Why do people move on from Sightron scopes?
- Thread starter ericrose
- Start date
again very smart comments and also true
QUOTE=Maple57;17450621]Sharpness... or resolution is so important for shooting so we can read mirage... this cannot be over stated. Forget about many of the terms used to cloud the issue... brightness, fish eye, chromatic aberrations etc. focus only on sharpness... resolution.
I'd really like to see an honest resolution value assigned to each scope... by law. Call it a scale of 1 to 10, with decimals for in between.
People who never had a good scope will often brag up the quality of a certain scope, that is really optically junk if you actually have a familiarity with better glass.
It would also help consumers identify when manufacturers quietly degrade the glass used in a particular model in more recent years after establishing a good reputation in the past when they actually used better lenses.
This way we could all measure and agree when scope XYZ from 1980 is actually better than scope XYZ from 2020 for example. I've noticed this is being done to help justify the newer and far more expensive scopes.
Maybe we all need to agree to a common form we can print and place at 50 or 100 yards so we can examine actual resolution values and agree to some common and verifiable optical standard.
[/QUOTE]
QUOTE=Maple57;17450621]Sharpness... or resolution is so important for shooting so we can read mirage... this cannot be over stated. Forget about many of the terms used to cloud the issue... brightness, fish eye, chromatic aberrations etc. focus only on sharpness... resolution.
I'd really like to see an honest resolution value assigned to each scope... by law. Call it a scale of 1 to 10, with decimals for in between.
People who never had a good scope will often brag up the quality of a certain scope, that is really optically junk if you actually have a familiarity with better glass.
It would also help consumers identify when manufacturers quietly degrade the glass used in a particular model in more recent years after establishing a good reputation in the past when they actually used better lenses.
This way we could all measure and agree when scope XYZ from 1980 is actually better than scope XYZ from 2020 for example. I've noticed this is being done to help justify the newer and far more expensive scopes.
Maybe we all need to agree to a common form we can print and place at 50 or 100 yards so we can examine actual resolution values and agree to some common and verifiable optical standard.
why did I get these posts together
because sometimes knowledge is power and fan boys suck
because sometimes knowledge is power and fan boys suck
Not sure if this image will remain ... BUT many years ago Leitz (Leica) as did Zeiss, used to show an image similar to one below to demonstrate that high resolution was not the only criteria required of an optic to provide a suitable image. You need a balance of both contrast and resolution. There are in fact extremely high resolving lenses that would provide a pretty mediocre viewing image ... however for the application they are used ('process lenses') they are superb. ... the photo series below provides some insight into this facet of optical design. However for target rifle optic there is another absolutely critical element and that is the ability of the reticle to resist any movement due to recoil AND be able to be very finely adjusted while still resisting movement after being set. This problem is exacerbated in variable power rifle scopes because of the number of components that must be able to move while resisting any change to the zero of the scope.
Some trivia to add that may be interesting to some .. but among the earliest methods used in photography to provide auto-focus was to use a secondary lens mounted adjacent to the main taking lens -- the small 'eye' of the secondary lens had a sensor behind it which was able to determine when the image in the field of view (ie being photographed) produced the maximum contrast ... when that occurred the focus was locked at that point and the image was taken via the main lens.
- Location
- Alberta, North America
Vortex are ####e (weak aluminum and the matte runs off easy).
Leupold are very good - robust + glass
I would use a Sightron hands down, but I already have Leupold on all my rifles. I am a Vortex hater... because their ####e.
I also like old Burris made in the USA.
One of my best good old scopes is a brushed stainless Tasco 3x9x40 made back in the day Japan glass - very bright dawn + dusk and wide angle. probably 35 yrs old. Picked it up new in the box off CGN last year - wish I had a rifle to put it on lol
Leupold are very good - robust + glass
I would use a Sightron hands down, but I already have Leupold on all my rifles. I am a Vortex hater... because their ####e.
I also like old Burris made in the USA.
One of my best good old scopes is a brushed stainless Tasco 3x9x40 made back in the day Japan glass - very bright dawn + dusk and wide angle. probably 35 yrs old. Picked it up new in the box off CGN last year - wish I had a rifle to put it on lol
from the link (2014) provided ..
... the importance of contrast in an optical system used for viewing hasnt changed since Hans Lippershay invented the telescope in 1608 ... you can be sure it hasnt changed in the last 6 years. (LOL) ... but if you really think that a universal system of published resolution by optic manufacturers is the answer to the 'objective' quality of any optical system sold commercially (including rifle scopes) ... take a spin through this article https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/68...etween-sample-variation-and-bad-copies-part-1
his guy has done some homework on the variations every optical 'system' is exposed to.
Getting to consistent quality is one of the reasons that an Apo-Summicron 50mm will cost you over $9k ... last time I looked I could purchase two S&B 5-25x56 PM II and come away with a fare bit of change for that money.
Last edited:
