Rifle Scopes Is Glass quality Bullsh*t? Or is it me?

#51
I can tell a difference between a $40 scope and a $400 scope, but I'm not sure I could tell the difference in a blind test between a $400 and a $4000 one.

I buy mid-level scopes because I appreciate decent build quality and I want scopes that track and have parallax adjustments. Honestly, I don't have the money for a $2000 scope, but I also don't have the eye to appreciate it.

Maybe I'm just jaded but "glass quality" is hard to discern. Tracking and parallax adjustment isn't. If I shot my rifle every day I would probably feel differently. I intend to take a class in the next year or so and shoot a few hundred rounds over a single week; perhaps I'll feel differently then.
 
#52
perkantino said:
Well, tell you what! This changed my view on high end scopes, or scopes in general. Tracking and turret configuration are now at the top of my list. If I can dial 20 mils in 1 rotation and the scope tracks, I am set!
The glass argument just doesn't make sense to my eyes. I mean even this test: Tactical Scopes: Optical Performance Part 1 | PrecisionRifleBlog.com
Essentially he had to make people read stuff to decide scope quality. Yet scopes aren't reading glasses.
That shows in itself that the differential is down to can you read with it, not can you clearly see your target. The other factoid here is that people might have liked something better because it was possible to read the letter with both scopes A and B, but just a little easier with scope A. At that point, we are now splitting hairs.

Like Lowlight said:
Click to expand...

You are really only hearing what you want to hear, which is evidence for what you already decided (confirmation bias).

Turrets, reliability, tracking, return to zero are definitely the most important factors. However, if you do this for a hobby and spend some time behind the glass, clear high quality glass leaves my eyes less tired and I have an overall better shooting experience because of it. The official way of testing it by reading small letters is a way to make the differences clear, but the differences are there even when your not just reading letters. Spend some good amount of time behind the highest quality optic you can afford (or borrow), then a few weeks later put on your inexpensive scope. I guarantee you that you will feel the difference.

If your on a budget, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with good quality but inexpensive scopes. You will not be missing the target because of it.
 
#53
The noticeable difference is biggest to me a half hour before legal shooting time as I'm watching a big buck work across a swamp or thicket. On more than one occasion I have put down my rifle with the 5.5-22 nxs and picked up my Swarovski LRF. The image difference is so noticeable a blind man can see it!! With the scope turned to 5.5 and the Swarovski at 8 you would think the 5.5 would be brighter with the larger exit pupil, not even close. With that said, I have nxs scopes for a purpose that I feel a Swarovski isn't suited for.
 
#54
It matters to me, especially on those days where I've layed in the same spot for hours with my right eye behind the ocular... Eye Fatigue means alot to me.

When your eye strains because Clarity and Resolution suck, well....
 
#55
perkantino said:
Well, tell you what! This changed my view on high end scopes, or scopes in general. Tracking and turret configuration are now at the top of my list. If I can dial 20 mils in 1 rotation and the scope tracks, I am set!
The glass argument just doesn't make sense to my eyes. I mean even this test: Tactical Scopes: Optical Performance Part 1 | PrecisionRifleBlog.com
Essentially he had to make people read stuff to decide scope quality. Yet scopes aren't reading glasses.
That shows in itself that the differential is down to can you read with it, not can you clearly see your target. Can you differentiate your target from another dude, or a doe from a buck, or a square from a round figure in competition. Ultimately targets, be it military or hunting are bigger than alphabet letters. The other factoid here is that people might have liked something better because it was easier to read with a given scope, But still possible with the other scopes. At that point, we are now splitting hairs.

Like Lowlight said:
Click to expand...

I still think you are missing the point of what Frank has to say about the coatings as he is 100% correct. It's going to be the less than ideal conditions where the differences in some of the glass really begin to become most apparent. Take a viper PST, your cheap UTG, and your S&B out when the sun starts going down, in poor weather, etc and the difference is readily visible. That's why it's very important that you take care of your lenses and are careful if cleaning them as you do not want to damage those coatings, they are very important. But again, the coatings of these lenses are only one piece of the puzzle in the overall quality of an optic.
 
#56
Like Timelinex says above, spend a good amount of time behind that S&B you picked up over numerous range sessions, then come back and evaluate your cheap UTG. I think you'll find the differences to be much easier to spot. It may be a costly revelation though; it has been for me as I no longer enjoy sitting behind a cheaper scope for long periods of time anymore. The premium optics won't make you a better shooter, but they can really enhance the overall experience.
 
#57
mike.h. said:
I recently order a vortex viper pst 6-24x50 because "it's a great scope for the money". Installed it on a long barreled AR platform and then compared it to my NF at the same power setting of 24, 22, etc. It was a foggy morning, and the NF was a little brighter and crisper, but I expected that. When I focussed on a tall redwood, that I knew to be at about 160 yards, i discovered two birds at the top. I then looked through the NF and was able to discern the color of the birds, which wasn't happening with the vv, back and forth, back and forth.... Long story short, I returned the VV for another NF. Yeah it's 2 to 3 times the money, but it's my sport, (my money), and I'm going to enjoy it to the full extent.

If the less expensive scope works for you, then more power to ya'...
merica ;-)
Click to expand...

Posts like this haunt me! I have 20/20 vision can't see the difference at 1100 yds between a UTG and a S&B but somehow there is a difference between a VV and NF at 160 yds? I wish I could experience that.
At this point, I envy you. Do some scope lenses correct some people's vision like prescription glasses do? Could someone else have seen the bird's colors with the VV?
 
#59
You sort of answered your own question - and you're not alone.

The difference between $400 and $2000 glass is noticeable to me at high magnification. That said, the difference between $1000 and $2000 is not. To each his own. So, yes, "Glass Quality" is in my view largely BS. I'm not saying there is no difference, only that it doesn't make a practical difference to me. If you spend any time reading camera lens reviews, you can see how easy it is to get sucked into some very small differences in various optical flaws and resolution tests. It makes the differences seem bigger than they are.

However, the difference in overall scope quality (durability, ease of use) is WAY better at $2000 than $400, but only slightly better going from $1000 to $2000. This is a far more compelling reason to get spendy on scopes than "optical quality".

I have no experience with scopes over $2300- I maxed out my tolerance for price tags with a Nightforce Competition at $2300. I can't imagine how a scope could be $2000 better than the Comp. I'm sure the competitive March model is nice, but I'm so happy with the NF that I won't even look at a March, let lone consider dropping $4k+ on one. I'd rather have two (or three) NSX's.

In my experience, the law of diminishing returns kicks in HARD with optics at around $1000-1400. It's just a rifle sight - nobody's making fine art photography with the things.
 
#60
Op,

Turret configuration was one of the big reasons my brother bought that last razor (the one in the video), he has trouble focusing up close and digs the 5mil turrets and the feel they have, he feels like he's faster with them on the clock. Unfortunately both of his need to go back. I agree with you when it come to glass quality, I have never been wow'ed looking through any scope and only once have I been able to clearly tell a difference in glass between scopes when comparing (XRS and a March).

There is one other thing that seems to be different between even high quality scopes that I've noticed in my limited experience when it comes to tracking. It seems most scopes track pretty well out of the box, but take that same scope and test it after a year or so of shooting, I'll almost bet you'll have a different result. Maybe that SB you sprung for is disappointing you a little with glass but hopefully it'll make up for it with years of good reliable service.

I do know that out of the scopes I own from 4 different scope manufacturers, only one tracked PERFECT out of the box and has continued that for the last 2yrs...perfect. All of the others have tracked reasonably well but over time became less and less accurate, I just don't post all the videos.
 
Last edited:
#62
ZombieMonkey said:
Like Timelinex says above, spend a good amount of time behind that S&B you picked up over numerous range sessions, then come back and evaluate your cheap UTG. I think you'll find the differences to be much easier to spot. It may be a costly revelation though; it has been for me as I no longer enjoy sitting behind a cheaper scope for long periods of time anymore. The premium optics won't make you a better shooter, but they can really enhance the overall experience.
Click to expand...

I am going to do that. I shoot a lot anyway, so I am going to be behind that S&B for a while. Thing is I was behind a Vortex Razor for the last year and just looked through the UTG after that time, and can't see the difference, in fact I never saw the difference. I ll say this though. The UTG is really the only low end scope I have actually looked though and shot. It was a limited edition scope when I got this with a competition airgun. It disappeared from their lineup right before UTG really became popular. In fact it doesn't say UTG on it, but rather ACCUSHOT, it's got a 30mm tube which in UTG land is not common I think. It was one of their earlier scopes. So may be there is something going on there too, but I doubt it. If someone else would promise to send it back, and had the time to burn on this, I would gladly ship it so someone else can back me up on this. I ll even pay for return shipping! Frank? Got time to waste? Anybody?
 
#64
perkantino said:
I am going to do that. I shoot a lot anyway, so I am going to be behind that S&B for a while. Thing is I was behind a Vortex Razor for the last year and just looked through the UTG after that time, and can't see the difference, in fact I never saw the difference.
Click to expand...

If you cannot see a difference after an extended period of time behind a razor vs the UTG, you're not going to see it with the S&B. The razors have good glass the differences between the gen 1 razors and an S&B are not night and day. Once you get to the quality of the razor lines and other comparable products the differences become very small, it's some of the other things you pay for with the more expensive scopes (Though even those differences become smaller and smaller as well).
 
#65
I did a comparison between a
BSA 4-14 and a SWFA SS 5-20. The difference on short range full sun field scapes wasn't extreme, but if looking at a light object there was a severe difference in CA, and the low light differences were also quite stark.

Just my experience.
Sent from my SCH-I500
 
#67
perkantino said:
Posts like this haunt me! I have 20/20 vision can't see the difference at 1100 yds between a UTG and a S&B but somehow there is a difference between a VV and NF at 160 yds? I wish I could experience that.
At this point, I envy you. Do some scope lenses correct some people's vision like prescription glasses do? Could someone else have seen the bird's colors with the VV?
Click to expand...

Sorry that it bothers you. But as I mentioned, I could see a difference, and it wasn't with just one quick glance. I tried multiple targets at various ranges. Could I have made a 600 yard shot with the VV, of course. It was not a snap decision to return the VV. as a retired guy, I'm very much aware of the price differential. And as mentioned, for me this is a hobby, and my old eyes appreciate all the help they can get.

Plus I'm familiar with the NF turrets, so I guess bias helped swayed the decision.

YMMV
 
Last edited:
#68
Not entirely related but I am red-green color blind I can see a noticeable difference with higher end optics I can say 100% with out a doubt it helps me a great deal. like with anything we all see things differently in MY experience the higher end scopes with better coatings is that things will pop out better for me at any distance. everything is relative to your eyes and I am sure once you spend some time behind the SB you will notice the little things which will add up to a much more favorable experience.
 
#69
Perkantino, you're back east so I don't know how much mirage you're experiencing but here in the west it's a pretty important factor past about 9AM.
Focusing through mirage on a 90ºF+ day in the desert is a bitch! At first it seems to equalize the glass quality of all scopes, since it blurs so much detail they all seem to be equally crappy, but spend a little time with the focus/parallax knob and the optically better scopes will start to pick up some detail the others won't.
I've owned and sold all these scopes in this order...
IOR 3-18x50
Premier Ret. 3.5-15x50
SWFA 5-20x50
S&B PMII 5-25x56
Vortex PST 6-24x50

I'm currently running 3x Bushnell 3-21x50 DMR G2s and just ordered a Kahles 624i MSR-K in the hopes that I can finally have "good" glass again.
The Bushnell glass is just barely good enough to get the job done and everything else, turrets, reticle, durability, customer service and especially price are great!
But I've been seriously longing for the "snap" and "detail" of my S&B (which lost zero at a match) or something close. I actually was able to get behind the new GenII Razor in the hope that that scope would be the Schmidt killer, but alas, it had pretty good optics but lower contrast than my Bushnell, and the mag difference was not as discernible as the numbers would imply. Simply put it wasn't worth the weight or $ difference to the Bushnell although I do like the EBR2-C reticle.

I'm a photographer and cameraman by trade so I can really see small differences in glass quality, CA is especially annoying to me, but I think there are more real differences in these optics when being used under pressure. At last years Surefire match there were a few targets I just couldn't find in the backlight shaded under brush of a couple stages. Maybe that was me but with better optics I feel like I might have found and engaged them.

I'm going to set up the kahles and my DMR next to each other before mounting and do some serious side by side, because if I can't see and feel the difference it's going back.
 
#72
But hey, it's different strokes for different folks. I dated a girl that enjoyed her ales opened & left out over night. So... All I'm saying is that there is a market for cheap optics too lol
 
#73
I didn't think scope quality varied much as technology has caught up with the industry but I was wrong. I don't have that many scopes but they go in this order as it comes to clarity of scopes and tracking of turrets. Leupold mk4 < us optics < schmidt & bender
 
#75
perkantino said:
Already done that. Shot them side by side, and I still can't.
I bought the scope because I want to be able to dial all my elevations in 1 turn, and be able to know for sure what rev I was on. But, I was also expecting to be blown away by never seen before glass quality. I remember my first look through the Bender.
I did a double take. it seemed ordinary, and that's when I started looking at the Vortex I had, then I went through a virtual mid-life crisis at that point, and decided to dig for the UTG. And as much as I wanted to lie to myself, to justify cost at least glass wise, frankly there wasn't a difference glass wise. Track-ability, ruggedness, turrets! You bet! But glass, I just couldn't see it. I guess I am looking for fellow travelers, or at least a reason why. And at the same time justify all those comments about glass quality. I mean if I can't see the difference here, how do people compare NF to Leupold or Premier to S&B?
Click to expand...


Take your low end glass and focus on targets at 1K when there is a little mirage running. Now try same with top end glass. A huge difference.

At near dusk try the low end glass against the top end glass,...the better glass will allow you to shoot when the low end glass leaves you blind.

Look at both and look at the optical clarity to the edges,..again this will be entirely different.

Check the actual tracking values of your low end scopes on a Horus test card,...bet its not exactly the MIL/MOA adjustment you thought??

Good glass is the best shooting investment you can make,...

Time for popcorn,...........
 
#76
I had a similar conversation with a group of hunters while we were reviewing scopes in a store. The sun was setting and there was a slight drizzle. We set up some scopes on the counter and observed the shingles on the roof of a building about 100 yards away. As it got darker the roof just became a black mass while looking through some of the more economical scopes. At the same time with some of the more expensive scopes you could still make out the texture of individual shingles. As has been noted it's about much more than just the glass (one thing that keeps me coming back to NF scopes is their zero-stop system).

It has been said several different ways in this thread that the needs and wants differ between most of us. Optics are built to differing specs because of differing requirements and cost is also a consideration. CA may or may not make a difference to whomever is specing out the glass, or to the end user. Same goes for any other optical quality. However, optical quality is not a matter of opinion. Just like temperature, boiling point, or index of refraction, it is all measurable. How much those numbers mean to me, if at all, is another matter.

http://www.edmundoptics.com/technical-resources-center/optics/understanding-optical-specifications

Optics InfoBase: Applied Optics - Digital Wavefront Measuring Interferometer for Testing Optical Surfaces and Lenses
 
Last edited:
#77
perkantino said:
Trust me, I am starting to think that.
Click to expand...

I see you're in my neck of the woods, where do you shoot in CNY?

I drive right up thru your AO to get to our farm. So, if you're truly at a loss about this glass deal, holler and I'll make an effort to swing by one day to shoot a bit. Got a bunch of Premiers, a couple Kahles, and a few Bushys & Nikons that we can play with & do a bit of compare & contrast. At the very least, you'd get a 2nd opinion to refute or dismiss your findings?

pm if interested...
 
#79
I had Leupy MK 4 4-14x52 for a bit. and at the same time I had a SWFA 10x42. While I understand they are apples and oranges in comparison, the level of detail in the MK 4 blew me away! and I know this is not a "Tier one" scope but a $1300 vs a $300? I obviously could tell the difference. In bright full sun, to after sunset and even night time under street lights. Now does that mean my SWFA 10x sucks? not in the least. it was my first "real" scope, having owned a Barska 5-20x50 and not knowing any better, the SWFA kicked its ass in glass. Now having looked through that MK 4 and an S&B at different times it was hard to see the difference. same with USO and Steiner. I am no expert by any means, but from cheap to a $1300 scope it was very obvious.
 
#80
The human eye can subtend about 2.0 Line Pair of resolution, currently the S&B 5-25x is rated around 3.0 (with some being reported as low as 2.8) so really what you are "seeing" is about .2 to .4 of difference between scopes. Sure lower end scopes are gonna be more, but not a whopping amount.

This is why companies don't "look" at scopes, but measure them with very expensive machines. They don't stare through for 3 minutes and make a determination that they nailed the optical package for a particular design. And while the numbers will fluctuate a bit, they are only moving a very small amount which is why these things are constantly tested on machines. In prototype and initial manufacturing they test all the scopes, in production they batch test to make sure they are maintaining the quality spec'd out. This is not done by simply looking at the scope using a test target, but put on a machine to read the actual resolution.

Coatings are what make you "see" a difference, that difference is color and contrast, not clarity and resolution. Sure if you are comparing a $399 scope to a $3099 scope you'll see some bigger difference but that is how it should be. You don't drive a Ford Focus and compare it to a Mercedes. Nobody in their right mind would walk into that Ford Dealership and tell the Salesman, "I test drove a BMW M Series before coming here, and your Focus just doesn't have the features I want" --- almost every scope post is doing exactly that. Or worse, you're saying, "I read Car & Driver and want to compare this Focus to the new Lincoln MKS I read about. How do they compare" the salesman is gonna walk away.

Much of what people see or believe is the same as giving another person their prescription glasses. You know it's not gonna look right, that is their prescription. If you are want to talk about Scopes, Talk Features, Talk Durability, Talk Historical, which tend to go back for customer service more than the next guy, that stuff is what matters. you all talk as if you're on a bird watching forum looking to tell the difference between birds of the same genius by picking out a specific feather combination. These are not spotters, if you want to hunt low light or use NV for Hogs, you get a scope that optimizes that. If you are shooting steel you get a scope that handles that better. If you're a competition shooter the reticle matters more, if you're an F Class shooter the Mag Range is more important, ELR Shooting, the overall travel of the turrets, etc.

Chasing glass quality is a fools errand.
 
#81
If you can't see the difference, then be happy that you can't and stop buying super high end optics. ;) You're a lucky bastard. :p

Honestly, when I first entered the world of optics, I couldn't readily see the difference between cheapie optics and high end ones.

Problem is... I started testing them for a living at one point... and had to train my eye to see the differences.

Ruined me forever....
 
#82
IMHO on a bluebird day - sunshine, high contrast target, short to mid distance, optimally focused and adjusted for parallax, and clean glass- while there may be some differences in resolution and coloration due to the differences in coatings (b/c the coatings are what count) one will not be functionally hampered by some pretty inexpensive optics that are out there. In fact, most every decent optic is very good.

However shoot that same shot (even more so as the distance increases) week in and week out in a wide variety of weather and lighting conditions, esp if the contrast on the target is reduced - yeah, there is a BIG difference.


Most folks don't purposefully go shoot in advance of a storm, in the rain, smoke from forest fires, snow, fog, early / late light, camo'ed / minimal contrast targets, etc etc and therefore will never know.


ie - one time at band camp doesn't tell the whole story
 
#83
Lowlight said:
The human eye can subtend about 2.0 Line Pair of resolution, currently the S&B 5-25x is rated around 3.0 (with some being reported as low as 2.8) so really what you are "seeing" is about .2 to .4 of difference between scopes. Sure lower end scopes are gonna be more, but not a whopping amount.

This is why companies don't "look" at scopes, but measure them with very expensive machines. They don't stare through for 3 minutes and make a determination that they nailed the optical package for a particular design. And while the numbers will fluctuate a bit, they are only moving a very small amount which is why these things are constantly tested on machines. In prototype and initial manufacturing they test all the scopes, in production they batch test to make sure they are maintaining the quality spec'd out. This is not done by simply looking at the scope using a test target, but put on a machine to read the actual resolution.

Coatings are what make you "see" a difference, that difference is color and contrast, not clarity and resolution. Sure if you are comparing a $399 scope to a $3099 scope you'll see some bigger difference but that is how it should be. You don't drive a Ford Focus and compare it to a Mercedes. Nobody in their right mind would walk into that Ford Dealership and tell the Salesman, "I test drove a BMW M Series before coming here, and your Focus just doesn't have the features I want" --- almost every scope post is doing exactly that. Or worse, you're saying, "I read Car & Driver and want to compare this Focus to the new Lincoln MKS I read about. How do they compare" the salesman is gonna walk away.

Much of what people see or believe is the same as giving another person their prescription glasses. You know it's not gonna look right, that is their prescription. If you are want to talk about Scopes, Talk Features, Talk Durability, Talk Historical, which tend to go back for customer service more than the next guy, that stuff is what matters. you all talk as if you're on a bird watching forum looking to tell the difference between birds of the same genius by picking out a specific feather combination. These are not spotters, if you want to hunt low light or use NV for Hogs, you get a scope that optimizes that. If you are shooting steel you get a scope that handles that better. If you're a competition shooter the reticle matters more, if you're an F Class shooter the Mag Range is more important, ELR Shooting, the overall travel of the turrets, etc.

Chasing glass quality is a fools errand.
Click to expand...

Lot of valid points here... truth be told, I'd be willing to bet that when folks say their scope "pops" more... they're referring to contrast.

Here's a simple example... I've taken $100 camera lenses and compared them to $8000 ones... when printed or viewed small, you can't tell the difference except for contrast and perhaps color rendition. It's when you blow up the prints to large sizes that the differences become apparent.

Your "view" through your riflescope would fall in under the "small" category because of the limitations of your eyes.
 
#84
Here is a simple fact - good glass is good glass no matter who f#&#ing made it.

When you buy S&B you pay to expect 100% good glass, 100% durable, 100% as advertised - you buy cheaper scopes and you take some risks and leeway on imperfections; however there is a chance that glass is GOOD! Human eye is very fast and acute organ - it will compensate and adjust very fast. It is very hard to tell between GOOD and PERFECT without training.

UTG has as GOOD of glass as S&B (to naked eye) - SHIT HAPPENS!!!! Lots of butthurt 'round here because of that!
 
#87
MoBoost said:
Here is a simple fact - good glass is good glass no matter who f#&#ing made it.

When you buy S&B you pay to expect 100% good glass, 100% durable, 100% as advertised - you buy cheaper scopes and you take some risks and leeway on imperfections; however there is a chance that glass is GOOD! Human eye is very fast and acute organ - it will compensate and adjust very fast. It is very hard to tell between GOOD and PERFECT without training.

UTG has as GOOD of glass as S&B (to naked eye) - SHIT HAPPENS!!!! Lots of butthurt 'round here because of that!
Click to expand...

The compensation argument is starting to resonate with me, because when I say that I see no difference I mean it. So clearly something is afoot. The other thing is I also bought a 20 dollar hunting scope, recently to see if going that low would matter, and with that one, even though the difference doesn't prevent me from identifying targets, I can clearly see a difference between it and the S&B.
So either that UTG scope has great glass, or my eye is fixing whatever is missing on the part of the UTG scope.
If the difference is minimal, then discernment is going to be harder. May be eye health plays into too! I am sure a 100 lb guy can tell the difference between 20 lb weight vs a 25 lbs weight, when a 300 lb guy might say 20 and 25 lbs feel the same.
I have always had great eye sight. So the eye compensating is something I am starting to believe because frankly I was expecting people coming forward with similar experiences, not as extreme, but somewhat close, and so far I seem to be the only one who has ever experienced this. So either the UTG has great glass , which would be a 1 off, or my eye is somewhat adjusting from what the UTG is missing, which would lead to my eyes getting tired after a few hours of looking through it, something that's been pointed out here, and something that I have never done, because the most I spent behind it was an hour at best recently.
 
Last edited:
#89
perkantino said:
If the difference is minimal, then discernment is going to be harder. May be eye health plays into too! I am sure a 100 lb guy can tell the difference between 20 lb weight vs a 25 lbs weight, when a 300 lb guy might say 20 and 25 lbs feel the same.
Click to expand...

Now let them two guys pick-up 200lbs ....

9x is not same is 20x, and 20x is not the same as 50x. With magnification the glass imperfections magnify as well.

I shoot F-Class. I have to see the little white lines (for POI and hold-overs). I have looked through A LOT of scopes at 600 and 1000 yards at those lines. I haven't found a scope with better glass than a sub-$1k Sightron S3 10-50x60. It's not as tough as NF, SB or USO - but SIII sees the lines and tracks superb - and that's all I need in F-Class game. But I wouldn't take it to walking hunt or tactical match - too heavy, too big, too flimsy <-- and that's when you have to spend real money.
 
#90
Mike_Honcho said:
IMHO on a bluebird day - sunshine, high contrast target, short to mid distance, optimally focused and adjusted for parallax, and clean glass- while there may be some differences in resolution and coloration due to the differences in coatings (b/c the coatings are what count) one will not be functionally hampered by some pretty inexpensive optics that are out there. In fact, most every decent optic is very good.

However shoot that same shot (even more so as the distance increases) week in and week out in a wide variety of weather and lighting conditions, esp if the contrast on the target is reduced - yeah, there is a BIG difference.


Most folks don't purposefully go shoot in advance of a storm, in the rain, smoke from forest fires, snow, fog, early / late light, camo'ed / minimal contrast targets, etc etc and therefore will never know.


ie - one time at band camp doesn't tell the whole story
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!

For example, my friend and I shot at the Sniper's Hide Cup in the evening, when you could barely read, and our scopes (Schmidt and Bender and Kahles) could clearly discern the targets out at range. I know for a fact the cheapie scopes would barely recognize the steel at that range since the steel had very little contrast due to the heavy usage (they were pretty much black from hits).

And to follow up on what Frank is saying, these are gun sites, NOT bird watching spotting scopes. Stop chasing glass quality kids.
 
#92
I didn't read all the other posts because I figured you took a lot of crap. From my perspective, I tend to agree with you with one exception I'll get to in a minute.

I have scopes from Millett, SWFA, Leupold, Vortex, Nightforce, and USO. I've been behind any number of S&B's at various matches. I've done a little side by side testing and while I can tell the difference between cheap glass and high end glass, it's not always easy and I almost never care. If all a more expensive scope got you was better glass, I'd be buying $300 scopes.

I did recently get a great lesson in glass quality, but it was in rangefinders. I've had one of the old Swarovski monocular LRF's for years. I assumed from the name and the price tag that the glass in that unit was excellent. (the ranging capabilities of those things far exceed their modest cost). I just bought a pair of Leica Geovids and had them out at a field type match at the beginning of the month. I was very, very surprised at how much better the glass was in the Leica's. Admittedly, they are 10X and the Swaro 8X, but there is just no comparison to the amount of detail discernible with the Leica's compared to the Swaro's. I was spotting targets (you spot for other shooters in your squad) I've looked at for years and seeing details I'd never seen before. I was able to discern hits much more clearly, and vegetation surrounding targets at 700+ yards was clearly visible rather than just appearing to be a green blob.

I've never done comparison testing of scopes side by side in similar field type conditions, but I'm going to guess that the results would be the same. Glass quality is real, but it takes a demanding test to reveal the differences.
 
#93
I relate this to guitars, especially acoustics.

Sure, any cheap old acoustic is going to make some pretty sounds if it's tuned up. You can sing songs with it. Hell, you could go play a show with it and nobody in the crowd except other guitar players would realize you were playing a $79 non-solid bodied guitar.

And guess what, the expensive guitars that cost $10k or more do sound better, but it's not night and day unless you have a seasoned ear, and even then it's not like the cheap guitar is a terrible sounding POS. Function wise you can accomplish nearly the same goals and it takes a lot of money to make up that little bit of difference in quality/performance.

The important thing is knowing what you are buying before you pay for it, and determining where along the line of diminishing returns you want to land. If $7k for top glass doesn't bother you then by all means buy the S&B or Henny. If you have $2k and want something that is nearly as good but maybe not exactly on par, then by all means get the NF or the Steiner. If you really don't care and just want to sling bullets get the Wal Mart special.

After a certain price point, optics are just as much about taste, preference and pride as they are about any quantifiable measurement of glass quality.
 
#94
I can NOT see clearly or easily threw a $100 bsa or $200 leupold rifleman.
I can see clearly and easily threw a $200 nikon prostaff or a $300 SS.
I can see even better threw a $500 nikon monarch and a little better than a $700 vortex.
Way better yet from a bushnell elite..........beyond that...............Maybe it's faith (confidence) or some other feature that folks appreciate because if it is glass: I'll be damned if I can see it.
Certain magnifications or certain models may excel in certain circumstances but none that I have encountered.
So I can tell between crap, cheep and mid range but in the high end it becomes "great" but no better than.
 
#96
D.ID said:
I can NOT see clearly or easily threw a $100 bsa or $200 leupold rifleman.
I can see clearly and easily threw a $200 nikon prostaff or a $300 SS.
I can see even better threw a $500 nikon monarch and a little better than a $700 vortex.
Way better yet from a bushnell elite..........beyond that...............Maybe it's faith (confidence) or some other feature that folks appreciate because if it is glass: I'll be damned if I can see it.
Certain magnifications or certain models may excel in certain circumstances but none that I have encountered.
So I can tell between crap, cheep and mid range but in the high end it becomes "great" but no better than.
Click to expand...

That sounds like an eye problem. I see up to 800~900 yards clearly through a 20 buck 3-9 no name scope I got at dicks.
The whole glass quality thing made me think about the second world war, and vietnam for that matter. How good was the redfield or the PU scope's glass?

Yet, Hathcock made a hit at 2500 yds with that redfield, according to reports, and the russians put a lot of people in the ground with that PU scope, many of them around 500 yds. I don't think you could have
seen a 2500 yd target through that redfield. May be someone with knowledge of those old scopes can comment. I would venture to propose that today's cheap scopes' glass might be better given technological advances in optics.
 
#97
Funny, I wrote about something like this on the swfa optics site five days ago as reality check on my optical judgement. I just bought a VX2 3-9x33 ultralight with CDS as a scope for a light mountain hunting rifle. Despite limited eye relief and field of view, I found the clarity and brightness to be outstanding. I have some good scopes including a Kahles CL 2-7x36 and I have been comparing these side by side over the past few days and evenings until about 45 min past sundown. I live in a canyon and my deck faces west, and I get a good range of light and terrain including heavy trees and grassland to scope out. I honestly could not see a difference in the two scopes, except for the slightly larger field of view with the Kahles, well past legal hunting light. This really surprised me. I adjusted the objective ring to zero the parallax out at 300 yards (factory setting is 150), and I think this little leupold is going to make a great scope for the terrain I hunt.

I think like others have said that at extremes, the differences in scope quality come out but with a smallish objective and modest magnification it is easier to manufacture a very competent scope that approaches the abilities of much more expensive scopes.
 
#98
A couple of things to look for. Focus on something at a distance that fills the entire field of view. Like the side of a house, but make sure you are perpendicular to the wall. Look at the focus across the entire field of view, center and sides, top and bottom. Good glass will be closer in focus at the edges than the cheaper units. The out of focus at the edges contributes to eye fatigue.

Another thing, take both scopes out in the early morning and evening, use them in the direction of the sun. See how they perform. Look at things that are VERY low in contrast, grey on grey, as well as very high contract, sun/shade.

And finally, spend a few range sessions behind your S&B, and only the S&B, then go back to the lower price scope and see what you think.

Back in the day where chaning a computer meant a HUGE speed increase, I noticed me new super fast computer never seemed fast. Until I spent a week with it and tried going back to the old one. I did not notice the fastness of the new one, but the SLOWNESS of the old one. The mind is a funny thing at times.
 
#100
After racing most of the comments on glass quality I compared 3 scopes. A Bushnell Elite G2DMR FFP 3.5-21X50, A Nightforce NXS 5.5-21X50 and a USO ST 10 all at 10X. In bright sunlight all seem equal in glass quality. Where I saw a difference was on a neighbors porch that was in sunlight in the early AM and was shaded in the early afternoon. I focused on their porch light that was in shade in all cases. Their was a slight difference in the the image quality in the after noon with the ST 10 being slightly sharper and brighter but not significant enough to warrant the difference in the cost difference between any of the scopes. But as others have said there are many other factors that make the price differential worth it with the higher priced scopes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Rifle Scopes Talk To Me About A These Compact Scopes
Replies
7
Views
327
roostercogburn98
roostercogburn98
K
Rifle Scopes Primary Arms GLx 4.5x-27, or PST Gen II 5-25x, or Athlon Cronus BTR Gen2 4.5x-29
Replies
2
Views
309
steve123
S
dldavis
Fixed or variable Scope
Replies
8
Views
363
Conqueror
C
wooferocau
Arken EP5 7- 35 .. Standing in for some Alpha Glass
Replies
382
Views
16K
Powdermonkey4
P
R
Plumb line distance when mounting a scope?
Replies
13
Views
551
Harman117
Harman117
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts