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
How important is clarity in a scope.?
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="Ian M" data-source="post: 16711" data-attributes="member: 25"><p>Jake,</p><p>Great question.</p><p>I am fortunate to use a lot of brands of scopes and use them almost daily. Today I shot two Leupolds, a MK4 and a VariX lll tactical and a Nightforce NXS for instance. Here are some of my opinions on your question.</p><p></p><p>Most guys only rate a scope by what they see through it, that is all they can do, or be bothered to do. They might hold up their scope and look through it for a minute or so, then hold up another and try to mentally compare such things as sharpness, brightness, field of view - but really they are only making a cursory assessment. They should assess the optics in varying light, over a period of time but who is going to make the effort to keep looking through scopes until the light disappears? They may shoot a "box test" at the range to assess repeatability, maybe count the available adjustment lattitudes (elevation and windage), twist the turrets to feel the "clickiness", but not much more.</p><p></p><p>Even then the comparison or "test" is a joke, usually influenced by brand loyalty or perceived value. Bottom line is that very few individuals would have access to the equipment to do a meaningful test. Who has instruments to measure light transmittion, color correction and other lens properties (curvature etc.). They cannot take the scope apart and compare what parts are made of bronze, steel, plastic or whatever. They cannot do micrometer measurements to see who has the tightest tolerances, who is using the best assembly techniques (crazy glue vs plastic vs metal holders to position lenses etc). They cannot look at the lenses and determine what coatings have been applied and with what precision the lenses were ground. </p><p></p><p>As with most things, consumers are at the mercy of how well some unknown engineers, technicians, assembly-line workers, quality control inspectors etc. did their job on the particular product (scope) they just bought.</p><p></p><p>Back to the average guy, he will look through a scope or several scopes and make a determination. This is usually done once, at a particular time of day, whatever light is available. What he looks at may or may not really enable anyone to determine any visual differences. Doesn't really matter, his particular set of eyes saw something and he becomes a disciple, telling the world that his X is far-friggin' better than his buddy's Y. </p><p></p><p>Bottom line is that virtually no-one, including writers who test these suckers for a living, can really do scientific, repeatable, quantifiable tests on hunting optics. Just too costy and technical to do a lab-quality analysis. Strangely much of this stuff is routinely done by the camera lens testers for photographic magazines, but shied away from by rifle scope testers. The readers aren't demanding such info so it ain't getting done.</p><p></p><p>There is a simple, reliable, repeatable test target for resolution and I find that it works very well. I can tell the difference between two scopes, if there is one, and quantify or give actual scores using a military test target designed for that purpose. I use it all the time. Problem is that I have found that some INDIVIDUAL scopes are just plain lemons - have owned a Leupy 2.5-8 that was terrible, but have also checked others (same scope) that did very well. Also the test result is for my eyes, my partner will get slightly different numbers because our eyes have varying degrees of visual accuity.</p><p></p><p>Why don't you see more head to head test results, say of a Nikon vs Leupold vs Burris 3x-9x scope comparison? One reason - the guys who put magazines together are very conscious of advertising revenue and they would not want to ****-off any clients. That is the way it is, and it makes sense since the mags have to make money and advertising is their primary income source.</p><p></p><p>Anyhow, most average shooters trust that the guts of their scopes have been well designed and constructed. They can't see what's in there so have to assume it is good. </p><p></p><p>That is where long range hunters and any precision shooter differentiates from Bubba. We absolutely require accurate and repeatable turrets. We use them continually, they are like a steering wheel on a car. We have to trust that the turret will give us the exact required adjustment or - we miss our shot. We have to have precision focus (parallax adjustment) and perfect movement of the point of impact, every time.</p><p></p><p>I believe that optical qualities such as resolution are very important and the first things we look for. Can't hit what you can't see. But on the range or in the field, we have to trust the accuracy of our turrets to make the windage and elevation corrrections that result in hits or kills.</p><p></p><p>This site enables us to glean info from guys like DC who have used about every high-precision scope made - or our wolf-control predator specialist Alaskan friend who hunts for a living and must have the toughest, most reliable scope he can get his hands on. Ask and you can usually get a good, honest answer.</p><p></p><p>"Clarity in a scope vs mechanics" - probably about equal importance when you get right down to it.</p><p></p><p>Sorry to be so long, this just happens to be a topic I really enjoy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ian M, post: 16711, member: 25"] Jake, Great question. I am fortunate to use a lot of brands of scopes and use them almost daily. Today I shot two Leupolds, a MK4 and a VariX lll tactical and a Nightforce NXS for instance. Here are some of my opinions on your question. Most guys only rate a scope by what they see through it, that is all they can do, or be bothered to do. They might hold up their scope and look through it for a minute or so, then hold up another and try to mentally compare such things as sharpness, brightness, field of view - but really they are only making a cursory assessment. They should assess the optics in varying light, over a period of time but who is going to make the effort to keep looking through scopes until the light disappears? They may shoot a "box test" at the range to assess repeatability, maybe count the available adjustment lattitudes (elevation and windage), twist the turrets to feel the "clickiness", but not much more. Even then the comparison or "test" is a joke, usually influenced by brand loyalty or perceived value. Bottom line is that very few individuals would have access to the equipment to do a meaningful test. Who has instruments to measure light transmittion, color correction and other lens properties (curvature etc.). They cannot take the scope apart and compare what parts are made of bronze, steel, plastic or whatever. They cannot do micrometer measurements to see who has the tightest tolerances, who is using the best assembly techniques (crazy glue vs plastic vs metal holders to position lenses etc). They cannot look at the lenses and determine what coatings have been applied and with what precision the lenses were ground. As with most things, consumers are at the mercy of how well some unknown engineers, technicians, assembly-line workers, quality control inspectors etc. did their job on the particular product (scope) they just bought. Back to the average guy, he will look through a scope or several scopes and make a determination. This is usually done once, at a particular time of day, whatever light is available. What he looks at may or may not really enable anyone to determine any visual differences. Doesn't really matter, his particular set of eyes saw something and he becomes a disciple, telling the world that his X is far-friggin' better than his buddy's Y. Bottom line is that virtually no-one, including writers who test these suckers for a living, can really do scientific, repeatable, quantifiable tests on hunting optics. Just too costy and technical to do a lab-quality analysis. Strangely much of this stuff is routinely done by the camera lens testers for photographic magazines, but shied away from by rifle scope testers. The readers aren't demanding such info so it ain't getting done. There is a simple, reliable, repeatable test target for resolution and I find that it works very well. I can tell the difference between two scopes, if there is one, and quantify or give actual scores using a military test target designed for that purpose. I use it all the time. Problem is that I have found that some INDIVIDUAL scopes are just plain lemons - have owned a Leupy 2.5-8 that was terrible, but have also checked others (same scope) that did very well. Also the test result is for my eyes, my partner will get slightly different numbers because our eyes have varying degrees of visual accuity. Why don't you see more head to head test results, say of a Nikon vs Leupold vs Burris 3x-9x scope comparison? One reason - the guys who put magazines together are very conscious of advertising revenue and they would not want to ****-off any clients. That is the way it is, and it makes sense since the mags have to make money and advertising is their primary income source. Anyhow, most average shooters trust that the guts of their scopes have been well designed and constructed. They can't see what's in there so have to assume it is good. That is where long range hunters and any precision shooter differentiates from Bubba. We absolutely require accurate and repeatable turrets. We use them continually, they are like a steering wheel on a car. We have to trust that the turret will give us the exact required adjustment or - we miss our shot. We have to have precision focus (parallax adjustment) and perfect movement of the point of impact, every time. I believe that optical qualities such as resolution are very important and the first things we look for. Can't hit what you can't see. But on the range or in the field, we have to trust the accuracy of our turrets to make the windage and elevation corrrections that result in hits or kills. This site enables us to glean info from guys like DC who have used about every high-precision scope made - or our wolf-control predator specialist Alaskan friend who hunts for a living and must have the toughest, most reliable scope he can get his hands on. Ask and you can usually get a good, honest answer. "Clarity in a scope vs mechanics" - probably about equal importance when you get right down to it. Sorry to be so long, this just happens to be a topic I really enjoy. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
How important is clarity in a scope.?
Top