Posted: 10/22/2009 9:17:44 PM EDT
| looking for a longer range optic 200+ to maybe 600 looking for a cheaper optic, currently have a bsa contender 8-32x40 the glass is terribly blury if i zoon the scope at all....great glass if at standard 8x, but zoomed at all it's terrible....do i just have a bad egg or are bsa the quality of their price.....what other options are out there for cheaper glass...... |
I think he said "cheap". Somehow I don't think nightforce is going to fit that category. 
That being said, the cheapest I'd go and still be able to feel like I had something worthwhile is probably a Weaver V16, I've found them online for about $250 shipped. If you don't need the AO or 16 power, you could go a step down from there to the V10 and probably come out closer to $200. I'm guessing you might find a Nikon in that price range or something used. A guy I work with just bought a Pentax Gameseeker, a discountinued model, for $100 and it looks surprisingly good. FWIW - I"m not a fan of BSA, Tasco, the lower end Bushnell stuff, etc. I'd rather scriimp and save a little more or shop for something better thats used. As long as the glass is good, some wide rings can cover up a lot of ring marks. |
|
Quoted:
looking for a longer range optic 200+ to maybe 600 looking for a cheaper optic, currently have a bsa contender 8-32x40 the glass is terribly blury if i zoon the scope at all....great glass if at standard 8x, but zoomed at all it's terrible....do i just have a bad egg or are bsa the quality of their price.....what other options are out there for cheaper glass...... Part of the problem with the BSA besides being a cheap POS made in China is the design of the scope itself. A formula called Daws Limiit is used to determine the optical resolution of a scope and it's a fact that at the higher magnifications, you need a larger objective size to resolve an image at higher magnifications. This affects things the most at magnifications above 20x, but it applies at all magnifications. So part of the reason behind your crappy image is crappy glass combined with the design itself - a 40mm objective on that much magnification just won't cut it. For instance, if you were to lay a Nightforce NXS 5.5-22x50 alongside an NXS 5.5-22x56 to look at a resolution chart - the 56 would have slightly better resolution to the point that it's actually noticable if you're looking for it. Trust me, the 50mm is still better than most other scopes out there, but it isn't the resolution isn't as refined as the 56mm objective. Above 25x and you really need a 56mm objective at a minimum to get optical resolution. There are 3 things that determine a riflescopes ability that get focused on. Imagine a triangle with Resolution, Light Transmission and Color Rendition in each corner. An optics manufactuer can focus on 1 of the 3 things to focus their optical quality on, but can't do all 3 at once. The other areas can be made to be quite good, but you won't ever get the same level of excellence in all 3 - I don't care what anybody tells you. S&B is known for their light transmission abilities and Zeiss is known for their phenominal color rendition - they are noted for those qualities. At Nightforce we focus on resolution and pay particularly close attention to light transmission as well. Color rendition while important is usually affected by coatings, which will ultimately affect resolution. Of course all of the above doesn't mean crap if the scope itself won't hold up to the rigors of what most shooters potentially put their scope through. Since you are wanting a long range optic, the number 1 thing you need to be concerned about is the scopes ability to track correctly and true every time. In the price range you are looking at, I don't hesitate to recommend the fixed 10x Bushnell 3200 or Super Sniper scopes. If I variable is what you're after, look closely at the Nikon Buckmaster or Monarch series of scopes. They have good glass and more importantly, they track true. Too many people focus on magnification for accuracy, which is BS as it's really not needed unless you are shooting competition (F-Class, Benchrest, etc) or little varmints. The reality is that most can get by with much less than that. Realize that many scopes with higher magnification cost more money. You can go with a better scope with less magnification and do better than a higher magnification scope that costs more money. |
|
I had the nikon buckmaster with mildot before I steped up to my leupold....I'm on my 3rd scope for my bolt gun...don't buy cheap it will make u not want to shoot...look at the nikon..its a good scope, but once u use one of the higher ends..u will b spoiled, but I used the nikon for over a year with great luck with it Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Plenty of shooters look at the glass and the magnification of a scope. Lawman is correct. There is one other factor that is huge when looking at a scope to shoot 600 yards. That is the quality of the Turrets. Some of the scopes have the "set once and leave it alone" style turrets. If you are adjusting the turrets to shoot longer ranges the scope must have target turrets period. I would forgo higher power or bigger objective lens for good target turrets. It is hard to adjust a scope repeatedly to the same setting if it does not have good target turrets. If you use a coin to change the setting it probably will not work for 600 yard shooting.
Scott |