Whats the deal with scopes?

Status
Not open for further replies.
That is right i did not mention Leupold.
Click to expand...
Cant blame you for that...I don't like em' either (least not for the money)...but no Ziess? Or Premier Reticles? Not knocking USO or S&B (or the rest) but I think Premier (et al) is better for the money. Additionally those are all top of the line scopes, he may not have that much to spend.
 
I like the Swaro emblem also. hehehe (just funnin; with you maverick):neener:

I was reading the concerns of many on here in regards to Kahles and wire reticles.. I couldn't figure why a Kahles wire reticle was any more fragile than, say a leupold... so I call Kahles and presented the question.


According to Kahles, they said that they have not produced any wire reticles for over 7 years.
The C, CL and KK models all have, along with ALL of their other models, glass etched reticles. This came from the horses mouth, eer, I think it was that end of the horse.

Anyway, I hope this thig is super sexy and dummy proof!:D
 
Maverick, you are absolutely correct. Premier and Zeiss, actually Hensoldt are also awesome. The only reason i didnt mention them is that Premier although A+ in my opinion just has not been around long enough. As far as Hensoldt (which in my opinion is the best) their availability or lack of really does not make them a viable option.
 
Last edited:
I like the Swaro emblem also. hehehe
Click to expand...
I wasn't joking...I really do like it better...just not +$200 better. :D
According to Kahles, they said that they have not produced any wire reticles for over 7 years.
The C, CL and KK models all have, along with ALL of their other models, glass etched reticles. This came from the horses mouth, eer, I think it was that end of the horse.
Click to expand...
Good to know, a etched reticle doesn't change color, generally a wire will change color a bit with different lighting conditions, and I noticed that their's did not, I thought it was due to a better coating, but I guess I found my answer. In that case they are on par with Ziess IMO.

To alpha: Good enough reasons, but Ziess is becoming more available (unless you are referring to the Hensoldt line, which I still haven't seen, and cost a small fortune). As far as the Premier, I will give a range/optics report when I get my 5-25x56mm in and let you guys know how it does (should arrive in July).
 
Pre-Owned Leupold scopes are an excellent value and the factory will warranty them
 
Not to disagree with anything said here, but one important point to make, and this coming from a relative novice shooter, at least in terms of shooting with a high degree of accuracy, and doing a fair amount of shooting off hand.

A solid and reproducible cheek weld and sights or a scope w/ mounts at the proper height and objective distance for the center of your field of view are essential for accuracy, irrespective of the scope. I used to routinely use high mounts and large objective scopes, thinking them to be better and easier for me to use. As I have progressed, I now instead pay careful attention to the height of the comb of the stock, the length of pull, the height of my center of field of vision when the rifle is in the proper position, and the height of the mounts I need. When needed, I add padding to the stock, adjust the LOP and butt plate, and even go down in objective size if I need to mount the scope lower

If the rifle and scope are set up properly, even with a relatively inexpensive scope (for example, one with a short eye relief and narrow field of view) then you should still be able to throw it up and consistently come to the full field of view of the scope without the subtle weave & bob motion you describe in order to see something other than black. If that field of view appears only when you have, for example, a "chin weld" or even a "Jaw weld" instead of a firm cheek weld, then the set up, not the scope is likely the problem.

Put your thumb on the soft part of your cheek and push up -- that hard cheekbone you feel is the zygoma and that is what should be on the comb of the rifle with your neck straight, and a full sight picture in the center of your visual field. Otherwise, POA will be inconstant, and accuracy suffers from parallax error. Any time you are not looking through the dead center of your field of vision with your neck and shoulder relaxed, accuracy suffers.

Not trying to be argumentative, and I may be rambling on about something perhaps you know more about than me, but if may I pass on something I learned the hard (expensive) way by -- trial and error: Expensive glass is wasted if you don't mount it correctly, if it doesn't properly fit you and your rifle, and if you can't use it with a precise and reproducible cheek weld every time you bring the rifle up to shoot.
 
The Zeiss line is great and great for hunting etc, but their lack of reticles for tactical purposes is a turn off for me. Yes, i mean their Hensoldt line which i think is the best scope bar none but cant be found with ease.
 
Sorry guys, but this Leupold bashing is total BS from a bunch of people that don't own any and probably have never owned any, particularly the Mark 4 line. Funny how they've performed well in Iraq and Afghanistan but the "experts" over at Sniper's Hide don't like them :rolleyes: . I have six Mark 4s and use three of them regularly in matches at 200, 300 and 600 yards and find them to be outstanding in EVERY regard. Leupold's lifetime, transferable warranty is second to none.

I did just order a Zeiss but not because I've found Leupold lacking, but rather because I didn't need a tactical scope so I wanted to try something else this time around.

As I've said many times, it's the numerous other features that are important once the glass is good enough.

As for the Swarovski emblem, I have one on my Laser Guide :neener: and don't need any more!

alpha6164 said:
The Zeiss line is great and great for hunting etc, but their lack of reticles for tactical purposes is a turn off for me.
Click to expand...

What, the Rapid-Z 600, 800 and 1000 aren't "tactical" enough for you?

:)
 
Buddy... the Leupolds used in Iraq aint anything NEAR the ones sold to the public.

Don't get me wrong, the Mark 4's I have are excellent. But for the money I'll take a Ziess, Swarovski, Schmitt and Bender or my beloved(I hope) Kahles over a leupold ANY day.

Peace :D
 
The Zeiss line is great and great for hunting etc, but their lack of reticles for tactical purposes is a turn off for me.
Click to expand...
I agree as far as a long-range tactical scope...Ziess doesn't offer the best features...hunting is where they shine.
What, the Rapid-Z 600, 800 and 1000 aren't "tactical" enough for you?
Click to expand...
I think the reticles are fine it is FFP that detracts me for tactical purposes.

1858: for the record I never said that Leupold was a bad scope...just that they were a bit overpriced IMO.
 
In case you think I'm full of ****, here are two of the three rifles that I use in matches ... both wearing the total piece of ****, overpriced, crappy Mark 4s. :rolleyes:

300wm_ar15.JPG


:)
 
Uncle Mike said:
Buddy... the Leupolds used in Iraq aint anything NEAR the ones sold to the public.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source of link to verify that statement? To the best of my knowledge, the scopes issued to the military are EXACTLY the same ones that are offered to the civilian market. I'll ask my friend who runs the whole Marine shooting complex where I live. He's a decorated US Army and Marine shooting team member as well as a decorated international shooter ... he'll clear this right up for me!!

I'm just getting fed up with the BS surrounding scope selection ... it's just total CRAP!! If you've never owned a Mark 4 or haven't used one for any length of time at any distance over 100 yards then you have absolutely no friggin' idea what you're talking about so shut the heck up!! I try to be polite, considerate and humble as much as possible but this mall ninja bull$hit is starting to get to me. :banghead: I could honestly care less what people choose to put on their rifles, but this continuous Leupold bashing just isn't based on facts or any evidence. Most if not all of the bashing comes from people that have never owned them. If you're thinking about a Mark 4, do yourself a favor and talk to someone that owns them, uses them for more than just paper punching at the range and preferably, someone that has a point of reference too i.e. they own other top brands as well.

:)
 
Naw.. we belived you.
At least your honest..... Just funnin' :D :evil:

Your bud marine should be able to help you out... Call Leupold and ask them!
They should tell you about the run of dedicated, serial numbered, modified Mk4's the military uses.

Mall Ninja.... I like that....
 
1853, i am not saying that Leupold is a bad scope. It is correct that the ones in the sandbox are not the same sold to the public. Also the fact that a scope company as big as Leupold that wants to be in a Tactical Field still does not offer an MOA/MOA reticle and adjustment or mil/mil as far as i know is a major disappointment.
 
Seems like SEI doesn't realize that there's a difference between what the US military uses and civilian versions. In fact, it looks like the only difference is the BDC knob that ships on a couple of the M3 models. SEI specifically states M118LR for those models which would indicate that they've been calibrated for the 175gr SMK in .308 Win.

http://www.smithenterprise.com/products10.html

From their web site ...

"While all Leupold optical products are available to USG, State and Local entities as well as through Foreign Military Sales, we have focused our offerings on the below [Leupold] listed scopes, which have consistently proven themselves effective during the rigors of combat."

alpha6164 said:
Also the fact that a scope company as big as Leupold that wants to be in a Tactical Field still does not offer an MOA/MOA reticle and adjustment or mil/mil as far as i know is a major disappointment.
Click to expand...

While I agree that MOA/MOA or mil/mil models would be a nice option, in practical terms, MOA/mil works fine too so it's not a big deal to me. If you have your D.O.P.E. worked out and within easy reach, and your reticle is calibrated for holdovers (for variable power 2nd FP models) , a decent shooter will do just fine. If you have a spotter, he/she can call out the necessary corrections. If you're on your own shooting long range at stuff that doesn't ring like a gong, then you won't know where your rounds are going anyway and it doesn't matter what system you're using.

:)
 
OK ... just got a reply from my friend re the Mark 4 scopes used by the Marine Corps. I had to call my wife to ask his wife to ask him since he's God knows where at the moment (and probably can't tell me) ... kind of a coconut wireless. Anyway, here's his response to my question in which I asked if the Mark 4s used by the USMC in Iraq/Afghanistan are the same ones offered to civilians.

"Same ones. We(usmc). Use the TMR (tactical milling reticle)
pattern for our squad designated marksman rifles(AR-15). And mildot
reticle for sniper rifles and competition guns. If you are in the
market for a new scope. Buy Nightforce

Sent from my iPhone"

Well, that's good enough for me ... except for the Buy Nightforce quip!! :D This guy has competed on the international level and won more shooting awards than I have bones in my body. He's responsible for the training of 1000's of Marines in the use of all kinds of weapons ... the real deal for sure.

:)
 
Lets not get all defensive, I don't believe that anyone said that they [Leupold] were bad only that it wasn't their first choice for the money. I imagine (but don't know for certain) that Leupold sends the Marines the good stuff while we lowly civilians get the rejects, kind of like the Remington 700 5R. Not that they are bad, just not quite as good as what the military receives; and IMO that is the way it should be. Also something that is used my military and police isn't necessarily the best available, just available, good enough and cheap enough. For what it's worth Nightforce is not my first choice either, but that's just my opinion. :)
 
Maverick, first off, I don't for one second think that Mark 4 scopes are the best available and have never implied that they are. I try to tell it like it is and it annoys me when others with no experience with a particular product have an opinion about it. I don't speculate on how good a product is based on someone else's experience or advise others against buying a product based on someone else's experience. As far as I can tell, you've never owned a Leupold Mark 4 or even a Precision Reticle (I know you have one on order) and yet you state that there are better options for the money when talking about the Mark 4 and that PRs are as good as Nightforce, S&B, US Optics without ever actually owning and using any of them. Explain to me how you empirically know any of this. :confused:

At the moment, I see you as being in the same boat as lipadj46 ... someone that will go out of their way to put Leupold down and to convince others not to even consider Leupold. I've made some derisive comments about Bushnell based on their published (and confusing) specs but I've never said anything about their performance, reliability or value for money because I've never owned one.

:)
 
As far as I can tell, you've never owned a Leupold Mark 4 or even a Precision Reticle (I know you have one on order) and yet you state that there are better options for the money when talking about the Mark 4 and that PRs are as good as Nightforce, S&B, US Optics without ever actually owning and using any of them. Explain to me how you empirically know any of this.
Click to expand...
You are correct I have never owned a Mk. 4 (though I have owned several Leupolds), but I have shot one on many occasions on a good friend of mine's rifle. I did not think that the glass was terribly great, but certainly not bad. I have shot a NF on a couple of occasions but do not have enough experience with one to make any real call on it other than my dislike for the odd turning eyepiece. I have not owned a Premier Reticle, USO or a S&B and have not even shot one...only looked through them when deciding upon which scope to purchase for my current rifle build, so I cannot comment as to the durability only the optical quality.
 
You are correct I have never owned a Mk. 4 (though I have owned several Leupolds), but I have shot one on many occasions on a good friend of mine's rifle. I did not think that the glass was terribly great
Click to expand...

Since it's not your Mark 4, I bet you've never checked to see how clean the lenses are. Maybe your friend hasn't checked either. I keep my objective and ocular lenses very clean and always check them before a match. You would not believe the difference it can make if there's a layer of dust on the lenses. The muzzle blast kicks up all kinds of dust so if you shoot prone you really need to keep an eye on the objective lens in particular. If you have a sunshade, it's easy to forget about cleaning.

A few months ago I shot a 458 SOCOM with a Super Sniper on it. It was the single worst scope I've ever looked through but there could have been a tub of Vaseline smeared all over the objective lens for all I know ... it wasn't mine so I didn't inspect it. I could now rant about how Super Snipers are rubbish, but that wouldn't exactly be scientific would it.

As I keep saying, once you get over a certain price point, glass "quality" (which is TOTALLY subjective by the way with no empirical data ANYWHERE to be seen) is moot. Most folks don't compare apples to apples anyway. The size of the exit pupil can have a HUGE affect on how you perceive the scope to be in terms of clarity and brightness but that may have nothing to do with the quality of the glass, or how your target looks at 600 yards, or how your scope handles mirage, bright sun etc. There are numerous aspects to a scope (already mentioned) and unless you own one and use it on a regular basis, which includes inspecting/cleaning the lenses, you really can't consider yourself to be an authority.

This thread has got my feathers up but I offer no apology. It's about time the record was set straight. From here on out, if someone wants to slam Leupold without one shred of evidence or based solely on what they've read, then I'm going to call them on it. I've had a long and enjoyable relationship with Leupold products and will absolutely accept and welcome well thought out, fact-based criticisms of their products, but unsubstantiated, anecdotal BS just ain't gonna cut it. THR should be better than that.

On a side note, I spent some time yesterday ranging "targets" with my Swarovski Laser Guide range finder. Swarovski is well known for their quality in optics but I can't say for sure that the glass is better/worse/same as the Mark 4s that I have. The view through the Swarovski is excellent and everything looks crystal clear, but it does through my Mark 4s too ... everything looks sharp through my Mark 4 spotting scope as well.

:)
 
Mav, that comment wasn't directed at you specifically ... it could equally apply to me about US Optics, S&B, Nightforce, PR etc since I've never owned/used those. I consider myself to be somewhat knowledgeable about Mark 4 rifle scopes since I have six of them and a Mark 4 spotting scope. No personal insult was intended ... seriously.

I've suggested Zeiss scopes to some folks but I've always added that I just ordered one but don't actually have one. There's a difference and I wanted to make that point.

:)
 
OP wrote:
So how much do you gotta spend to get a scope that doesn't have a super narrow field of view??? I'm getting tired of these scopes that every time you move a millimeter it turns all black.
Click to expand...

1858, I don't think a $1500+ scope answers the original question.

To the OP, I have had very good results with Burris Fullfield II and Bushnell Elite 3200. Both can be had for around $200 or less.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top