Difference between SCHOTT HD glass and other HD glass??

[coyotezapper]

The difference between here and 24hour is like talking to adults here and then going there to junior high school and trying to engage in the same level of conversation. You are a typical example.

Isn't this statement the pot calling the kettle black??? You could have left out the last sentence.

 

[Rich Coyle]

Isn't this statement the pot calling the kettle black??? You could have left out the last sentence.

No. It reminds him what that sight is like. It used to be like this sight with lots of good information. There is still some good information there, but lots of childishness now; as you saw in his post. It is typical.

 

[coyotezapper]

No. It reminds him what that sight is like. It used to be like this sight with lots of good information. There is still some good information there, but lots of childishness now; as you saw in his post. It is typical.[/QUOTE/

The point I am trying to make is there was no need to compare him to others in a derogatory way. I have read many, many of your posts on this site and I think you are better than that. We all need to rise above this name calling and childishness. One persons view is not going to change our opinion of you, for me at least.

And I refuse to bash another site because there are plenty of the same ego maniacs that frequent all sites. I have just learned who to ignore for the most part because lashing out never leads to anything positive.

Lets get this thread back on track please!!! I like to read all of the differing opinions.

 

[Rich Coyle]

No. It reminds him what that sight is like. It used to be like this sight with lots of good information. There is still some good information there, but lots of childishness now; as you saw in his post. It is typical.[/QUOTE/

The point I am trying to make is there was no need to compare him to others in a derogatory way. I have read many, many of your posts on this site and I think you are better than that. We all need to rise above this name calling and childishness. One persons view is not going to change our opinion of you, for me at least.

And I refuse to bash another site because there are plenty of the same ego maniacs that frequent all sites. I have just learned who to ignore for the most part because lashing out never leads to anything positive.

Lets get this thread back on track please!!! I like to read all of the differing opinions.

After some thought, I agree you are correct.

 

[Litehiker]

BACK ON TOPIC - please

So anyway I originally asked this question about glass quality because I'm getting ready to buy a pair of 10 x 42 Leica Geovid HD-B range finding binoculars.

They are eye-wateringly expensive (i.e. need to borrow some of the cost form my home equity account!) but they have several features which I 'need".

1. great glass
2. 12 built in 'average' ballistic trajectories
3. micro SD card for your exact rifle ballistics (downloaded from Leica computer program after entering all your rifle's ballistic data including BC, muzzle velocity, etc.)
4. high angle sensor compensation for corrected hold readout to 800 meters
5. temperature sensor
6. barometric pressure sensor
7. software to account for all sensor and ballistic inputs to generate a very accurate hold readout in mils or MOA and distance in meters or yards form your FFP.

The temperature/barometric pressure sensors give the correct "altitude pressure" input. i.e. If you are hunting at 9,500 ft. and day one is clear and 10 F. and day two is snowing lightly and 30 F. you have two different "altitude pressure" readings that are important for a long shot.

I've looked at the "next best" LRF binoculars, Swarovski, and they don't come close to the features of the Leicas.

Eric B.

 

[coyotezapper]

BACK ON TOPIC - please

So anyway I originally asked this question about glass quality because I'm getting ready to buy a pair of 10 x 42 Leica Geovid HD-B range finding binoculars.

They are eye-wateringly expensive (i.e. need to borrow some of the cost form my home equity account!) but they have several features which I 'need".

1. great glass
2. 12 built in 'average' ballistic trajectories
3. micro SD card for your exact rifle ballistics (downloaded from Leica computer program after entering all your rifle's ballistic data including BC, muzzle velocity, etc.)
4. high angle sensor compensation for corrected hold readout to 800 meters
5. temperature sensor
6. barometric pressure sensor
7. software to account for all sensor and ballistic inputs to generate a very accurate hold readout in mils or MOA and distance in meters or yards form your FFP.

The temperature/barometric pressure sensors give the correct "altitude pressure" input. i.e. If you are hunting at 9,500 ft. and day one is clear and 10 F. and day two is snowing lightly and 30 F. you have two different "altitude pressure" readings that are important for a long shot.

I've looked at the "next best" LRF binoculars, Swarovski, and they don't come close to the features of the Leicas.
t
Eric B.

On my last elk hunt in Arizona I carried a Vectronix Terrapin LRF. My buddy helping me out carried the Geovid's and after a few ranging comparisons I put mine away and left all of the ranging to him. They would not range as far as my Terrapin but the glass like most Leica optics was spectacular.

You need to look at it as an investment and as such if you think you will get 10 years use out of them then take the total cost and figure out what the per year cost is. I carried my Swaro SLC's over 20 years before upgrading and could have easily carried them another 20. The only reason I switched was better weight first with glass quality being second. Better glass never made me a better glasser but it is nice.

 

[Rick Richard]

Exactly what is in my future.

 

[Len Backus]

Hey, guys. Keep it cool please.

 

[graywolf]

BACK ON TOPIC - please

So anyway I originally asked this question about glass quality because I'm getting ready to buy a pair of 10 x 42 Leica Geovid HD-B range finding binoculars.

They are eye-wateringly expensive (i.e. need to borrow some of the cost form my home equity account!) but they have several features which I 'need".

1. great glass
2. 12 built in 'average' ballistic trajectories
3. micro SD card for your exact rifle ballistics (downloaded from Leica computer program after entering all your rifle's ballistic data including BC, muzzle velocity, etc.)
4. high angle sensor compensation for corrected hold readout to 800 meters
5. temperature sensor
6. barometric pressure sensor
7. software to account for all sensor and ballistic inputs to generate a very accurate hold readout in mils or MOA and distance in meters or yards form your FFP.

The temperature/barometric pressure sensors give the correct "altitude pressure" input. i.e. If you are hunting at 9,500 ft. and day one is clear and 10 F. and day two is snowing lightly and 30 F. you have two different "altitude pressure" readings that are important for a long shot.

I've looked at the "next best" LRF binoculars, Swarovski, and they don't come close to the features of the Leicas.

Eric B.

Ive had a pair of these for about a year now and they were an expensive investment, but they perform the functions you listed flawlessly and I love the glass too. No regrets

 

[Newbweatherby]

Wow that got ugly really quick. Thank you m administrator for intervening. Although I don't agree 100% with Mr.Coyle,he has been nothing but polite .

 

[Litehiker]

One last observation. I needed a decent scope for my inexpensive (but accurate) 6.5 CM Ruger American Predator. On the 6.5 Creedmoor forum a few guys recommended SWFA scopes so I looked intto them. The SS 5 - 15 x 42 had almost everything I wanted:
1. FFP
2. mil/mil turrets and reticle
3. side turret for parallax (target focus)
4. reputation for being robust

So I bought it and found, as others said, the glass was very good for a $600. scope - with all the above features being icing on the cake. In fact the glass was exactly as good as my 20 year old Leupold compact 12 - 40 x 60 spotting scope! That same scope now sells for almost $1,000.

The one thing I really missed was no locking turrets so I use narrow strips of clear packing tape around the base of the turrets to prevent movement and note the settings on my hunting license, just in case. I may get shims to put under the turret caps as others have done.

Eric B.

 

[dfanonymous]

Where does the new Vortex AMG glass fit in? Not German or Japanese, but US.

you sure about that...

 

[dfanonymous]

Ballistics Guy,

I agree, "HD" (High Definition) can mean anything the manufacturer wants it to mean.

But "ED" (Extra-low Dispersion) means exactly that and there are standards to measure dispersion. Yes, some "HD" glass truly IS ED glass but most is not.

We all know by now that advertisers often play "antics with semantics" in ad copy. Hey, we're Americans, raised on a diet of slick ad campaigns. We should know by now to be very careful of any and all ads.

Eric B.

It's not wrong to say that. However it was closer to accurate of its original marketing title as "high density"

 

[dfanonymous]

One last observation. I needed a decent scope for my inexpensive (but accurate) 6.5 CM Ruger American Predator. On the 6.5 Creedmoor forum a few guys recommended SWFA scopes so I looked intto them. The SS 5 - 15 x 42 had almost everything I wanted:
1. FFP
2. mil/mil turrets and reticle
3. side turret for parallax (target focus)
4. reputation for being robust

So I bought it and found, as others said, the glass was very good for a $600. scope - with all the above features being icing on the cake. In fact the glass was exactly as good as my 20 year old Leupold compact 12 - 40 x 60 spotting scope! That same scope now sells for almost $1,000.

The one thing I really missed was no locking turrets so I use narrow strips of clear packing tape around the base of the turrets to prevent movement and note the settings on my hunting license, just in case. I may get shims to put under the turret caps as others have done.

Eric B.

check on ebay, or on the youtube. they have some pretty good shims for them, that arent sloppy.