optic clarity??

I can't compare as I already sold the SHV, so I'm just going from memory. I just left the range, doing a bit of shooting with a new savage 10 tr and a bushnell LRHS 3-12. After getting it zeroed I had 3 , 5 rnd loads done up. Nosler ballistic tip 150 g. Using Nosler data , going from bottom to top the groups were .715 ..820 .9.20. Though the glass was very clear , I had a hard time seeing the holes on the white paper. So I think I may have to up the magnification
 
If you like the scope and the features it offers you, why not look at another way to see the target?

Spotting scopes are great but good ones, cost alot of money.

I have been using a wireless camera system for years.. now there is a commercial unit that is simple to use, immune to mirage, very clear image so that you can see 22cal holes and distance doesn't hinder it.

I spot my own hits at 250yds with my scopes... going further with mirage makes things very hard... that goes for any optical device.

Wireless camera always see the target from 10 ft away and way less money then a quality optics upgrade.

PM or email if interested... but if you want a higher mag scope to help with the aiming, can help you there too.

Jerry
 
Aiming is not the problem, as I said, I just printed three groups under an inch. Brand new rifle, brand new scope and 15 brand new handlods. I'm just wondering what it would be like at further distances as I could barely see the holes at 100 yards. I should also say that I've never shot past 100 yards yet.
 
if you're shooting a 10tr and can barely see the holes at 100, then imo either your vision or the scope is at issue. I have no problems seeing 308 and 223 at 100, and with the vx3 and s3 can also spot them at 200m at silverdale.
 
LeftFootOfDoom said:
if you're shooting a 10tr and can barely see the holes at 100, then imo either your vision or the scope is at issue. I have no problems seeing 308 and 223 at 100, and with the vx3 and s3 can also spot them at 200m at silverdale.
Click to expand...
Could be poor vision, I had no trouble seeing them on the black shoot and see targets. But the white with red lines were giving me trouble to see
 
Brianma65 said:
Could be poor vision, I had no trouble seeing them on the black shoot and see targets. But the white with red lines were giving me trouble to see
Click to expand...

As we get older, contrast is something we can loose in our vision. The solution is very simple... adjust your scope so you aim at the target but the bullets land on the white part of the page. Another is to use a coloured lense.. I think yellow does it.

Black holes on a white sheet are easily picked up and that can be seen quite a long ways away. I use an online target I print off at home. google targets and there are hundreds to choose from. I have a laser printer for work and cost per page is less then photocopy and WAY less then commercial targets.

I just use recycled correspondence so my paper cost is free.

BUT if you can't see a 30cal hole at 100yds, something is definitely not right - maybe the scope is not properly focused.. maybe the parallax is set too far and there is no way to get it in focused at 100yds??????

Jerry
 
johnl said:
Cost of optics and size of caliber always brings out who has the biggest ##### in the shooting world:p
Click to expand...

So you have an NC Star on your .17? :)

Objective lens size is a huge factor, of course. I have a March with a 42mm lens that is incredibly clear but it can't hold a candle to the 56mm lens of a TT on a dreary day.
 
I figure clarity and then magnification, in that order?
Anyway I got what I thought was the best bang for the buck. For me.
I just bought a LRHS a few days ago $1500.
Clarity was awesome but for me ,3-12, it lacked in magnification.
I sold that and bought a SHV $1500, 5-20.
I think that should work for me.
 
Clarity, then features that work for what you're planning to do - Mag being one of those features. An 8-32 won't work on a bush gun, but a 1-4 won't be good for LR shooting. Turrets, reticles, and illumination are the same,
 
It's basically for load development,target shooting off the bench. 400 yards max. I know the 3-12 could possibly work for this but I like the extra mag.
And I don't like looking through a cloudy optic, kinda reminds of that Drinking and driving commercial ,where the glasses get stacked in front of one another.:)
 
Brianma65 said:
Is the clarity of the glass more important to you than higher magnification? Would you rather a excellent 12 power mag or a mediocre 20 power mag?
Click to expand...

Your question would be better framed as an excellent 20x vs. a mediocre 12x. The high magnification optic will have a smaller exit pupil and lower light transmission, even with objective lenses that have the same diameter, quality and coatings. So an excellent 20x may be as bright as a mediocre 12x.

It's generally agreed by the experts that light transmission trumps magnification up to a certain point in a given scenario. A 7x50 binocular will give a much brighter and clearer view than a 12x50 all else being equal. Higher magnification is a selling/bragging point as much as anything else that does not equate to actual effectiveness in use.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like you are just going to have to cough up the cash and buy a quality scope, when it comes right down to it regardless of what the ##### watchers think you are not going to spend $1200-1500 and get a scope that is clear as a $3500-4000 scope at higher magnification, thats just the way it works.

I replaced my $1400 scope, did it work fine, yes it did, did it get the job done yes it did, did I want something that was clearer, yes I did, I spent the money and got something much clearer, from dirty window at 24x to bright sunny day at 25x, did I like the cost, hell no, has nothing to do with status symbol you just get what you pay for, in fact if my wife asks it was only $300.
 
propliner said:
So you have an NC Star on your .17? :)

Objective lens size is a huge factor, of course. I have a March with a 42mm lens that is incredibly clear but it can't hold a candle to the 56mm lens of a TT on a dreary day.
Click to expand...


I'll see your March and raise you to the Hensoldt 72mm Hubble:p


 
Brianma65 said:
It's basically for load development,target shooting off the bench. 400 yards max. I know the 3-12 could possibly work for this but I like the extra mag.
And I don't like looking through a cloudy optic, kinda reminds of that Drinking and driving commercial ,where the glasses get stacked in front of one another.:)
Click to expand...

With those goals at the beginning of the quest, you would have been very happy with a Sightron SIII8-32X56 which would have been on budget and give your the magnification and clarity comparable/better then your current options.

Also, do not confuse clarity with distortion due to mirage. ALL scopes will be affected by mirage to varying degrees... scopes like S&B let you see through it far better then most. On the other hand, mirage let's me see the air and adjust my aim for the winds. Seeing mirage is very important and I don't consider it a negative.

BUT mirage will make the target "dance"...

I think you will quickly find that the SHV will not work at distances beyond 200yds in any type of mirage. I am going to lean you back to the wireless camera set up.

pretty much the only way to reliably spot bullet holes beyond 200yds.

Jerry
 
johnl said:
I'll see your March and raise you to the Hensoldt 72mm Hubble:p


Click to expand...

Ok, you win. And all that knitting stuff simply puts it way over the top.

That looks like a great match for the rifle. The Hubble probably wouldn't work so well with a full-length rail unless you were a giraffe, though.
Hensoldt glass is premium stuff, have you compared your 72mm to a good 56mm?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom