|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,742
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,742 |
E-
your unreal man. I give you credit for staying the course no matter what. I dont know how many people on how many different boards disagree with you on this based on their tests with their own eyes but that isnt good enough for you becauser you are the only person in the world who knows how to focus a scope. Leupolds are great scopes. you refuse to belive anything could be better. I just dont understand why you think that. You base things on tests that are years old, when in reality the only tests that matter are the tests of an individual's own eyes because they are ultimately pulling the trigger. Its amazing all these expensive scope companies stay in business-- according to you everyone should have realized long ago they are just a big waste of money.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 298
Campfire Member
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 298 |
E, ...You base things on tests that are years old, when in reality the only tests The tests E refers to are old, no question about it. Since 1993 many new scopes came in the market. But that is not the main issue. The real problem is that E refers to outdated tests that are flawed. You cannot characterize the optical performance of a scope by just determining the light transmission though it. And you don�t have to be a scientist to understand that. At day, I can see the same with or without sunglasses that cut about 70% of the light (30% light transmission). But how well I can see depends upon my eyes resolution. A scope test that doesn�t confider that is just pure junk. Here is once again a quote from a very qualified source, US Optics, 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.
So the tests E refers to are old, thats ok. But the main problem is that these tests are invalid and cannot be used to characterize a optical devise since they mention nothing about resolution. So they are flawed and useless to say the least. Aic
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881 |
As I read the whole set of comments by US Optics, he was refering to a wide variety of scopes. He talked about "bright" as in "too bright" and their needing an aperture, or funnel, to tone them down. This sort of cheap trick is only found in the really cheap scopes like the Tascos which have nothing like the percentage of light transmition, that the top scopes have. They do have "too much light" total, and that's why they use an aperture. Without one, the stray light in the scope would degrade the image. He also plugged his so called hot, new set up. In otherwords, you got suckered by add hype. There is no mystery to the relationship of brightness to contrast. The whites are brighter and the black colored objects stand out in bolder contrasts. The other colors of the spectrum may vary a bit, depending on what wavelenths the maker of the scope chooses to work with, but the more total light means more contrast between the light colored objects and the dark colored ones. It's that simple. From then on, all the scope has to do is focus the image. E
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881 |
My disagreement is not that they didn't see what they saw. They assume that because one brand looked brighter than another that it because one scope brand is better than another. I've noticed this is often not the case. The people who do their own testing lack the knowledge as to the pitfalls of doing this. As a result, they make false assumptions based on faulty testing.
You need not spend lots of time and money doing your own testing. Many other, honest posters, with vast experience, have already done this. John Barsness is one, JJHack is another. Matt in Virginia is another. So is Cheaha. Big Stick keeps trying to tell us what works so well for him. Ray Atkinson over an accuratereloading is another. The list is endless.
For the record, we have lots of fine, bright, reliable rifle scopes these days. The truth is that the even the very best need not cost more than a good rifle. The Bushnell Elite 4200's are a good example of this. E
Last edited by Eremicus; 04/03/04.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 298
Campfire Member
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 298 |
E, 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.
Aic: bla bla bla resolution is different than brightness bla bla bla US Optics bla bla bla.. E: There is no mystery to the relationship of brightness to contrast.
E, you dropped the resolution... Finally, are you learning something here afterall <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />. I know you'll prove my exitement wrong but anyway... Aic
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,585
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,585 |
All of you fellas are beating a dead horse. It really ISN'T that hard to find a scope that fits your needs very well. What works for me may not work for Eremicus and vice versa. What makes Aicman happy might not be what makes Eremicus happy.
However Eremicus, please understand that there are many posters on the net that have done a lot of testing and some will agree with you and some won't. I do respect your opinion, BUT you do come across as someone that does not respect anybody's opinion that differs significantly from your own.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 8,806 Likes: 7
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 8,806 Likes: 7 |
Only accurate rifles are interesting.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 23,581 Likes: 23
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 23,581 Likes: 23 |
Comparing a $270 Leupold 6x42 and a S&B scope? S&B better win that test. A Leupold 6x42 gives you a whole lot of bang for your buck though. But in the end, the guy who brings home the biggest animals wins.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 10,704 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 10,704 Likes: 1 |
But in the end, the guy who brings home the biggest animals wins. Really? Hunting is a contest? What's the prize?? Dave, Out of curiosity, why are you bumping this thread from over 6 years ago TTT??
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,946 Likes: 25
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,946 Likes: 25 |
I'm beginning to think someone wearing a Leupold jumpsuit kicked his dog and drank his last beer.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,712 Likes: 8
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,712 Likes: 8 |
I really don't understand a lot of the Leupold vs. S&B (Kahles, etc) arguements that go on here. If you're paying 4 or 5 times as much for the S&B as the Leupy I'd hope you got a 4 times better scope. Go out and use that S&B and be happy but don't insinuate that I'm an idiot because Leupold or Burris is what I can afford (and that is pretty much how a lot of these arguements come across).
If you want to argue Conquest vs. Leupold that's different, it might be a worthwhile read...
'Four legs good, two legs baaaad." ---------------------------------------------- "Jimmy, some of it's magic, Some of it's tragic, But I had a good life all the way." (Jimmy Buffett)
SotG
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 12,895
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 12,895 |
SotG, I suspect many of these threads are nothing to do with optics but merely a way to pull E's chain, kinda like kids pulling the legs off a spider! Regards, Peter
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 13,436
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 13,436 |
Anyway, the S&B 4x36 I have blows all of the competition out of the water, including Leupold's fixed 4x, by a wide margin. It's kind of unreal how much better it is, after using Leupold's fixed 4x for years, and thinking it was the best. The best just got a whole lot better. I think that variables have a place, but I'm seriously questioning their use on big game rifles, where you set a variable to some intermediate setting, and leave it there??? The only time I used the max setting on a variable was for zeroing the scope/rifle combo. I do like a 6-20x variable on a groundhog rifle, so I can dial the power back at mid-day when the mirage is bad.
Don Buckbee
JPFO NRA Benefactor Member NSSA Life Member
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,712 Likes: 8
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,712 Likes: 8 |
Anyway, the S&B 4x36 I have blows all of the competition out of the water, including Leupold's fixed 4x, by a wide margin. I'm sure that is the case, in fact I truely hope so. And I agree with you regarding fixed power scopes on BG rifles Don, the only variable I have mounted is on a .223 varmint gun. Would be interested in looking at a 6x Conquest if Zeiss would bring one out.
'Four legs good, two legs baaaad." ---------------------------------------------- "Jimmy, some of it's magic, Some of it's tragic, But I had a good life all the way." (Jimmy Buffett)
SotG
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 10,704 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 10,704 Likes: 1 |
Don,
How's the eye relief on the S&B 4x? On paper it looks short (3.3"). Is the eye relief critical?
I've been using the Kahles Helia C 4x36mm. Good glass and the eye relief is a little larger (3.54").
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,044
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,044 |
I think the Leupold fixed scopes are good, durable scopes that work well. I find the Leupold fixed scopes are very good on rifles where weight, size and/or durability are a concern. I especially like the 6x36 Leupold and think ounce for ounce and dollar for dollar is one of the best scopes going. Are they as good as a S&B? No, but that's not a fair comparison as S&B's cost multiples of what a Leupold does.
Variable scopes are especially useful for a hunter with one rifle and hunts in woods and plains. That said, we don't seem to have many one rifle hunters on this forum.
I agree that a 6x Conquest would be interesting. I don't agree that the guy with the biggest animal wins. I think they guy who has the most fun hunting with his family and friends wins.
"The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that lightening ain't distributed right." - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 23,581 Likes: 23
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 23,581 Likes: 23 |
I don't agree that the guy with the biggest animal wins. I think they guy who has the most fun hunting with his family and friends wins.
I've seen guys theorize about needing a 1k+ scope to gain that extra 3 minutes of hunting time, or needing a high x scope to pick out the biggest mule deer from a running herd 800yds away, or being able to see bullet holes at 200yds etc. My point being that a scope isn't going to make the difference in the hunt, and what ultimately really matters is what hits the ground. Hunters kill animals, not scopes. What underwear I wear has more of an effect on my hunt than what scope I happen to have on a rifle. If you want to use high dollar scopes, go ahead. I know some very successful guys use them. I also know some very successful guys who run $270 scopes.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 10,704 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 10,704 Likes: 1 |
My point being that a scope isn't going to make the difference in the hunt Generally that's true, in most cases and applications. However, there are exceptions. For me, I utilize the expensive S&B Zenith Flash Dot for a very specific purpose. Hunting feral hogs well after nightfall and in extreme thick dense cover. Simply put, everything else on the market just doesn't compare (unless one forks out even more thousands for Gen 3 and/or a FLIR). Granted, a highly specialized nitche, but it is what it is.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,446
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,446 |
Leupold vs. Schmidt & Bender - C'mon man!!
That's like comparing a Datsun against a Ferrari.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 23,581 Likes: 23
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 23,581 Likes: 23 |
Datsun vs a Ferrari? You guys sure are proud of your scopes!
Last edited by Calvin; 08/20/10.
|
|
|
|
329 members (1badf350, 222Sako, 1Longbow, 160user, 06hunter59, 12344mag, 28 invisible),
10,251
guests, and
1,056
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,195,340
Posts18,546,412
Members74,060
|
Most Online21,066 May 26th, 2024
|
|
|
|