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

[perkantino]

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?

 

[Killswitch Engage]

This should be good....fuck i gotta get some popcorn.

 

[Nik H]

This should be good....fuck i gotta get some popcorn.

You read my mind!! However, it is a legitimate question. I just wouldn't even know where to begin

BR,

 

[knockemdown]

Some have a palette that cannot discern the difference between Franzia box wine and Avignonesi Occhio di Pernice Vin Santo di Montepulciano.

Congratulations?

 

[Voltron]

I'd be happy to test the glass quality with my eyes. Send it on over to me and I'll let you know if the S&B glass is up to par with my counter sniper.
Jk, I'd never own a counter sniper. I will take your scope though.

 

[SomeOtherGuy]

You are quite right. Please send me your new S&B and I'll send you any two - TWO!!! - UTG scopes that you would like, gratis.

 

[SomeOtherGuy]

More serious answer - yes, there are huge differences. Make sure the scopes are properly focused, because improper focus can make a quality scope look the same or worse than a cheap one. I don't think people spend enough time getting their scopes focused exactly right - both parallax (side focus) and ocular (reticle focus). I've had a few scopes that I initially thought had poor glass, but later realized I didn't have the focus right on.

There are diminishing returns at higher price points. It should be night and day comparing a $1k scope to a $50 scope, but the $2k scope may be very slightly different from the $1k scope, or in a few instances not any better in glass (though it may be better other ways, or it may just be overpriced).

Most scopes look great in broad daylight with low contrast targets. Look at severe contrast areas (white gutters vs. dark shade is a good one) and use in dim light to see differences. In bright light my Burris MTAC 3.5-10x has great glass. As the light fades it becomes useless very quickly, while pricier scopes that looked about the same at noon continue being useful into much dimmer light.

 

[Killswitch Engage]

Some have a palette that cannot discern the difference between Franzia box wine and Avignonesi Occhio di Pernice Vin Santo di Montepulciano.

Congratulations?

say what....

 

[perkantino]

You read my mind!! However, it is a legitimate question. I just wouldn't even know where to begin

BR,

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!

 

[ZombieMonkey]

Go shoot them out in the field at distance side by side while adjusted properly to your eyes and you'll answer your own question. Once you start working with premium glass, even with young eyes, you won't go back to lower grade glass in anything you buy. There's a very noticeable difference, if you can't discern the difference then why did you buy the scope?

 

[Exo]

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.

 

[Nik H]

I do believe that too many people single the glass out as the most important constituent element. Although it is important, there is a lot more that goes into an expensive set of optics. You have to think of all optical instruments as systems.

1. Tube design - Ruggedness, moisture ingress, , better baffles to prevent unwanted reflections internal that lead to lower light transmission, etc..etc.
2. Focuser - robust, smooth and repeatable, moisture ingress
3. Erector assembly - reliable, accurate adjustment and consistent under all environmental conditions that are specified by the manufacturer
4. Elevation and Windage - Tactile feel...positive click, smoothness and whatever else is important to the buyer
5. Reticle - multiple choices, easy to read

You can really go on and on. I by NO MEANS should be commenting as others here know 100x what I do, however, the important point is the cost of better glass only accounts for a fractional % of the cost delta between a cheap UTG and an S&B, NF, USO and other top tier instruments. You are paying for reliability and consistency under all conditions. Take your UTG out in the pouring rain or freezing day or hot day. See how it holds up then against your S&B. That is the value....

It may not seem much to you or me but it means a great deal for individuals who rely on them to save lives under intense situations. Something I will never know anything about.

Hope this helps.

 

[perkantino]

Go shoot them out in the field at distance side by side while adjusted properly to your eyes and you'll answer your own question. Once you start working with premium glass, even with young eyes, you won't go back to lower grade glass in anything you buy. There's a very noticeable difference, if you can't discern the difference then why did you buy the scope?

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?

 

[Redmanss]

It's less about the glass and more about the mechanics. If you want to compare the glass, there's the charts in the sticky section JL posted. Push the limits and I'm sure you'll see the differences.

 

[SomeOtherGuy]

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.

1) Take both scopes out to a range (or, sans rifles, any open field) with some resolution test targets at a reasonable 200-400 yard distance, and compare them back to back for an hour. Play with both focus options on the S&B until you're 100% certain it is as sharp as it gets. You should see obvious differences, if not, then...

2) Get your eyes examined. If they're great, then...

3) Find another experienced shooter to check out your S&B for the possibility it may be defective.

As others have said glass is only one factor and not the most important, but there should still be a huge obvious difference between the scopes you mention.

 

[timelinex]

The actual function of the scope like tracking, reliability, reticle, features, ffp and others is what most definitely sets scopes apart. Like you said, the cheap scope doesn't even hold zero if it's off by the time you go back to the zero. That scope is worth no more than being a paperweight then.

I too didn't believe in the glass quality differences in price ranges. When I went from my BSA scope to my first quality scope of a Vortex, I cried BS. It seemed like it was the same glass quality. I just couldn't see it. Part of the reason is the conditions it's used under. You can't compare scopes and expect to see great differences on a perfect sunny day. Here's an easy test for you. Take your phone camera (or any other cheap camera that's atleast 8mp) and take a picture of something outside on a sunny day. Take that same picture with an expensive d-slr. At first glance, both images will look very very good and have minimal differences until you start zooming into the picture. That's basically what your doing right now.

Then take both cameras and take an indoor shot. You will see that your cheap camera photo is all grainy, while the dslr with correct settings will be very crisp and still look great. That's where quality glass shines, under real world non perfect conditions.

Lastly, since you can't just 'zoom in' like you can with a photo, it's not always easy to discern differences right away. I know when I got my Vortex pst I was very happy with its optical qualities. Then I got a razor and thought it was barely better. Then I got an s&b and thought that was the same sh*t. After using the rifle with the s&b exclusively for a bit, I went back to the other rifles. Boy oh boy. The razor is just Ok, and the pst looks like I'm looking through a small straw (field of view). The cheaper scopes are also harder to focus in bad conditions like Mirage and your eyes get more tired looking behind them.

It's always hard to tell how much better something is when upgrading in small increments, but easy to tell when you get used to something and have to downgrade.

Long story short, as much as I like my vortexs, swfa's and everything else.. I'm looking to slowly replace all of them with s&b's.

 

[ahhshoot]

I agree with what many others have said. Glass quality has never held me back in any of my shooting. However, tracking and holding zero certainly have. So nowadays I'm like, screw it, as long as it's repeatable, tracks true and holds zero, I'm happy.

Now, the .mil guys might have a case for ruggedness and reliability. To me, I don't need it to be built like a tank (though the SWFA SS are).

If I had all the money in the world I'd buy a S&B based on the name and reputation alone. I have a NF because I feel it's comparable and much less costly.

 

[Lowlight]

You're camera analogy doesn't fit because that is more about the chip / sensor and less about the glass lens of said cameras.

Scopes have a prescription designed to meet a specific need. Where some differences come into play is definitely in extreme cases, like extreme environmental conditions, lowlight, (you'll see the target longer into the twilight with a better scope) color contrast to pick out a camouflaged target, as well as straight up color separation (use a light yellow or red target, lesser quality coatings have problems with yellow and red). The next part is the coatings, and this is pretty much the nuts and bolts of the glass. (after all glass is just that, glass, it's about the coatings).

What separates glass coatings used is a number of factors, but the biggest one for us is Time in Service. Direct sunlight, water, dust, etc degrade the coatings. Being able to hold up to use is what defines the better coatings. Everything looks better out of the box, that is they have not be subject to these degrading factors. Which will stay brighter longer is key. This is why giving opinions of a scope's glass out of the box is a waste of time. Also with coatings they are designed for outdoors, so if you have someone testing them indoors with artificial lighting you can having a wide varying opinion. SHOT is a good example, in one room is the Sodium lights in the other room incandescent bulbs. The glass is designed for 5600k and when viewed in this way you can alter the actual fidelity of the sight picture. It's way some scopes people don't like do better than ones people do when viewed indoors. Here is an example, the new Steiner / Burris clean room, has ports to the outside at each bench, and the Test Targets are outside not inside. Unless they get daylight bulbs photographers use, the lights used inside will skew the view.

Technically the glass argument for most of us is completely BS. The prescriptions are all very good, so you'd have to find those extremes to weed out flaws. For normal use, normal targets, normal everyday shooting, you'd be hard pressed to find a difference in the "Glass" ... it's the extremes and time that move the needle to the Plus Side.

 

[the once-ler]

Get behind a Premier Heritage and you will have your eyes opened friend. No one here can deny their glass is flat phenomenal and Ilya Koshkin the self professed "Dark Warlord Of All Things Optics" has ranked PR scopes OPTICAL QUALITY (notice I didn't say mechanical) at the top of almost all of his write-ups and reviews.
There have been dozens of "I got this high dollar S&B and I'm not impressed" posts and threads. Bottom line S&B are still using an old design that hasn't changed in many years and have been surpassed (arguably) by other manufacturers.

 

[knockemdown]

OP, I did make that post in jest at your expense, for a laugh. But the comparison holds water.

Some people really wouldn't know how to 'compare' $20/gallon wine, to a specific, high end, imported varietal, which costs $20 per ounce. To that person, either one tastes like red wine. However, take that same person, educate them with some definitions of terms, help with 'training' their palette for focusing on certain flavors and sensations, and all of a sudden, those previously undetectable nuances in wine become less subtle and more easily recognized. With time & exposure, it becomes even less of a struggle for that person to define those nuances between different wines. And once defined and understood, those nuances can be compared and appreciated for what they are...

Same can be said for glass. If one doesn't know what to look for, or lacks the knowledge to recognize and define attributes, then comparing glass can be similarly difficult. As stated above, there are test targets and charts that can be used to compare, educate your brain and 'train' your eye to pick up the differences in image quality. Learning what exit pupil is, what CA is, recognizing what a forgiving eye box allows, noticing edge to edge clarity, etc., will allow you to define and better note improvements in glass quality...

Obviously, glass is just one factor in overall scope quality, but since you focused on that, I won't bother to reiterate what else makes an expensive scope more costly. Train your eyes to recognize what makes great glass, great, and you'll begin to see the light!
Good luck & have fun...

 

[the once-ler]

This ^^^^^
CA or Chromatic Abberation is a dead giveaway of the quality and execution of an optical device

YAY 1000th post

 

[Red_SC]

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.

That's part of it- you're turning the SB down. Not to say that some scopes at 9X aren't better than others, but it doesn't take very good coatings to look decent at 9x. If you could turn that glass up to 25x, you'd see a HUGE difference. Grab any cheap, high-magnification scope and compare it to the SB at higher magnifications; that's where the better glass comes into play.

 

[Quarter Horse]

The fact that your scopes seem to be at different magnification muddles things a little but the differences are still evident. Look between the slats and you will see a significant difference in the resolution of the background vegetation. Look at the third slat in from the right on the top pic and the second slat in on the bottom pic. There is a significant difference in the resolution of the imperfections.

Your young eyes do make a difference. You can make minor changes in focus with ease compared to old tired eyes but the more you do this the more tired your eyes become. This really shows up when using binoculars for extended periods. Good glass and you can keep on looking, inferior glass and you have to stop and rest your eyes. Look for definition in shadowed areas. Look for definition at the edges, not the outer edge of the glass, the edges of an object or even a bullet hole. You will see the differences.

 

[Lowlight]

This ^^^^^
CA or Chromatic Abberation is a dead giveaway of the quality and execution of an optical device

YAY 1000th post

Really, than why do my Hensoldts display more CA than almost any other high end scope out there... ? (as well as many mid level scopes too)

 

[perkantino]

You're camera analogy doesn't fit because that is more about the chip / sensor and less about the glass lens of said cameras.

Scopes have a prescription designed to meet a specific need. Where some differences come into play is definitely in extreme cases, like extreme environmental conditions, lowlight, (you'll see the target longer into the twilight with a better scope) color contrast to pick out a camouflaged target, as well as straight up color separation (use a light yellow or red target, lesser quality coatings have problems with yellow and red). The next part is the coatings, and this is pretty much the nuts and bolts of the glass. (after all glass is just that, glass, it's about the coatings).

What separates glass coatings used is a number of factors, but the biggest one for us is Time in Service. Direct sunlight, water, dust, etc degrade the coatings. Being able to hold up to use is what defines the better coatings. Everything looks better out of the box, that is they have not be subject to these degrading factors. Which will stay brighter longer is key. This is why giving opinions of a scope's glass out of the box is a waste of time. Also with coatings they are designed for outdoors, so if you have someone testing them indoors with artificial lighting you can having a wide varying opinion. SHOT is a good example, in one room is the Sodium lights in the other room incandescent bulbs. The glass is designed for 5600k and when viewed in this way you can alter the actual fidelity of the sight picture. It's way some scopes people don't like do better than ones people do when viewed indoors. Here is an example, the new Steiner / Burris clean room, has ports to the outside at each bench, and the Test Targets are outside not inside. Unless they get daylight bulbs photographers use, the lights used inside will skew the view.

Technically the glass argument for most of us is completely BS. The prescriptions are all very good, so you'd have to find those extremes to weed out flaws. For normal use, normal targets, normal everyday shooting, you'd be hard pressed to find a difference in the "Glass" ... it's the extremes and time that move the needle to the Plus Side.

I am a little impressed! Just a little. I learned a few things, and I really like the last paragraph. The lens degradation as well as the camouflage argument are things that I was oblivious to.

 

[the once-ler]

Really, than why do my Hensoldts display more CA than almost any other high end scope out there... ? (as well as many mid level scopes too)

Frank none of these "rifle telescopes" are designed to be orthoscopic or optically perfect, notice how I said device. Again I will refer to high end astronomical refractors using triple and quad lens sets in their objectives as an almost perfect design lacking even the slightest CA. If memory serves me Hensoldt uses a Flourite lens set in their objectives and yes they do exhibit some purple fringing but still give incredible clarity and resolution.

 

[the once-ler]

Glass selection does matter. There are MANY different densities of glass with varying refractive index matching these together is just as important as coatings right Frank?? There isn't just one type of glass

 

[Lowlight]

whatever you say...

 

[the once-ler]

There are different types of glass aren't there? Doesn't that matter? I mean you couldn't take the glass out of a $20 scope and throw Schmidt coatings on it and it be equal to the genuine article?

 

[perkantino]

I guess I just expected a dramatic difference glass wise, like going from a 4 cylinder engine to a V8, or no indoor plumbing to indoor plumbing. Or MRE to sirloin. In fact turret wise, there is a HUGE difference, reticle wise TOO , but with glass even reading posts here, you can tell that it's not that straight forward even from cheapest scope to most expensive scope, but yet the glass argument is the first that comes up about scopes. Not turrets, not tracking. May be we need to look at optics differently in this day and age. Is it possible that everyone has caught up in terms of glass quality? Isn't it like the Hondas are reliable argument? In this century, isn't everything reliable? Even though we are clinging to old cliches? I mean think of the pinto! Do you see anything like it today?

Perhaps other things need to come into more prevalence when it comes to scopes, because listening to the gurus here, I got into the glass dance to realize that it's not what it is cracked up to be, and that other things make much more of a difference. For instance to me the P4 Fine is the best thing since sliced bread because of how fine it is. In fact, if I could get it to be finer it would be great! A reticle covering your target is a good prescription for a miss ready to happen. The ability to dial everything in 1 or 2 turns, to me again much more consequential than how cheap my glass is, because I can still see through it, but being on turn 3 when you think you are on turn 5 will doom you for sure in a way that cheap glass can never.

Now may be 20 years from now when my eyes have aged, I ll revisit this post, but as of right now, I still can't see a difference, glass-wise that is

 

[Opticsspecialist]

I'll play a little. from working with many different people regarding optic related task, from hunting, military deployments, bird watching, and pretty much anything else you can think of. above all the science, coatings, glass, what i have found is different eyes see and perceive things differently. that said, a 50$ optic is a 50$ optic, and there is a reason so many people stand by certain brands, and it's not because they like paying more, it's because they work.

 

[perkantino]

Now this should be more alarming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_xJ-3NH8JM&list=UUvjdJ1CUvaJpPNfJSmm9cSw

 

[evilcoon]

Wether it's glass, cars, whores, everyone is going to judge differently. Now being a cinematographer by nature, I can easily distinguish between optics. What sucks is that I can see the quality but if you're not able to tell the difference than you just saved a bunch of fu#^&@ money!

 

[Nik H]

Frank none of these "rifle telescopes" are designed to be orthoscopic or optically perfect, notice how I said device. Again I will refer to high end astronomical refractors using triple and quad lens sets in their objectives as an almost perfect design lacking even the slightest CA. If memory serves me Hensoldt uses a Flourite lens set in their objectives and yes they do exhibit some purple fringing but still give incredible clarity and resolution.

You should visit Astro-Physics website. They make the one of the two best refractors on the planet...Takahashi being the other. I have one of each (5" objectives). One uses fluorite (Takahashi) and the other uses Super ED (Extremely low Dispersion) glass. Both are phenomenal instruments. Wait times make LT's and KAC's wait times look short.

You can go to each website and check out the pros and cons of the glass type. It really don't matter. The point being that no one company has a cornerstone on technology. Which one is better? Good luck finding that out. If you think that the back and forth here on the hide is opinionated, try hanging out in Astronomical forums and posting this question. Bunch of nerdy types lose their cool to a degree I wouldn't think is possible.

I would think that the same can be said for these types of instruments...I believe that you should pick what works for your application and be happy about it. If you buy any of the top tier brands and you don't like it; you can always sell it and buy the other or you can keep both.

BR,

 

[the once-ler]

that's bad!!

 

[the once-ler]

You should visit Astro-Physics website. They make the one of the two best refractors on the planet...Takahashi being the other. I have one of each (5" objectives). One uses fluorite (Takahashi) and the other uses Super ED (Extremely low Dispersion) glass. Both are phenomenal instruments. Wait times make LT's and KAC's wait times look short.

You can go to each website and check out the pros and cons of the glass type. It really don't matter. The point being that no one company has a cornerstone on technology. Which one is better? Good luck finding that out. If you think that the back and forth here on the hide is opinionated, try hanging out in Astronomical forums and posting this question. Bunch of nerdy types lose their cool to a degree I wouldn't think is possible.

I would think that the same can be said for these types of instruments...I believe that you should pick what works for your application and be happy about it. If you buy any of the top tier brands and you don't like it; you can always sell it and buy the other or you can keep both.

BR,

I have a Tak TOA 130 and an FSQ106ED on an EM200Temma 2
AP and Tak are the supreme rulers in ametuer astro.. That Ohara FPL53 ED glass is beautlful. TEC aren't bad tho
Imagine a riflescope made by Takahashi. That would be the kings balls.

 

[Das Capitolin]

Technically the glass argument for most of us is completely BS. The prescriptions are all very good, so you'd have to find those extremes to weed out flaws. For normal use, normal targets, normal everyday shooting, you'd be hard pressed to find a difference in the "Glass" ... it's the extremes and time that move the needle to the Plus Side.

THIS.

I've got a $200 Nikko Sterling Target Master scope that's as clean and clear as any of the $2000+ scopes I've looked through or owned, but with proper adjustment of the ocular focus, almost anything looks perfect under 500 yards. Understand that glass is just one (small) aspect of the entire product: turret adjustment, scope functionality, repeatable settings, precision focus, lens coatings, refraction at distance, service and warranty, etc. Don't buy into the 'glass' argument, because it's not nearly as important as all the other features/factors.

 

[NorCal Vu]

Frank none of these "rifle telescopes" are designed to be orthoscopic or optically perfect, notice how I said device. Again I will refer to high end astronomical refractors using triple and quad lens sets in their objectives as an almost perfect design lacking even the slightest CA. If memory serves me Hensoldt uses a Flourite lens set in their objectives and yes they do exhibit some purple fringing but still give incredible clarity and resolution.

Funny because I almost chucked the Hensoldt I borrowed down range after 20 rounds. Had it sent back and was told nothing was wrong even though about 8 guys on the line that day couldn't read the writing on the target at 200 yards that almost every optic out there could.

 

[CSTactical]

TAG

 

[perkantino]

And then I found this: Tactical Scopes: Optical Performance Part 1 | PrecisionRifleBlog.com

The tracking test is also interesting. But the glass test above is something! Now I have the 3-20. Does the 5-25 have better glass? In the tests above the 3-27 did much worse than the 5-25. I thought S&B used the same
glass/coating for all their top tier stuff.

 

[eddiemac]

It must be different from person to person as I can clearly tell the glass difference between my Primary Arms 4-14 (OK glass), Nightforce NXS 3-15 (good glass) and my SWFA 5-20 (better glass), but I like the reticle and turrents of the NXS so the glass quality works for me......however, I would like to try out an S&B to see if it is optically much better than the SWFA.

 

[Javelin]

I can agree with some of what the OP is saying. I bought a Z6i 1-6 to replace my Accupoint. Well after much deliberation I've found the Z6i to be a larger field of view, illumination is excellent, yes it goes to 6x power, but glass quality I still have yet to see a difference. To my eyes even in low light the little trijicon does very well at a price $1600 less.

I think folks get caught up with things that don't matter. I need a scope to be repeatable, fast on target with a good eye box & reticle design (the accupoint fails in reticle). I'm not taking a picture, enjoying the scenery and viewing the wild flowers around my target... I'm shooting the target. Glass quality become irrelevant fast in the better optics.

 

[steve123]

And then I found this: Tactical Scopes: Optical Performance Part 1 | PrecisionRifleBlog.com

The tracking test is also interesting. But the glass test above is something! Now I have the 3-20. Does the 5-25 have better glass? In the tests above the 3-27 did much worse than the 5-25. I thought S&B used the same
glass/coating for all their top tier stuff.

I have both the S&B 3-20 and a couple 5-25's. My 3-20 has a slight edge in clarity, well as I perceive clarity anyway.

I've noticed that the same brand and model scope can have different looking glass, more so in cheaper scopes. One example can have good glass and another not so much.

Sometimes I don't have those S&B's perfectly focused even though I think they are because the are so clear, a small amount of movement on the parallax knob can really clean up the image super sharp. Of course the problem is more often than not the image can be sharp but there is still parallax error which must be dealt with.

Unfortunately I can see the differences in clarity or sharpness of image in rifle scopes, this bothers me to no end and has cost me a lot of money.

 

[Doc68]

This should be good....fuck i gotta get some popcorn.

Grab me some...I'll be a little late!

 

[cramey74]

I have the same curse as steve123. I can look through several scopes and see the difference between them. I really notice a difference at distances further than 600yds. I wish I would have never looked through a high quality scope.

 

[oldfatguy]

TMI for this tired old man. What I do not notice behind my S&B is the glass. I see the target and reticle. I'm sure the glass is there, but like a good haircut - it ain't calling attention to itself.

OFG

 

[tickled pink]

perkantino,

I tested my Vortex 6-24 PST FFP MOA scope just like that with dots measured in MOA not mills on top of my rifle WITH a 20 MOA rail and it moved perfectly from zero to each dot out to 80 inches. My 200$ Bushnell AR/223 4.5-18x40mm scope was just as accurate, but I only went to 50 inches.

 

[perkantino]

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:

Technically the glass argument for most of us is completely BS. The prescriptions are all very good, so you'd have to find those extremes to weed out flaws. For normal use, normal targets, normal everyday shooting, you'd be hard pressed to find a difference in the "Glass" ... it's the extremes and time that move the needle to the Plus Side.

 

[mike.h.]

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 ;-)

 

[bp7178]

Comparing scopes in daylight won't tell you much.