Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Nightforce vs. Swarovski, S&B, Zeiss?

Surely E would not misrepresent anything would he?Except maybe:




Remember that one?

Ah, yes. Stubby welcome back. E

Just had to let those that don't know you,about your habit of misrepresenting information,and spreading blatant falsehoods.

The comparison is unfair in many ways other than the size of the objective lens,the cost,glass quality,and quality of optical coatings are worlds apart.

If the only difference were the diameter of the objective then I would see a lot of difference beween my Ziess Victory 2.5-10x42 Victory and my Ziess 3-12x56 Victory. I do not see much difference between them,it is very slight and only really evident in nightime conditions.

Again there is a world of difference between the Bushnell 4200 series 2.5-10x40 and the Ziess Victory series 2.5-10x42. Far more than the tiny 5% difference in objective diameters would predict. Some of the difference is due to the larger ocular lens system of the Ziess and some is related to the quality of the glass/coatings as well as myriad other factors. But the bottom line is that the expensive scope is brighter in low light,a lot brighter. The difference is enough that there are circumstances where you can still see the target with one when you can only see a blur through the other.If your hunting conditions don't reveal any difference,then use what you like and br happy. Just don't tell me that there is no difference in my conditions.

In short,your oft said statement that all multicoated scopes are about the same does not reflect the real world differences that people who have compared the scopes report.


Britt

Brit, under dark twilight conditions where a 5mm exit pupil is required in order to see anything, you are telling me that you see just as much on about 8.5X as you can with the other scope on 11.2X ? That I find unbelieveable.
Anybody can test this. All you need to do would be look at a target at 200 yds. during dark twilight, then walk up to it within 24 yds. That's 8.4X. Then walk up to it at 19 yds. That's 11.2X. In otherwords, relative distance from the target during low light has no effect on what you can see ? I beg to disagree.
Yes, there will be tiny difference in what you can see due to various other factors of rifle scopes but this basically holds true, especially with scopes of the same make and level of quality. E

Diamonds are forever.............I expect there's more truth in that than one person might have ever hoped for or imagined.......grin.

Whatever......

At least I try the stuff that I post about and tell people what it looks like to me. Feel free to believe that I am dishonnest if you like.

Britt

This forum would be far superior if everyone else did the same.

Does ANYBODY really CARE what Errormicus says here? His bullschitt is now "called"by JB, the authority whom he has used for so long to bolster his foolish comments and STILL he rants on....the guy is a freakin' head case and his comments are drivel.

There are people on this forum that see him as a victim,when he gets called on his nonsense.They see the people that ask him to prove his statements as bullies.

You've got to realize if E quits posting what JB says, and has to rely on personal experience with the items he discusses, he would have very little to say, ever. He would be very lonely.

E does know about a lot of things that I am pretty ignorant about,like desert mule deer in public ground,or backpacking and camping in the west.

He seems like a very fine fellow with one annoying habit,posting about optics that he has never used and quoting John B. in the process,at times using info that is now out of date.

I do think he makes some important points,moderately priced optics by companies like Leupold are all most people need to get most hunting jobs done. They are very good values for the money,and very rugged and reliable.

So I agree with much of what he says,I just dissagree with his dogmatic dismissal of products that he doesn't use. It is fun to debate such a hard headed guy,but the truth is I wouldn't mind hunting with him and I'm sure there are lots of things he could teach me even if I don't always see things his way.

Britt

I agree with ruraldoc about E: I think he is an interesting guy who knows some things much better than I. He does seem to get a bit carried away about Leupolds and John Barnsness' (somewhat dated) book though.

I would happily share a (real) campfire with E. I just think I would not bring up optics in the conversation...

Ain't none of us perfect!

John

But some of us will admit that.

I don't believe you are dishonest Brit. But I do question your conclusions concerning some things optical. E

After years of hunting in very low light conditions.I could not agree more.Lupies second tier glass and coatings just dont cut it.
Right now im pig hunting north of Del Rio and theres not a lupie in camp.We hunt only at night.
dave

As JB stated a VX II is using 1998 technology (coatings) - this is why this glass will fall way behind a Swaro or Zeiss and I suspect many others.

My Swaro will give me a solid 4-5 minutes of extra shooting time compared to my comparable VX III - and it's got nothing to do with focus, different magnification, etc. Better glass and coatings make a big difference!

4 to 5 minutes is a very long time.lupie just dont cut it.Never did.Never will.
dave

Bullshit.