Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
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.
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.
Last edited: