Thanks Gryphon, I'd love to see that report.

May I suggest that the Pecar's poor showing might be something to do with the Berlin factory (and total production?) having closed about 2005 and the possibility that the scope tested may date from years before that. Not that Pecars were ever that flash in FoV, eye relief and tunnel effect, anyway, their reputation was largely based on toughness and reliability, something the Swedish article doesn't seem to test.

How did they find the tunnel effect in the Nickel Gerhardt (presumably the modern Nickel AG, only available by mail order)? The old Nickel Supras used to be first-rate in this regard 50 years ago but I haven't had a chance to look through the new ones.

I have owned Leopold, Meopta, Swarovski, Redfield and Zeiss conquest scopes.
Leupold, Swarovski, Leica, Fujinon and Zeiss binoculars.
Probably going to say something unpopular here. I am not a fan of Swarovski for one reason. FLARE! They do not appear to know how to control flare. In the rising or setting sun you cannot get the sight picture of the scope close to the sun without having the sight become a giant glow. If you have a target close to that direction you will not be able to see it. We typically see our quarry at those periods of the day.
I love their products in all other applications.
I have two AV/Z3 scopes 4X12X50 that are light and awesome outside this one aspect. Their binocs share the same troublesome issue.
I am set on leupold and Meopta scopes these days and Leica binocs.
There is a lot of good stuff out there to choose from these days

EZ

I have seen camera lens reviews where the lens was set up in an optical bench and objectively tested for everything imaginable using, I am guessing very expensive, optical testing equipment. Does no one do this with rifle scopes? This takes all the subjective nonsense out of the equation. Testing for 'ruggedness' or longevity would require testing to destruction, which could be interesting and expensive.
C.G.B.

quote:

Originally posted by cgbach:
I have seen camera lens reviews where the lens was set up in an optical bench and objectively tested for everything imaginable using, I am guessing very expensive, optical testing equipment. Does no one do this with rifle scopes? This takes all the subjective nonsense out of the equation. Testing for 'ruggedness' or longevity would require testing to destruction, which could be interesting and expensive.
C.G.B.

Good point, CG. Reliability is often established only after a model is superseded.

If I know one thing it is that scopes made before constantly centred reticles had less inside to go wrong. They had erector sets fixed firmly in the outer tube, with only the reticle ring tensioned against the turret screws. Because the reticle assy weighed a small fraction of a modern erector tube assembly and was not hinged to swing in an arc reciprocal to the rifle rising under recoil, it tended to stay where it was put rather than rocking around at every shot. Some old scopes had the reticle slide up and down in a dovetail to prevent any longitudinal or lateral movement. Others, like the Bausch & Lomb and Leupold Pioneer (both made into the 1960s), had the reticles fixed rock solid.

Some makers seem to have finally tamed the image-movement beast but it still bucks when put on a heavy kicker and is bound to give trouble eventually, if used enough.

Has anyone else read Optics for the Hunter, by John Barsness (Safari Press)? Published in 1999, it's somewhat dated but still has a wealth of good info about evaluating, testing, and mounting scopes. He names names and evaluates the various makes by resolution, brightness, clarity, and other factors.

Barsness explains how differing means of hunting and hunter expectations in Europe and America have affected scope design. In Europe hunters typically don't mount a scope themselves; they take it to a gunsmith to do the job. Also, a lot of European hunting, I understand, takes place after legal shooting hours in the States.

There are new brands not mentioned in the book, but most of Barsnesses' info is still relevant.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Has anyone else read Optics for the Hunter, by John Barsness (Safari Press)? Published in 1999, it's somewhat dated but still has a wealth of good info about evaluating, testing, and mounting scopes. He names names and evaluates the various makes by resolution, brightness, clarity, and other factors.

Barsness explains how differing means of hunting and hunter expectations in Europe and America have affected scope design. In Europe hunters typically don't mount a scope themselves; they take it to a gunsmith to do the job. Also, a lot of European hunting, I understand, takes place after legal shooting hours in the States.

There are new brands not mentioned in the book, but most of Barsnesses' info is still relevant.

Excellent resource from a very knowledgeable and good guy. He is a wealth of information. He goes by Mule Deer over on 24HCF.

I will spend big bucks on my binocs, but Leupold scopes, Weaver sCopes, Nikon suit me fine, all a scope does for me is put the X on the animal, the rest is horse hockey...I figured that out in the far north, Mexico, the four corners of the world by observation and the number of shutins that have old worn out scopes and rifles and they are totally successful in the field at keeping the kids fed...Brings to mind the difference in men and boys is the cost of mens toys!!!

The ATACR 7-35 SFP only comes with the MOAR-T reticle. The main horizontal and verticle lines are reported to be 0.05 MOA in thickness. Has anyone used this scope and have you had trouble seeing the central cross hair?

I agree with Ray! Toughness and light transmission! Trying to buy Xs has bled over to hunting. Some people have more dollar than sense!

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I will spend big bucks on my binocs, but Leupold scopes, Weaver sCopes, Nikon suit me fine, all a scope does for me is put the X on the animal, the rest is horse hockey...I figured that out in the far north, Mexico, the four corners of the world by observation and the number of shutins that have old worn out scopes and rifles and they are totally successful in the field at keeping the kids fed...Brings to mind the difference in men and boys is the cost of mens toys!!!

That's all true, Ray, but those guys succeed largely because they're lucky and don't know an elephant in the room might tread on them. You have sent back enough scopes to know that even good brands can let you down, particularly in the area of erector tubes and their springs since the 1950s.

A modern scope is a bit like the cliched sausage - best not to know how it's made.

Mixing the metaphors, I recall my father's ranching before 4x4s were common. (Land Rovers were expensive, too basic to double as family transport and, made in England, harder to start than the local GMs, Fords and Chryslers.) So, Dad drove his cars off the tracks and if one got bogged he put hessian bags under the rear wheels and usually got moving. If not, he would walk home and get the tractor. Like your 'shutins', he made do with what he could afford.

But now I see another parallel: the independent suspension of a modern car is great on smooth roads but when you get into the rough stuff, there's nothing like a live axle - and a tractor with no ride-softening but springs under the seat is the toughest set-up of all.

So Sunday-driving shooters can put their faith in whatever the marketers tell them - and may never see a problem, even off road - but those who traverse the roughest ground, carrying rifles that really kick, are not wrong to have doubts.

This has been really educational. It has convinced me how much I don't know. Most of you are so far past what I can understand it is not funny. That being said what is the general consensus of the VX6 series of leupold for general hunt and the occasional long range metal ringing.

As scopes go these days, mdvjrp93, I quite like Leupolds. I have not used the VX6 but the 6x multiple worries me as do all such wide-zoom variables. This is because the power scroll exists within the erector tube, the bit that allows most scopes to claim constantly centred reticles.

This erector tube is 'hinged' at the back (usually by a gimbal, now) and pressed up at the front against turret screws by spring(s). Under heavy recoil the front end will be left behind by inertia, to slam back against the screws as the rifle is slowed by the shooter's shoulder. It took scope makers a long time to get much beyond 3x multiples (eg 3-9x and 4-12x), so more is obviously more complicated and probably heavier, esp. if brass rather than aluminum is used to limit galling as the power scroll is acted on to change power. The heavier the erector tube becomes, the more it will be affected by recoil inertia and the more stress will be put on the erector springs.

You must really hate the new Nightforce NX8 series, even though NF makes the most reliable and rugged scopes on the planet.

I've had a Leupold VX6 2-12x42 for 5 years now and it's been bulletproof, going to Africa 5 times and Sonora, MX a couple.

Those are the real world facts Sambar, not something I've read about on the internet or spec sheets.

Thanks for the input not trying to start a urinating challenge. JGRaider what reticle do you have in it.

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:
You must really hate the new Nightforce NX8 series, even though NF makes the most reliable and rugged scopes on the planet.

I've had a Leupold VX6 2-12x42 for 5 years now and it's been bulletproof, going to Africa 5 times and Sonora, MX a couple.

Those are the real world facts Sambar, not something I've read about on the internet or spec sheets.

No JG, since Nightforce came from Australia I have a certain pride in the marque. I know they tumble their erector springs for weeks to stop them hanging up and breaking on the outside tube and that they claim fine tolerances and best materials keep their scopes from malfunctioning. However, I still wonder if their claims to long life on cannon calibres may have something to do with a third 'screw' on a couple of their extreme-range scopes.

Your happy experience with the VX6 is good but in isolation not definitive proof of anything. I wonder how many rounds it would withstand on Ray Atkinson's 458 Lott? Maybe the extra money charged for this line adds extra bandaids but I seem to recall Ray saying a lesser VXR model rattled by the time he'd fired five packets.

I don't know much about scopes so I just top my scoped rifle with Leupold. Mostly low powered, but a couple of 3x9s on 22 caliber rifles.

Dave

Well I know Sambarman has a lifetime of taking scopes apart and putting them back together locating their bad points and good points, so I respect his decisions, and like most experts he get involved it tech and the finer points..His knowledge however is vast and accurate IMO..

That said I hate foreign scopes, the finish is so slick some move under impact when fired, I dislike huge bells, bulky scopes, heavy scopes and out of control varibles from 1.2 to 40X that look like a baseball ba. These are all issues with me and as a result I don't use them or recommend them, but I have no truck with those that do, other than from time to time on safari I had to perform aboritons and ablaisons on them so the hunter could continue his hunt, while I wasted away in safari camp shooting a target or whatever...

To each his own as on most subjects in regards to hunting fishing and team roping..Opinnions are like assholes, everybodys got one!

Trouble is, Ray, I don't take enough scopes apart, because I like the old ones too much and can't bring myself to buy many of the new ones.

However, I have looked at a few patents and, if the scopes followed the patent concepts, there is a vast-and-glaring difference in the possibilities under recoil inertia when you set off a cannon beneath them.

Assuming they were set between solid sleeves, the only thing that could move in the old reticle-movement scopes was a quarter-ounce ring held against the turret screws by a spring.

In modern scopes there is a three-to-five-inch tube, hinged at the back and pressed against the screws by spring(s) possibly no stronger than used in the old scopes 70 years ago. That tube may weigh anywhere between two and four ounces, depending on whether its housing is aluminum or self-lubricating brass (esp. in variables where galling can be a problem).

Swarovski have claimed that the recoil 'pressure' on one of those erector tubes can be from 500 to 800 times that of its mass at rest - and I believe them. Their answer to it and mine are slightly different, though.

Some of the old German scopes certainly were a bit on the glossy side, particularly S&B's, but I wouldn't be above sanding them a bit if I needed to take them hunting.

My latest hobbyhorse, however, is the seeming fragility of the outer tubes in modern scopes, such that people are advised to go to great trouble not to bend the damned things when mounting them.

My concern comes from the fact that many US/Japanese alloy scopes are the same dimensions as old steel tubes but probably don't have lenses any smaller. The Germans, however, made their old dural tubes thicker than the steel models and almost always added a stout mounting rail to stiffen them. I'm not completely on board with why rings need to be lapped to prevent bending the scope, though. I heard a gunsmith say bending a scope caused the reticle to break but I'm unable to see how that would be likely. It could pervert the light path through the lenses but would have to be well bent to be any worse than with an erector tube clicked out to the edge by an idiot or long-range shooter.

Anyway, despite Don Burris's links with the company that brought us constantly centred reticles, I am quite pleased with a couple of his own brand's recent offerings. I liked the general Posi-Lock concept, though it may need to be stronger, and I'm a great fan of their Signature scope rings with their swivelling plastic inserts. Using the eccentric inserts also available, scopes can be mounted straight without need of shims, which raises in my mind the question: do we still need constantly centred reticles?

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:

That said I hate foreign scopes, the finish is so slick some move under impact when fired

Not if you remember to tighten down the rings...

Honestly, I almost spit out my coffee when I read that line. None of the Euro finishes are any "slicker" than the gloss Leupies you use, Ray. There are no issues when mounted properly.

Here's a "slick"-finished older Euro I just mounted today. Maybe I should add some glue or epoxy so it doesn't slide in the rings, eh?

I'm really late to this party, but thought I might add the following. In the opening post, the issue was raised of where one can get unbiased reviews of scopes. I haven't seen this mentioned in the thread (although I might have missed it), but I've found one forum to be excellent in this regard and have learned a ton about scopes from it. The top guy there and some of the moderators are really expert in scope construction and performance. It is the Optics Talk Forum:

http://www.opticstalk.com/

As for slippage in the rings, I always sprinkle a little rosin on the inside of the rings before tightening them down.

My opinion is unbiased in that I only require a cross hair and proper functioning scope, most are good enough for me to see a deer at daylight and a elephant at 20 yards in the evening..and I hate big bulky scopes, and not crazy about varibles..

I like the look and slim trim lines of Leupold, and I can see the barbs of my pasture fence down the road..the other stuff is just that, "stuff"

But when it comes to stuff, I am particular about my binocs..I like 8x30 Liecas for hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by South Pender:
I'm really late to this party, but thought I might add the following. In the opening post, the issue was raised of where one can get unbiased reviews of scopes. I haven't seen this mentioned in the thread (although I might have missed it), but I've found one forum to be excellent in this regard and have learned a ton about scopes from it. The top guy there and some of the moderators are really expert in scope construction and performance. It is the Optics Talk Forum:

http://www.opticstalk.com/

As for slippage in the rings, I always sprinkle a little rosin on the inside of the rings before tightening them down.

I have spent time there, too, South Pender, but found some of the gurus seem to have fingers in the industry pie, whereby they have vested interests to protect. AR has a few, too, but seem more likely to declare their position in sponsorship lines. In this way we have a better idea where the sentiments come from.

I noticed bushnell was one of the scopes tested but is not in the line-up showing results. Was that an oversight?

I was really curious to see how bushnell did. I've always like their scopes. Only used them on 6.5's and 308/30-06.

Kind regards,

Carpediem

Sambarman,
As you stated Ive sent a lot of scopes back, and recoil has been my lifes problem..Leupold solved that problem with the 2.5 compact as far as Im concerned but I might add Ive never felt any real need or a scope on a DG rifle..

Bobby,
Damn, you had me wishing you,d drink more coffee!

Yes, Ray, and you were a shining light of info. for my book.

I'm sure that less is more when it comes to moveable stuff inside scopes, hence the small, simple erector tube inside Leupold's 2.5x compact should last much longer than complex, brass-scrolled ones in high-multiple variables.

Though one of the dudes on Optics Talk told me some high-multiple variables' lenses can move back towards the ocular as power is increased, the traditional direction in scopes and telephoto lenses is towards the objective end. Therefore, I believe the erector-lens travel in big variables is likely to be longer, extending closer to the first focal plane. If so, this will increase the leverage of the front end under recoil and the likelihood something will get damaged over time.

However, I suspect there is some difference between the average Leupold 2.5x Compact and that special one they sent you, which lasted so long on your 458 Lott and .505. By the description they gave you it seems obvious to me that the special scope had old-timey reticle-movement, where the only bits that move inside are a little ring suspending the reticle and the spring(s) holding it against the turret screws.