Rifle Scopes Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

[sagebrush]

this is just an idea so bear with me....

could an independent lab not test scopes using computer-aided equipment to PROVE and compare the various qualities of high-end optics? edge-to-edge clarity, resolution, chromatic aberration and the various other nuances of optics? Then this could be published online and updated periodically as technology changes.
you could perhaps submit your own scope and have it tested and returned with a printout showing how it performed in the various categories. (since no two scopes are likely to be identical).

 

[treebasher]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

I definitely like the idea of the test results being available online.

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1498579#Post1498579

 

[Cartman]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

I'm sure someone could do tests similar to ones done for camera lenses and telescopes.

An on the cheap test would really not involve too much more than the 1951 USAF resolution charts and an honest observer, or someone who could take pictures through a steadied scope and post them for people to judge for themselves.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

What you need to do is, get the resolution charts from the imagetest site, then get the image test software.

After getting the software you have to take the camera you intend on using and calibrate that, then you have to have a fixture or at least a digiscoping mount for the scope and camera so you can take a picture through the scope as centered as possible. After which you have to retest the new image from the same camera. You remove the earlier results from the camera and note the differences between the image through the camera and then through the scope and camera.

That is the closest you can get without investing $100k+ on testing equipment.

Honestly, when you are spending $1000+ or even $2000+ who gives a shit. The difference in glass between a S&B and a Premier or Hensoldt isn't going to let you hit the target any better. I have yet to use a known quality scope where seeing the target was the problem. Its a lot of wasted effort designed to make someone feel good about a purchase they probably shouldn't have made in the first place. The differences between the glass isn't about the scope, it's about the users emotional investment in the product they chose... they want to be able to say, "look at me", to their buddy, meanwhile, they are lucky to hit the target and probably only take the scope out once a month to no further than 300 yards... and still can't figure out why ?

it's a distraction... plan and simple.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

I think scope comparison tests are a waste of time and energy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Optical quality.

6. Price.

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

Your mileage may vary.

 

[HuDisCo]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

It really could not be put better than the 2 above posts. There are lot's of rifles that shoot sub 1/2MOA that are not suited for tactical use.

The real question should be, does it work, how is is supposed to, when it is supposed to, where it supposed to? This question also produces hard number statistics.

It's odd to me that this is not a question that is asked more often. I see a lot of, "You get cut when your on the edge" and other many such off the wall comments. A lot of people seem to think that scopes are like top fuel dragsters that should need to be rebuilt after every use... There not.

 

[mdmp5]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled t

Frank and Lindy,

Well said guys; excellent points and realistic advice on glass. I agree that image quality is not the limiting factor of a shooter's performance. Thanks for the posts.

 

[Sig685]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(snip)
Honestly, when you are spending $1000+ or even $2000+ who gives a shit. The difference in glass between a S&B and a Premier or Hensoldt isn't going to let you hit the target any better. I have yet to use a known quality scope where seeing the target was the problem. Its a lot of wasted effort designed to make someone feel good about a purchase they probably shouldn't have made in the first place. The differences between the glass isn't about the scope, it's about the users emotional investment in the product they chose... they want to be able to say, "look at me", to their buddy, meanwhile, they are lucky to hit the target and probably only take the scope out once a month to no further than 300 yards... and still can't figure out why ?

it's a distraction... plain and simple. </div></div>

What am I reading here? What is this blasphemy? Are you saying that one does not have to spend their kids' college tuiton funds to get the very most expensive scope on the planet for their squirrel rifle?

I cannot believe I am reading this post at Sniper's Hide, home of some of the snootiest high dollar riflescope owners on the planet.

Of course, the answer here is always "get the very bestest scope you can buy, even if that means eating ramen noodles for the next decade."

I am shocked to read that an S&B will NOT guide my bullets to the target. Shocked I tell you.

But in all seriousness, I totally agree with you.

 

[Rob01]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

I agree with Frank and Lindy. Especially this part in Lindy's post:

"2. Reliability. That means the scope must be rugged and the adjustment system must be repeatable and reliable."

Once in the high end scopes glass is good in all of them but if the scope isn't reliable in it's adjustments you just have a heavy telescope on your rifle.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

Another one of those "things" that make you go... that no one has mentioned in regards to the charts posted by member Spuhr.

Nightforce -- not a word said yet look at it.

1st graphic / Resolution test

Its the SPF $1500 scope yet it beats the S&B almost every model but the 5-25X, and it beats one of the Zeiss... you never hear anyone talk about a NF in terms of glass, or the wow factor like the higher end scope, but here it is in black & white so to speak.

2nd graphic, same thing.

3rd graph, it is hanging tough - again.

4th graph, it's actually pulling ahead in most cases

Over all opinion, wholly cow, the $1500 NF is tied with all the $2500+ scopes in the test.

So how come nobody says anything about NF , when you mention what a great scope it is, people say, "sure it is ok, but my S&B beats it". Really now, In fact one poster told me in another thread, I was the only who felt the NF was better than the S&B in overall performance.. yet here is 30 people who's opinion say the same thing I did when looking at them side by side.

Why, well I already know the answer to my question... and is why I say, the human element skews everything. When people spend their money on something they refuse to be objective after that.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When people spend their money on something they refuse to be objective after that.</div></div>

Psychologists refer to that phenomenum as <span style="font-style: italic">cognitive dissonance</span>. We hate to admit that we make mistakes, or less than the best choice.

Very human.

 

[Ratbert]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... you never hear anyone talk about a NF in terms of glass, or the wow factor like the higher end scope, but here it is in black & white so to speak.
</div></div>

I don't know about that. NF's quality glass is what I generally associate with someone posting a recommendation for an NSX. It's the SFP, 5 Mil turrets, rotating ocular and funky illumination adjustment that makes others more attractive.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> When people spend their money on something they refuse to be objective after that.
</div></div>

I have the opposite, more expensive, problem. Grass is always greener for me. As soon as I get something in my hot little hands all I can see is the deficiencies. So I have to sell it to buy the next great unknown which could be THE perfect product.

 

[robdes]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

Lowlight- I bought a nightforce 3.5-15X50 NXS w/ NP-R2 and I would lose the reticle every time I looked through it. None of the scope's adjustments helped. My brother had the same problem with it when I let him screw with it. I have never had this issue with any other scope (Zeiss, S&B, or Premier) that I have used. Was it a bad scope? Was it our eyes? The reticle seemed almost too fine. The glass looked great. I never compared it side to side w/ other scopes, but when I looked through it I wasn't wishing for better glass. I would like to buy one for my next rifle b/c I love the pricing and they seem to be rugged, but....

Thanks

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

Ya, I had brand new S&B that the parallax wouldn't work out of the box... what's your point... ?

your scope was number what ?

 

[fredreded]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When people spend their money on something they refuse to be objective after that.</div></div>

Psychologists refer to that phenomenum as <span style="font-style: italic">cognitive dissonance</span>. We hate to admit that we make mistakes, or less than the best choice.

Very human.
</div></div>

Not to be picky... but it's really more akin to confirmation bias than cognitive dissonance. With cognitive dissonance, there is an uncomfortable subtle awareness that there is disparity between a belief and the situation one finds oneself in. I don't think for many people, there is dissonance, they really believe with sincerity that they are right.

Confirmation bias on the other hand is the tendency to seek information that only supports your position while ignoring data that contradicts it. Therefore, you seek what you want, and find it every time. In this situation, I think someone commits to the idea of the scope (for any number of reasons) and then buys it. Thereafter, they selectively filter evidence to support their choice in any number of ways.

Sorry, been incessantly grading finals and research papers this week so I couldn’t help myself…

 

[robdes]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

You misread my tone. Sorry for that. I'm not trying to be antagonistic- I just want your thoughts on the matter. I don't think there was a prob with that particular scope, just the way it worked for me. Have you heard of it happening before? Do you think that it could have been the scope?
I don't know the number- I bought it new about 8 months ago.

Thanks

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

Did you focus the ocular adjustment ? Do you recall loosening the locking ring and turning the ocular adjustment.

It's very fine on the NF, similar to the Leupold, you have to turn it alot, the correct direction helps.

Do you wear glasses, do you think you might need glasses.

Competition shooter prefer the finer reticle so it doesn't cover up sub moa targets.

Could it have been the scope, sure it could have been, did you send it back to NF to check it ? That is why they have the QC sticker on it, so they can check and track issues to reduce it from happening.

 

[vinconco]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Psychologists refer to that phenomenum as <span style="font-style: italic">cognitive dissonance</span>. We hate to admit that we make mistakes, or less than the best choice.

Very human.
</div></div>


Buy a leupy MK4 and you will be cured

 

[robdes]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

Yea, I worked the ocular over. I wear contacts, but am probably due for a new prescription. I really never considered that it was a broken scope, so I sold it. I never heard from the buyer- I hope it worked for him. I'll have to look through another one and see if I can get it to work for me.

Thanks for the info.

Great site by the way- keep up the good work!! It helps us all.

 

[sagebrush]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

great stuff, thank you all. I'm learning every day here.

i totally understand that optic qualities are only one quality to shop for, but I'd still very much like to know how the glass compares since I'm the buyer and just 'want to know'. Also I see various scope makers with what are probably unsubstantiated claims about their amazing light transmission, resolution etc and I'd like to know who is full of BS and who's legit. As it is right now I just have to take folks word for it that have looked through various scopes and that's got me in trouble in the past. Also when I do have the opportunity to see through a scope it usually in a store and i can't really tell what it would be like in the field.

I think such a comparison would also be helpful for newbie shoppers to realize that you can pay 2X the price and not necessarily get 2X better glass. The money goes into the other features.

Dtac i also had trouble with the fine lines on the NXS I had. I was also not impressed with the glass and ended up trading it out for a Mark 4 with the TMR reticule. the glass looked absolutely the same to me and the TMR reticule is an enormous improvement (for me).

 

[NET65]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled t

Wow, you traded a NXS for a Mark 4. I've got a NXS and a Mark 4 FFP right now and I can honestly say that as far as construction and function goes, the NXS is twice the scope that the Mark 4 is. I'm not knocking Leupy's, the glass is fine and the construction is appropriate for most situations, but the construction on the NXS seems much better and the glass is noticeably better. The clicks on the NXS are firm, where the adjustments on the Mark 4 are mushy. Just my opinion, I am the New Guy.

 

[mdmp5]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled t

dtac,

The ocular adjustment on an NXS is very closely threaded. I don't know how many turns it takes to go from one end to the other, but I can guarantee that it is many more than you think. You may think you adjusted it, but you may not have even come close; this happened to me. I was in awe when I found out that the ocular on my NXS wasn't optimally adjusted; night and day difference afterwards.

I attached a post regarding parallax and ocular adjustment; it is arguably the most informative writing I have read on the topic. Loosen the ring, turn the ocular piece all the way CCW, and read this post:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=31512

 

[Jakerz]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled t

Lowlight pretty much summed it up in the above posts.

Thats what I told my dad when he was knocking me about buying the USO. It wasn't the glass quality that sold me over. I wanted a tough, good looking, MADE IN THE USA product, thats exactly what I got, and the outstanding CS to go with it. Reading these forums really helped me make the decision based on more than "how good is the glass" and yes I did spend $2500 on a scope, but I don't regret it at all

Jake

 

[mdmp5]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled t

This has been a truly pragmatic discussion about optics here, in contrast to discussing mundane details that influence one's decision. I think you guys have the right idea.

 

[ScottyS]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
So how come nobody says anything about NF , when you mention what a great scope it is, people say, "sure it is ok, but my S&B beats it". Really now, In fact one poster told me in another thread, I was the only who felt the NF was better than the S&B in overall performance.. yet here is 30 people who's opinion say the same thing I did when looking at them side by side.
</div></div>


Heheh, there are a bunch of us here who've been on the NXS bandwagon for years. Compared to S&B, compared to USO, compared to Zeiss. We've seen fewer problems and very few reasons to complain.

I've mentioned it in occasional optical threads, but hey, when the same conversation is had every week, the frequency gets flooded with noise from the top sticker prices.

 

[Dark Horse]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

So is it safe to say we will never see another S&B vs USO vs Nightforce vs Premier thread here again...yeah right.

 

[ToddM]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

A more interesting test might be one of click value and repeatability.

I've always thought of trying to put a bore sight laser in a rifle and with a spotter on a 40"x40" half inch square grid at 100 yards try and run a box or triangle etc. test on scope adjustments. Taking the shooting element out of it by recording where the bore sight laser is.

In other words you zero the scope to the bore sight on the target at 100. Then dial your clicks in, moving the reticule back to the center of the target after dialing but recording the bore sight laser movement on the grid through the spotter. While a bit more of a kludge up front once you had a system down you could quickly make massive amounts of adjustments and quickly record the results without having shooter error enter in. It would make it easier to see exactly when scope adjustments start to get iffy towards the end of their range.

 

[Spuhr]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

One thing that is important to remember with the little optical test we did is that the overall opinion takes a lot of things in consideration that not is purely optical.
Single turn vindage for example, NFs multi turn vindage is not very much appreiciated by many, espesially not those who already uses a single turn.
That drags the overall opinion on the NF down a bit, same thing with the on/off light, and no field adjustability of the intensity.
For a soldier this might be of no interest buy all of those in the test was hunters and we hunt quite a lot at night, that also drags the overall opinion of the NF down.

Like with rifles the most desirable sniping rifle is not neccesaraly the one with the highest accuracy, the same opinion also fits to scopes. It's not necesaraly the scope with the best resoluttion or best generall picture quality that is the most desirable......
There is so many other factors than accuracy and resolution........

But resolution or picture quality is important and If i have the choise I of course take the scope that give me the best picture quality if the other variables on the scope is equal.

Håkan

 

[noname]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

they are called MTF curves
http://www.meditec.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/6d1ccd7cad13e258c125710e003dfb83

 

[Rob01]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ToddM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A more interesting test might be one of click value and repeatability.

</div></div>

BINGO!

 

[BOLTRIPPER]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

but.......no one has mentioned "Bertrillium-Zantitium ?

 

[DaveV]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BOLTRIPPER</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but.......no one has mentioned "Bertrillium-Zantitium ? </div></div>

You're a bad man Bolt.

 

[vinconco]

Re: Optics Shootout. Scientifically controlled test?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ToddM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A more interesting test might be one of click value and repeatability.

</div></div>

BINGO! </div></div>

+10
Seems most think they're taking pictures with their scopes instead using it as a rifle sight.