Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/28/2005 9:11:21 AM EDT
Before you say "read the FAQ" or something i wanna explain. I own Two scopes one Busnell sportman for $50 and a Aimpoint red dot. I know all about FOV and Magnification and zeroing etc. But i need to know "advanced stuff". FOr example when im at say 7X magnification if i barely move my head left right up or down i lose the picture sight. Instead i just see black and the side of the tube. And the More magnification the less i can move my head. What is this called?? And Do some scopes have less of this than others?? I would like to buy a scope where even if you move your head a little bit you'll still see the whole sight picture. Is it because my scope is cheap or is it because of high magnification??

Second, What's the deal with scope prices? What really is the difference between a $100 Bushnell and a Leupold that goes for $1000?! More so because i see that they can have identical Magnification and field of view!? I know some have illuminated reticles or light weight but does that really cause it to be 10 X more expensive? What benefits do you really get from paying so much more for a scope than say a regular "bubba" scope???? Asking cause i ran into some X-mas money and am considering a good scope. Problem is If i already have a 1-9X 50 scope for $100 why should i pay more for the same Mag & FOV? Also any good linkys to Scope stuff?
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 10:43:57 AM EDT
I think the better, 'more expensive' scopes will hold up better over time. Better lens construction, recticles, clarity, gas, etc...

I am with you, There is no way that I am spending as much for a scope than I did for my rifle.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 10:45:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:

Second, What's the deal with scope prices? What really is the difference between a $100 Bushnell and a Leupold that goes for $1000?! More so because i see that they can have identical Magnification and field of view!? I know some have illuminated reticles or light weight but does that really cause it to be 10 X more expensive? What benefits do you really get from paying so much more for a scope than say a regular "bubba" scope???? Asking cause i ran into some X-mas money and am considering a good scope. Problem is If i already have a 1-9X 50 scope for $100 why should i pay more for the same Mag & FOV? Also any good linkys to Scope stuff?




Overall quality...
clarity of sight picture and glass
durability
consistent wind/elev adjustments
repeatable zero
warranty

Why would you pay more for a certain type of vehicle? They both get you where you're going.
If the Bushnell does what you want it to do, then it is fine.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 11:05:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
FOr example when im at say 7X magnification if i barely move my head left right up or down i lose the picture sight. Instead i just see black and the side of the tube. And the More magnification the less i can move my head. What is this called?? And Do some scopes have less of this than others?? I would like to buy a scope where even if you move your head a little bit you'll still see the whole sight picture. Is it because my scope is cheap or is it because of high magnification??



Someone may correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this have something to do with the eye relief? I know on my Bushnell my eye relief decreases as I increase magnification...meaning I have to move closer to the scope to see properly.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 11:07:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2005 11:10:55 AM EDT by mr_wilson]

Originally Posted By t-stox:
Before you say "read the FAQ" or something i wanna explain. I own Two scopes one Busnell sportman for $50 and a Aimpoint red dot. I know all about FOV and Magnification and zeroing etc. But i need to know "advanced stuff". FOr example when im at say 7X magnification if i barely move my head left right up or down i lose the picture sight. Instead i just see black and the side of the tube. And the More magnification the less i can move my head. What is this called?? I'd refer to that as an improperly mounted scope.

And Do some scopes have less of this than others?? I would like to buy a scope where even if you move your head a little bit you'll still see the whole sight picture. Is it because my scope is cheap or is it because of high magnification?? FWIW 7x is not high magnification, I mean my last Leupy purchased is 6.5x20x40mm, and as it's monuted at the proper distance for my eye, I see a clear FOV at all powers.

Second, What's the deal with scope prices? Ya get what ya pay for.

What really is the difference between a $100 Bushnell and a Leupold that goes for $1000?! Besides the points mentioned above my leupolds (some of which are decades old) have a consistency and repeatability that your cheap scope can never hope to match, but then I commonly shoot off the back porch at the farm on an 800 yard range, which requires abilities you cannot possibly duplicate with your $50-100 dollar Bushnell.

More so because i see that they can have identical Magnification and field of view!? I know some have illuminated reticles or light weight but does that really cause it to be 10 X more expensive? What benefits do you really get from paying so much more for a scope than say a regular "bubba" scope???? Asking cause i ran into some X-mas money and am considering a good scope. Problem is If i already have a 1-9X 50 scope for $100 why should i pay more for the same Mag & FOV? Also any good linkys to Scope stuff? , www.premierreticles.com/index.php?uid=5465&page=1793&main=1 FWIW my last scope was purchased from here and includes a Gen II recticle, which makes ranging with the mil-dots even more accurate.



Mike

ps - I suggest ya take the time to use a high quality Leupold at varying ranges, it won't take ya long to figure out the differences between a hunting scope and a quality optic designed for long range accuracy....
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 2:12:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mr_wilson:

Originally Posted By t-stox:
Before you say "read the FAQ" or something i wanna explain. I own Two scopes one Busnell sportman for $50 and a Aimpoint red dot. I know all about FOV and Magnification and zeroing etc. But i need to know "advanced stuff". FOr example when im at say 7X magnification if i barely move my head left right up or down i lose the picture sight. Instead i just see black and the side of the tube. And the More magnification the less i can move my head. What is this called?? I'd refer to that as an improperly mounted scope.

And Do some scopes have less of this than others?? I would like to buy a scope where even if you move your head a little bit you'll still see the whole sight picture. Is it because my scope is cheap or is it because of high magnification?? FWIW 7x is not high magnification, I mean my last Leupy purchased is 6.5x20x40mm, and as it's monuted at the proper distance for my eye, I see a clear FOV at all powers.

Second, What's the deal with scope prices? Ya get what ya pay for.

What really is the difference between a $100 Bushnell and a Leupold that goes for $1000?! Besides the points mentioned above my leupolds (some of which are decades old) have a consistency and repeatability that your cheap scope can never hope to match, but then I commonly shoot off the back porch at the farm on an 800 yard range, which requires abilities you cannot possibly duplicate with your $50-100 dollar Bushnell.

More so because i see that they can have identical Magnification and field of view!? I know some have illuminated reticles or light weight but does that really cause it to be 10 X more expensive? What benefits do you really get from paying so much more for a scope than say a regular "bubba" scope???? Asking cause i ran into some X-mas money and am considering a good scope. Problem is If i already have a 1-9X 50 scope for $100 why should i pay more for the same Mag & FOV? Also any good linkys to Scope stuff? , www.premierreticles.com/index.php?uid=5465&page=1793&main=1 FWIW my last scope was purchased from here and includes a Gen II recticle, which makes ranging with the mil-dots even more accurate.



Mike

ps - I suggest ya take the time to use a high quality Leupold at varying ranges, it won't take ya long to figure out the differences between a hunting scope and a quality optic designed for long range accuracy....hr


Pppppppppppffffffffftttttttttt­ttttt happy
Pretty soon you'll be shooting 800 miles off your back porch with such ability and skill that the rest of us will stand in awe.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 2:17:47 PM EDT
Burris Fullfield II have some of the clearest glass I have seen for scopes under the $200 range
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 9:58:02 PM EDT
Well then i guess it comes down to what cha pay for? Guess I'll just head over to the Store and check a couple out with what I want in mind. I wanted to order it mail order cause they are cheaper but until i actually look down the scope I don't want to buy one. Also What about the manufacturer? My friend who is an optomatrist says that as far as making good "glass" goes Zeiss is the best optics maker in the world. I also know that IOR Beuchresti uses Zeiss glass. My question is DO other brand names use Zeiss and is it really the best?????
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 2:17:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 2:18:18 AM EDT by mr_wilson]

Originally Posted By ElConquistador:
Pretty soon you'll be shooting 800 miles off your back porch with such ability and skill that the rest of us will stand in awe.




What the f*$k is your problem?

Take you think I'm full of shit......



so here's what it looks like off the back porch at the farm.

Mike

ps - I suggest you take a long hard look at the scopes used by those who regularly attend 1K National Matches and count the number of shooters using Bushnell, Weaver, Nikon and Sightron scopes. Just be sure to include the vast majority of them who are shooting Leupolds.

btw, why not fess up who you are when your not using your troll account

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 2:27:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mr_wilson:

Originally Posted By ElConquistador:
Pretty soon you'll be shooting 800 miles off your back porch with such ability and skill that the rest of us will stand in awe.




What the f*$k is your problem?

Take you think I'm full of shit......

photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=1364

so here's what it looks like off the back porch at the farm.

Mike

ps - I suggest you take a long hard look at the scopes used by those who regularly attend 1K National Matches and count the number of shooters using Bushnell, Weaver, Nikon and Sightron scopes. Just be sure to include the vast majority of them who are shooting Leupolds.

btw, why not fess up who you are when your not using your troll account


Anybody care to explain to him why US Optics scopes cost even more than Leupold scopes?
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 6:21:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mr_wilson:

Originally Posted By ElConquistador:
Pretty soon you'll be shooting 800 miles off your back porch with such ability and skill that the rest of us will stand in awe.




What the f*$k is your problem?

Take you think I'm full of shit......

photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=1364

so here's what it looks like off the back porch at the farm.

Mike

ps - I suggest you take a long hard look at the scopes used by those who regularly attend 1K National Matches and count the number of shooters using Bushnell, Weaver, Nikon and Sightron scopes. Just be sure to include the vast majority of them who are shooting Leupolds.

btw, why not fess up who you are when your not using your troll account




No problem here, nice looking range by the way.

The thing I find funny is the arrogance with which you address the question. Every response you gave sound like you know everything and believe that the rest of us know nothing. I don't recall the guy asking about scopes for 1k yard NRA competition, he wants a decent scope. You probably do know more than him about scopes maybe you could try answering a question or two instead of using the opportunity to display your supreme arrogance and everyone else’s lack of intelligence or ability to comprehend things so complicated.

Who's using a troll account? Maybe I just don't want you picking me off from your back porch, after all I'm only 2200 miles away, an easy shot for your Leupold.

hail.gif hail.gif hail.gif
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 7:00:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
Well then i guess it comes down to what cha pay for? Guess I'll just head over to the Store and check a couple out with what I want in mind. I wanted to order it mail order cause they are cheaper but until i actually look down the scope I don't want to buy one. Also What about the manufacturer? My friend who is an optomatrist says that as far as making good "glass" goes Zeiss is the best optics maker in the world. I also know that IOR Beuchresti uses Zeiss glass. My question is DO other brand names use Zeiss and is it really the best?????



No, I would not say Zeiss is the best in the world. They are up there, but it's hard to actually differentiate who is really the "best" once you're at that level, especially if you don't have an interferometer to test the different optical instruments against eachother.

Swarovski also makes some of the best glass in the world.

Anytime you hear anyone make a blanket statement like that they are probably not right. I'm not saying Zeiss isn't good. They are at the top tier, I just don't think you can quantify any of the top tier manufacturers as the absolute "best".
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 7:07:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
Well then i guess it comes down to what cha pay for? Guess I'll just head over to the Store and check a couple out with what I want in mind. I wanted to order it mail order cause they are cheaper but until i actually look down the scope I don't want to buy one. Also What about the manufacturer? My friend who is an optomatrist says that as far as making good "glass" goes Zeiss is the best optics maker in the world. I also know that IOR Beuchresti uses Zeiss glass. My question is DO other brand names use Zeiss and is it really the best?????



Yup, socpes are one of those things you really need to look at before you buy. I don't know about you but if I take up a store/salesmans time looking I feel like I need to buy at the store rather than running home and ordering off the internet to save a couple bucks.

Zeiss' Conquest is their "budget" line, supposedly they're assembled in Japan (or somewhere) but use the same components as their pricier scopes, you can get into a 3-9 for around $500. I like Bushnell 3200, 4200, Weaver Grandslam, etc. It never hurts to look through the high-end stuff just to see how clear a scope can be.

Zeiss may or may not be the "best" among the high dollar stuff but try getting into a Swarovski, USO, S&B, Kahles, for under $500.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 7:24:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 7:26:29 AM EDT by NewbHunter]

Originally Posted By ElConquistador:

Originally Posted By t-stox:
Well then i guess it comes down to what cha pay for? Guess I'll just head over to the Store and check a couple out with what I want in mind. I wanted to order it mail order cause they are cheaper but until i actually look down the scope I don't want to buy one. Also What about the manufacturer? My friend who is an optomatrist says that as far as making good "glass" goes Zeiss is the best optics maker in the world. I also know that IOR Beuchresti uses Zeiss glass. My question is DO other brand names use Zeiss and is it really the best?????



Yup, socpes are one of those things you really need to look at before you buy. I don't know about you but if I take up a store/salesmans time looking I feel like I need to buy at the store rather than running home and ordering off the internet to save a couple bucks.

Zeiss' Conquest is their "budget" line, supposedly they're assembled in Japan (or somewhere) but use the same components as their pricier scopes, you can get into a 3-9 for around $500. I like Bushnell 3200, 4200, Weaver Grandslam, etc. It never hurts to look through the high-end stuff just to see how clear a scope can be.

Zeiss may or may not be the "best" among the high dollar stuff but try getting into a Swarovski, USO, S&B, Kahles, for under $500.



Very true about looking before you buy. Spend time with them also. I see a lot of people who will just casually glance through each binocular or scope, but you really need to take your time and take them outside if the shop will let you.

Also, if you take up their time, it would be nice to buy from them rather than leave and go get it on the Internet just to save a few bucks. That's rude, unless they're really trying to rip you off or something.

I also doubt that the Conquest line actually does use the same components as Zeiss'stop line. I don't have any hard facts, but just from what I hear inside the industry, so I could be wrong. There are a lot of games that get played in the optics industry. The bottom line is don't look at the brand name, but look through everything and pick based on what you think has the best image quality, features, warranty, etc. in your price range.

Personally, I use a Bushnell Elite 3200 on my .270 deer rifle and it has served me well for that purpose.

BTW, what is your main use with your scope T-stox?
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 7:24:44 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 11:27:48 AM EDT
Bottom line on scopes, is how much does it effect you if the scope fails? If you are plinking tin cans or hunting for food, not too big a deal when the scope fails. For a once in a life time hunt - the $1000 Leupold on a good rifle that has had the bugs worked out is IMO well worth it.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:25:25 PM EDT
Zeiss Conquest scopes are not assembled with the same quality components as the higher line. In fact I will say that for the money Zeiss Conquest scopes Suck. As do the VXIII and lower lines of Leupold Scopes when compared to a comparable Nikon Optic. While the Leupold might actually be more rugged the Nikon is light years ahead in clarity and light gathering capability when you get into the pricier Leupy they get the Nod if you want to spend under 1K on an optic I would advise Nikon
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 3:23:32 PM EDT
So that's bull about the Conquest being same parts huh? That's what I get for listening to the salesman. hat
I'm going to have to disagree with your statement that Nikon is light years ahead. I don't think they're ahead so much as Leupold is behind a decade or two. Burris FF2, Bushnell 3200, Nikon ucc, etc. all have pretty good glass, at least to my eye.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 3:57:19 PM EDT
Right now I have a Leupold Vari-XIII 6.5-20 X50 a Zeiss Conquest 3-9X40 A Nikon 3-9X40 and a Trijicon ACOG TA-11

I had in recent history a Leupold Vari-XIII 6.5 -20X 40 , a Burris 3-9x40 and about 8 other "walmart scopes" 50-90 dollar Simmons, Bushnell, weaver BSA etc

The ACOG is the best "scope" I have ever owned or used as far as clarity and light gathering capability the Nikon is a notch under it the Conquest and the Leupy are about the same maybe the Conquest is a little bit better. My next scope will probably cost more than the tricked out Ar I will mount it on. There is nothing like good glass, use a good scope for a month and then pick up 40 doller Bushnell Banner and you will keep trying to wipe the lenses clean all day
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:12:15 PM EDT
I'm in the business, so I'll give you guys the benefit of what I know. These are all going to be general comments, so they will be accurate more or less for most optical instruments. If you have a specific question, I'll give you my best answer unless you want me to start trashing industry or individual businesses. I won't do that.

The first thing to know about a scope is that it's primary job is to simplify the firing solution. When you use iron sights, you have to put the front sight on the target and then align the rear sight. Takes lot's of practice to be good at this. With a scope or just about any optical device, the problem is very much reduced in that you put the par axis of the unit on the target and that should be about it. That's why you see a lot of Militaries going to red dots and what not because now they can cut down on the training.

Secondly, scopes are also mechanical devices in that you have two adjusting screws pressing against an erector tube which is kept under tension with a spring called the bias spring. Imagine if you will that you are in a car doing 75 mph. Periodically you brake stopping the car completely in less than 25 ft. No matter how tight you are held in your seat, you will come out of the seat even by a little bit and then return to the seat in a slightly different place when the car settles. The point is that you're not in exactly the same place before you breaked, and you'll have to adjust your self in the chair to be in the exact same position. This is what the erector tube experiences every recoil cycle except that it does not have the ability to readjust itself. Rifles can accelerate anywhere from 800 g to 1200 g, and spring-piston air guns recoil in two directions. Scopes get the hell beaten out of them with some calibers just being scope killers.

The next big thing to understand is that all scopes are a series of compromises. advancing any specifications come at the cost of reducing other specs. For example, in a general sense, when you increase eye relief, this will come at the expense of increasing induced parallax error all other things being held equal (meaning no other changes have been made.)

When I get a scope the first thing I do is look at both the objective (front lens) and the ocular or eyepiece (rear lens.) What I look for is very little reflection. I don't want to see me. I don't want a mirror surface. A highly relective surface means that as light energy hits, strikes or comes into contact with the lens surface light will be reflected off the lens surface and not retransmitted down the length of the tube and out the other side.

The next thing I do is to find some edged surfaces to look at: Signs, building corners, etc. I will be able to see if the straight surfaces curve and how extensive this curving is. Also I will be able see how well the instrument can focus colors by seeing how the colors separate on edged surfaces. Now if you can do this both inside a building and outside a building just to check things out under different lighting conditions, this is good.

Then there is moving the control surfaces to see how well they move or how they don't move to well and whether I can live with it while the scope is mounted on a rifle.

It doesn't take too long to check out a scope before you buy to see if you like the image it produces, but do it undervarying lighting conditions that you expect you'll be using the scope, if you can.


Here's the story on Glass used in optics. Glass is a commodity item that has an international number. This means that you can go to Schott Glass Works and place a minimum order for any glass you want that they make. Or you can do what Schott does and go to Hoya in Japan bacause they can make it cheaper because labor cost less in Japan than in Germany. Schott glass even when made by Hoya is great glass. But there are also other companies out there that also make great glass.

So this is just general information. I will answer specific questions of a technical nature to the best of my ability.

As for all the different brands out there and what they do or don't do, we all percieve light in a different way and we all have our own biases and preferences, and that's not worth getting all pissed off about.

and Happy New Year. I'll be enjoying some of the Glenlivet 18 year old.



Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:44:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 6:19:55 PM EDT by Sig685]
zoinks, that was a great "Scopes for Dummies" report.

I would just add that under optimum conditions good scopes will be equivalent to top-of-the-line scopes. However, when conditions are not at their best, (low-light, dusk, cloudy, rain, fog, snow, dust, mud, etc,) that's when you will experience the difference between a $50 scope and a $200 scope and a $1000 scope.

Edited to add that while a lot of the glass comes from very few places, I believe some companies put on their own coating, which is a differentiator.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 6:06:13 PM EDT
zoinks...

I never seem to find a consistent answer to this question.

What is the proper technique...

Focus on the target or focus on the reticle?

or is there something I am not understanding beyond those two selections>
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 9:48:17 PM EDT
The short answer is always keep your eye on the aiming point which in this case is the intersection of the reticle.

Here's the long answer. The task of the scope is to simplify the firing solution. It does this by fooling you into thinking that the reticle is in the same verticle plane as the target or object you're aiming at. It makes you think that the reticle has been overlaid over the target or object.

When using iron sights, we're supposed to focus on the front sight and therefore the target is blurred. But, we have to maintain that focus on the front sight when aiming, squeezing the trigger and the very important follow through. Most people miss their shot because at the moment they're squeezing the trigger they will focus on the target instead of the front sight. They will actually move the rifle or handgun ever so slightly to get the front sight out of the way, so they can see the target better. They ruin the follow through and that's one reason for why people miss.
The same thing can happen when shooting with an optic. People will move the weapon so they can move the scope ever so slightly in order to focus on the target and there again ruin the follow through.

On the other hand, say you're shooting a milk jug filled with water for dramatic effect, you aim at center mass, but you move ever so slightly and the shot ends up off center still hitting the jug and allowing dramatic effect we all crave. It's still a hit. But getting back to that other hand, if you want or need to be precise, then you you have to focus on the intersection of the reticle, have a good relaxed body position, good trigger control and good follow through to be precise.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 3:59:03 AM EDT
Wow. Thanks for all the replies. Now i know what to look for besides Mag and FOV! and i will definatly look at the nikon more. I have a nikon binocular that i like but never considered their scopes to be any good, not that i ever really looked at them. I use the scope for plinking at 200 yards and hunting deer at no more than 150 yards. So super long range shooting is not in my perview. NY is too forested and mountainous (appalachia) for long range hunting or shooting. I just like the idea of having at least one really good scope.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 1:24:35 PM EDT
Guys, I've been reading and learning a ton about scopes, but when using these scopes, is a front sight post a problem. I am working on my first build, so I have to decide what to do for a front sight. I will not be shooting past 200 yards or so. So what are your thoughts about the front sight post? Thanks guys, Happy New Year.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 1:38:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JoeS40:
Guys, I've been reading and learning a ton about scopes, but when using these scopes, is a front sight post a problem. I am working on my first build, so I have to decide what to do for a front sight. I will not be shooting past 200 yards or so. So what are your thoughts about the front sight post? Thanks guys, Happy New Year.



I just put on a YHM front flip up with the four screws, a bayo-lug and a sling loop that I don't use (free-floated).

Keeps the BUIS out of the optics.

Prolly some fellers here'll tell ya that the front post won't show in a HP optic, and I think they'd be right. I didn't want to chance it.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 11:21:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
What really is the difference between a $100 Bushnell and a Leupold that goes for $1000?! More so because i see that they can have identical Magnification and field of view!?



You're paying for optical quality. The best way to experience this is to go binocular shopping. (You don't have to mess w/ eye relief) Compare a $40 Bushnell to a $200 Nikon to a $700 Zeiss.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 10:58:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CSW4:

Originally Posted By t-stox:
What really is the difference between a $100 Bushnell and a Leupold that goes for $1000?! More so because i see that they can have identical Magnification and field of view!?



You're paying for optical quality. The best way to experience this is to go binocular shopping. (You don't have to mess w/ eye relief) Compare a $40 Bushnell to a $200 Nikon to a $700 Zeiss.




And just to add to CSW4, not only do you pay for good glass and the associated polishing and coatings of the glass, you'll also be paying for good quality materials that the scope and its components are made of. plus keeping all the tolerances as small as possible within cost constraints.
Remember, all errors are accumalative, and all scopes are actually hand made. What this means is something interesting, you can have a tech goof up on an expensive scope turning it into junk, or a tech do a superb job putting together inexpensive scopes making a few units that really outperform their brother units.
Top Top