Example???
You say its not true but don't give an example and the scope you mention is a target scope not very useful for hunting.
I have a Tasco Trajectory 6-24X40 for about $100. It has never failed to go where I twist it and return to zero. I had a Tasco Trajectory 4-16X40 that was just as good. A friend needed a scope so I gave it to him since I could afford more. I have heard the opposite about Leupolds.
Speaking of Leupolds: I bought a VX-6 4-24X52 for $1,347. A very nice optics. I compared it to my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 for $750. Whatever I could see on the military optics chart
127 yards away with the Leupold I could see the same thing on a lower setting with the 6500. I called both companies to check how accurate their settings are. Both claim they are spot on. It, the 6500, and the Swarovski z5 go down at the same time on my low light test.
Swarovski: When I ordered my first Swarovski z5 5-25X52 for $1,675 I was very optimistic since my only experience with Swarovski was an 8 1/2X binocular. It was fantastic
! The z5 weighed 18.1 ounces on my postal scale. That's why I bought it. I figured it would blow the doors off the Bushnell. It weighs 22.0 ounces. I got out my Nightforce NSX 12-42X56 ($1,440) to compare them all at the same time. That was before I had the military optics chart. I made a line chart with 1/4" lines and 1/4" spaces. I checked at several yardages. I will go to where the Nightforce first came off its 12X setting: 572 yards the settings were as follows. Nightforce 12 1/4X, Bushnell 15 1/2X and the Swarovski 16 1/2X. I returned it thinking I received a bad one. I took them to a couple gunsmith friends. One could see no difference in any of the scopes and the other noticed when the sun went behind a cloud the z5 was better than the 6500. When the sun came back out the 6500 was better. At that time, 2010, he told me the Nightforce was the fines optic he ever looked through. He now has Nightforces and Schmidt & Bender.
Swarovski #2: Worse than the first one. I showed it to the second gunsmith. He was amazed at the lack of consistency in Swarovski. I returned it.
Swarovski #3: Matched the second one. Returned it.
Swarovski #4: Matched the first one so figured this is as good as it gets. I wanted to take advantage of its four ounce weight advantage over the 6500. The first day I used it I tried to adjust it for sighting in. The groups was 3" right. I moved twelve clicks and the group didn't move. I moved it twelve more clicks and the group moved 3" to the other side. Not real confidence inspiring. I really enjoyed playing with the Ballistic Turret and practiced a lot with it. About two days before a sheep hunt I wen to the range one more time. The Ballistic Turret wouldn't work. I did get it to stay sighted at 300 so took it hunting. Jump forward a few weeks.
Swarovski had repaired it and included a note telling me they had to replace the erector. I practiced with it again for my entertainment. A couple days before I was heading to Alaska it did the same thing as before. Again I was able to get it sighted in for 300 yards. When I got home I sent it in to customer service. Again they included a note stating they had to replace the erector. Charged me $30 this time
!
Vortex: I compared everyone I saw at the range with my 6500. It made no difference how much the Vortex cost. It is not as clear as the Bushnell. A new friend bought four FFP Gen 4 or whatever it is 5-20X. Anyway it was supposed to blow away my Bushnells. I have three of the 6500 4 1/2-30X50s. He let me take one outside but would not let me take it home to compare on my military optics chart. I found a sign several blocks away with writing I could not see with the unaided eye. I adjusted the Vortex to my eye and adjusted it on the sign on its lowest setting of 5X. I fooled with it awhile to make sure I was giving it a good showing. Then I switched to the 6500. I didn't have to fool with it at all. When I looked through it on 4 1/2X it was obviously better.
I took both scopes in and told him my results. He looked through the Vortex and then through the 6500. There was a shocked look on his face. He said, "These cost about a grand, don't they?" "I got that 600DOA model for $750 delivered the other day. My first one was $620 delivered and the other was $785."
Minox: I bought a 5-25x
56 thinking it would smoke my 6500 in low light. But first I compared it on the military optics chart. My low light test is to compare them on deer antlers in the woods 131 yards away. The moment I would not shoot at the deer because I can't absolutely see the second tine I mark the time. This scope was a joke. The only magnification setting it was any good was on 25X. And it didn't do any better than the
50mm 6500 on the low light test. Despite paying a restocking fee I returned it.
Continuing with Minox: I bought some nice 13X
56 for $600. I really liked them but the worse 6500 with only one
50mm objective beats in it low light by two minutes. But I digress. I ran into another hunter who was carrying some Minox 15X
58 on a neck strap
! Say what?
! I use mine on a tripod. Anyway he wanted to trade. Between heartbeats I said, "Yea
!" The 13X are about a pound or two lighter. They cost about $100 more. When I compared them on the optics chart the cheaper one made the more expensive one look like a $200 optic. It's no contest between it and the 6500 for low light. It would last several minutes longer than the 6500.
There are others but this is getting out of hand. I didn't realize I was going to write an essay. I am going to copy and save this in case anyone else asks the same question.
