-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes German vs Japanese glass....... dollar per dollar what's your take?
- Thread starter russkim04
- Start date
Not good, the silica content in Phillipino glass is too low. Thus reducing the refractive index of the glass.
Japanese glass is better but the latest products have been negatively effected by the Fukushima incident, the sand they use in the glass has radioactive elements that screw with the coatings they put on.
Stick with German glass.
Scott glass always comes out on top in the scope glass comparison tests.
After using all sorts of different search terms, I've been unable to google any information about that. Lots of articles about food and environmental contamination, but nothing specifically about contaminated optical glass. Can you post up any links to that? Not disputing your assertion, as it sounds plausible and likely to have occurred to some degree; I would just like to read more about it.
I do not think you can assume (for example) that Schmidt&Bender only uses german glass. They might also use japanese glass or source from somewhere else. The secret sauce of scope companies is the glass treatment, polish and coating and not so much where the raw material is sourced from. (as long as it has the desired properties)
Nobody cares where they get their aluminium or steel from, as long as it does the job.
Nobody cares where they get their aluminium or steel from, as long as it does the job.
Last edited:
They realized soon enough that their vision was faulty.Both pretty good. Generally LOW or Zeiss do the grinding an polishing and coating.
There is a part of me that wonders (not all the time), but what is it about the Axis Powers of WW-II that make such great optics?
As a surveyor, Ive spent the past 35 years looking through glass all day long every day from distances as close as five feet away all the way out to 10,500 feet (Jake Clarkson looked like a candle at that distance)
In the late 80s/early 90s we were using swiss glass made by Wild. In the mid 90s I discovered Carl Zeiss.
In the late 90s, Sokkia glass 20x
The 10,500 shot was with the sokkia glass.
The Carl Zeiss glass was my favorite.
In the late 80s/early 90s we were using swiss glass made by Wild. In the mid 90s I discovered Carl Zeiss.
In the late 90s, Sokkia glass 20x
The 10,500 shot was with the sokkia glass.
The Carl Zeiss glass was my favorite.
Stop being poor and you’ll definitely see the difference 
That’s why I had to stop looking through other peoples scopes—-they’re so good they make me hate mine!
favorite caviar thread?
when i was still in school, i worked for a short time at meade instruments, shaping and polishing lenses and mirrors for telescopes.
based on the little knowledge i gained from this, i would have to say the quality control and standards make as much difference as anything.
that isn't to say that the raw glass quality doesn't set the ultimate limits for the final product...
when i was still in school, i worked for a short time at meade instruments, shaping and polishing lenses and mirrors for telescopes.
based on the little knowledge i gained from this, i would have to say the quality control and standards make as much difference as anything.
that isn't to say that the raw glass quality doesn't set the ultimate limits for the final product...
I would assume the US makes the best glass in the world. NRO birds and their history going back to Keystone with the likes of eastman kodak and the other players would make me think the US makes the finest glass in the world.
Problem is who can afford a 4 billion dollar rifle scope.
Problem is who can afford a 4 billion dollar rifle scope.
All I know is the Nikon Coolpix P900 that I own can pick out the moons around Jupiter, and show the ridges on the impact craters on the moon. They make some mighty fine optics.
Perhaps you mean the Keyhole satellites. At any rate, the secret sauce here is the size of the lenses and since the digital photography age, the density of the digital sensor. This has very little to do with riflescopes.
i wonder how well that camera would work as a spotter, and you can take video.
maybe we have been doing this all wrong!
Hold out for a Counter sniper over run, you can’t put a value on the best.
I believe that camera has a 40X equivalent magnification. The zoom range is bigger at, I think 82X, but that's from wide angle to telephoto.
The sensor size is very small, I think it uses the 1/2.3 inch sensor with something like 16mp. It will be subject to mirage of course, and it doesn't have ED glass to help with mirage.
I think it's a great multipurpose camera, with lots of capabilities, but it's not a spotting scope.
What is value? To me, value is being able to retain something over the long haul rather than having to trade it for something better and lose half my money in the process.
German scopes are awesome. You won’t have that urge to trade up.
i thought he was referring to how much actual difference it makes to the typical (non Horta or German) shooter on some kind of budget.
paying $1-3k more for a scope means very different things to different people (skill level and purpose not withstanding).
a couple thousand bucks to some people is only the difference in the cost of one hotel or another on their next vacation.
for others, it is a choice of whether to cut down on beer or the kid's new gear.
it's a tough decision in a town called malice.
It works perfect as a spotter, recorder. Just use a tripod. Works OK even at 1000 yards. Take a gander at the zoom uploads on youtube of the p900 and p1000. The 900 is actually more stable.
I'd say a lot of it is anecdotal based on the say so of internet grand wizards
Aren’t arc seconds more objective than anecdotes?
Similar threads
