Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Binocular/rifle scope glass

I'll address this to John Barsness. Who are the actual glass manufacturer's of this glass? Nikor, European make? I'm sure the least expensive glass is made in China, but what about mid to upper end glass. Thank you.

I'm not John, but the best glass is made by Schott of Germany. It's a Zeiss subsidiary.

They make several grades, depending on use.

https://www.schott.com/en-gb/products/optical-glass-p1000267

Glass matters in a binocular. Mostly just marketing in a riflescope.

You gotta be schittin me

Nope! Once you’ve spent over the $4-500 mark or so, glass doesn’t matter much. It’s all good enough. If that concept is lost on you, you’ve been duped by decades of riflescope manufacturer’s marketing too. What matters far more is a scope that works and holds zero. There are some scopes out there with remarkable glass, yet as a reliable and functional aiming device, they are garbage. Damn near all scopes these days have good glass, so focus on what matters.

Ok. I'll bite and ask you just one question.

Why do you think it's the best?

Ok. I'll bite and ask you just one question.

Why do you think it's the best?

Good question.

Some people might need it, some don't. It depends on what they will use it for. This applies to scopes, binoculars, and just about everything else you can imagine.

I will gently disagree with you.

I will also make an observation here. People get hung up on glass for some reason, but what is even more important is how the glass is made into a coated lens and then placed inside a riflescope.

I have to remember this is a hunting forum, and as such high-end riflescopes are not very popular here as most members seem to like Leupold or Barska products mounted very close to the barrel. These members look through the scope for an instant before taking the shot. They will shoot maybe 5 times during the year.

I come from a competition point of view, where in on match, I will shoot the equivalent of 12 years of shooting for the members mentioned above. But that's only part of it. In a competition, I can be looking through the riflescope and spotting scope (they are set up set by side) for as much as 30 minutes at a time (the equivalent of one string in a 3-string day.) As such, the riflescope on my F-TR match rifle is mounted 2.5 inch above the bore. It's very high and very comfortable to look through.

This is where quality glass, or rather, quality optics, come into their own.

When I first started in F-class 17 years ago, I had a Nikon 2.5-10X44 Monarch scope, because that's what I had in hand. I quickly discovered that it was nowhere near the magnification I needed, especially when the NRA issued the tiny targets. I got a Weaver T-36 within a year or so and used that for a few years. I'm not sure if people here are familiar with a little phenomenon incorrectly called "Mirage." Let me tell you that in South Texas, we get a lot of it, virtually year-round. When the Sun comes out, the mirage soon follows. I spend my shooting time at 1000 yards, over a grassy field. The target is a 6'X6' tan square with concentric rings. The middle part is a black aiming circle of 44 inches across, insidoe of which are more concentric circles about a half inch thick, culminating in the X-ring being 5 inches in diameter. I have been shooting at that target face for over 30 years, with iron sights and the last 17 with various riflescopes. I have shot at this target face at multiple venues around North America, and at different elevations and various weather conditions.

When I was using the Weaver T-36 (around $450), I noticed that the target face would be going nuts in mirage conditions. When mirage got fairly intense, the aiming black was no longer round, it was changing shape like an amoeba on crack. You could not make out the rings, you were just aiming at a rapidly shifting black blob.
When there was no mirage, the rings were indistinct and hairy; difficult to place a shot precisely, and repeatedly. Time for an upgrade in optics.

The next scope was a Nightforce NSX 12-42X56. It was a very nice scope and I noticed that the aiming black took on a much rounder shape, but the rings were difficult to almost impossible to make out in heavy mirage. The IQ (image quality) was bad enough at 42X, that I had to back down into the low 30s- high 20s to be able to aim somewhat properly. Still, it was light years ahead of the Weaver, and at 6 times the price.

Then I decided to buy a March-X 5-50X56 to replace the NXS because I was having issues seeing the target properly in the early morning matches. That problem disappeared with the March-X. After a while I discovered that I was always at 40X magnification, year-round and at any venue, regardless of elevation or weather condition. The target always looked decent in the heaviest mirage, and I could place the center dot pretty much anywhere I wanted to on the target, repeatedly. I started thinking the ED glass in the scope was the reason for that.

I used that 5-50X56 for several years and a couple years ago, I started using a March-X 10-60X56 HM, with Super ED glass. I noticed the target looked better in this scope in heavy mirage and increased the magnification to 50X, where it has stayed for the last 2 years, year-round and at different venues. The IQ of this scope is amazing, and I can look through it for hours, even in heavy mirage.

If you're using a riflescope to shoot at 100 yards a few times a year, for 5 seconds, then yeah, a $3500 riflescope is not going to benefit you. A $4-500 scope will definitely "be good enough", and spending more on binoculars is definitely "a good thing."

But for some people, spending a lot more on a riflescope has its place and the manufacturers have provided some amazing designs with great capabilities.

Probably better than the answer we may eventually (don't hold your breath) get.

If you think that applies to the vast majority of members here then you're either ignorant or a complete moron.

I certainly won’t disagree with that well thought out response. You have unique needs. I was speaking to the masses, and your average big game hunter.hunter.

You my friend are a fountain of misinformation

Hahaha. You sir have absolutely no idea what you are talking about! I own or have owned several dozen scopes from Swarovski, Zeiss, Nightforce, SWFA, Bushnell Elites, Leupold, Khales, Weaver, Trijicon, Tract, Vortex, Meopta, March, yada yada yada. I’ve spent everything from a few dollars to several thousand dollars on scopes. Some worked and some were total junk, but they all had good glass. I stand by what I said as it’s the functional truth.

[quote]
AFAIK
All the Alpha manufacturers use this brand. There must be a very good reason, because they charge a lot for their scopes. Schott is the world’s premier glassmaker, mostly used in high end applications.

Read FTR’s post. Very educational.

I’m thinking you have never used serious glass in serious conditions. I call BS.
I just mounted a S&B 3-27 PM II on my recently purchased precision rifle. It’s a revelation. And I own several Alpha scopes including S&B, Kahles, Zeiss, etc.


I agree that most scopes over $500 have good enough glass. But there’s a reason that Alpha scopes are used by military snipers. I like to varmint hunt and I’ve hunted with others who use moderately priced glass. There is absolutely no comparison In what I observe with my bins and what I can shoot at with my scopes. They can’t even see the varmint.

You’re wrong. I’ve used all the Swaro Z series, and the X5. Pretty much all Nightforce lines. March. Zeiss. Khales. Want me to keep going?

I’ll take a lower end Nightforce SHV over a Swaro Z6 any day, despite the Swaro costing more than twice as much! Does the Swaro have better glass? Absolutely. But I’d rather have a scope that’s reliable and actually works, with glass that’s good enough. The difference in glass is minimal, the difference in function and reliability is huge.

My point is…. Don’t just buy a scope because of good glass alone. Nearly all of them have good glass. Buy one that works and will hold up too. That’s more important.

You can have reliability AND good glass. Nobody is saying that reliability is less important than a image quality.

Better glass in a scope is never a bad thing.

You are the quintessential biden voter; you rephrase my statement and then argue that. I said "most members", which means anything above 50%. You stated that I said "the vast majority of", completely different. And for that display of cognitive dissonance, you are now on my ignore list.