Why do riflescope reviews suck so bad?

[FNFiveSeven]

Sorry, I've got a bit of a rant here.

What is it about the firearm industry that ensures that we will never see an intensive, detailed, honest review of a riflescope? I have yet to read a review of any riflescope where the thing was actually comparison tested by an expert. Most of the time, a riflescope review consists of some guy saying "it resolves good", when in truth the guy writing the review couldn't tell the difference between a precision optical device and a coke bottle. Why is there never any discussion of pincushion distortion, chromatic aberration, resolving power, quantitative measurements of light transmission, etc? Look at how the camera people review their instruments, it puts us to shame. Check out these online reviews of a digital camera:

Here's what a proper resolution comparison *should* look like:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona620/page13.asp

And here's what you get when someone who actually understands color fidelity and resolution reviews an optic:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona620/page12.asp

And here's how a real expert would measure distortions
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona620/page6.asp

Unfortunately, we never see these types of comparisons, and so when we go to buy an optic we have to base our decisions on the opinion of some slack jawed moron at the local gun shop.

Why is it like this? It reflects poorly on our entire industry that we have no thorough testing methods for our optics. Or is there somebody out there who is testing riflescopes properly, and I've just been looking in the wrong place?

 

[bogie]

What concerns me most is that the crosshairs don't jump around from shot to shot...

Guys, you'd be surprised.

 

[444]

This is, of course, just my own pet theory but after reading on-line gun boards for quite a few years, it is my firm belief that by far, the most important thing to the majority (not all) of gun owners is price. Now everyone considers price. No one wants to pay more than nessessary. BUT, this isn't what I am talking about. In those cases someone decides they want to buy a widget and then they comparison shop for widgets and buy from the place they can get the best price on widgets. Again, that isn't what I am talking about. What I am talking about is: I need a riflescope. I am only going to consider price. I want the cheapest possible riflescope so that is what I am going to buy. I am not going to consider performance, longevity, warranty. Price is the only thing I am going to consider. You could make a 1/2 hour long iron clad argument on why scope X is the best scope for my purposes and I am going to ignore that because the ONLY thing I am interested in, is the price.

 

[Majic]

Most of the time, a riflescope review consists of some guy saying "it resolves good", when in truth the guy writing the review couldn't tell the difference between a precision optical device and a coke bottle.

Mainly because the person doing the review is an expert on the rifle and not the scope. You want a definative analysis of the scope then go to the manufactor for information.

 

[carebear]

There was a recent article in either SWAT or the Amer. Rifleman on how to judge optics. I found myself straining to relate what I was reading to my existing knowledge of how the eye works and what optical terms mean.

I understand field of view, eye relief and the effects of parallax. I can pretty much tell which scope appears brighter. But as far as turning technical terms into real awareness of which they speak, I'd need a guide.

I'm pretty well-read and reasonably informed on most topics but I'm sure that I and the generic scope user are as little into the details on scopes as the average camera owner is into cameras. Aficianados want all the numbers, that's the folks who buy the magazines.

"We," the masses, want reliable, durable and functional and that's what "we" look for in a review.

 

[Kurush]

Yeah but do the camera reviews ever include a picture of the deer they shot with it? I think not!

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

it is my firm belief that by far, the most important thing to the majority (not all) of gun owners is price.

I totally agree. I worked part-time at Gander Mountain while I went to college and people never ceased to amaze me in this area.

It seems that all too often some guy would come in and ask how much he'd have to spend to get a shotgun scope. Not realizing right away that he just wanted a scope, any scope, and not necessarily a quality piece, I would recommend the Nikon Prostaff 2-7x32 Shotgun Hunter as an outstanding inexpensive shotgun scope. When I showed them the price of $129, you'd be surprised how many people would scoff.

"How much do you want to spend, then?", I would say, knowing that there are some servicable products from Bushnell for around $110. "Oh, maybe about sixty dollars"



"There's a Tasco 3-9x40 in a plastic wrapper hanging in the second aisle on the left for $29"

If that's all you can afford, fine, make it work. Too many people wanted a scope, however. Just a scope. Why spend over one-hundred when Tasco makes a scope that you can put on your 12-guage for less than fifty?

 

[LynnMassGuy]

So start testing riflescopes properly.

 

[Meta]

Nightforce, Leupold, Swarovski, Zeiss.......nuff said.

 

[0007]

Not to disagree with your basic premise, but Very High-Power Magazine (for .50cal shooters) did a side-by-side comparison of about 5-6 scopes specifically for the BMG.50cal rifle and didn't spare the negatives where called for...

 

[Parker Dean]

What is it about the firearm industry that ensures that we will never see an intensive, detailed, honest review of a riflescope?

Money.

Actually, this isn't limited to the firearms press by any means. Almost all articles about any product are nothing more than an advertisement in narrative form. IOW the subject of the article will get a good article because the manufacturer of that item paid for a good article, either directly or indirectly.

 

[JohnKSa]

David Fortier has written some real reviews of firearms optics. The stuff he has written for SGN is, if anything, TOO technical. The stuff he's writing for the mainstream magazines is dumbed down a bit but is still very good.

Check him out if you get a chance.

 

[FNFiveSeven]

JohnKSA,

I would love to look into some of these articles by David Fortier, you said he writes for "SGN"? What's that?

 

[Standing Wolf]

Actually, this isn't limited to the firearms press by any means. Almost all articles about any product are nothing more than an advertisement in narrative form.

As magazines lose readers, that may have to change. Personally, I trust the sum total of comments right here at the High Road more than the vast majority of gun magazine "reviews."

Fortier, by the way, is with Shooting Times.

 

[JohnKSa]

ShotGun News
http://www.shotgunnews.com

Here's an article. More of a scope feature article than an optics review.
http://www.shootingtimes.com/optics/STtactical_1005/index.html

Another "dumbed down" article of his.
http://www.shootingtimes.com/optics/burris_080505/index.html

A little better.
http://www.shootingtimes.com/optics/meade_101705/index.html

Here's another.
http://www.shootingtimes.com/optics/st_0301_leupold/index.html#cont

I can't find any of his articles from SGN. And it may be that his style has changed for good...

 

[Snake Eyes]

Blackrazor--

"SGN"= Shotgun News.

When you get all your research done, report back here on what you find. Please.

It would save me (and others, I'm sure) hundreds of hours of just learning the vernacular we would need BEFORE we could even begin to compare the optics.

Looking forward to your review!

 

[FNFiveSeven]

Can do Snake Eyes. I've been very interested in high end riflescopes/optics for some time, and it has always bothered me that the riflescope industry doesn't hold itself to as high standards as something like the binocular, spotting scope, or camera industry. I have never seen a scope "shoot out" where the same resolution chart was photographed through a series of different riflescopes, or where a color chart was viewed to verify color fidelity. I think what I might do is put together my own evaluation series, starting with the stuff I have and moving on from there. I have a few NF scopes and a couple of Leupolds, I'll test those first. Here's some things I'm thinking about testing when I start putting together write-ups:

eye relief (and whether it remains constant over the magnification range)
Elevation and Windage adjustment range
Repeatability of tracking
light transmission with a green and red laser (averaging the results)

Photographic tests:
Color fidelity (including chromatic aberration/lateral color)
pincushion distortion/curvature of field (an especially bad problem with most variable riflescopes at the lower end of their magnification range)
Resolution (using a resolution chart)

For the photographic tests, I'll have to attach a digital camera via some kind of locking mechanism; I'm thinking of using something like the monoloc adapter (originally it was meant for attaching night vision monoculars to riflescopes).

If anyone has any other things that I should add to the tests, please let me know, and I'll add it to the battery of tests.

 

[bogie]

Yeah, look at Shotgun News... Or 50% of the tables at any given gun show... People spend perfectly good money on really cheap crap. The kind of cheap crap where you use it for its intended purpose, it breaks, and you then buy another one.

And they _like_ it.

I'll bet there are a lot more Jennings sold than Kimbers...

 

[mrmeval]

Price is not king when it comes to scopes. You can get a passable one for under 100 and a fantastic one for under 500. Unfortunately they don't have 100-1000 yard gun ranges in gun stores around here.

If I find a scope I consider good I will comparison shop for that scope. Same as I would for a 700BDL or SKS or {drool} S&W .500

This is, of course, just my own pet theory but after reading on-line gun boards for quite a few years, it is my firm belief that by far, the most important thing to the majority (not all) of gun owners is price. Now everyone considers price. No one wants to pay more than nessessary.

 

[redneck2]

Price is not king when it comes to scopes. You can get a passable one for under 100 and a fantastic one for under 500.

You're version of "passable" and mine must be different. I want a scope that holds zero, is crystal clear at dusk and dawn, and won't fog up. The one scope that I've found that is relatively inexpensive and still fits this bill is the Bushnell Sportview 4x. Used one on my shotgun for 3 seasons. Held up to the recoil of 3" copper solid slugs. Never fogged.

That said if anyone thinks that price is not the biggest factor, you should work in a gun shop for a while

Many (not all, but a majority) of buyers are absolute chimps when it comes to scopes

I've seen buyers that would get the best rifle they could get for a $5,000+ elk hunt of a lifetime and then buy the cheapest ammo and cheapest scope they could get. Idiots.

When you get guys that are going on this hunt TOMORROW and come in to buy the rifle, then ask "can you bore sight this so it's ready to go??" Idiots

The real winners are the guys that come in to buy a bow the day before archery season...and want us to sight it in for them

if you think it doesn't happen, think again

So, to answer the question...you're spinning your wheels for the most part. If you can show them a great scope for $69, that's fine. If it's a Leupold, save yourself the effort. The vast majority of buyers end up getting something "in their price range", which is code for the cheapest crap they think they can live with

 

[zahc]

Bushnell Sportview 4x

I put one of those on my 10/22 and the crosshairs broke loose after a couple months. I buy Leupolds now.

 

[redneck2]

I put one of those on my 10/22 and the crosshairs broke loose after a couple months. I buy Leupolds now.

That's why there's a B & L 1.5x6 on my shotgun now. I also use Burris and Leupold

At this point, I'm starting to have 2nd thoughts about Leupold. Until a few years ago they were great. They've started selling to the King of Cheapness (Wallyworld) and their quality looks like it's going downhill fast

I just got a 6.5x20x40 Leupold for my Bushie AR (used, off a trade-in gun). Wouldn't zero and I've got to send it back. I'll bet good money that they'll offer a new one. Sounds good on the surface, but they're selling the older ones to a refinisher because the opetics are better on the older ones.

 

[Hawk]

Not to disagree with your basic premise, but Very High-Power Magazine (for .50cal shooters) did a side-by-side comparison of about 5-6 scopes specifically for the BMG.50cal rifle and didn't spare the negatives where called for..

Good observation.

More recently, they've written on muzzle brakes. First publication I've seen that de-mystified that product. The "mythbusters" of publications. I hope they keep it up.

 

[atblis]

Because they're just big adds

as are the entire magazines.

 

[greg531mi]

I would say, knowing that there are some servicable products from Bushnell for around $110. "Oh, maybe about sixty dollars"

"There's a Tasco 3-9x40 in a plastic wrapper hanging in the second aisle on the left for $29"

Bushnell bought Tasco......A company called Mead owns them and a few more brands......
It takes a scoreboard on who owns what these days, products are cheapened, then they improved...
I guess the only sure way to spot a good scope is to go to the sporting goods store, and look through them yourself....