Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Top grade riflescope

I do mean to insult anyone here. I am looking for your informed assistance. My riflescopes have usually been Leupolds. I would like to top off a fine quality rifle in a standard caliber rifle with a top grade scope. I have not had the opportunity to conduct the side-by-side visibility-in-darkness tests that some here have conducted on the Euro/Leupold scopes. My actual experience is limited to the following.

A Schmitt & Bender salesman at a sports show encouraged me to compare a new S & B, a new Swarovski 3-12 PH and a used Zeiss 3-12X (not the VM/V and all were 30 mm). Maybe things were not thought out too well by him because to my eyes, the used Zeiss was clearly the brightest scope optics-wise. Actually, even the S&B salesman agreed to this. Then he mentioned that S&B are stronger, more rugged, etc.

At a Bass Pro Store in Florida I looked through a Swarovski PH 2.5-10X/42 mm, an AV 3-10/42 mm, a Leupold Vari-X III 3.5-10X/40 mm, and a 2.5-10X LPS. In the store, the LPS was noticeably clearer than the others. There was no observed difference between the AV and the Vari-X (except that the Leupold Vari-X focus was easier, target acquisition and eye relief was easier/quicker). Actually, I had problems focusing and seeing quickly through the PH. Greater eye relief would not hurt this scope, either. Frankly, I was disappointed with the PH performance as it had been my research selection choice prior to visiting the store!

I looked outside another store, albeit in daylight, through a 30 mm Zeiss VM/V 1.5-6X. Just plain superior to anything I had looked through, prior or since. I would like to look through the 1-inch 3-9/42 VM/V before I decide which to buy.

I have also looked inside another store through another new Leupold LPS (2.5-10) and I continued to be significantly impressed with these optics. I have not seen the new Leupold VX-III.

To my eyes, the Zeiss VM/V and the LPS provide the significantly better optics, and the Zeiss 30 mm optics are just plain superior. I am a little surprised that I do not see much written about these riflescope models which impressed me so much. So as result I ask, is there a durability issue with either of these? Is there a problem here? Do the optical characteristics of these models change when daylight visibility is reduced? What am I missing here?

James.

You need someone to letcha know what'cher favorite color is too?

Glass is subjective,wear a helmet...............

Oh S--t! ROTFLMAO- about wet myself with your answer Stick! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Sounds like James already has his answer, he just doesn't realize it yet!- Butch

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Regards, Matt.

JamesG

I am of the opinion that the relative brightness of a scope is secondary to durability, eye relief, weight, and ability to hold zero. The scope is simply a sighting device; binoculars are for viewing the game or target.

Regardless of a scope's price, the information that will help me to best evaluate it relates to resolution of image, true color, eye relief, weight, ease of repairs and durability. If the exit pupil is more than 6mm, then it exceeds my eye's ability to use the transmitted light. Some information is hard to obtain, for example the matter of durability.

For me, its come down to Leupold scopes. I've had some scopes that were brighter, some that were more expensive and some that had been highly rated by the monthly rags. I have a 375H&H and a 458 Lott that don't tolerate fragile scopes. Burris (1.5X6) and Leupold (4X) and an old Weaver (K3 steel tube) have held up on both rifles. The Jap scopes haven't, two brands failing in less than 50 shots. Neither did a Kahles.

So for me a top grade scope means reliability above all else. Leupold and the current Burris models have been troublefree and while this is a small itsy bitsy sample, it mirrors the experience of many other hunters and shooters.

James,

After wanting one for a long while, I finally broke down and bought a 2.5x10x45mm LPS.

Without a doubt the best scope I have ever owned.

Awesome scope, great eye relief. It now sits on my 300 RUM.

Tony.

Comparing riflescopes can get complicated in a hurry. Basically, you can be fooled by what you see. Small differences in magnification and focusing can tip the scales either way. Scopes that look great in daylight sometimes don't do well at twilight, etc. Between the best Leupolds and the Zeiss scopes, I'd be very surprised if you found much difference.
Lab tests show both Zeiss and Leupolds fully multicoated products to be brighter and therefore capable of being sharper than anybody eles's. Not because they use "better glass" or some secret coatings. They go to great lenths to paint and baffle the inside of the scope to stop stray light from degrading the image. They apparently do a better job than the competition does.
Zeiss makes excellent, tough scopes. But they insist on testing them extensively on a recoil tester before sale. Leupold tests only one from each production run until it fails. So, with Leupold, you get a rifle scope with the maximum life availiable to it's design. Zeiss scopes have had some of their life used up.
Leupold's LPS scopes feature their super tough Diamond Coat coatings. This means the scope's optical qualities will hold up over time from routine cleaning.
In general, Leupolds are the pick of those needing tough scopes for heavy recoiling rifles. But they have their limits too. Both the current LPS scopes are big, heavy scopes. Not for extended use on .300/.338 Magnum rifles. If you are looking for the best reliability, then go with the simple, small light scopes, not the big heavy ones. I understand there is quite a difference.
There is no difference in optical qualities between anybody's 30mm and 1 inch scopes. What you usually get is more adjustment range. To complicate matters more, different production runs also vary a bit in brightness from the same maker.
Any of the current top names with 36-40mm objectives can give you an image plenty bright enough for any big game except, possibly, at night. But at night it is far more a question of plenty of magnification with a large exit pupil than tiny differences in how much light a given maker's models transmit.
Actually, the big thing to avoid in a low light scope is too fine a reticle. That's why the euro makers offer their heavier than normal reticles and Leupold offers their Heavy Duplex. I prefer the 4a reticle to the Leupold standard (medium) duplex.
As for the difference between the two, I'm sure either will work very well. I'm not of the opinion you are going to gain much with one over the other, with the exception of the tough coatings on the LPS. E

[quote] Zeiss makes excellent, tough scopes. *But they insist on testing them extensively on a recoil tester before sale*. Leupold tests only one from each production run until it fails. So, with Leupold, you get a rifle scope with the maximum life availiable to it's design. *Zeiss scopes have had some of their life used up.* [quote]

The asterisked parts of this statement is pure BS.

Please ask Zeiss themselves, this is their E-Mail address:
info@zeiss.de

RD

I love Zeiss optics, including their riflescopes. My only issue with them is their eye relief. I have a West German 3-9x36 Diavari and it is, by far, the brightest scope I own except for a 50-mm LPS. That Zeiss with a 36mm beats an LPS 1.5-6x42, and all my VX and Vari X IIIs.

I can and will use that Zeiss on everything up to a .30-06. As soon as recoil exceeds that, I go with Leupold, due to the eye relief. I need more.

If your rifle is of moderate recoil, if you din't mind a few extra ounces of weight, and if the eye relief is ample for you, Zeiss scopes are superb, if expensive.

On a "very special" rifle, a Zeiss would be great.

Rick

Rick, I too have a 3-9x36 on a lightweight 8,5x63 (which, as a full house 338/.280 40�, is comparable by recoil almost to a .338 Win.Mag.). My son has one on a lightweight 9,3 and I have another 3-9x36 one sitting on a very light weight Blaser 6,5x64 (another 40� shoulder wildcat of mine) before it was replaced with a Zeiss Varipoint 1,5-6x42 on a Blaser .416 Rem. - not because of the 416s recoil but I needed a fast swinging Varipoint Red Dot reticle on this Big Five back-up rifle.

I think you Americans need the longer eye relief because of your low scope mounting - which may look great for some but is ergonomic dead wrong. And it asks for this strange looking low "crouching" position of your head which too often causes Magnum kisses.
All soldiers (they can`t crouch because of the helmet), and the rest of the world uncluding we Krauts use medium high scope mountings as we shoot with the head a tad more erect - without crampy cheek weld - and thus we don't need that long eye relief.
Good Shooting
RD

ERs: Conquest 3-9x40 =102 mm /4",
1,5-6x42 Diavari 97 mm 3 4/5"
- good enough for this side of the pond and for Africa. Only crouchers and stock crawlers will disagree :-)

Sorry Roe Deer I have to disagree with this statement. A solid cheek/stock weld is one of the basic tenets of US Marine Corps marksmanship and US Marines are some of the better trained marksman in the military world. Optical sights are generally not used by the average soldier or Marine and a helmet doesn't interfere with getting a good stock weld or sight picture on the standard US battle rifle.

Roe Deer,

I will agree with you about the practice of American shooters mounting scopes low. I was trying to explain this to Charlie Sisk just the other day. The extended neck shooting position exists becasue of optical sights. Shooting with the head errect is natural, comfortable and protects you from the "Weatherby Ring" The only time I have eye relief problems is at the bench becasue of the poor shooting posture low benches can put you in....don't expect anyone to agree with us though.

However, lower mounting is stronger, as little as that matters with quality mounts. It also, to my eye, looks a hell of a lot better when the scope is mounted low.

One thing that I must add concerns scope durability and brightness. In reasearch for an article I talked with four custom rifle builders and asked them to pick the most dependable scope. Two picked Leupold and two Swarovski. Thats it, no others were mentioned or considered.

They all agreed that failure rate, right out of the box with either brand was about 10% regardless of brand (Swaro / Lupie) worse with all other makes.

To me, the real clincher was comments about Leupold scopes that did break. Two things:

1. If Leupold fixed it, it was usually fixed forever.
2. A broken Leupold may only double group size. Say from .5" to 1.0" or from 1.0" to 2.0"

This convinced me that with a 10% failure rate (out of the box) and such good performance from "broken" scopes, there is likely many Leupolds that are in fact "faulty" providing perfect service to hunters.

I know I am going on and on but the other subject that gets so much "hashing" here is low light performance. A good friend and I test this with every new scope that shows up here for review. We almost NEVER agree what is brightest with the exception of some inexpensive scopes.

I think between quality scopes, comparing brightness / low light performance is about as important as picking a 270 or a 280 to hunt groundhogs with.

That, and I find it hard to be brand loyal when sometimes you never know which brand you just might be being loyal to.

Given all this rant that I am sure is unpopular with optics lovers, its hard to find a better scope to kill animals with than a Leupold regardless of how much money you have.

I have Euro optics, Jap optics and others that are a combination of several companies but only carry one brand name. I like em all and depend on them without worry. Some are mounted low and some high but I hold my head up straight regardless of which one I am shooting. The only mark I have on my eyebrow is from chicken pox.

Roe deer,

I am not sure I want to be too close to the scope on my 300 and 338 RUMs.

High mounted scope or not, you NEED as much eye relief as you can get with the big boomers.

Tony.

1st you are referring to the 1993 DEVA tests, which tested for brightness not sharpness. You are implying the sharpness was in a test, it is not and was not. What a statement! To the untrained reader, they would believe this. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />
They would also believe that zeiss and leupold use the same glass which isnt always the case. Are you saying the vx-3 uses the same glass as the rifleman and the mark IV. Your post implies that. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />
SO based on this logic, the leupold vx-1, "which doesnt need best glass or fancy coatings", will be as good as a swarovski! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />




Folks, another unfound, unproven statement. Please provide the source that proves zeiis and leupold are the "best" or "only" company that paint the insides to reduce stray light. This is just an absolutely untrue statement. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> On my recent testing, the leupold, yes it was old, was horrible in stray light management. The bright haze made the image unviewable over the entire picture. This was an pre MC4 Vari-x III.




COrrect. My S&B's Fine crosshairs in the center of the reticle, subtend .65" @ 100 yards. they were very visible in almost complete darkness, the standard duplex leupold was MIA. I think it being etched helped as well.

Roe Deer--

Zeiss was testing scopes in exactly the way Eremicus describes way when I visted their plants (then 3) in 1993. They were quite proud of it and even showed us all the machinery. If you want corroborative testimony I can provide it. They were shaking each scope both sideways and lengthways a LOT before shipping.

I tried to pin them down about whether they were still doing it a couple of years ago and got double-talk. There has been a lot of shake-up in the U.S. Zeiss group recently, and I rather doubt anything I hear from them, mostly because so few folks there have any idea what they're talking about.

But if you have other evidence from other sources, I'd love to hear it.

MD

Another thing that I am learning about is how much a scope flexes during recoil. Low mounts, and not as low as you might think, can let the scope hit the barrel during recoil.

The right scope on a 270 with as much as much as 3/8 clearance can slap the barrel during recoil. It may or may not have any bearing on accuracy or the scope. In some cases it will.

The only scope manufacturer I have discussed this with is Leupold and was told this is a ploblem that is dealt with during initial scope design and that they select a tube material that offers the best "memory" so that it will return to its original shape.

But, Leupold nor any other manufacturer have any control over which scope someone selects or how it is mounted. This reinforces the idea that the harder a rifle kicks the smaller and lighter the scope should be.

So an argument for high mounting can be made with scopes that are long and heavy on the objective end and maybe, just maybe, this is where the idea that 30mm scopes are stronger comes from. Maybe they do not flex as much.

WHOA ! whitetail , I don't think a scope can flex 3/8 of an inch without breaking . I tried an experiment many years ago by slipping a piece of carbon paper between the gun barrel and objective bell of a low mounted scope . If I remember correctly there was less than a 1/16 of an inch space between scope and barrel . I do know it was close enough to be a consern that the scope and barrel would make contact under recoil . The rifle was an 06 and when fired there was no mark on the carbon paper .
I've mounted scopes with low to exra high rings on many rifles over the years . In my opin. low is better . A rifle is more balanced and comfortable to me with a scope mounted low on a rifle .

JamesG: Let me be one of the first to apologize for some of the "cute" answers to your post. All the points you mentioned are valid. I hunted for a lot of years and never considered the quality of the opics that I used. The plain truth is that the upper end models from almost all of the makers are optically so fine that it takes scientific instruments to measure which is "better". What your choice really boils down to is the package it comes in and the features YOU need for your type of hunt. I really like European scopes. That being said I dont think Leupold has a rival for the dollar in the hunting arena. Whitetail hit the nail on the head about scope size. With Premier Reticle being able to put any configuration inside a Leupold ( the reticle being far more important than which scope is a couple of % brighter, ETC). A lot of German scopes sold in the USA dont feature the NO.1 ???? Which is a really hard to beat picture in the dark woods. Pick the features you need that best match your shooting/style and you will be most likely be happy with your choice regardless of maker. Here is the opinion portion: If you are hunting big game in "low light" woods buy a straight 4x Leupold with a NO.1 reticle. Take one of the several hundreds of dollars you have saved by not buying the big vari X( foreign or domestic) and buy a good set of rings and bases. Take another hundred and buy a half a dozen boxes of ammo. Shoot them all in practice thru the 4x. Take the rest and blow it on the wife. Rest assured that you will be very deadly in the deer woods.

akpls - I'm not talking last century arms but modern military firearms. Because of their sight containing carrying handles, they are used in a much more erect head position - without the crampy cheek weld - and without "crouching". In a "crouching, stock crawling" position the thick collar of the flakvest interfers the rear helmet rim and shoves the helmet into the shooters face.

To sum it up: Low mounts and cheek weld are "out" with modern military weapons, or, as a compensation with collapsible "stocks" (which in fact are nothing more than a double bar), there now is more room for the cheek.

Sorry for knowing better

RD

MD - As I said before I *know* that Zeiss never tested their scopes so that "some of their life was used up" as our expert E. tries to explain on and on. It might be that your tour guide was misunderstood. Yes there is a "torture room" which they show to visitors and yes they test outgoing scopes very intensively - but never to the equivalent of "1000 raps of a .375" - nonsense. Concerning "evidence" please ask them at [email]infozeiss.de.[/email] Or Pm me and I could give you personal EMail addresses of them head engineers.
Regards
RD