Scope Ranking

28 February 2008, 05:14

Doctor D

Scope Ranking

From Varminter.com

Relative Scope Rankings

Agree, dissagree, additions, subtractions and why.

10 - Swarovski Z6, Zeiss Victory

9 - Kahles C - CL & CSX, Schmidt & Bender

8 - Kahles KX, U.S. Optics, Swarovski PH & American, X.O.T.I.C., Zeiss Classic

7 - Bushnell Elite 6500, Leupold VX-7, Nightforce, IOR Valdada

6 - Bushnell Elite 4200, Nikon Monarch & Monarch X, Zeiss Conquest

5 - Leupold Mark 4 VX III & VX-L, Nikon Monarch Gold & Titanium, Sightron SIII

4 - Burris Black Diamond Signature Select XTR & Euro Diamond, Meopta, Pentax Lightseeker, Super Sniper, Trijicon Accupoint, Weaver Grand Slam

3 - Bushnell Elite 3200, Leatherwood, Leupold VX-II, Millet, Nikon Buckmaster, Sightron SI & SII, Simmons Aetec, Vortex

2 - Burris Fullfield II & Timberline, Leupold Rifleman & VX-I, Mueller, Nikon ProStaff, Simmons, Swift

1 - Barska, BSA, Tasco

0 - ATN, Leapers, NcStar

28 February 2008, 17:21

DMB

I would have to rank the Leupold VX-7 up near the top, not sure where, as I haven't compared mine to any of the best scopes. But, the VX-7 I have in 1.5-6x is an excellent scope.

Don

28 February 2008, 20:55

scubapro

You should add Swarovski PV edition on 10 points ranking!

28 February 2008, 21:05

DGR Shooter

IMO Schmidt & Bender is every bit as good as the Swarovski Z6 and Zeiss Victory.

28 February 2008, 22:28

toolio

Schmidt & Bender equal to a Kahles?????

S

28 February 2008, 22:37

Clayman

quote:
Originally posted by DGR Shooter:
IMO Schmidt & Bender is every bit as good as the Swarovski Z6 and Zeiss Victory.

That's the same objection I was gonna have. S&B scopes are the finest I've ever looked through. Swarovski and Zeiss are on the same level, but I've never been as blown away as with the S&B.

28 February 2008, 22:50

Mikelravy

I would move the Leupold VX11 up over the Burrises and Bushnells. Don't know about most of the others.

28 February 2008, 23:27

Gaillo

Hi again!
I've recently compared a BUNCH of scopes when finding the one I eventually topped off my Sako 85 .260 with. I compared Bushnell 4200, Zeiss Conquest, Nightforce, Burris, Leupold VX7, Sightron, and Nikon Monarch scopes. Unfortunatly, I had no local source of IOR, Swarovski, or S&B to compare those in the mix... although I've compared S&B to Leupold VX7 in the past, and found the S&B to be *slightly* superior optically.

I rated the local options as follows (in terms of overall OPTICAL [not mechanical] quality):

1 - Zeiss Conquest and Nikon Monarch (Tied)
2 - Nightforce
3 - Burris and Leupold VX7 (Tied)
4 - Bushnell and Sightron (Tied)

I would probably put S&B somewhere around #1 or #2 based on past comparison with the Leupold, but not being able to compare it to the Zeiss, Nikon, and Nighforce this is just a guess. I've never looked through a Swarovski or IOR scope.

Ended up buying the Nikon Monarch due to about $400 difference in price (special sale on Nikon locally) and indistinguishable optical quality. I liked the wider FOV of the Zeiss, but in all other optical respects I found them identical. One more thing... economics did NOT dictate this decision (although it was nice to save the $$$) - I went into the shops with the cash to purchase the best scope I could buy for under $1,000... and felt that the choice for the Nikon finally boiled down to better ergonomic controls than the Zeiss, with the same optical quality. I can live without the Zeiss's larger FOV, and happily gave that up for better windage/elevation and side parallax knobs (plus the cost savings!).

Keep in mind that this is all very personal and subjective - as are most optical opinions.

Thanks!

29 February 2008, 01:41

Burlington Rd

This came from the staff of SWFA not original with Varmint.com and is on their optics talk forum. Five factors were included in their ranking including value and customer service.

I can't paste link

03 March 2008, 22:03

Stonecreek

Just goes to show you that all those stupid benchrest shooters, busting a gut to trim just .004" off of their group, don't know beans about scopes because they virtually all use Leupolds. What idiots!

04 March 2008, 06:10

Doctor D

quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Just goes to show you that all those stupid benchrest shooters, busting a gut to trim just .004" off of their group, don't know beans about scopes because they virtually all use Leupolds. What idiots!

Now that's an interesting statement.

I don't know anything about benchresting, but I do about long range shooting. I'd be willing to wager those "idiots" use Leupolds because they put the bullet where they are supposed to go.

They may not be the very best optically, but they are only topped by a couple scopes for accuracy and repeatability.

I just checked several 1,000 yard competition equipment lists by popularity. All read almost idenically: #1 Leupold Mk4, #2 Nightforce, and a distant 3rd, US Optics.

Practical Long Range Rifle Shooting recommendations. #1 Schmidt und Bender, #2 US Optics, and #3 Leupold Mk4.

You will find Leupolds, Redfields, Weaver V s, Weaver Grand Slams, Bushnell Elites, Schmidt und Benders, and Swarovskis on my hunting rifles.

My target rifles wear Weaver Ts.

My prairie dog guns are topped with Leupold VXIIs and VXIIIs and an el cheapo Eagle Eye. I'm considering replacing the VXII with a Bushnell Elite 4200.

My long range rifle wears a Leupold Mk4, but I may replace it with a Nightforce.

They all work very well for their intended purpose.

04 March 2008, 07:38

.366torque

Well my scopes are in the six. They haven't failed me yet.

04 March 2008, 09:20

Coltchris

Dollar for dollar, scopes in Group #6 can't be beat in my opinion.

05 March 2008, 01:21

Stonecreek

quote:
I'd be willing to wager those "idiots" use Leupolds because they put the bullet where they are supposed to go.

Precisely my point, Dr. D. I'll try to be a little more obvious in my sarcasm next time.

06 March 2008, 01:29

Raul Urrestarazu

Dont you think thatBSA are better constrycted scopes than Tasco or Barska _?

I had used one sweet 223 in my rifle and its reliability is outstanding

06 March 2008, 03:02

Bobby Tomek

I'm sure some folks have had good results with BSA, but from my experience, they are pure junk.

For those intent on buying one, it should eb noted that the acronym BSA stands for "Better Select Another."

06 March 2008, 05:07

Doctor D

quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
quote:
I'd be willing to wager those "idiots" use Leupolds because they put the bullet where they are supposed to go.

Precisely my point, Dr. D. I'll try to be a little more obvious in my sarcasm next time.

Ooops, Stonecreek, I guess I missed the sarcasm. Sorry 'bout that.

06 March 2008, 05:15

Doctor D

quote:
Originally posted by Raul Urrestarazu:
Dont you think thatBSA are better constrycted scopes than Tasco or Barska _?

I had used one sweet 223 in my rifle and its reliability is outstanding

I have exactly one scope from the two rated scopes. It's a Leupold Rifleman 2 x 7 on my NEF Handi-Rifle and I wouldn't have paid retail for it. I got it from Bass Pros catalog return outlet for $75. It wouldn't adjust. Sent it to Leupold and they fixed it free of charge.

I wouldn't consider anything else from group two and certainly not from one or zero for any rifle.

06 March 2008, 06:28

.366torque

Just bought another 2.5-10x4200. The price from 6 to 7 is a leap. So I'll hang around in my comfort zone.

My only #2's are a couple of 3-9x40 FF-2's. Not bad but the differance from them to the 4200's is OBVIOUS!!

06 March 2008, 17:47

tom ga hunter

I hate 30mm scopes, so my scopes are 4,5, & 6's.

except for 3 1" swarovski's.. but the fool that I am likes VXIII & Conquest better.

09 March 2008, 03:50

oheremicus

All pure subjective. What scope selection boils down to is what tradeoffs you select for your uses.
Leupolds, for instance, in spite of their long record of making as bright a scope as anyone, don't look that bright when compared to some others. The others being those with shorter eye relief and larger oculars.
I don't know about you, but when I can do just fine, even on a night w/o any moon with my Leupolds, then I can't help but wonder just what I need a still brighter scope for.
I do know that lack of eye box makes getting on target in a hurry much tougher. Since all my 4 yr. old class bucks were taken on the run in close quarters, I'll take a Leupold every time over their competition.
I also like the idea that they hold up under recoil better than anybody else's scope. E

09 March 2008, 04:04

HankinColorado

quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
quote:
I'd be willing to wager those "idiots" use Leupolds because they put the bullet where they are supposed to go.

Precisely my point, Dr. D. I'll try to be a little more obvious in my sarcasm next time.

LMFAO

09 March 2008, 06:38

woods

Hopefully this won't degenerate into a similar thread like on 24 hour!

Seems like E sticks with the Leupolds (even though he admits he hasn't tried the others) through thick and thin against all logic clinging to the last refuge of nebulous arbitrary highly subjective defense of claiming a larger "eye box".

Some other Leupold supporter will come along and agree even though a dozen others disagree.

Not that anyone cares, but I pretty much agree with the ranking except I would have put the Conquest up to 7 or 8 and the Leupolds down to 4 or 3.

I think E's post needs to have the first sentence moved to reflect it's contents

quote:
Originally posted by oheremicus:
~~All pure subjective.~~ What scope selection boils down to is what tradeoffs you select for your uses.
Leupolds, for instance, in spite of their long record of making as bright a scope as anyone, don't look that bright when compared to some others. The others being those with shorter eye relief and larger oculars.
I don't know about you, but when I can do just fine, even on a night w/o any moon with my Leupolds, then I can't help but wonder just what I need a still brighter scope for.
I do know that lack of eye box makes getting on target in a hurry much tougher. Since all my 4 yr. old class bucks were taken on the run in close quarters, I'll take a Leupold every time over their competition.
I also like the idea that they hold up under recoil better than anybody else's scope.

All pure subjective.

E

____________________________________
There are those who would misteach us that to stick in a rut is consistency - and a virtue, and that to climb out of the rut is inconsistency - and a vice.
- Mark Twain |

Chinese Proverb: When someone shares something of value with you and you benefit from it, you have a moral obligation to share it with others.

___________________________________

09 March 2008, 10:36

Gatogordo

quote:
I don't know about you, but when I can do just fine, even on a night w/o any moon with my Leupolds, then I can't help but wonder just what I need a still brighter scope for.

That's fucking amazing, I wonder why the army even bothered to invent the starlight scopes when Leupold already had the answer? bsflag

xxxxxxxxxx
When considering US based operations of guides/outfitters, check and see if they are NRA members. If not, why support someone who doesn't support us? Consider spending your money elsewhere.

NEVER, EVER book a hunt with BLAIR WORLDWIDE HUNTING or JEFF BLAIR.

I have come to understand that in hunting, the goal is not the goal but the process.

09 March 2008, 16:06

D99

quote:
Originally posted by Mikelravy:
I would move the Leupold VX11 up over the Burrises and Bushnells. Don't know about most of the others.

A Burris is a better scope than a Leupold and it's cheaper. Nikon and Pentax are the same.

09 March 2008, 17:21

Dr. Lou

I agree with you Mikelravy, I use to like the older Burris' and Nikons, but have not been impressed with the durability of the newer models. I'll take a VXI over a Buckmaster or Fullfield II any day of the week. Lou

12 March 2008, 09:10

woods

Revised list, latest and greatest from SWFA Optics Forum

quote:
2007 T-Bone Riflescope Optical Rating Scale

10 - Swarovski Z6, Zeiss Victory

9.5 - Kahles CL MultiZero

9 - Schmidt & Bender, Swarovski PH & American, Zeiss Classic

8.5 - X.O.T.I.C.

8 - Kahles KX

7.5 - Zeiss Conquest

7 - Leupold VX-7, IOR Valdada

6.5 - Bushnell Elite 4200, Nightforce, Nikon Monarch

6 - Leupold Mark 4 VX III & VX-L, Weaver Grand Slam

5.5 - Burris Black Diamond XTR & Euro

5 - Burris Signature Select, Meopta, Pentax Lightseeker, Super Sniper, Trijicon

4.5 - Sightron

4 - Bushnell Elite 3200, Leupold VX-II, Simmons Aetec (pre-Meade)

3.5 - Nikon Buckmaster

3 - Burris Fullfield II, Leupold Rifleman & VX-I, Millet, Mueller, Redfield USA

2.5 - Leatherwood, Simmons, Swift

2 - ATN, Tasco

1.5 - Barska, Leapers

1 - BSA, NcStar

Obviously, I have not tried or looked through all these scopes but the percentage I have are in the ranking where I would put them. I have 1 #10, 2 #9.5's, 2 #7.5's, 1 #5.5 and 1 #4.

22 March 2008, 01:10

Paul from nz

ranked for what?

Clarity? FOV? looks? size? repeatability? twilight performance? or just at being an all rounder? or maybe the price?

a scope can be the clearest and brightest to look though but its worth nothing if it wont hold its zero or track accuratly and repeat perfectly.

22 March 2008, 05:19

woods

quote:
Originally posted by Paul from nz:
ranked for what?

Clarity? FOV? looks? size? repeatability? twilight performance? or just at being an all rounder? or maybe the price?

a scope can be the clearest and brightest to look though but its worth nothing if it wont hold its zero or track accuratly and repeat perfectly.

From OpticsTalk forum

quote:
The scale below was formed by SWFA sales staff, customer service, pro-staff and owners using personal experience, customer input and facts supplied by the manufacturers. The ranking system is based on the following criteria (in order of importance and weight).

1. Optical Quality - How bright and clear the scope is.

2. Specifications - Field of view, eye relief, weight, adjustment travel, etc.

3. Durability - How do they with stand the test of time.

4. Special Features & Options - Proprietary items (reticles, design, turrets), Zoom ratio.

5. Warranty & Customer Service - How good are they.

6. Value - Bang for your buck.

In order to maintain the scale's simplicity we are not listing every single manufacture and only major manufactures will have several of their brands listed. This scale also does not have discontinued brands or products like the old U.S.A. made Redfields, Japan Tasco or Japan Simmons Aetec. This scale is heavily weighted toward HUNTING as being the application the scope will be used for.

25 March 2008, 21:46

thinkingman

Leupold scopes are like domestic pickup trucks. No matter what, you can't convince the owner there's something better out there for the same or less $.
One thing that is for sure, you see fewer posts about a company replacing a defective product on the competitors scopes than you do Leupold.
Everybody has or knows someone that has sent one back to Leupold for that legendary customer service.
I guess it's just the cost of owning the best.
I guess I just like inferior products that perform and hold up.

27 March 2008, 21:34

Reloader

I would have to rate the Conquest and Monarch in front of the 4200. The others seem fairly well placed.

Reloader

27 March 2008, 23:12

Gatogordo

quote:
Leupold scopes are like domestic pickup trucks. No matter what, you can't convince the owner there's something better out there for the same or less $.

Skipping all the apples and oranges comparisons, it boils down to a question like is a Cadillac better than an Impala? They both carry the same amount of people, probably have similar service records but one is just better in the opinion of most people that have used both. Same with Leupold vs Zeiss, Swaro, etc. In an objective evaluation, there is no real question that the more expensive scopes are better, the only real question is, is the relatively minor marginal improvement worth the fairly substantial extra dollars? Some of us think so, and some of us don't, neither is wrong, we just have differing values or financial resources.

27 March 2008, 23:51

Mikelravy

Yea but if everybody agreed with Gatogordo three quarters of the posters here would have nothing to say.

29 March 2008, 21:52

12FVSS260

Guess everyones got an opinion on this topic, if you can afford the top tier (S&B - Zeiss Victory - Swaro) go for it. They are pretty much the undisputed top dogs......if you want close to top level performance for less $ look at Kahles, lot of bang for the buck. In the mid range scopes monarchs, elites, and conquests have taken much of leupolds market share and thunder in the last 8 years or so. Better optics and features to more pairs of eyes plain and simple, hard to beat a conquest in the mid range scopes. No the scope shaking windmills of E's fancy didn't "wear em all out" and no they aren't just easier to focus. In the VX ll, 3200 elite,fullfield ll class the sightron ll is again the best bang for the buck, just plain hard to beat in a head to head comparison.

Yeah leupolds are still the overwhelming choice in benchrest.......but how many got frozen erectors to prevent moving POI? How important are other factors like low light performance and weight? E's done wrecked his credibility years ago with the bias and excuses that don't hold any water on his home forum. Koskin probably is one of the most fair and unbiased optics posters around, lot more actual optics knowledge as well. Whatever works for ya and floats your boat is probably what you'll choose.......all this is only my opinion and subject to your own experience.

Will say a lot has changed since I first started suggesting those new upstart conquests were something to check out and got nothing but hammered by the leupy boys with tales of give em a few years and watch em all fall apart posts.........I'm still waiting and they're still getting more popular every year....

29 March 2008, 22:59

woods

quote:
Originally posted by 12FVSS260:
Guess everyones got an opinion on this topic, if you can afford the top tier (S&B - Zeiss Victory - Swaro) go for it. They are pretty much the undisputed top dogs......if you want close to top level performance for less $ look at Kahles, lot of bang for the buck. In the mid range scopes monarchs, elites, and conquests have taken much of leupolds market share and thunder in the last 8 years or so. Better optics and features to more pairs of eyes plain and simple, hard to beat a conquest in the mid range scopes. No the scope shaking windmills of E's fancy didn't "wear em all out" and no they aren't just easier to focus. In the VX ll, 3200 elite,fullfield ll class the sightron ll is again the best bang for the buck, just plain hard to beat in a head to head comparison.

Yeah leupolds are still the overwhelming choice in benchrest.......but how many got frozen erectors to prevent moving POI? How important are other factors like low light performance and weight? E's done wrecked his credibility years ago with the bias and excuses that don't hold any water on his home forum. Koskin probably is one of the most fair and unbiased optics posters around, lot more actual optics knowledge as well. Whatever works for ya and floats your boat is probably what you'll choose.......all this is only my opinion and subject to your own experience.

Will say a lot has changed since I first started suggesting those new upstart conquests were something to check out and got nothing but hammered by the leupy boys with tales of give em a few years and watch em all fall apart posts.........I'm still waiting and they're still getting more popular every year....

Couldn't disagree with a single word.

30 March 2008, 04:11

Steve Lefforge

Gentlemen

I see everyone putting their opinions about scopes. I was wondering what you guys thought about Nikon's Monarck Scopes. I hope they are strong I just bought one to put on a .378 Weatherby Magnum without a muzzle break. I had a Leupold II 3x9 that worked fine but I installed it on another rifle. Didn't mean to hijack this post.

Thanks

Steve