Glass quality is a subjective perception -2

[Rich Coyle]

After reading the other thread and the title again I figured I would post a question about an experience or two or three.

Many times I have purchased two or three or four of the same brand and model of scope. Is it subjective to put them side by side on sand bags and have them all pointed at the same optics chart and discover no two are the same? Or is it a fact that quality control for manufacturers is less that stelar?

 

[Reelamin]

After reading the other thread and the title again I figured I would post a question about an experience or two or three.

Many times I have purchased two or three or four of the same brand and model of scope. Is it subjective to put them side by side on sand bags and have them all pointed at the same optics chart and discover no two are the same? Or is it a fact that quality control for manufacturers is less that stelar?

I have neve had more than one or two of the same scope model. I dont notice any difference in them.

 

[Rich Coyle]

@Reelamin,

Have you compared them on a set of antlers in low light or on an optics chart?

 

[Reelamin]

@Reelamin,

Have you compared them on a set of antlers in low light or on an optics chart?

like I posted I think I might have a couple scopes that are the same. I won't ever take out two scopes side by side and glass animals to compare them. I also would never compare them on an optics chart. I look through them and like it or not. To each their own I would just rather spend my time and money some place else. As I said of the couple scopes I have duplicates of. Vx3's and a couple $150 scopes. I could give a flying donut if my 2-400 scopes have a curly one difference in them. Heck if I ever snd I won't spent 5k on a scope I could give a runny dump if it varied another one like it. If someone wants to great I don't see any difference in any same two scopes I looked through.

 

[Reelamin]

Edit

 

[Recon$$]

@reelaim with you brother. Long as the scope tracks I'm with you but that's why I buy mid to high end optics that I know have very quality glass. 5k... not a chance, 1500-2000k..... why is every hobby I have expensive.... guess I fall in the medium of fancy pants. My secret fund is loaded or broke never a happy medium.

 

[dfanonymous]

I didn't go into that other thread. I'm not sure I want to post in this one, as these threads get dumb quick.

For the subjectiveness of scopes, me personally, I have or had mostly high end optics from various companies. In the 2k scope range more or less I can't tell the difference anymore. There are certain features that top tier scopes have, like s&b's pm2 uses a coating that brings out a higher blue spectrum, making lowlight shooting fantastic. But besides that, For optical clarity, they are all pretty much in there.

However, to my point of these conversations getting dumb and to further reinforce the points made above; your rifle scope at the end of the day really is a telescopic rifle sight. You wouldn't want your iron sights to be mechanically off, broke, or not adjust correctly, regardless of using a peep sight or a large aperture, right?

It's not different for your scope. Construction and mechanics of the scope make up in my experiences, somewhere around 75% of a scopes useful features. Especially for field use. The decision of amazing glass vs the greatest of all glass is really inconsequential.

Which is why I have no idea why anyone buys Swarovski rifle scopes.

 

[TheSandman]

I buy the best I can for the money meaning all my glass is lower tier. I've never even looked thru quality top tier glass until last week. While at the range a friend was there shooting also and he had his 13 year old Swarovski 10x42 binos with rangefinder. I looked thru them and was amazed. I didn't have my 10x42 $300 binos with me and didn't need them to tell the difference, it was extremely better. I couldn't believe the picture was so much better. Mine were rated as best in class and are good for what they are. What they aren't are top quality. The difference was huge. I may never have top tier glass but it is that much better.

 

[gohring3006]

I've had several 10x SS and they all seemed pretty close. I had a pst 4-16 that I sent back because of horrible clarity and the new one they sent was much better. I makes me think they set a standard on glass per model and try to keep it, the problem comes with quality control and how well someone put the particular scope together, aligning the lenses etc.
I do see a lot of lower end scopes get compared to scopes costing a lot more. Guys will say the clarity starts to fall apart after about a 1000 yards, makes me wonder if that's the point. Most guys buying 500-1000$ optics usually have a goal to reach 1000 yards. So it makes sense to get good enough glass to see pretty well at 1k. I really don't think it takes real expensive glass to do this, hence the price tag on the optic. So guys will compare the cheaper stuff to the high end stuff, but never past 1k or so. But when going to a mile and the sun is high in the sky, that's when the 2k$ plus glass starts to earn it keep.

 

[Rich Coyle]

I buy the best I can for the money meaning all my glass is lower tier. I've never even looked thru quality top tier glass until last week. While at the range a friend was there shooting also and he had his 13 year old Swarovski 10x42 binos with rangefinder. I looked thru them and was amazed. I didn't have my 10x42 $300 binos with me and didn't need them to tell the difference, it was extremely better. I couldn't believe the picture was so much better. Mine were rated as best in class and are good for what they are. What they aren't are top quality. The difference was huge. I may never have top tier glass but it is that much better.

Swarovski binos were the first binos to cause me to say, "WOW!"

 

[whirlwindjml]

I think low light is when the biggest differences show up.

 

[AZHTR]

My glass test on big binoculars - (Many years ago)
1) 15 x 56 Swarovski
2) 15 x 56 Zeiss
3) 15 x 56 Doctor

I was on a bighorn sheep hunt and all 3 guys on the hunt each had the different brand binoculars noted above, so we decided to do a side by side by side test throughout the hunt. (All of us in our late 40's or early 50's)

Two out of the 3 of us agreed at our age we couldn't tell the difference of any brand in early morning or late evening glassing. The one guy that owned the Swarovski's unequivocally stated his were "by far" superior.

I'm just saying, as I get older my eyes cannot detect "clarity and light" in glass as when I was young..........I'm just saying

 

[Rich Coyle]

@AZHTR,

I love the Swarovski guy's observation.

I did the same with some Swarovski 15X56, Minox 15X58, and Nikon 16X50. To give myself some kind of rating after looking through them I gave the Swaros a 100. The Minox a 97 and the Nikons some much lower number. I was truly surprised by the Minox.

Later I had a chance to compare the Minox 15X58 with a Minox 13X56. As nice as the 13X are they were dismal compared to the 15X of the same brand.

 

[nksmfamjp]

look into optics. Optics are a marketing scam. Weight, fov and magnification can be measured and compared numerically.

So, glass is the magic that makes us spend more and more and more, right? Well, glass is basically light transmission, resolution and color rendition.

What I'm saying is that each can be measured to a standard and compared numerically. If customers define and demand that, it can happen.

Even simpler….turret and reticle maximum error can be shown. Wouldn't error per 10mils of both be interesting?