Fixed power scopes. Old Kahles or S&B or new GPO?

[matt308]

I like lightweight kit and I'm currently using an old Leupold 6x42 but fancy something illuminated. There's a Kahles 7x56 in the classifieds and 8x56's pop up now and then. But a new GPO 7.5x50i is about the same money (sometimes less).

Scopes are not my specialist subject and I have never used a top tier scope, so don't really have a frame of reference. But given the difference in age and, I presume, recent improvements in coating and glass technology, would i actually be better off with the GPO despite its apparently lower status? Anyone got hands on experience with them?

I have seen the Deercast review of the GPO btw.

 

[Tom8]

The gpo 7.5x50 I'd on offer at the minute at opticswarehouse
I personally think gpo scopes are good

 

[Tom8]

German Precison Optics GPO Spectra 7.5x50i Illuminated G4I Fiber Lightweight 30mm Stalking Rifle Scope (JAPANESE/GERMAN)

The GPO Spectra 7.5x50i is a Japanese origin and German assembled powerhouse! It offers superb value for money for those who are looking for a quality, simple, no thrills deer stalking hunting fixed power rifle scope.

www.opticswarehouse.co.uk

 

[Border]

Six of one......
The advantage with the GPO is that it is a brand new scope with a 10 yr warranty??
The Kahles is possibly that old already.
Kahles have excellent glass though

 

[matt308]

Six of one......
The advantage with the GPO is that it is a brand new scope with a 10 yr warranty??
The Kahles is possibly that old already.
Kahles have excellent glass though

Yeah. On balance I think the GPO has to be the choice for me. They’re back in stock shortly and they’ve confirmed the same price!

 

[Stover Rover]

Just had a look on OPW they have an ex demo one, for an even better deal.

 

[matt308]

£239 but “intermittent illumination “. Happy enough with £275. Should be here for Monday

 

[6.5-06 TIKKA]

I cant go by a Schmidt Bender 8x56 30mm body Hungarian made.
You can get a good 2nd hand one for around £300...better than anything else our there in my opinion.
Hope this helps....

 

[TheEngineer]

Don't use a GPO riflescope but have a set of GPO binos and they are truly excellent, crystal clear glass. Also have an S&B 8x56 on my .270 and it is bombproof. The glass is excellent and has not lost zero since I mounted it a few years ago. You won't be disappointed with either one I reckon

 

[JTO]

Six of one......
The advantage with the GPO is that it is a brand new scope with a 10 yr warranty??
The Kahles is possibly that old already.
Kahles have excellent glass though

I know what you mean! My Kahles 8x56 is 40 years old.
My S&B 8x56 is a few years less old.

 

[K.H - Tikka]

Over 600g is certainly not lightweight for a fixed power optic!

K.H

 

[matt308]

I know what you mean! My Kahles 8x56 is 40 years old.
My S&B 8x56 is a few years less old.

I’ve committed to the GPO now, but it was ultimately down to the 10 warranty.

However, I am still very curious to know how the older top tier scopes stack up against modern mid tier. Glass and coating Technology must have levelled the field to some extent.

Putting aside things like massive zoom range , better tracking, side parallax, locking turrets, zero lock, illumination and a lot of other exotic features that I never knew I needed, can it really be true that glass from a 15-20 year old 8x56 is better than a modern £400 scope? I bet someone just replies “yes” but has anyone done a side by side test or seen one on an internet?

 

[matt308]

Over 600g is certainly not lightweight for a fixed power optic!

K.H

Agreed, my old 6x42 is probably about 450g. But the GPO is apparently pretty robust and has a couple of other advantages over the Leupold. Which if I recall, cost about the same in 1999.

Maybe I’ll do my own side by side test?

 

[Heym SR20]

If you want lightweight stick with a 6x42. IMO the best is a Schmidt & Bender 6x42 on a 1” tube, but a Zeiss of Swarovski is very very close.

I have a Zeiss 6x42 in a claw mount on 7x65R combination gun. I have shot deer and wild boar with this out to 250 yards, and at last light and have never felt that I couldn’t take a shot because of the scope.

8x56 are quite large and cumbersome scopes. Optically superb, but you are compromised by having to mount them high. They are not as cumbersome as zoomed 56mm, but much more than the 6x42.

 

[Heym SR20]

I’ve committed to the GPO now, but it was ultimately down to the 10 warranty.

However, I am still very curious to know how the older top tier scopes stack up against modern mid tier. Glass and coating Technology must have levelled the field to some extent.

Putting aside things like massive zoom range , better tracking, side parallax, locking turrets, zero lock, illumination and a lot of other exotic features that I never knew I needed, can it really be true that glass from a 15-20 year old 8x56 is better than a modern £400 scope? I bet someone just replies “yes” but has anyone done a side by side test or seen one on an internet?

Absolutely yes the quality on older optics can be very very much better.

In days of old the top end scopes were expensive and cost about the same as a good rifle, if not more. They were simple, with many fewer lenses than modern day zooms. But they were built by hand when labour was cheaper and built with a lot of care and precision.

Modern day technology allows cheaper lenses to be quite close to top end lenses. But they now have many moving parts in terms of zoom and moving dialable turrets. But they are built to a price and quality overall is less good.

 

[JH83]

Nah, you want an old 4x32, the newfangled 6x scopes are a fad!

 

[enfieldspares]

If you grew up in a time when reticules didn't stay centred (unlike today's 'scopes which are "image moving") then anything modern where you weren't having to adjust windage by moving you bases was an improvement. But at least you could adjust windage on the bases. For elevation you could end up with the reticule one third down or one third up from centre. Pain in the bottom! If God made 'scopes they wouldn't like them.

 

[matt308]

Absolutely yes the quality on older optics can be very very much better.

In days of old the top end scopes were expensive and cost about the same as a good rifle, if not more. They were simple, with many fewer lenses than modern day zooms. But they were built by hand when labour was cheaper and built with a lot of care and precision.

Modern day technology allows cheaper lenses to be quite close to top end lenses. But they now have many moving parts in terms of zoom and moving dialable turrets. But they are built to a price and quality overall is less good.

Makes sense. But you hear a lot about modern coatings and how they improve light transmission () or is that to make up for the glass quality? I can see how it helps with reflections, flare etc, although how adding something to the surface let’s more light through is harder to understand.

 

[matt308]

If you want lightweight stick with a 6x42. IMO the best is a Schmidt & Bender 6x42 on a 1” tube, but a Zeiss of Swarovski is very very close.

I have a Zeiss 6x42 in a claw mount on 7x65R combination gun. I have shot deer and wild boar with this out to 250 yards, and at last light and have never felt that I couldn’t take a shot because of the scope.

8x56 are quite large and cumbersome scopes. Optically superb, but you are compromised by having to mount them high. They are not as cumbersome as zoomed 56mm, but much more than the 6x42.

Yeah, I’ve never thought 6x was to low to shoot at normal distances and it does look cute on the rifle!. Light transmission is the same as 8x56 I believe, all things being equal. But I feel 8x without side focus is a bit high for some of the really close shots that sometimes crop up.
However, I do like an IR and although 7.5x50 is a touch smaller exit pupil, my old eyes probably don’t work well enough to notice.

 

[matt308]

If you grew up in a time when reticules didn't stay centred (unlike today's 'scopes which are "image moving") then anything modern where you weren't having to adjust windage by moving you bases was an improvement. But at least you could adjust windage on the bases. For elevation you could end up with the reticule one third down or one third up from centre. Pain in the bottom! If God made 'scopes they wouldn't like them.

I remember!