Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Top grade riflescope

Tony -



ad 1: thank you for sharing your experience with us



ad 2: "As much ER as you can get" imho is exaggerated:

Why don't we use much more forward mounted EER scopes, then?



Regards

RD

ROE,

OK, tell us what you shoot with your small eye-box, over-priced euro specials ?

Anything over a 223 ? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Tony.

Whitetail, including the "scope whip" thing (which is in fact reality with leightweight, thin tubed scopes), you brought up some good but also some strange, not to say adventurous items.

ad 1: I agree with both points

ad 2: yes, with simple (cheap) crush mount ring systems it is harder to successful mount a big, heavy scope. That's why we �uros like rather complicated, adjustable (and expensive) mount systems, often proprietory ones

ad 3: a very personal thing. Compare Twiggy to a Rubens women. Or the good ol' Western hat to a baseball cap.
Form follows function, not reverse: I don't want a pipsqueak, dark, dangerous (little FoV!), low mounted eyebrow splitting scopie only because it looks so cute.

ad 4: I give a gnat's fart on "surveys" like this. Of the reason I did it as well and almost always got "180�" answers - take your pick. The only reliable source is the return rate of this certain production run.

ad 5: This is techically impossible. If it were so, whether Leupold or all other optics manufacturers were idiots

ad 6: I agree, but what do we argue then?

ad 7: brand loyality might be an advantage if you follow the philosophical approach of: Right or wrong it is my country!
It might hamper progress and devellopment, though. You had it in the US in the 1930s. You are at the doorstep to have it now. But I agree with you, if money is a concern: the better Leupolds are the best for the money.
If you want *the best*, though, you have to save one more year.
Nice "talking" to you
RD

And I'm not talking about "last century arms." It's right there in MCRP 3-01A, page 5-6 and figure 5-16. The figure shows a helmetless Marine, but it just isn't an issue. Sorry for being a Marine rifleman and "knowing better." <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Akpls - Please look at the soldier at http://www.trijicon-inc.com/pdfs/ACOG.pdf (pleeeease excuse giving you one plain Infantrymen as an example, not one blue-blooded MC-Lord - grins):
No cheek weld, erect head because of high sight line. If the sight line were deeper (like it was with a Drum Diopter sight for example) and the shooting position were head-bent ("crouched"), the helmets front rim would interfere the shooters sight,
Thank you very much und long live the Marine Corps.
RD

Roe Deer, I'd love to have a new ACOG, but unfortunately they don't issue them to the average Grunt. I do agree that with the optical sights a head-up position would be necessary. I have a Trijicon Reflex mounted on a Mini-14 that requires head-up sighting and shooting it always makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. Probably just a matter of what you get used to. Anyway, enough quibbling over stock weld. What's you personal opinion of the Zeiss V/MV series? I'm thinking of picking one up for a new .204 Ruger I've got my eye on.

akpls - Here in German speaking �urope the Zeiss Victories are the bread-and-butter scopes. Btw V"M" stands for the version with inner rail, so you would need the V-Version for ring mounts. For your .204 Ruger I would take every model into consideration (perhaps except the 1,5-6x42 which is more a Big Game item) depending on your needs. For night hunting 'yotes a bigger objective lens is favourable, plus #4 reticle. I have the 2,5-10x50 on several rifles and like it.
Good shooting
RD

James,

Both of my "go to" hunting rifles wear Zeiss VM/V scopes.

wait zeiss scopes are "used" even when bought "new" right?? :
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

flbowhunter, which Zeiss VM/V models do you have, on what type of guns and how long have you used them.

323, I appreciate your sentiments.

James.

I'm very satisfied with my Nikon Monarch Gold 1.5-5 that I have mounted on my 340 Weatherby.

Sako, "glass" means just that. Glass w/o coatings. Coatings are what makes the glass work. Without coatings, the glass will reflect up to 50% of the light that strikes it and the optical qualities of the scope will be worthless by today's standards.
In general everybody uses the same glass and coatings. The variations occur in how many coatings get used and on how many glass surfaces.
Brightness means percentage of total light transmited. The more of the image that makes it through the scope, the sharper that image can be. From then on, it's a matter of focusing that image.
I did not say others don't paint and baffle the inside of their scopes. I just said Zeiss and Leupold apparently do a better job than the competition. That's why their scopes test brighter. Everybody uses the same glass and coatings as a rule in their fully multicoated rifle scopes. That's why all the top brands test so close in brightness. This info courtesy of MD.
Point six MOA is far from a "fine" reticle. Leupold's medium duplex, as used on their basic big game scopes is finer than that. According to my spec sheet from Premier Reticles, Leupold's medium duplex's fine section is about .36 MOA. Their heavy sections are much thinner too. That's why they disappear as it get dark and the reticle on the S&B doesn't. E

Expert E. said: [quote]"In general everybody uses the same glass and coatings...Everybody uses the same glass and coatings as a rule in their fully multicoated rifle scopes. [quote]





Not exactly true. Zeiss for example uses more than 70 (seventy!!) different kinds of glass in their line of hunting optics, each glass specified for specific use for the specific lens, prism etc.

Every company uses different coatings, which are still kept as their little secrets. Sophisticated instruments show differing coatings on different lenses, lens groups etc.

Combination(s) of glass type(s), configuration(s) and coating(s) are responsible for e.g. seen (and "felt"!) brightness in low light conditions (ability to hit the "right" light spectrum range).

It is a "scientific art" to hit the perfect nanometer range in favour of twilight conditions without giving up a thing in superbright daylight conditions. That you simply can't do in a 259 $ scope!

I don't quite understand the discussions concerning excellent (high end Euros) and very good scopes (Conquest, Leupold). If you want (or need or want & need) a big block 24VDodge Ram, you have to pay for it. If you don't need it, stay with your 2nd hand but time proven F150.



RD

When the good folks at DEVA published their test results way back in 1993, all that "secret formula" stuff went up in smoke. Today, there are plenty of much cheaper Pacific Rim and US made scopes that have all the optical qualities of the much more expensive euro made rifle scopes. You can't argue with a photo spektral meter. They tell you right down to the .1 of a percent how much light a given scope transmits. From then on it's a matter of focusing. True, there may be slight differences in which colors come through the best. But I doubt many will pay two to three times the dollars for another 1-2% more transmited light. E

E - you are a hopeless case, permanently talking five to ten different kettle of fish. And you can be assured, that many people do pay more for better optics.
RD, angry

JamesG,

I have a 3-9x42 VM/V on a Rem Model 7 in 7mm SAUM and a 3-12x56 VM/V on a Sako 75 in .30-06. Both have less than 3 years on them.

There is far more a good rifle scope than simple "brightness" that seems to be all the rage on this forum. Probably even more important than brightness are flare control, accurate color rendition, contrast, resolution of the lenses, and lens "color" etc.

In a competitive field like optics, the notion that manufacturers all use about the same types of lenses, coatings, etc. is complete rubbish. I'm sure they all use the best for the price point and use they are trying to obtain, but to say that everyone is about the same is ludicrous.

The Schott glass company makes the best glass in the world. Since Zeiss owns that Co. it's fair to say that Zeiss has access to the best glass in the world. Since Zeiss invented coatings in the 1930s, it's fair to say that they have had a little head start on the rest of the optics companies in that area as well.
Gee, sounds like a good start toward making some of the best riflescopes around, wouldn't you say??

Now let's get around to the other topics I raised. I don't care how "bright" your scope is if it doesn't have--

1 Flare control, ie. being able to control light entering your scope at all angles (many times experienced as white out), you can't see what to shoot at.
2 Accurate color rendition. If the scope doesn't "see" the same as your eye or binocular it can be very hard to pick up the target.
3 Contrast. See number 2 above. I use S&B scopes, and think that in this particular area they excell. It's easy to see the subject against many different backgrounds. This quality is also very useful in low light situations, perhaps even more important that brightness is helping distinguish the target.
4 Resolution. Seems obvious, but have you ever looked through a binocular or scope that's not quite focussed? And can't figure out why? I've looked through cheap scopes that are not much better than looking through a Coke bottle.

5 Lens color. This helps all the above, but only if the coatings are properly matched. Coatings and lens color can be matched to desired conditions just like filters on camera lenses. Lenses can be made for optimum viewing at twilight, during the height of the sun etc. Some one told me that Zeiss Victory binoculars are best used at twilight because of this. Since most big game is seen in the early morning hours or just before dark, this is a good characteristic to have in a scope or a binocular.

So much for my rantings. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I just wish that some one, anyone! with a minimal amount of resources would test scopes objectively.
Rather that finding just one "best" scope, I'd be willing to bet that different scopes are better suited for certain uses than others (within categories). So we would still be able to argue any way!!

good post
its good to point out fraud when you see it.

assumining a 200 leupold vx-1 used the same glass/coatings as a zeiss v is assinine and ludicrous but there are some gullible enough to believe just that

Not so fast Mrmarklin. Brightness is a valid comparision when it comes to optical properties.
First off, there about six top quality glass companies in the world not just Schott Glass.
Second, just because Zeiss made many of the major discoveries doesn't mean they have a significant edge on the competition. They do make the world's brightness rifle scopes, but their margin of extra brightness is very close or non existant. The DEVA tests and Barsness's own testing confirm this. They aren't the choice of the top custom gun makers in this country because of other considerations.
Let's look aty some of your points.
Flare is from light being scattered. When light is scattered, it gets lost and doesn't make it out the other end of the scope. It also destroys to varing degrees the quality of the image. This scattering results in a loss of total light passing through the scope. That's brightness and it is measurable as such.
Accurate color redition is the much the same. Some of the light from the target doesn't make it through the scope. Again loss of transmited light which I refer to as brightness.
Contrast is just another way of saying brihgtness. The difference between light and dark objects. The more light transmited, the greater the difference.
Focusing the object is a simple process. The more of the image you have, again brightness, the better it can be focused.
Lense color is a good point. The 1993 DEVA tests show different levels of light transmition under different light conditions. It pretty odvious that the sharper rifle scope makers know that the brightest image under twilight conditions is more imortant than one at high noon.
The testing you desire has been done. You just don't understand why it doesn't agree with your own beliefs. E

the testing was done in 1993, once again beating the dead horse.
there were no zeiss conquests, bushnell elite 4200's, sightron's, nikon monarch's, leupold vx-3(with even more light transmission 98%!!!), swarovski a-lines, etc etc etc....
There was no diamond coat in 1993, no ED glass, etc...
basically, there are 2 groups of people, those who believe the 1993 DEVA tests apply to modern day rifle scope technology, and those who don't.
I don't.
E have you looked thru the new vx-3 yet? It must blow the vari-x III's away with 98% light transmission, heck not even zeiss claims that and your saying they're the brightest, so what gives. Maybe leupold blows away Zeiss???
not