Explain Scopes/Optics to me

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cslinger

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
5,462
Location
Nashville, TN
So I understand quality glass and various levels of robustness/protection/build quality but beyond that what makes a Leupold VX1 a step below a VX2, VX3 or a Bushness 3200 vs. 4200 etc.

It just seems to me that, with the exception of the build quality/robustness, there really isn't a lot of tech difference from scope to scope. (ACOGs have that robustness and tritium I get that, but once again what make the VX1 version of a Leupold scope inferior to a VX2 or 3) Just picking on Leupold but the question is pretty universal across manufacturers Leupold just is the most prevalent and has a pretty defined model class break out.

Thanks
Chris
 
Actually there is a huge difference in glass and coatings, that is what costs all the money. Almost all the major manufacturers build a solid product these days. I have a couple of Weaver Grand Slams scopes that I honestly can't see any difference in the glass between them and Swaro, and they have never failed, so as far as I can see they are just as solid.

Glass is sold polished to a certain level, you can buy a single lens for anywhere from $.25 to $250, depending on how fine you want it ground. And the price goes up almost geometrically rather than arithmetically. So once you reach a sweet spot in cost/fineness (think Burris FFII/Bushnell 3200/ Leupold VXII/ Nikon Buckmaster), prices double or more to go up one grade finer in polish. And when you reach a certain point in polishing the cost will go up 4-8 times to move up to a finer level.

Coating is another major cost. You can have all external lens coated, all lens coated, all lens multicoated. Then when you get to fully multicoated lens you can have as many as 5 different layers that I am aware of. Each layer does something special to correct for color, fringing, etc. If you want a good scope you need to make sure it says fully multicoated. If it says "multicoated", then that means just the exterior lens, the internal lenses may be single coated or not coated at all.

For me the mid range seems to be the right place to be, I use all four of the ones mentioned above. I have tried high end Zeiss and Swarovski for night hunting but my eyes are so bad even they don't help enough, particularly at 5 times the price. To be honest I think the Euro's charge big money just because they can.

A young person with good eyes may be able to see a difference shooting at dusk or dawn with the very high end stuff, but many of us on the downhill side of 40 (way down the hill in my case) simply can't.
 
Cslinger;

I agree with Browningguy's synopsis. However, there are other considerations.

Shooting the square is a classic test of a scope's ability to show accurate, repeatable adjustments. If you don't know what it is, it works like this: Presuming the scope is dialed in & shooting to point of aim, shoot one round at 100 yards to center bull. Go up 12 clicks, 3 inches presuming 1/4" increments, and left 12 clicks. Shoot one round. Go down 24 clicks, shoot one round. Right 24 clicks, shoot one round. Up 24 clicks, shoot one round. Left 12 clicks & down 12 clicks, shoot one round. The last bullet should impact within 1" of the first bullet shot & they should be in the center of a definate square.

However, accurate turret adjustments mean very fine tolerances & machining. Using Leupold, I'm told the Rifleman or VX-I (maybe both) have friction adjustments, not clicks. The VX-II & up have clicks. Target models, regardless of whose they are, will usually have 1/8" clicks.

Tubes can be one piece, or two piece. To prevent fogging, sealing the scope tube is mandatory. Better seals & fewer joints cost more money. And so it goes.

900F
 
I have a friend that goes on extended prairie dog hunts. After looking thru scopes for hours on end, there is a noticeable reduction in eye strain looking thru a Swarovski even compared to a VX-III.

To prove the point above, I had a super cheapie 6x24 that came on a rifle I bought. When cranked up to 20x+, it was like looking thru a fog. Sight picture started turning grey. At 24x, the scope was useless.

Anyone who says their $69.95 ElCheapo is just as good as a Swavoski or Zeiss is an idiot. Now, if they feel a $200 Nikon meets their budget and needs, that's a different story. With a cheap scope, it's not uncommon to have the reticle shoot loose. If you're whacking tin cans in the back yard, no big deal. If you're on an elk hunt 20 miles back in the mountains, it's a big deal.

You have to decide your tipping point on price versus quality. I can tell you that I had a mid range Simmons fog solid on a deer hunt. Cost me a HUGE buck. That was 25 years ago and I still get PO'd every time I think about it.

FWIW...one of my local dealers will take a used scope off a rifle and sell it for considerably less than 1/2 price. Since Leupold, Burris, etc. have lifetime warranty, it's a great deal if you can find it.
 
For optics generally, including binoculars, one aspect not mentioned by browningguy is internal reflections. These are most easily seen in dim overall light with a bright light source shining on the objective lens. (Think streetlight on a dark street.) In a perfect optic, if the bright light is not in the field of view, you would not know it's there. In the real world, some light bounces down the tube, and can obscure the image.

I really don't know, but I would not be surprised if this is one aspect of design that manufacturers tend to skimp on as the price falls. It's generally not a problem in bright light, and deer don't usually wear headlights in the woods at sunset.
 
a good forum to go to is snipershide.com....they have a lot of stickies with FAQs on scopes/optics if you need an answer right away
 
So far +1 to everyone's post.

My .02 cents is that Swarovski is king - lifetime of your children durability, best twilight factor, least eye strain, AND in the evening looking west least purple fringeing.

I have them and their big spotting scope and think they are cheap given the quality.

I am have not used but am curious about Schmidt and Bender scopes.
 
I can see a huge difference in my $300 Weaver V16 compared to my Bushnell Banner scopes at around half the price. I can't see a huge difference between the $300 scope and a $800 scope. My Bushnell 4200 is comparable to the Weaver.
 
I am have not used but am curious about Schmidt and Bender scopes.

go to snipershide.com or sniperscentral.com, there are write ups on the S&B scopes. i'm a member of both, from what I have read they are top dog with Zeiss coming in a close second
 
I just bought the Bushnell 3200 10x32 fixed power, the one with target knobs. I'm pleasantly surprised by how clear it is. Not bad at all for a scope in the $200 range. Of course, you pay a lot more for variable power.
 
These days, you can get a very good $60 scope. Optics manufacturing techniques are at a level now where a good scope doesn't have to cost over $100. Granted, some of the more expensive ones may be more durable, but most are sufficiently sturdy that unless you do something that would break any scope, they'll probably survive. The important thing is to check reviews. 1/4 MOA adjustment is the standard these days. Finger-adjustable turrets can be a HUGE plus. The ability to adjust the scope while looking down it, without having to worry about a stupid screwdriver is huge.
 
Mike;

No flames, but I beg to differ. These days $60.00 gets you exactly what you paid for, mediocre glass. That being said, it may indeed be better than a Lyman Alaskan or Weaver K4, but compared to the good stuff available today, it's simply not in the ball park.

Adjustments will not be repeatable, optic flaws can readily be seen if you know what to look for, and warrany? Puh-leese!

900F
 
Guess you haven't tried a Leapers 3-9x40, then. The glass is crystal clear, and adjustments are predictable. Again, the important thing is to check reviews.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top