|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 751
Campfire Regular
|
OP
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 751 |
Geez E being so devoted to Leupold I would have thought that you would have committed the Leupold instruction book to memory. Nowhere have I seen that I am to focus the eyepiece looking at something 100-200 yards away(unless that's how far away the sky is). Here is the instructions from their FAQ site: "How do I Focus the Eyepiece of my Leupold?
Focusing the Reticle Have you ever looked through a scope and had the reticle seem soft or fuzzy? If so, this means the eyepiece is not properly adjusted to your eye. Focusing is simple with Leupold scopes, because they have a generous focusing range, and because no tools are required. Just follow these steps: Secure the scope and firearm in a firm rest. Point the scope at a light colored background object. With the scope approximately four inches from your eye the reticle should appear sharp and crisp; if it does not, it is necessary to adjust the focus by means of the eyepiece. If your Leupold scope is one of our models with an eyepiece that has a lock ring, follow these simple steps: 1. Grasp the eyepiece with your hand and back it away from the lock ring. Once the lock ring is free from the eyepiece, turn it clockwise away from the eyepiece to keep it out of the way during the adjustment. 2. If you tend to hold things away from yourself to see them clearly (you are far-sighted) turn the eyepiece counter-clockwise by three or four turns. If you hold things close to yourself to see them clearly (you are near-sighted) turn the eyepiece clockwise by three of four turns. 3. Looking through the scope when pointed at the sky, take a few quick glances at the reticle. The focus of the reticle should be noticeably different from when you started. Continue this process until the reticle appears clear and sharp. 4. When you are satisfied with the image of the reticle, turn the lock ring so that it rests firmly against the eyepiece. If your Leupold scope is one of our models with a fast-focus eyepiece, follow these simple steps: 1. All adjustment is made with the eyepiece. 2. Look through the scope with quick glances while focusing the reticle image. If you tend to hold things away from yourself to see them clearly (far-sighted) turn the eyepiece ring counter-clockwise until the reticle is clear and sharp. If you hold them close to yourself to see them clearly (near-sighted) turn the eyepiece ring clockwise until the reticle is sharp and clear. If your eyesight changes, readjust the eyepiece. As we age, eyesight normally changes. You may want to check the sharpness of the reticle on your scope every few years to ensure it is still adjusted correctly for your eye. NOTE: To protect the integrity of the waterproof seal of every Leupold Golden Ring scope, an internal mechanism prevents the eyepiece from coming off the scope. " Actually I read the instructions but found it simpler to follow the instructions on the video of Maj John Plasterer (spelling?) & find a light coloured object like the ceiling in a room & focus the reticle against that. What I really want to know E is where are you taking this rationale? Any useful conclusion? FWIW I focus a scope once & generally don't touch it, Euro or non Euro style as long as the reticle continues to appear sharp & clear. In the test I did not change the focus on the Leupold or on the S&B. So I focussed both scopes at a distance of about 5 yards & that is where they have stayed. But E are you really suggesting that when I see a Deer in my sights at 30 yards & my Leupold scope was focussed at 100 yards that I start fiddling with the eyepiece to get a better image? That is insane!! Is that any way to hunt?? How would I keep track of what distance it was focussed last? If you have a test that will show that Leupold's optical performance is superior, please outline it & I will try my best to follow & report my findings. I'm here to learn & simply reporting my findings so others can share in the info as they have shared with me. I actually followed your advice in buying a 6 x 42 with a Premier reticles 4a reticle. I like the reticle, I like the extra long eye relief which was needed for a Ruger 1, but its optical performance while adequate is not superb like my S&B. I believe in the USA you can get a S&B on trial for free. So E why don't you borrow one do the test against the chart & report your findings. You can focus to your heart's desire. Regards, JohnT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 8,760 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 8,760 Likes: 5 |
It appears that while scopes may be variable, opinions run more towards the fixed variety. JohnT , S&B has the " Seeing is believing program". You buy the scope. They ship the scope to you . You have three days to test it as much as you want. If you dont like it send it back to them. As long as you dont mark it up in any way . They will return your money . No questions asked. I actually did it once. Keep us informed if you do any more testing . dave
![[Linked Image]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Logo_Schmidt_%26_Bender.jpg) Only accurate rifles are interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 58,583 Likes: 10
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 58,583 Likes: 10 |
I like to focus my reticle against the clouded sky,or the refrigerator. Both work well(for me).
I don't phiddle [bleep] much with my A/O's or side focus models and truly prefer non adjustable versions at and under 10x. I drive a stock the same way,pretty much every time and concentrate on cheekweld and trigger control more than anything.
I shoot with both blinkers open,at all distances and likely do a ton of other things all backasswards.
It works for me though.....................
Brad says: "Can't fault Rick for his pity letting you back on the fire... but pity it was and remains. Nothing more, nothing less. A sad little man in a sad little dream."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881 |
What I am infering is nothing more complicated than suggesting that the tests were unententionally biased. The standard focusing instructions for the Leupold were designed for overall hunting conditions of big game. For that, you don't need a razor sharp image at 20-30 yds. You can have one if you wish, but you need to refocus the scope for that. Then you need to accept the limitations of such a setting. Targets at longer ranges, like a 100 yds or more will be way out of focus. Better to accept something not razor sharp at shorter ranges than one at longer ranges.
With a euro style focusing system, one can readily change this if you wish. The drawback to doing so is that one must remember to return it to whatever setting covers the widest possible range of potential conditions, etc. or you could wind up with taking a 200 yd. shot with the image way out of focus. Much tougher to do than a 20-30 yd. shot with a less than great image.
Somebody wanted to see test results ? A fellow named Hjortejeger, who posts over at the Accuratereloading.com site, posted some 1998 DEVA tests that found the latest S&B scopes at 90%. Way back in 1993, both Leupold and Zeiss were building scopes that tested as high as 94%. In the 1993 tests, S&B's scopes were testing at 85-89%. Big deal. All of them are so close as to essentially make them equal. Heck, different production runs will vary a point or two at least.
I'm not suggesting that one fool with anything, magnification setting, focus, or parallax, when the momment of truth arrives. Just assume a good shooting position and start the trigger squeeze. So, set the thing to cover the widest possible conditions. Like the instructions suggest. E
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 8,760 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 8,760 Likes: 5 |
E, I dont see any unentention bias. The guy does a apples to apples resolution test and gives us the results. I could not really define why I thought the image from the S&B was better to my eyes before, it just appeared so. Now I understand better. Also I now know a Fixed Leupold isn't as good as a variable S&B. Seems like a pretty efficient way to determine how good a resolution your getting . dave
Only accurate rifles are interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 298
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 298 |
The standard focusing instructions for the Leupold were designed for overall hunting conditions of big game. For that, you don't need a razor sharp image at 20-30 yds. Well, I guess if you hunt adult elephants at 20 yards then you wouldn't mind a low resolution scope <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> E, you are very confused. From what you say, you cannot focus a Leupold at a distance of 20-30 yards. Well you are wrong. Remember, just turn/rotate the ocular till the image gets clear. If it never gets clear, it means the resolution of the scope is low... Aic
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 298
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 298 |
I'm not suggesting that one fool with anything, magnification setting, focus, or parallax, when the momment of truth arrives. Just assume a good shooting position and start the trigger squeeze. So, set the thing to cover the widest possible conditions. Like the instructions suggest. E
E, if you are mentally incapable to be able to use/focus a scope, you shouldn't be carrying a rifle in the first place. I'm sorry E, you write so much BS... Aic
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 297
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 297 |
We all have to admit that Leupold is the benchmark of scopes . All scopes are compared to Leupold .
If we buy a cheaper scope brand than Leupold we have to rationalize and fool ourself that we have as good a scope for the money as Leupold .
If we buy a more expensive scope than Leupold then we have to rationalize and fool ourself that we have a better scope than Leupold to justify the extra cost .
We must also admit than most of the Leupold vs brand xxx post is just baiting E . You guys are jealous of E and Leupolds good reputation of quality .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,742
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,742 |
starjcb-- Excellent post!!!!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Thats about what it seems like
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,401
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,401 |
James
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines, the commandments of men. Mt 15:9
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 122
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 122 |
Sometimes we need to start something to keep our mind active and away from the tv. Kenny
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,157
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,157 |
I own quite a few leupolds and love them dearly. Leupold is my "go to" scope of choice. They're rugged as hell and offer good optics to boot, at a price I can afford. Other makers (bushnell 4200, nikon) offer optics as good but the scope isn't built as well in my opinion, therefore I spend the few extra bucks on leupolds most of the time.
That being said, I also own a couple of swarovskis, and some of my buddies own a few Schmidt & Benders. The glass is unquestionably better in them than the Leupolds. Are the Leupolds "good enough", sure they are, or I wouldn't be using them, but the high end stuff is noticably better. I sincerely doubt that the difference will ever cost anyone a kill, but don't piss down my back and tell me that it's raining by claiming the Leupold optics are as good as the top end austrian/german stuff, it just ain't so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,742
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,742 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881 |
Better ? Where is your explaination of the difference ? The lab tests all say the Leupolds are just as good as the S&B's or the Swaros. That means "the better glass/coatings" argument is not valid. The best glass/coatings transmit the most light. Leupolds transmit 92-94% of the light that strikes them. S&B's about 90%. From then on it's a focusing issue.
What sometimes happens is our tester doesn't bother reading the specs or understanding how things work. If he did, then the results would follow the lines of the lab testing.
If you want to spend $1200 on a scope, it's your money. But when you try to push something as better, when you've odviously biased the tests, I'm going to call you on it. E
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 298
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 298 |
E Better ? Where is your explaination of the difference ? The lab tests all say the Leupolds are just as good as the S&B's or the Swaros. That means "the better glass/coatings" argument is not valid. The best glass/coatings transmit the most light. Leupolds transmit 92-94% of the light that strikes them. S&B's about 90%. From then on it's a focusing issue.
What sometimes happens is our tester doesn't bother reading the specs or understanding how things work. If he did, then the results would follow the lines of the lab testing.
E, all these people have been telling you that the lab tests that just evaluate the light transmission of a scope are far from descriptive of the scope's low light performance. So when people test the scopes and find results different than the lab results, all it means is that the lab results don't represent a true optical performance benchmark. Unless you are referring to lab tests that describe something different that light transmission numbers, in which case please elaborate...Do these lab tests measure resolution in any way? If not, why? Shouldn't they? People claim it's all about resolution. Light transmission tells you nothing about glass quality and grinding precision. It tell you nothing about resolution and aberrations. You don't have to believe any of them but at least you should give some credit to US optics from where I quote US Optics quote
When reviewing riflescopes today, most editors are bright enough to use a proper resolution chart to determine full field resolution. Hopefully, they will soon learn to observe and be able to evaluate the other problems most scopes have, such as coma, chromatic aberrations, light transmission, fogproofing, adequate diopter adjustment, parallax and usable true eye relief, (true distance of use in which 95% of the field of view can be seen.) The term �Brightness� has no place in proper scope evaluation.
E But when you try to push something as better, when you've odviously biased the tests, I'm going to call you on it. E You must have had a mirror in front of you while writing these words? Didn't you? Aic
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881 |
Your are correct that brightness does not tell the story when it comes to low light performance. But it does tell you how good the lenses and their coatings are.
The brightness is related to resolution. The more of the image you have passing through the scope w/o loss, i.e. brightness, the more the focusing system has to work with.
Low light performance depends more on magnification and usable exit pupil than on lense coatings and lense quality assuming reasonable quality of glass. The difference between a fully multicoated scope like a Leupold VariXIII and a single coated Leupold VariXI is only 7-9%. But the Twilight Factors of a 4X28 vs. a 6X42 are on the order of a 50% higher for the 6X. That means the 6X will be that much brighter when the light is bad. E
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,918
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,918 |
Lab Tests???!!! Are we back on that again? Where are they?? I want to see the results of tests, say in the last two years!! Where are they published!!?? I want to see them!!! Until I do, I won't question the sight of my eyes. See my test results above. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 298
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 298 |
E, the 6x42 will indeed gather and direct to your eye much more light energy than the 4x28, since it has a larger objective and the right magnification for low light scope exit pupil/eye entrance pupil match. The more energy in low light the better for the eye�s receptors to be activated in a useful way. That is no doubt. What if there is enough energy for the eye to see something in low light but due to aberrations the objects edge is not sharp enough to be distinguishable from the background? It�s easier to detect a shape in low light conditions when the edge has a sharper shade transition with respect to the background rather than the case were the shade transition is smoothed out by aberrations. It�s easier to detect a shade difference transition when its abrupt compared to the case of a little brighter object with a brighter background and a less abrupt transition. It�s human nature. To make an analogy, if you need to attract someone�s visual attention with a faint light from a distance, you rather strobe it than illuminate in a constant fashion�That�s why resolution is very important in low light, and to that respect in any light, vision
When you claim than your 6x42 is better in low light than a VXIII with similar transmission, it�s not due to the 1% transmission difference but rather due to the probable higher resolution of the fixed scope lenses used�.even if they are not fully multicoated and index matched etc�
Take two similar scopes and make a resolution test at day time. The one with more resolution will most likely outperform the other in low light even if that �other� has a 2-5% percentage point more transmission, a little larger objective etc�Try it with 2 of your scopes and see for yourself and let us know of your findings...
Aic
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881 |
Ah, Aicman.
Unless it is really dark, where my eye opens to a 7mm pupil size, the VXIII 3.5-10X40 will out perform my 6X42 Leupold. That's because it is capable of higher magnification that more than off sets any difference they have in lense numbers. It is a rare twilight condition that allows one's eye to open to a full 7mm pupil size. The standard twilight condition opens the eye to about a 5mm.
The rest of your post is confused. From what I gather you still don't understand the relationship between percentage of light transmited by a scope and it's relationship to contrast and resolution. Try reading Barsness's book, "Optics for the Hunter". E
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 298
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 298 |
E, From what I gather you still don't understand the relationship between percentage of light transmited by a scope and it's relationship to contrast and resolution. Try reading Barsness's book, "Optics for the Hunter". E There is no relation between resolution and light transmission. People that claim that optical performance starts and stops with light transmission are either ignorant or marketing folks...JBs book can be many things and give a sensible view to optics for the hunter as hunting equipment but when it comes to optics as a science I�ll stick to science... I�ll quote once again this
US Optics. When reviewing riflescopes today, most editors are bright enough to use a proper resolution chart to determine full field resolution. Hopefully, they will soon learn to observe and be able to evaluate the other problems most scopes have, such as coma, chromatic aberrations, light transmission, fogproofing, adequate diopter adjustment, parallax and usable true eye relief, (true distance of use in which 95% of the field of view can be seen.) The term �Brightness� has no place in proper scope evaluation.
Do you claim that the above quote is nonsense and I should read something else, like JBs book when it comes to pure optical performance evaluation? It�s a yes or no answer... E: Unless it is really dark, where my eye opens to a 7mm pupil size, the VXIII 3.5-10X40 will out perform my 6X42 Leupold. What if it's really dark? What do you define are real twilight??? Don't you think you should compare two scopes for low light performance when the light is the lowest??? What is this low light vs lower light conditions. Answer a direct question. Which scope of the two performs the best at the under the most adverse light conditions. It's a simple question... And why when it's not really dark the higher magnification VXIII outperforms your 6x? Don't give me the TF ... Let me help you with the why... It's because the higher magnification provides better resolution...Something you call "brightness" Aic
|
|
|
|
|
567 members (1beaver_shooter, 12344mag, 160user, 1936M71, 1badf350, 1lesfox, 57 invisible),
2,582
guests, and
1,248
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,931
Posts18,498,662
Members73,983
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
