Scopes I own

[BlackSS]

I have a handful of scopes, none of them are ultra high end, but a couple are considered pretty decent and cost a chunk of change.

I took out all 5 of them just now as the sun was starting no to set for a quick comparison. A couple of these are on guns i purchased used, and did not actually select myself, so I think this is pretty unbiased.
I glassed a couple things at 150 and 250 yds. That's about as far as I could see in my back yard without people seeing me and calling the cops on the whacko with 5 rifles in his yard.

in terms of only optical clarity I would rate them as follows.

5. Mueller 8-32 x 44 - this scope is awful on 32x, and pretty poor below that, eye relief range seemed very narrow
4. Bushnell banner 3-9x40 - cheapo scope on a 17 hmr, did not expect much, optically similar to the Mueller on equal magnification, so I give this the edge
3. Leapers 4-12 x 44(?). Optically a significant step above the prior 2, surprised me quite a bit as I was planning on replacing this scope when I bought the gun, but I will give it a try now.
2. Zeiss conquest 4.5-14 x 44
1. Bushnell elite 4200 6-24x50 - zeiss and bushnell are pretty close, and a jump up from the others, I would give the slight edge to the bushnell, mostly because it is a little brighter, perhaps a little unfair with the larger objective, but it is what it is.

I surprised how bad the mueller was and how good (relatively) the Leapers was, as it is generally regarded as a *** and from what I can tell cost < $100 new.

Leica 1600 glass is excelent over the Nikon 1200, not even in the same class.

Thoughts? Crazy for thinking the Leapers glass is not awful?

 

[bruce_ventura]

These scopes span a large range of exit pupil sizes. If it was after sunset when you did this comparison, the results will strongly depend on the magnification. What magnification was each scope set to?

 

[BlackSS]

Sun was just starting to set, still pretty bright out.
Started with all scopes on 9x, then went up from there on the scopes that had more.

 

[tulku]

BSS , here's a Tip for comparing Scopes especially as you go in to the higher end stuff , but applies to all levels . Googol Resolution Charts or Targets . These are many times based on the 1951 AirForce Resolution Target . The copies off your Printer won't be as good as those you can buy ( and these can cost big bucks and are obtainable for the Photo-lithography Industry ) , but the Printer Copies are plenty good for Testing the Resolution of your Scopes . In many Cases , you will see a series of different sized Lines and Spaces with associated Numbers , and you will have to play with distances to the Charts and your Scope Power , etc . You can also go to a Kinkos and Scale these Charts up or Down in Size . Anyway , you can put actual Numbers to the Resolution / Sharpness or whatever else you want to call it . You can also Test in whatever conditions you hunt in ....... bright light , dim , rain , etc.

 

[D.ID]

First off: thanks for sharing your findings. I am not surprised about the 4200 6-24x50 as it is one of my personal favorites. I am surprised your leapers out did your mueller. Perhaps more importantly is a personal perspective regarding glass quality vs integrity. I would not waist my time or ammo to sight in a leapers regardless of how good the glass was. Allot of people think the glass is the most important part of a scope. I personally think it is the least. Any scope I ever looked threw could view distant objects better than my eyes could. Will it hold a zero? Seeing it really well sucks worse if you can't hit it. Does it track, repeat and return well. "Seeing it really well sucks worse if you cant hit it." can it take a slip or tumble and keep on trucking. "Seeing it really well sucks worse if you cant hit it." Nice glass is a bonus. It is in my opinion the least important component. Of course you can't hit it if you can't see it but.............."Seeing it really well sucks worse if you cant hit it."