The truth about optics quality - actually affect accuracy directly?

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

OK, I know a few things about optics, but am no expert and have a lot to learn.

What I want to know, if we have any real experts here who can answer, is this: Some people will perennially claim that you MUST have good optics to get the utmost precision/accuracy/groups, as if poor optical quality could actually change the point of impact from shot to shot. I'm sorry, but I personally don't buy this, but concede that it *MAY* be true.

Now let's understand very clearly what I'm asking. I'm talking about controlling for ALL other variable, and simply isolating whether less-than-top-notch optical quality can actually change the point of impact from shot to shot with everything else held exactly the same, ceteris paribus.

So we all know that cheap scopes can break more easily than quality ones - I'm not talking about that. Assume the cheap scope holds up for the purposes of the question.

We all know that good scopes have better repeatability and can "shoot through the box", whereas cheap scopes cannot. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about leaving the scope alone and not changing it during the test.

We all know that good scopes have higher optical quality. I'm not talking about that. Assume clear, bright conditions where you can clearly see the target and see the reticle with both the cheap scope and the expensive one.

So hold everything else the same:
-Same rifle
-Same ammo
-Same target picture view
-Same scope specs in terms of magnification, objective lens size, etc.
-No breakage
-Assume NO parallax error - perfect center hold on both
-Etc.

So is it true or untrue that a high quality scope can produce a better group, due solely to optical quality (which would somehow produce an error with cheap glass), or perhaps due to the internals of the cheaper scope not being rigid/sturdy enough to produce the same reticle position shot to shot?

PLEASE begin your answer with TRUE, UNTRUE, or NOT SURE. Thanks.

 

[rcmodel]

Not true.

At least I can't shoot well enough to measure it.

I had a very cheap Jap no-name scope on a 30-06 for about 35 years.
It would shoot under MOA any day of the week.
The plastic turret finally crumbled apart about a year ago.

I have a cheap Tasco 3-9 on a CZ 527 that will shoot 1/2 MOA all day.

The other thing is, even the cheapest Chinese scope on the market today has better glass & coatings in it then the best B&L's, Weaver's, Lyman's & Redfield's of 35 years ago.

I believe the optical quality of a cheap scopes lens has no bearing on it's ability to shoot small groups, as long as the parallax is under control, the reticule stays where you put it when you sighted it in, and you can see the target through it.

As you noted, repeatability, and durability is the differance you pay for.

rcmodel

 

[Double Naught Spy]

TRUE, but in the sense that the better quality scope will allow for better precision aiming, the effect being very little or unnoticed at close ranges and becoming more pronounced as the range is increased. Also, many better quality scopes have better light gathering capabilities and so are more useful in a wider range of lighting conditions than lower quality scopes.

For example, I can shoot my .22 lr with a 10x Daisy scope on it at 25 yards and get about the same groups as I get with my Leupold. At 100 yards, I can get tighter groups with the Leupold as I am better able to line up my shots more precisely because I can see the target with better clarity than with the Daisy.

Of course, the better scope makes making precision shots easier. A very good shooter can do more with a cheap scope than an inexperienced shooter.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Thanks guys - kinda what I thought.

 

[rcmodel]

SO, what did we decide?

One Not True, and one True = Not Sure
Or = Maybe?

rcmodel

 

[ronaldbeal]

depends

The real answer depends on lots of variables...
Given the ideal conditions you list, once you've properly zeroed both optics,and as long as the POA doesn't shift between shots, your performance between a cheap and expensive scope should be the same.

What you DO get on a more expensive optic is better glass (which will help in less than ideal viewing conditions,) better construction/ materials, to withstand larger variances in temperature, humidity, etc..., and a POA that isn't as likely to shift from recoil, normal handling, large temperature swings, etc.

So the answer: It depends!

RB

 

[BADUNAME37]

Maybe....

I agree with all that has been stated thus far. However, if the point of impact changes because of some malfunction within the scope itself, one would not realize the change UNTIL they go back to shooting a paper target.

It would be a grave dissapointment to think you have the scope set up just the way you want it for "whatever" gun, only to have to take a critical shot at the only game you saw (and will see) all season and miss, for some strange reason.

Then, you go back and shoot a target and, for some strange reason, the way it was shooting when you sighted it in is not the way it is now shooting.

I had that very problem with Tasco when they first came out. I sent the scope to some place in Miami, FL and they checked it all out and told me the scope needs no work, it is fine. I got it back, reinstalled it and had the same issues I was having. I removed it, put on a new Leupold Vari-X III and never had a problem again with point of impact.

Where I adjust the Leupold, it goes, and it stays. There is no second guessing my shot placement as I have 100% confidence in my setup.

To put it simply, I could not trust my scope when I had a Tasco.

Am I picking on Tasco? Not at all. This was just MY EXPERIENCE. Others may have complete satisfaction with never a problem.

Since I had problems, I am leery of putting a Tasco (or any inexpensive scope, for that matter) on anything - even a .22.

Difference between good and cheap scopes.
Repeatability Every experienced shooter knows that different weight bullets, and different brand loads, shoot to different centers of impact. It would be nice to just adjust a scope a few clicks depending on which load you choose to use. With a quality scope, scope adjustments are repeatable. This means that if 20 clicks left will zero when changing loads once, it will always, and 20 clicks to the right will always take you exactly back again. On a cheap scope, each click is variable in adjustment, often a shot or two must be fired before it settles in, and adjusting it back doesn't bring it back to the same place.

After bore-sighting a couple dozen scopes, I noticed that the dime-store scope adjustments are very stiff when new. A few shots must be fired to force large adjustments to take. On the other hand, older cheap scopes move very freely, whether they are being adjusted or not. Either way, adjustments to the vertical affect the horizontal, and vice-versa. I've seen some cheap scopes that actually have portions of the adjustment range that move backwards. When they get a little older, reticle float is common. The reticle settles in a different place after each shot.

copied from http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh/scope.html

The thing to remember from this article are the last two sentences - "When they get a little older, reticle float is common. The reticle settles in a different place after each shot."

 

[Slamfire]

When I shoot F class, or long range competition, the shooters around me use very expensive target scopes. I have seen a lot of Leupolds on the line. I have one.

These scopes are built with accurate and repeatable elevation and windage changes. You put a 1/4 MOA click, and the group moves 1/4 MOA. The point of impact does not change when you change the magnification power. If you are shooting on targets, it is worth paying $900.00 for a scope you can trust.

However, lets talk optics. Lenses today are better than even 20 years ago. Modern cheap scopes are vastly clearer than their counterparts from decades past. Modern expensive scopes are better than their counterparts from decades past, though there is nothing wrong with an older good scope. (I got to look through a late 40's Zeiss, and it was pretty good) Just look at something from edge to edge of the lens. A good lens keeps the same colors and does not distort the image.

The better scopes are clearer, but at some limit the human eye cannot resolve the differences, and you have to compare lenses with an optical interferometer, or a teenager. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_interferometry

I have one expensive 3X9 Redfield compact scope that the center image is distorted, and distorts unevenly when viewed off center. I have one Tasco that I believe the reticule bounced around as the rifle was fired. I have another Tasco that as long as you don’t touch the dials, the group stays put. I will never buy another cheap Simmons product; I have had Simmons scopes and binoculars that had loose glass rattling inside.

Generally speaking, the higher quality scopes have better lenses, less defects and less problems than cheap scopes. You do pay for Quality Control.

So look at your budget, look through the scope, and pay accordingly.

 

[BADUNAME37]

Again, you get what you pay for......

So look at your budget, look through the scope, and pay accordingly. SlamFire1

I agree with everything SlamFire1 stated.

Also, realize that you are going to mount the scope to the gun, you are going to hopefully go to the range and sight it in and you may already know what size groups the gun is capable of pulling.

If you do know the size groups that gun is capable of, then it should still be pulling the same, or better groups with a new scope (assuming conditions at the range are perfect regarding no wind).

The right load for the gun would typically be that load which pulls the tightest group, using the type of bullets you intend to shoot. If you are working up loads and have a new scope (on a new or old rifle), you may start getting unreliable results if there is some malfunction with the scope itself. For instance, you may shoot several shots in a tight group, then have one or two bullets an inch or more away from that tight group.

So, in the process of trying to work up a good, accurate load, you may be getting frustrated because the bullets are basically shooting all over the place.

It may be the load and the gun just doesn't shoot well that combination of bullet, primer, powder and weight of powder.

However, it may be other things. Assuming you already know for a fact that the rifle is capable of 1/4 MOA, one should start questioning whether there could possibly be a malfunction with the scope.

The cheaper the scope (dollar-wise), basically, the more problems you will encounter (just think of all the different problems you could possibly have with a scope, and then realize there may be other problems of which you aren't even aware).

After you have spent hours carefully loading up test cartridges for this new load, and before you go out and shoot up all these cartridges, it may be more cost effective to have a higher quality (read more expensive) scope mounted to the rifle.

This is especially true if you started out with a $49 scope and were planning on getting a more expensive one "down the road" anyway. Instead of wasting all your time working up loads and questioning whether the scope is the problem, or is it the new load you are testing, my opinion is get the better scope and save yourself a LOT of aggravation in both time and money. Remember, TIME = MONEY.

Think of a scope (or any part or system on a firearm, for that matter) as a tool. I occasionally do building repairs. I can go into a dollar store and buy myself a whole toolbox full of tools for less than $20. When I see where the tools have been made, then I realize how they can be so cheap. I use a wrench and break it the first time I use it. Cheap vice-grip pliers that are not ViceGrips start binding up and after using them several times, I cannot even adjust them. I go to pull an old rusty nail and the hammer head breaks off. I go to tighten a screw and the darn screwdriver blade breaks!
I've seen these tools, we all have!

Compare those "Mickey Mouse" tools with my "tools of the trade" that I bought over 25 years ago which are still working the way they should and will keep on working after I'm six feet under!

That's my opinion.
Do it once.
Do it right.
Period.

 

[.38 Special]

Great topic.

It's true that more expensive scopes tend to be more reliable, more repeatable, etc. but that's not the question. I actually think it's kind of amusing to see people look through expensive scopes in the store and say things like "Boy, you could hit at a mile with a scope like this!"

Scopes are AIMING devices. If you can see the target reasonably clearly, you are seeing well enough to hit it. For scouting game, you have your expensive binoculars. (Why people need to be told not to use their rifle scopes for scanning the countryside is beyond me.)

So I very definitely say "Not true". Unless the scope has truly horrific optical aberrations, you can hit with a Tasco as well as with Zeiss.

 

[BADUNAME37]

I agree, if you are talking PURELY OPTICS and nothing else, then that is true!

The bullet will hit where the crosshairs have been placed.

 

[Omnivore]

Getting a good optic, you're also buying faith-- faith that your sight is going to do its job correctly every time. Of course that faith has to be earned-- you test it on a regular basis. I've experienced too many failures of various kinds in cheap optics to ever rely on them-- anything from fogging to the focus going out permanently, to a wandering reticle, to loose lenses.

Poor mounting is another problem I've seen on many a rifle.

When you're out at 500 yards or more on small targets, the optical acuity, your ability to change focus easily, the ability to make angle adjustments quickly and easliy, all become more and more critical too;
http://www.boomershoot.org/

You can't assume zero paralax either, 'cause there's no such thing. The AO scope allows you to minimize it though.

Buy what you want, and you may be perfectly satisfied with a 100 dollar 3-9 x 40 scope, but understand there are big differences, and if you can afford a nice optic, you'll be glad to have it. Personally, I'd like to have one of the upper-end Swarovskys, but I just can't get around to spending thousand of dollars on one. If I did, I'm sure I'd like it a lot.

And just for the record; the amount you paid for your rifle is a completely different subject, not be confused with the issue of optical quality. I'd put a multi-thousand dollar scope on a 700 dollar rifle any day, if I liked the rifle and could afford the scope.

 

[JohnBT]

"If you can see the target reasonably clearly, you are seeing well enough to hit it."

Unless it's a clear sunny day you may not be able to see the target with an inexpensive scope. Throw in some deep shadows from the setting sun, and maybe some rain showers, and it starts getting hard to see at all. I'll take as much resolution and clarity as I can afford.

One thing I really hate is trying to do a lot of bench shooting with a cheap fuzzy scope. All I get out of it is eyestrain and a headache.

And I don't buy cheap eyeglasses either.

John

 

[swampshooter]

optic quality

if all you do is sight in on a 100yd. range and shoot deer at 100 or 150yds. you can get by with a cheap scope, at least until it shoots craps, which it will do. but if you are spending 5 years savings on an expensive guided hunt 1,000 or 15,000 miles from home or if one more x wins an important match, then the highest quality scope you can possibly afford makes good sense. just this year on my yearly prairie dog shoot about 1100 miles from home i had a 4-16x tasco on a .22 hornet, when i went to the range to check zeros on my rifles it wouldn't accept adjustments, so was worthless. thank goodness i had 61/2-20x leupolds on my other two rifles. but what if i had only brought the one rifle? i have been shooting and hunting avidly for 50 years and have bought many scopes of all quality. today every leupold i've ever bought is still giving good service while i have a junk pile of cheap scopes that have shot craps.

 

[WNTFW]

Slamfire said it "These scopes are built with accurate and repeatable elevation and windage changes. You put a 1/4 MOA click, and the group moves 1/4 MOA. The point of impact does not change when you change the magnification power. If you are shooting on targets, it is worth paying $900.00 for a scope you can trust."

Some shooters do use the windage & elevation to adjust for conditions. It is very frustrating to put 4 clicks to the left & not have next the shots reflect that. I know a lot of hunter that never do this. So they don't care about it, only whether or not the scope stays zeroed.

A good question is at what point do Dollars$$$ = Quality?

 

[rcmodel]

but that's not the question.

+1
Optical quality effecting group size was the question in the OP.

NOT durability, repeatability, "1/4" click" accuracy, weather proofing, etc.

Again, even a cheap 2008 scope has better lens quality & brightness then a Lyman Alaskan or Redfield 3200 Target scope of 40 years ago.

rcmodel

 

[Walkalong]

It does not pay to buy cheap glass. Period. That being said. I have some cheap scopes, but they are not a bargain. It is what I could afford at the time. Buy a scope until it hurts a little, at least.

I do believe that as long as the internals don't move on you, you can shoot just as good a group with cheap glass, as long as the clarity of the glass, along with the reticle, is good enough to really pinpoint your aim.

Target shooters buy premium scopes because they give you an edge. They are clearer, parallax adjustable (precisely), easier on the eyes on a long day, etc.

 

[Jim Watson]

Friend of mine has a major name brand middle class scope that is fine at 100 - 200 yards and acceptable at 300 but is not as sharp as the advertising would have you believe at any greater range.

 

[Rebailey]

Scopes

TRUE. I have proved it over and over through 60 years of hunting, shooting and reloading. Also the factor of being absolutely confident the scope is doing it's job is invaluable.

 

[Jenrick]

I'm gonna have to say true to a point. Solely on optical quality, a high end scope is going to have better optical quality. However how much of it can we actually determine, vs. having to use some scientific instruments to do so?

I'd say that the 400-500 dollar range is about where you've reached the visually perceptible difference (for most of us). After this point it's gonna take added factors or instrumentation to determine what is better. As noted in the last couple of decades optics have gotten immensely better. The difference in a low end scope and a high end scope is not nearly as pronounced anymore.

The best suggestion I can make would be to check out spotting scopes and reviews. The only thing they have is optical clarity, not repeatability, etc. A lot of guys are using $300 Konus with great reviews, but a lot of folks are shelling out $1K+ for Nikons and the like. Almost everyone agrees that you do get more for your money, a whole lot disagree on if it's worth it though.

-Jenrick

 

[Tang419]

For testing purposes, I took my Leupold 3-9 off and put a Bushnell Trophy 6-18x40 on my M77 .300 Win Mag.

I set it up at sun set, and my range is facing west, so I was getting some glare, but not bad. The scope is very clear, even on 18x. The only problem I have with it so far, is the adjustments. After bore sighting, I was 4" to the left of center @ 100 yds. 16 clicks should have put it over to center, but it didnt. In fact, it moved the POI about 2". After getting it center up, I shot a .9" 3 shot group with 150gr Rem Core Lokt ammo. 11 shots in total at the bench, off of bags.

We will see how long it will last.

 

[Jonty]

Maybe it has 1/8" adjustments instead of 1/4

 

[Tang419]

Everything about it I can find to read, says 1/4", but it does seem to be 1/8".