Top of the line optics...

I think you're already sold on getting a S&B and that's OK, but if you get a chance to look at a March 8x80, do so. Going rate is around $3500.00
I never wanted one until I looked through it and saw clear target lines @ 1000yds and flies buzzing around.
 
I don't get this trend toward mega power (40 X plus) scopes lately. In theory it sounds great, but in reality, when something is out far enough that you need that much magnification to see it, mirage washes out the image anyway - except for very rare weather conditions. Seeing bullet holes at 600 yards on a clear day sounds great, but at that distance you are making your best guess at windage and some 72 inches of elevation, grabbing your testicles and taking the shot. Even on follow up shots, you are holding off, maybe a foot or more as conditions shift. Plus reading mirage at high magnification is a different game altogether and I have no reason to believe you can read mirage better at high magnification. Depth of field is reduced as magnification is increased (that's a mechanical fact) and that impairs your ability to read mirage.

High magnification might help you see a little twitch as the rifle fires, and that could help you develop your position to a small degree, but that is certainly way out of the intention of this thread.

At 1000 yards I use 20x and have never felt the "need" for more power and I don't see anything on the score board that would place a guy with a 80x scope any higher than anyone else. Long range shooting is a wind reading game and I don't see how the extra magnification can really help. It might be nice for shooting alone though in the field on adhoc targets to see where your rounds hit, but again, hardly worth it. Most guys I know with these mega mag scopes rarely jack it up higher than about 32x on only the clearest days.

Then you wanna be thinking about eye strain. Exit pupil is calculated by objective lens diameter divided by the magnification. When lens exit pupil gets smaller than the diameter of your eye pupil, then you get eye strain. When guys talk about optical brightness, it's often misunderstood. Good lenses make the best of the situation but 98 percent is simply related to objective lens diameter and magnification and spending more money will not change that. The best way to reduce eye strain is simple ~ turn down the magnification.

Paralax is another thing. Paralax is more sensitive optically as magnification is increased. If you are not absolutely certain how to adjust for perfect parallax, then high power is not your friend. I'll beat on this point hard because from my experience very few shooters truly understand what parallax is and how to KNOW it has been adjusted out. That parallax knob is not just a focus knob. Even an image that appears to be in focus can and probably does have parallax.

I have a 20-60x spotting scope with a 85 mm objective lens and I rarely set it to full magnification. The only time I do is to see bullet holes and I believe this is the only practical solution to seeing bullet holes at long range. Don't try to stick that magnification on your rifle for this purpose, just buy a spotting scope. Chances are it will have a better image anyway.
 
Last edited:
kthomas said:
Thanks for reminding me why I don't frequent CGN anymore. The wisdom of the few knowledgeable people on this site are constantly drowned out by the senseless dribble of the rest...
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, I think its time for me to take another hiatus from CGN, people advising others what to do when they are clueless themselves. This place is like the blind leading the blind.

On a side note people like these would get flamed so bad on some US sites they wouldn't reappear or comment for months out of sheer embarassment but thanks to our communist moderators on this site, you can't even give someone a reality check without getting "warned" or reprimanded.

Cheers everybody and have a Happy and healthy 2014!
 
ivo said:
I couldn't agree more, I think its time for me to take another hiatus from CGN, people advising others what to do when they are clueless themselves. This place is like the blind leading the blind.

On a side note people like these would get flamed so bad on some US sites they wouldn't reappear or comment for months out of sheer embarassment but thanks to our communist moderators on this site, you can't even give someone a reality check without getting "warned" or reprimanded.

Cheers everybody and have a Happy and healthy 2014!
Click to expand...

My apologies if I hurt others' "internet feelings" by not agreeing with their optics opinion.

Happy New Year!
 
FTRRookie said:
Have you looked through one at a 900m target Jerry? I like my Sightrons, but if I could justify the extra spend I would switch in a heartbeat.

Scott
Click to expand...

Yes, I looked through them while I was at Nokomis a few Westerns ago and a local shooter has a few that I sneak behind whenever I can. There is no doubt the image is clear but like everything, at super high mags, the image drops off. I would definitely have no need to use 60 to 80X even if the air allowed - way too easy a chance to cross fire especially shooting off a bipod.

At the mags I typically want to shoot at - 35 to 40X - they were certainly clearer then the Sightrons and NF scopes BUT what I didn't like about them was the reduced info from the mirage. Part of the perception that the image is "clearer". This difference narrows up dramatically in dry mirage free air.

Here the Sightrons definitely agree with my eyes more. I want to see the mirage and the more info I can get, to a point, the better.

All the scopes had no issue seeing target spotters, target lines or hindering me from adjusting aim in small increments at 900m. Just the amount of mirage info differed.

So, for my tastes, I see no benefit to the March. If I were to get a March, I would certainly add a spotter to make sure I could see the mirage as much as possible.

Where I think a March can be of slight benefit is in team shooting. Here the shooter is only concerned about a precise hold that is indicated. With a "cleaner" image, that precise aim is easier and faster.

Had a nice chat with some overseas shooters on this as their team shooting was all with March scopes. However, a few indicated they preferred using the Sightron for individual shooting for the same reasons as me.

So personal tastes will play a large role in the "better" part of this comparison for LR F class.

More thoughts on strategies and pros/cons with optics but that has nothing to do with this post so give me a PM or email and we can chat more.

Jerry
 
kthomas said:
Thanks for reminding me why I don't frequent CGN anymore. The wisdom of the few knowledgeable people on this site are constantly drowned out by the senseless dribble of the rest...
Click to expand...

Actually the knowledgeable people posted some really good info on this thread - info that I have found very helpful. Slavex, Jerry, dude from South of the Equator and some others as well. These folks have posted first hand info and explained why they make the recommonedations they do - they don't just say "this is better".

I am actually sincere in my question about Steiner. They have never really seemed to stand out, or been comparable to the top glass, be it Zeiss, Swarovski, S&B or similar. When the Predator series came out I read some reviews and they were comparable to Nikon or Leupold VX-3 - I went to the LGS and checked one out yesterday, and it certainly didn't seem exceptional. The Tactical series, which I just briefly read up on were, to my recollection Burris products. Now I see there is a new 5x range series, which is about a year old.

Perhaps you, and others making the suggestion, could write a review on the Steiner Military series that you own and use. That way you could add to the information from a useful, first hand perspective to help educate and inform folks like me. Otherwise your post seems just like the senseless dribble you talk about.
 
Do you guys have any applications where a 3-12x magnification is somehow better than a 5-25x or so range? cause although I can see the 25x being useful, I can't really see myself ever saying "darn it just goes down to 5x, 3x would have been so much better."
In many cases its not like there's any significant cost difference either, other than maybe a bit of weight. So what's the attraction ?
Just curious.

thanks
 
1899 said:
Actually the knowledgeable people posted some really good info on this thread - info that I have found very helpful. Slavex, Jerry, dude from South of the Equator and some others as well. These folks have posted first hand info and explained why they make the recommonedations they do - they don't just say "this is better".

I am actually sincere in my question about Steiner. They have never really seemed to stand out, or been comparable to the top glass, be it Zeiss, Swarovski, S&B or similar. When the Predator series came out I read some reviews and they were comparable to Nikon or Leupold VX-3 - I went to the LGS and checked one out yesterday, and it certainly didn't seem exceptional. The Tactical series, which I just briefly read up on were, to my recollection Burris products. Now I see there is a new 5x range series, which is about a year old.

Perhaps you, and others making the suggestion, could write a review on the Steiner Military series that you own and use. That way you could add to the information from a useful, first hand perspective to help educate and inform folks like me. Otherwise your post seems just like the senseless dribble you talk about.
Click to expand...

First of all you're the genius that said Steiner is the German Tasco, now you're sincerely interested?

As for first hand experience: thats a 5-25 Military at the back of the row of S&B's.
3C6B8519-D814-4436-9E63-4B117C754EC1_zpsnz5p8uge.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]

I can tell you first hand that the Steiner Military is excellent and to use the "predator" series as an evaluation for the entire Steiner line is akin to looking through the Zeiss Terra series and assuming the Hensoldt is the same. If you're so well informed why even ask what others opinions are?
 
Last edited:
marcoman said:
First of all you're the genius that said Steiner is the German Tasco, now you're sincerely interested?

As for first hand experience: thats a 5-25 Military at the back of the row of S&B's.
3C6B8519-D814-4436-9E63-4B117C754EC1_zpsnz5p8uge.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]

I can tell you first hand that the Steiner Military is excellent and to use the "predator" series as an evaluation for the entire Steiner line is akin to looking through the Zeiss Terra series and assuming the Hensoldt is the same. If you're so well informed why even ask what others opinions are?
Click to expand...

A $3300 German tasco lol.
 
Try to read carefully before posting. Genius. And thanks for another informative post - I guess I should be impressed by the nice picture. Why don't you read Slavex's, MysticPrecision's or ChrisF308's posts and use those as templates on how to make useful posts?
 
1899 said:
Try to read carefully before posting. Genius. And thanks for another informative post - I guess I should be impressed by the nice picture. Why don't you read Slavex's, MysticPrecision's or ChrisF308's posts and use those as templates on how to make useful posts?
Click to expand...

Or you could just hit the google button and read a thousand reviews that put it on par with the best out there. I look thru S and B's for a living. They are fantastic. I have never used a Steiner for more than a few rounds at the CISC vendor shoot. But i can assure you the optical clarity is as good as anything. Its solid as a piece of steel and the clicks are loud and notchy. If the forces switched over to it i would have no issues adjusting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom