For those unfamiliar with the story of the princess and the pea, here's a paraphrase from Wiki:

A prince wants to marry a real princess. He travels about the world searching for a real princess but returns home disappointed. One evening, a young woman claiming to be a real princess seeks shelter from a storm in the prince's castle. The prince's mother decides to test the validity of her claim by placing a single pea on a bedstead and piling twenty mattresses and twenty feather beds atop it. There, the young woman spends the night. In the morning, she tells her hosts she endured a sleepless night, being kept awake by something hard in the bed. The prince rejoices. Only a real princess possesses the delicacy to feel a pea through twenty mattresses and twenty feather beds. The two are married, and live happily ever after.

It's my opinion that many of our discussions (myself included) in the sport optics world really tend to center on whether we can feel that pea through twenty mattresses.

- 96% vs. 97% light transmission?
- Resolution at 500yds?
- FOV at 1000yds?
- Hue consistency?
- Recticle color under rare lighting conditions?
- Edge-to-edge clarity?
- Fringing?

Come on.

I pulled all of my rifles out today and had a look down the street at late dusk. The scopes were Zeiss Conquest, VX-II, VX-III, M8, FX-III, Bushnell Elite 3200, Bushnell Elite 4200, Nightforce NXS, Swaro Z6, and Swaro AV.

Yes, there were differences. Some were brighter, some were clearer, some had more magnification, and some had better eye relief.

But at 450yds -- the length of the street I was looking down -- I could read For Sale sign small text, see pine cone details, and watch sparrows pecking the ground for food...with every single scope in my battery.

For the practically-minded among us, when did we stop being hunters, and start becoming princesses looking for that pea in an otherwise perfectly good bed?

So now what are we going to talk about?! Last one leaving the optics forum please turn the lights off. A PRINCESS?!?!?!?!?

til later

conchworker,

Ah, but you didn't include any Tascos. That invalidates the test. Where's that pea, anyway?

Well, take that attitude and you will just use open sights. Good enough, cheaper than the cheapest scope.

Then when you start using optics because it gives you an advantage are you supposed to just ignore the differences though small they might be.

The single biggest advance in accuracy over open sights is having crosshairs to aim with. A good 2.5x scope or even a 1x would do that. All the rest are smaller improvements in the ability to hit a target.

While I agree with the sentiment to some extent, one could make the exact same argument for using a 2 MOA rifle. Most would get by just fine with that sort of accuracy and there'd be very few shots most would would take anyway where better accuracy would actually be needed.

Some set their standards a bit higher. Even if there's only a small chance they'll be faced with a situation where they'd actually need that extra accuracy to make a shot on big game, they want it just in cases. They want it because it makes the routine shots even more precise.

So why is it politically correct for everybody to "need" a rifle that shoots one hole groups, but if one doesn't accept mediocre scopes as the best they can use, they're a "princess?" The difference in scopes is more likely to make a difference in the field in my experience.

Both sides of this argument make sense to me.I know that's waffling to a large degree but it's because both sides are "right".Most scopes in the medium to upper price ranges perform very well under a wide variety of circumstances, but I think the "high end scope" guys have a valid argument and it boils down to where you've hunted and whether or not you've been "burned" by the inability to see adequately and had to pass on something with mediocre optics, when a top-end scope would have allowed you to confidently take a shot.

I plead "guilty"to avoiding the high end stuff although I have owned more than a few,and the majority of the stuff I've shot has been with the moderate priced scopes,relatively low power,etc.

I have never lost an animal, or a chance at one, because I was using my Leupolds with what some would consider inadequate power and resolution, or dim optics under the circumstances.BUT I do have buddies who have.One could not see to shoot a 190-200 class typical in Alberta right at the edge of dark(the buck was "known" by the outfitter,and seen in the headlights after picking the hunter up).

Another ,right at dark,could not distinguish one big 6x6 of several bulls right at the edge of light.A third lost a crack at an eland because he could not see; I am told some African hunting is done under pretty dim light conditions.

So these things DO happen,especially if you are dealing with nocturnal animals like trophy-class whitetails, mule deer, or elk.So,for some hunting,some circumstances,and for a guy who wishes to hedge ALL bets,the higher quality stuff has a decided advantage.I have proven this to myself many times by comparing higher end optics to the more moderate price spreads,and the difference sometimes does not show up until the very last scintilla of light.

OTOH you could not give me a 15-20 oz scope for most mountain game hunting because I am accustomed to a 10 oz 4X on a light hunting rifle to be used in rough country, and carried constantly in the hands.I've conclusively proven to myself through a lot of shooting and hunting in the west that I am simply not handicapped by such gear for where and how I hunt.

But those who hunt where great resolution and high light gathering ability are crucial to success are wise to spend the extra dough; it could make the difference between success and failure under very precise circumstances.I guess this is for each to work out for himself,really.

Good post. From a practical point of view almost all of the major scopes will work just fine for 98% of the hunting any of us do. I have killed over 300 game animals in my long hunting career before, I knew about eye boxes & focusing. All of that said, its nice to be able to afford a better scope and binocular that is among the best available. That's when the optics forum becomes important. Some of the posts are based on actual usage & testing & are very informative. Others reference opinions of others, no subjective comparisons, & the same old BS on eye boxes,focusing,diamond coatings,superior testing, & blah, blah, blah. As a EE I was told long ago to keep opinions to my self but, base facts upon qualitative & quantitative testing. Just my distorted opinion.

Good post.
I am of the opinion that one should describe the trade offs when discussing optics. Take eye box for instance. If you want the largest eye box at the lower magnifications of a scope, you have to let go of something else in characteristics. That would be the fashionable fixed eye relief characteristic. Or, if you like and need the help in seeing the image clearly, say you have less than great eyes, then a euro style focusing system might be useful. However, they can be accidently moved by contact with clothing or one's pack. Not good for a guy that might have to shoot quickly.
I also feel it would be very helpful to have some basis for comparision. For instance, just how close are these scopes in resolving an image ? At what range ? Under what light conditions ? Bob NH, for instance, really likes the Leupold 4X for it's reliability, especially in holding it's zero. I do too, but tend to favor the 6X42 over it because of it's better, i.e. longer range, low light capability. "Better" meaning about 50% more range under the same light conditions. E

I've been usuing a euro style focusing system for the last 22 years now all over NA and Canada in every type of condition and never had a problem with it.Never had it ,accidently moved. Interesting that loopies latest and greatest high end scope is usuing it now to.Wave of the furture E.Better get used to it.
dave

What one person needs in optics can be more or less than the next person needs. My hunting is 1/2 hour before sunrise to 1/2 hour past sunset. I'm not paying big $$$ for a hunt. For one "best" scope I can buy 3 good scopes or one good scope and a really good binocular. Whether or not the next guy is impressed doesn't matter to me. My money, my eyes, my needs.

Dave, I've had my Leupold's move from rubbing against my pack even with the ring locked.
Fortunately, they don't change focus nearly as fast as the scopes using the euro systems do.
I've never heard you mention aything but hunting from a stand. Alot of my hunting involves still hunting or tracking where I sling my rifle upside down to get it tight to me so I can free both hands for glassing. Because of this difference, I'm sure you haven't had one move. E

"every type of condition"
Dont know how else I can say it.I gather you have never used a fast focus.It shows.
dave

I've never hunted with one, but I know lots who have. Occasinally, with some, this has come up.
I have used and adjusted euro focusing style scopes. They are 3-4X faster than the newer Leupold "fast focus" design. The older Leupold design, still in use on many of their scopes, is 4X slower than their fast design. That's 12-16X slower than the typical euro design. E

I ran the single lead thread focus on older 2-7s and 3.5-10s loopies for years.Slow but workable.The multi lead thread is a good idea.Ill stick with FF.It has served me well.Looks like loopie is headed in that direction as well.Be interesting to see what the next product roll out from leupold looks like.
dave

In three words: increased disposable income.

Maketing responds with differintiation. A high enough entry fee promotes user satisfaction and nets referrals...the golden egg.

Declining disposable income leads to rather practical and lower priced solutions...

Game still gets shot.

E, the focus ring on a Leupold moves very easily once the locking ring comes loose for whatever reason. If that ring comes loose, I could easily see the focusing ring being moved by (say) rubbing on a pack.

The focusing ring on my Zeiss Conquest moves much, much less easily. I honestly don't think it could be moved by rubbing on a pack, even though it doesn't have a locking ring.

--------------------------------------------------------

To the question of the princess and the pea... heck yeah! We are arguing over gnats here most of the time. I always mention high-end audio because that's the world I lived in for a long time, and THOSE GUYS are truly nutso.

At the root of it is this: our senses function as transducers of a sort. (A transducer converts one sort of energy into another, like a speaker turning electrical energy into sound). Our senses convert outside information, be it light or sound or smell, into electrical impulses that our nervous system and brain then process.

There is many a slip twixt cup and lip in this process! First, the quality of the transducer (eyeball in this case). I know for a fact that I don't have good eyes; I have an uncorrectable astigmatism in one eye and one of those "hoo boy!" prescriptions for the other. This is the case for many of us I imagine. We have flawed eyes. The information is corrupted before it even hits our brain.

The next step is the cognitive processing of the information. In the audio world, tales abound (and I've personally experienced this) of a roomful of guys nodding their heads and saying, "yeah, that sound better! I can hear it opening up the top end!" or whatever... as an equalizer knob is turned... and then later it turns out that the EQ knob that was being turned was switched out of the circuit! Nothing was happening! But even *I*, the audio professional, would have sworn I was hearing things change when that knob was turned. It's the effect of what you THINK you are perceiving affecting the actual perception.

Because, finally, perception is a cognitive event- not some sort of repeatable scientific measurement. Preconceptions and prejudices can and do effect our ultimate perception.

NOW, having said all that, I do value my own perceptions and I do give weight to them. When I compared the Swaro and Minox "Big Eyes" the other day I was pretty careful to try like heck to make it a fair comparison. However I will admit that having my results dovetail so cleanly with what I was told to expect (perceive) is a little suspicious!

Likewise when I was able to read finer print with a Zeiss 6.5x20 than with a Leupold that same day. I'll give that some weight. I saw it with my own two eyes <g>.

But in general the massive firefights that get rolling here and elsewhere about this minutia of perception vs. that minutia of perception are not broadly relevant to the world at large. Most people are simply not tied into their senses well enough (for one thing) to even achieve that level of sensory precision.

That's my perception about the whole thing anyway!

Dave_in_WV,


What do yo mean bringing personal logic into an emotional conversation?

I think that insulting someone for buying expensive optics is just as dumb as looking down on someone who can't afford to buy the nicer stuff.
It's a truism that in Optics you have to pay a lot more to get a little better so there certainly is a diminishing point of returns. That doesn't however mean that some of the more expensive stuff doesn't perform a little better.
I've been fortunate enough to be able to aquire a few of the really nice optics. I've not been able to take a couple shots when using cheaper scopes that I think I could have made if I'd had better optics on the gun so I tend to hunt with the gun with the best scope on it. I tend to plan for the worst case and then am well equiped for normal use. But you can just as well make the point that why pay twice as much for 99% than for something that will work 95% of the time.
In the end I guess we talk about the "pea" because this is our hobby and we love this stuff. Most of us can only hunt a couple months out of the year, the rest of the time is just pea's............................DJ

It is rather mean spirited isn't it?

You know, I have been in exactly that case watching a red fox with a Nikon 6x42 on a gutpile. My just introduced at the time Nikon got a case of sunflare but my daughters 6x42 Lupy would have saved the day if we hadn't spent so much time dinking around exchanging rifles to compare.

But I'll bet money a brand new Nikon 6x42 has got that all figured out.

And I'll bet a guy who can shoot and knows his rifle and scope can make any hunting shot with a nice new middle of the road 6x42 and wouldn't ever have to say, "Boy if I only had a top of the line S&B I would have killed it."

But technology will certainly do stuff for us, it can make tasks easier and technology can certainly reduce the level of skill or training required to achieve.

Somewhere we each draw a line in the sand.

Am thinking that in the near future people may be tending to draw that line more on the practical side as the sporting goods industry appears to me to be showing all the hallmarks of speculative excess--in the way of expensive products that do not add a practical field advantage. A harbinger of less diposable income straight ahead.

For me personally, I am willing to spend time and money going for that last 3% on bins because I spend so much time looking through them, plus it's fun debating all these optical issues with you guys, but for some reason I'm perfectly happy with the forty five year old Balvar on my Mauser, old VX II Leupold on my Remington or B&L Elite 3000 on my Kimber.

The reality for me is that I hunt big game in Montana so no night hunting, I haven't hunted varmits and I have never missed a shot because I wasn't able to see the target through my middle of the road scopes. My actual time sighting through the scope is miniscule compared to hours looking through my bins, so I prioritize my dollars accordingly. I realize others will have different priorities due to the type of hunting they do, their disposible income and desire to use the very best. I don't know if I would splurge for Euro scopes over Leupy even if money wasn't an isue for me, like I said, I haven't noticed a need for upgrade in that area.

Jeff, first of all, when the ocular is locked, it is far more secure than any non locking ocular I've ever touched.
So, carrying the rifle up close to me has moved the ocular even the much smaller Leupold designs and even while locked. It hasn't been a problem because the scope's focus changes too slowly to be one. But this may be a problem on those where the focus changes much faster. Just based on how much mine have moved, I can see that happening. A few have reported this very thing here in the past.
So, it is something you need to keep an eye on if your rifle is so equipped. Not something I want. E

I wonder if that guy shooting the top of the line S&B, pushing the scope to its limit at dark-30, says "Boy, I'm glad I didn't have a dim loopie on this rifle."

Have done that and have scopes. Said it before FWIW. With todays glass the reticle is a bigger issue well past sundown...

May be too inexpensive a solution to swallow...

I agree about the reticle. Ever compared the reticle in a "top of the line S&B" to your 6X42? You just might like it.

I get what you're saying about technology reducing the required skill level, but I don't think it really applies here. A compound bow with pins and a rangefinder letting a newbie take shots farther than an old hand with a traditional? On subjects like that, I think one can make that argument or at least have such an opinion.

This is not the same. This is simply a piece of equipment that performs the exact same function better. If using a "Brand L" 6X42 in place of a "Brand S&B" 6X42 because it doesn't work as well in some conditions lets you show off your "skill" more, why stop there? Why not get a BSA and spray paint over half the objective? Using that scope would show you have lots of "skill," right? Maybe, or maybe simply lacking good sense.

Another one that's been beat to death. The only oculars you've ever had move while hunting are locked Luppys. Therefore, you recommend in order to avoid this people should only use locked Luppys.

I went into a lengthy explanation not too long ago why your locked luppys can actually be more likely to move under certain conditions. Forgive me if I decline to waste my breath yet again.

I'll simply say, put me in the column of those who have actually used such a thing and never had a problem. But I did have a problem with locked Luppys as you did long ago.

Try a VX-7, E. It has a gold ring! You have to like it! And you might actually learn something....

Yes. It is not that I don't like S&B...

I don't own a 6x42 anymore. I do use the 6x36 but prefer variables to fixed FWIW.

Don't understand quite what you are getting at Jon, on the spray painting angle.

To make it even more dim in low light, of course. Come on, don't ya need an extra challenge to show how much "skill" you have?

To raise the bar I just turn the spotlight off...:)

tomk
You are a funny guy
dave

Leupold usage requires a PHD in focusing.And only 3 people in the whole universe know how to do it.
Now loopie oculars equipped with locking rings are moving when held "up close".
No wonder Leupolds top of the line VX-7 looks like a Euro scope.
Give loopie another twenty years and they might actually build a usable rifle scope.
dave

Well... i'd much rather expound on perception than on locking rings <g>, but if the masses want to talk locking rings and not the subtleties of cognition... well hell...

I am a lover of Leupold scopes.

That said, I REALLY do not like the locking ring. The ONLY time I've had an ocular move significantly in the field has been when that locking ring came loose, and then the (very easily turned) ocular moved.

In contrast, I was just handling my 3.5x10 Conquest before I typed this, and I'm sorry but rubbing against a pack isn't going to move that thing. Or, let me put it differently. A guy would have to strap their rifle to their pack so unimaginably "wrong" to get that ocular to be moved by rubbing that... that... it just isn't gonna happen IMHO.

And finally... even if it DID move a little, what's the big deal? Move it back. It's not going to go so out of focus as to be a problem anyways.

I'm sorry E, I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, I just don't see this as being a "plus" on the Leupold side of the balance sheet! Quite the opposite actually.

The old "coefficient of thermal expansion"

Tighten the lock rings in a warm environment and when it gets cold, they will loosen easily.

Rob

BD
Interesting you should mention that.In the BR game if found that from cool early mornings to warmer afternoons.The AO on my 40x loopie BR had to be adjusted just becaues of the temp.Not alot mind you,but you could tell the difference.But then at 40x ,everything makes a difference.
dave

I guess you can argue whether or not I can shoot and know my rifle and scope but I've made a couple shots that I don't think I could have made with a middle of the road 6x42 scope. I can think of one for sure I wouldn't have attempted.
Such shots certainly are the exception rather than the rule but they have a do come up. More to the point is why do you want to limit yourself? I think that bowhunters and muzzleloaders are limitation that millions of hunters enjoy including me. But intil they start having extra hunting seasons for 6x or less scopes I plan to hunt with the best most versatile optics I can afford to put on my rifles.........................DJ

The remark was not personlly aimed at thee DJ.

Dudes, forget I said 6x OK? I use the 6x setting but am not implying anything, only saying it can be done. "Focus" on the middle of the road part...

Let me use a personal example for the practical application. There is not doubt in my brain that any hunting shot I can make with my pet Zeiss T*, I could also make with a new Leupold/Conquest/Barnes & Noble..on the same power setting and with the right reticle if it was well after sunset.

My experiences have simply been different. I've been in conditions several times in legal hours where I would not have felt comfortable taking a shot with the Leupold I was using and even once with an IOR (reticle got hard to see) where I would have been OK with a different IOR or the S&B I now have.

When comparing all these side by side as it gets dark they do not all cease to work at the exact same moment. Some last longer than others. Usually, they all last beyond legal light, but not always.

Tomk, I didn't think you were after me nor I you. I was just trying to reasonably nicely disagree. I guess my experiences have been different than yours.
I've had a couple chances that I've missed that left me wishing I'd been hunting with one of my better scopes. And as mentioned above I've also made a couple shots I wouldn't have attempted with a different lower powered scope. Again these are probably the exception rather than the rule but no more than I get to hunt I want to take every advantage I can including the best glass I can afford.
People have different means and I don't want to make anyone who can't afford the more expensive stuff feel bad or anything. I remember back when a $100 Tasco World class was the best scope I could afford. I enjoyed hunting with the Tasco on a $200 Pawn shop rifle but now I'm fortunate enough to afford a couple nicer things and am aware of a couple advantages they have......................DJ

Jeff, not everyone carrys their rifles like I do. I back pack hunt and often carry it tight to my pack in various ways. I carry it upside down with a sling when I still hunt or track. I do this becasue it is the fastest, surest way to get into action when you only have seconds to shoot.
If you want to believe that this won't happen and even if it does it won't make a difference, fine. But one thing is certain. The euros with their very fast focusing system don't have to be moved much to throw them out of focus. With Leupolds, not only is it much harder to move a locked ocular, but they must be move at least three, maybe four times as far to throw off their focus the same amount.
So, to each his own. E

There is no doubt in my mind that a 50-56mm scope with magnification up to 10-12X can make longer shots under marginal light conditions than I can with my 6X42 Leupold.
However, "limiting myself" with a 6X42, just isn't so. For one thing, it is far tougher, i.e. much more likely to hold zero when impacted than any 50-56mm euro variable I've ever heard of. Either from outside impacts or recoil.
Second, it is far lighter than any of the big 50-56mm scopes. That's makes a difference to me since I typically walk miles every day I hunt and literally climb thousands of feet at high altitudes.
On top of all of that, it has a huge eye box. Far better than any of the euros even at their lower magnifications. Heck, it even beats the Leupold variables I have in that department when they are set on 6X.
Selecting scope isn't mater of selecting something that has the last word in a particular area of performance. It's a matter of selecting those attributes and making the tradeoffs for those attributes that matter to you.
I've never lost an oportunity to shoot because I was using a 4X Leupold, let alone a 6X42. Others may have other experiences. But I have seen lots of scope mount problems and scopes change zero due to a number of things. I have had no more of any of this. One of the reasons is my selection of the fixed magnification Leupolds for my big game hunting. E

I heard all the Schmidt and Benders were far tougher, E.g., more likely to hold zero if struck, dropped or otherwise impacted, than any Leupold.

I reckon a Burris with Posilock would be the best at holding a zero.

Dave,

While I happen to agree with that, I've seen E disagree with that notion.

I suppose used on a really hard kicker the reticle could fail earlier than in a scope without posilock (never proven that I know of). I had a Burris Signature on my 30-06 and later my .243 and the zero never changed. The '06 has a laminated stock and the .243 a boat paddle. Anyone can argue away til hell freezes but it wouldn't have changed the zero or my mind.

JonA,



Years ago I gave up on the fixed anything for lack of being able to well enough. Sue told me to shoot the first legal deer because she wanted the venison. A few days later I was watching a deer feed in the woods, I cranked up the power ring for a closer look. There was so much brush around it and between it and me, I did not see the horns until the scope was on 10X. It was a fork. BANG!

So then, by your past assertions that eyebox determines optical quality of the image, are you saying Leupold variables are clearer, sharper and brighter than fixed power Leupolds? They have a smaller eyebox so it must be true, right?