gmoney

open discussion on scopes

38 posts in this topic

And this is why Traders Joes sells alot of 2 buck chuck wine...
I know what a lot of people think of Bronco's Charles Shaw, but every time I see someone comment about I just have to point this out. I will admit, my wife and I use it as our 'table' wine but this speaks for itself.
At the 28th Annual International Eastern Wine Competition, Shaw's 2002 Shiraz received the double gold medal, besting the roughly 2,300 other wines in the competition.Shaw's 2005 California chardonnay was judged Best Chardonnay from California at the Commercial Wine Competition of the 2007 California Exposition and State Fair. The chardonnay received 98 points, a double gold, with accolades of Best of California and Best of Class.
(sorry to go off topic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You get what you pay for when buying glass for your rifles. I will not put cheap glass on my huntin rifles...PERIOD! Most of my rifles are for big game huntin and I spend a lot of money and time on my hunts and will always use the very best gear I can afford. All of my rifles wear nothing less than Leupolds, which in my opinion are great scopes with the best customer service. I can't see someone spending a $1000 or more on a rifle and puttin a $159 scope on it. You and your rifle can only shoot what you can see and I can't see driving 100's if not 1000's of miles to have your scope fail. There are too many variables in huntin that we can not control. One thing I can control is my gear and I will always use the best I can or in some cases can't afford. My .02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know what a lot of people think of Bronco's Charles Shaw, but every time I see someone comment about I just have to point this out. I will admit, my wife and I use it as our 'table' wine but this speaks for itself.(sorry to go off topic)
I know some very "In the Know" people in the wine industry. They laugh at Bronco's gold medals you mention. Apparently the source of the wine was not closely tracked. It should have been randomly taken off shelves but was provided direct from the winery. Fox in the hen house. Back on subject on scopes. I've got Swarovski's, Leupolds, Nikon Buckmasters, and Burris scopes. Plus a few Bushies and Simmons. My old eyes like the best glass however the Nikon Buckmaster are darn easy on the eye and alot of bang for the buck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You get what you pay for when buying glass for your rifles. I will not put cheap glass on my huntin rifles...PERIOD! Most of my rifles are for big game huntin and I spend a lot of money and time on my hunts and will always use the very best gear I can afford. All of my rifles wear nothing less than Leupolds, which in my opinion are great scopes with the best customer service. I can't see someone spending a $1000 or more on a rifle and puttin a $159 scope on it. You and your rifle can only shoot what you can see and I can't see driving 100's if not 1000's of miles to have your scope fail. There are too many variables in huntin that we can not control. One thing I can control is my gear and I will always use the best I can or in some cases can't afford. My .02
You just brought a tear to my Deerslam.. I don't think it could have been put any better than that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Jim, how long have you had your Bushmaster Varminter? I wanted to buy the full camo Varminter but none of the gun shops down here can get one in California! They all told me it's because the mag is removable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's obvious that there is a lot of snake oil in rifle scope sales and it's difficult to believe a $200 scope might have indiscernable clarity and brightness qualities from a $1500. You sure won't see a qualified study from the high-end manufacturers published unless they have a superior position to justify the expense and some of these results make it apparant why. This testing was done in Germany by VISOR in 2006. VISOR tested nine optics from eight manufacturers in the middle to highest price range for clarity, brightness (light transmission in low and high light), and climate proofing.The testing summary from the study:Technology overview(Manufacturer/Brand/Model) |(Length mm) | (Diameter mm) | (Weight grams) | (Reticle type)* Burris Signature 6-24X44 | 418 | 25.4 | 620 | Various* Docter VZF 8-25X50 | 416 | 25.4 | 796 | Plex, MILDOT* Leupold VX-III LR 6.5-20X50 | 366 | 30 | 556 | Various* Nightforce NXS 5.5-22X56 | 387 | 30 | 918 | Illum. Various* Nikon Monarch II 6.5-20X44 AO | 377 | 25.4 | 602 | Various* S&B PM II/LP double turn 5-25X56 | 422 | 34 | 1104 | Illum. Various* Swarovski PV-S 6-24X50 P-Sport | 397 | 30 | 686 | Various* Zeiss Victory Diavari 6-24X56 T* | 389 | 30 | 812 | Illum. Various* Zeiss Victory Diavari 6-24X72 T* | 383 | 34 | 1034 | Illum. VariousOptical results:Manufacturer |(Transmisson day%)| (Transmission Night %)| (FOV min. m/100m) | (FOV max. m/100m) |(Parallax 50-300m)| Diopter | (Focal Point De. 2nd plane)* Burris | 88.4 | 85.1 | 1.70 | 5.40 | Ok | Not Meas. | Not Meas.* Docter | 86.0 | 78.4 | 1.50 | 4.30 | Ok | 0.1 | 2 cm* Leupold | 92.2 | 87.2 | 1.85 | 4.75 | No Scale | 0.1 | None* Nightforce | 88.2 | 85.1 | 1.55| 5.90 | No Scale | 0.3 | None* Nikon | 93.3 | 91.4 | 1.75 | 5.20 | Ok | Ok | 1 cm* S&B | 93.1 | 91.0 | 1.65 | 5.40 | Ok | 0.1 | First Plane* Swarovski | 90.9 | 88.2 | 1.75 | 6.10 | Ok | Ok | None* Zeiss (56) | 92.0 | 88.8 | 1.68 | 6.00 | Ok | 0.2 | None* Zeiss (72) | 92.1 | 88.8 | 1.70 | 6.10 | Ok | 0.2 | 1 cmRemarks: The minimum and maximum values for the field of view were measured on the 10-meter board and then extrapolated. Parallax adjustment was tested for the following distances: 50, 100, 200 and 300 m. With Leupold and Nightforce this is more difficult because of the scaling missing. The diopter constant is determined on 100 m with the change from the lowest to the highest magnification. Focal point deviations occur only with samples with reticles in the second plane - and this also is measured at 100-m by changing from the lowest to the highest magnification.Climate-proofing (-25 Celsius)Manufacturer | Eyepiece | Magnification |(Illum. Reticle)| Parallax* Burris | --- | --- | --- | ---* Docter | Good | Good | --- | Difficult* Leupold | Good | Frozen | --- | Good* Nightforce | Good | (Very difficult) | Good | Good* Nikon | Difficult | (Very difficult) | --- | Frozen* S&B | Good | Good | Good | Good* Swarovski | Good | Good | --- | Good* Zeiss (56) | Good | Good | Good | Good* Zeiss (72) | Good | Good | Good | GoodRemarks: After the water leaked onto the Burris it was not placed in the climate chamber. After the cooling shock all samples were heated to 50° Celsius. The grease then became liquid, the threads and fitting surfaces could squeak. That was easy with both the Zeiss and the Schmidt & Bender to notice. With the Docter the magnification ring squeaked, but the parallax worked now somewhat more smoothly."This is very revealing and It certainly confirms my personal experiences. I will not purchase another Burris and I would be hard-pressed to swing for a Nightforce or Doctor scope after these results. Nikon and S&B had the best optical results - especially in low light and the Leupold VX-III performance was good in high lighting but in low light fell off to the level of considerably more inexpensive scopes. I would like to see a similar study done in the US but with many of the lower end scopes included. The impact could be significant to sales so I don't see the companies with higher-end branding like Leupold funding such a study anytime soon based on these results. Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Swarovski and it's it out of this world. When it comes to scopes it seems that you get what you pay for. IMO you when you by a scope you need to just start slapping leather and dish out as much money as you can. My Swarovski cost about $2000 and i will admit i cried a little but i knew that i had just bought a scope that would last 3 life times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandt, this is a neat article you summaried...This is the kind of info I was looking for. Very interesting thank you
I did some searching and found the same type of study done by a Finnish group with similar results:The order is from best to worst....The Scope______ Twilight F Exit Pupil Bright. Merit 8pm Visibility Schmidt & B. 2,5-10x56 23.66 5.60 132.52 1.5 Swarovski 2,5-10x56 23.66 5.60 132.52 1.5 Zeiss 1-12x56 25.92 4.67 120.97 1.5 Zeiss 2,5-10x50 22.36 5.00 111.80 1.5 Docter 3-12x56 25.92 4.67 120.97 1 Kahles 3-12x56 25.92 4.67 120.97 1 Kahles 2,5-10x50 22.36 5.00 111.80 1 Docter 2,5-10x48 21.91 4.80 105.16 1 Swarovski 2,5-10x42 20.49 4.20 86.07 1 Schmidt & B. 1,5-6x42 15.87 7.00 111.12 0.5 Karl Kaps 2,5-10x56 23.66 5.60 132.52 0.5 Meopta 3-12x56 25.92 4.67 120.97 0.5 Meopta 3-12x50 24.49 4.17 102.06 0.5 Bushnell 3-9x50 21.21 5.56 117.85 0 Shirstone 4-12x56 25.92 4.67 120.97 0 Bushnell 2,5-10x50 22.36 5.00 111.80 0 Burris 2,5-10x44 20.98 4.40 92.30 0 Leupold 4,4-14x50 26.46 3.57 94.49 0 Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still very hard to pass up my Shepherd scope. I would also respectfully disagree on scope price vs rifle price. A great scope can make an average rifle even better. I know I spent more on the glass then I did on the rifle and don't regret it. Granted, I love Swarovski and Zeiss but at what range will you be shooting and at what targets plays a major role in what kind of glass you buy.Darren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at that German study I posted again with respect to low-light tests.... There are a lot of misperceptions on scope performance w/o real numbers to look at. The low-light transmissions results in the mid 80s are comparable with a lot of moderate priced scopes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an update I emailed Swift for their light transmission numbers since they upgraded their lens coatings a couple of years back. If the numbers are accurate they rate as well as if not better than many of the high end scopes at least in terms of brightness. This is very apparent when I compare my Swift scope to my Leupold VX-III 6.5-20 or especially to my buddies new Night Force. I understand why independ testing isn't being performed in the US. If the differences were really significant given the marketing budget of Leupold this would be a given.BrantHi Brant,There was a testing done a couple of years ago that included Swift. It was done in Europe, but I don’t have any of the original material, nor do I remember results. Sorry.I will get you any of our factory specs that you may request, though. As for Light re-transmission, our spec for the 678 series has been an average of 90% to 92%. Too many lens elements and too small an aperture to get a greater number than 92% for this specific scope, so as long as the different productions block glass and the different productions of the chemical agents we use to coat the lenses keeps everything at a minimum of 90%, we can breath a sigh of relief that at least we don’t have to start all over. One of the many joys of mass production!Thank you,BillBill Medal Swift Sport Optics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now