Real Quality of rifle scopes

[Bigbloke]

I am in the process of replacing the contents of my Gun Cabinet and got to the point of selecting rifle scopes.

I am a recreational sport stalker, I enjoy my sport but don't need to put meat on the table and I don't have a cull target or plan to meet. I'm not a tactical long range shooter and if I do have a got at really long range, it'll be on a range for fun.

Historically for the past 20 years or so I have used Schmidt & Bender Klassik 3-12 x 50, liked them then, still like em now.

So we had a family day out at the Game fair so we could drool over all the potential new toys, we spent quite a bit of time looking through various scopes. What I found interesting is that in normal daylight, I could see a difference between some of the real cheapies and the good stuff but once we hit the mid range, I couldn't tell the difference in image quality between a £700 scope and a £2500 scope.

Now back when I was young the received wisdom was that it was all about quality glass and construction so that the scope didn't fall apart the first time your deer rifle went bang and to make sure it held zero and to give suitable level of magnification and for that reason, it made sense to put a £600 scope on a £300 rifle.

Scroll forward a few years (35 years is just a few... sort of), the difference between £700 and £2700 just doesn't seem to stack up.

• Some are crystal clear, but nobody will buy if they are not.
• Some have 4 x zoom ranges, some have 8 x zoom ranges now 8x is nice but 3 x the price nice?
• Some are made in this country or that.
• Some have a great tradition
• Some sell to the military
• The best will grant me another 2 minutes pre-dawn or post dusk, but I can't use that because if i'm not sure at dawn, I'll leave it and if I use the last 2 minutes, I've now got to find the bloody thing in the dark and I don't need to take a chance.
• Some seem a bit ashamed of selling to hunters
• Most get good reviews in the magazines
• All are waterproof
• Most have 30mm tube and various size lenses
• All use coated glass of various kinds depending on the use.
• All or nearly all offer illuminated reticule options
• All have solid adjustments for point of aim
• Many have parallax adjustment

Now, I get that optics is a complex science but there seems to be no published quantitative information on what we get for the money.

If we looked at rifles, we have quantified, verifiable information and guarantees of accuracy.
If we look at cars, we have verified quantified information on performance, economy etc.
Pick almost any complex, technological item that we might buy, use, borrow and the data is published, verifiable and the products are compared in public forums to a greater or lesser degree. I don't see that happening for scopes so that implies that either:

1. the differences are so blindingly (no Pun) obvious, that no performance information could be needed.
2. there's more than a pinch of marketing BS in all this and that if real verifiable data were published, reality would intrude terribly into marketing fantasy.

Bottom line, I can't see the difference and until the different available items are lined up side by side for a head to head comparison (also never seems to happen), I'm never going to be able to, if only because I'm not clever enough to be able to really remember whether the last thing I looked through in a different place under different conditions was actually better or worse and whether it's enough to be worth the difference in cost.

Based on this, I will be putting what would be seen as mid range glass on my new straight pull rifle, because I cant see anything that would make me spend more other than brand & image and those aren't important to me.

So why would I spend say £2K rather than £900 on a scope to meet my needs ? or to follow the old adage about spending the money on the optic, maybe that should be a £5K scope on a £3K straight pull rifle.

Am I missing the obvious here?

 

[Erik Hamburger]

The difference between a £700 and £2,700 scope is, as you will have worked out yourself, £2,000. The majority of which £2,000 is a financial contribution towards the marketing budget of the Premium Brands: Adverts, test-days on a range for journalists (Preferably in some exotic location!) , sales people in tweeds and BMW's, entertainment, glossy brochures, etc. etc.) and the bribes paid to those who 'test' these scopes and then write raving reviews about them in the glossy hunting and shooting magazines.
Don't be fooled by those Brands that release a new model to the market each year - which every feature outperforming last year's top-performing feature each year...how stupid do they think we are?

 

[Dexter]

For what you require there is absolutely no point you paying the extra money on a scope. However, for some of us that extra 15 minutes (not 2 minutes at all) or so that you get is very important.
Don't believe all the hype but also don't right it all off out of hand either.

 

[NigelM]

I have tried quite a few over the years and am only just zeroing into what suits me for the different jobs.

My fox gun has a 2nd hand £300 Sightron on it and it works better with the Night Vision than the £2500 S&B PM2 that went before it. Less coatings on the glass and cleaner light transmission for the NV.

On my hill rifle which I use for Red and Sika, the later being dawn and dusk stalking mainly, I have a Nightforce but am about to upgrade to Swarovski which is about 1 Lb lighter and better at dusk. Weight is a factor worth looking at.

My best glass and biggest objective lens funnily enough is on the woodland stalking rifle. The fallow always move just on the edge of the light and that last 15 minutes is very often quite important.

I also have a 1-6.5x24 Bushnel which is great for driven shooting and don't feel the need to upgrade to anything "better".

For some work you don't need to spend the big bucks, but at other times you will be grateful you did. That last light factor makes a big difference if you need it.

 

[enfieldspares]

I think it is like the difference between a 1960s Rollys-Royce and a 1960s Nissan. But nowadays, if God made cars, they WOULD be Nissan (or other Japanese) cars. So as the OP says does it nowadays make sense?

Indeed there's some that say that old school lead crystal Zeiss binoculars are better than the new Zeiss binoculars of the last five or ten years. And air gun 'scopes it is just incredible what quality a mere thirty or forty pounds buys now compared to the 1960s quality that was, in money terms, much more than that the same cost.

But then again I bought a Zeiss Diatal C that some bright Frenchman had put araldite around to better fit its 1" tube into his 26mm rings. I put it in the deep freeze for five days to get the araldite off. Freezing and thawing, freezing and thawing repeatedly. Not even a hint of fogging. Wipe off the external condensation and, each time, it was a as clear as could be to look through.

They say that the extra thousand pounds buys an extra ten or twenty minutes of shooting at night. But as that isn't relevant to me. But to some it is a heap bargain. And well worth the cost over a five or ten year ownership. But the last Zeiss 'scope I bought was a 3-9x36 Diavari C one of the last made and wouldn't buy a new Zeiss now.

But equally I kill pheasants just as well with my late father's Henry Clarke boxlock shot gun he got as first gun as a twelve year old boy in 1919 as I do with my Boss. And the pheasants pretty much taste the same afterwards when on the plate. But sometimes it is just nice to own nice things for he sheer pleasure of it.

 

[caorach]

Am I missing the obvious here?

Nope, for the last 10 or more years the optics in the big name and 2nd tier scopes have been more than adequate for UK stalking. After that it is mostly about marketing.

Marketing doesn't buy you anything in terms of optics but it is worth considering that what it does buy you is "brand image" so your "big name" scope will be worth more second hand than a £700 scope that is more than adequate in optical terms but simply doesn't have the name. Many of the big names also give very good customer service. Only you can balance up the priorities.

There have been very, very few well conducted tests of scopes and one of the big names will not allow their scopes to be tested side by side with others, which should tell you something important. In the well conducted tests I've seen Zeiss always win for glass quality but I really don't think they will give you 15 minutes extra shooting time over one of the second tier scopes, or over a lesser Swaro or S&B. In practical terms, where the decision whether to shoot or not is based on many variables, not just what you can see in the scope I doubt if the extra £1k or £2k on a big name over an adequate second tier scope even adds one minute to shooting time.

The last decent test of scopes, and to be honest they weren't really scopes a stalker is likely to use a lot and the scoring system was focused on the tactical target type shooter, was this one:

Tactical Scopes: Field Test Results Summary Overall Scores - PrecisionRifleBlog.com

 

[Bigbloke]

Ok, now that's more like it.

Comparative testing, explained methodology, shows how they scored, blind testing and really showing some interesting results.

Now if somebody did that for the 2017 hunting scopes, that would be really really interesting.

 

[NigelM]

Nope, for the last 10 or more years the optics in the big name and 2nd tier scopes have been more than adequate for UK stalking. After that it is mostly about marketing.

Marketing doesn't buy you anything in terms of optics but it is worth considering that what it does buy you is "brand image" so your "big name" scope will be worth more second hand than a £700 scope that is more than adequate in optical terms but simply doesn't have the name. Many of the big names also give very good customer service. Only you can balance up the priorities.

There have been very, very few well conducted tests of scopes and one of the big names will not allow their scopes to be tested side by side with others, which should tell you something important. In the well conducted tests I've seen Zeiss always win for glass quality but I really don't think they will give you 15 minutes extra shooting time over one of the second tier scopes, or over a lesser Swaro or S&B. In practical terms, where the decision whether to shoot or not is based on many variables, not just what you can see in the scope I doubt if the extra £1k or £2k on a big name over an adequate second tier scope even adds one minute to shooting time.

The last decent test of scopes, and to be honest they weren't really scopes a stalker is likely to use a lot and the scoring system was focused on the tactical target type shooter, was this one:

Tactical Scopes: Field Test Results Summary Overall Scores - PrecisionRifleBlog.com

That's probably the most sensible and informative optics review I have ever seen. Thanks Philip.

 

[I. Farticus]

Also look at the warranties and Customer Service reputation for any scope that you're interested. Can't speak for others', but Swarovski is just superb and has been well worth the additional outlay

 

[S&L7x57]

Another factor is old eyes! At 60, my eyes are typical (reading glasses for anything not written in BOLD but not at all bad for distance) and when I did a back to back test on my Zeiss Conquest DL against a Zeiss Terra and a Hawke Endurance at last legal light, I came to the conclusion that I couldn't get a fag paper between them. Now either my eyes were making them all equally bad or there was not much to choose between scopes at £1000, £500 and £300. Granted the resale value of them would be in direct relation to their initial cost but given that I have never sold a scope in my life, that really doesn't figure in my decision.
As noted above, we all have different criteria: resale value, last few moments of light, weight, objective focus, IR, tube size, longevity, snob value etc etc.
For myself, I want one good scope on my go-to rifle but all backups can wear much more modest kit. My 270w with a Hawke has killed quite a few deer and I don't think they were any less dead than my 7x57 with a Zeiss. I'll have to ask the next one...!

 

[Dexter]

Also look at the warranties and Customer Service reputation for any scope that you're interested. Can't speak for others', but Swarovski is just superb and has been well worth the additional outlay

I do hope so. I bought a Z6I off here and sadly it was not serviceable and is therefore currently in Austria!
My first ever bad buy off here (although it might turn out OK in the long run).

 

[caorach]

Now if somebody did that for the 2017 hunting scopes, that would be really really interesting.

I think the problem with this is that probably the biggest player, and the company which probably spends the most on advertising, is said not to be willing to play ball with any test that compares their scopes to any others. I don't think their scopes would do badly, but I also suspect that they wouldn't come out top on optical quality and this would put a dent in "brand image." The magazine could, of course, just walk into a shop and buy one of their scopes for any test but the loss of advertising might then be a problem. It may be that none of the "big names" want a detailed test done as while the internet is arguing about (say) whether Zeiss is better than S&B everyone wins but once the answer is in then there is only one winner.

 

[enfieldspares]

Never down price snob value S&L. It is the bedrock of the whole market in British side-by-side game guns.

 

[John Gryphon]

I haven't read every post but a very important factor in scope builds/quality is recoil tolerance. I do own a few harder than 'normal" kickers and quality is essential.

I have posted this prev..its dated to 2004,so are the best better or the cheapies catching up in 2017?

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 spektrofotometers, broad spectral lamps and kolliminators.

The scopes were tested for field of sight, eye relief, "tube effect", ergonomic, 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 s 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 severely disturbed by tube effect at all magnifications: 0 points
Sight picture severely disturbed at lowest magnification, disturbed at highest: 1 point
Sight picture disturbed at all magnifications: 2 points
Sight picture disturbed only at lowest magnification: 3 points
Sight picture not disturbed: 4 points

Ergonomic
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 wavelengt 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

 

[enfieldspares]

John that's very interesting and exactly shows how a Pecar (not the best but up there) is now only just above the overall performance of a modern era BSA and less than today's Tasco. Yet in their day those Pecar were two or three hundred pounds here in UK. Most interesting. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Bigbloke]

My guess, but with no data, that's all it is, would be that like many technologies, tiny incremental improvements come at a significant premium (think what the F1 racing teams pay for 0.01 seconds per lap), meanwhile as esoteric processes become routine, manufacturing equipment becomes more accurate and cost effective and patents expire, the rest of the pack can really eat away at the difference.

 

[John Gryphon]

John that's very interesting and exactly shows how a Pecar (not the best but up there) is now only just above the overall performance of a modern era BSA and less than today's Tasco. Yet in their day those Pecar were two or three hundred pounds here in UK. Most interesting. Thanks for posting it.

G`day Richard I have posted that twice previously and hardly got a comment on it back then,I do wonder if many take notice of these articles as there are some that "have been using ***** for 20 years and its as good as any other" ha ha

The top end stuff is worth it with the longevity side of it all that comes with quality.

I agree re Pecars,for some stupid reason here they command big prices yet they are no better than many of the cheaper scopes.

There are some very good cheaper scopes out there of course but the BUT factor comes in to it eventually.

 

[enfieldspares]

Pecar command silly money here too on UK eBay. Yet none of them as as clear nor as sharp as today's Hawke stuff or Chinese made BSA 'scopes.

My second stalking rifle had a Pecar. Churchill .270 with a Pecar 4x81 in a side mount. Shot my firts deer with it in 1989. But it wasn't much better than the G P Goerz on my first stalking rifle, when I was twenty one or so, which was a nice, light, 8x57 Mauser. Claw mounts and that. Nice. And all of eight quid the lot. Wish I still had that. Used to put all sorts of stuff through it. Surplus WWII 7.92mm was cheap. It used to drill through falling plates...see nobody realised that the red annulus ammunition we were buying in buckets at auction was AP. It's illegal now in UK. But wasn't then. Took the plates down...just left them ventilated as well! The innocence of youth. LOL!

And they don't stand any sort of comparison with the contemporary Nickel Marburg or Zeiss stuff. Which I guess is why Holland's factory fitted those two and not Pecar!

Yet a simple fixed power Zeiss Diatal-C fetches only eight to a hundred pounds on eBay here. Most odd!

Meanwhile my son is off to New Caledonia at the end of the month.

 

[John Gryphon]

Your son will find it warmer!

I had one Pecar.. it was a 3-7 on a Ruger .270 I sold the pair for $500.

 

[deeangeo]

Also look at the warranties and Customer Service reputation for any scope that you're interested. Can't speak for others', but Swarovski is just superb and has been well worth the additional outlay

I'm sure there are many hunters across the world fully support the Swarovski back up as second to none.
Simply the best.
Schmidt and Bender up there ahead of the rest too. Excellent back up service from these guys as well.

Zeiss should do better .. ..
My personal opinion from my experiences with all of the above over thirty five years.