Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
? best scope for me?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ScottBerish" data-source="post: 236590" data-attributes="member: 11933"><p>I've got no problems with a company man showing passion for the product, in fact I respect that more than anything. Much more than a man who is obviously "just drawing a paycheck".</p><p> </p><p>All things equal, a larger objective lens will give you better resolution than a smaller one. This is true in binos, and this is true in scopes (think about the space telescopes and how far they have to see tiny details). I am not an optical physicist or engineer so I do not know the science behind this, but it is what I take as gospel. The exit pupil has nothing to do with resolution, it has to do with the relative brightness of the image (I'm not going to argue the usefulness of the term "relative brightness", but the fact is the unit is arrived at by squaring the size of the exit pupil).</p><p> </p><p>Resolution and optical performance is also related to the quality of the glass (raw material), grind (manufacture) and coatings (light tranmission and management). </p><p> </p><p>It is my experience that many manufacturers do not believe that top shelf glass and coatings are a requirement for a riflescope. It is a gun sight, not a bino or a spotting scope. As it is difficult to ascertain any real differences between the 50mm and 56mm objectives, it is also difficult for many people to truly tell the difference between top notch optics and "2nd tier" glass in a riflescope. At about $150-$200 difference per scope, decisions are made. </p><p> </p><p>Also, some manufacturers do not coat the etched reticles in their scopes. The other multicoated lenses in the scope help account for what is essentially a piece of fine uncoated glass sitting between the objective and ocular lenses. </p><p> </p><p>Nightforce excels at mechanical reliability and ruggedness, which is paramount in a long range gun sight. The fit, finish, and quality of the scopes is there. I've always said that.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Given that I have looked through many off-the-shelf production NXS scopes, and compared them with all manner of competitors, and given they are about $1500, I stand behind my statement that their are better choices out there (designated hunting scopes for less $$) for low light hunting.</p><p> </p><p>YMMV.</p><p> </p><p>Scott</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ScottBerish, post: 236590, member: 11933"] I've got no problems with a company man showing passion for the product, in fact I respect that more than anything. Much more than a man who is obviously "just drawing a paycheck". All things equal, a larger objective lens will give you better resolution than a smaller one. This is true in binos, and this is true in scopes (think about the space telescopes and how far they have to see tiny details). I am not an optical physicist or engineer so I do not know the science behind this, but it is what I take as gospel. The exit pupil has nothing to do with resolution, it has to do with the relative brightness of the image (I'm not going to argue the usefulness of the term "relative brightness", but the fact is the unit is arrived at by squaring the size of the exit pupil). Resolution and optical performance is also related to the quality of the glass (raw material), grind (manufacture) and coatings (light tranmission and management). It is my experience that many manufacturers do not believe that top shelf glass and coatings are a requirement for a riflescope. It is a gun sight, not a bino or a spotting scope. As it is difficult to ascertain any real differences between the 50mm and 56mm objectives, it is also difficult for many people to truly tell the difference between top notch optics and "2nd tier" glass in a riflescope. At about $150-$200 difference per scope, decisions are made. Also, some manufacturers do not coat the etched reticles in their scopes. The other multicoated lenses in the scope help account for what is essentially a piece of fine uncoated glass sitting between the objective and ocular lenses. Nightforce excels at mechanical reliability and ruggedness, which is paramount in a long range gun sight. The fit, finish, and quality of the scopes is there. I've always said that. Given that I have looked through many off-the-shelf production NXS scopes, and compared them with all manner of competitors, and given they are about $1500, I stand behind my statement that their are better choices out there (designated hunting scopes for less $$) for low light hunting. YMMV. Scott [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
? best scope for me?
Top