Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Internal Scope Construction Toric, Zeiss, SWFA, NF, Leupold etc.

According to you, most of them are pretty poor aiming devices. (And yes I know a couple are dependable).
If all these scope makers struggle to make a reliable aiming system, maybe an enterprising mechanical engineer can design a positive adjustable exterior mounting system. Without the restriction of containing it within the scope body.
Just throwing this out there, and thinking outside of the box. Since most scope makers cannot, or will not.
Or, maybe we have already evolved to aiming perfection?

Balvar 8 2 1/2-8X fifty years ago. Anyone else remember them?

External adjustments create way more problems than they solve. Scope manufacturers can build reliable hunting scopes that can take some dialing that are not high cost, but not unless hunters start demanding it. When hunters and shooters stop talking "glass" and start talking "reliability and function", you'll see $200-$300 scopes that are solid aiming devices.

I remember the Balvar variables and the B&L fixed scopes but what I remember best is Jack O'Connor's discussion of them with the manufacturer that appeared in a couple of books. I also remember the Kuharsky (sic) and Buehler mounts for them.

I remember the ads where they froze them, pounded nails, and scraped them with a knife.

I've often thought about picking one up for a Mauser maybe, but fear stuff inside might come unglued on me. Mounts for older rifles abound on the www.

Most of us are wannabees. We can't play with the long rangers so we talk about glass. I recently insulted my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50's the other day when I decided to learn to shoot long. I purchased a Nightforce and then a Track Toric 3-15X50.

There's a local shop with a NIB B&L with no internal adjustments if someone wants to play with one. $75.

I agree and this is very obviously true since there is nothing particularly remarkable about the materials used inside _any_ reliable scope. The unfortunate corollary to that is that it's super difficult to want to pay NXS prices for something that needs only be 10-15% that expensive.. Even the ex-Tasco designs are only barely within the price range you mention. I can think of another design or two, sold under multiple names, that is (are) proving to be surprisingly reliable. Have you seen those at your school enough to comment on them?

Even the Tract offerings themselves, if they are durable (they're already proven reliable), prove that reliability and durability of a riflescope is very inexpensive to manufacture, because clearly Tract is spending a lot of money on the optical characteristics of their product, yet they're still apparently priced well below optically-comparable options.