Rifle Scopes Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

[FORESTBARBER]

I have read a bunch of threads here re expensive scopes. They have been really helpful.

I have searched, honest, and can't find anything objective - or at least scientific/understandable - comparing the quality of the optical glass in high quality scopes.

Let's say "scope" is the package. "Glass" is the optical glass in the "scope"

Has there been anything done/published that compares the "glass" in the high end scope's , USO, Premier, NF, S&B, Zeiss, Leupold, ad your fave here?

I'd sure like to see it

I see one optics provider, Liberty, saying Premier glass (the optical glass) is hands down the best available.

I guess clarity and contrast are the most important qualities of good glass.

Ideally it would be from the last few years for more current models.

Yes, I am wanting to by a high end scope. I don't need a tank I hope, but do want the best glass for a start.

After reading so much I attracted to USO, but I am trying to be practical re my budget. This scope will go on a .308 pr, but I see a high quality .338lm in my future.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

I've looked through a lot of scopes. I've rarely seen one where the optical quality made a difference to the shooter's ability to see the target well enough to shoot it, except in very low-light conditions.

The primary items of interest to me in a scope are, with the highest preference first:

1. Reticle - is it one suitable for all lighting conditions, and can I use it easily for holdovers, holdunders, moving target leads, and wind holds? (That pretty much means a FFP reticle.)

2. Reliability. That means the scope must be rugged <span style="font-style: italic">and</span> the adjustment system must be repeatable and reliable.

3. Power Range. I'd like at least a 4-1 zoom ratio. For tactical shooting, I like a power range of 4-16. If I can get a 5-1 zoom ratio, I'd prefer 4-20.

4. Eye relief. Generous eye relief, and one which changes little with power changes.

5. Optical quality.

6. Price.

Getting wrapped around the axle about optical quality is, IMO, not useful. Yeah, a pretty picture is nice, and high magnifications are good at long distance - until the mirage kicks up, which pretty well moots optical quality.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[beretta_man11]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

FeedstheNeed: you asked a great question, I tried a simalar question but worded it incorrectly (NF vs LEUPOLD vs HUSKEMAW) evidently. I can't afford the super high end scope but I am around the 1500$ range. Clarity was my main concern as well but now looking at at Lindy's response. It makes sense other than I would have to put $ up a little higher in the rankings. Good luck on your search. I'd like to hear the final word when you buy one.

 

[jsthntn247]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

I see allot of posts about this on every shooting forum I go to. All I can tell you is my experiences. I have a Sightron sIII 6-24, I got it cause it was all everyone talked about. I just recived a Vortex Viper 6-20x50 and compared it to my Sightron. I let all the women in the office look at a cartag 200 yards away, and all said the Vortex was clearer and easier to look through. So now WTF, I got 350 more bucks in the Sightron and all the old ladies say the cheaper one is clearer. I totally agree with Lindy, optical quality will be really close on most higher end scopes, some offer better reticle choices than others and thats where the differences is. I think allot of folks just like to talk about how much they paid for their scope.

 

[head2h2o]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

I own a few of the high end scopes that you mentioned above. I am in agreement with the others. Once you get above a certain price range, the glass is all good. My eyes cannot tell the difference. Of the scopes that I have, I think the best bang for the buck on the glass is the Zeiss Conquest. I have 2 and really like them both. They are not going to get you FFP or matching turrets and reticle, but you can get targets turrets to dial in your elevation and a mildot reticle or even their rapid Z 1000 reticle to match the 308 that you are looking at putting this on.

Glass quality is about the last thing I think about when I am choosing my scope. Matching turrets and reticle seem to be pretty high on my priority list these days along with a reticle that is "user friendly" for ranging and holdover.

 

[SAKOstalker]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

I have owned many and feel if u want the best asolute optics, its hard to. beat top of the line zeiss. The differences aren't enough to matter for the most part at that level though.

 

[Powder_Burns]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

Haven't compared a S&B to Zeiss side by side, but Zeiss beat NF and Leupold for color and clarity in my eyes. At the time I didn't know about edge to edge distortion or some of the other aspects to judge glass by, but there it is. Someone will probably be able to talk about the low-light image quality of these various scopes and that is a big selling point if you need to take shots at dawn, dusk, or at night.

 

[Bugaboo]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

You should test the scopes with your eyes. A guy I know had to sell Zeiss because he had problems focusing his eyes with glasses. He ended with Schmidt und Bender, because it suited his eyes better.

With the brands at the top the "glass" will be the same, there might be differences in coating, which plays great role too. But at the top these differences will be most likely measurable only in an optical lab.

 

[SAKOstalker]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

Not apples to apples but I compared a zeiss victory 2.5-10x42 to a nightforce 2.5-10x32 & the zeiss wasn't even marginally better, it was better by a fair margin day or night.

 

[Rob01]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've looked through a lot of scopes. I've rarely seen one where the optical quality made a difference to the shooter's ability to see the target well enough to shoot it, except in very low-light conditions.

The primary items of interest to me in a scope are, with the highest preference first:

1. Reticle - is it one suitable for all lighting conditions, and can I use it easily for holdovers, holdunders, moving target leads, and wind holds? (That pretty much means a FFP reticle.)

2. Reliability. That means the scope must be rugged <span style="font-style: italic">and</span> the adjustment system must be repeatable and reliable.

3. Power Range. I'd like at least a 4-1 zoom ratio. For tactical shooting, I like a power range of 4-16. If I can get a 5-1 zoom ratio, I'd prefer 4-20.

4. Eye relief. Generous eye relief, and one which changes little with power changes.

5. Optical quality.

6. Price.

Getting wrapped around the axle about optical quality is, IMO, not useful. Yeah, a pretty picture is nice, and high magnifications are good at long distance - until the mirage kicks up, which pretty well moots optical quality.

Your mileage may vary.
</div></div>

Read this again. It is very good info.

 

[dar1246]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

I like the S&Bs the most. I owned 3 of them. I also own 3 NF and just received my 4th NF 3.5x15. For the money and to get the job done. NF is the best bang for the buck. Glass is good and it tracks. If you have extra money the S&Bs are the cats meow.

I bought 2 March scopes awhile back. Great glass and tracks great but question the durability of the scope. The inch pds on the rings was 10 inch pds. Great scopes but I ended up selling them.
I have 2 Mark 4 scopes I bought 9 years ago. I still use them and they will get the job done. Now days the price of the scope doesn't make sense. You can get a NF for a couple of bucks more and get a scope that has proven track record.
Now days started to lean more to the 4x16 or th 3.5x15 scopes due to weight. This is plenty of power to shoot 1100 yards at my range.

The long and the short of what I'am saying is. Lindy hit it on the head.

 

[FORESTBARBER]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

Thanks all. I read Lindy's post this am and that really clarified/focused the issues.

I shot my M40A from Iron Brigade today with the 3.5X15 NF, and compared it to a client's rifle with a new Leupold, and my old SSG 69 with a Swarovski 6X42 ZFM.

Of the three the NF was the clear winner overall, though I like that ol Steyr. But it does have a stiff recoil for a .308!

Assuming the ZFM elevation turret is BDC for 7.62, anyone know what weight and velocity they are calibrated for?

 

[No_style]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

This is a good thread. I'm looking to purchase some not so high end scopes, but its nice to hear that there are other things that are *atleast* as important as optical quality if not more so. Nice to hear it from some seasoned shooters as well. It's given me some perspective again, I was so far around the axle about glass quality that I was starting to work my way up the tail-shaft and into the gearbox...

Every time I reckoned I had worked out what people seemed to think was the best quality glass in a price range I'd find posts stating the opposite with no way to validate the author. Stupid subjective crap

 

[azimutha]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

+1 on what Lindy said.

 

[Magnumdood]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: No Style</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is a good thread. I'm looking to purchase some not so high end scopes, but its nice to hear that there are other things that are *atleast* as important as optical quality if not more so. <span style="font-weight: bold">Nice to hear it from some seasoned shooters as well</span>. It's given me some perspective again, I was so far around the axle about glass quality that I was starting to work my way up the tail-shaft and into the gearbox...

Every time I reckoned I had worked out what people seemed to think was the best quality glass in a price range I'd find posts stating the opposite with no way to validate the author. Stupid subjective crap

</div></div>
I've been shooting and hunting for 40 years. I bought my first NF scope in 1997 and I owned a Zeiss before that. I had my first pure custom rifle built by Bill Wiseman in College Station, Texas. I'm on my 5th totally custom rifle and I own a Hensoldt scope.

Whenever I think I can shoot, I just come to this site and read. I read every other site on shooting I can find, but for the type of shooting that interests me, this site has more pure shooters than the rest of the other sites combined. Whenever I begin to think I can shoot a little, I visit here, and realize, in 40 years and untold thousands of dollars spent on custom rifles, high-end optics and reloading, I can't really shoot, not really. This site is very humbling.

 

[Bugaboo]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

If you narrow your selection to, say two scopes of the same quality and parameters, i would also look on tube diameter, after what Lindy wrote.

 

[TTH]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

Never had any problems with Leupold Mk4 scopes (6 over 20years). My favorite is the Leupold MK4 M2 3.5x10 I don't have any problem seeing small targets out to 1200yds. The TMR reticle is more accurate to range with than the mil dot(recently adapted). Get a good repeatable scope and work on ranging with it and learning your adjustments till you get to the point you are able to be effective. More practice reading wind and walking your shooter on target using trace far outweighs paying a whole bunch more for 5% more scope.

 

[89t295k]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

I'd like to side with the Author on this one.
I bought my Bushnell 4200 based on it's advertised light transmission (95%) and am pretty happy with it. Why are others not listing this information?

I don't think it should be on top of the priorities but, how hard can it be measure some of these details?

 

[Doc1911]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

From different sites that sell the scopes I found:

S&B, states that their light transmission is "min 90% day & night."

Zeiss 6-24x56 Tactical Hensoldt Telescopic 30mm Sight is greater than 88% and another site states the Hensoldt ZF 4-16x56 FF illuminated is "more than 90% transmission."

Premier Heritage +90%.

The Leupold VX-III rifle scope series from Leupold Optics comes with features such as the Index Matched Lens System for up to 98 percent total light transmission.

The Leupold above wins in LT, but I prefer the S&B as there are more factors (as stated very well above) than LT that make a scope.

 

[azimutha]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

Leupold's light-transmission claims seem to lack credibility. Better than a Hensoldt?

 

[Doc1911]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: azimutha</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Leupold's light-transmission claims seem to lack credibility. Better than a Hensoldt? </div></div>I agree.

 

[6Dasher]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

Never look at numbers, they are made by advertisers. Look through the scope!!!

Optic quality is almost always subjective as most only look at how much light they see, not the quality, edge performance, resolution etc. I rate my NF at the bottom of the list (optically) just at my Bushnell 6500, leupy above that, then March, then S&B at top (just for high magnification light performance vs the March).

My €0.02... look through the scope, don't believe anyone else to tell you (even me!).

 

[M24_SWS]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

I guess S&B and hensoldt are the top 2 it appears. Which one is better overall i have no idea but id love to own both.

 

[lizzardking308]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: M24SWS</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess S&B and hensoldt are the top 2 it appears. Which one is better overall i have no idea but id love to own both. </div></div>

Again, what did you actually contribute here????

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

10 more and he can sell!!!


I agree with Rob01 agreeing with Lindy. The vast majority of folks I see whose primary consideration in scopes is "optical clarity" are usually folks that own rifles that see very limited (if any) field use and turret-twising shooting.

 

[Jon A]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

OK, I'll offer an alternative point of view.

To me, accurate, repeatable tracking and unfailing reliability should be <span style="font-weight: bold">a given</span> for a $2000-$3500 or even a $1500 tactical scope. There's really no excuse for a tactical scope costing that much to have anything other than perfect tracking and reliability. Anything that doesn't you'll get rid of quickly. It's stating the obvious.

And note Lindy's qualification of "Except low light conditions." So it depends on what "field use" is. As but a mere hunter, to me that's hunting where often the most important time you have is during very low light conditions. Being able to clearly distinguish points on a rack to get the green light to pull the trigger gives me an advantage--I've let more bucks than I can count walk over the years (the same years I was a huge Leupold fan) after failing to confirm they were "taggable" in time to make the shot.

Finally, there's the idea of getting what you pay for. When a $1000+ or $1500+ scope gives you a poor image when compared with a $400 Conquest, WTF? How much would it really cost them to put better glass in the thing if Zeiss can do it on their "budget" line? That's more of a pet-peeve that I fully understand not everybody will share.

All that said, to give an example, with beautiful glass, fantastic reticle, great knobs and even perfect tracking, why don't I own an IOR 3-18 anymore? It wasn't reliable.

Like I said, saying that's what's most important is stating the obvious. I think it's a mistake to assume that people who don't state the obvious with every post are missing it. They may simply take it as a given, which it should be for "high end scopes" IMHO.

 

[rossneder]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

I've been holding my tongue a bit here.

We (as a forum) have debated for years, sometimes with civility about the requirements for a high end scope. I think the conclusion usually ends up "it depends". There is no one perfect scope and there is no one list of criteria to tick off.

It depends.

For me, my eyesight is nowhere even close to what it has been in my past. I'm pretty sure that many of you could make out details using an old Tasco that I would miss with the newest S&B. So, I agree with Jon, given an "expensive" scope I expect, reliability, repeatability, perfect tracking, lots of room to focus the reticle, correct subtensions etc, that's just expected not a criteria other than to exclude.

I need resolution and clarity to make up for age. If I can't resolve it clearly, I can't hit it, well many you may believe I can't hit it anyway but that's another matter. I offer the "deer" stage at the last TPRC as an example of resolution and the need for color discrimination. Another example would be the paper stages, if you can't resolve your bullet hole your finished. (admittedly at 100 yds even I could see most of them) but bump it to plates at 400, it's nice to see where you hit to make corrections.

Jon mentioned another great point about low light conditions, that quality really starts to discriminate between manufacturers. I understand that some companies will optimize the light transmission for a certain range in the visible spectrum and that it can be mutually exclusive to have great bright light and great low light function. Apparently it is a trade off. I'd love to see a stage that requires lowlight discrimination at TPRC or TBRC sometime.

So bottom line, head hung in great shame "Hello, My name is Ross and I shoot my guns and need optical quality in my scope".

Ross

 

[gugubica]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

The other things about how a scope is set up are WAY more important. Reticles, FFP or SFP, CW or CCW turrets, single or double turn, click spacing, mils per rev, mag range, adjutment range, zero stop, eye relief, illumination, etc, etc, etc.

Look to these things before glass quality. Every one is different and prefers different setups, you need to find which you prefer.

The glass on all the high end products is good. Don't get caught up in that alone.

 

[SAKOstalker]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

A freind and I have been comparing hunting scopes. Zeiss victory 2.5-10x42 & the S&B Klassik 3-12x42. On a scale of 1-10 in optics, we give the zeiss a 10 & S&B a 9.75. The Zeiss is ever so slightly a nicer overall image but not enough to make any practical differenece in any condition on any game. Both are outstanding.
The real difference is the S&B looks like a better built optic. Their are some thinga on the zeiss that "appear" cheap. I'm not saying the zEiss is cheap or uses cheap components but it does use some plastic whereas the S&B doesn't. Whether any of this matters is up to the end user.

 

[scotharr]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've looked through a lot of scopes. I've rarely seen one where the optical quality made a difference to the shooter's ability to see the target well enough to shoot it, except in very low-light conditions.

The primary items of interest to me in a scope are, with the highest preference first:

1. Reticle - is it one suitable for all lighting conditions, and can I use it easily for holdovers, holdunders, moving target leads, and wind holds? (That pretty much means a FFP reticle.)

2. Reliability. That means the scope must be rugged <span style="font-style: italic">and</span> the adjustment system must be repeatable and reliable.

3. Power Range. I'd like at least a 4-1 zoom ratio. For tactical shooting, I like a power range of 4-16. If I can get a 5-1 zoom ratio, I'd prefer 4-20.

4. Eye relief. Generous eye relief, and one which changes little with power changes.

5. Optical quality.

6. Price.

Getting wrapped around the axle about optical quality is, IMO, not useful. Yeah, a pretty picture is nice, and high magnifications are good at long distance - until the mirage kicks up, which pretty well moots optical quality.

Your mileage may vary.
</div></div>
+1....glass quality is #5 on the list. I'd put reliability #1 and reticle #2

 

[RemingtonSPS]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

I like great glass too. The Premier Heritage has been the best rifle scope glass i have looked through to date. The scope is a tool, an aiming device not a spotting scope. I went USO because it had every feature i wanted and the glass is decent enough for my intended purpose. If i wanted a "wow" optic, as far as glass (spotting scope or binos), i would look at Lieca, Ziess, or Swaro. For top shelf rifle scope glass S&B, Premier, and Hendsoldt seem to be the top tier among general consensus, Hendsoldt being at the top.

 

[Advokaten]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: FeedsTheNeed</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks all. I read Lindy's post this am and that really clarified/focused the issues.

I shot my M40A from Iron Brigade today with the 3.5X15 NF, and compared it to a client's rifle with a new Leupold, and my old SSG 69 with a Swarovski 6X42 ZFM.

Of the three the NF was the clear winner overall, though I like that ol Steyr. But it does have a stiff recoil for a .308!

Assuming the ZFM elevation turret is BDC for 7.62, anyone know what weight and velocity they are calibrated for? </div></div>

It ought to say witch round it´s calibrated for, could be either or, 147 FMJ ie 7,62 Nato Ball, 168 Grains HPBT, white box or even 175/78 grain HPBT the one used by the US forces,

I have seen all those versions,

for the Israeli BDC rings they had wierd 150 grain projectile being used, I think that they used BT or real HP bullets for there "internal dealings".

Best regards Chris

 

[Bugaboo]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SAKOstalker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A freind and I have been comparing hunting scopes. Zeiss victory 2.5-10x42 & the S&B Klassik 3-12x42. On a scale of 1-10 in optics, we give the zeiss a 10 & S&B a 9.75. The Zeiss is ever so slightly a nicer overall image but not enough to make any practical differenece in any condition on any game. Both are outstanding.
The real difference is the S&B looks like a better built optic. Their are some thinga on the zeiss that "appear" cheap. I'm not saying the zEiss is cheap or uses cheap components but it does use some plastic whereas the S&B doesn't. Whether any of this matters is up to the end user. </div></div>

Zeiss are scopes for civilian use, for military/LE scopes they have the Hensoldt division. S&B make only rifle scopes, tactical or civilian, nothing else.

 

[6Dasher]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

Same with Swaro/Kahles. Same glass though.

 

[Sanwizard]

Re: Glass quality in high end scopes? Data?

I see allot of posts about this on every shooting forum I go to. All I can tell you is my experiences. I have a Sightron sIII 6-24, I got it cause it was all everyone talked about. I just recived a Vortex Viper 6-20x50 and compared it to my Sightron. I let all the women in the office look at a cartag 200 yards away, and all said the Vortex was clearer and easier to look through. So now WTF, I got 350 more bucks in the Sightron and all the old ladies say the cheaper one is clearer. I totally agree with Lindy, optical quality will be really close on most higher end scopes, some offer better reticle choices than others and thats where the differences is. I think allot of folks just like to talk about how much they paid for their scope.

yup, that's what i do also. ask the wife to look through it and ask which looks best. I put 4 scopes in a row on a table all pointing to the same target stapled to my fence in the yard about 30 meters away. I zoomed all the way out, and had her look through them, then up to 24x which was a common zoom range across them all. One cost 30 dollars off amazon, another cost 290 from an unknown china brand, the third was a well known brand costing over 1000, and the last an expensive 1700 dollar beast. She thought the one costing 290 was the brightest and clearest at both zoom ranges. I had to agree, as the brightness and clarity simply blew the others away. What I am getting at is that although price can usually help determine quality, you can sometimes get a real good deal from a lesser known brand. As long as the scope also holds zero, and the reticle works for you, it should be a keeper. The moral is to actually LOOK through a scope before buying. I am lucky to live near CameraLandNY https://cameralandny.com/. The folks there are very helpful and take the time to make sure you get the scope that fits your use case and style.