I would very much like to have a few S&B, Swarovski, & Zeiss (actually have two of these) scopes. Most everything I have is outfitted with Leupolds. I'm not sure if any other scope could take the recoil of my Lott except for the Leupold 2.5 M8 Compact. I'm sure the European scopes are marginally clearer and higher quality in some respects, but if I couldn't drop the animal with a Leupold I would get closer. After all, this is hunting. Or are we becoming snipers?

[ 07-29-2002, 04:45: Message edited by: Longbob ]

Hjortejeger, I hope I spelled your name right.
I find your tests interesting. The DEVA tests were done with the following models and results:
Zeiss 1.25X-4X24 - 94.5% - 92.9% (Daylight & Twilight)
Leupold 1.5-5X20 - 91.6% - 91.1%
Swarovski 1.5-4.5X20 - 91.0% - 87.7%
Scmidt & Bender 1.25-4X20 - 88.9% - 85.9%
Zeiss 2.5-10X48 - 94% - 92%
Leupold 3.5-10X50 - 94% - 92%
Swarovski 3-12X56 - 91% - 87%
S & B 3-12X - 89% - 87%
These testsd were done under lab conditions using "fine instruments, some loaned by Schmidt & Bender and Zeiss, including a spektral photo meter". The tests were done in 1993. Barsness had to have them translated from german to english. They apparently were quite detailed.
Barsness also had this to say, "Also, manufactures are constantly fiddling with their product, and many scope makers don't produce their own lenses. Instead they order them from subcontractors or, sometimes, several subcontracors. A scope made in 1996 may be slightly brighter, or dimmer than one made in 1997, and one made in 1987, or 1977, will probably not be as bright as one made today, even if the model and overall mechanics remain the same."
He went on to say that his test team found the Swarovski 3-10X42A, the Leupold 3.5-10X40 VariXIII, and the Zeiss 3-9X36 MC to be equally bright under twilight conditions. These tests, by his team were done in 1999 using testers of various ages, etc.
I note that these newer tests, by his testers are very close to the DEVA tests. And they say the same thing. All of them are top scopes optically.
So, these tests would suggest that you pick your favorite based on something other than optical superority beliefs.
If you like maximum field of view, fine. You get that at the expense of eye relief.
If you like the european style of focusing, good for you. I've learned, the hard way, not to fool with the power selection on a variable when it comes time to shoot. I don't want to be tempted by something more, like easy refocusing.
As far as low light shooting goes, I've found I loose the reticle much sooner than I loose the image. One of my scopes, a 6X42 Leo. has a german 4a for just such hunting. E

-

There is no way to prove what John wrote is factual or believable. Do you know the types of people who did these tests?

For the record we were having a discussion of the scopes aval today, not ones pre 93. Therefore, any of those tests are not valid in this arguement. Plain and simple.

I would have a hard time believing for fact what someone like Barnsness writes. Any of those popular gun mag writers are going to be getting free hunts, products to use, ect for the point of writing something favorable reviews of them. They are basically living advertisements. I just picked up the latest issue of Big Game Adventures and was looking at a Ruger ad. It states the new MK II is the best bolt action rifle avalable, in plain english. I mean if we go around believing anything these people are saying we would have a real hard time doing anything.

Have you ever read a review of a product and found out your opinion was different then that of the critic? I hope so. Please, if you havn't, you must get tired of always saying, "Bah, bah, bah."

Sincerely,

Buell

I'm with denton on his comments on mfgrs. cost and marketing strategey 100%. I've been using simmons scopes for 18 yrs. and have bagged everything I intended to shoot. I was told by a man a really long time ago that if I scope a rifle to hunt with,,leave the iron sights on and figure out how to take off the scope easily and quickly if need be.Never had to,,but i'm ready. My hunting rifles are fitted with leupold q.d. rings. We all come to this site with a common intrest and love of shooting and hunting,,,,,Reading this post fall into the dark abyss of politics,nationality,and seeming personal vendettas is pretty sad. P.s. Compared to my kowa 82mm spotting scope,,,,,at dusk the rifle scopes are kind of anemic,during the day ,,,not much difference less the magnification. Happy Shooting!!

Let's see, I can't hunt without a $1500.00 scope.
I can't afford the scope because I won't get out and get a better job.
Guess I'll just sell my guns and take the money to Wall Street, and in a couple of years I'll be able to afford my hobby.

Redneck? HELL YES!
We say yes M'aam, no sir and please and thank you.

What does any of the above have to do with a scope?

I've heard better discourse from 4 year olds.

TERRY8mm, my take on this is more like: I need to buy a Zeiss Conquest since it's made in the good ole USA and that will make me a patriot! And, since it's about $150 cheaper than the comparable Leupold VXIII, I can refer to the Leupold camp as "scope snobs"! Then, I'll have enough redneck credentials to start credibly misspelling common words in my posts. Whartdyathink?

I really wish that there was a Norwegian scope manufacture Then I could have gotten one of does. Maybe the Swedish scopes is a good choise?
I need to get a norvegian Kongsberg rifle the next time since I'm such a patriot. Not kidding I truely am, I would not dream of bying forein food if I can get Norwegina, same with hunting cloths, boots and so on.

If you work outside and not in soem office, you're bound to be a redneck.

But when it comes to scopes and rifles. I set up a little list.

What do I need?
What kind of money will I spend?

Then I go to the shop, look at differnet scopes, find one that I like regardless of maker. I look a bit around to see if someone as had real trubble with it, if not I'll by it.
If it says Leopold, Zeiss, Kahnes, Weaver, Tacco, Bushnell, or anything else don't matter much. If I have trouble with my scope, I'll not get that scope again. And if the scope goes bad in under 10 years without me losing it into the ground, I sending it back. Now I have had my weaver V for 1 year, so far so good.

Zeiss is my dream, weaver is on my rifle.

Johan

Cold Bore-

Most of the American snipers, maybe...

Take a look at what is the standard scope on the m40A2,A3

I have had a discussion with a Marine Core sniper named Gunnery Sergent Olsen about the scopes they used. Quite interesting none the less!

Buell

308,
Nice post and I agree with you 100%, loyalty to ones country and countrymen is a trait I place high in a mans stature. Failure to do this is akin to Treason IMO. Some refer to this as ignorance and as being politically incorrect, but it is a trait I respect in a man.

The most important thing for me when i buy a product is functionality.I dont buy crap just because it is Norwegian.(BTW Not many norwegian products are crap)If it is functional and norwegian thats ok.
I have a Winchester rifle and it works perfect for me.Kongsberg rifles are of course very good norwegian rifles,but they are more expensive and i dont like them so much.
And i have seen foreign tourists,also americans,out in the norwegian mountains with gears from their own country.Gears not built for harsh norwegian climate.Sometimes it ends with tragic results.

So functionality rules!!

[ 07-29-2002, 20:15: Message edited by: Hjortejeger ]