Best scope?

Epoxy7, this gets a alot of backs up but I have compared Elite 4200's, NF and Sightron SIII's side by side under the same conditions. Even have had other shooters there as they owned the NF NXS.

The Elite 4200 AO scope had the same resolution and clarity at 1100yds as the NF (22X). In fact, the owner of the NF liked the colour of the Elite better.

The Sightron offers slightly HIGHER resolution.

This is viewing a chimney and the distinction of the bricks and mortar lines. A very demanding task at that range.

Jerry
 
mysticplayer said:
Epoxy7, this gets a alot of backs up but I have compared Elite 4200's, NF and Sightron SIII's side by side under the same conditions. Even have had other shooters there as they owned the NF NXS.

The Elite 4200 AO scope had the same resolution and clarity at 1100yds as the NF (22X). In fact, the owner of the NF liked the colour of the Elite better.

The Sightron offers slightly HIGHER resolution.

This is viewing a chimney and the distinction of the bricks and mortar lines. A very demanding task at that range.

Jerry
Click to expand...

Hey Jerry,
Actually it doesn't surprise me that much. My Zeiss Conquest scopes seem to have glass as good as my two Nf scopes. I only did low light informal tests but they sure seemed close.

The 4200 scopes that I've checked seemed pretty good. One of the ones I looked at was clearly better than the other. Which as we know happens. That being said my $200 Burris Fullfield was also in the same class optically as the 4200 scopes that I looked through. Although it's very simple in the feature area and is a hunting scope. Based off initial observations. A resolution check wasn't done. Spec wise, both have 95% light transmission. Many are surprised when they look through that scope.

It's entirely possible that a good example of the 4200 will beat out a mediocre or poor example of the more expensive scopes optically. In terms of the NF, I've heard that the optics on the BR models are slightly better due to the design.

In terms of colour. I'm cautious of this. I've seen what I call the "Serengeti sun glass effect". This is when there is a very slight amber contrast which makes the colours look warmer than they really are. Contrast is often increased as well. However the colour isn't actually accurate. Leupold comes to mind with this. I think of it a lot like looking at TV sets (Which are always set up wrong in the show room). The colour is often incorrect and too bright because more people find it pleasing. In reality the colour isn't accurate at all. Another comparable to the TV set up, are scopes where the focus isn't set up correctly and the person relies on the parallax adjustment knob for focus. I've found this can make a difference. I'm often guilty of this as well since I'm more interested in shooting than setting up the gear. Anyways just my opinion.

Optical clarity isn't really where I have an issue with the 4200 scopes. My issue are the reticles (Which I hate), the lack of MOA (and lack of a reticle to even compensate for this) which wouldn't really be an issue except for the fact that it's a 30mm tube and has 1" tube moa adjustment ranges :confused:. Also the changing eye relief from about 3-3.5". The Conquest and NF scopes are constant throughout the entire range. I know the Sightron changes very slightly, but it's an extremly minor change and I'm guessing not even noticeable (based off the spec sheets). I could live with that.

My next scope will probably be a Sightron to go on my second 5R rifle. The only concern I have right now is the reticle choice. I'm hoping next year they'll add some more choices. Also if the Kel-Tec target comes out next year I'll be looking at the 8-32x. At least that's the plan at this stage. The reason for this: 1) Optic quality, 2) price 3) repeatably 4) MOA adjustments 5) very little change in eye relief thought the entire range (Although it's not 100 percent constant).
 
Last edited:
I would go Leupold over Bushnell, I think the weight favours the leupold.
Burris make some good glass also.
that 16x weaver steel tube job, got AO ,on ee, so you can shoot in close, and the weaver tracking is pretty awesome, Nice to have exposed turrets also.
Cheers
 
Epoxy7, I know what you mean by colour and tints. I have looked through some Euro scopes that had quite a yellow hue to them. Wasn't something I prefered but nothing wrong as it was intented for the Euro market.

With Scopes, I tend not to get too worried about colour. It is an aiming device with a whole bunch of optical limitations. If I want to see nice colour, I will get a pair of quality binos. however, when a scope really makes primary colours pop (Sightron 6x24), it sure makes defining lines and edges much better - great for target shooting.

I fully agree that Bushnell and Sightron are very limited in their reticle choices. No matter how much I and others tied directly to the industry have asked, it is a slow process. At least Bushnell has embraced the radical 'mil dot'.

Sightron definitely needs to make finer reticles especially for target shooters. Would love to see them offer a picket fence style for the 6x24. That would really go over well with the tactical and LR shooters. They are threatening to produce up to 50X target scopes. With the level of optics they are offering now, SUPERB. With their reticle choice - BUMMER.

As for the lack of adj, I would have agreed 100% with you until I started testing various scopes with lots of elevation adj including NF and Sightron.

ALL high mag variables with alot of elevation/windage adj suffer from the same problem. At one or at both extremes of travel, the quality of optical performance degrades. Can be a reduction of resolution, brightness, edge distortion and/or aberation. This is really apparent at max mag.

Some scopes, like the NXS I viewed, showed ALOT of 'curvature' in the field of view as you moved to the lowest mag. Usually, the low mag is much clearer then full mag.

At full down, this scope retained most of its optical performance but really fell off nearer to full up. We concluded that the compromises were made in parts of the scope that would be used the least. Who uses min mag on a high mag scope? Some may set up for LR and use the lower range of scope adjustment but how many really crank all the way to the top? - These are good compromises.

Sightrons usually loose a bit of resolution at either end of travel. Not necessarily a bad thing as the central 75mins of travel on the 6x24 is superb (same for the 8x32 - central region of travel is where the best optics live)

SO, despite the lower adjustment range of the Elite 4200 AO's, performance is superb throughout the entire 30min range from full down to up. From lowest to highest mag. The scope is fully useable.

You could have a scope with lots of travel but you don't like the performance at the extremes limiting your useage to the middle travel.

In essence, the 'useable' range of scopes are pretty much the same.

This is not meant as a negative but a fact of engineering. No one (maybe March) has engineered a way to move the lenses around alot and still keep them aligned so image is sharp. This problem is made more difficult with side parallax adj.

Yep, have that knob on the side will reduce a scopes performance vs the same scope with a front AO.

I will say that the Sightron and NF do the best job of keeping performance rocking through alot of travel. Very impressive. Bushnell just limits travel - problem solved (cop out).

Could be why Bushnell has revised their adj range for the Elite 6500 to lower levels. They can't keep the optical quality at the level they consider appropriate so reduce available travel to maintain as much optical quality as possible.

Very few shooters will ever use more then 30mins of travel let alone 75mins so may never view the scope at its extremes of travel. They may never know these limitations even exist.

Jerry
 
Last edited:
This is not meant as a negative but a fact of engineering. No one (maybe March) has engineered a way to move the lenses around alot and still keep them aligned so image is sharp. This problem is made more difficult with side parallax adj.
Click to expand...


Mysticplayer. It is less about the mechanical part of the scopes but it is problems with the optical elements. When you "bend" light through a lens, different wavelengths (colours) bend at different angles when they transition through the coatings and glass. There is an optical divergence of the light spectrum. (think of a prism)

A variable scope, and especially one with a wide range, creates even more "compromises" to the optics. This is why a variable will never be as sharp as a fixed lens. The issue of the AO being on the side rather than the front is the same thing, it is another compromise in the optics.

Most of the above comes from what they have been doing with camera lenses over the last couple decades, and they have gotten pretty good at designing zoom lenses. But the same applies, that a zoom will never be as sharp (over its range) as a fixed lens, and it is not because of mechanical limitations but optical limitations. It is also why some companies go to the trouble to "match" sets of lenses for a particular scope. Half a wavelength of light can make a difference. 400–700 nm is the wavelength of light. A nanometer is one millionth of a millimeter
 
Last edited:
SR, I agree that the optical degradation we see is a byproduct of optical distortion. However, if the internal moving parts kept the lenses aligned, this distortion wouldn't occur. And round and round we go....

I think we are at a point where we have to look at external elevation adjustments for extreme range shooting. I am presently using a mechanical base that can move my scope about the same as 250mins of elevation. Necessary to get out toward 2500yds.

However, most shooters are going to be just fine with the present products offered. In fact, they will be thrilled at how good optics and mechanical have become for the $ spent. The cost of optics is dropping which is great for all levels of consumers.

Jerry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom