Still looking at various scopes, I found a Nightforce scope, NXS 3.5-15x50, illuminated, with the NP1-RR reticle. How does that compare to the S&B Zenith 3-12x50, the Zeiss Victory 2.5-10x50, and the Swarovski Z6 2-12x50 illuminated models? The price difference isn't an issue for me per se, but I also don't want to spend an extra $700 without getting a corresponding performance/quality increase. Thanks in advance for the advice.

I do not see the appeal of the nightforce scope but apparently some do. my preferences are

schmidt & bender
swarovski & zeiss (a tie)
nightforce

I imagine that they are all pretty good scopes.

I have the Ziess V series and it's incredible,also have the Swaro Z6,not quite as bright but huge field of view. These are the two finest hunting scopes in the world in my opinion.

Britt

I've got 4 -Zeiss VM/V 3x12x56 AND PREFER THEM OVER SWAROVSKI,I had a PH 4X16X50 SOLD IT TO BUY ANOTHER Zeiss,I'll replace the other Leupolds I have 1 at a time

First and foremost the NXS is a pure tactical scope, the others mentioned are hunting scopes. IMO, its kinda like comparing apples to oranges. Sure the Euro hunting scopes mentioned will have slightly better glass, but the NXS is considerably more robust/durable than the hunting scopes. The glass in a NXS is very, very good a bit better than Leupold.

I love NXS scopes and have 8 of them on my tactical rifles. They are xtremely durable, repeatable, reliable. They are my scope of choice, but keep in mind especially for a hunting rig, they are rather heavy- almost a pound more thatn a compareable Leupold.

after owning all of them, I think the swaro PH is a heck of a scope but they are all good. the s&b's will weigh the most
I think swaros patented 4 point coil spring is rock solid and an improvement over the standard leaf springs most commonly used..

john barness once said he has only seen 1 swaro PH ever break...
THE PH had less eye relief though ...
swaros warranty/service is 2nd to none

I've got news for you. All of the major brands that make fully multicoated scopes in that size are all very close in performance. So say the lab tests. Save your money and buy one of the cheaper, fully multicoated scopes. If you insist on more magnification than 10X, then you should consider either an Adjustable Objective, or a Side Focus/Parallax feature. Your call. E

You may want to also consider the US Optics line of heavy duty scopes like the SN3 1.8X to 10X. I have one and it is without a doubt the best scope I have ever had. Price is high but you do get what you pay for. They are custom built to your specs, many ways to configure these scopes. They are also on the heavy side but that is the only negative thing I can say about them.

I've looked through Zeiss "V" series and the Z6 and can tell you they are unreal compared to a VX II or III - no comparison. I could care less what a lab test says, the glass is clearly better on these models, period. It's no different on binos . . .

I normally NEVER get into this but.......

NOT ALL COATINGS OR GLASS ARE THE SAME. JUST LIKE SAYING ALL PAINT IS THE SAME.

I'm in agreement w/you.

For E and anyone else that thinks all Fully Multi-Coatings are equal.

One of the great myths of rifle scopes. They all test within a percentage point or two of each other these days. The only exceptions are Zeiss and Leupold. They test a tad higher. Not because of any "secret" coatings or glass, but because they do a better job of baffling and painting the inside of their scopes against stray light.
The differences our "expert" scope testers here see don't come up when guys like Barsness test and compare scopes. That's because he knows how to do it properly. He can do this because he understands fully how they work. Unlike some here.
Wasn't always the case. Back before the early 90's, many US style scopes didn't have fully multiocated lenses. Back then, the euros were better because they used fully multicoated lenses. But, nowadays, all the major players use them.
Properly focused and adjusted for actual, not indicated magnification, the major makers, Burris, Nikon, Bushnell's 4200's, the fully multicoated Sightrons, Weaver and Leupolds all test and perform right there with the big name euro makes. Some, but especially Leupold and the Bushnell Elite 4200's also have notably better records for holding up under recoil as well. E

[quote I've looked through Zeiss "V" series and the Z6 and can tell you they are unreal compared to a VX II or III - no comparison. I could care less what a lab test says, the glass is clearly better on these models, period. It's no different on binos . . . [/quote]

+ 1

E, I respect you but if you believe a VXII or VXIII is the equal of a Ziess V series then.........

I have read Johns book and did my own testing. I'll leave it at that.

Wonder why Johnny B or anybody else agree with your statement?

I firmly believe you don't "NEED" some of the quality available.

I'm done.........

Dave

First off no one really cares about the early 90's or holding up to recoil - both topics are off point and add no signifcant value to the discussion.

The real question is why are there 200 people around here barking at you constantly and you refuse to listen? I know we're all wrong and you're right . . . seriously look in the mirror sometime.

If you can kill a good buck with a Swaro, Zeiss or whatever you can do the same with a Leupold or Burris - no issue there. Problem is you feel like it isn't necessary to spend this much money on a scope (can't argue with that entirely) however some people have the financial ability to afford something that is optically better - and that is fact.

Question - is a Leica, Zeiss or Swaro better optically than a Burris, Leupold or Pentax in a bino? You bet and the same holds true on scopes. Wonder why? Glass and coating my friend, it's that simple.

I'd be happy to test one of my friends VM/V's against any of my Leupold's and prove to you that the Leupold will quit sooner - it won't even be that close.

By the way - thank you for sticking your nose into yet another thread where you offer nothing except starting an arguement.

During the Janauary rut I carried two rifles to the stand both Sterys,a 7mm-08 with a fully multicoated 3-9x40 Bushnell 3200 and a 270 with a Ziess V series 3-12x56.

When dusk came there were a lot of deer in the wheat field,I could see them plainly in the 8x56 binos. During the last few momments of legal shooting time,I could easily kill any of them with the big Ziess,but with the Bushnell which is clear as a bell in good light,I could not see well enough to tell if I was looking at a deer or a shadow.

If E's theory were correct,the difference in the 250 dollar scope and the 1500 dollar scope should have been negligible. But facts are facts,anybody who bothers to compare can see it for themselves. One is a nice scope that will handle most hunting very well but fails in extreme low light conditions. The other is an amazing optical instrument,built to perform in low light or even starlight conditions.

Most people don't need a Ziess V series scope to kill a deer,but for the way I hunt for seminocturnal mature trophy class whitetails,the big premium euro scopes are priceless.

I just can not get the job done with anything else,you don't see the big deer early enough to kill them with an ordinary scope.

Britt

My opinion - Schmidt&Bender. Buy it once, buy it for life!!

Eat your heart out "E":
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...&topic=0&Search=true#Post1512678
MULE DEER: "I have had three Swarovski AV's fail on me during hunting trips over the years, all zeroing problems. The PH's, however, are mechanically different and apparently much tougher. I say apparently because I've never had one fail, and have rarely heard of them failing."

Actual testing,what a novel idea. I always purchase what my eyes say are the best scope(if I can afford). I find Zeiss Conquest a quality scope at a very reasonable price & have purchased to replace Leupolds. I have a Swarovski PH on a 416 Rigby that does everything I can ask of a scope. If Leupold meets your requirement then by all means purchase. If I could see bullet holes at 200 yards as some claim, hell I would use a peep sight.

tbear- your eyes dont matter, it only matters what E tells you!!!

I wonder if E has tried pounding nails in with his Leupold scope. Nightforce has and they hold together. By the way there made in the USA, in case that mattered to anyone nowadays.

I have a 1.5-6x42mm S&B on my current 458 Lott. It served duty on my prior 458 Lott. The total weight of each gun with the scope is 11 lbs. I have approximately 700 rounds sent through both rifles with that scope (500 gr. @ 2250 fps) and no problems at all with the scope.

I'm a bit perplexed as to why a heavier scope would be more prone to zero shift than a lighter one just due to weight. The only issue I can see is that physics would tell me that a heavier scope would put more stress on the rings than a lighter one. To me that is a ring issue and not a scope issue. Use Talleys or something equivalent then one could utilize the clarity of these S&B's.

I've never had a scope move on my 378 bee and I started out with a leupold and now a nightforce, using Leupold mounts, high mounts for the NF. I lock tite and torque them up real good.
I worry more about losing my brass in the grass than the scopes.

TVAN - I did not know us optics built scopes to customer specs. Thanks for the info - not that I could afford one but it does give me one more item of customization while pondering my personal, ultimate, mythical, doubtful to ever be realized, Dream Rifle.

Yep, they'll make them as heavy and butt-ugly as you ask for.

ha ha ! that was pretty good. Still say I am going to start calling myself "recessman".

Britt: I'm intrigued with your evaluation of the Zeiss V series scopes, since some of the hunting I do entails that wretched stand-hunting for whitetails in Alberta. I've been well-served by Leups over the years but had a bad experience with a Swaro AV(much like JB's with the mechanical meltdown). So I am interested in your experience with the Zeiss V's.

I don't want a real big scope, something in the 3-9 or 2.5-10 range.Mind sharing your experiences regarding mechanical reliability,etc. of these? It will go on nothing larger than a 7 mag or 264 WM. I want some expert advice before I lay out $1500+. I don't like surprises!

Thanks in advance.

Bob

Bob,

I have been using the V series Ziess since they first came out,I have four of them that I have bought over the years.
Two are the big 3-12x56 models,two are the much more compact 2.5-10x42 models. The big scopes are on a 270 and a 270 Weatherby.
The smaller ones are on a 280 and a 270WSM.

The one on the 270 has been used the most,I have drug it around in trucks,ATVs and boats for several years and it has never changed zero or had any problems. This rifle has several hundred rounds through it as well. The 270 Weatherby has plenty of miles and dozens of rounds fired as well,no problems or zero changes to report.

The smaller scopes are newer,had one for three years and used it a good bit on a 270WSM,been on several transcontinental flights,and several boat rides up the Yellowstone. No problems to report with it.The other small scope is maybe a year old and has not been hunting,but no problems during testing and load development.

I would buy the smaller scope for use in Canada,fits better in most airline cases,and is bright beyond your wildest expectations. Get the 4A reticle,perfect for low light. For true night hunts for predators,the illuminated reticle is best,but for dusk,twilight,legal but nearly dark hunts I like the simple 4A.

Fly to Alabama,and try mine on some hogs,I think you will like them.

Britt

both the swaro and zeiss 2.5-10x42's weigh in @ 15oz....

in this european test the 2.5-10x42 swaro did well compared to the 56mm objectives


Even if someone don't like to read tests done by huntingmagazine i will quote one recent test.Unfortunately i don't have all the details. The finnish hunting magazine "Metsastys ja kalostus"(hunting and fishing) nr 3/2004 made a test of many variable scopes.The purpose of the test were to test how late they could see details with the scopes.Not necessary how late they could shoot.So the reticle has nothing to do with the results.Unfortunately i don't have the exact model names of the scopes.

4 persons made the test in the autumn, and in the winter with snow on the fields. They looked at a "paper deer" and a vision chart.

The scopes have been ranked in groups.



Group 1

Zeiss 3-12x56

Swarovski 2.5-10x56

S&B 2.5-10x56

Kahles 3-12x56



Group 2

Zeiss 2.5-10x50

Swarovski 2.5-10x42

Meopta 3-12x56



Group 3

Docter 2.5-10x48

Docter 3-12x56

Kahles 2.5-10x56

Meopta 3-12x50



Group 4

S&B 1.5-6x42

Karls Kaps 2.5-10x56



Group 5

Bushnell 3-9x50

Bushnell 2.5-10x50

Burris 2.5-10x44



Group 6

Leupold 4.5-14x50

Shirstone 4-12x56





Group 1 was 2-3hours better than group 6!

Britt: Thanks for the response and insight.By the smaller one you mean the 2.5-10x42, I assume? I'll go to the website and look.

Thanks for the invite on the hogs. I'm in Dallas on business Monday, if all plans hold up......

Sako 75,

Thanks for posting a useful test,I have never seen it before.
In our family,we actually have at least one scope from every group tested. I have to say that their results pretty much agree with what I have seen.

I think that we use euro optics so much here in the deep south because our hunting is much like a lot of European style hunting. Permanent blinds,food plots and agricultural fields,semi nocturnal game animals including deer and hogs.

For us,the advantages of euro optics outweigh the disadvantages.
We put up with large,expensive,and heavy stuff because it lets us see well enough to shoot.I can see how many hunters just don't require this kind of optical equipment. It is only when people who have not tried this stuff,claim it is of no real benefit to anybody that I dissagree with them.

Britt

Bob,

Yep that's what I intended to mean. Get a 2.5-10x42 Ziess Victory and you are all set to hunt in anything but night time conditions,and they are plenty tough in the field under rough conditions in my experience.

Britt

I'm sorry Brit, but that exactly the type of comparisions we get arounfd here that "prove" that euros are better.
First of all, the smaller Bushnell 3200 is not fully multicoated. It has one lense so coated, not all of them. The lab test difference would be on the order of 88% vs. 94 % plus.
Second one is much bigger than the other. That means it's twilight performance would be much better, try 38% better.
If you want to do a meaningful comparision, then compare a 40mm Burris FFII against a 40mm Zeiss. E

Sako75,

Good posting, with excellent info.

Thanx,

Don

Again, that simply not my expereince with smaller scopes. Contary to what you might think, we have some very dark, second growth fir forests out here. My usual tactic is to hike, in the dark, w/o lights to my stand in such places. On a really dark nights, that's no moon, and full cloud cover, I can see maybe 5 yds. after my night vision kicks in. My Leupold 6X42 works in light this low. I can't see much further than 30 yds, but it definately works. Before legal shooting time, I can see well over 300 yds. on nights like this.
Give me half a moon and semi open ground and I can target anything within 200 yds. easily during full darkness.
Others, like JJHack, have had similar experiences. You do need a heavier reticle for night hunting on the darker nights, but that's all. E

That's very unusual, Longbob. When Barsness interviewed D'Arcy Echols, he stated "At present I will not build a .458 Lott with anything but iron sights or a fixed power scope, because I haven't found a variable that will hold up. Some will last 500 rds., but on a Lott, they usually die much sooner."
When they die, they don't just shift zero. They do that and more. E

While all of that is true, but only up to a point. He says over and over, that big heavy scopes fail sooner and, on the heavy kickers much faster, as a rule, than the smaller lighter scopes. The Swaro PH is an excellent tough scope. But the big, heavy models don't do any better than anyone else's. E

Want to give us the differences in multicoating ? Got any lab tests that show any real differences ? I haven't seen any. E

I see the same few arguing the same things. Not 200 or even 20 for that matter. I'm not alone in my opinions either.
Glass and coatings in binoculars make the differences and so it is in rifle scopes ? Cfran, binoculars are built with prisms. Rifle scopes are straight telescopes w/o prisms. The major optical differences in binoculars has much more to do with
the coatings on the prisms as anything else.
Rifle scope with adequate exit pupil sizes don't quit during low light cfran. Eyes do. Older eyes which can't cope with the reduction in light.
Until you can understand these differences, you won't understand how one rifle scope looks so much different than another. That and few other things you and I have discuseed over the years. E

I know D'Arcy personally and have spoken with him on many occasions. I wanted him to build my Lott, but he was so booked at the time and was only building them with his version of the McMillan stock. I wanted mine in wood.

He told me that the Leupold 2.5 compact was the only scope that he had total confidence in with his Lott. His Lott was a 1.5 lbs lighter than my Lott. Maybe that is a difference. At the time (this was 7 years ago), he hadn't had that many Lotts in circulation and far fewer with any European scopes. He was destroying Leupold variables with regularity and turned to the 2.5 compact. He sent one of his Lotts to Leupold for their testing and they said that the recoil frequency was the most severe that they had tested.

Maybe his data includes a better sampling and even includes S&B which it didn't at the time I built mine. You and I had a conversation a while back and I was around 500 rounds at that time. She is still ticking.

I understand he's had expereince with only a few S&B's and wasn't impressed. His customers have insisted on lots of Swarovskis and Zeiss on his rifles. He recommends only Leupolds on everything from the .375 up.
The 2.5X Ultralight is Leupold's toughest scope. Ray Atkinson did some testing some time back on the .500 T-Rex. He said that he tried all the small scopes from Swaro, S&B, etc. to see if any would last longer than his favorite, the old 3X Leupold. None did. Some didn't even make 100 rds. like the Leupold 3X. Then Leupold, tired of repairing his many 3X's, sent him a 2.5X Compact, which is now the up graded Ultralight. With a special positioning of the erector/reticle cell(s) (I'm not sure which or how here) he found that little scope would go about 300 rds. before it went belly up.
Barsness uses it on his .416. Lately he, Barsness related that apparently over half of the african PH's use the little Leupold 1.5-5X20 on their dangerous game rifles. E

Actually.You are
dave

Longbob,
If your S&B ever goes belly up.Let us know.Pretty rare to see that.
dave

It was Barsness that pointed out to me that "they all use the same glass and coatings." Throughout his book, "Optics for the Hunter" he made it clear that there is nothing to be gained by spending more than $500 on a hunting scope.
I'm not alone about selecting either simple 4X or 6X scopes for hunting rifles either. You can get the world's best - Leupold - for far less than $500. E

Sorry to contradict the comment about S&B, but D'Arcy had told me that he thought the S&B was the toughest of the European lot and he thought the optics were as good as any. He said to be careful with the mounting and make sure the stock was well fitted since the eye relief wasn't as much as the 2.5 compact Leupold. Otherwise I should be happy with it as long as it holds up.

He suggested that I carry a 2.5 compact in a set of Talley QD's as back-up and I took his advice. So far so good as I have reported.

Not many people have put as many rounds as I have through a Lott. I can tell you that it is far more enjoyable to shoot at game than it is from a bench. I need a standing bench like D'Arcy uses.

Once again, that was 15 years ago......

I don't see any contradiction there. You said the toughest of the european lot. Optics as good as any. Barsness interviewed him about 3.5 yrs ago now and he still hadn't seen many S&B's. We are talking averages here. But, to form an opinion, you need more than just a few or a couple.
Heck, I got a PM from one of our posters that his 56mm Zeiss variable was still going strong on his 8.5 lb. .338 Lapua. Very unusual, but not unheard of. E

Quite possible the dumbest posting ever made in the Optics Forum, thank you E.

You quote a 10 year old book, obviously your brain quit advancing about 10 years ago as well. And then you go on to call Leupold the "world's best" - is that ever funny. Good value, good scope . . .sure, world's best - not a chance! You are a complete fool.

E,

My point is that all scopes are not created equal and that you get what you pay for,everybody got it except you.

I have also compared my Leupold scopes to the Bushnells and Ziess models that we have. The Leupolds and Bushnells are very close. The 4200 Bushnells are close to the VX3 Leupolds and the 3200 Bushnells are about like the VX2 Leupolds.

None of the Bushnells or Leupolds are as good in my low light comparison as the Ziess Conquest. The Conquest is not as good in low light as the Ziess Victory.

Plain and simple,you get what you pay for in optics for use in low light.

One last thing E, does it bother you that people thank me for my advice here,while generally thanking you for keeping your opinions to yourself? Perhaps that is because you get involved in threads where you have no experience and pretend to be some kind of guru. How many Nightforce,Swarovski,Schmidt,and Ziess scopes do you have field experience with? I have hunted and taken lots of critters with all of them but the Nightforce. You will notice that I have not commented on the NXS since I have no experience with them. I don't really use tactical type scopes,so I keep my mouth shut about them. Perhaps you should do the same thing when you have not used the products that are being discussed.

Britt

E needs to grow up, plain and simple.

E,

You need to work on the focus of your monitor. You said that you understand that D'Arcy wasn't impressed with S&B. I spoke with him directly and he said that they were tough as any of the European offerings (Leupold doesn't hold the sole rights to toughness) and the optics were as good as anybody's. That to me sounds like someone that was impressed with them.

Which reticle do you like for half hour after sunset?

Apparently I need to say a few things, otherwise this same old argument is going to occur over and over again.

The scientific brightness tests in my book were already about 3-4 years old when I wrote it, but they were the best available. I wrote the book in 1998, it took 11 months for it to be printed, and a lot of things have happened in optics since. To quote 15-year-old results as gospel is simply not valid, and I sincerely wish Eremicus should indeed quit doing it.

If I had some newer, independent data I would publish it, but unfortunately I don't. (There are a bunch of tests from individual optics makers, but I simply don't trust them like the independent data from DEVA.)

All the better manufacturers have made advances in lens coatings, glass, etc. Leupold's Multi-Coat 4, for instance, was their state of the art in 1998. It is now the standard coating on the VX-II's, which are two steps down from Leupold's very best scopes. Other manufacturers have made similar advances.

There are also other things that affect apparent scope brightness than glass and coatings. Interior baffling or finish is one that E. has mentioned, but the size of the OCULAR (not just objective) lens also has an effect, along with eye relief. So to argue that lab tests of light transmission are THE answer is incorrect. They do not take into account the interaction of the ocular and eye.

There have also been great advancements in the ruggedness of optics. At the time I wrote the book, most heavier scopes were indeed more likely to fail than lighter scopes OF THE SAME MAKE, because apparently most manufacturers did not reinforce their larger scopes in any way, despite the necessary heavier lenses, erector tubes, etc.

This has changed considerably in the last decade, especially with the advent of more and more "tactical" scopes. The Nightforce scopes are REALLY tough.

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. It is still a useful book, the reason it is still selling pretty well after a decade, because it describes how consumers can make their own comparisons while shopping. But any optics tests made at ANY point in time are only valid for right then, because all optics are advancing so rapidly anymore.

Digital cameras, for example, are pretty much obsolete within months after they are introduced. This is in large part due to electronics, but also due to optics. Advances in other optics are coming almost as fast. It ain't the 90's anymore.

I like the 4A reticle which is available in Ziess and other companies scopes,I even have it in a couple of my favorite Leupoolds. Eremicus and I agree that this one works great in lots of low light conditions.

I understand that most new scopes sold in Germany feature illuminated reticles,these are the state of the art for shooting in low light but in my view they aren't really needed until it really gets dark. When and where night hunting is legal,they are the best. I don't need one to hunt deer,if it's too dark for me to shoot with a 4a,it's time for me to quit.

Hope this helps,

Britt

J.B.,

Thanks for the input,it should stop some of the fussing around here.
Britt

+1, thanks for posting that and clarifying the "then" from the "now."

It also makes a compelling argument for you authoring another book although I know I am certainly not the first to suggest or lobby for it!

Don't bet on it. A square rock would roll easier than some opinions change. I do value useful information of the optics forum(like JB's) but I could care less what scope anyone uses.

Razkul99,

I have discussed an updated editor of OPTICS FOR THE HUNTER with the publisher, and we agreed it was a good idea. Whether Safari press will do it is another question--and whether I'll have time is another....

JB,

I have noticed that Safari Press has pursued updates to some of their other offerings... the Perfect Shot DVD comes immediately to mind. That gives me some hope that an updated book could come to fruition... provided you have the time!

Mark

thanks MD

Dear folks.

I have been looking for a good sheep hunting scope. Not a 2X8 compact even if it would do the job.

I looked at Swaros, Zeiss Conquests, Leupold VX, and others.
I really liked the Kahles KX 3-10X50 with 4D reticle.
It has a fine cross hair with range finding reticle.

I bought it at SW for 699.00. It is the most that I have ever
spent on a scope but I think it will do what I ask of it.
Its not heavy and its not light but I think that it will do
what I want of it.

I have looked at the Nightforce NXS Scope and it looks great but it appears a bit heavy. The price is probably warranted but I think that when we buy a scope we have a specific purpose in mind.

I think I might spring for a SB or a Nightforce if I was going to hunt varmits. However, that is not my deal.

I just find that it is interesting that every body has their own tastes. Again I would like to tip my hat to JB because he nimbly keeps people happy yet he is reasonable and accurate with the capabilities of the different optic products.

Keeping up with them is a huge undertaking and he is seen as the
most well informed maven within the industry.

There are some strange things that I don't think have ever been explained.

I can take a pair of Zeiss Classic 10X40 or Leupold Gold Ring 10X42 and spot moose on the banks or sloughs while traveling by boat with less eye strain than with ELs. I don't know what you would call this quality but I believe that it exists.

However, I have done the dollar tests with ELs and I find that they have just a hint of better acuity than Leicas, or Zeiss Fls.
Now my tests aren't scientific but I believe that individual eyes work with different binoculars or scopes differently.

Minox seems to make heavier optics that offer great eye relief for glasses wearers.

I believe that the big three are worth their extra price but for me the choice of which one would be better would be related to the task that I would ask it to do.

I know that I went beyond the scope(no pun intended) of the question but I think that if JB is watching this thread he might take pity on my less experienced soul and provide either support or evidence to the contrary of my views.

Sincerely,

Thomas

Excellent Post JB.

I would add however that even though your book is from a few years ago, it's still well worth buying today. It has lots of good information on How to evaluate scopes, how to properly use optics, etc. and that is just as important as specific scope models. I bought a copy and reread it every year or two. I'll buy an update as soon as you get one printed.........................DJ

Thanks JB, I'm hopeful that this will help mellow things out around here . . .

I'll give you another vote for starting a new edition of your book - that would be fantastic!

Thanks, JB. Always good to hear from you. I wish we had updated information. Would help alot. I continue to use the older data simply because the same ideas about the superior euros were common long before you wrote "Optics for the Hunter."
Noted, again, your comments about Nightforce scopes and the effect of ocular size and eye relief on brightness. Thanks. I'll follow your suggestion and stop using the DEVA tests of your book. I have noted some new tests posted here. Gotta go see what they have to say. E

I think I didn't make myself clear, LB. First of all, while I do believe Leupold does make the toughest scopes, there are several other makes which have good and as good a record at least in some sizes and for some uses. Besides, JB, others, icluding my local custom rifle maker, give the Bushnell Elite 4200's as high marks, for instance. They aren't head and shoulders above everybody. Just significantly better for some uses in some models as best I can determine. E

JB is also on the record stating swarovski PH's are "RELIABLE"...

As in contrast to the AV scopes that he has tried. And, I believe, in the context of a big and heavy scope. E

Well, Brit, I, too, gets lots of thanks.
As far as scope tests, I call foul when I see something that's way out of line. Your example of testing a Bushnell 3200 against a much larger Zeiss is a prime example. Telling us that you can't see .30 bullet holes at 100 yds. with a 2.5-8X36 VXIII Leuopold while you can with a Zeiss 2.5-8X32 is another.
I'm sure there are differences in the scopes you mention. Tiny differences that mean nothing as a practical matter. E

It seems to me that JB is attempting to distance himself from being continually associated with the invalid conclusions drawn by a certian poster here. After reading this thread I must say I concur.

I read it as he's trying point out that there is a good bit more to some of these discussions as is usually posted or understood. By me and many others. Good points all. E

To no one in particular,
Use what works for you and what you like and then call it the best so you are happy. Almost no one on this board( and definitely me) knows enough about optics, or the chemistry and process of glass making or coating processes etc etc etc or anyones specific applications to say very much that is actually relevant . Optics and their perceived quality is based almost solely on personal preference. All are generally just opinions based on a very narrow amount of experience. I don't really give a hoot about anyone's observations about how good one brand is compared to another.Or about what someone says someone else says. An expert is "someone who is 25 miles from home" or on a bulletin board.I care about how good I think one brand is to another based on my own use. It is just a worn out dialoque that never dies.Take all with a grain of salt. Pep rally over!!

fwiw & imho,
I've had siginificant personal experience with the NXS 3.5-15x50 and the Schmidt Bender 3-12x50 Zenith and hence will limit my commentary to those scopes. In all honesty it is an apples to oranges comparison. A few points to ponder:

1. The Nightforce is Second Focal Plane whereas the Schmidt Bender is a First Focal Plane Reticle. I would ask which you are most comfortable with... If you like the FFP European Scopes with relatively heavy reticles go with the Schmidt Bender. If you like second focal plane reticles with extremely fine subtension reticles look at the NXS. Even though the magnification is similar the scopes are almost polar opposites...

2. Reticle Illumination: The Schmidt Bender Flashdot is superior illumination technology(AND completely different illumination). I would recommend that if you decide to go with a Schmidt Bender by ALL MEANS GET A FLASHDOT Reticle. The 3-12x50 has no side focus/parallax adjustment and hence has an excellent eleven position rheostat where the Side Focus would go...

The NXS has, quite possibly, the worst rheostat ever put on an illuminated rifle scope. You have to take the cap off the third turret(parallax) and use a Jewelers Screw Driver to change illumination intensity. Further it is a guess how much you've actually moved it as the the battery is on the cap and has to be reinstalled to check the illumination. In short the rheostat sucks...

The NXS also, imo, employs a poorly designed system of illumination in that EVERYTHING lights up at once. I have had several times where illuminated reticles have proven well worth the cost. That said, I've never needed to "mil" a target in the dark. The problem is that I can see the target but not the ultrafine reticle. If Nightforce would only illuminate the center of the reticle, or cross hair, it would be a far more usable system of illumination. As it stands the reticle distracts my eye and I lose a bit of nightvision and hence the opportunity on the target...

3. The Nightforce NXS is probabely the best paper target scope on the market today. It has excellent glass, crisp thin reticles, and the reticle is in the Second Focal Plane. The Schmidt Bender Zenith is a hunting scope that excels in low light at short to moderate range. The Flashdot is EXTREMELY intuitive.

4. If you ever plan to shoot Long Range and dope for windage and elevation the NXS is setup for that with extreme amounts of elevation and windage travel. The Zenith is typical of most European scopes in that it does not have nearly as much W&E travel. That said it was not designed for that market.

If you want the best of both worlds I would suggest a Schmidt Bender PMII. That said the PMII is bigger, heavier, far more expensive, and requires specialized mounting systems depending on the rifle platform. Also realize the PMIIs use an entirely different, but excellent, mode of reticle illumination...

fwiw & imho

Regarsds, Matt.

Nice post Matt... I appreciate your experience and insight.

E, this is another example of your COMPLETE IGNORANCE about Swarovski Scopes. The Swaro 2.5-10x42 PH is actually LIGHTER than the 2.5-10x42 Elite 4200 you mention in another of your posts. The more powerful 3-12x50 PH even with the larger objective and more powerful optics is less than 1 oz heavier than the same Bushnell.
It would be nice if you would restrict you posts to something that you actually have a clue about. Even after you have been politely slapped down by the very person that you constantly misquoted and misused you still refuse to consider that fact that you've been wrong for quite a while.
Stick to talking about what you like about your Leupolds instead of critiquing stuff you have no experience with and you might be OK....................................DJ

I didn't misquote him. That's just what he said about Swarovski's scopes.
As to the general rule about big and heavy, it is not a hard and fast rule in all cases. For instance, I understand Leupold says, and many with experience agree, that their 1.75-6X32 VXIII is their toughest variable. They make several other models that are lighter, but their recoil testing has indicated to them that this one holds up best.
Again, general rule, not hard and fast or rigid, no exceptions or other factors involved. I wouldn't be surprised if other scope makes were similar in that regard. E

E,You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Specifically you DID misrepresent what he said because Swaro PH's in the 2-12 range are NOT heavy scopes......................DJ

Matt, do you often encounter situations that require adjusting the lighted reticle? NF used to make scopes with the external rheostat in the earlier models which I am sure you are aware of.They seemed to work fine,so it is not a matter of nightforce having a poor design as they traded for ease of parallax adjustment over ease of intensity adjusment. I have NF scopes with both focal planes and a SB in the first focal plane. You are right about personal preference, it is all in what you are used to and most comfortable with. I have the nprr reticle and do not seem to be bothered by the total illumination of the reticle. Have shot the dot also and like it illuminated.

Gentlemen,

I would like to point out that I made an error when I reported the results of my field test of a Bushnell vs. a Ziess Victory.

I did not have a Bushnell 3200 scope,I looked at my Steryr 7mm-08 and realized that it actually has a Bushnell 4200 2.5-10.
I could post pixs of the scopes and rifles if there are any doubts of the validity of my claims of actually having and comparing these scopes.

The results that I posted were accurate. The Ziess V series scope allowed me to cleanly target deer in very low light. From the same stand,on the same afternoon while alternating scopes,it became imposible to tell the deer from the shadows with the Bushnell. The Bushnell was focused for my vision,and features a euro style quick focus ocular.

The Bushnell is a very nice scope and is usefully for 99% of the hunting that I do,but under the acid test of the last few minutes of legal shooting on a cloudy dark day under the shadows of the timber next to the wheatfield,the difference between the two was astounding.

You just have to compare a top notch euro scope to a Bushnell or leupold under similar conditions to see it for yourself. Most folks who make this kind of comparison agree with my conclusions.

Britt

Im sure I'd find the same thing as well. But that is not a Bushnell vs. Zeiss comparision. It's a comparision of a 40mm, fully multicoated scope vs. a 56mm fully multicoated scope. Hardly a fair comparision. E

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.

Dave, you're just as bad as E, just in the opposite direction.

I have many of the scopes on rifles in my safe that E has never looked through and have some that he has looked through. If anyone has a gold ring scope that will outperform my PMII's or my US Optics or my VMV series optically I will gladly replace them on my rifles. The comparatives that are continually drawn from questionable data are IMHO not valid nor or the conclusions drawn from same. Is it not strange that no one ever concurs with the opinions continually presented in this thread by the aforementioned?

Brit

+1
LC

Until E has actually even looked through the Euro scopes he admonishes much less owned and used a bucketfull of them, I'd have to disagree.

I think I owe you a cigar.

VERY well said!

JonA,
I only have 30 lupies.leupold is way overrated.Specially buy a certain few on this board.99 guys out of 100 who actually bother to compare a conquest to a lupie will say the Zeiss looks better.
The answer is simple.Inferior glass and coatings.And thats not even Zeiss best glass.
No BS honest.
dave

All complements accepted.Thank you very much.
dave

Im sorry dave.You just dont know what your seeing.
Owning a scope doesnt mean anything on this board.
You should attend the E school of scope focusing.
dave

Leave it up to E to challenge a phycisian regarding anything having to do with physiology and then believe his own bullshit.

E would argue relativity with Albert Einstein using quotes from his high school physics professor.
I still can't imagine how he can be so hard-headed about some things. There are a lot of us who still own quite a few Leupold scopes as well as scopes we consider superior. We just realize that sometimes the little extra performance isn't always worth the extra cost. E, seems to take it as a personal insult when anyone says that they prefer a scope other than his personal favorite. I've seen the same thing on other forums however, he seems to think that whatever he chooses HAS to be the best in the world and can't get it through his head that other people might make different choices or have different needs - or that he's just dead wrong on some things. Maybe he's like a child who acts out just for attention, we do seem to talk about him too much (myself included), but it's easy to spend a lot of time just correcting his misinformation........................DJ

I'm really impressed by ANY manufacturers testing. I worked as an engineer/manager for the 3 largest electrical equipment companies in the US & each could & did develop testing that would show their product(s) were the best. So much for a manufactures testing.

OK here goes.
I have been following this thread and others like it, with some bewilderment, all i seem to read is this coating and that glass and this and that and which way the sun shines, but i have yet to read about the reticules in these scopes, it (appears) that nobody seems to realise the importance a reticule can have on a scope for low light shooting.I think one of the reasons that Euro scopes "seem" to do so well is because the reticules in them on average are a lot thicker than the ones that you find on the American made scopes.Whilst skinny cross hairs are great for mountain hunting and cross valley shots how good are they for woods hunting in the thick stuff were their are branches and bushes and low light levels and such like? likewise a german #7 for example CANNOT be beaten in these conditions, but is not the ideal choice for the mountain hunter or long range shooter.

Right i`m going to stir things up,a few years back one of the shooting mags did a scope test, their were various models used but the two that i will mention were a Leupold VXiii variable 50 and a sworovski variable 50 the test was as follows, a target was placed 10feet inside a wood, the scopes were all placed on a made rack so as to eliminate and speed up any variables, the scopes were focused and adjusted so no further fiddling was requered, the tester just moved along the line of scopes.The test it self was very simple, which scope (coating/glass and reticule) allowed the tester to "see" well enough to place a shot on target, ie, to see the cross hairs correctly for a killing shot.The winner was the leupold by a couple of minutes.The scope in question had a Heavy duplex reticule this i think is why it won as IIRC the swaro had a #6 which is a skinny one.
For the record i have 9 Euro scopes, just sold a leupold and am messing with a Bushnell firefly (from Natchess) 2-7x32 with the two step reticule and have to say it is fantastic (i havnt got to the "firefly" part yet).

This reply is just to point out that the glass its self isnt the be all and end all of scopes and there are many other aspects of a scope that should be looked at and the reticle IMHO should be the first.
Dave

Don't try to use technical issues(thickness of reticle,etc.) & actual testing on this thread. It will only confuse the posters with unfounded opinions & frequent misquoting of others work. Incidentally, love hunting in the UK. Plan to return for several of the small imported deer. Great people & great hunting.

I agree completely. Little by little, I'm going over to heavier reticles on my scopes. Not just for their ability to show up better during low light situations either. They "feel" faster or perhaps I feel more confident when I'm in a hurry to get on a target. That alone makes them worth the extra trouble of either selecting that option or having them altered by the factory. BTW, I hunt lots of open country. They don't inhibit you nearly as much as you might think when used on big game or large varmits.
Focus does make a big difference. Magnification makes a big difference. Larger objectives make a big difference. And so does eye relief or the ocular size we are told.
Leupolds are no good at night ? I've used many of mine plenty in full darkness. So have guys like JJHack. They don't hold up until the end of legal shooting hours ? That's funny. Only if you don't adjust them properly. The same with all the others.
You insist on a 56mm whatever to be sure you can see something until the end of legal shooting hour if you wish. I know from long expereince my simply 40/42mm Leupolds will work well past such twilight on the very darkest of days. E

UK,
Well thats what you get from lupie.Because of very poor quality controll.One will be good the next not so good.The next crap.
Just think about how screwed up there power rings are.They just cant seem to get the power setting to match up with whats on the power ring.
Every once and awhile lupie screws up and builds an exceptional one.They have no controll over the glass they buy from china.(a communist country)
These are the ones that always seem to make it into gun rag test.With lupies in general inferior glass and coating.Typically you lose minutes of hunting time over a euro.
Want to hunt less? buy a lupie.
dave

Heavy reticles are old tech.lit reticles are superior to a heavy reticles in every way.leupold as usual is 20 years behind.
Nothing new there.
dave

Funny, I've got a Leupold with a lit reticle. Does that mean they caught up?

Dave, seriously, did someone from Leupold sleep with your wife or something? Are you just trying to keep the world in balance by offsetting E?

Funny !!!! E

I have many Leupolds as well as Zeiss Conquests & Swarovski. I have hunted in Europe with some of the best illuminated reticle scopes. You can rest assured that Leupold has not caught up with any scope manufacturer on illuminated reticles. Mine failed twice & a new updated module was installed the third time. Reticle washes out target, module prone to failure, battery drains if left on & battery drain in use excessive,& adjustment cap falls off(lost one crawling in bush). Other than these few issues they are state of the art. I have a Simmons Atec that has an illuminated reticle module that is superior. I have used this Simmons to shoot many predators & many of my SCI buddies borrow this rig to hunt predators. I am not bashing Leupold scopes in general. I still have many but am changing to Zeiss Conquest as I can afford replacements.

First hand user of lupie tech.With Leupold its always about the hype.Never about the performance.
dave

As an owner of a few Leupy's, I have to wholeheartedly agree....

Let me see if I get this right. Leupolds illuminated reticles are very troublesome, and not state of the art ? In spite of the fact that they sell no less than 11 models so equipped ? If they were no good, how come they sell so many ?
You say you are going over to Conquests. I didn't see any Conquests equipped with illuminated reticles the last time I checked. If it such a great idea and Conquests are such great/better scopes, how come they aren't so offered ? E

I'm agreeing with the "Leupold is always about the hype, never about the performance." I don't give a rats ass about illuminated reticles from anyone. Leupy is the marketing king, not the optic king.

That they are. Not because of razzle dazzle ad hype, but because they offer something practical that works. And keeps on working, any where, any time and have for many years. Ever wonder why S&B's aren't more popular ?
I don't care about illuminated reticles either. That's becuse I have no use for them. Even at night. E

You are right that the reticle is critical for shooting in low light,I learned this the hard way. Being able to clearly see the target and not able to see the reticle is not any fun. One of the worst offenders is the regular duplex style.

I prefer the Euro style 4A,heavy enough to see,fine enough to shoot at longer distances.


Britt

There are also more Honda Accord's sold than Lexus LS 430's......

And the best selling music is hip hop by far. Care to argue that this reflects quality? If so, yu be trippin' bro!

John

Hard to be of higher quality than Lexus.....

Yup, that's correct. A couple examples of "state of the art":

Give them time E.The Conquest line expands all the time.Rest assured that when they do it will be more useful than anything lupie makes.
dave

E, the only reason you don't need illuminated reticles at night is because you have never shot against someone using a good one.

I have a couple of S&B's and a Nighforce and there is no way to compare a standard reticle to any of them. It would be like flying a biplane against a P-51. You could have fun in the bi-plane but don't start a fight with a guy in a P-51. You'd hate what happened next.

By the way, the illumination is great during the day, also.

SS

Ever hear of advertising & lack of knowledge. In the European market where illuminated reticles are very standard(of course, the European hunter knows nothing about this technology) Leupold has no market. Most US hunters purchase this type of scope simply because it appears to be a gimmick & I doubt few actually use it for night hunting. Zeiss makes many scopes with illuminated reticles & I have used them. Have you? The reason Conquest are not available is obvious if you read lines 4 & 5 above. Why can't you discuss a topic you know something about? I do a lot of night hunting including predators in Texas & elsewhere, & assorted big game in Europe & Africa. Yea, I know you parrot JJ Hack(whom I respect & has extensive experience) but Thur out Europe hunters use this technology. If they only knew how to fo--- a Leupold. Guess I just can't type the word. Would love to be able to afford a S&B Flashdot for an upcoming African trip. I will be doing some culling day & at night.

E if you ever hunt at night the USO is one to take a look at as well. If you hunt in the field at night which I know you don't do because of where you are you would find this very useful... If you compare the S&B PMII or the USO to the Loopy you will be in for a suprise. Of course you do pay for performance...

Here we go again, wanting to actually test something first hand for an informed opinion.

Here's the thread where JJhack was asking about a Scopes for night hunting coyotes.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...&topic=0&Search=true#Post1958422


His old Leupolds didn't have the resolution to make out coyotes against a brush background. Maybe he didn't adjust them properly .

E, please quit misquoting people.

The truth is that Leupolds are good scopes for the money. However there are other scopes that are better.
Reticle choice is very important for low light shooting. I prefer a 4a reticle to a 7a but that's just preference, both are excellent when done well..............................DJ

I don't need an illuminated reticle simply because I have no trouble targeting whatever I need to do w/o them.
Now, if you want to have fun, or more fun with them, fine. But I have spent lots of time out in the dark. My usual tactic is to arrive in my hunting area after a long hike, often better than an hour, in the dark. Then I wait for a half hour or so until it is legal to shoot. That means lots of walking and potential predator shooting long before twilight. My scopes work fine w/o the fancy illuminated reticles. Including areas and times so dark that I can't see more than 5-10 yds. in front of me in full darkness. Lots of others have found the same thing.
So say what you will. You can't convince me I need something else simply because what I have works. E

I sure hope those interested read that post again very carefully.
His problem was at very long ranges during twilight. He needed advice on a scope that would show him his target w/o resorting to the very expensive scopes. That' why he posted it here. He knows all about the fancy euros and their capabilities. It's the cheaper scopes with equal capabilities he wanted to hear about. We'll see, I hope, what he chose and how well it worked. E

Last I heard, Leupold's export models scopes are not their fully multicoated models. They export a special version, aimed at the bottom of the european market with VXI level of coatings. They do this because of the very high tariffs on quality scopes. Looks like the euro politicans don't want any competition. I understand they are very popular over there. E

So, there's a tariff on "quality" scopes, but not lesser scopes? To what documentation could you point me so I can learn more about this issue?

Incorrect. Leupold does export some scopes not made in the US (and these are VXII level for the most part, not VXI), but they also export all their latest top models too.

They are not rare, but I would not say they were popular either.

Also, the tariff is 4 to 8% (there is additional VAT, but that applies equally to the Euroscopes so this is irrelevant).

Americans seem to always assume that the rest of the world has high tariffs against their products, but it varies greatly with different products and optics are in the lowest category.

John

Commen lupie tactic.Flood the market, make alot of add hype.
Buy hunts for gunwriters. Compare themselves to Euros,"our roots are showing." type crap.And hope no one looks to close.
Of course on this board first hand experience doesnt mean anything.
dave

Leupold scopes are readily available over here (UK) infact the whole line is available and NO they are not VERY common but yes people do buy them, the main problem i think is not so much the quality of the "product" its the cost eg. S+B 6x42 �350 leupie �300 forget for one minute the Euro V leupie thing �50 more for a S+B its a no brainer just for the name if nothing else (carnt get any better than a fixed 6 S+B)or a Meopta 3000 3-12x56 �470 same money for a Leupie of simular spec.This isnt to kick Leupold its just that the prices are pretty close and my money stays in Europe (unless i can find something that is perfect for a specific requirement like my Bushnell firefly).

You guys crack me up.... EVERY optics thread turns into a Leupold Vs Conquest argument. Dont you all get tired of hashing the same crap every time?

Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about, as proven by our euro friends. Congrats.

Complete bias showing up loud and clear again, not sure why you continue to take guesses to dis the competition.

Tasco - best scope on market!!! LOL!!

This thread is getting pretty tired. How about shoot what you feel is the best scope for you, then be happy with it.

I shoot S&B and I'm happy!!!

E, nobody is trying to convince you to buy a scope with capabilities that you don't need. Only to let everyone know that there are scopes out there that far exceed the capabilities of the VX-III line of Leupolds. The Leupolds are fine scopes in their price range, but they cannot compete against the more capable (and expensive) Euros.

SS

foogle,
Yes I frequently encounter situations were I need to adjust the reticles illumination to suit lighting conditions. It always nice to have options...

Nightforce still makes a scope with an external rheostat. They are the BR scopes. Bought my first BR(8-32x56)in 97' with the NP-RR. In all truth I did not care for the scope. Beautiful view off of the bench shooting paper. Utterly useless in the field. 6 MOA per revolution with 1/8 MOA clicks...

NF did not choose between Side Focus and a proper rheostat. Their external rheostat was not waterproof to the 66 foot requirement of the NXS and the Navy. A better arrangment would have been a fourth turret like Schmidt Bender uses on the PMIIs.

I've never met too many folks who shoot a lot at night that were overly fond of the Nightforce Illuminated Reticle. That said if it works for you... Proper illumination can be observed with the Gen 2 and and Gen 2 XL that Jona posted in the pictures above... fwiw & imho..

I like(and shoot) NXS 3.5-15x50s and 5.5-22x50s for punching paper. As a matter of fact I can't think of a better choice if that were your goal. That said illumination is not their strong suit...imo

Regards, Matt.

SharpShooter, far exceed the capabilities of the VXIII Leupolds ? How so ? Every time I see something that illistrates this so called "far exceeds" in performance, I discover I've been doing that and more for quite sometime now with my Leupolds.
I don't see the euros getting recommended for .375's built by custom gun makers like DArcy Echols. Or Kenny Jarret. But I do see Leupolds. No. One in tough.
I don't see any euros with Leupold's eye relief and big eye boxes. No One is non critical eye relief, particularly at the lower magnifications. All I hear about is how much brighter one is vs. the other. But, when comes to performance, I don't see anything much, if any, different in what you can actually see. And, more important, good quality scopes offer more twilight performance than any of us need. Assuming, of course, you understand how to use it. E

I see Jarrett recommending Swaro more often than Leupy..and you've already been proven wrong here by members of the 'fire with regards to Echols and Jarrett.

Taken from Jarrett's website . . .

" . . . the best scope for the money is the Leupold; the best scope on the market is the Swarovski."

Why do you suppose he thinks Swaro are the best scope? We'll let's give E an hint, they're better optically. Aint that hard . . . but for those that have already entered the stage of life where "learning" in no longer practiced it's fairly difficult to comprehend.

Jarret does recommend Swarovski over Leupold for general use. But not for rifles of the .375's recoil and higher. See July 2004 ed. of Rifle, page 50. "Tough Scopes" by John Barsness.
Nobody makes my list of good, all around scopes when they have an eye relief of 3.5 inches or less and use the euro, non locking focusing system. E

Perhaps you should teach Jarrett how to focus Leupold's so he quits recommending Swaros to his customers on everything with the exception of the African guns.

I think he'd benefit by reading what Barsness has to say about using and understanding scopes in general. Then they can talk about the strong points and their differences of each. E

Perhaps . . . and you'd likely benefit from re-reading what Barsness told you a few weeks back in that the optics world has changed, quite dramatically in fact.

Leupold scopes at least their middle market stuff has been passed by years ago. Now perhaps the VX-7 is the answer, don't know as I haven't looked through one but I understand they offer a nice view. Regardless comparing a VX-II or III to much of the competition (speaking of Euros here) is not a level playing field and that is the very concept that you fail to embrace.

As biased as you are, I doubt if anyone cares about "your list". You habitually misrepresent the facts and blatantly lie with regularity. I think you're probably a pretty smart guy, but a chronic liar.

Ed Brown recommends and uses swarovski PH or z series on heavy kickers

E, better optics, better tracking, better daylight performance and better night time performance. How's that?

The S&B 1.1x4 Zenith Flashdot I have been shooting for the last year or so may well be the best glass on the market, bar none. The beam splitter technology allows amazing performance and speed from the hottest, brightest West Texas days all the way down to nights that are darker than pitch.

The Nightforce I have been tinkering with is pretty good in bright daylight but cannot compete with S&B when it gets dark.

Try one.

SS

It's called a basis for comparison. You don't have one.

E reminds me of the type of guy who will say his car is just as fast, handles and stops as well yours after you�ve explained its power to weight ratio, CG height, width, suspension, tires and brakes and the time you have with it at the track�.

�Mine accelerates hard too�Corners? I�ve been going around corners for 53 years, my car goes around corners just fine without that fancy stuff�its brakes work so good I skidded a tire once!...and I�m an awesome driver!�

Luckily for cars we have these things called racetracks. A full tank of BS won�t do you any good there. If you ever get such a person to the track, it doesn�t take long after seeing they�re 30 seconds or so slower per lap that a lightbulb goes on. They finally have a basis of comparison. Sure, their car might �accelerate hard� but after getting walked on the front straight they realize everything is relative. After seeing cars come upon them like they�re standing still in the corners they realize that while they may have been going around corners for 53 years, that doesn�t mean it can�t be done better. They begin to realize while they might be an �awesome driver� they still have plenty to learn�.

But E is the type who will refuse to ever go to the track. Won�t even look through the scopes his are �just as good as.� Sometimes living in your own fantasy world is more comfortable. He can continue to claim his Honda with a big muffler is a Corvette Killer�and as long as he avoids ever lining them up, he can continue.

+1 , Reminds me of what ol' Big Stick said once: "Done it beats Thinkin it" ...................................DJ

ad 1: wrong - The full L. line is available here- every single model as per US catalogue.

ad 2: WRONG - there is no special "high tariff on quality scopes".
BTW 1. L. scopes do not rate as "high quality" or "high performance" here.
BTW 2. New DIN/ISO will contain specs for "General purpose" optics and "High Performance" optics.

ad 3: Wrong - No market is so open to the world's market than the Euro market.
For comparison the tariffs on Euro optics sent to the US market are at least >triple< compared to Euro tariffs on importing foreign optics into the Euro market.
This does not look like "we Euros don't want competition".

4. Yes, L. sells some but not many to hunters, more to paper punchers. In fact the brand was dropped from mail order catalogues like Frankonia.

Thanks for the "correct" information. I'm sure some(one) will say you are wrong. What do you know? You only live in Germany & are a hunting/shooting/optics writer with a great depth of knowledge.

You know it is so telling that there is never any support for "E" and he is never influenced by anyone or anything including facts. He does make for comedic reading though.

Better perormance means what ? Give me some specifics. BTW, better price or even comparable ? E

Nice try, RD. Now go back and reread what I said. Leupold's export model. It's called the euro last I heard. VXI coatings, metric adjustments, 30mm tube, etc. Special model aimed at the low end of the euro market.
Really ? I note that S&B's don't cost much more than Leupolds over there. Here, they are much higher. How come Zeiss and Swaro make some of their scopes here instead of there ? Yes, I know about the labor costs, but how come the euro import fees on optics with multiple coatintgs ? That went away ? Must have missed it. But I do see in "ad 3" something about tariffs. Hmmm.
I'm not surprised they aren't "rated" as high quality or high performance. Reminds me of the DEVA impact tests from long ago. You know, the ones that gave the "superior/stronger" euro scopes 5 impacts and the US made scopes 10 and had the gall to call that fair.
Really. If Leupolds have such low quality, then why are the target shooters using them ? Are you going to tell me that's all they can afford, targeting shooting, instead of hunting ? Here, target shooters use the best out there for their sports. Leupold provides the majority of the scopes used by the super picky benchrest crowd here, for instance. I have seen a few Nikons as well. But no euros. E

More people prattlin' on about schit they don't have, haven't used, and most haven't even seen in person....

Yep, must be the "optics" forum.....

VA, I've got some shooting buddies that compete on the rimfire benchrest circuit. They've let me use their stuff. We talk scopes a good bit.
I've used lots of Leupolds in lots of places and under lots of conditions. I do take exception when some guy tells me my Leupolds don't work during twilight when I've used them many times on dark nights. E

Nobody cares because nobody believes you . . . when in doubt lie.

BTW -Leupold's work at night just not as well as others - that's the part you fail to grasp!!!

Helluva difference between a scope on a rimfire benchrest set-up, and a hunting rig.

I personally haven't hunted with a Nightforce, a S&B, or a Swaro, and with only one Zeiss. A few Leupolds.

Have peeked through a good number of all the above though.... and talked to folks who have used them all..... but that is MUCH different from using them.

Thus, I don't know enough on this subject to venture a comment.

At least I understand that if you compare two scopes at twilight, but one is set on 5X and the other set at better than 6X, the one with the higher magnification will show you more. Not because it's better, but because the guy comparing them doesn't understand how they work. E

At least most of us know that Leupolds Diamond coat is not made of real diamonds.

You know what I hate to say this but you really aren't that bright, put magnifcation equal and a Swaro is better than Leupold. Honestly it's like I'm dealing with a 5th grader - really is you reading comprehension that bad??

You know that(diamond incident)absolutely crushes any credibility that the old guy has or has ever had. How can anyone who has even the most rudimentary of cognitive skills even contemplate that that would be possible??

Does anyone know if any Euro Magazines have compared/rated the Swaro Z6's against Zeiss, S&B, Kahles, & meopta.

One point I have noticed about the Swaro's is that their ranging
reticle can also be had with a red dot, Zeiss' Z-plex does not,
and S&B does have one with their mil-dot systems, but not a rangeing reticle like Swaro.

Zeiss and Swaro each have a thicker ranging reticle. Zeiss calls their shorter distance ranging reticle the Z 600. I would think they would be good in low light?

Also, Swaro's electronics in their scopes are guarenteed for 2 years whereas Zeiss's has a five year guarentee on their electronics in their scopes. I did not call S&B, so I do not know their guarentee.

E... If comparing scopes the way you do, I would preach that Tasco was the best there was. When you only compare Leupold to Leupold it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that Leupold is the best. As I said above, if I only compared Tasco to Tasco, obviously Tasco would be the best.

On a different note, 2 friends and myself have spent exactly 51,421.17 over the past 2 years and have spent roughly 2500 hours between the 3 of us in the past 21 months comparing the purchases we made. I have no affiliation with any scope company, the only real perk we get is price breaks from large purchases. There are still a couple lines of scopes that we haven't spent much time with but should in the next 6 months. WE REALLY DO COMPARE SCOPES, and have no bias to any company. I don't believe anything I read and like to see it myself. I took 7 guns with 7 different scopes to Northern Wisconsin this past year and hunted with a different gun almost every day just to actually use them in the field. All the scopes were chart tested and looked through with 3 sets of (our eyes)prior to hunting. All scopes were shot at low light and All scopes were focused to (my eyes)before leaving. All the scopes had 50+ rounds shot under them before they left, all scopes had between 20-30 rounds shot under them as I spent over 6 hours at the range upon ariving to refocus and rezero (if needed). Most of the scopes are resold to recoup some of our costs and the scopes we feel are favorable or are alot of bang for your buck are still around for comparison.

We usually test scopes at given price points and keep only what can be used as benchmark for the next line of scopes in that price range. As of right now we have tested 17 Leupolds and have resold all but (1) they simply don't make the grade when you compare them against almost everything that's out there in their price point. The only Leupold we still have and I actually spent 2 days hunting with is the 2.5-10X45 VX-7. At roughly 1500.00 it's good but, there are a few others that are as good or better in the 800.00-1000.00 range. Were gonna keep the VX-7 just for comparitive purposes.

The whole premise of this post is to explain that I don't care who advertises in Buckmasters, Rifle, American Hunter etc....
All the scopes we have tested are actually tested with OUR EYES. I don't care which writer raves about this or that scope, were gonna look at it with (OUR EYES)!!!

Tester (1) 20-20 vision with out contacts.
Tester (2) contacts no idea what his vision is with or without.
Tester (3) glasses and older gentlemen with middle of the road eyesight.




All scopes were hunting scopes, no tactical, no target.

Magnification ranges that were hunted with this past season 1.5-4 to 4-16 powers.

BD,
Thats what typically happens when someone actually spends the time to LOOK.Leupold is always last in line optically.Its like i've been saying,inferior glass and coatings.Some people have a hard time with that.And its been that way for a very long time.
dave

Eldorado,
I believe S&B will go 20 years.Period.
In a pinch they will send you a replacment scope if yours craps to use in an emergency.
dave

E E E,
You seem to keep forgetting that I am a benchrest shooter.
The new lupie BR scope has been a disaster for Leupolds reputation.Its pretty hard to find an unaltered lupie at events like the supershoot.Unless they have there reticles frozen or have the excellant Cecil Tucker conversion.Stock lupies are not competitive.The new March scope built in japan is the ticket
these days.
There is no way I would even think of gunning for a good showing at the supershoot with a stock lupie.
dave

Dave7mm what do you think of the March scopes, I cannot believe how reasonable they are for the production restrictions they have. Roughly 2 scopes per day all hand assembled in the 2000.00-2500.00 range.

Rob

Below is a link where target scopes are rated.Note that the March and Nightforce receive top marks.

http://www.6mmbr.com/optics.html

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

tbear,
I've made the suggestion to a certain poster that a simple IMHO at the beginning of the crap he posts about scopes hes never seen would make life alot easier.No luck so far.
dave

E, since you bring up the word fool, surely you heard your mom or dad tell you "it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt", didn't you? I don't think you listened very well.

I'd like to see the results of the test also.

I recently bought a Zeiss Conquest 3.5x10. I see some differences, optically, between it and my Loopy 2.5x8's.

Other than stating the fairly obvious- that the Zeiss seems tilted to the blue-white end of things, while the Loopy is tilted more towards the yellow end, and the Loopy has more eye relief- I am reserving judgement or comment on the optical qualities for a while. There's a good reason for that- or at least I think it is. I worked in professional audio for a long, long time and folks who do that find out in a hurry just how malleable is the connection between perception, and what your brain THINKS is happening.

In other words you can really fool yourself.

Usually over time things become more apparant- in terms of audio anyway. Listen the next day and the next and you get a pretty clear idea of what's going on.

So since I'm stuck home with a fever today I've been sitting on the back deck dry-firing at robins and comparing the two scopes. I feel like I made some good headway on it.

I don't know if this is really a valid comparison- the audio thing vs. the optics thing- though I suspect it is. Forgive me if it's not, I'll bow out and leave you guys to your... discussion. However, in audio there's a saying- "if it sounds good, then it IS good". At least as far as optical quality (ignoring reliability and cost) I think there's a Big Truth there. Heck if a guy looks through his scope and it looks good to him and gets the job done then it IS good. To him.

-jeff

Dave,

You seem to manage to disagree with him without being personally insulting. That is how it ought to be done. I see you insulting Leupolds, and last time I checked it didn't bother the scopes to be insulted at all......................

After all, nothing discussed on the optics thread--or most other forums here for that matter, is really all that important in the overall scheme of life.

Blaine, well said and I applaud you for saying it.

-jeff

Blaine,

I�ll go ya a step further and say that these forums have ZERO importance in life. They certainly don�t affect me one way or another in any other facet of my life. That�s why I find it so curious that people would get upset over, of all things, posting etiquette. Who or rather what are you insulting? A screen name. Everyone, including me, gets too wrapped up in this little cyber world. No more; I�ve had an epiphany and I intend to follow my instincts.

God I love these posts! LOL

AFP,
If it truly doesn't matter AFP.Then why would you put anyone.Especially on this optics board,on ignore?Its good to see you dont have me on ignore.Im happy about that.
dave

+1
MD,
I just got back from your home state awhile ago.Dead hog pictures to follow.
dave

I'd like to thank everyone for their comments. It's been interesting, informative, and certainly, entertaining. In all seriousness, I'm not in a position where I can just go to the corner gun shop and check out all the various scopes, but I'm leaning toward the Swarovski at this point. I like their TDS recticle (also available illuminated) to estimate distance.
Thanks,
Dan0859

It absolutely amazes me the exchanges that get so heated over optics on this and other sites.. I don't think it would get as heated if one called anothers wife an ugly b tch. It goes to show how personal a choice optics are and how much their performance is based on personal preference and preconceived notions. Therefore I personally believe that all other scopes are junk compared to whatever one I am shooting at any particular time and that I could kill more with the cheapest scope out there than most could with the most expensive.Entirely because I am out there shooting while all this contention is going on here.lol

Where'd ya go Dave?

A conclusion worthy of examination certainly, however, I think you'd find that people post on here because can't get out in the field for whatever reason.

That kind of contentious debate happens in any field where folks... well, let's be honest here... NERDS <g> debate things that are on the bleeding edge, the way-sharp point of diminishing returns, etc.

Add in the fact that gun folk can be downright... uh... forthright in their opinions and there you have it.

A debate over subjective minutia involving very expensive stuff, carried out by gruff, aggressive men (and people pretending to be).

-jeff

ad 1. a) Yes, I'm still and always nice, even to stubborn agressive, offending, belittling concrete heads

ad 1. b) NO, this was no "try" to convince somebody, not at all (in some cases it's useless anyway)

ad 2) Ahh, good morning and welcome back - this case is solved, discussed, recognized (ok not by you) and shut - so do you, please.

ad 3) I beg your pardon but this is a silly conclusion. I say: no BR Shooting - no BR scopes

Happy stalking

thanks matt