Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Scopes - have they really improved in the past 20?

It's been 20+ years since we've seen the introduction of multicoated lens and 30mm tubes and such in mass market scopes. Have the optics significantly improved since, or has the market been more about lowering manufacturing costs and the technology is basically stable?

I think they have vastly improved but you will pay dearly for it. In some cases price alone is not a good indicator. Take Kahles for example. prices in the last 10 years have far outpaced improvement. An older Kahles Helia CL 1" scope is a bargain at 1/2 or less than the current pricing.

Jeff, I think for the most part, they have somewhat. Then again I have a very old (1970s) Weatherby (German) scope, whose optics are very clear. I have pretty good eyes and for the most part, I just can't see THAT much of a difference between scopes costing a couple of grand like the Z-6, S&B etc and a much less expensive Meopta or even a Leupold which BTW are the only two brands I buy now. I love my Zeiss Victory, Swaro Z-6s but had I known what I SEE now, I would have just stuck to Leupolds and now Meopta. Maybe Mule Deer will chime in, but more importantly PUBLISH that second Optics book!

I know dumping my 20+ yr old leupold, redfield, and B&L scopes for newer stuff, got me better glass. Back them, I couldn't afford German glass, so that's all I can really compare to.

Lens coating have improved quite a bit and it isn't hard to buy a scope with fully multi-coated optics throughout for less than $200. We also have more manufacturers coming out with hydrophobic type coatings, which is a good thing.

Folks swooning the view,reliably miss the big picture.

Hint.

Pass the durability,tracking and reliability...over the Eye Candy................

Sure, but it ain't absolute. If I can't see what I'm shooting, not much else matters, either. Its a balance. Past a certain point, I can't tell much (if any) glass difference. At that point, it is definitely more about the factors you mention and eye box. Some weigh certain things more than others, based on perceived need....right or wrong.

You are painting with an awfully broad brush when asking about improvements in an industry. There have certainly been technical improvements in lens coating and reliability of variables but speaking from my limited experience, the biggest improvement is narrowing the performance gap between the high-dollar euro brands and some of our more affordable domestic fare.

Is there any doubts as to why there are few reliable scopes on the market?

If everyone who shot or hunted (or more accurately treated their equipment) like Stick appears to treat his stuff, the market would be flooded with reliable scopes with mediocre glass.

The more one shoots, the less they care about "glass"....

But only one.

A scope is simply a container in which I tote my crosshairs,until they are needed.

It is not an Observation Device,nor ever will it be.

Hint.................

I'd have to agree and add a forgiving eyebox and decent eye relief. Lots more to fuss than a slightly better "picture quality".

Glass is better across the board.

A lot of it is housed in scopes I wouldn't give two cents for on an important hunt.

Variables, of course, still suck. They just suck less than they used to.....

Not touting Schmidt and Bender but my 15 year old 3-12x42 Klassic is just as clear as a new Klassic. Lots of 15 year old scopes can't say that. powdr

As much as it might frost some folks here, I noticed less difference in my 6-24X Weaver and the newer Tasco. This is based on side by side comparisons on deer antlers in the woods 131 yards away and eye charts 127 yards away. The only difference in my z5 and and 4200 is the tunnel vision is more pronounced in the 4200. Well, there is one more difference. The 4200 has note needed service, but the z5 did go back for a broken turret spring.

Guess you missed my point.

Best thoughts I ever read on scopes....

From Formy:

Scopes are aiming aids (not observation devices) and as such must-

Retain zero no matter what
Adjust consistently and correctly every single time
Be extremely durable and reliable
And be usable (eye box, eye relief, etc)


Any deviation from that, is a failure.

The above assumes adequate "glass", "brightness" and "clarity" from the start as these are the easiest to produce, yet matter the least on average.

From Stick:

When the dust settles,a scope is just a place I keep my crosshairs until I need 'um. I've less than zero interest in eyefhukking schit through a rifle scope(ANY rifle scope) and have looonnnngggggggg been at ease in the transition from bino's to crosshairs.

Gimme rugged reliability and great erector tracking................

And the Phil Shoemaker quote about scopes not being astronomical tools but simply aiming devices...(can't find the quote, yet)

I feel like I'm involved in two different conversations. The OP's question about what's improved in the last 20 years and now a completely different conversation regarding the most important function of a riflescope.