few other tweaks engineered by the optical engineers at DEON. I realize that mirage is not a very big deal at this site, but in F-Class long range, it's a huge deal. I have been writing about that subject for several years at another site, so this is a subject near and dear to me. 80X in the desert at midday on a 1000 yards NRA LR1-FC target is a huge deal and a testament to Super ED glass, the subject of this thread.
first
i am sure that Tim wasnt winning because of this super scope.
second
other scopes are just as good if not better. like I said, alex wheeler tests scopes for optical AND mechanical performance few years ago on more than one sample of each scope, and he came to some conclusions, that probably didnt like somebody, and topic is deleted from accurate shooter forum!
third
10× zoom is NOT helping at optical performance!
I bet that nightforce co 15-55x52 is still better. which was the best on wheeler's test (not surprising, because it has 3,7× zoom ratio), but mechanicly crap. march HM 10-60 was mediocre opticaly, mechanicaly also crap. more than 1 sample!
i am sure that Tim wasnt winning because of this super scope.
second
other scopes are just as good if not better. like I said, alex wheeler tests scopes for optical AND mechanical performance few years ago on more than one sample of each scope, and he came to some conclusions, that probably didnt like somebody, and topic is deleted from accurate shooter forum!
third
10× zoom is NOT helping at optical performance!
I bet that nightforce co 15-55x52 is still better. which was the best on wheeler's test (not surprising, because it has 3,7× zoom ratio), but mechanicly crap. march HM 10-60 was mediocre opticaly, mechanicaly also crap. more than 1 sample!
I stopped reading after that first statement. You just called my friend Tim a liar.
His statement in the article is:
I'm done discussing anything with you.
I didn't call him a liar. you made this up. you are a liar.
I am sure that Tim could win with any scope. that's the point.
and those +2 points are just his OPINION, not fact. how can he be so sure, if he didnt try other scopes? because this is MARKETING BULLSHIT.
and like I said, less zoom in riflescopes -> better image. simple physics. which is unknown to you !
He just got through WINNING A CHAMPIONSHIP w/the March; It doesn't make any difference what he didn't use, and ANYBODY would consider the validity of his opinion of how he won w/what he did use.
He used a March scope, to become a Champion, in my book that is an achievement, so what you do is give him credit for that instead of calling his achievement "marketing bullshit" and/or passing along secondhand pronouncements/blanket generalizations from tests you didn't do, w/no specifics.
From out of your own mouth, these were tests "so good" they got deleted from another venue.
"Marketing bullshit" is when performance doesn't back up a claim, that suggestion is impossible here since he WON.
ANYBODY can show up here and call ANYTHING crap, or a pos, that's just your opinion, isn't it, until you can back up w/you suggest w/specifics.
Denys is no liar.
He used a March scope, to become a Champion, in my book that is an achievement, so what you do is give him credit for that instead of calling his achievement "marketing bullshit" and/or passing along secondhand pronouncements/blanket generalizations from tests you didn't do, w/no specifics.
From out of your own mouth, these were tests "so good" they got deleted from another venue.
"Marketing bullshit" is when performance doesn't back up a claim, that suggestion is impossible here since he WON.
ANYBODY can show up here and call ANYTHING crap, or a pos, that's just your opinion, isn't it, until you can back up w/you suggest w/specifics.
Denys is no liar.
Last edited:
if he call me a liar, than he is.
on European F-Class championship at Bisley, garry costello also had this march scope. but he was only third in F-Open. find out which scope had first and second.
just want to say; if you think that march made some special scope that it will win matches by itself, than march's marketing has done very good job.
"just want to say; if you think that march made some special scope that it will win matches by itself, than march's marketing has done very good job.".........
I DON'T think that
I DON'T think that about anybody who uses any scope to win any match.
A"STRAW MAN" is when U put "words into somebodies' mouth" which sound ridiculous, so U can dismiss something no one EXCEPT YOU has suggested in the 1st place.
Also known as misstating another's position by twisting it into your ridiculous version of what they never said in the 1st place.
THAT is what I'm thinking about.
I DON'T think that
I DON'T think that about anybody who uses any scope to win any match.
A"STRAW MAN" is when U put "words into somebodies' mouth" which sound ridiculous, so U can dismiss something no one EXCEPT YOU has suggested in the 1st place.
Also known as misstating another's position by twisting it into your ridiculous version of what they never said in the 1st place.
THAT is what I'm thinking about.
Last edited:
Kinda like when your Bro Denny twisted MarkyMark007's words to accuse him of calling his boy Tim a liar?
Man oh man there's some serious ego up in here
Which is why a close and detailed scrutiny of these optics by folks around here like Glassaholic AND Denys and all the other knowledgeable folks around here is so valuable. I have also always found the reviews of Koshkin to be detailed and nuanced.
I would suggest that Glassaholic's recent test of top tier optics along w/all the other reviews of the optics on other levels has enabled many to be able to make a more informed choice, and which will probably save folks money in the long run.
I would suggest that Glassaholic's recent test of top tier optics along w/all the other reviews of the optics on other levels has enabled many to be able to make a more informed choice, and which will probably save folks money in the long run.
Last edited:
"Kinda like when your Bro Denny twisted MarkyMark007's words to accuse him of calling his boy Tim a liar?
Man oh man there's some serious ego up in here".......
MarkyMarkOO7 and Denys "buttin heads" has been going on for a long time, that ain't got nothing to do w/MarkyMark007 reading my mind because he can't.
I brought up Marky Mark007 putting words in my mouth and you're right,, I got/get a SERIOUS EGO when that happens.
Guilty as charged and proud of it.
As to whatever has been going on w/MarkyMark007 and Denys, Denys has DISENGAGED, and lets see if MarkyMark007 does the same thing. Without saying whose right, both men have called each other a liar, there's nothing else/left for them to discuss.
Man oh man there's some serious ego up in here".......
MarkyMarkOO7 and Denys "buttin heads" has been going on for a long time, that ain't got nothing to do w/MarkyMark007 reading my mind because he can't.
I brought up Marky Mark007 putting words in my mouth and you're right,, I got/get a SERIOUS EGO when that happens.
Guilty as charged and proud of it.
As to whatever has been going on w/MarkyMark007 and Denys, Denys has DISENGAGED, and lets see if MarkyMark007 does the same thing. Without saying whose right, both men have called each other a liar, there's nothing else/left for them to discuss.
Last edited:
I thought this was a thread about Erectile Dysfunction, took a minute to realize I wasn’t in the Bear Pit subforum.
I'm making use of the ignore feature at this site.
This thread is about ED and Super ED glass. Early on (July 5), I detailed my observations and understanding of the benefits of this type of glass. In a nutshell, all top tier optics do extremely well when the conditions are great, but when the "mirage" gets into the game, the IQ in the various optics suffer to varying degrees. In F-Class, the optics are usually set above 40X (depending on the riflescope, of course.) Shooters will hold on the target and being able to see the rings is important in that respect. As the mirage increases and the IQ decreases, identifying the rings, let alone trying to hold using those rings becomes problematical. People will wind down the magnification trying to get the aiming black under control, going down in to the 30s or less. Most any decent scope does a good job in the mirage at 25X, but you do not see the rings anymore to place the reticle, and that X-ring is 5 inches in diameter. This is where the high magnification Super ED glassed riflescopes shine. My March-X 10-60X56 HM is always at 50X regardless of conditions and I can see the rings. It is not a perfect image by any means, but it's usable and the rings are distinct.
I was pleasantly surprised when I first looked through the new March-X 8-80X56 HM and saw that even in bad mirage, I could stay at 80X. I was expecting maybe 60X being the most in bad mirage, but 80X was usable. Tim confirmed that and shot the US F-class LR championship with that scope set at 75X to 80X the whole time. He was explaining that in the early morning, before the mirage, he could see the numbers on the LR1FC face and could hold on the 10, between the 1 and the 0. During the second match, he could still see the 10 and would be able to hold on it and during the 3rd match (mid-afternoon) he could not make out the 10 to read it, but he could see that it was there and be able to hold on it.
The other feature that he likes very much is the wide-angle view of the target area and at 80X, he could see the hits on the targets to his left and right, while focusing on his target.
To me, and to many others, the benefits of Super ED glass in a high magnification riflescope have been identified and confirmed and this new riflescope takes full advantage of those benefits and that's good for the shooters.
if you are interested, here is thread about it's thread: https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/alex-wheeler-scope-testing.4018845/
I will find out if google has some cache to see original test page. few years ago it was still possible.
A scope shift you should be aware of.
This popped into my head today and I thought I should let you guys know. About 7 years ago we started having a problem with a popular scope in long range BR. So we started testing scopes. The process was to mount 2 scopes on a solid one piece mount, one scope was frozen. Locked up so it cant...
www.longrangeonly.com
Scope Tester Results
Scope tester data gathered by the members of the Accurate Shooter Forum
bisonballistics.com
some pictures of the test.
Rifle Scopes - Scope checker
I'm curious... I've seen a few threads on people making jigs/fixtures to hold scopes for testing tracking while off the rifle. Heard @Lowlight mention something along those lines in a podcast. I'm seeing people talking about whether the scope tracks... but not so much about whether the optic...
www.snipershide.com
That elevation turret doesn't lock, correct?The discussion by Denys is impressive.
A lot of folks below this level, claim they have this or that "widget" in their optics, which may or may not be true, and regardless of whether they have the skill sets to use that technology to its best advantage.
March reminds me of Contax-Yashica by Kyocera which were very innovative folks whose cameras were designed by the Porche Design Group, using Carl Zeiss lenses made under license in Japan. My Contax AX was/is one of the most innovative cameras ever produced. The Carl Zeiss lenses made under license were every bit as lushly damped, and equaled the performance of their German versions, although some folks always claimed they could tell the difference bet. the lenses.
Folks who have OCD (real bad), and too much time on their hands, who are nuts enough to love working out problems in math/trig usually get into this, but luckily that's who you have running these top tier outfits.
Before I got the High Master 4.5-28X52 from March, I'd read everything I could about them, and reading the discussion about their head optical designer impressed me a great deal.
Meet the March Scope’s Top Lens Designer – Nishikubo | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation
MARCH Scopes Official Site
Particularly impressive was the mention of this obscure line, and what he's discussing in this quote.
.........."40 years ago, we handwrote the aberration diagram and designed lenses by calculating every single ray of light using a pocket calculator. Our job was to use the calculator throughout the day. But now thanks to the computer it instantly calculates hundreds of rays of light and we can even print out an aberration diagram."..........
The classical term for what he was doing is "ray tracing", where he was using a pocket calculator, to trace the path of a single ray of light, which gets pretty involved (computers now do this work),so his skill sets and those of March involve not only innovation in the newest types of glass but their incorporation into formulas that produce brilliant IQ.
This link includes some of the optical "mumbo jumbo" involved in this, and I'm not suggesting anybody read it, it's enough for folks unfamiliar w/the subject matter to briefly/quickly scroll down to get an impression of how much detail is involved that these folks master in producing the best. That's the point, a lot of folks can do this, the folks behind these top tier scopes are the best at it.
Image Formation by Lenses | Physics (lumenlearning.com)
Now having said that, If what you see becomes interesting, by all means keep reading.
I picked March as my 1st top tier scope for a number of reasons, which is by no means a slap at the other outfits, indeed there are other scopes out there that others rate w/better IQ.
The bottom line is that March reminded me a lot of my Contax gear, and I just thought it fitting to give them a shot.
The payoff was when I brought the scope home and opened the box and started handling this "jewel". Looking through this thing is dynamite.
I did this shot of the scope a few days after I got it.
Genuine question here...I'm really at a loss to explain how any scope can lessen mirage since that is an optical effect happening outside of the physical properties of the optical system in a scope. I use a lot of really high end camera gear in a wide variety of climates. Some of the lenses are north of $12K yet given the right atmospheric conditions, are hindered by mirage. They all feature fluorite, ED, Super ED, aspheric elements, etc....It's exacerbated by focal length but there's no getting around it. An 800mm lens on a hot summer day is going to magnify the mirage effect more than a 200mm lens. No amount of optical optimization, outside of viewing in wavelengths beyond human vision, is going to change that.
I could see an optical system that delivers more contrast helping a bit in terms of white wash (flaring) in a mirage situation but it's still going to exhibit mirage effects and optical distortion since the light entering the scope is distorted as it enters its first element. I've not used any super high end scopes hence my genuine interest in how it's possible. To me it's like saying a scope has x-ray vision. Curious if someone can explain what they're seeing in a scope that minimizes mirage. It's a real issue for me personally in hot ass Texas.
I could see an optical system that delivers more contrast helping a bit in terms of white wash (flaring) in a mirage situation but it's still going to exhibit mirage effects and optical distortion since the light entering the scope is distorted as it enters its first element. I've not used any super high end scopes hence my genuine interest in how it's possible. To me it's like saying a scope has x-ray vision. Curious if someone can explain what they're seeing in a scope that minimizes mirage. It's a real issue for me personally in hot ass Texas.
imho coating. there are different coatings on the lences.
if I am correct, withouth coatings you will get worse picture.
if I am correct, withouth coatings you will get worse picture.
Last edited:
Technically incorrect, but practically, you nailed it. Depends on the technology, but yes, companies have been saying things like "HD" glass for years which means absolutely nothing except to the person they marketed it to.
Absolutely, agree with you 100%. Multi-coatings have helped improve image quality substantially by aiding in light transmission, reduced flaring and color fidelity/contrast. I have to wonder if it's a contrast effect, the viewer is able to discern the target a bit better through the mirage vs. a scope with sub-par multi-coating or lens quality. Chromatic aberration reduction through the use of special glass elements also "sharpens" the picture edge to edge but wouldn't eliminate mirage.
Through my years of messing with optics (not all were mine, but I’ve spent lots of time glassing through them), including some true alpha tier scopes (Kahles, Zeiss, Swaro, NF, S&B, Kowa, USO, March, and even a few Hensoldts thrown in the mix), you are 100% correct that mirage still happens, because it is an external factor. Like you say, certain higher quality coatings help with CA reduction to sharpen the image, but it will never eliminate mirage, being it happens outside of the scope. Thats why when folks talk about “Scope-X” will eliminate mirage, I typically stop listening to them seriously.
Good question. DEON has posted this at their site:
In response to your last question:
These Super ED riflescopes do NOT eliminate mirage; that was never claimed. In mirage conditions, the IQ is affected, but in a different way compared to lesser glass.
My experience is only with the NRA LR1FC target which consists of a target that has a tan background and a 44-inch black aiming black in the middle. Inside of the aiming black, there are several layers of concentric rings, and the ring demarcation is about a quarter inch wide and is tan colored. The innermost ring, the X-ring, is 5 inches in diameter.
F-class shooters like high magnification (40X+) as they use the rings to place the reticle, or otherwise judge the hold-off needed. Waterline is also a big issue, especially when holding off, so being able to identify the X-ring is important. When the mirage gets going, the rings seem to take on an electric aura, yet they still stay round and distinct. From a photographic perspective, the IQ is pure crap. But for aiming purposes, the fact the rings stay round and are distinct allows me to place the reticle where I want, surgically. When I was using a top tier non-ED lensed riflescope, I had to dial down from 42 because the aiming black was pulsating like crazy at high magnification. Dropping down into the 20sX would calm the aiming black, but the rings were invisible; all I saw was darker mud.
When I got my first March ED riflescope, I put it at 40X, and left it there all the time because the IQ of the target was always usable. Around me on the line, I heard people complaining about the mirage and dialing down their high-priced riflescopes. When I got my March Super ED glassed riflescope, I increased to 50X and it remains there all the time. That's when I reported this to DEON and was met with deep incredulity. Read the article to which I linked above.
DEON worked a little more magic in the new March-X 8-80X56 HM WA and when I looked through it, side by side with my 10-60X56 HM at the same magnification, I realized the IQ in the new riflescope was not degrading as fast in the mirage as in my existing scope. Tim proved that my observations were not unfounded when he used the new scope at 75X to 80X for the entire Long-Range championship and won the match. He explains it quite well in the article to which I linked several days ago.
TL;DR\
There is a fundamental difference between a camera lens and a riflescope, as you well know. When you couple that with the acceptable level of IQ for the different purposes, you understand that the acceptable IQ for a riflescope is much less than the one for a photograph.
do you know how this new march compare with nightforce CO 15-55x52 or Kahles K1050 or maybe new high power ZCO?
