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

[nfoley]

I think you already got the point that it's much more than glass quality that separates the good from the bad when it comes to scopes.
While I can appreciate a difference between glass quality of various scopes, I don't get too caught up with which has the 'best glass.' My personal favorite scope is a Gen 1 Kahles 6-24. It tracks perfectly, is very easy to get behind quickly and has a wide field of view, and has features which I really like. And although I have other scopes that seem to have 'better' glass, I have always been able to identify my target (even in less than ideal conditions) without issue.

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

Shoot with minimal light, and you will see where glass quality makes a difference. If you have ever had to shoot just before or just after that last little bit of light is there for you, then you will understand clarity. I have seen cheaper optics appear fuzzy, or force you to really focus, where good quality glass was crystal clear at twilight.

 

[silentheart]

ok, I dont have any info towards real high end optics but i will share my story...

I had a Leapers scope (just shut up now...it was all I could afford) and I thought it was the bees knees (way better than the stock rem700 scope). Then I started saving pennies here and dollars there, and bought the Burris MTAC 3.5-10. Like you, I sat the two next to each other for a little test. My $90 Leapers and my $600 Burris had some differences, but honestly NOT what I was expecting. The thing I wasnt expecting but found out, is that its the "other" things [MENTION=66213]SomeOtherGuy[/MENTION] was mentioning. My MTAC will track, up-down-sideways-and back to zero every time. Its a MIL/MIL scope. My Leapers is a MIL/MOA scope and just getting it to return to zero is a BITCH.

Out to distances...my MTAC will hold solid while the Leapers will fall short. I can see things at a mile away through my MTAC that I just cant make out on my Leapers (when they are both set to 9x). So, the question is...was it worth it? I'd say yes...but also as [MENTION=66213]SomeOtherGuy[/MENTION] mentioned...you get smaller amounts of advantages over a certain price point in optics. What that price point is, I have no idea, my burris is the most expensive scope ive ever bought. Im sure Leupold, Nighforce, S&B, USO etc etc have better glass than my burris, but I have no experience there so ill just shut up.

I like what he said. Well put.

 

[4000fps]

A. the OP needs his eyes checked.

B. if you actually use a scope you will know why a Nightforce is $1600 and a Barska is not.

Twisting turrets and subjecting a scope to hundreds of rounds will quickly weed out the trash. I've killed two Conquests on a 243. My Nightforce keeps on working.

 

[D.ID]

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.

A: yes my eyes are not perfect and I were glasses to correct but some scopes are just picky as hell and some are not. My cheap little sweet 17 bsa was totally hazed "bad" when facing in to the sun, my equally cheap nikon was not. My vortex has extremely picky eye relief, My big bushnell is very forgiving, etc. etc.
.
B: I also appreciate what folks like Hatchcock were able to do with what was available to them. At the same time what is available now days especially to an individual who can pick and choose is far superior and there is no way around that. Not just any one could seriously engage at 1K with his gear.......with my gear=understand basic trigger control and stability? If so I can put you on target. It has come a long way.
.
C: last but not least, I have a PU and the later POS and they are not bad optics, surprisingly good for what they are.

 

[perkantino]

C: last but not least, I have a PU and the later POS and they are not bad optics, surprisingly good for what they are.

That's interesting

 

[sirhrmechanic]

It's worth digging back a few years to read some of "Doc" Mullins comments on glass and coatings. Doc worked for USO and knew his stuff.

The whole argument about 'glass quality' is a bit like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Glass, at a certain level, is pretty hard to discern quality-wise. In other words, you will definitely notice the difference between the recycled Coke bottles used by NCStar or WalMart Tasco scopes. But at the top level of the scope market, glass used by Zeiss, USO, S&B, Kahles and other great makers whose names we all know (and I won't list exhaustively) is so close in quality that none of us could discern the difference. Perhaps possible using lab equipment. But your Mk 1 Mod 0 eyeball is NOT going to be able to tell the difference in glass quality.

That's because the difference in our perception of a high-end scope's performance comes not from the glass quality... it comes in the coatings. And these can be tweaked for all kinds of special applications. In other words, the coatings can enhance/exclude various wavelengths of light, thus various tones, thus they change the user experience. So you can adapt your optics for high-desert sun... or twilight. Or to work with NOD's. Or for the widest versatility. To tune out the wavelengths typically reflected in haze...

As 'made to order' manufacturing continues to advance, there will probably come a day when science can map a person's visual acuity and perceptions and create custom coatings for each individual. (Are you high-end scope makers listening????) But right now, an individual's perception of one scope being somewhat better than another, is likely based on the fact that you are most at-home with their coatings package.

Glass quality is not to be sneezed at. But it's the coating 'package' that will create your visual experience. Again, read Doc's stuff. IMHO, it was/is right on and answered some of the key questions in this argument some time ago.

YMMV, As Seen on TV, offer not valid in Puerto Rico, etc. etc.

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[perkantino]

It's worth digging back a few years to read some of "Doc" Mullins comments on glass and coatings. Doc worked for USO and knew his stuff.

The whole argument about 'glass quality' is a bit like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Glass, at a certain level, is pretty hard to discern quality-wise. In other words, you will definitely notice the difference between the recycled Coke bottles used by NCStar or WalMart Tasco scopes. But at the top level of the scope market, glass used by Zeiss, USO, S&B, Kahles and other great makers whose names we all know (and I won't list exhaustively) is so close in quality that none of us could discern the difference. Perhaps possible using lab equipment. But your Mk 1 Mod 0 eyeball is NOT going to be able to tell the difference in glass quality.

That's because the difference in our perception of a high-end scope's performance comes not from the glass quality... it comes in the coatings. And these can be tweaked for all kinds of special applications. In other words, the coatings can enhance/exclude various wavelengths of light, thus various tones, thus they change the user experience. So you can adapt your optics for high-desert sun... or twilight. Or to work with NOD's. Or for the widest versatility. To tune out the wavelengths typically reflected in haze...

As 'made to order' manufacturing continues to advance, there will probably come a day when science can map a person's visual acuity and perceptions and create custom coatings for each individual. (Are you high-end scope makers listening????) But right now, an individual's perception of one scope being somewhat better than another, is likely based on the fact that you are most at-home with their coatings package.

Glass quality is not to be sneezed at. But it's the coating 'package' that will create your visual experience. Again, read Doc's stuff. IMHO, it was/is right on and answered some of the key questions in this argument some time ago.

YMMV, As Seen on TV, offer not valid in Puerto Rico, etc. etc.

Cheers,

Sirhr

Interesting commentary. Made to order scopes, that's a novel idea. Just like prescription glasses.

 

[sakobob]

anybody want to trade me 34 utg's for a S&B?. this thread makes my head hurt, wait till the op finds out what tunneling is
oy'va!
OP take that S&B to the range on a rifle and shoot at 2-4 targets for about 30 min then use that awesome UTG at the same targets
then report findings. if you still think the glass is no better then sell it and buy a life time of UTG optics.

 

[Bender]

Interesting commentary. Made to order scopes, that's a novel idea. Just like prescription glasses.

USO?

 

[sirhrmechanic]

USO?

U.S. OPTICS - Engineered for Extreme Performance

My preferred optic.

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[Deleted member 10043]

Most people are full of shit when it comes to glass quality. They don't know dick and all they want is something they won't be ashamed of. Sort of fucking shallow for a bunch of bad asses.

 

[Bilrus61]

Another thing to consider is differences in scopes that are supposed to be the exact same. I had two Leupold VX 3 6.5X20s. One was one year older than the other. Otherwise they were the exact same scope. The one that was old was better. Very noticable. The coatings on the lenes appeard the exact same color. Both scopes were nice but side by side the older one was just brighter/sharper/clearer.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least that some of the high end scopes coming out of Europe has glass that is sourced from Schott's factories in the uhhhhhh.......far east shall we say? I would sure like to know exactly where the glass is made at in some of these premium scopes. I think many owners of these Euro scopes would be dissapointed to find out the country of origin for the glass in their expen$ive Euro optic.

 

[perkantino]

Most people are full of shit when it comes to glass quality. They don't know dick and all they want is something they won't be ashamed of. Sort of fucking shallow for a bunch of bad asses.

Please elaborate

 

[Specialized]

I've been contemplating the same question lately, but from a different viewpoint. What I've been trying to figure out is, why are my ACOGs so much brighter and clearer than, say, my Leupolds and Nikons? Another one that I just purchased is a Nightforce SHV, and it has the same "pop" quality to it. But at this point, I have no idea what is different about the higher-end scopes and the others.

For one thing, I know I have them finely focused, and that does show the most difference. I've been trying to research the coating processes these companies use, but I'm not getting anywhere quick. I have figured out that an etched reticle seems more clear than a wire one, and that shows most obviously in the ACOG. I have read that some scopes have coatings that favor colors and hues for the outdoors, but I don't know how it's done or what it might mean, much less which scopes have such a coating. I'm enjoying this thread for the information, as well as the entertainment value.

Can anybody answer the question about coatings? What makes my ACOG more clear and crisp than my Nikon Monarch?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Evo6]

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

The Acog is a much simpler, fixed low power optic. It's much easier to make a 4x or 6x optic bright because there is much less glass and tube to go through Vs. a 15x-25x variable. Adding magnification (Focal length) always decreases light becuse of the inverse square law, so you need increasingly large objective elements to gather more light.
A 32mm 4x scope will be brighter than a 50mm 15x scope.

 

[savages]

I know I wasn't invited to this party but let me crash it anyway.

I can definitely tell the difference in glass between a Millett TRS 1 , Leupold Mark 4 4.5x14 LR, Vortex PST 6x24 and Zeis conquest 4.5x14 especially when magnification comes into play.
I honestly could tell a very slight difference in clarity between a Vortex viper PST 6x24 and a Nightforce NXS 5.5x22 with the nightforce being better in every magnification.
Haven't played with anything above the $1500 mark. At some point i'm guessing there are diminishing returns and you probably found it.

The way I see it, its like buying a Ferrari 458 Spyder overr a Z06 corvette.
The Spyder may get you more looks from the guys who know WTF your driving, but the Z06 will work just as well for less than half the price and leave cash in your hand to go find some tail.

My average price I will spend on a scope is $700-$1000.
Because frankly I'm not good enough to out drive a Z06 or out shoot a $1000 scope on a $700 rifle.

Now excuse me while I continue consuming my Friday night beverages.

 

[TheBelgian]

N'uff said.

 

[candrist]

Here is a pretty good article that shows some of the testing, and what is going into a high end optic. I know you are looking at just the glass/optical quality and this has a section that addresses the optical quality. Kind of interesting and if all else even if it doesn't help, it is a very good read. 2014 High-End Rifle Scope Field Test Underway | PrecisionRifleBlog.com

 

[Lefin102]

Why is this not a sticky?? Can this be a sticky? Thx for posting this. I've been like others trying to gain a better understanding.

 

[sib1948]

Great review and very informative! Unfortunately, Steiner and March scope not included, but most people who have used them feel that they should be included in the Top Tier Group. Good shooting...

 

[perkantino]

I know I wasn't invited to this party but let me crash it anyway.

I can definitely tell the difference in glass between a Millett TRS 1 , Leupold Mark 4 4.5x14 LR, Vortex PST 6x24 and Zeis conquest 4.5x14 especially when magnification comes into play.
I honestly could tell a very slight difference in clarity between a Vortex viper PST 6x24 and a Nightforce NXS 5.5x22 with the nightforce being better in every magnification.
Haven't played with anything above the $1500 mark. At some point i'm guessing there are diminishing returns and you probably found it.

The way I see it, its like buying a Ferrari 458 Spyder overr a Z06 corvette.
The Spyder may get you more looks from the guys who know WTF your driving, but the Z06 will work just as well for less than half the price and leave cash in your hand to go find some tail.

My average price I will spend on a scope is $700-$1000.
Because frankly I'm not good enough to out drive a Z06 or out shoot a $1000 scope on a $700 rifle.

Now excuse me while I continue consuming my Friday night beverages.

Oh, you were definitely invited! You are just late!

 

[perkantino]

Why is this not a sticky?? Can this be a sticky? Thx for posting this. I've been like others trying to gain a better understanding.

What made you want to gain a better understanding?

 

[perkantino]

N'uff said.

You know what's funny? I saw that accushot of mine I have been comparing to the Bender in his lineup. Is REX (tiborasaurusrex) on the hide? If so show yourself. We need to talk.
May be you can back me up here. Also, we need to talk about your videos!

 

[Lefin102]

What made you want to gain a better understanding?

To quote the Faber collage motto " knowledge is good " LOL.

All kidding aside I had no knowledge of the lens types or where they are made let alone how important it is to have a scope with repeatable turret settings for long distance shooting.

Other than that it looks like your question was answer too!

Now all I need is some comparison between the Vortex & Burris scopes to make my decision on what to buy.

Thx all

 

[sendit300]

I'm late on this, and new to the site, but wanted to comment. Lots of great info hear from everyone. As per what many of the guys here stated, time in the field behind the glass in many imperfect conditions will show you the differences. Know how to properly set up your scope by leveling/plumbing, mounting, and most importantly focusing. Focusing is something I've seen so many shooters neglect to do properly, then they come back in the shop with issues. Focus it, walk away, then come back to check focus and make adjustments. Once that's sorted go shoot it like your life depends on it! After you realize your life can't depend on it, go buy a higher end scope and progress up from a BSA, Millet, mid 2000's Leupold, to a a new Leupold, S&B, USO, or Zeiss. They'll remain working precisely long after you've smashed your lower end scopes with a hammer for pooping the bed on you. I've smashed a few.

 

[the once-ler]

actually I have found the older Leupolds to have better glass than the later scopes in the same lines.

 

[Muskett]

I have a small collection of scopes, and had a lot over 35 years. 100 plus. Low cost for my air rifles, mid range for my rimfire and high end for my full bore.
Tasco, Kassnar, Simmons, Leupold, Bushnell, Beaush & Lomb, Swarovski, Zeiss, Leupold, Meopta, Smidt & Bender, Night Force, you name it I've probably owned or used one.

Every single one can give you a sight picture, that is good enough to squeeze the trigger on. From ten to 1,500m. In truth so can open iron sights.

However, you buy into the quality of the whole machine, not just the glass; and here they are worlds apart. Glass wise they do differ considerably. There is a list of "what the best glass" which starts with Swarovski, then Zeiss, S&B, Night Force....... from then on it gets a bit of bun fight, especially so in the mid price range. Country of manufacture seems to be Germany, USA/Japan, and then the rest... China getting better but still very average or poor. Whose producing a good scope has a lot to do with who has bought in the newest machinery and not trying overly to hit a low price. One way to keep to a price is to save on glass and coatings which is why a certain model over the years might change.

"But I can't see a difference". Its in the field, in all weathers, and all levels of brightness, that class shows through. Best glass allows you to see tiny targets better in all conditions. Atmospheric conditions have a marked effect on the crispness of the sight picture. What works best in bright light, dusk and moonlight should be different but the better glass copes with it all. I can use my Zeiss and Sarovski on a full moon; they also don't flare in bright direct sunlight. Their pedigree shows through. A run of the mill scope on a nice day does it, but not quite so effortlessly. Poor conditions they are a bind and it add time to taking the shot... get that perfect sight picture.

Certain conditions can mess with a scope and struggle to give a a clear and sharp picture. A lot of shifting about and ogling to get something workable. Jap scopes are often poor here, and so are some Leupolds, just because they have too many things to achieve and thats a big ask from the glass. A lot of that is trying to cater for the high magnification that the market demands. Many cheap and mid range scopes struggle when not given ideal light. On a range its rare to get these problems. In the field it happens all too often. Much of this is the design, the functions built in, but a lot has to do with the glass. Seeing tiny things can be a real effort, better glass makes it easier.

On a nice day most scopes do what you want. In adverse conditions glass matters and for me Swarovski and Zeiss are king because in Europe we shoot in some very challenging conditions, have done for a long time, and these companies never skimp on perfecting their glass. It shows.

The rest is build quality and functions. Personally, I like my reticule to be a plex, 2FF, with repeatable dialing for elevation and windage. Magnification wise its 4-16 midrange and 6-25 long range. My go to rifles have Zeiss HD5's or Zeiss Victories; the Victories are noticeably optically superior. These high magnification scopes are difficult to get right. Side parallax is mandatory as we all want to have that perfect picture from 15m to 1500! Its mandatory too because making lenses do what we want is complicated. Feature rich scopes have a lot more to them than the simpler designs of yesteryear... and we want these scopes to be short.
Add it all up some manufacturers get it more right than others. If you took a 6x42 from each manufacturer you would see some difference. If you took a vari high mag x25 from each you would see an even bigger difference. On a nice bright day it would be difficult to see much of a difference and non bad enough to stop you shooting. I could take you to Scotland and your cheap scope might not allow you to get that shot off. Its the sum of the build that matters.. which to many is worth the investment. I know I can hit squarer and faster with a top end scope.

 

[Muskett]

I couldn't resist adding:
The more features a scope has the more needs to be right. These added feature like high magnification and parallax adjustment adds complexity. Build quality and design counts here. Everyone has got better at making small precise parts and new methods of construction and design has helped. But not everyone can make it all work how it should. To save a few pence/cents just one shoddy part can ruin everything. Feature rich great, but if doesn't work or stay working its a waste of space.

How coatings have changed. Look at a load of different manufacturers and see the colour of the objective lens. Quite a variety over the years. Also a tell tale of where those lenses came from whatever the badge on the scope. Grey Blue and Deep Blue, Greens and Emerald, Crimsons and Reds, all the colours of the rainbow. Some work better than others, some more emphasis on one light wavelength than another. Some give that "jump", some get the best from twilight, some work with NV gear some don't as well. The better coatings get more from a wider spectrum and more in tune with our eyes. Coatings cost bucks and different ones are used through the lenses. Here there is room to save on costs.

Glass has got lighter???? Well cleverer both in raw glass and shape. To get those features everyone demands in a small package, like high magnification, takes some complex lens shapes. However, compromises need to be made and shortcuts are done. One less lens is a big saving. Its the reason why some scopes demand that the eye is perfectly aligned. Better scopes are far more forgiving eye box wise and the whole picture is sharp not just the middle. In the old days cheap scopes used "wide angle" and masking to hide the poor edges! Some still do. Some things are just not possible so there are only so many ways to do it. Its the detail and execution that add up to great or average.

Looking at my old stuff things have got better. Now its feature rich and pretty great picture; loads of magnification and still a good picture. I love the Bushnell 6500 for he price. I like even more the HD5's but the top of the range Zeiss and Swaro are optically superior when ease of use and absolute clarity is demanded. They are just more forgiving to look through, better in more varied different atmospheric conditions as you can see "more tiny", and at the end of the day faster to get that shot off.
On a bench range day they all get you holes in the target. Under pressure I know what I'll be using.

Then there is built quality, tracking (big one), toughness and longavity.......

I know I can hit smaller things, at longer ranges, in more varied conditions, faster, with a well matched scope to rifle combination:

http://i820.photobucket.com/albums/zz128/Muskett_2009/IMG_5153.jpg
http://i820.photobucket.com/albums/zz128/Muskett_2009/IMGP4607.jpg
http://i820.photobucket.com/albums/zz128/Muskett_2009/IMG_4487.jpg

 

[Victory]

It's worth digging back a few years to read some of "Doc" Mullins comments on glass and coatings. Doc worked for USO and knew his stuff.

The whole argument about 'glass quality' is a bit like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Glass, at a certain level, is pretty hard to discern quality-wise. In other words, you will definitely notice the difference between the recycled Coke bottles used by NCStar or WalMart Tasco scopes. But at the top level of the scope market, glass used by Zeiss, USO, S&B, Kahles and other great makers whose names we all know (and I won't list exhaustively) is so close in quality that none of us could discern the difference. Perhaps possible using lab equipment. But your Mk 1 Mod 0 eyeball is NOT going to be able to tell the difference in glass quality.

That's because the difference in our perception of a high-end scope's performance comes not from the glass quality... it comes in the coatings. And these can be tweaked for all kinds of special applications. In other words, the coatings can enhance/exclude various wavelengths of light, thus various tones, thus they change the user experience. So you can adapt your optics for high-desert sun... or twilight. Or to work with NOD's. Or for the widest versatility. To tune out the wavelengths typically reflected in haze...

As 'made to order' manufacturing continues to advance, there will probably come a day when science can map a person's visual acuity and perceptions and create custom coatings for each individual. (Are you high-end scope makers listening????) But right now, an individual's perception of one scope being somewhat better than another, is likely based on the fact that you are most at-home with their coatings package.

Glass quality is not to be sneezed at. But it's the coating 'package' that will create your visual experience. Again, read Doc's stuff. IMHO, it was/is right on and answered some of the key questions in this argument some time ago.

YMMV, As Seen on TV, offer not valid in Puerto Rico, etc. etc.

Cheers,

Sirhr

[MENTION=35181]sirhrmechanic[/MENTION], have you heard from Doc lately? Last time I talked to him was probably 3 or 4 years ago.

 

[TheBigBlue]

First off let me say I am very new when it comes to scopes; however I have been shooting cameras for ages. While scopes have different design considerations, the goal is pretty similar.

Which incidentally.. is why I laugh every time I read a comment like "Nikon can't make good glass..." - oh they can, they just don't care about rifle scopes much. Not a business priority. Nikon makes both huge telescopes for astronomy and industrial microscopes for the semiconductor industry.

Anyway, a lot of the things important for photography don't matter for scopes much - but most do.

So I could regurgitate everything, but just go read Canon's excellent intro to Lenses here.

http://software.canon-europe.com/files/documents/EF_Lens_Work_Book_10_EN.pdf

While it's obviously written with photography in mind, it's pretty straightforward to see how factors like CA (chromatic aberration), SA, distortion, contrast, etc all can affect shooting.

Personally I think poor contrast is the most obvious even at a daylight range, but coma, flare, etc will be significant factors for the tactical/hunting shooter.

Bottom line - it's not just about the glass, it's more about how you put it together and design the lens.

My suggestion for testing lenses would be to use a scale-appropriate barcode-like target at varying light conditions. You'll pretty quickly see all the optical faults in the different lenses. Looking at 'natural scenes', it's much harder to see the flaws.

Same rules for camera lenses apply for scopes. Zooms are generally worse in low light and have more distortion. Smaller objectives gather less light.

So if you always shoot at the same distance in broad daylight - get a cheap fixed scope. If you need a zoom lens with low light - shell out for a fat objective with quality design.

If you get a cheap zoom it'll be okay when it's bright but that's it.

 

[USMC#1]

I salute the OP for basically bringing up a very good point and one that has been in mind very often...

Personally, I have spent a lot of time behind spotting scopes, binoculars, and range finders in the military. At that time accurate color rendition, sharpness of focus, low light and rudgeness where absolutely critical for mission accomplishment.

Now many moons later....
Low light targets, accurate colors, super duper rudgeness and you get the point are not needed...
Therefore, my needs are very different because of my mission change. I am out there to enjoy my hobbie of shooting steel targets, punch holes in paper, and shoot prairie dogs. Below are some of the attributes that work for me....
1. Accurate tracking
2. Focus
3. Magnification quality (PD are hard to see past 400yds)
4. Mil/Mil (why switch to something else...)

With that being said most of the scopes in the $500 to $2000 range meet my needs. Will not spend more than $2k for a scope... Not because I can't afford it. It's because of a belief that it's not needed and a self imposed budget. Hey, a good scope will allow you to experience less eye fatigue, at least how I perceive it.

Guys don't go by brands... See if that particular model meets your needs. Also, be sure you are clear with your specific needs!

Just saying...

 

[Muskett]

Reticules are generally etched onto glass; no more broken reticules which used to be very common.
Fixed scopes can be made so much more robust than variables; to the point even low end scopes might survive a good few seasons.
There are enough moving parts in a variable for lots to get wrong. Some manufacturers can build them well, others think they have, and a few just haven't.
The more toys the more to go wrong.
Lenses have never been easier to make, but to get the combination of lenses to give a crisp picture to the edges without any distortions takes some doing. To make it work throughout a variable magnification takes it to an even more precise level. That starts costing a lot more. With moving parts if they don't align every time things get distorted, burred and as these lenses are so close together it doesn't take much to become all wrong.
Coatings, fully coated, takes some getting right as some combinations give better results than others. Some coatings are expensive. What combination should be reflected in the price but thats no guarantee.
New machinery and investment should produce better products. The older machines make the lesser lines and the new the flagship offerings. Sometimes the machines do it all and its just the glass changed.
Then add the complete build quality and design.

Whatever it cost to make you can times that by at least 4x to get a retail price. So a $400 scope cost no more than $50. At $800 then there might be some money to spend on better components and some chance its going to work. Some rebadged scopes are just a list of components put together and the decisions are based on reaching the price of the target market. No different to many commodities. Fortunately building a basic scope is no longer space science so a $50 scope will work, but the more complex the more likely it can't do what is promised.

Lastly, and out from me on this:
Some scope models just work great and are always just great..... then someone messes with them. Buy the scope with the least amount of toys that still does what job you want it to, and buy the best you can stretch your budget +10%. A cheap rifle with a good scope will outshoot a great rifle with a beer bottle scope.

 

[MoBoost]

anybody want to trade me 34 utg's for a S&B?. this thread makes my head hurt, wait till the op finds out what tunneling is
oy'va!

Hahaha ... don't get me started!!! $3k+ scope in 21st century with tunneling issues?!? Seriously?!?
Oh, and partially blocked FOV is "normal" as well.
"People rarely go below 7x" ... what a joke!
Can't believe S&B is still in business; it's like if you get a good job you automatically get brain hemorrhage and you have to buy a bimmer and shmidty to go with it ... I mean, you can't wear your $750k house, right?

 

[Gunny81]

Holy fucking shit. I don't post for a few months, and this shit is what I come back to? OP, are you serious? Of course a low-powered pos scope will look clear. Nikon, nikko stirling, barska, bsa, and all the other shit companies make a good living trying to copy quality features. Coatings, reticle tilt, and internals are what separate a good scope from a great scope. Chinese pieces of junk tend to have mediocre at best internals. Just look up sniper scope or some other tag of nonsense. Tracking, CA, quality of internals, repeatability, and how a scope handles shock are what you should look at. I cannot tell the difference between the clarity of $1500 and $3000+ glass. That doesn't mean I can't tell the difference in applications. Hard, loud, tactile clicks and proper tracking are what I generally look for. Quality of construction is the next. In the end, the important question you have to ask is would I use said scope in a must make the shot situation? Whether it's competition, in the field, or professionally. Do you want to count on a >$100 scope?

 

[Coloradocop]

I do hope it doesn't dissolve into popcorn material. I looked through both, and saw no difference, and I am trying to understand why. I am not trying to stir the pot. No one can deny that a kiss feels better than a punch.
I was hoping for that kind of difference between a 3K scope and a $40 scope at least glass wise. I didn't see it, and I am wondering if I am the only one, or if there are other closeted glass-quality people out there, or if may be I am doing it wrong, or if I should offer my eyes to medical research or something. I also did tracking tests, not the shooting kind, but the kind where you strap the scope to a bench. And the Bender is 0.1 mil off at 100 yds for 10 mils, almost in any direction except left while the UTG is a full 1 inch off, then comes back to zero 0.5 inch off. So I know the Bender is way better in any other factors, that's not what this is about, however, glass is what most talk about here, and frankly it seems to be the least consequential, at least to my eyes, and I am trying to understand why I couldn't see the difference or to see if I am the only one. And maybe like <knockemdown> subjested, I have "cheap" eyes, eyes that can't tell between quality and crap, even though my vision is 20/20 but that's what I am trying to figure out!

I think if you spend some more time with the S&B you'll begin to see it. I have a lower priced scope that I always thought was as clear as the S&B that I now use, but it really isn't. First, the cheaper scope has lower magnification, and looking at different magnifications can really throw off perspectives on clarity. Moreover, I didn't really notice the difference until I spent some time behind the Schmidt, then went back to the other scope. Now I can see it more easily, especially in low light conditions, or field conditions where I really need to make out fine details.

Try shooting with your S&B for a couple hours straight, then switch over to one of your other scopes. I've done this purely by chance on a few occasions while shooting with friends… spent an hour or two behind the Schmidt, then took a few shots with a friend's gun. I've gone from my S&B to Night Force, Steiner, and high-end Bushnell scopes. To me I could see a difference in all of those cases. But, maybe that's just me.

 

[LawnMM]

You all talk as if you're on a bird watching forum looking to tell the difference between birds of the same genus by picking out a specific feather combination. Chasing glass quality is a fools errand.

Post of the year.

 

[perkantino]

Post of the year.

I agree! I have since looked through other high end scopes (Premiers), and frankly it's still not discernible to me. I have been using this S&B for more than a week now, and still. I manipulated every adjustment out there and the UTG still looks similar to the S&B. I looked through it at dusk, and when I can't see through the UTG, neither can I see through the S&B. I don't see any low light advantage. I looked through them during a rain storm, and again, same.
mechanical soundness and features makes more sense. People make the glass argument because it's easy and because who really tests their scope for tracking accuracy and durability?

 

[perkantino]

Holy fucking shit. I don't post for a few months, and this shit is what I come back to? OP, are you serious? Of course a low-powered pos scope will look clear. Nikon, nikko stirling, barska, bsa, and all the other shit companies make a good living trying to copy quality features. Coatings, reticle tilt, and internals are what separate a good scope from a great scope. Chinese pieces of junk tend to have mediocre at best internals. Just look up sniper scope or some other tag of nonsense. Tracking, CA, quality of internals, repeatability, and how a scope handles shock are what you should look at. I cannot tell the difference between the clarity of $1500 and $3000+ glass. That doesn't mean I can't tell the difference in applications. Hard, loud, tactile clicks and proper tracking are what I generally look for. Quality of construction is the next. In the end, the important question you have to ask is would I use said scope in a must make the shot situation? Whether it's competition, in the field, or professionally. Do you want to count on a >$100 scope?

Glad to see that you agree with me.
We all know that internals are better, see that's not debatable. The debate here is about glass quality

 

[perkantino]

Hahaha ... don't get me started!!! $3k+ scope in 21st century with tunneling issues?!? Seriously?!?
Oh, and partially blocked FOV is "normal" as well.
"People rarely go below 7x" ... what a joke!
Can't believe S&B is still in business; it's like if you get a good job you automatically get brain hemorrhage and you have to buy a bimmer and shmidty to go with it ... I mean, you can't wear your $750k house, right?

You know, I have a Bushnell elite with crazy tunneling, meanwhile, I have looked through a lot of cheaper scope without. I think sometimes there is a case of "Because it's more expensive it must be better" going on in people's mind. There is a reason why blind tests exist

 

[Yowie]

So, I want to start by saying that I hope I learn something out of this, and I certainly hope that people who know more than me will point me to what I am missing, instead of being sarcastic of disruptive, because
I think there is something afoot here. I have come to a: "The emperor has no clothes" moment when it comes to glass quality, but may be it's my eyes. So I need your honest input

I have been playing with a lot of mid-end scopes, Leupold, Bushnel Elite, Vortex, then I recently got a S&B 3-20. My first high end scope! So obviously I was expecting to see what everyone had been talking about.

We all looked through, or dabbled in airgun scopes before I am sure. Barksa, UTG and all the heretic scopes out there. Comparing those UTGs to mid-end scopes glass quality wise, frankly I couldn't see the difference before, but then I thought well, may be it's because those are mid-end scopes, "When I get the S&B, I ll see what glass quality really is about" Well I have been looking through the Bender for 2 days now, low light, short range, long range, and I honestly can't see a substantive difference between my S&B 3-20 and a random UTG I found from airgun days. Frankly guys I can't.
I looked at a platform 1100 yards away, and I can't really see the difference with the UTG. I see every detail just as fine with both. Something I had noticed between the UTG and the mid-end scopes before, but suppressed and ignored. I have gone through all the glass posts on here, I tried my best to read all of them. I routinely see, people say: great glass here, better glass there, this one is much clearer. Is there something wrong with me?
I even went as far as picking up a hunting scope for 20 bucks at dicks, and going that cheap I can clearly see a great deal of difference glass wise, but again nothing glass wise that would prevent a 1200 yard shot if the $20 scope could track and resist recoil. I can see every detail at 1100 yards with that 20 bucks 3-9 power scope as I can see at 9 power with the bender.
What could it be? Do I have super powers, do I have a super UTG? Is my Bender fake?
Or do we all need to admit something we ve all always noticed, but no one really had to courage to expose? I am just dumbfounded. Now, I am young and I have 20/20 vision, in fact was at the doctor's last week for a mandatory physical. Is that the reason? or is it something else afoot? Someone please help me! I posted pictures of both in my back yard. If the reticles were obscured, could you tell the difference glass wise between the $44 UTG and the $3600 Bender?

Hey mate,

The thing I've found with different price ranged scopes especially going from the nikko Stirling to redfield is that the "refresh rate" is instant, swing the scope around looking through it and it is instantly clear and focused unlike the other scope which would take a bit to catch up with the varying distance objects. Also the whole reticle is clear not just the centre, your field of view is also greater so you can see what's around your target like many a bigger boar/buck meaning your not just narrow sighted.

Hope this helps,

Cheers,
Josh

 

[lancetkenyon]

In my opinion, and I did not read this entire thread, high quality glass differences are minute from mid-range glass, but they add up.

Most of my hours are spent behind binos. Hundreds to thousands of hours a year depending on what I get drawn for. So my observations and comments are from these experiences. I can easily see a difference between my $139 scope and my $1500 scope though. And even between a $1000 scope and $1500 scope.

Here are where some of the minute differences come into play with binos.
Clarity at center
Clarity to the edge (big difference between glass here)
Color
Contrast
Eye relief
Brightness (coatings make a big difference here)
Eye fatigue
Durability
Features
Warranty

Between a $100 bino and my old $500 binos, there was a huge jump in quality. Between the $500 binos and my new $1200 binos, the jump is less apparent until you spend 10 hours a day behind them glassing. Color representation is better, contrast, edge to edge clarity, etc. makes game stand out better. Full light midday sun, there is not much discernible difference. Very early morning, late evening, they really show the difference too. Same size binos, 10x42, but much better coatings and glass quality.

Features on riflescopes can make a big difference too. First focal plane, reticles (etched glass vs. suspended crosshairs make reticles like the Horus types doable), positive stops, better returnability to zero, better click adjustment, parallax adjustment, durability and resistance to coming apart after repeated abuse, eye relief, color, clarity, contrast, light gathering, wider range of magnification (3x magnification vs. 4x, 5x, 6x or even 8x magnification range), finish, etc.

I used to be on the "I can get two $300 scopes vs. one $600 scope and have two rifles ready to go". Now, I would much rather have one good/great scope and swap it between rifles as needed. Still working on getting a real high quality one like a S&B. Congrats on getting one.

 

[Javelin]

To further my earlier post about lens quality I took a buddy with me to cabellas yesterday and we looked through binos. Glass quality in binos are really more noticeable due to the binocular effect of both eyes (yes it's true). We both spent 3 hours glassing and luckily the store was not very well lit in the fly fishing/waterfall area that per the swarovski EL Range was 75y away. We are both well known there and the glass department left us alone for the assessment.

Now obviously no true low light existed but whatever, these are all tops in their game & glassing in the field you can look at expert reviews. Put these in a cloudy/rainy day or at 5 minutes before sundown on a hot & dusty Texas evening and there are only a handful that will be visible so I'm not touching low light performance. But I can look at optical clarity in perfect conditions & these are my findings.

Ok so we tried Leica HDs, swaoros, Ziess victory, vortex, nikon and some cheapies from cabelas brand etc.

1) Glass in the Swaros, Ziess & Leica were top notch. Huge difference in eye relief which matters even in scopes as the image is comfortable to get behind in most every situation.
2) Glass in the Vortex Razor HDs were superb, hell they were right there with Ziess but the field of view suffered compared to swarovski, Leica, and zeiss. This field of view is also important in rifle scopes. You pay for this. Vortex suffered with "tunnel vision" in my opinion.
3) Weight & more importantly balance/ tactile feel again top 3 (zeiss swarovski & Leica win again).
4) now for the hard part, color & contrast... I'm not qualified to tell you which is best but there IS a difference. I can't tell you specifically but it's there. The images are "3 dimensional" and truly exquisite in the Leica & Swarovski optics. For what it's worth I liked the swarovski slc & El swarovision vs all others time & time again picking them up randomly off the desk. They were just visually stunning. This 3D image not so important in a rifle scope but those scopes with the best light transmission and edge to edge clarity have this 3D image. But light transmission is important in a rifle scope and is and that is scientifically measurable. Again better binos have better light transmission.

Ok that's it. Can my eye honestly discern between the Leica, Swarovski SLC HDs, and Swarovski EL HDs... Or Zeiss victory? No. I will leave that to the opticstalk & bird watcher forum gurus. I can tell you which I prefer to get behind and look through and that's the swarovski SLC HD 8x42 & the swarovski EL HD 10x50). Field of view was huge in both but both had trade offs. Panning the SLCs win as the ELs have a little fish eye due to swarovision field flattener. The image of the ELs is superior while static but they are heavier. The stability of the 8 power easier, the view of the 10x50s spectacular if controlled shake is minimized. But that's what I'm getting at. Trade offs. Form & function. What you are willing to part with. Reliability is key in rifle scopes as is everything else, some things like price dictate what we buy, but I think one has to look at all features and not just clarity or field of view to make the best decision.