Rifle Scopes Philosophy of high end optics...

[Bakwa]

I want to start a conversation about why someone would want to pay $3500+ for optics like Tangent Theta or ZCO over $1500-$2000 options, and under what circumstances one feels justified in doing so.

After peering through enough glass, it becomes evident what you're paying for when you spend a bit more. The difference between a $500 scope and a $1500 may even be evident to an untrained bystander who doesn't know what they're looking for.
But how much are you really gaining by moving from that mid tier price range to the high end game? Is the ZCO more durable than a NXS? Does it have better glass than a Razor? Do the Tangent Theta's track better and 'click' that much nicer than a BTR?

My question for those that own higher end optics is, why did you choose what you did over other proven solid options that come in at half the price?
In the end, is A ZCO or S&B PMII really worth two NXS's?

EDIT:
Update: Anyone seeking to read about the topic of this thread should start at post #38 and proceed from there, and it get's better on the second page. Warning: Almost all posts before #38, you will have to wade through trolls who are warning about how this topic will go to crap, which is ironic and self fulfilling because they are the ones that are posting off topic.
Cheers

 

[308pirate]

Why?

Why the fuck does this matter to anyone?

Buy the best you can afford and don't concern yourself with why anyone else buys what they buy.

95% of the bullshit slung around here about scopes is unverifiable, subjective opinions anyway.

 

[Austinjunks]

"I would like to start a discussion on X, so I may see people bicker. Next up 9mm vs 45."

 

[HiDesertELR]

You can't be Operator As Fuck until you spend over $3k, duh...

No, but seriously...

 

[roamin]

Because the $1500-$2000 price difference isn't the same amount of money to everyone.

 

[308pirate]

Because the $1500-$2000 price difference isn't the same amount of money to everyone.

I guess I'll repeat myself: Buy the best you can afford and don't concern yourself with why anyone else buys what they buy.

 

[IrishWind]

Next up we'll debate that NASCAR driver X wins driving car brand Y where Car & Driver and Consumer Reports both tested brands Y and Z; and Z was the better car in their testing.

 

[Bakwa]

So just to clarify, you'll are warning me that this topic isn't worth bringing up because it will turn into a shit-post fest, and you're warning me by shitposting.
That and I'm getting, "No one is capable of describing how a ZCO is discernably better than a NXS, but one should spend as much money as they possibly can on glass because that's the cool thing to do."
Is all that right?

 

[2muchcowbell]

I buy nice glass because I have the disposable income to do so (with some...serious planning, anyway). Haven't gotten to a ZCO/Tangent Theta yet, but one day...

Is the ZCO more durable than a NXS? Does it have better glass than a Razor? Do the Tangent Theta's track better and 'click' that much nicer than a BTR?

That said, all the answers I've seen point to a hard "yes" for all of the above. But for shooting inside 1,200 yards (at least in my experience), the glass of a Razor won't keep you from hitting the target. Lower-quality glass can keep you from spotting hits at that distance, though. My k624i did alright spotting hits out to 1,400 where my T5xi just couldn't resolve enough detail.

So long as a scope tracks reliably, it's probably fine. The other things (glass, reticle, etc.) are sort of secondary. A $1k scope in the hands of a pro is a much better tool than a $3-4k scope in the hands of a dilettante.

 

[roamin]

I guess I'll repeat myself: Buy the best you can afford and don't concern yourself with why anyone else buys what they buy.

Why are you repeating yourself in reply to my comment?

 

[308pirate]

So just to clarify, you'll are warning me that this topic isn't worth bringing up because it will turn into a shit-post fest, and you're warning me by shitposting.
That and I'm getting, "No one is capable of telling me how a ZCO is discernably better than a NXS, but I should spend as much money as I possibly can on glass because that's the cool thing to do."
Is all that right?

What we're telling you is that no one cares what you buy, why, or how much you paid.

And yes, this will turn into a shit-fest 12 pages long.

 

[thehun]

This is the same conversation with people that cannot afford high end guns say...why do I need to spend $3K on a SCAR when my PSA AR15 shoots the same thing...just go to a local gunshop and listen to the stupid, ridiculous conversations people have about this stuff (hence why I do not go to gunshops much anymore)

It comes down to:

A) Want/Desire/Need
B) Optical performance and turret features
C) Because who cares

Having personally experienced optics from $500 to $3500...there is a difference...each level up you go... the level of precision and clarity improves...

Currently, I think optics from $1200-2500ish are very close in optical performance...turrets are a different ball game as well as internal robustness and scope tubes...

Buy the best optic possible on your budget with solid warranty/track record...and go shoot and train...

 

[2muchcowbell]

So just to clarify, you'll are warning me that this topic isn't worth bringing up because it will turn into a shit-post fest, and you're warning me by shitposting.
That and I'm getting, "No one is capable of telling me how a ZCO is discernably better than a NXS, but I should spend as much money as I possibly can on glass because that's the cool thing to do."
Is all that right?

If you have $4k to spend on an optic, get a TT or ZCO, or really whatever suits your fancy. If you don't like the price, then get an NXS and train the hell out of it. To me, it's like the difference between driving a new Corvette or a new Ferrari 458 - they're both awesome cars and are fun to drive, but the performance differences are marginal.

 

[roamin]

So just to clarify, you'll are warning me that this topic isn't worth bringing up because it will turn into a shit-post fest, and you're warning me by shitposting.
That and I'm getting, "No one is capable of describing how a ZCO is discernably better than a NXS, but one should spend as much money as they possibly can on glass because that's the cool thing to do."
Is all that right?

Serious question if the price difference there was about 1/2 a weeks pay and you had plentiful disposable income would you have the same philosophy?

 

[SpeedyR]

Law of diminishing returns. Of course as you get past a certain point, the improvements are going to be minor. Maybe you like the reticle. Maybe you like the feel of the turrents. Maybe you like the color of the scope. Maybe you just want the satisfaction of knowing that you have the best and that you'll never need the "we warranty everything" warranty. So when you are on your $10k dream hunt, and know your scope won't crap out/fog/miss the shot, etc.

I don't have that kind of money but if I did, you bet your ass I'd be ponying up for for a ZCO or TT optics for all of my rifles.

Same goes for any high end products. Is a Ferrari that much better than a 911? or a Corvette? If your Wolf grill that much better than a Weber? Is your Sub Zero fridge and freezer that much better than a whirlpool? the list goes on and on. Buy what you can afford and what presses your buttons/blows your skirt up and be happy. If you can only afford Redfield, buy it and be happy. Chances are it'll help you hit your target just fine.

 

[Rocketvapor]

Don't come here asking questions about costs.
No one cares. This is the Hyde.
Scope quality always equates to price.
Except for recalls.

Cheap scopes are why I can't win/

 

[IrishWind]

For a professional the differences are real. And I mean a true professional, someone who has to depend on their gear and get the last little percent they can get. The people who if a shot is missed, someone will likely die. And there are those that have to have what the pros use. The serious amateurs. I might not need a 3500$ scope to put on my A-Bolt II in .30-06. But the nice thing about this country is I do have that option. Do I need Nikon's latest digital SLR? No. Would it be nice to have? Yes! And the only time I was a' published photographer' was when I had the collateral duty as PAO in my Destroyer Squadron.

 

[skatz11]

I’ve been using LOW Japanese built optics for about 10 years. I started with SWFA SS3-9 and currently have Bushnell LRHSs and Athlon Cronus BTRs. I think scopes in this range represent a great value.

That being said, I’ve been curious about what the next step provides. I found killer dealers in the EE on a used Razor AMG and Minox ZP5.

There is definitely an improvement in resolution and the scopes are more refined. I’ve found the parallax adjustments much more forgiving and easier to focus. I’m curious to see how they compare in different environmental conditions.

Is it worth it? Depends on your budget.

 

[Rocketvapor]

Which $3500 scope is the best?
The one the pros use?
I ask (for a friend of course) because I see some complaints about some expensive scopes from unhappy people.

 

[TheGerman]

This sounds like some shit poor people say.

 

[Caihlen]

I’m a poor working man. I have an RPR with a gen1 PST. I shoot every weekend. I have a good time and enjoy myself. I’m such a loser.

 

[308pirate]

Cheap scopes are why I can't win/

Or go be poor somewhere else

 

[roamin]

jUsT aS gUuD

 

[theLBC]

i'm would think there are some "objective" tests with instruments that can measure might transmission, and some actual comparisons of the view or clarity through the scopes, but i have not seen them and since i don't have that kind of budget, the point is moot for me.

 

[Rocketvapor]

There are reviews, good ones, right here on the Hyde.
I buy what I can afford (being poor) but would love to have a high end TT.

 

[2muchcowbell]

i'm would think there are some "objective" tests with instruments that can measure might transmission, and some actual comparisons of the view or clarity through the scopes, but i have not seen them and since i don't have that kind of budget, the point is moot for me.

Precisionrifleblog did a thing on that several years ago. Hasn't been done recently because, well, I presume it's a logistical nightmare.

 

[Krob95]

I typed out a whole ass paragraph but realized it can be summarized as such:

Don’t be a poor, just spend the 4k and eat ramen for a couple months. You’ll be glad you did.

 

[Dthomas3523]

.......this is bound to have a different outcome than the other 183 times it’s been discussed.

 

[CSTactical]

So just to clarify, you'll are warning me that this topic isn't worth bringing up because it will turn into a shit-post fest, and you're warning me by shitposting.
That and I'm getting, "No one is capable of describing how a ZCO is discernably better than a NXS, but one should spend as much money as they possibly can on glass because that's the cool thing to do."
Is all that right?

To make things simpler for example why not compare Nightforce's Second Focal Plane NXS 8-32 (~$2,190) to their own ATACR 7-35 F1 First Focal Plane ($3,600-$4,000)? We're talking two very different scopes here between it's overall optical system, 4 vs 5x erector, reticle selection, second focal plane vs. First Focal Plane etc...

 

[SRPowah]

I downgraded from a S&B 5-20 Ultra Short to a NF ATACR 4-16 because it accomplished everything I needed and put cash back in my pocket. If I could financially justify it, I would have S&B US, ZCO, etc on everything. I still recognize when my SWFA fixed 10 will suffice.

If you get it, you get it. If you don't, don't sweat it.

 

[surgeon260]

IMO you are asking the wrong question. The right question is, after properly handling an NXS and a ZCO/TT, can YOU tell the difference between those optics (glass, eye box, FOV, exit pupil, knobs, reticles, repeatability, reliability)?

Hit the range, make friends with gear you are interested in and ask to try it, head to your local dealer, find local shooters on the Hide, etc.

Don't listen to the clowns on the internet.

 

[YF12A]

Calling number 184! Everything in this world is subjective. I wear an Omega watch but drive a Kia suv. Thank God for this still great Country and freedom of choice. Enjoy your ability to buy the best optics available at your price point, ever.

 

[Dthomas3523]

So just to clarify, you'll are warning me that this topic isn't worth bringing up because it will turn into a shit-post fest, and you're warning me by shitposting.
That and I'm getting, "No one is capable of describing how a ZCO is discernably better than a NXS, but one should spend as much money as they possibly can on glass because that's the cool thing to do."
Is all that right?

I’ll be perfectly clear. This has been discussed seriously so much that it turns into a shit show because people are tired of typing the same 3 paragraph response every other week.

Same thing with the Mil vs moa.

Use the search function. All your answers are already here.

 

[jbonnie]

Only tangentially related but the Swaro binoculars Doug at Cameraland sold me literally just arrived on my doorstep and I feel the same joy I used to feel as a kid on Christmas morning.

 

[HiDesertELR]

"...Which brings me to Glass. Fuck Glass and screw you for making it an issue."

So you want to Buy a New Rifle Scope

Follow Sniper's Hide and pick up the latest information on all things precision rifle related. Sniper's Hide Training is for the serious tactical marksman.

www.snipershide.com

 

[Bakwa]

Thank you those who recommended using the search. When I used the search before I started this thread, I just found other shitshows and many of the same people shitting here were shitting in them too...
It is actually fairly hard to find intelligible information on recent mid vs upper tier optic options being compared. If it's all so obvious and it gets brought up every other week, then maybe a good thread should be a sticky on this matter. Too bad, there will never be a good thread on this matter. If there is, then prove me wrong.

I started this thread partially because it seemed that this topic hadn't been shit on in a while and I thought maybe we could intelligibly walk through some comparisons of options that weren't available 2-3 years ago for myself and others using the search.

I honestly do appreciate the few intelligible posts that have been made. I think I counted 3.

 

[Steel head]

It’s a class struggle!

 

[mmlook]

biggest differences i’ve found,

going from a PST II, to a Tract Toric and razor gen II,
and now a ZCO

1. eyebox - huge on the zco
2. parallax - pretty much parallax free from 200-1k
- all the other optics ive tried are sensitive from 200-400
3. spacial resolution - less mag needed to see the same amount of detail
8-10x for the ZCO
12-15x for all others

 

[Bakwa]

Perhaps I'm going about this in the wrong way.
Can one of you more intelligent that me posters direct me to a set of words or a phrase to search for that will address this topic of conversation? Or link a particular thread?

 

[Bakwa]

biggest differences i’ve found,

going from a PST II, to a Tract Toric and razor gen II,
and now a ZCO

1. eyebox - huge on the zco
2. parallax - pretty much parallax free from 200-1k
- all the other optics ive tried are sensitive from 200-400
3. spacial resolution - less mag needed to see the same amount of detail
8-10x for the ZCO
12-15x for all others

Thank you. That is exactly the kind of first hand experience/opinion I'm searching for.

 

[seansmd]

You can get this answered over at the RRS vs Innorel thread.

 

[Bakwa]

You can get this answered over at the RRS vs Innorel thread.

The tripod thread?

 

[seanh]

Which company offers resolution test? Which company offers multiple Color Spot test? Which company offers luminescence loss. I have yet to any company provide publicly necessary Optical tests to prove their glass is better.

How about a company providing MTS cyclic fatigue testing for public data.

It's really easy to say just go buy the best you can afford but really all that is is simply saying this... Go by the best marketing, advertisement, popularity Etc you can find that has you spending the most money.

So, other than trying to put the guy down that started this thread is there anybody that can provide actual laboratory test results and not just opinion?

 

[1moaoff]

Thank you those who recommended using the search. When I used the search before I started this thread, I just found other shitshows and many of the same people shitting here were shitting in them too...
It is actually fairly hard to find intelligible information on recent mid vs upper tier optic options being compared. If it's all so obvious and it gets brought up every other week, then maybe a good thread should be a sticky on this matter. Too bad, there will never be a good thread on this matter. If there is, then prove me wrong.

I started this thread partially because it seemed that this topic hadn't been shit on in a while and I thought maybe we could intelligibly walk through some comparisons of options that weren't available 2-3 years ago for myself and others using the search.

I honestly do appreciate the few intelligible posts that have been made. I think I counted 3.

Amateur

 

[W54/XM-388]

Perhaps I'm going about this in the wrong way.
Can one of you more intelligent that me posters direct me to a set of words or a phrase to search for that will address this topic of conversation? Or link a particular thread?

Try going and watching this guy's videos:

Dark Lord Of Optics

Most of what you will see here are some random (and not so random) thoughts on sporting optics of all sorts. I will also intersperse these with other gun rel...

www.youtube.com

He reviews everything from low end to the top of the line and many of his reviews explain the best for each price point.

 

[Bakwa]

Try going and watching this guy's videos:

Dark Lord Of Optics

Most of what you will see here are some random (and not so random) thoughts on sporting optics of all sorts. I will also intersperse these with other gun rel...

www.youtube.com

He reviews everything from low end to the top of the line and many of his reviews explain the best for each price point.

Thanks.
I've seen a video of him comparing a ZCO and a TT to other options. Guy obviously has a significant amount of experience and is very knowledgeable. I'll have to watch some more of his videos.

 

[seansmd]

The tripod thread?

Yes, your asking why buy more expensive things, every thread in any forum from tripods, to cars, to watches have "just as good as" threads. They all try and justify not spending, or for spending.

At the end of the day there are trusted reviewers, they have been mentioned and available in the search. The curve of perceptible benefit vs dollars decreases as you go up, but people with means are ok with that, others aren't.

 

[Mooncake]

For my purposes, I've found diminishing returns on your dollar after a certain point. Is a ZCO or TT better in some ways than a ATACR? Sure, a little bit. Clicks are little cleaner. Glass is a little better. Eye box, parallax, FOV all marginally better. I don't notice the difference enough to justify the money that I could spend on thermal/NV, 3-gun shit, ammo, entry fees, etc etc. There's just too much other shit to buy. Maybe I have too many guns that need optics. If I only had one rifle it would have the creme de la creme optic but I have a dozen or more and I don't like to move a scope around. Or bipods. Or suppressors. So much shit to buy.

Some people have very narrow interests or more disposable income than they can really spend. The beauty thing about capitalism is that you can choose to do whatever you want with your money.

 

[SRPowah]

It's really easy to say just go buy the best you can afford but really all that is is simply saying this... Go by the best marketing, advertisement, popularity Etc you can find that has you spending the most money.

So, other than trying to put the guy down that started this thread is there anybody that can provide actual laboratory test results and not just opinion?

If we are going to buy based on marketing, Quigley-Ford would have the market cornered.

A lot of this stuff is discussed on literally every "Should I buy Optic X" or "Optic Y vs Z" thread. Its like the OP asking why would I buy Canon L glass when they have cheaper lenses that also take pictures just fine.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Which company offers resolution test? Which company offers multiple Color Spot test? Which company offers luminescence loss. I have yet to any company provide publicly necessary Optical tests to prove their glass is better.

How about a company providing MTS cyclic fatigue testing for public data.

It's really easy to say just go buy the best you can afford but really all that is is simply saying this... Go by the best marketing, advertisement, popularity Etc you can find that has you spending the most money.

So, other than trying to put the guy down that started this thread is there anybody that can provide actual laboratory test results and not just opinion?

No. That’s why people keep turning these into a shit show. It’s a question that has a mostly subjective answer.