I've been studying optics things and am having much anxiety with understanding the higher level of information that I'm delving into. Things like exit pupil? Is anything over 5mm for an old geezer wasted and under 5mm a weakness? I think I understand the quality of glass, that is, the glass and coatings. That's why with all things being equal some scopes are brighter than others??? Also I read that the new 35mm tubed IORs are coated differently???? I also have been lead to believe that the tube diameter has nothing to do with light transmission, i.e., brightness?? So, what's the big deal with larger tubes? Is it just a sales gimic. But I do think it would be a better handle Are IOR scopes coated the same as Zeiss, I mean exactly the same coating, etc. Reviews seem to indicate that this is the case. If Zeiss are more expensive than almost all others why aren't they used more in the long range hunting community? IORs seem to be rated just under swaro's for clarity and brighness and above most others for ruggedness. Is this accurate? Read a review by an operational fella that said something like "If you have to worry about your scope being jolted off of zero during the game, you shouldn't be in the game in the first place." I agree, but it seems a bit brutal. So what is wrong with picking up your gun by the scope. Heck, its a pretty good handle. Me thinks we get caught up in on a certain manufacture's band wagon and miss out on some pretty good optics just because it's not "popular" in the community.