Why are low zoom level optics 1-4/ 1-8 etc similar in cost to higher magnification?

Got Juice?

Got Juice?

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
40   0   0
Location
Peoples Republik of Kanukkistan
As the title states, I was looking through a lot of optics last night and today, and I had a question pop up that I had never thought of before:

Why are AR style optics 1-4x, 1-6x, 1-8x higher in cost compared to higher magnification target rifle scopes?

For Example, A Sightron 1-7 is somewhere around 1200.00 and a 6-24xFFP is around 1350.00

Is a 4:1, 6:1, 8:1 magnification ratio the only metric used for determining price?

I would have thought that the higher the magnification rifle scopes (bigger tubes, more glass, finer reticles, better turrets) would be more expensive than a quality AR scope.

\
So does an AR scope command such a high dollar compared to the target rifle scope???
 
Because they have Tactical alloy and Tactical lettering. Also very tactically rubust build quality and Tactical screws with Tactical turrets. The cross hairs are usually uber Tactical too!! Mil spec! Touched by a guy that might have met Larry Vickers!
 
Because things like glass quality, coatings, and mechanisms cost money...


Does the turret movement or reticle substentions have to be any less precise on a lower magnification than a higher one?

No...

Does the glass need to be less clear?

No....

There is just as much engineering put into a 1-4 as there is in a 6-24... That is what you are paying for.


Now keep in mind I am talking about high end optics here.
 
Last edited:
Brettzky said:
Because they have Tactical alloy and Tactical lettering. Also very tactically rubust build quality and Tactical screws with Tactical turrets. The cross hairs are usually uber Tactical too!! Mil spec! Touched by a guy that might have met Larry Vickers!
Click to expand...

Pretty much the most un funny and stupidest post of the day
 
I don't really know, I'll readily admit... we'd have to ask manufacturers.

We you comparing within lines of products from the same manufacturers? Like Bushnell to Bushnell, Vortex to Vortex, Sightron to Sightron?

I suspect part of the reason is the relative size of the market share. The 1-4x to 1-8x seem mostly used for "tactical" applications, no? (AR-type of platforms for example). So the manufacturing runs might be smaller than mainstream scopes of the 3-9x, 4-12x range used for wood/blued hunting platforms, meaning costlier per unit built.

There's so many factors it could be... including the surcharge for "cool" factor.
 
Daver_II said:
Because things like glass quality, coatings, and mechanisms cost money...


Does the turret movement or reticle substentions have to be any less precise on a lower magnification than a higher one?

No...

Does the glass need to be less clear?

No....

There is just as much engineering put into a 1-4 as there is in a 6-24... That is what you are paying for.


Now keep in mind I am talking about high end optics here.
Click to expand...

I can understand what you are saying. take the example of a 1-4x vs a 6-24x. They have the same 4:1 Zoom ratio. So all else being equal (glass quality, reticle turret movement) I still ask the question. Why?

The mechanicals seem to be similar (in fact I would put forth the costs are amortized across other scope lines)
Reticles being glass etched on both are a wash.

I think there is more engineering in physically packaging the 1-4x than the 6-24x scope.

But less glass in the 1-4x 30mm v 50-56mm obj lens(maybe it is tougher to make a true distortion free 1x optic than a 4x optic?)
 
One thing you will notice is that the more expensive scopes are a true 1:1 at the low end of their zoom range while cheaper scopes tend to be 1.1, 1.5, etc. It is very difficult, and by extension costly, to make a scope a perfect 1:1 (i.e. no magnification whatsoever) in a scope with magnification zoom. This is a significant factor in the price of these optics. On top of that, as mentioned, they all have the same glass quality, materials and build quality of the other optics in the series they are in.

As well, the more expensive ones seem to mostly have 6x or 8x zoom ranges. This will Always be more expensive to manufacture than a 4x. Especially when considering that they still have 1:1 at the low end.
 
Well, my Nightforce NXS 5.5-22x56 cost me $2100. My Nightforce NXS 1-4x24 cost me $1500. There is a difference there of 40% for the different magnifications. So the OP question doesn't hold water for my example.
 
Last edited:
From my understanding the prism which makes the magnification range in the eyebox doesn't differ much in a 1-4 and a 6-24. Also keep in mind the designers strive for field of view, clarity, and reliability. So unless the scope has a smaller objective there is no less glass in a smaller magnification scope. However someone mentioned above that "better" quality scopes will have a true 1x factor and not 1.1 or 1.4 etc. This is true as its hard to not distort and not magnify for 1x.

All that being said I know in our new line of Monarch 5 scopes (5x eyeboxes) we've upgraded one of the lens elements to our ED glass (extra low dispersion) to help with light transmission as the 5x puts some extra strain on the exit pupil sizes at the high end.

Also realize that durability, reliability, bells and whistles and manufacturing costs are all included in the price whether its a box store blister pack special or high end custom optic. :)
 
Got Juice? said:
I would have thought that the higher the magnification rifle scopes (bigger tubes, more glass, finer reticles, better turrets) would be more expensive than a quality AR scope.
Click to expand...

1: Bigger tubes

Not true, 1-4, 1-6 or 1-8 power scopes are almost universally on 30mm or 34mm tubes. The length of the tube is not significant as a majority of the cost comes from constructing the tube out of one piece of metal.

2: More Glass

Also not true, at least in terms of number of lenses. In some cases, in order to achieve a true 1:1 at minimum magnification, the low power scope needs a few more lenses. What the higher power scopes have is generally larger objective lenses. The majority of the other lenses are the same size.

3: Finer reticles

Not true again. 1-4, etc. optics often have very detailed glass etched reticles, and many come in FFP too.

4: Better turrets

Again, not true. The erector assembly in high quality low powered optics are just as well made as any other high quality optic. You still need a well put together scope that keeps zero, tracks reliably, etc.

Now, interestingly enough, when you look to top end scopes in the same line (Nightforce NXS, U.S. Optics, Vortex Razor series, etc.) you notice that the low powered optics are usually less expensive than their high powered counterparts using the same quality components. So what you stated about low magnification scopes costing more than high magnification scopes does not hold true when you account for factors such as construction quality. A majority of the cost increase in high magnification scopes stems from the increased cost of grinding 40-56mm lenses (compared to 24-30mm lenses). The cost of crafting a lens increases exponentially with size, all else being equal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom