I am interested in hearing more about these Vortex/Viper scopes.
I have several Leupolds but always felt they were/are a bit overrated --- and I am also interested when someone finds a good quality lower priced scope. Not saying that Leupold isn't good BUT hard to imagine it is as good as some folks seem to believe based on the swooning that frequently happens at the mere mention of their name.
Anyway ... it is possible to be surprised and find a decent -- and well priced scope. I have discovered there are some pretty good low priced options if you are a careful shopper I think.
Some scopes that I have used and been impressed with for the money (and their designed purpose):
The Super Sniper series - I have a 16x that is pretty good I think;
The older B&L Balvars were decently priced and very good - also the ease of adjusting power was simple and ideal for the cold weather hunter wearing gloves
The Bushnell ScopeChief IV - excellent image - and stays in zero despite being mounted on a heavy recoiling rifle.
The East German Zeiss (Jena) that were selling around 200 bucks (for the 4x) when they arrived in Canada - amazing image - at any price.
To be sure the interior of that ScopeChief is not exactly awe inspiring -- but the performance cannot be faulted.
It is curious in reading this thread that folks mention light transmission but not contrast. Image contrast ought to be one of the first attributes people should evaluate as it is critical in both target and field shooting - in fact at the high powers/small exit pupils that some of the target variables operate at - I think contrast is more important than absolute light transmission.
I wonder how many of us can really tell the difference between 97% light transmission vs 95%. Speaking of which --- using a light meter to measure light transmission may be instructional .. but only if the meter is able to measure light that our eyes are sensitive to. There are very few light meters used for general photography (the long discontinued Metrastar being one possible exception) that actually provide a reading that has a consistent relationship to our eyes sensitivity - understandable since they were intended for use with film and some of the earlier ones were only intended for use with panchromatic B&W.
I have several Leupolds but always felt they were/are a bit overrated --- and I am also interested when someone finds a good quality lower priced scope. Not saying that Leupold isn't good BUT hard to imagine it is as good as some folks seem to believe based on the swooning that frequently happens at the mere mention of their name.
Anyway ... it is possible to be surprised and find a decent -- and well priced scope. I have discovered there are some pretty good low priced options if you are a careful shopper I think.
Some scopes that I have used and been impressed with for the money (and their designed purpose):
The Super Sniper series - I have a 16x that is pretty good I think;
The older B&L Balvars were decently priced and very good - also the ease of adjusting power was simple and ideal for the cold weather hunter wearing gloves
The Bushnell ScopeChief IV - excellent image - and stays in zero despite being mounted on a heavy recoiling rifle.
The East German Zeiss (Jena) that were selling around 200 bucks (for the 4x) when they arrived in Canada - amazing image - at any price.
To be sure the interior of that ScopeChief is not exactly awe inspiring -- but the performance cannot be faulted.
It is curious in reading this thread that folks mention light transmission but not contrast. Image contrast ought to be one of the first attributes people should evaluate as it is critical in both target and field shooting - in fact at the high powers/small exit pupils that some of the target variables operate at - I think contrast is more important than absolute light transmission.
I wonder how many of us can really tell the difference between 97% light transmission vs 95%. Speaking of which --- using a light meter to measure light transmission may be instructional .. but only if the meter is able to measure light that our eyes are sensitive to. There are very few light meters used for general photography (the long discontinued Metrastar being one possible exception) that actually provide a reading that has a consistent relationship to our eyes sensitivity - understandable since they were intended for use with film and some of the earlier ones were only intended for use with panchromatic B&W.
