Is glass quality and clarity not linear and logical?

Jahnj0584

Jahnj0584

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
48   0   0
Location
Halifax NS
Im a bit of a tight-wad at the best of times, starting with a $80 bushnell banner, then a $100 on-sale Bushnell 2, then $175 for a Diamonback, and now a $450 Leupold Freedom on my hunting rifle. I looked at them tonight A/B'ing it with the Diamondback at some trees 1.3km across the lake - the vortex looks better than the Leupold! The only difference I can tell is the Vortex has more CA at the very extreme fringes of the scope - who cares about that! Both scopes are 2-7 and were looked at on 7x.

I also have a Match Pro on my target gun and have looked through the vortex strike eagles/leupold mark 5's and other >$1200 glass. Those one I can see a definite difference in as they for sure gather more light.


What's up with this? Shouldn't spending more then twice the price get me something thats at least as good? Am I sellling the freedom after this deer season?

I did this 20 minutes before sundown on an overcast afternoon.
 
Clarity is one thing, durability and quality also play a factor. You can get some cheap scopes that look great but might not last on anything with recoil. Warranty service increases the price too. Optics of any sort have a wild price variance, I have a few cameras too.
I'm also a cheapass and don't spend a lot on optics and I can tell you that the higher end scopes would almost always be better.
 
I have a leupold 6 to 24x50 vx3 and had a sightron slll of the same power and objective size. Both are 30 mm.tubes.They seemed pretty close but when looking at holes in a black bull I would have to dial the sightron back to 18 power to get my contrast back to see the holes. They were both about the same price the leupold has archaic set screw turrets but still I think it's a better scope. But with my lower power scopes I can't see why my old m8s are any worse than my newer scopes. Spendiness is probably more important as you get to higher power
 
  • Like
Reactions: DGY
As one loosens the wallet up a bit more to buy better glass - the price goes up. I have a number of different brand scopes and have foud that Burris offers decent optics for their price point. So $1,000 gets a lot of scope for the money. Today I'd go up to $2,000 to get something I really like. Some of the European brands are good too. Ideally we all want a scope that provides clarity, doesn't fog up; and the image is readily idetifiable. When one turns up the power of the scope one can see how a less expensive scope "washes-up" the image. Too much power isn't always the best scope for hunting. And 15X is more then enough for most field work. Most times when I'm on an animal I'm using a lower power - like 3X or 4X, and some times 6X. I was elk hunting one time right at dusk and the animal was about 300 + yards away. I had to turn the scope down from 12X to 6X to get decent clarity - with the amount of light I had at the time. Nicely, I squeezed the trigger and took my prize down just as the light of day ended.
 
Last edited:
Can argue some points on the price/quality spectrum there is a somewhat linear relationship, but once you reach a certain point, probably around $1000, in my opinion there’s a diminishing marginal benefit in performance. Is a $7000 TT 7x better than a $1000 Vortex? No doubt it’s better, arguably even “worth it” (in the right use cases) but you’ll get to a point as with all things where the marginal cost to eek out additional benefits is not proportionate. Is a TT twice as good as an ATACR? Not figuratively, not qualitatively…. Quantitatively twice as good? I don’t think so. You start to spend big bucks for 5-10-15% increases in performance, which is worth it to some who truly need everything out of their scope, but to the layperson, there’s a sweet spot of price performance which is why you see so many recommendations for PSTs and the like.
 
m1008 said:
More to optics pricing than the view through the glass
Click to expand...
I would go with this - a scope is a "sight", not a spotter - in my head, a lot more to worry about than the view - is also about the reticle adjustment. Rather than other people's assessment about "view" - should consider whether the guts work well or not - "box test" - shoot a 3 or 5 shot group - go up 10 clicks and shoot another group, then right, then down, then left - did the last group centre over the first group - does the reticle adjustment system work - does it hold - is what a "sight" is for - need to test for function as sight, not as "spotter" - in my opinion.

Is maybe why SWFA or NightForce are so much heavier than others - I have never dismantled them, but I expect the "guts" are more robust.
 
In addition to a box test, if you are shooting at extended ranges, set up an aiming mark toward the bottom of a large sheet of paper. Use a plumb line to draw a long vertical line passing through the center of the aiming mark. Zero on the aiming mark, then fire three shot groups with ever increasing elevation. If the groups run further and further off the plumb line, you'll know that you are going to have to reset your scope in the rings.
Something else to watch - if you are shooting a precision rifle, does the starting zero shift from day to day? If it is out a click or two that's one thing. If the group is an inch or more out, there is a problem.
 
I don't know of any scope from a name brand that has lost 0 from recoil of any rifle round - I have just unfortunately bumped my Leupold somehow on the muzzleloader to be off to the left by 4moa though. All it did was fall over from being leaned against a car.

Turns out a deer neck is about 3moa if you aim on center....don't ask me how I know
 
Jahnj0584 said:
I don't know of any scope from a name brand that has lost 0 from recoil of any rifle round - I have just unfortunately bumped my Leupold somehow on the muzzleloader to be off to the left by 4moa though. All it did was fall over from being leaned against a car.

Turns out a deer neck is about 3moa if you aim on center....don't ask me how I know
Click to expand...
Leaning guns against cars... that's everyone's least favorite lesson in applied physics.
 
tiriaq said:
In addition to a box test, if you are shooting at extended ranges, set up an aiming mark toward the bottom of a large sheet of paper. Use a plumb line to draw a long vertical line passing through the center of the aiming mark. Zero on the aiming mark, then fire three shot groups with ever increasing elevation. If the groups run further and further off the plumb line, you'll know that you are going to have to reset your scope in the rings.
Something else to watch - if you are shooting a precision rifle, does the starting zero shift from day to day? If it is out a click or two that's one thing. If the group is an inch or more out, there is a problem.
Click to expand...

Can you add more detail to the third line?

I’m guessing that the scope is not sitting 100% parallel with the barrel?
 
Kamloopy - I am not Tiriaq, but I think I am familiar with the issue? - if your scope is "canted" versus the rifle or how the shooter holds it, then the vertical scope reticle line is not plumb to the centre of the bore - meaning as you extend range, the bore will continue to throw bullets further and further away from the "zeroed" vertical. I suppose it would be possible for a shooter to significantly cant the rifle, and then have the scope canted to off set that and the rings shortened or altered to get the scope centered over the rifle barrel bore. I believe that is/was actually done on some off-hand fired, iron sighted rifles - sights were not "square" to the rifle, yet the sights were dead nuts square to the bore when that shooter shouldered it. You are going to get convergence in two dimensions - up-down due to trajectory, gravity, etc. and left-right based on whether the scope or sights are "square" to the bore (and wind).

You could zero really close at 100 yards, then looking at a decent group off to one side at 800 yard target - so why? Could have been consistent wind blew then over there. Could be that your scope was canted and not plumb to the bore by a degree or so. What Tiriaq describes is one way to check that at a 100 yard range - just dial up and shoot groups - to see if the groups move to the side as range increases - due to the scope installation.
 
Last edited:
Yep - that is one reason that you see those used - should be a "check" to the shooter that he has "canted" (or not) the same for every shot - does nothing about the installation of that scope on that rifle, or the relationship of that scope's reticule to that bore - other than an "aid" to the shooter that the relationship is the "same" for every shot that is taken.
 
If you go onto the journal of mountain hunting website and read the article about their field trip to Nightforce's factory you will see why some scopes cost a lot more and are heavier than others. Educational indeed. I was shocked at the internal differences.
As far as inexpensive scopes go, the Bushnell elites and Nikon Prostaff stuff are very clear and work very well too, they are just not in the same league.
 
Jahnj0584 said:
I don't know of any scope from a name brand that has lost 0 from recoil of any rifle round - I have just unfortunately bumped my Leupold somehow on the muzzleloader to be off to the left by 4moa though. All it did was fall over from being leaned against a car.

Turns out a deer neck is about 3moa if you aim on center....don't ask me how I know
Click to expand...
Scopes knocked off of zero, can just as easily be an issue with the mounts, as a scope issue.
For my varmint/target rifles, I like the Zeiss HD 5, and I have four of them with target turrets and they track very well, and hold zero. My big game rifles wear Swarovski Z5 3.5-18×44 scopes, which offer great clarity and light transmission, and reasonably light weight.
 
Glass quality is one thing, warranty is another. To me it's worth paying a bit more for a scope I don't need to worry about it's longevity and warranty like Vortex, no need for receipt, registration etc even if buying used. Recently got Strike Eagle considering it a lifelong investment, not cheap but I like to 'pay once cry once' and not having to question my choice and going thru multiple 'upgrades'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom