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

BD,
At this time for a purpose built 100-200 yard IBS/NBRSA benchrest scope.I dont think anyone can touch them.
http://www1.ttcn.ne.jp/~koto-br/english.html
I have heard the stupid statment about euro scopes and benchrest for years."Well I dont see any euro scopes in BR".Well Duh,lets see.Take a look around and see if you can find a fixed power 36x or 40x euro scope.Let me know if you find one.At any given time theres only about 5000 BR shooters active in the US.Euro scope makers dont make a BR scope.And dont bother for such a small market.Benchrest shooting in Europe is pretty limited.Pretty simple.
Leupold dominates short range BR.Of that there is no question.
But the frustration of trying to keep one in operational condition will drive you nuts.That same frustration has lead to frozen reticals.Kept Mr.Tucker in business for 20 some years fixing lupies screw ups and the development of the March scope.
Its Leupolds market to loose.There doing a fine job.
Nightforce owns the 1000 yard BR market.End of story.
dave

I like to check in on the optics forum from time to time. It is the fastest way I know to identify posters who continually like to use personal attacks--then ignore them.

You won't; you never do.

Many of us would find your testing informative. Any possibility of your posting? Don't be concerned about the $hit slinging(probably only one) you can use ignore.

AFP,
The strife on this optics boad is caused by one man.And I would never even think of ingoring him.
dave

That's what I "like" about guys like BrooksDad. He assures us that you've done alot of scope testing because nobody else can be trusted. Yet you assume we will trust you and your results. You tell us what your conclusions are, but nothing at all as to the details of what and how you tested and how they compared.
We are to assume that you know more about how scopes work than guys like John Barsness. We are to assume that you have more field experience with such things than guys like JJHack, or have more expereince with high dollar rifles and scopes than guys like D'Arcy Echols.
I've listened to alot of your type for a long time. Funny thing is that when it comes to telling us how great your choice(s) are you either make the mistake of making very generalized statements, or the even worse mistake of trying to tell those of us that have lots of field time, that our scopes don't do what we've been doing with them for a long time.
Then, even better, are the comparissons of Tascos being as good as anybody's according to me. I've never said that. I've never said Tasco's, or BSA'a are as good as anything. But I have said that the Burris FFII is so close to the fancy euros in performance as to make the difference not worth it even if they were fairly close in price. E

E;

Ever figure that the guy is only gonna talk about what he's seen and done? You know, just like JJ or JB?

FWIW, if that's what he does, I'll accept his take on things, and compare it to my own take on the same, when I use the same. You know, just like JB and JJ do, and expect us to do, when we actually use the same....

Let me get this right. JB et all, expect us to follow in their foot steps, testing and comparing everything. Spending our precious money and time redoing ALL of what they've already done ? Now that's funny. I had the distinct impression that Barsness wrote "Optics for the Hunter" to help us poor, struggling hunters make informed choices so we don't have to do all of that. He goes to great lenths to to describe just what he does and why. All for what ? So you'll know his tests are valid.
Tell me, VA. Did you go to school and let others teach you how to read, write and do numbers ? I take it you had to reducate yourself afterwards because you discovered the only valid information is what you experience yourself. Right ? E

Nope, JB et al., expect us to take their results for what they are: their individual results. I have NEVER, NOT ONCE, seen or heard JB or JJ tell another person that they couldn't be seeing what they were seeing, simply because it didn't jive with what they've been told or even what they've seen with their own eyes. Not once.

Learning the mechanics is one thing: being dogmatic in believing that only you can do something, or see something, or that (worse) only the people you listen to know how to do something and only their experience is valid is foolish.

You know full well that I ask your opinion on binos. Why? 'Cause you use what you talk about, and I value that.

You also know full well that I don't ask your opinion (much) on 'scopes. Why? 'Cause you don't use most of what you talk about.

See the difference?

Optically,a person can read all that he wants about which scope should be brighter,or which one should be clearer,according to someone else,but the truth is that all that matters,is which one is clearer and brighter to his eyes.
Only a fool would believe someone else's word over their own eyes.And only a bigger fool would expect them to.

+1
dave

The biggest fool of all is one who thinks his eyes can't be fooled. E

Ah, but you are right. JB and JJ don't tell anyone that they don't know what they are doing. Even if true.
Being dogmatic about believing one scope tester over another is not my choice ? To believe that different results one gets over another is the result of one understanding what he is doing vs. another who odviously does not is foolish ? Particularly in light of my own experiences ?
If you want to accuse me of being blunt, perhaps too blunt, that may be valid, but foolish ?
Here's why. I've been burned once, and only once, on an optics choice, by following the advice of another. For that, I've saved countless hours of wasteful testing and countless dollars in testing rifle scopes. I have stuff that works very well. Better than most of them need to work. And they work better than many here believe. Why ? Because I listened to those who know this stuff better than I do. Even to learn who they are, you must learn the differences. Sure, there have been other misteps along the way as well. Stubby like to point out the bussiness of Leupold's Diamond Coat Coatings being made from diamonds. Fine. An easy to learn and cost free lession. All it cost me was a little pride.
I'm about to buy yet another binocular. One of a type and class I have no experience with at all. Yet people like 458 Win and Mule Deer speak highly of it. I am very confident it will work well for what I intend to use it. Why ? Because I trust their evaluation of it and I have some knowledge/expereince that relates to my choice. That, to me, is what this is all about.
If some wish to say the euro rifle scopes are better than Leupolds, fine. I'll point out what I understand of the differences. Particularly if my expereinces with the Leupold is different and why I think that was not their expereince in making the comparision. Anyone can consider all of that when they make their choice(s) and consider these things as they use it. Who looses in that way of doing things ? But, in order to give them a choice of considerations, somebody has to speak up. Even if he is a little blunt about it.
In contrast, your way of doing this consumes much time and money. Time and money I choose to put to better uses. Worse is the fact that w/o the knowledge as to how these things work, you will not learn anything for your efforts. E

It's not that I don't trust THEIR evaluations. It's that I don't trust someone else paraphrasing their evaluations, or extrapolating their evaluations to stuff that neither JB or JJ or anyone else actually evaluated.

Helluva difference there.

If you've never used something, and neither have the folks you're parroting, how do you have any real baseline for your comments?

FWIW, most of the stuff being talked about now WASN'T EVEN AROUND 10 years ago when JB wrote "Optics for the Hunter". I know; I have the book, and I know EXACTLY what makers and models he discusses there, and exactly where he leaves off.

So does he. So do you.

You don't have any actual experience with many of the products that you offer advice about.



Almost everyone knows this stuff better than you do.



So was it the pride that led you to lie to try and cover up your mistake?And it did cost you more than pride,it cost you credibility,something that you have very little of left.



You can't understand the differences,because you haven't actually looked through the European scopes and compared them to your Leupolds.



The only way to know how things will look through a particular scope with your eyes,is to actually look through that particular scope with your eyes.

Mr. E In light of calling most everyone accept Barsness, Hack, Echols and Yourself ignorant, stupid, etc...

Do you have a clue what your ramblings sound like to those many many here that do know how and why a scope works. Obviously Not!!!!!

I have great amounts of respect for people such as Barsness, Hack and Echols, they know how to talk to people without just assuming their idiots. These individuals have the forsight to explain and understand that as there writings come to press it is somewhat dated already!!!! I'm sure you will tell us that your Pentium 33 will outperform all of our computers because.....YOU SAID SO.... Sorry Mr. E That dog don't hunt. I have ZERO respect for you and unfortunatly respect is something that's earned.

You have no clue what most of these people do for livings and how much time they spend with optics. You have no clue how much time they spend with lenses and coatings but you will be the first to explain to them that they have no clue what they are looking at, find any Irony in this.

Having spoken to people such as Barsness and others, they will agree that it's hard to keep up with the new added lines each year, it's hard to keep up with new coatings every year but you insist your fixed 4X has all the abilities that these new additions have.

Again Mr. E, if you only compare what you have vs. what you have. What you have is going to look the best every time.

I have no clue how someone with your lack of comparison can sit back and be a critic for those that have looked at many optics.

I feel as though I have something that I can share with many here but the obstacles you put in most conversations will never let that happen.

Regards,

Rob

Excellent post. You & VA have similar approaches. It does get more than agitating to constantly read about one's inability to focus a scope & if they only knew how, a euro scope wouldn't appear brighter superior or whatever. A suggested statement would be." Based on my experience if you focus a Leupold scope correctly you may find it equal to a comparable euro scope. I & my friends have found Leupold scopes superior to euro scopes however, your evaluation & eyes may determine otherwise." I don't believe the constant bickering would exist if something similar was posted. Hope you still post your test results.

No it's not - not even remotely.



Ooops...it appears your memory is about as correct as your posts. Mule Deer, in his post on this thread, stated, "Some of the stuuff I wrote about in OPTICS FOR THE HUNTER is still valid. Some is not, due to technical advances, and I personally really wish everything in it was not held up as the last word on everything in optics 10 years later." I believe that was for your benefit E.



You, above all people should not be lecturing others about what they remember from school when you can't even remember what was posted in this thread.

And there lies my single biggest gripe with E, he assumes we are all stupid and talks down to everyone on this board. Until this stops I will continue my work to make sure everything he says (which is inaccurate) gets challenged.

BD,
I two would like to hear your impressions of the scopes you tested.
dave