Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Low Light Observations

+1 Jon

E, just 1 question!

BSA Sweet .223 3-12X40 Fully Muticoated 3" of eye relief.

Leupold VX III 3.5-10X40 Fully Multicoated 3.5-4.4" eye relief

Zeiss 2.5-10x42 Victory Diavari Fully Multicoated 3.5" eye relief

Now for the question, are the Fully Multicoated qualities the same or close to the same on these 3 scopes?

I know the power and the bell sizes are a bit different what about the coating qualities?

From your philosophy the BSA should be the clearest correct?

Fully Multicoated + shortest eye relief = clearest.

That's if I have read your post's correctly.

Notice the very last part"under actual field conditions"Interesting.
Cant imagine any company developing something and then
shareing it.
dave

They don't...

BrockDad, I'm going to the range today to give some focusing lessons. Hopefully there will be some computer access at the Greystone Psychiatric Hospital so I can report back to guys. Wish me luck.

Roy

Very funny, BD. How come I didn't see any reference in your extensive testing of rifle scopes to the BSA products ? After spending $50,000 and over 2500 hrs of effort, you didn't get around to these significant rifle scopes ? For the same reason I didn't bother qualifing my comments to that extent. They aren't anywhere near the same class as the fully multicoated Leupold, Zeiss, Swarovski, S&B, the Bushnell Elite 4200's, the Burris's, the fully multicoated Nikons and the FC Sightrons, etc. I simply pressumed we were talking about that class of scope.
All of the above test out within a few scant points of each other when tested for light transmition. Yet they don't resolve an image the same among them.
That leaves with two potential explanations. Either it's the "secret glass and coatings formula" they have that makes them better, or it's Leupold much more forgiving eye boxes and longer eye relief that make the difference.
Now, if you, and those like you, wish to judge a rifle scope's usefulness by it's apparent image brightness and it's ability to resolve the finest details of it's image, that's your call. As to "huge differences," just what are we talking about here ? Being able to see both .25 and .30 caliber bullet holes vs. .30 caliber bullet holes at 100 yds. ?
I beleive that other qualities are more important than that. Especially when they make a difference as to how well I can shoot at game. E

One loopie will be a fine.The next a turd.Just ask Matt about his loopie fixed 6Xs.Enough said.
dave

Dave, you should read the article in the latest Rifleshooter magazine by Boddington. He talks specifically about the advantages of high end glass with lighted reticles and how useful they are for whitetail hunting.

Roy

When I was a flyfishing fanatic...in Michigan, we fished the "Hex" hatch, (a very large mayfly that emerges after dark and brings the big Brown Trout out of the brushpiles) on the South Branch and Manistee. Anyhow, we would patch our dominant eye about dusk and wait at the stream edge until the hatch...sometimes an hour and a half after dark. Taking off the patch would allow to re-tie knots and see much better in the dark. Maybe this is an idea for us late in the day riflemen. Or just a new Pirate craze? Bill

And here�s a great example of how the quality of the glass itself matters with the most apples to apples comparison that will ever be possible:

Falcon Optics recently poopy-canned most of a production run of scopes, costing them hundreds and hundreds of sales. The scopes were simply not up to the optical standard they desired for that scope. They traced the problem back to the glass itself used at the factory. Some scopes had been made using the specified grade of glass, but somehow most had their lenses cut from glass specified to two different, inferior standards.

So here you have the exact same �fully multi-coatings,� lenses otherwise made the same, identical optical designs, same objective sizes, same power ranges, same eye reliefs, same sized �eyeboxes,� same amount of �light polution��..scopes identical in absolutely every other way. The only difference was quality of the raw glass itself used. And it made a big difference. Big enough it was not only noticable, but big enough the company took a huge financial hit and canceled hundreds of orders rather than let any users get inferior scopes with their name on them.