I appreciate that without unsubstantiated opinions the internet would be almost empty, but as yours is evidently backed up by a trouser-filling back-hander from a a cut-price oriental optical concern then it obviously carries more weight.
Real Quality of rifle scopes
- Thread starter Bigbloke
- Start date
I appreciate that without unsubstantiated opinions the internet would be almost empty, but as yours is evidently backed up by a trouser-filling back-hander from a a cut-price oriental optical concern then it obviously carries more weight.
The only scopes that never let me down were several Schmidts and Kahles tactical. Even Zeiss seem mechanically soft compared to Schmidt. Optically I was not happy with Minox, Leupold, Bushnell and some other cheaper scopes. I now prefer to carry a heavier tactical scope that is 100% reliable rather than some dainty prima-donna that might not survive a tumble in the rough terrain. Only downside of Schmidt is that the tactical range only seems to have two years warranty.
edi
edi
Uncle Norm
Well-Known Member
Never pass up an opportunity to acquire a second hand Kahles scope, without giving it a serious examination. The name does not have the cache' of the current leaders, so does not fetch the prices either. Kahles scopes are very good indeed. I believe they were taken over by Swarovski a few years ago but optical items are still sold under the Kahles name.
I must admit when it came to scopes I went with Swarovski - Not cheap by any means but they have a lifetime guarantee, low light performance that is arguably second to none and are as rugged as anything. Plus they clearly hold their value, especially if you keep them in good nick.
I figured buy once and cry once, and you've got a scope for life.
I have shot using an S&B scope (an older one too, and it was still rock solid) and I have a pair of Zeiss bins which are superb. I have also had a look through a set of Leica bins which were excellent as well, though I've not used those in the field.
I would definitely buy an S&B scope - I cant see any difference in performance between them and Swaro and they clearly age very well. And if Zeiss scopes perform anything like their binos I would be equally happy to use Zeiss.
Marketing hype it may or may not be, but theres no denying the build quality of the Big Four.
Thats not to say that other brands dont make excellent scopes or that their kit is somehow inferior but when I started out those were the names I was told to look at by pretty much everyone - I figure theres probably a reason for that! Buy once, cry once.
Maybe this is a hangover from when the mid level scopes were streets behind the top end ones? But now some time has passed the more mid level scopes are right on the heels of the top brands?
I figured buy once and cry once, and you've got a scope for life.
I have shot using an S&B scope (an older one too, and it was still rock solid) and I have a pair of Zeiss bins which are superb. I have also had a look through a set of Leica bins which were excellent as well, though I've not used those in the field.
I would definitely buy an S&B scope - I cant see any difference in performance between them and Swaro and they clearly age very well. And if Zeiss scopes perform anything like their binos I would be equally happy to use Zeiss.
Marketing hype it may or may not be, but theres no denying the build quality of the Big Four.
Thats not to say that other brands dont make excellent scopes or that their kit is somehow inferior but when I started out those were the names I was told to look at by pretty much everyone - I figure theres probably a reason for that! Buy once, cry once.
Maybe this is a hangover from when the mid level scopes were streets behind the top end ones? But now some time has passed the more mid level scopes are right on the heels of the top brands?
Last edited:
For the type of shooting the OP describes, a solid mid-level, 2-8, 3-9, 3-12, 4-16 will do the job for many years to come. Agree with the OPs initial observations - under normal conditions, you're gonna struggle to pick a mid-level over a high-end scope if you didn't know in advance which one you were looking through. I would even argue that the last of the light performance of some of the current mid-level scopes is very very close to the NFs, S&Bs, etc.
That said, for short to medium range deer hunting, in the 90s I found buying close to the entry level model of a high quality brand served me very well, to the point that I was proud to hand them down to up-and-coming cousins, neices and nephews. And the rellies were stoked. But these days, as my fitness and eyesight slowly deteriorate, I can't see a significant difference between say a Zeiss Victory and a Vortex Viper PST in a woods / hill country hunting scenario, so the Vortex will win every time because of price and the no-questions-asked replacement warranty.
Where I have experienced significant performance differences between brands is in high magnification scopes for longer range varminting, e.g. 6-24x50. At the maximum magnication, on a bunny at 400m+, you want good quality. Scratch that, you want really good quality. Where this becomes problematic for the not-rich-or-famous is the hideous cost of these scopes; the combined capital cost of the rifle and scope makes for very expensive pest control... So as other priorities in life have come along, again, I've moved into the middle of the market. But I do notice the difference.... there was a S&B that was sold in Canada for slightly more than I paid for it, which seemed like a good idea at the time, but man I miss that scope.
That said, for short to medium range deer hunting, in the 90s I found buying close to the entry level model of a high quality brand served me very well, to the point that I was proud to hand them down to up-and-coming cousins, neices and nephews. And the rellies were stoked. But these days, as my fitness and eyesight slowly deteriorate, I can't see a significant difference between say a Zeiss Victory and a Vortex Viper PST in a woods / hill country hunting scenario, so the Vortex will win every time because of price and the no-questions-asked replacement warranty.
Where I have experienced significant performance differences between brands is in high magnification scopes for longer range varminting, e.g. 6-24x50. At the maximum magnication, on a bunny at 400m+, you want good quality. Scratch that, you want really good quality. Where this becomes problematic for the not-rich-or-famous is the hideous cost of these scopes; the combined capital cost of the rifle and scope makes for very expensive pest control... So as other priorities in life have come along, again, I've moved into the middle of the market. But I do notice the difference.... there was a S&B that was sold in Canada for slightly more than I paid for it, which seemed like a good idea at the time, but man I miss that scope.
JabaliHunter
Well-Known Member
Price is what you pay, value is what you get. You just have to weigh up the job that you want it to do and choose the tool that you think will allow you to do it to your satisfaction.
I only wish as much focus were given to mounts & rings.
K
K
TOMMO.B
Well-Known Member
Very good point K
Agree with a lot that has been said, and old eyes do negate the need for top end optics. Paul and I did a comparative test which is documented on here between 4 pretty top end scopes and the results were an eye opener.
Without doubt the best scope I have is my Diavari. I rate my Delta Titanium very highly but if you are looking for value for money esp S/H then Meopta has to be the choice. The Vortex I have looked through are also very good. My Mark 4 Leupold is not as good as the Diavari but then again is 50 mm re 56mm.
I think customer service has a lot to play. Without doubt Swarvi is streets ahead of everybody. Zeiss is Ok and I had a Meopta replaced a scope FOC when the illumination control failed. Vortex lifetime guarantee.
I think when you are paying £1+k then its all about what suits your eyes and customer service is a big consideration. Some of the older Jap scopes eg Tasco Titan and original Hako (JOC) are very good.
D
Without doubt the best scope I have is my Diavari. I rate my Delta Titanium very highly but if you are looking for value for money esp S/H then Meopta has to be the choice. The Vortex I have looked through are also very good. My Mark 4 Leupold is not as good as the Diavari but then again is 50 mm re 56mm.
I think customer service has a lot to play. Without doubt Swarvi is streets ahead of everybody. Zeiss is Ok and I had a Meopta replaced a scope FOC when the illumination control failed. Vortex lifetime guarantee.
I think when you are paying £1+k then its all about what suits your eyes and customer service is a big consideration. Some of the older Jap scopes eg Tasco Titan and original Hako (JOC) are very good.
D
Only you can tell if it's worth it.
8 years ago I watched a huge red stag walk off a field in my binos but could not pick him up well enough in old Swaro Nova 3-12x56. I had stalked that area for 5 years travelling 220miles each way about 4x a year. 6 outings per visit of approx. 2.5hours. That's nearly 9,000 miles, £1,700 diesel and 300 hours of stalking - a lot of effort to not be able to make a shot if you have the means to do so.
When I had the money I bought a 3-12x56 Victory HT, it seems a good investment - the additional shooting light is WAY over 2 minutes and I have a dog to find stuff in darkness. In between watching the stag walk away and buying the Victory HT I shot the stag in the woods with a 6x42 on my 7-08. It's a better memory than the field would have been!
8 years ago I watched a huge red stag walk off a field in my binos but could not pick him up well enough in old Swaro Nova 3-12x56. I had stalked that area for 5 years travelling 220miles each way about 4x a year. 6 outings per visit of approx. 2.5hours. That's nearly 9,000 miles, £1,700 diesel and 300 hours of stalking - a lot of effort to not be able to make a shot if you have the means to do so.
When I had the money I bought a 3-12x56 Victory HT, it seems a good investment - the additional shooting light is WAY over 2 minutes and I have a dog to find stuff in darkness. In between watching the stag walk away and buying the Victory HT I shot the stag in the woods with a 6x42 on my 7-08. It's a better memory than the field would have been!
Last edited:
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
Two key things for a scope:
1) Ruggedness and ability to hold zero - this is very much a factor of the internal engineering, especially around the reticle and erector tubes.
2) Optical quality - this is the lense quality.
Following quite close behind are the ergonomics and I want a scope that has a good level of eye relief and not overly critical of correct eye position.
I am not convinced by 6x or 8x zoom ranges - these seem to be a real compromise. I think you are better off with two scopes and a good mount system. A wide angle 1-4x20, plus a conventional 3-9 or 4-12x42 or 50. And a fixed 6x42 is a pretty good allrounder.
Swarovski, S&B make very good scopes, but expensive. Delta (not seen much here), Meopta etc all seem to be very good value and tough.
But the Americans shoot a lot and can't help noticing that just about all their nice custom rifles wear a Leupold Scope. I am sure its not that they can't afford European Scopes, but it does seem that Leupolds have a good reputation for being very rugged. But to my eyes the image is more matt, than glossy like a European scope.
1) Ruggedness and ability to hold zero - this is very much a factor of the internal engineering, especially around the reticle and erector tubes.
2) Optical quality - this is the lense quality.
Following quite close behind are the ergonomics and I want a scope that has a good level of eye relief and not overly critical of correct eye position.
I am not convinced by 6x or 8x zoom ranges - these seem to be a real compromise. I think you are better off with two scopes and a good mount system. A wide angle 1-4x20, plus a conventional 3-9 or 4-12x42 or 50. And a fixed 6x42 is a pretty good allrounder.
Swarovski, S&B make very good scopes, but expensive. Delta (not seen much here), Meopta etc all seem to be very good value and tough.
But the Americans shoot a lot and can't help noticing that just about all their nice custom rifles wear a Leupold Scope. I am sure its not that they can't afford European Scopes, but it does seem that Leupolds have a good reputation for being very rugged. But to my eyes the image is more matt, than glossy like a European scope.
Rutland lad
Well-Known Member
I had a look through a new Steiner illuminated scope the other day.
Seemed very well made and the view through was good too, although it was a clear day !
Anybody got any experience of them ?
Seemed very well made and the view through was good too, although it was a clear day !
Anybody got any experience of them ?
Mick Miller
Well-Known Member
Bushnell DMR punches well above it's weight price wise. Nice to know, I've just bought two!
V-max on here has one on a .22hornet and rates it quite highly
I have the Meopta R1 and rate it very highly
Paul
Delta is better than the Bushnell, yes Leupolds are very rugged as I found out after mine fell off my truck roof in a stubble field, no change of zero. However glass is not as good as some, ie one eve watching two fox's with my Leica bins but couldn't see them in the Leupold not good.
D
D
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
I looked through and handled a selection of March scopes a couple of weeks ago and was very impressed with the quality of the glass and build quality was amazing. The technical specs were very impressive too but all thus was in line with the price of a hand built quality scope. What was very disappointing was a 5 year warranty! They're marketed as having the best quality mechanicals but then only guarantee them for 5 years!!!
I. Farticus
Well-Known Member
Looking the latest Minox scopes as well. Great value for the money, and decent warranties
Similar threads
