I have spent a considerable amount of time wondering why I like my 1982 Leupold VXIii 24X scope so much better than my recent Burris XTRii.
Not to say the XTRii is the last word in glass, but we might assume newer technology may provide greater optical satisfaction and that is just not the case.
In particular I note poor focus, to which I originally simply blamed on poor resolution glass, and I no longer believe that's the whole story.
I also compared a Nightforce NSX 5.5-22 and a ATACR and found a similar frustration and I actually prefer the NSX... but why?
Many times over the years, guys have laid claims that one scope can see through mirage as though that's some sort of advantage to which I call BS all day long.... But I have found it to be true (that some scopes don't see mirage) with certain scopes and it's not because the glass is better, but because of shallow depth of field.
Scopes with a shallow depth of field can be focused directly on the target and not see mirage because the mirage is simply out of focus. When mirage is present, the image however is not sharp and clear but blurred by the effect of mirage that we cannot see. The image looks like a picture at the bottom of a bowl of water constantly moving and never quite in focus. Reading mirage with such a scope is not possible.
Some scopes have a generous depth of field and this allows the shooter to see the mirage and read that mirage and adjust precision fire to compensate. Without such glass performance a shooter can never learn to see and compensate for such effects.
Additionally depth of field affects bullet trace, or ones ability to see the bullet fly. When a scope has a shallow depth of field, the bullet in flight is outside the bounds of what can be seen, making it impossible to spot shots in the air. So ya, we need lots of depth of field.
Seeing shots in the air is critical for sniper matches and PRS where you need such feedback and you dont have a spotter who is there to provide it.
There's also a recent trend toward big glass. I do not see this as an advancement at all. If you think about photography where shallow depth of field and back ground blur is produced by a large aperture... meaning bigger equates to shallow depth of field. To increase depth of field we need what? Smaller aperture.
Going back about 20 years or so I made a set of aperture disks that I inserted between the butler creek lens cover and the mirage tube. I made a range of sizes and used them for this very purpose... to reduce the effective objective lens diameter and increase the depth of field.
So, ya, the ATACR is what? A short scope with a fat lens, a tight eye box and shallow depth of field... Seems like a perfect example of what shooters don't need, if they want to learn how to shoot. Its a great scope though for a guy who holds for whatever his Kestrel says to do and never dials. But he is lost without the Kestrel because he cannot see what he needs to see, despite the stiff price.
Further frustration with the all too common absurdly difficult to turn exposed target turrets that somehow quell the fears of those who guard against accidentally spinning their zero stop turret out of position apparently after allowing the rifle to roll beneath their feet in the truck on the way to the range. Doesn't anyone see this as counter productive?
When did scope makers sell out to markets demand by fools that conflict with integrity of design in the interest of selling badly designed scopes that people unwittingly buy without realizing they have been duped into the sale by hucksters selling well made junk?
Optics are mysterious enough and when I'm dropping good money on a rifle scope these days, the least I should expect is that it's actually better than my 40 year old target scope that both lets me read mirage and watch bullets fly.
Sorry for the rant guys but I just had to vent.
Not to say the XTRii is the last word in glass, but we might assume newer technology may provide greater optical satisfaction and that is just not the case.
In particular I note poor focus, to which I originally simply blamed on poor resolution glass, and I no longer believe that's the whole story.
I also compared a Nightforce NSX 5.5-22 and a ATACR and found a similar frustration and I actually prefer the NSX... but why?
Many times over the years, guys have laid claims that one scope can see through mirage as though that's some sort of advantage to which I call BS all day long.... But I have found it to be true (that some scopes don't see mirage) with certain scopes and it's not because the glass is better, but because of shallow depth of field.
Scopes with a shallow depth of field can be focused directly on the target and not see mirage because the mirage is simply out of focus. When mirage is present, the image however is not sharp and clear but blurred by the effect of mirage that we cannot see. The image looks like a picture at the bottom of a bowl of water constantly moving and never quite in focus. Reading mirage with such a scope is not possible.
Some scopes have a generous depth of field and this allows the shooter to see the mirage and read that mirage and adjust precision fire to compensate. Without such glass performance a shooter can never learn to see and compensate for such effects.
Additionally depth of field affects bullet trace, or ones ability to see the bullet fly. When a scope has a shallow depth of field, the bullet in flight is outside the bounds of what can be seen, making it impossible to spot shots in the air. So ya, we need lots of depth of field.
Seeing shots in the air is critical for sniper matches and PRS where you need such feedback and you dont have a spotter who is there to provide it.
There's also a recent trend toward big glass. I do not see this as an advancement at all. If you think about photography where shallow depth of field and back ground blur is produced by a large aperture... meaning bigger equates to shallow depth of field. To increase depth of field we need what? Smaller aperture.
Going back about 20 years or so I made a set of aperture disks that I inserted between the butler creek lens cover and the mirage tube. I made a range of sizes and used them for this very purpose... to reduce the effective objective lens diameter and increase the depth of field.
So, ya, the ATACR is what? A short scope with a fat lens, a tight eye box and shallow depth of field... Seems like a perfect example of what shooters don't need, if they want to learn how to shoot. Its a great scope though for a guy who holds for whatever his Kestrel says to do and never dials. But he is lost without the Kestrel because he cannot see what he needs to see, despite the stiff price.
Further frustration with the all too common absurdly difficult to turn exposed target turrets that somehow quell the fears of those who guard against accidentally spinning their zero stop turret out of position apparently after allowing the rifle to roll beneath their feet in the truck on the way to the range. Doesn't anyone see this as counter productive?
When did scope makers sell out to markets demand by fools that conflict with integrity of design in the interest of selling badly designed scopes that people unwittingly buy without realizing they have been duped into the sale by hucksters selling well made junk?
Optics are mysterious enough and when I'm dropping good money on a rifle scope these days, the least I should expect is that it's actually better than my 40 year old target scope that both lets me read mirage and watch bullets fly.
Sorry for the rant guys but I just had to vent.
Last edited:
