SWFA's 2009 Scope Rating Scale

[cougar1717]

I'm in the market for a scope and found this thread. I was interested in this discussion since I also noticed the great ranking given to the Bushnell 4200/6500 series. The problem with this rhetoric is that forums allow you to argue semantics without consequence, and scopes are things that have to be physically inspected, since regurgatated website information means very little to me. I own a VX-II, a VX-III, and a Conquest. I have relatives and friends who have let me compare their Leupold Euro-30 and Swarovski scopes. I went to Cabela's yesterday to compare scopes. I looked at three scopes: Bushnell 4200, Zeiss Conquest, Leupold Mark 4. I understand that Cabela's environment is not a hunting situation, but it was very easy to see that although the SWFA has listed the 4200 to be of similar quality as the other two, I can attest from firsthand inspection that it is not. I would compare the 4200 to be of similar quality to a VX-II. If you disagree, I encourage you to test them for yourself and compare them side by side as I did. My personal opinion is that the Zeiss Conquest was the clearest of the three, but the Mark 4 was very, very close and would probably outperform the Conquest in dawn and dusk situations due to the 30mm tube. I suspect this since my relative's Leupold Euro-30 scope performs similarly at dawn and dusk to my Conquest, even though the Euro-30 is not as clear in the daylight. These are my opinions and I would encourage you to form your own from physically viewing the scopes.

 

[lipadj46]

You can call that a comparison if you want but like you said it was in Cabela's under fluorescent lighting I assume not in natural light, were you looking through them with the same exit pupil size, etc? Then you make claims about the mk 4 probably being better in low light because of the 30mm tube and then I kind of tune out. If it matters I've looked a the same scope lines in a gun shop scratched my head and ended up with the 4200 and I think they offer great value especially the $240 3-9x40 model.

I've read the real head to head comparisons done by individuals with those scopes in natural light with some grids to compare clarity, color etc. People have taken those scopes out at dusk and compared the low light behavior and generally find not a whole hell of a lot of difference but the Zeiss usualy comes out ahead by a hair. Once agin making sure the exit pupil are about equal is important as scopes will darken up as the zoom increases.

Anywho, this is an old thread with some people arguing about their favorite brands, fanboys of one stripe or another (including me I suppose) and it really did not need to be dragged back up. Though it is funny how they always end up being about someone defending Leupold

 

[Maverick223]

Anyone else notice how it is "ranked" according to price. Gee, I wouldn't think that would have anything to do with their marketing strategy...would you? I cannot conceive how they could indiscriminately pile all the tactical and hunting scopes together, it just doesn't work.

I think the scale is pretty close, at least from what I have seen of the bunch, but it doesn't really work for me. I think there should be a tactical and hunting scale, and have cost grades within each, because it doesn't really matter how good something is if you haven't budgeted for that grade of optic. Cost mus be a factor...and from what I can see, it is the only factor with SWFA.