I have many scopes, mainly Leupolds that I am very happy with for general hunting. I have Zeiss(german)Kahles, Swarovski,Nickle,and a few others that I cannot think of off hand. I also have one Nightforce. I was always impressed most with the german made Zeiss scopes. Lately, there are so many "new" brands of scopes on the market that it is hard to know, just what the quality of them really are.I have noticed that some of the traditionally less expensive brands, like Bushnell, for example, now have scopes in the 1K plus range and wonder if they just raised the prices because there were so many other expensive scopes out there. Where can you get an relatively unbiased review of optics? I know member Bobby Tomek is a scope freak and has lots of knowledge about how to evaluate a scope. He has probably owned more scopes than myself and all my friends combined. Just as an example, I see that gr8fuldoug has Athlon scopes on sale frequently. I know nothing about the brand, where it is made, are the lenses glass or plastic, how does it rate in clarity, light gathering, etc? We used to pretty much rate a scopes quality by its price, now I don't at all believe that is any kind of indicator any longer. I am not picking on Doug as I am sure he would give you good info, but it would sure be nice if we had access to a publication that gave technical reviews for the average person. Meopta is an example of a brand that came on the US market several years ago, and turned out to be a lot of quality for the dollar spent. I know that I am not alone in my confusion with new brands. Anyone else have any thoughts along this line?

Lee,
Great post and yes, I have had similar thoughts. I notice at the few gun shows here in NZ that several of the new brands have made their way to market here also. While the selection of brands here is probably less extensive than the USA it's still confusing. Compared to the USA and Canada scope prices here are relatively expensive and the difference between established and newer brands is not so great I think. In newer brands I haven't seen anything, yet, that's improving or radically differing on established brands. Many seem to feature almost exactly the specs of the established models but the question I ponder re the newer brands is how good is the guarantee or after sales servicing should something break down.
All my present scopes are Leupolds or Swarovski. I know Leupolds back up standard by reputation only as I have never had a Leupold fail. I have no complaints about Swarovski service standards. They repaired a newish spotting scope promptly at no charge.
If such a review as you call for were to be produced it would be good to include ratings of back up provided by all the various brands.

Lee,
I have fought with scopes for many years. I settled on Leupolds for a bit then had eye surgery and switched to Swarovski. I now only shoot the illuminated reticles as they are the easiest to use.

I have tried all of the main brands except Kahles. At the end of the day, you get what you pay for. The best deal is not the best deal if your eyes do not like the optics. I would not rely on a sales pitch or on an advertisement on a hunting show. I would go to Cabelas or Bass Pro - lay out a bunch of scopes and look through them. Your eyes will not lie.

As a sidebar, I went to the SAAM shooting school. They really like Swarovski.

Big box retail and convention centers in which dsc and sci are held are some of the worst places to judge optics due to lighting.

I own many Leica Leopold Zeiss Swarovski Nikon ect.

Spending a fair bit of time at the 300 meter range and comparing all scopes to a Swarovski z3 that is on my k-95 and sits right next to my shooting bags. Nothing is as clear and as well focused as the Swarovski. The quality of glass is exceptional.

Dogcat is right - you need to look all a lot of scopes. I would just do it outdoors and outside of artificial lighting.

Mike

I appreciate the feedback and will share a true story. Approx twenty years ago, when I was still in the business, I had a friend who was the manager of the gun dept. of a large sporting goods chain in Houston. They carried many brands of scopes, from Tasco to Zeiss. One day, just for kicks, he took a scope display rack and took four scopes, all 3x9, affixed them side by side with rubber bands to the short rack, and then covered them with cloth and tape so that you could operate the focus and power setting, but could not identify the brand. The scopes were a Redfield Illuminator, leupold vx2, Zeiss Diavari and, get this, a new at that time, Tasco World Class. As I recall that was the first Tasco that cost around $100. He used it as a demonstration that your eyes can deceive you, when it comes to lens quality, and that some lens coatings can give the appearance of being "Brighter", while not necessarily better. Hard as it is to believe, when asked, the customers picked the Tasco over 70% of the time in the blind test, just because it appeared brighter. I'm sure it is wishful thinking, but it would be nice if there was an industry standard that was applied to scopes that would give you a meaningful way to compare them in performance, not just a subjective impression before you buy. Car guys might read Road and Track to research auto's and they give valuable info like stopping distance, turning radius, acceleration, etc, under controlled conditions that allow you to do meaningful comparisons. It appears that we don't have anything like that for optics.

Lee, I doubt if there is anything like an unbiased review in any commercial (or even association-based) magazine, because they all rely on advertising to keep going. Often an ad for the product being reviewed will sit on the adjacent page, which is a dead give-away that the review is just a free ad.

The technical aspects are often just spewed out as though from a press release, with nary a the makers claim qualifier - and any fault the reviewer does notice will be couched in the most humble terms.

For your daring to bring these matters to the fore, however, I think you deserve a copy of my book on scopes, so PM me your address and I'll send you one, free, maybe when I get back from buffalo hunting in about three weeks.

Saw one scope advertised a 95% light transmitting! Best in the Industry! I would really like to see the equipment used to measure that? I worked in a standards lab, if it does not have a "K" stamp it is BS! "Light" is a very open noun! Are we talking sun light, artificial light or monochromatic light. All way too subjective. I do think every body raising the price because everybody is, is partly right. The mechanical and coating side of scopes are just better. Who would judge? Tested in a lab and "K" stamped!!!!!

I would listen closely to Bobby. He spends a lot of time behind quality scopes. It’s not like he references or focuses on finish or styling of scopes but on the glass.

I don’t trust magazines ect on scopes. The gun press is a joke.

For my $$$ - I see a blaser high end illuminated scope and otherwise mainly Swarovski z3 z5.

Mike

One easy way to get higher light transmission is to use fewer lenses, but then resolution suffers.

Sambarman, that is a very generous offer! PM sent.

Thanks Lee, the book is on its way.

Like Dogcat say’s, let your eyes do the testing, as simple as that. I found that out when I took a Leupold and a Zeiss outside at the dealers, I picked the Zeiss.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard Wayne:
Like Dogcat say’s, let your eyes do the testing, as simple as that. I found that out when I took a Leupold and a Zeiss outside at the dealers, I picked the Zeiss.

I don't doubt you picked the better scope, but if you really want to run a test on scopes you need to test brightness, resolution (often forgotten about), zero change when shifting zoom/power (not a huge issue these days but did have one ten years ago that had a definite zero change from high to low power), tracking (if you intend to shoot at long range), and then balance all of that against weight.

No easy task if you ask me.

I'm kind of surprised to read the various posts on this thread. I like and appreciate premium optics as much as the next guy, but as far as riflescopes are concerned it is one of my least important criteria as most any $300+ scope will have optics good enough to kill animals up to legal shooting light. The most important thing I look for is a scope that is repeatable, will hold zero, and has adjustments that track true. Also important is having a reticle that can be seen/used in poor light. Optics are probably 3rd on that list, as well as the scope having enough tube length to mount it properly.

I love Swarovski binoculars, but not so much their riflescopes. I had one go south while I was shooting at a big 190" mule deer buck a few years ago. It was the SwaroA 3-10x42. Two of my hunting buddies had their 1" Swaro's do the same thing. Swaro fixed it and I promptly sold it....bad erector. A scope that won't hold zero is useless, even if it has the best glass on the planet.

quote:

Lately, there are so many "new" brands of scopes on the market that it is hard to know, just what the quality of them really are.

Yes, there are lots of "brands", but only a limited number of manufacturers. Outside of the carriage trade European brands, only Leupold and a few specialty scopes are not made by a relatively small handful of Asian optics manufacturers. Pick a name and it likely came from the same plant in the Phillipines or China as the competitor sitting next to it. Now, although I have no use for the plethora of branded Asian scopes, I'm all for them. Their existence and competition forces Leupold (and maybe a couple of other serious optical gun sight manufacturers) to keep their scopes affordably priced and widely available.

The discussion about "who makes the best scope?" too often centers on a tangental question of "who makes the best telescope?" The quality of the optical picture is very important, but, as JGRaider points out, is far from the only, or even the most important quality found in an optical gun sight. The scope's adaptation to the job you want it to do involves a lot of features like eye relief, eye placement, compactness, weight, structural integrity, maintenance of zero, accuracy of adjustment, simplicity of construction, field blending, and several more important factors.

Simply pointing a scope at the light and judging whether it "looks brighter" (which means it skews the light toward the red end of the spectrum) is a foolish way to judge scope quality and is way down on the list of important factors in scope performance.

If you are going to shoot at long range, you also need to add total travel, MOA (or mils) per revolution of the knob, and of course, rotation counters (a scope with target knobs but no rotation counter is ridiculous). Side parallax is mandatory so I can focus for wind mirage. Zero stop is a plus. And last but not least, it needs screws on the target turrets that don't come loose at the wrong time. Older Leupold scopes are the absolute worst offender here. Can't speak for any newer ones cuz I switched to NF for my LR scopes (still use a lot of Leupolds for hunting).

I agree with JGRaider; I can't remember a time with any scope that I wished for more brightness.

Leupold scopes, mostly fixed 3X and 4X, a few 2x7x28 and a couple of 3x9s..

8x30 Leicas that I traded a set of 9x50s Leica binocs for and they have suited me for years..They handle so well off hand..

Ive tried a number of others, but didn't do much for me..

I have an old Baush and Lomb spotting scope that's to kill for, not enough money to buy that puppy, have 20, 30 and looking for a 60 eye piece for it..

I have a ? quality range finder, compact and works great, but I never remember to use it..

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:
... I love Swarovski binoculars, but not so much their riflescopes. I had one go south while I was shooting at a big 190" mule deer buck a few years ago. It was the SwaroA 3-10x42. Two of my hunting buddies had their 1" Swaro's do the same thing. Swaro fixed it and I promptly sold it....bad erector. A scope that won't hold zero is useless, even if it has the best glass on the planet.

Bad erectors, JG? I would have sworn you joined those on a competing forum denouncing me for asserting there could be a problem with the concept of articulating erector sets to constantly centre reticles.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:
... I love Swarovski binoculars, but not so much their riflescopes. I had one go south while I was shooting at a big 190" mule deer buck a few years ago. It was the SwaroA 3-10x42. Two of my hunting buddies had their 1" Swaro's do the same thing. Swaro fixed it and I promptly sold it....bad erector. A scope that won't hold zero is useless, even if it has the best glass on the planet.

Bad erectors, JG? I would have sworn you joined those on a competing forum denouncing me for asserting there could be a problem with the concept of articulating erector sets to constantly centre reticles.

I don't pay much attention to what you write, but what I do know is these particular Swaro scope's erector assemblies failed miserably and would not track, hold zero, and had wandering POI. You can call that whatever you want.

Thanks JG,
I'll pay attention to this contribution of yours, at least, as it's grist for my mill.

I've heard other whispers that Swaro's flat-spring models are inclined to fail, too, but consider them just the tip of the image-movement iceberg.

I'm not even convinced the coil springs in the Z5 and Z6 models solve everything, considering the possibility of parallax from fore/aft movement of the erector tube over time. They do negated the twisting and chattering of flat springs against the outer tube, however.

I really enjoy Bobby Tomek's reviews when he posts them. Always on point and provides very nice photos. Usually hunts with the model in pitch black to let us know the light gathering properties. High end glass is a treat for your eyes

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Thanks JG,
I'll pay attention to this contribution of yours, at least, as it's grist for my mill.

I've heard other whispers that Swaro's flat-spring models are inclined to fail, too, but consider them just the tip of the image-movement iceberg.

I'm not even convinced the coil springs in the Z5 and Z6 models solve everything, considering the possibility of parallax from fore/aft movement of the erector tube over time. They do negated the twisting and chattering of flat springs against the outer tube, however.

I take it your contention is the basic erector assembly is flawed?

Ever try Nightforce?

It may not matter on rifles that don't kick much, AnotherAZWriter, but I believe that 'hingeing' an erector tube (even on a gimbal) from the rear end - whereby physics will pull the front end loose as the rifle rises under recoil - is a bad idea, likely to end in breakdown over time.

The best way to get a constantly centred reticle I've seen was Pecar's putting a first-focal-plane reticle in a slightly constricted housing ring, which acted as a field stop. The only trouble with that was it could limit field of view and add tunnel vision. The latter problem would also be enhanced if used in a variable, but I have never seen a Pecar Champion in a variable to check.

Does anyone know of a variable Champion or a Pecar variable where the reticle couldn't be wound out of centre?

PS: no I haven't tried Nightforce but they are certainly well-advertised. They know there is a problem with chattering flat springs, hence their tumbling theirs for days on end. For all that they still use a long, brassy-looking erector tube. I notice the model one customer used on his cannon-calibre tactical rifle had what appeared to be a Burris Posi-Lock arrangement to stop the erector tube bouncing around.

And though one poster here says he has wrecked three Burris scopes with Posi-Lock, I think a third screw or pillar at 7.30 is the only way to keep articulated erector tubes under control.

optic is not the only part of the equation.

i have an old vari III with a german reticle 1 that is brighter than her younger sister in duplex VX3i. all for a leupold 2.5-8x36.

im talking about shooting at dark hours.

Yes, medved, optics are only part of the equation (as I've tried to argue) but brightness is kind of optical, though it might be fiddled with rose-colored glasses and other cheats.

In some cases you can have too much light coming through a scope, which is apparently a danger to resolution and your eyes. In matters of shooting in those really dark hours, however, I would bow to Bobby Tomek.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

I take it your contention is the basic erector assembly is flawed?

Ever try Nightforce?

I think in the SwaroA series that I referenced, based on my own experience and that of several friends, I'd say it's not very durable or reliable. Swaro's great customer service fixed it, then I sold it and haven't used another 1" Swaro scope.

I have not personally tried NF, but the NX8 is very interesting to me. There's a guy over on 24HCF that tests rifles, optics, ammo for the US DOD, and sees 500,000 rds pre year go down range, more than most will see in 10 lifetimes. He says by far the most reliable is NF, but the Bushnell LRHS/LRTS and SWFA's are super reliable in his tests as well. I'm very happy with he LRHS's that I use.

JG, what's the user name on 24HCF of the dude you mentioned?

Formidilosis

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

I take it your contention is the basic erector assembly is flawed?

Ever try Nightforce?

I think in the SwaroA series that I referenced, based on my own experience and that of several friends, I'd say it's not very durable or reliable. Swaro's great customer service fixed it, then I sold it and haven't used another 1" Swaro scope.

I have not personally tried NF, but the NX8 is very interesting to me. There's a guy over on 24HCF that tests rifles, optics, ammo for the US DOD, and sees 500,000 rds pre year go down range, more than most will see in 10 lifetimes. He says by far the most reliable is NF, but the Bushnell LRHS/LRTS and SWFA's are super reliable in his tests as well. I'm very happy with he LRHS's that I use.

Bushnell has made some really good stuff over the years; I love their 3200 line of scopes. They have an image problem (pun intended) due to the crappy crap they also put out years ago.

I don't blame you AZ. I probably still have some bias myself, except for these LRHS scopes I've used. They do work very well. I actually had a 4200 on an old 30-06 that did the trick as well until I sold that rifle.

What is your favorite NF scope for busting steel at long range?

Well, but I love the ATACR but it is a heavy bugger.

NXS line works great too. Actually, one of the most important features IMO is to have 30 MOA in one turret revolution or have a zero stop.

I shot one of my Lapuas at 500 steel a few weeks ago and we could not even see dirt splashes. I thought I had last shot at 800 yards, so I came down my usual # of MOAs. After a few shots I just gave up. Got home and realized I had last shot it at 1200 and needed to come down a whole bunch more.

Are you using 34mm tubes? I obviously don't know much about NF other than they're bulletproof.

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:
Formidilosis

Thanks for that - not a name I recall but I'll watch out for it.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
Well, but I love the ATACR but it is a heavy bugger.

NXS line works great too. Actually, one of the most important features IMO is to have 30 MOA in one turret revolution or have a zero stop.

I shot one of my Lapuas at 500 steel a few weeks ago and we could not even see dirt splashes. I thought I had last shot at 800 yards, so I came down my usual # of MOAs. After a few shots I just gave up. Got home and realized I had last shot it at 1200 and needed to come down a whole bunch more.

That's another reason I'm not wrapped in the concept of twiddling knobs for long shots - I'd be bound to forget to turn them back, sooner or later.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
Well, but I love the ATACR but it is a heavy bugger.

NXS line works great too. Actually, one of the most important features IMO is to have 30 MOA in one turret revolution or have a zero stop.

I shot one of my Lapuas at 500 steel a few weeks ago and we could not even see dirt splashes. I thought I had last shot at 800 yards, so I came down my usual # of MOAs. After a few shots I just gave up. Got home and realized I had last shot it at 1200 and needed to come down a whole bunch more.

That's another reason I'm not wrapped in the concept of twiddling knobs for long shots - I'd be bound to forget to turn them back, sooner or later.

sambar, a zero-stop is fool proof.

quote:

sambar, a zero-stop is fool proof.

... as long as you remember to use it? I haven't looked into them - do they reset automatically?

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

quote:

sambar, a zero-stop is fool proof.

... as long as you remember to use it? I haven't looked into them - do they reset automatically?

You just spin down until it stops at your 200 yard zero (I suppose you could have a 100 yd zero).

Nothing is foolproof. In the case above, I didn't even look at the numbers - just spun them down. Dumb. I also have a Horus reticle - works great normally but it is really easy to get lost in that reticle and I have shot on the wrong line before. But the biggest problem is wind hold-off - hard to hold over and off if you don't have a hash mark. A more simple reticle, like a B&C, works great but not really a long range solution. But for 99% of hunting, it is perfect.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

quote:

sambar, a zero-stop is fool proof.

... as long as you remember to use it? I haven't looked into them - do they reset automatically?

If you're that stupid you need to not have a gun in your hands.

Don't put the moz on it, JG, in case you ever forget something even more important.

Its a bit old but it is far more accurate than testing the scopes out front of the store at midday.

Swedish magazine Vapentidningen no 6/2004 has printed a consumer lab test for rifle scopes suitable for hunting at dusk/dawn.
Their conclusion is that the German/Austrian scopes are by far the best, but the leap from the cheaper US scopes are smaller today than it was at the last test 7 years ago.
Aerotech Telub lab did the scientific testing using spectrophotometers, broad spectral lamps and kolliminators.

The scopes were tested for field of sight, eye relief, "tube effect", ergonomy, click adjustment accuracy, impact change with change of magnification, sharpness and contrast, light transmission, reflexes, twilight performance.
Here's a bit more on the test. unfortunately the scope selection was somewhat limited. And please not that the test was geared towards scopes for post hunting in dark autumn evenings.
The test and description of the test criteria runs over 10 typed pages, so there’s a bit too much work to translate all of that and post them on this forum However, I will post the scoring scales.


Field of view at 100m
0-5m 0 points
5-6m 1 point
6-7m 2 points
7m+ 3 points

Eye relief
0-6cm 0 points
6-8cm 1 point
8-10 2 points
10+ 3 points

Tube effect
Sight picture severly disturbed by tube effect at all magnifications: 0 points
Sight picture severly disturbed at lowest magnification, disturbed at highest: 1 point
Sight picture distusturbed at all magnifications: 2 points
Sight picture disturbed only at lowest magnification: 3 points
Sight picture not disturbed: 4 points

Ergonomy
Magnification ring turns smooth and even: 1 point
Possible to read magnification marking in the dark: 1 point
Quick and smooth focusing: 1 point
Possible to click scope without tools: 1 point
Click adjustment easy to feel: 1 point
Good markings on all adjustments: 1 point
Indication of scope center: 1 point

Sight adjustment
Click adjustment deviation in percent
100-50% 0 points
50-20% 1 point
20-5% 2 points
5-1% 3 points
0% 4 points

Adjustment range at 100m
0-50cm 0 points
50-100cm 1 point
100-200cm 2 points
200-300cm 3 points
300cm+ 4 points

Change of impact with magnification at 100m
5cm+ 0 points
5-1cm 1 point
1cm- 2points
Nil 3points

Resolution and contrast
Field testing, can/cannot see various targets, details and colours under equal conditions and settings
Resolution 0-10 points
Contrast 0-10 points

Anti reflex
Under equal conditions and settings with light source facing the objective

Lenses
Not able to see through scope: 0 points
Sight picture is white, difficult to aim: 1 point
Sight picture is white, but aiming possible: 2 points
Sight picture a little white: 3 points
Sight picture good, but without contrast or colour: 4 points
Sight picture not affected: 5 points

Reticule
Not able to use the reticule: 0 points
Severe shadows and reflexes on it: 1 point
Shadows and reflexes on it: 2 points
A little shiny: 3 points
Sharp but mis-coloured: 4 points
Sharp and black: 5 points

Light transmission at 500-550 nm (twilight light)
Please note that scopes can transmit other wavelength light better

0-10% 0 points
10-30% 1 point
30-40% 2 points
40-50% 3 points
50-60% 4 points
60-70% 5 points
70-80% 6 points
80-85% 7 points
85-90% 8 points
90-95% 9 points
95-100% 10 points

Twilight performance
Light were progressively reduced and scopes where excluded when it was no longer possible to determine target/crosshairs. Lighted reticules were not used. Scopes where used at all magnifications. Scopes where scored 0 to 10 points according to how little light it was possible to use it in.

Scopes tested:
BSA big cat 3,5-10x42
Burris fullfield II 3,5-10x50
Bushnell elite 4200 2,5-10x40
Docter 3-12x56
Kahles cb 3-12x56
Leupold XIII 3.5-10x50
Meopta artemis 2000 3-12x50
Meopta artemis 3000 3-12x56
Micro Dot 2.5-10x56
Nickel gerhardt 3-12x56
Nightforce np1 3.5-15x56
OXO ontario 3-9x56
Pecar 4-10x56
S&B Zenith 2.5-10x56
S&B 2.5-10x56
Shirstone Gold 4-12x58
Shirstone Gold 3-10x56
Swarovski Habict 2.5-10x56
Tasco Titan 3-12x52
Trijicon accupoint 2.5-10x56
Zeiss diavari z 3-12x56
Zeiss varipoint v 3-12x56
Zeiss diavari v 3-12x56
A short summary of the results below.

Scope name
B resolution (max 10)
C colour & contrast (max 10)
D anti-reflex (max 5+5)
E light transmission (max 10)
F twilight performance (max 10)
G overall test result (including all test results, not just the ones I've printed. Max possible 7Cool

Remember, this is a lab test, not some testers subjective opinion.

BSA Big cat 3,5-10x: B3 C3 D5 E6 F3 G44
BURRIS FULLFIELD II 3,5-10X: B10 C7 D6 E9 F7 G58
DOCTER 3-12X: B7 C8 D8 E8 F7 G60
KAHLES CB 3-12: B6 C8 D8 E9 F8 G62
LEUPOLD VXIII 3,5-10X:B7 C7 D8 E8 F6 G60
MEOPTA ARTEMIS 3000 3-12X: B7 C7 D7 E7 F7 G57
MEOPTA ARTEMIS 2000 3-12X: B6 C7 D7 E7 F6 G55
MICRO DOT 2,3-10X: B7 C6 D7 E8 F7 G58
NICKEL GERHARDT 3-12X: B9 C8 D8 E9 F9 G66
NIGHTFORCE NP1 3,5-15X: B9 C6 D9 E8 F7 G60
OXO ONTARIO 3-9X: B3 C3 D4 E6 F2 G39
PECAR 4-10X: B5 C6 D6 E8 F5 G46
SCHMIDT UND BENDER ZENITH 2,5-10X: B7 C8 D9 E9 F9 G65
SCHMIDT UND BENDER 2,5-10X: B9 C8 D8 E9 F9 G66
SHIRSTONE GOLD 4-12X: B5 C5 D5 E7 F5 G47
SWAROVSKI HABICT 3-12X: B9 C9 D8 E9 F10 G68
TASCO TITAN 3-12X: B5 C6 D6 E7 F4 G49
TRIJICON ACCUPOINT 2,5-10X: B8 C6 D8 E9 F8 G64
ZEISS DIAVARI Z T 3-12X: B10 C10 D10 E9 F10 G72
ZEISS VARIPOINT V 3-12X: B9 C10 D10 E9 F9 G70
ZEISS DIAVARI V 3-12X: B10 C10 D10 E9 F10 G73