SWFA's 2009 Scope Rating Scale

[lipadj46]

Looks like SWFA came out with their latest scope rating scale here:

http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=16515

Here is their weighting scale:

51% Optical Quality - How bright and clear the scope is.

15% Specifications - Field of view, eye relief, weight, adjustment travel, etc.

15% Durability - How do they with stand the test of time.

12% Special Features & Options - Proprietary items (reticles, design, turrets), Zoom ratio.

7% Warranty & Customer Service - How good are they.

0% Value - Bang for your buck. This criteria has been removed due to O.T. member input.

Here is the list, they removed the numbers but the worst are at the bottom best at top:

2009 Riflescope Rating Scale

Leica ER, Swarovski Z6, Zeiss Victory

Kahles C - CL & CSX, Premier Reticle, Schmidt & Bender

Kahles KX, U.S. Optics, Swarovski PH & American Lightweight

Bushnell Elite 6500, Leupold VX-7, Nightforce NXS, IOR Valdada, Vortex Razor

Bushnell Elite 4200, Leupold VX-3, Nikon Monarch & Monarch X, Zeiss Conquest

Leupold Mark 4 VX III & VX-L, Meopta, Nikon Monarch Gold & Titanium, Sightron SIII & S2 Big Sky, Vortex Viper

Burris Black Diamond Signature Select XTR & Euro Diamond, Pentax Lightseeker, Trijicon Accupoint, Weaver Grand Slam

Bushnell Elite 3200, Leupold VX-II, Millet Tactical/Buck Gold, Nikko Stirling, Nikon Buckmaster, Sightron SI & SII, Vortex Crossfire & Diamondback, Super Sniper Fixed

Burris Fullfield II & Timberline, Leupold Rifleman & VX-I, Leatherwood, Mueller, Nikon ProStaff, Simmons

Barska, Sightmark, Swift, Truglo

BSA, Tasco, Yukon

ATN, Leapers, NcStar

Obviously this is only their opinion but it is interesting to see the new models that are coming out and how they rate them as most of us will never have access to all these brands.

I for one though do not agree with where they put Sightron. They dinged them supposedly for durability issues.

 

[9mmepiphany]

the only rating that surprises me are the Burris models...i really thought they'd be a step higher

 

[BoltCollector]

Results seem somewhat biased to me

Burris makes some good stuff thats not super high priced. I have several Burris scopes which are better in optical quality and overall fit and finish than the couple of Bushnell 4200's and Sightrons I bought Caus they were supposed to be "better" and I gave in to the hype without actually comparing them side by side. Personally I also think the Nikons should have a higher rating. I do however agree with putting NcStar at the bottom, I have a friend that started selling them caus they were cheap and he could move a lot of them, then stopped selling them caus LOTS of people had broken scopes after just a few shots and brought them back complaining.(Especially the blackpowder guys, 2-3 shots were trashing the scopes) After having to replace the broken NcCrap he went back to selling only Nikon and Leupold.

 

[benzy2]

Honestly I think the lineup looks about right. I'm sure there are scopes in a lower grade that will in any given sample be nicer than that of a higher grade but for the most part this seems fairly close to how I would rate them.

 

[jbech123]

I thought the nightforce would be higher, other than that it is a reasonable stab at rating them, although they do say rating with a slant toward hunting. I'd personally make durability carry more weight than 15% on a hunting scope, but I do a fair amount of extreme hunting.

 

[skinewmexico]

Another reason why I don't buy there.

 

[lipadj46]

Another reason why I don't buy there.

Fair enough but just out of curiosity what on that list do you disagree with? Some don't like where they rate the Leupolds.

 

[c5_nc]

Looked through many scopes and guide appears fairly accurate to me. I did spend quite a bit of time looking through Nikon's Monarch 3-12 and there Buckmasters 4-14 and 6-18 I used 10x on all of them at the same shop, same time, not priced that far apart, they appear to me very close optically, dispite being widely appart on the rattings.

 

[lipadj46]

they appear to me very close optically, dispite being widely appart on the rattings

I believe you will find that a truism in modern day optics. Small increments in performance generally lead to big price differences. The thing is most modern day optical coatings are to increase light transmission of the visible (and to some extent near IR and UV) and you cannot even really start compare those kind of things until sunrise or sunset or out "in the woods" or in adverse weather. In those "natural" low light conditions is where the scopes higher up the food chain start to standout.

 

[alemonkey]

I'm really shocked they rated Swift and Barska the same. I own both, and I'm very impressed by the Swift. Barska is junk.

 

[Zak Smith]

although they do say rating with a slant toward hunting.

Yep.

The scale doesn't really take into account qualitative features required specific types of shooting, and if it did that would really complicate ratings across the board.

-z

 

[kyle1974]

so the mark 4 VX III isn't as good as the VXIII?

What about the bushnell 6500? better than zeiss conquest or VXIII?

maybe in the same ballpark... better than? I disagree.

Nikon Monarch is better than the monarch Gold and Titanium?

hmmmmm.......

 

[ArmedBear]

Maybe Simmons has really improved lately.

However, I have never looked through a Simmons that's anywhere NEAR the same league as a Leupold, Burris or Nikon, even the least-expensive models.

I'd put the Simmons above a BSA, because the Simmons I still have does hold zero.

I'm not sure I'd put it above a Barska, though.

While they said the ratings were oriented towards hunting, they didn't include weight. Nikko Sterling's optics might be good, but last I checked, they were pretty heavy compared to their competition. I'd rather have the Fullfield II that appears lower on the list, or the VXII that's supposedly equal to the N-S (but MUCH lighter).

Most of this is no surprise, though. Arrange by price, and the list would look quite similar.

 

[kyle1974]

armed bear...I have an older simmons aetec (maybe from 1993 or so), that seems to be MUCH higher quality than the simmons today... but this is comparing new products... not antiques....hard to tell how they came up with some of these findings.

makes you wonder if bushnell (for example) said... "this is our premium line of scopes that is comparable to zeiss... make sure it stays in teh rankings"..... or something like that.

 

[MCMXI]

WARNING: Rant up ahead!!

Where's their "weighting scale" data i.e. a breakdown of how each of the models did. And the ridiculous thing is that 51% of the score is based on the MOST SUBJECTIVE criterion "Optical Quality - How bright and clear the scope is." Why don't they at least use a quasi scientific system for optical quality similar to that used for digital cameras at www.dpreview.com rather than "The scale below was formed by SWFA sales staff, customer service, pro-staff and owners using personal experience, customer input and facts supplied by the manufacturers." What a bunch of BS!! That list is about as objective and scientific as the MSDS that comes with a box of Trimspa!! Bear Basin puts out a list of the Top 10 Best Selling Long Range Scopes but who cares ... it has no bearing on anything other than being a marketing gimmick!! I think that SWFA's marketing hype is aimed at selling Bushnell scopes pure and simple. They're at a price point where I bet they sell 100 Bushnells for every 1 Nightforce, US Optics, or other high $ scope, (how would that skew the "customer input"). This list makes all the Bushnell buyers feel "warm and fuzzy for getting so much scope for so little money!" They can go off to the range believing that their choice was the right choice. Of course, once they get into competitive shooting, they'll start to wonder why no one else is using Bushnell scopes and basically why US Optics, S&B, Nightforce, Leupold etc are prevalent and consistently show up in the top ten. Take a look at the military units in the recent episodes of Top Sniper ... see any Bushnell scopes out there?

http://www.bearbasin.com/long_range_top_ten.htm

I have absolutely nothing against Bushnell or other lower cost scopes ... they all serve a purpose ... some better than others. What I do object to is the BS with regards to scope selection and performance. There's no magic here and no "same performance for half the cost" option. If you buy a lower cost scope, enjoy it for what it is but don't delude yourself into thinking that the guy who bought an S&B, US Optics or Nightforce is and idiot that could have saved a bunch of money had they known better.

 

[ArmedBear]

True enough.

For hunting, I think that what people want to know is more along the lines of...

1. How much better is X than Y?
2. Is that proportional to the price, or am I paying 50% more for a 1% improvement?
3. Which one weighs more? Am I lugging around a noticeably heavier rifle/scope combo all day so I can get a barely-perceptible improvement in the scope?
4. How late/early in the day will this scope let me see clearly?

Sure, a VXIII is a better scope than a Fullfield II. It had damn well better be for double the price.

But HOW MUCH better, and is it worth the difference TO ME? That's the question we're mostly asking, right?

And what about features? Do I give up a (insert favorite reticle here) because the "better" scope doesn't come with it? Is it worth changing the spec's I think are important to me?

Maybe the difference is well worth the price to me, on a given hunting rifle for a given use. And maybe it's not.

Rankings don't answer these questions very well, IMO.

 

[lipadj46]

so the mark 4 VX III isn't as good as the VXIII?

They are saying mk 4 = VX-III = VX-L (you need to add your own commas) because they are the same scopes. Leupold VX-3 scopes are the upgraded VX-III's, and the mk4's have not been ugraded to the VX-3 specs yet so yes the VX-3 is better. That one does make sense I'm sure Leupold will ugrade the mk4's soon

Nikon Monarch is better than the monarch Gold and Titanium?

I think that is a hold over from last year when they took value into the equation.

makes you wonder if bushnell (for example) said... "this is our premium line of scopes that is comparable to zeiss... make sure it stays in teh rankings"..... or something like that.

I think many people realize these days that other companies have caught up and passed Leupold when you look at optical performance and even durability. I do think SWFA does ding Leupold for offering less value for their price when compared to Bushnell and Nikon even though they say they removed that. I doubt anyone from Bushnell, Zeiss or Nikon even realize opticstalk.com exists. SWFA does not publish this list anywhere else and they do it mainly just to get a dialog going and maybe stir up the fanboys a bit.

 

[Zak Smith]

Yeah, the problem comes in when you need a feature that, for example, the Mk4 has, but the VX3 doesn't have, like external "tactical" style knobs, a big many-click knob, a zero-stop, or a FFP reticle, and that isn't represented in the ranking at all.

 

[kyle1974]

I can understand that difference now... I mis read it.

as for the list... they just have WAY too many variables...

one value may be perceived different 10 different ways for 10 different people.

 

[lipadj46]

I can understand that difference now... I mis read it.

as for the list... they just have WAY too many variables...

one value may be perceived different 10 different ways for 10 different people.

It is a good tool just to get a quick down and dirty on how things line up. I generally agree with most of it but that would not stop me from buying say a Leupold mk4 over a Bushnell 4200 tactical if I run a cross one at a decent price and I needed the internal adjustment that the mk4 offers.

 

[MCMXI]

lipadj46, so perhaps you can explain, IF price isn't factored into the rankings, how the Bushnell Elite 6500 with only +/- 23.75 MOA of vertical adjustment with MULTICOATED lenses, only one reticle choice, no tactical turrets, no FFP option, no illuminated reticle option, a non-transferrable warranty and no battlefield experience (proven reliability under the harshest conditions) is supposedly superior to a Mark 4 with INDEX MATCHED lenses, +/- 37.5 MOA of vertical adjustment (57% more!!), FFP and SFP variants, tactical turrets, Mil Dot and TMR reticle choices, standard or metric adjustment choices, optional illuminated reticle and battle-proven field performance and a lifetime, transferable warranty. Like I said, that list is nothing more than marketing BS to bump up sales of the Bushnell Elite line. Now if they came up with something even remotely objective and scientific to show that the Bushnell scopes were that good, then I'd be the first in line buying a Bushnell Elite 6500 for my next rifle.

From Leupold's web site ...

"Beginning in 2004, all tactical scopes are included in the Mark 4 category and will have the same features as past tactical models with the addition of a fast-focus eyepiece and Index Matched lenses; there are two exceptions which include the CQ/T and 3-9x40mm PR. The CQ/T has always utilized a combination of DiamondCoat (external) and Multicoat 4 (internal) lens coatings, and the 3-9x40mm PR is fully multicoated using Multicoat 4. 2003 tactical scopes typically had fully multicoated lenses utilizing Multicoat 4."

 

[Zak Smith]

But features are only 12%

12% Special Features & Options - Proprietary items (reticles, design, turrets), Zoom ratio.

 

[lipadj46]

lipadj46, so perhaps you can explain, IF price isn't factored into the rankings, how the Bushnell Elite 6500 with only +/- 23.75 MOA of vertical adjustment with MULTICOATED lenses, only one reticle choice, no tactical turrets, no FFP option, no illuminated reticle option, a non-transferrable warranty and no battlefield experience (proven reliability under the harshest conditions) is supposedly superior to a Mark 4 with INDEX MATCHED lenses, +/- 37.5 MOA of vertical adjustment (57% more!!),

Well first of all the 6500 glass in is not multicoated it is fully multicoated. Secondly why does leupold saying the mk4 lenses are index matched mean they are better optically than the Bushnell 4200/6500 glass? This is not the first time that someone has claimed the Bushnell elite 4200/6500 glass is better than VX-III glass so it should not be too much of a suprise. Also the guys on optics talk are more about glass and optics than tactical features.

The non "tactical" 6500 have 78 adjustment moa while the mk4's have 100 (I believe) but the 6500's offer a far wider zoom range which some would consider more useful (I would call that a wash as far as those features go). They have similar durability, warranty and CS so why is it such a stretch that someone would rate a scope with better glass higher especially when optical performance is 50% of the grade? I will admit it should probably be down even with the VX-3 and 4200 though but I think it was bumped up one because of the better erector set (wider zoom).

 

[MCMXI]

But features are only 12%

But features aside, I don't believe for one second that MULTICOATED lenses are going to be optically superior to INDEX MATCHED lenses. Leupold "upgraded" the Mark 4 line in 2004 from MULTICOATED to INDEX MATCHED and yet Bushnell with their MULTICOATED lenses are optically superior Since price isn't in the mix, optical superiority is the only way they could be placed higher than the Mark 4 line since the Mark 4's have more features, a better warranty and have proven durability on the battlefield. I wonder how many Bushnell Elite scopes have leapt from an aircraft at 10,000 feet and still managed to keep all of that dry nitrogen inside the tube!!

 

[lipadj46]

But features aside, I don't believe for one second that MULTICOATED lenses are going to be optically superior to INDEX MATCHED lenses. Leupold "upgraded" the Mark 4 line in 2004 from MULTICOATED to INDEX MATCHED

Read my post above and then read up on optics. The Bushnell's are not multicoated. And why does index matching mean that the mk4 glass is better? How do you know that the 4200 and 6500 glass is not index matched?