Gents:

Thanks to John Barsness (Mule Deer) for his latest exclusive Campfire column, "REALITIES OF RIFLESCOPE MANUFACTURING."

Please click the link to access the article, and use this thread to ask John questions. I hope you enjoy it.

Thanks again, John!

Back in the 1970s I asked Gunsmith how much should a scope or a pair of binoculars cost? His answer back then was good advice. And it still holds true today. He said "A scope should cost as much is your rifle. But your binoculars should cost twice as much as the rifle."

Very interesting article as usual, JB. I know you can't say but would sure like to hear which inexpensive scopes were found to be reliable. I don't shoot heavy kickers and use mostly fixed powers but I'd still like to know.

To know what John recommends note what he buys the most of here.
I use old m8 Leupold with smaller ocular lenses. Less weight, less forces on the scope to cause issues. Next favorite due to hunting a farm with a mix of woods and pasture is a 2-7x 33mm ( or a 1.5-5x ). Again, less weight. Those big 50mm are as useless for me as bugs on a bumper.

Along with fixed-power Leupolds, I've also purchased some SWFA and Weaver fixed-powers off the Campfire Classifieds. But I don't get all my scopes on the Campfire, either, obtaining some directly from manufacturers. Sometimes they're test scopes that performed so well I decided I needed them. Have reviewed those in several magazine articles, usually after they held up well when (per usual) I mounted them on a hard-kicking rifle and they not only held up but their adjustments A good example would be the Weaver 3-15x Super Slam that arrived for a review several years ago. I've been twirling the adjustments up and down enough over those years that I just reviewed it again in another magazine, because it continues to work precisely.

Have also published several magazine articles on "bargain" scopes over the years, and am thinking of doing another specifically on scopes have have held up well despite considerably turret-twisting. They're not always the brands people would guess, based on what's posted on the Campfire. In fact am going to be heavily testing one of these during the next few months, to see if it keeps going.

Good article John;

I am probably guilty on some counts, but I have neither the need nor the skill to shoot at an animal over 300 yards away.

donsm70

Now that CMP service rifle competition permits a low power, small objective scope on a low recoiling rifle. We need a scope with elevation and windage knobs that can tolerate literally dozens of adjustments per day, likely a click or 4 of windage with every shot in the slow fire stages. Run the elevation up from 200 to 600 yds and back down every match.

optics don't have to be great, we don't have to count antler tines at 2 minutes before dark... just find that 36" black against a 6' piece of cardboard at 600yds.

oh, and that $3000 model is just out of reach for most of us regulars and nearly all of the new competitors we'd like to get into the sport.

Poole

Hello MD,

Great article!!! Very interesting point you are writing about!
I am convinced many midprices scopes of today, and even old, very old (40 plus years)scopes are, at least, as good in their mechanics and even optics, as the expensives ones...
I wait for more "bargain" scopes articles!

PH

And, by the way, I did not tested neither a fraction of the scopes you test in one year. But my "scope test rifle" is a Wincheste 70 pre-64 .375 H&H. I have shot the rifle more than 1000 full power rounds since my purchase in 1992. With a few scopes, more than 100 rounds with the less used one. They have been: Redfield Bear Cub 4x32,made in the sixties; Weaver K 2,5 Micro-Track from the eighties, Zeiss Diatal ZA 4x32 from the late eighties, Schmidt&Bender 1,25-4x20 from the nineties, and Zeiss Victory Diavari 1,5-6x42 from the early 2000.
Of course I did not dial up and down any of them; zero dead on at 200 meters and thats it!
And the ONLY issue was the broken thin hair of the wire reticle in the S&B after 300 rounds. Was send the scope to S&B, where they put an optical reticle and for another 300 rounds they worked perfectly. I sold it to a friend who use it in a 30-06 without any trouble.
Another friend has a Burris Fullfield II 2,5-7x35 in his Winchester 70 G-series push feed .375. He shoots it a lot, mainly with 300 grs bullets, factory and handloads (because he said his rifle groups are better with 300 grs....). I don´t know exactly how many rounds he has made but more than 200 for sure. The scope is still in one piece without any simptom of malfunction.

As I said, VERY INTERESTING matter this you have initiated with your article.

Thanks!

PH

Bill,

Thanks for your comments. Have heard something about that from more than one scope manufacturer.

Patagonia Hunter,

Thanks for posting your results! I've also had great luck with Fullfield II's, including that 2.5-7x35. Put one on a .300 Weatherby and it held up great for several years.

John,

Do you class the Fullfield E1 with the Fullfield II's? The only difference I am aware of is the change in reticle and power adjustment ring. But it's possible there are other changes that I'm not aware of that have lessened it's reliability compared to the FFII's?

Thanks.

To be honest, I don't know for sure. But would assume Burris left the interior stuff basically the same, because it wouldn't make any sense to fix something that wasn't broken. Not that some companies don't do that, but my experiences with Burris indicate they're not one.

John,

Very nice article. I don't twirl elevation turrets or shoot (for the most part) really hard kicking calibers. Low to medium power variable and fixed scopes from Leupold, Burris, and Weaver have worked well for me. I have a Burris Fullfield II 1.75 x 5 that has seen hundreds of max 30-06 rounds, then mounted on a 45-70 Contender carbine barrel (no fun and since disposed of), and is now doing duty on a 9.3 x 62. Probably close to a thousand rounds with no issue. I don't remember exactly what I paid for it fifteen plus years ago, but I think is was around $200.

At gun shows I look for older Bushnell scopes; the Japanese made ones that used Bausch and Lomb lenses. I've bought them for as little as $15 to $25. They are really bright and sharp and generally hold up well, even on muzzle loaders and shotguns. They are a much better option that the blister pack scopes from the big box store.

Mike

John,
I am familiar with the gunmaker to whom you refer in your article. He had several hunting scopes. They were kept in his tool chest. He would mount and zero them on whatever rifle he planned to hunt with and removed and placed back in storage until the next trip. He didn't put any more shots than needed on those scopes.
The toughest scopes I have used were the older Leupold Compact 3-9's. They were the only scopes to survive my 7.5# 375 Improved.

Very nice article. Count me as another fan of the Burris FFII and fixed power Weaver scopes.

I have several that have given years of yeoman service on both light and heavy recoiling rifles.

John,
nice article. Always enjoy the topic. On your guidance quite a few years back I bought a Full Field II for a good friend who I owed a favor. As you described in your article, he mounted it on his deadly accurate model 700 30-06 and sighted in. Very nice groups and the scope was all it was described to be.
In the closet it sits waiting to get out.......
AR's and other more exotic caliber stuff have made trips to hunt all kinds of game and paper targets, with many failures of other scopes.
Im always fast to remind of the Ol Reliable sitting in the closet......
Always grateful for good optics when far from home on a trip. Esp. now that the 100 yd steel gong is getting blurry with the Lyman Peep on the Marlin.

JB,
Is the Burris Signature Safari still among the standing?

It was until I sold it a couple years ago. Great scope, but for some reason manufacturers prefer writers to mention current-production scopes, and that model of the Signature Safari was obsolete.

I really liked the article, has really gotten me thinking about the scope choices I have made in the past and the next scope I will be buying.

I'm a long time lurker, but this article motivated me to finally sign up and ask a question.


It may not be the best of methods, but I commonly switch scopes between rifles. Reason for this is that I generally prefer aperture sights on my rifles for hunting. The scope is only used for load development. So I have a 4-12x40mm scope that hops from one rifle to another for load development. So I'm often re-zeroing the scope quite often. I shoot both jacketed and cast bullets, so I'm also adjusting turrets based on the differences in the POI.

Well, a couple weeks ago, that scope gave up the ghost and is having parallax and Adjustable Objective issues. So I'm in the market for a new scope. I had a few brands in mind. But now after reading your article, I'm thinking about my purchase in a different way.

What brands would be able to stand up to frequent scope swaps and re-zeroing? I wont be shooting anything that recoils more than a 30-06. My new way of thinking led me to believe that I can be less worried about super bright glass in the early morning and at dusk. Weight isn't a concern. Really it just needs:

good magnification, 12x is enough. I shoot at 100 yards for load development
stand up to frequent trips to the range
stand up to frequent mounting
stand up to frequent turret adjustments
Cost 300 bucks or less.

Thoughts?

Hmm. Might be a tall order in a $300 variable, since the obvious problem is frequent dialing. If you'd be happy with fixed-power, the SWFA SS scopes would work fine and make the $300 limit. But their variables cost more than that.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'm just fine with a fixed power. I will give SWFA a look. I don't know much about them so it will be fun to learn.

I also would be just fine going with a used and/or vintage scope if you know of any that would meet my needs.

Thanks again.

Great article John.

If I may ask a question? I normally run a Leupold FX-II 4x but have an opportunity to purchase a NIB Zeiss Conquest 4x. Do you feel the Zeiss would offer any greater reliability? I know it weights more and often wonder if it was better built for it?

Best,
Ryan

No, I wouldn't say the Conquest would be any tougher.

Hello MD,

Some time ago I asked about the number of lenses inside a fixed magnification scope vs. a variable one.
Conceptually, as far as I know, there is no need for more lenses inside a variable. As I see, just changing the distance between the erector lenses, the magnification is changed. Of course, the variable scope needs one more tube that moves inside the simple one of the fixed magnification scope, with the elicoidal opening and all the parts to variate the relations between the erector lenses.
This is, as I said, conceptually speaking. May be some more lenses inside the variable are needed because some additional optical corrections must be made to compensate the erector lenses movements...?
Can you comment about all of this?

Thank you !

PH

The total number of lenses depends on the specific scope, but at a minimum there are two lenses inside a variable's erector tube, while a fixed-power only requires one erector lens.

Thank you MD!!

PH

Don't know if this is the correct place, but here goes... One day, I was attempting to sight in my rifle, and it appeared to me that the marked right adjustment moved the poi left, and Up was down!

While he and I were waiting for our barrels to cool, I mentioned the "problem" to the shooter at the next bench. He said "Yeah, with Burris it's backwards." HUH?
Hmmm...the next time I was at the range, the fellow (different guy)sighting my rifle in got it shooting within 1" at 10 yards, with minimum adjustment. I mentioned my prior "problem" and he told me that it was an upside down image? Say WHAT? Not according to my eyes. They are bad, but not that bad! I always understood there is an erector lens in there somewhere, which gives a properly-displayed right-side-up and L-to-R image.

Was someone having me on?

I didn't think I look like such a Bunny! If the above is true, I'm going to epoxy the turret dials, so help me, I will!:-)
It seems logical to me that if arrow on the turret says RIGHT or UP is thataway, image/poi should shift in the direction the arrow says.

Both guys were either ignorant or messing with you.

It is possible for scopes to have the up-down and right-left marked backward, but it's rare. I've had one such scope in all the decades I've been fooling with them, a prototype 3-9x from a well-known firm.

Also, some European scopes have turret adjustments that turn the opposite way most American scopes do for up/down and right/left, but I've yet to run into one with the turrets marked for the wrong direction.

I saw mention above of the old Burris Signature line. I have a matte 2-8x Signature on a .270 WCF that I have happily used for about 20 years, now. How do the old Signature scopes stack up compared to today's scopes?

As I recall, the Signatures (and maybe the Fullfields from back then, too) had a brass erector tube. Is this still a feature of Burris scopes? If not, why was it done away with? Was it a good idea, at the time?

Thanks, in advance.

Scott

The old Signatures were pretty good scopes. The brass erector tubes were used because brass is slicker than many other materials, allowing the erector lenses to cam back and forth easier. But it's also heavier than other materials commonly used for erector tubes, the reason the adjustment turrets were placed further forward--for more leverage to consistently move the erector tube. This often made the scope a bit of a PITA to mount, which is why the brass erector tube was eventually abandoned.

Thanks for the response.

The 2-8x Signature has definitely served me well. Only slight negative about it, IMO, is the adjustments being 1/3 MOA. Always thought that was strange and wondered why they weren't 1/4 MOA.

Scott

1/3 MOA is very close to (though not quite precisely) 0.1 milliradian. So, you were ahead of your time with a mil-adjust scope! :-D

Was really bold to name which scopes do or do not work by name, very brave. Thanks for sharing your story.

Binoculars cost what ever they cost, but a pair will cost you twice that.

My son had more scopes go south on tracking than I ever did but he played around with different loads and adjusted his scopes frequently. The Nikon Monarch 3x9 scope that was on his 243 is at Nikon now for repair. It seems to track OK but won't hold a good zero. Of the scopes I've bought a Leupold VX-2 I bought used had to go back because of tracking problems but is fine now.
My Burris Signature Safari is alive and well but not on a magnum. I bought it for my 660 350 mag but the bolt handle wouldn't clear the rear bell without using high rings. It's on my Ruger 77 tanger 308.
I have bought more Leupold scopes than any other brand but that is for reticle selection and eye relief.