When someone says the glass is "unusable", what exactly is meant by that? I see that term mostly when describing some lower end (sub $1k), higher magnification optics. Is it absolutely, positively you're screwed unusable or just not as good as the $4k optic next to it? Thanks
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Your description of "Unusable Glass"?
- Thread starter jd65
- Start date
I have some really nice scopes, and some so-so scopes like the Tasco on my Marlin 30-30. None of them are unusable, because they all hold zero. Sure, some could be nicer, and I am in the process of upgrading some of them, but I've used them all, so they are not unusable.... to me, anyhow.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
Unusable is company language for contempt prior to investigation. Mostly by people that have failed by attempting to buy their way out of the fundamentals.
I’ve seen guys with Walmart grade glass and garden variety rifles keep up with full blown rig guys whose bipod and rings cost more than Walmart guys whole rifle. Like it has been stated people try to buy marksmanship. I’ve always tried to look at the point of diminishing return in glass. Is a Khales clearer than my NF NXS? Yes, but is it twice as clear to justify 2x the price? For me, my budget, my distances, and my skill level no.
I have not taken the opportunity to look through a variety of mid to high end glass. I own a clearanced out Steiner Military 3-12x50 and that's it. Past that I'm still hunting with my Bushnell Banner I bought, at Walmart, when I was in my teens. I want something with more magnification for my steel slapper but every time I click to the next page of a review someone is saying don't buy this scope, the glass is unusable at 25x etc... I would rather not spend my kids community college fund just to try out a scope to find out the reviewer was in fact correct and when I crank the dial to 25x the scope takes a shit and I cant see through it. If only my Walmart stocked some Nightforce options to check out.
Usable to me is eyebox not stupid tight, enough clarity to pick out targets at distance and glass isn’t overly tiring to the eye.
The old Vortex HS-T I used to run was nothing fancy but it got the job done for quite a long time.
The old Vortex HS-T I used to run was nothing fancy but it got the job done for quite a long time.
yet another reason one of these optic distributors needs to offer a rental service.
i tried starting one - just didn't have the money to blow it up big and do it right.
i tried starting one - just didn't have the money to blow it up big and do it right.
When it comes to "unusable" I think context is important. Something going on a sub-200 yard hunting rifle has different optical requirements than something that's going to be used by someone that's trying to compete at a very high level in PRS/NRL matches. That PRS/NRL shooter will have different requirements than a benchrest or F-Class shooter (although they are probably closer to the PRS/NRL crowd than the PRS/NRL crowd is to the sub-200 hunting crowd).
2 thoughts:
1. Glass quality is very subjective and different brands look different and personal preference is a factor. If Steiner looks good to you I’d consider getting another one in their line.
2. When you are spending that type of coin you may want to consider a road trip. Find yourself a Cabelas or comparable store, ensure they have them in stock and make the drive. If you are a serious shopper they should allow you to walk outside with them to sight with them. This is very important to see resolution under actual sunlight and not fluorescents. It also gives you an opportunity to sight on something more than 40 meters away.
1. Glass quality is very subjective and different brands look different and personal preference is a factor. If Steiner looks good to you I’d consider getting another one in their line.
2. When you are spending that type of coin you may want to consider a road trip. Find yourself a Cabelas or comparable store, ensure they have them in stock and make the drive. If you are a serious shopper they should allow you to walk outside with them to sight with them. This is very important to see resolution under actual sunlight and not fluorescents. It also gives you an opportunity to sight on something more than 40 meters away.
A friend and I used to talk about this very subject, and it's something that I think that someone like SWFA could really do right. They buy and sell used glass all the time, they're known in the marketplace, they have a storefront where locals can get hands-on, and a lot of the internal infrastructure is already in place. I think that it's a killer idea, but you're right... it would absolutely take a sizeable investment to do it if you were starting from scratch.
In regard to the concept of unusable glass, I will absolutely admit to being a glass snob in regard to my preferences; that said, as others have mentioned, if I can see/resolve my target and the optic holds zero, that's all I truly need. What I want is a different matter altogether... but for the type of shooting that I do most often (sitting at a bench with static targets at known distances), I can get by with nearly anything.
EuroOptic tried that (more of a demo service than rental) and people abused the living hell out of it. I could see where it would be a tough thing to sustain.
Usable: anything that will hold zero and track correctly. Optical quality secondary, to the point where target identification becomes an issue at distance.
We've all been coddled by engineering. Even some of the cheapest optics today hold acceptable brightness and clarity to "get the job done". None of us would be happy with that, which is where the couture models from manufactures kick in. Factor in the likely durability increase then it just makes sense for the money. There is a big area where that point of diminishing return kicks in these days.
Usable: anything that will hold zero and track correctly. Optical quality secondary, to the point where target identification becomes an issue at distance.
We've all been coddled by engineering. Even some of the cheapest optics today hold acceptable brightness and clarity to "get the job done". None of us would be happy with that, which is where the couture models from manufactures kick in. Factor in the likely durability increase then it just makes sense for the money. There is a big area where that point of diminishing return kicks in these days.
Unusable optic vs unusable glass.
To me the first is a binary yes/no of just- can I use the scope. To which sure, most anything can be made to work.
The second is more subjective and in terms of glass it becomes a question of not usability but ease of usability and whether I have to consciously "look" at it or not. Some scopes with great glass you can just get behind and just see way out there, you dont have to strain your eyes, you dont have to focus and think about what youre trying to look at. Some scopes you get behind and you have to slow down and actually look at this picture 4" in front of your face. Sure some of that is whether its correctly positioned for you etc but beyond the obvious pitfalls of not being properly situated I find that there is a point where I notice that I am physically sitting here staring at this picture in a tube and then theres a point where the image is clear enough its as if my eye is actually just good enough to see the target.
Some cheap ass scopes accomplish that(!), sure they lack in build quality and features but as far as glass is concerned they look good. Some good scopes look bad.
Glass is subjective.
To me the first is a binary yes/no of just- can I use the scope. To which sure, most anything can be made to work.
The second is more subjective and in terms of glass it becomes a question of not usability but ease of usability and whether I have to consciously "look" at it or not. Some scopes with great glass you can just get behind and just see way out there, you dont have to strain your eyes, you dont have to focus and think about what youre trying to look at. Some scopes you get behind and you have to slow down and actually look at this picture 4" in front of your face. Sure some of that is whether its correctly positioned for you etc but beyond the obvious pitfalls of not being properly situated I find that there is a point where I notice that I am physically sitting here staring at this picture in a tube and then theres a point where the image is clear enough its as if my eye is actually just good enough to see the target.
Some cheap ass scopes accomplish that(!), sure they lack in build quality and features but as far as glass is concerned they look good. Some good scopes look bad.
Glass is subjective.
Unusable glass is when it is broken. From there it is a matter of what the task is and what is your skill level.
I've yet to buy unusable glass.
I've had several Primary Arms and Vortex low power variables, Weaver, Bushnell, Burris, Steiner and Vortex tactical scopes. They were all quite usable. A couple of the tactical scopes had noticeable CA, but they were still very usable.
The guys talking about unusable glass are comparing their S&B or TT to the sub $1k price point scopes that are now beneath them. It's snobbery for the most part.
I've had several Primary Arms and Vortex low power variables, Weaver, Bushnell, Burris, Steiner and Vortex tactical scopes. They were all quite usable. A couple of the tactical scopes had noticeable CA, but they were still very usable.
The guys talking about unusable glass are comparing their S&B or TT to the sub $1k price point scopes that are now beneath them. It's snobbery for the most part.
Quigley-Ford. Last optic you'll ever own!
Last edited:
Unusable is an exaggeration but poor glass exists.
Also there is sample variation, one scope from the same brand and line can have ""a more pleasing and clear image", etc, than the same scope in the next box.
I had an old USO that had the worst glass I've looked through, well except for those old $15 22 scopes with the 3/4" tube. I sent the USO in for repair and it came back slightly better but still looked like crap. Apparently I got a bad one. I could still hit stuff using either of those scopes.
Also there is sample variation, one scope from the same brand and line can have ""a more pleasing and clear image", etc, than the same scope in the next box.
I had an old USO that had the worst glass I've looked through, well except for those old $15 22 scopes with the 3/4" tube. I sent the USO in for repair and it came back slightly better but still looked like crap. Apparently I got a bad one. I could still hit stuff using either of those scopes.
The Steiner looks good to me because I have nothing else in or above that tier level to compare it to. When someone like myself, 99% internet time compared to 1% range time, reads that it is unusable, I imagine that it flat out does not work, piece of crap, junk, wasted money and needs to be thrown away.
I have a Cabela's an hour away. Last time I stopped in I think the best they had in stock was the newer Vortex Viper PST. Need to check back in though.
I was really interested in the Burris XTR II, but seems like nearly every post about one someone has said the glass is unusable at 25x and I would cry if I bought one just to have to throw it away.
Therefor, I'm trying to understand the description of unusable glass
Last edited:
You get some pretty decent glass even in the 300 or 400 dollar budget scopes. The bigger the erector {not sure if bigger is the correct term} the more degradation you see on the top end. By bigger I mean 5,6,7,8x erectors. So pushed to their full travel there are trade offs. Unusable is a very strong term, inadequate for myself is I think what they mean.
Yeah, part of our discussions surrounding this concept was insurance and damage liability... but even at that we were kind of stuck at how to determine the liability value of something like a scratch in the finish. In the end, I think we figured in the cost of getting the scope refinished/cerakoted amortized across 15 rentals. Other damage (scratched/broken lenses, busted off controls, etc...) we figured that we'd charge back to the renter the cost of factory repair, and also figured that we'd have to establish relationships with the manufacturers that offer lifetime warranties (we'd be using the scope in a manner other than originally intended and wouldn't want to abuse the free repair/replacement policies).
In the end, we figured that it wasn't something that would really be terribly feasible to the average Joe Deerhunter, but for folks with the cash to book guided Elk, etc..., hunts (or even out-of-country hunts), there might be a business case there. Let's say it costs $150 to rent a $3000 scope for two weeks... it could end up significantly lowering the overall cost of a once-in-a-lifetime type of hunt. We also thought that something like the old NetFlix approach might work... let's say that you're a precision shooter who's debating between 2-3 different scopes; you could offer a service to essentially guarantee availability of them one at a time (try one, send it back, get the next one), or maybe even all of them at once so a side-by-side comparison could be done. We also thought that a portion of the rental fee(s) could, in some cases, be applied towards the purchase of whatever scope the user liked.
We came up with all sorts of stuff, but in the end figured that it would take more than we had available to get it going and keep it going for any length of time... but for a shop that had the means, it had the potential to be profitable.
Sorry for the threadjack...
I think part of what you may be dealing goes back to the whole subjective aspect. For instance the XTR series gets good reviews. For someone moving from a an entry level scope I imagine they would be happy with the upgrade. In contrast some people who are used to running SB, Khales, etc. can be a little prissy when they step down in glass. Instead of focusing on the value of the scope or intended niche in the market they focus on the fact that the resolution and eye relief or God forbid the turret clicks aren’t positive and audible. They opine that they aren’t up to snuff with a scope that cost four times what the Burris does. The fact of the matter is they weren’t designed to compete with them! I guess what I’m saying is personal bias is huge in glass. Best thing to do is find people in a comparable budget, and intended use, and ask them what works for them.
Thanks for all the responses.
After thinking about it and reading these posts, I guess the closest I can relate to all of this is on the extreme low end of optics. An example would be myself advising a friend to NOT buy a BSA, Barska, NC Star, etc for his rifle because they are absolute junk. I had advised him to at the least buy a $100 Bushnell or Nikon. That mentality was from me comparing my own experience of my $29 BSA & Barska scopes mounted on my pellet rifles years ago to my new "high end" Nikon AR optics.
Its starting to all click here and the wheels are turning
Looking back years ago I remember walking into the little local mom & pop sporting goods store and I spent $140 on a new scope for my new Remington 700 BDL Custom Deluxe and man that was a lot of money for a scope but I thought it was hot stuff!
After thinking about it and reading these posts, I guess the closest I can relate to all of this is on the extreme low end of optics. An example would be myself advising a friend to NOT buy a BSA, Barska, NC Star, etc for his rifle because they are absolute junk. I had advised him to at the least buy a $100 Bushnell or Nikon. That mentality was from me comparing my own experience of my $29 BSA & Barska scopes mounted on my pellet rifles years ago to my new "high end" Nikon AR optics.
Its starting to all click here and the wheels are turning
Looking back years ago I remember walking into the little local mom & pop sporting goods store and I spent $140 on a new scope for my new Remington 700 BDL Custom Deluxe and man that was a lot of money for a scope but I thought it was hot stuff!
I think it was the burris guy that mentioned once that this site is so heavily weighted towards the top end of town in scopes that it is in danger of toppling over was spot on. If you were to follow most here you would be looking at the nightforcr atacr line, khales, pm2, etc etc
My fixed power swfa 12x has more than clear enough glass to do whatever you want it cost $300US, I just bought a sightron siii 8-32 for a variable power optic which are about $800-900 US I think even at 32 power the glass is more than clear enough to see any target.
I don't use my scopes in the last minutes of day light so maybe the $3000 optics are needed for this but I'm willing to bet my sightron glass would be more than good enough for that too.
My fixed power swfa 12x has more than clear enough glass to do whatever you want it cost $300US, I just bought a sightron siii 8-32 for a variable power optic which are about $800-900 US I think even at 32 power the glass is more than clear enough to see any target.
I don't use my scopes in the last minutes of day light so maybe the $3000 optics are needed for this but I'm willing to bet my sightron glass would be more than good enough for that too.
I’ve seen some sub 1k optics that are very hard to see non painted steel targets set back into shaded/brushy areas. Like almost impossible to see.
With the same target/day/conditions, $1500 optics were easily able to see it.
For me, that’s definition of unusable. When I can’t count on it to do everything reasonably expected.
With the same target/day/conditions, $1500 optics were easily able to see it.
For me, that’s definition of unusable. When I can’t count on it to do everything reasonably expected.
I just upgraded from a cheapo primary arms 4-14ffp with a basic mildot to a tango 6 3-18 and while the sig is nicer, I never ran into a situation with the PA scope where I said damn I need better glass. Hell the thing held zero and tracked fine as well.
I have a couple Bushnell scopes that I paid less than $150 on and they work but they have mushy clicks and the glass is not much better than acceptable. There are some more expensive scopes with less quality so you have to be very careful what you take a chance on.
Once you get over $300 the lower end brand name scopes seem to have more consistent quality standards which really means you just have less chance of buying a POS if you spend that much.
The trouble spot is when you try to buy something with lots of features at a low price from an off brand.
Once you get over $300 the lower end brand name scopes seem to have more consistent quality standards which really means you just have less chance of buying a POS if you spend that much.
The trouble spot is when you try to buy something with lots of features at a low price from an off brand.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
If you limit your upper magnification range from 14x-16x, then you will notice much less difference in glass quality. Seems like no one wants "mid-range" magnification scopes anymore.
Everyone seems to believe that it is absolutely necessary be able to count the pucker rings on a gnat's ass at 2,000 yards with their 2-80x60mm $5000 scope.
Everyone seems to believe that it is absolutely necessary be able to count the pucker rings on a gnat's ass at 2,000 yards with their 2-80x60mm $5000 scope.
First five stages and you can get by with mid tier if your eyes are perfect. After that, when all the paint is blasted off from hundreds of impacts, and the target turns that invisible, mottled steel the guys with the first tier glass are at a distinct advantage. No low light or adverse conditions are required, and I’m talking about 10x-14x (where most of us spend 90% of our time shooting).
IMHO, it’s not snobbery if it’s backed up by impacts rather than talk...
IMHO, it’s not snobbery if it’s backed up by impacts rather than talk...
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
I totally believe you.
I wouldn't enter a NASCAR race with a stock Corvette or Mustang either. Does that mean that either is unusable for general douche baggery around town? Or even if you genuinely have to get somewhere really fast? Not everyone who needs glass, needs top contender PRS glass. The general impression though is that they do.
A whole lotta people have been shot in the face under some very tough sustained conditions with glass that wouldn't pass muster at a national PRS event.
Edit: I'm not trying to insult anybody. There is nothing wrong with wanting good stuff. I'm just trying to counter balance the conversation a bit.
Last edited by a moderator:
Agreed. I think at the very top of the heap, having glass above a certain clarity (I tend to use $1500 or so as the margin) could make a difference as a point or two matters a lot at that level.
However, for most anyone, those couple points aren’t going to change their ranking much.
Same category as spin drift at ~1k, is it there, sure, are most good enough to see it, debatable.
I think "unusable" comes to mind when I think of how magnification was treated in the rifle scope industry until pretty recently. For instance I had a series of bench-rest style scopes starting with the Sightron S3 10-50x60mm. The stars had to align for it to resolve much at 50x, it had to be a bright day with little mirage. At 40x it could handle almost any situation within reason but 45-50x was silly most of the time.
My Schmidt 12-50 PM2 could sit at 50x all day without any problems given enough light. My March 10-60 High Master is the same at 60x. I think most peoples dim view of magnification comes from poorly resolving glass at high mags. What was once "unusable" is becoming more usable.
My Schmidt 12-50 PM2 could sit at 50x all day without any problems given enough light. My March 10-60 High Master is the same at 60x. I think most peoples dim view of magnification comes from poorly resolving glass at high mags. What was once "unusable" is becoming more usable.
i would agree to disagree i have used my s3 10x50x60 pretty easily at between 40x's 50x's times mag in cool winter air all winter to see 223 and 224 hits on paper at 600 yards where no light shines through the holes to make them easier to see and it did it with ease and have a not perfectly clear but clear enough to see the hits and groups not to have to walk down range every 5 shots and in rain and snow with wind and shade . Now in summer that may not be fully possible , then again have not tried it with mirage . but that is still a few months off and the entire winter was a lot more time once in a blue moon . while they are not the "best" scope in the world they certainly work well for the cost at only 1,050 that's with shipping and rings its not the worst product made . and nor is it the best that could be bought.
I agree, I loved my S3 10-50. It was maybe the best deal I ever got in a scope at $1000. I still recommend it when people think about using a high mag for ELR. It served me well for many years.
For ELR it's less about seeing hits than it is about just seeing your target at all, which requires the best resolution at high mags.
One of the factors that many don't consider is the age and eyesight of the shooter.
@Fig touched on it but it bears a decent explanation.
I'll use myself as an example.
For most of my younger life, meaning 40 and under, I had perfect eyesight.
I'll clarify that by saying it was much, much better than 20-20.
I could see and identify things that others needed quality binoculars to see. Birds, animals, fish in the water, it didn't matter.
Shooting groups at 100-200 yards with 2x pistol scopes and 1-4x rifle scopes was no problem at all.
Fast forward to turning 41 and I start noticing squinting to see things. Scopes needed refocusing, etc.
I go to the eye doctor and get checked out. His response was that he didn't understand what I was bitching about, because I was slightly better than 20-20. I don't remember the exact number but I think it was 20-15.
I told him if that was normal vision, it sucked. I remember him saying if I didn't like that, I'd really hate 20-20.
He was right.
Back to the scope discussion.
Optically, a scope should be clear edge to edge regardless of magnification.
We hope that as magnification increases, the scope retains its brightness and resolution.
I won't include tracking because that's not what you're asking about.
Most scopes including cheap ones retain their clarity in the center section. The center is where most aiming is done.
In a cheap scope, resolution decreases as magnification increases. It might not seem that way because the image is bigger to you but it's true.
Brightness decreases as magnification increases.
As a person ages, the clarity, resolution and brightness of their own eyes decreases.
My three step kids all have 20-20 vision. None have better.
Because their eyes are younger and clearer, they can see things with less light than I need. They can read in a dimly lit room just like I could when I was younger. Can I do that now? Not a chance.
I need light, I need brightness to make out details that were once a non-issue. Hell, figuring out the settings on the washer and dryer require my glasses and overhead lighting. Believe it or not, the back lit dial screws with my ability to see properly.
How does all this translate to useable and unusable magnification?
Not everyone's vision is the same. Scopes look different to different people.
As we age, magnification clarity and resolution in a scope become more and more important.
Can I still kill animals with that old 3-9x40 Tasco world class? Sure.
Can I find that animal in dense brush or thick grass. Not anymore. I need better resolution.
Can I still shoot groups at 100 yards with it? (Notice I didn't mention groups at 200)
Sure, but I can no longer make out the target as well.
Did the scope change? No, my vision did.
You're asking yourself where the hell are you going with this.
If you are just shooting groups in broad daylight, even at 600yds, a 20yr old burris 6-24 will still get the job done, even for older eyes. I know, I do it all the time.
If you are trying to use your scope to quickly find something before engaging, color, clarity, brightness and especially resolution absolutely matter.
Time matters and if you can't make out your target, you're losing precious shooting time.
I don't own any top tier glass. I also don't shoot PRS.
I do however understand why people buy the best.
Remember though, there are a bunch of people that buy and sell constantly because they don't have the latest, greatest. From them you can save a bundle buying their "last year's model".
@Fig touched on it but it bears a decent explanation.
I'll use myself as an example.
For most of my younger life, meaning 40 and under, I had perfect eyesight.
I'll clarify that by saying it was much, much better than 20-20.
I could see and identify things that others needed quality binoculars to see. Birds, animals, fish in the water, it didn't matter.
Shooting groups at 100-200 yards with 2x pistol scopes and 1-4x rifle scopes was no problem at all.
Fast forward to turning 41 and I start noticing squinting to see things. Scopes needed refocusing, etc.
I go to the eye doctor and get checked out. His response was that he didn't understand what I was bitching about, because I was slightly better than 20-20. I don't remember the exact number but I think it was 20-15.
I told him if that was normal vision, it sucked. I remember him saying if I didn't like that, I'd really hate 20-20.
He was right.
Back to the scope discussion.
Optically, a scope should be clear edge to edge regardless of magnification.
We hope that as magnification increases, the scope retains its brightness and resolution.
I won't include tracking because that's not what you're asking about.
Most scopes including cheap ones retain their clarity in the center section. The center is where most aiming is done.
In a cheap scope, resolution decreases as magnification increases. It might not seem that way because the image is bigger to you but it's true.
Brightness decreases as magnification increases.
As a person ages, the clarity, resolution and brightness of their own eyes decreases.
My three step kids all have 20-20 vision. None have better.
Because their eyes are younger and clearer, they can see things with less light than I need. They can read in a dimly lit room just like I could when I was younger. Can I do that now? Not a chance.
I need light, I need brightness to make out details that were once a non-issue. Hell, figuring out the settings on the washer and dryer require my glasses and overhead lighting. Believe it or not, the back lit dial screws with my ability to see properly.
How does all this translate to useable and unusable magnification?
Not everyone's vision is the same. Scopes look different to different people.
As we age, magnification clarity and resolution in a scope become more and more important.
Can I still kill animals with that old 3-9x40 Tasco world class? Sure.
Can I find that animal in dense brush or thick grass. Not anymore. I need better resolution.
Can I still shoot groups at 100 yards with it? (Notice I didn't mention groups at 200)
Sure, but I can no longer make out the target as well.
Did the scope change? No, my vision did.
You're asking yourself where the hell are you going with this.
If you are just shooting groups in broad daylight, even at 600yds, a 20yr old burris 6-24 will still get the job done, even for older eyes. I know, I do it all the time.
If you are trying to use your scope to quickly find something before engaging, color, clarity, brightness and especially resolution absolutely matter.
Time matters and if you can't make out your target, you're losing precious shooting time.
I don't own any top tier glass. I also don't shoot PRS.
I do however understand why people buy the best.
Remember though, there are a bunch of people that buy and sell constantly because they don't have the latest, greatest. From them you can save a bundle buying their "last year's model".
The Schmidt and bender 12x50 And march highmaster are both $3000 scopes I would hope they resolve better than a sightron. My sightron is clear enough on 32 power even in rainy weather for less than 1/3 the price I can live with slightly less resolution than. Schmidt and bender
I had a LRTS Bushnell scope that tracked well and seemed to be everything I needed. Was out on the range shooting steel targets at 600 yards. It was hot and the sun was shining bright. It became increasingly difficult for me to spot the target through the mirage with the Bushy. The guy next to me was using an ATACR. I asked him if I could look through his scope, and instantly came to the realization that his scope was more “useable” and that glass quality does matter. It just depends on the circumstances.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
The problem is as a collective soul we are only able to explain it in terms of tiers and price ranges. For all I know you just didn't focus your Bushnell. I've looked down range with high end glass and it is pretty but it never occurred to me that my LOW is going to be the direct result of a miss. High end glass is great. Especially, if you need it to be humane because you are into that sort of shot. If you can't afford it or don't want to pay that much then stay out those bushes. Know the limitations with what you have. Doesn't mean it is unusable or we should tell somebody that they saved $1000 to buy a $2000 scope. That is unusable advice. I see too many people with 20 and up to over 30 year old hardware store scopes outshooting what I've seen recommended online. Just sayin'. I live where we can see all the way to the horizon. Everybody knows how to shoot. Somebody shows up with a high end scope and we gawk and admire it then we get it on and have fun. Nobody discusses any further.
If I could have the reticle on the target to begin with I don’t need a ton of clairity, nor do I need much magnification beyond 10x-12x, for sure. You’re right. You’re probably not “missing” because of clairity and quality of glass....
However, often not taking a shot (timing out searching for a target) is a miss. To me the high quality of the glass is primarily for acquisition and spotting for yourself at range, and making the impact is a distant second. Add in mirage, and other environmental factors, and there is great advantage in the top tier scopes.
I generally hunt with SFP Nikon quality scopes, and they’re entirely sufficient to the job. My LR hunting stick has a (hand-me-down) top tier scope, but generally only my comp guns get tier 1 glass.
I’m a middle of the pack guy, and I’m fine with that, because I don’t practice enough to be the best. I do compete against the best, and I love doing it. I’m just there to shoot and have fun, which I do in spades. I spent years asking to look through as many scopes as possible, and that’s what gave me perspective. Having a nice rifle and scope makes me happy. Money well spent!
However, often not taking a shot (timing out searching for a target) is a miss. To me the high quality of the glass is primarily for acquisition and spotting for yourself at range, and making the impact is a distant second. Add in mirage, and other environmental factors, and there is great advantage in the top tier scopes.
I generally hunt with SFP Nikon quality scopes, and they’re entirely sufficient to the job. My LR hunting stick has a (hand-me-down) top tier scope, but generally only my comp guns get tier 1 glass.
I’m a middle of the pack guy, and I’m fine with that, because I don’t practice enough to be the best. I do compete against the best, and I love doing it. I’m just there to shoot and have fun, which I do in spades. I spent years asking to look through as many scopes as possible, and that’s what gave me perspective. Having a nice rifle and scope makes me happy. Money well spent!
This could be that sample variation I was mentioning earlier. The S 10-50 I had was decidedly unimpressive in a few ways, especially at Higher magnification which is the reason one owns a scope like this.
Cost me a restocking fee at SWFA which made the situation worse.
I have never seen unusable glass. Even the free scope with a 12mm objective that comes with most BB guns has enough clarity to make a 1000 yard shot in most lightning conditions. I’m not kidding or exaggerating.
I have however seen pretty unhelpful reticles and completely unusable mechanical adjustments. The mechanical adjustments will ALWAYS be the limiting factor in ANY scope LONG before glass quality even begins to affect your abilities.
I use NF and Schmidt and bender. The glass is really nice and I do like that, but that’s not why I buy them. I buy them for the adjustments and durability. Good glass is a really nice bonus.
I have however seen pretty unhelpful reticles and completely unusable mechanical adjustments. The mechanical adjustments will ALWAYS be the limiting factor in ANY scope LONG before glass quality even begins to affect your abilities.
I use NF and Schmidt and bender. The glass is really nice and I do like that, but that’s not why I buy them. I buy them for the adjustments and durability. Good glass is a really nice bonus.
Similar threads
Rifle Scopes
So I bought a “Just As Good”, Burris XTR3
