Explain the differences in optics

[Overkill338]

Better put, explain the differences in cheap scopes and expensive ones. I have a friend that I have long debated this with. He considers $150 to be a lot to spend on glass, I myself, have always wanted better optics, so I dont have to worry about my magnums shaking them apart. I just never knew the exact dynamics about what makes one better than the other. I've just always heard you get what you pay for, and I dont want a scope that adjusts 1-MOA in one direction, then 1.5 in the other when you try to go back.

 

[ol mike]

Tang ,

Howdy there.
A riflescope is built like anything else -a cheap scope would compare to a cheap car -yugo -tasco they even rhyme.
The difference between a yugo and a honda car are -one is designed and throughly tested to perform well and the other isn't.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

About 25 yrs ago, I put a "cheap" Bushnell ( they make some quality scopes now) on my 7mm RM and bullets were fying everywhere, 6+ MOA. I replaced it with a better Weaver and the *group* shrunk to about 1 - 1 1/2 MOA.

Nuff said...

 

[Overkill338]

I have actually put a Bushnell Trophy 6-18 on my .300 Win Mag, just to see how long it will live. I have shot .6" groups with it. My only complaint is the eye relief is so finicky. It's hard to not get that shadow around the edges on high power.

 

[Longshot38]

There are lots of reasons why some scopes are better then others. Things like lens coatings, internals, tube construction, etc.... So lets talk about some of these.

Lens Coatings
All lens coatings ARE NOT the same. Each company has its own proprietary coatings and some are awful while others are spectacular. For example BSAs optics suck. The quality of the glass or coatings has never been very good. Where as Leupold coatings are much better and they make the glass pretty good. Then you have companies such as Zeiss and Schmidt & Bender who light transmission and resolution is mind blowing.

It all has to do with the lens coatings. Glass by its very nature is reflective and tends to act more like a mirror. Thus companies fine grind and polish the glass then put there coatings on them to combat the reflective properties of glass. At the end of the day it shows which companies did there homework and which did not.

Internals
Internal construction of scopes varies greatly with brand and model. Prime examples of this are the differences between the Sightron SI line and their SIII line or the Leupold Rifleman line and the Mark 4 line. The SI and Rifleman line are the ecnomey lines and the internals are put together with cost being the motivating factor. On the other hand the SIII and Mark 4 line of scopes are markets towards high end market where people are willing to pay more for the products but also expect a lot more. Thus the internals are built with repeatablity and durability as the primary goal.

Tube construction
Not all scope tubes are constructed the same. Most tubes today are one peice tubes but not all. Also the sidewalls are constructed to different thicknesses for different manufacters. For example Nightforce tubes are of thicker construction then Bushnell. And it shows in weight and the amount of abuse the scope can take.

These three factors are the lions share of what makes a scope however it is not all of it. Things like Nitrogen filled air purged and external design have a bearing on quality also. Also remember that price doesn't nessarily reflect quality. Cheaper scopes can be found that work well, examples would be Falcon optics, Busnell Elite series, Super Snipers, etc..., but you generall get what you pay for.

 

[gbp]

Tang ,

Howdy there.
A riflescope is built like anything else -a cheap scope would compare to a cheap car -yugo -tasco they even rhyme.
The difference between a yugo and a honda car are -one is designed and throughly tested to perform well and the other isn't.

i can relate to that. back in the early 80's i bought a new 7 wby mag with one of their wby premier scopes on it. i paid about $500 for the scope at the time. So out to the range I go bulletts everywhere except where i want them and the more i shot the worse it became. i went through all the reloading tricks i could think of to get this thing below 'minute of barn' i was just about to scrap the whole rifle but decided to call a smith that i had used to build my silhouette pistoles, he told me to bring it in for a bedding job etc., so off i went. when i showed up he took one look at it got out his allen wrench, took the scope off and threw it in the trash saying thats your problem. needless to say i was horrified until he told me that the premier scope was made by tasco, then i was just mad. walked out with a bedded rifle and a lupe that shoots 0.5 to 0.7 if i do my part.

 

[Overkill338]

Thanks for the replies, very informative.

 

[cal74]

There are a few decent scopes made these days in the 200.00 dollar range. Anything less than that I wouldn't put on anything but a .22.


Termonology might be off, but less expensive glass will often times have a more of a black donut effect around the outside of the viewing field.

Quality optics will retain and repeat their zeros.

ie: Sighted in, you could adjust the scope say 8 clicks right, 8 click up (2" either way) Shoot a group and than readjust the scope back to where you had it and it'll be back where it should be.

Try that with a 50-100 scope and don't be surprised if it hasn't adjusted much or if it won't go back to zero.



High end scope with superior lenses and coatings will transmit more light. Some cheap scopes just make huge objectives to try and off set this.



If you ever have the chance to look at the 1000-2000 scopes, but know you'll never be able to afford them. Than don't look at all, it's hard to go back. I have two pairs of Swavorski binoculars and there's really only two other makers that have anything to even compete with them (my opinion)


90% of my scopes are Leupolds and they hold their own. There are equal or better scopes out there, but Leupold has one of the best warranties if you ever need it. I haven't, hopefully never will need to send one in.


If you on a budget take a look at the Bushnell 3200's or look for a used Leupold in that price range. Lots of them out there for 200-300.00

 

[jonoMT]

Longshot38 explained it very well. I'd only add that you should get the best scope you can afford while at the same time carefully weigh what you want to use it for and what kind of rifle, i.e. can it handle the recoil, does it overwhelm the barrel length...those kinds of things. Rarely do you find a scope that doesn't have tradeoffs. The expensive ones generally have the best features, but will most people get that much more out of a USO or Premier than they can get out of a Sightron SIII for a fourth to a third the price? Better to double or triple the number of practice rounds you put downrange once you get past the $600 price level.

Bushnell Elite, Sightron and Vortex' upcoming tactical scopes all provide decent options in that range.

 

[Overkill338]

I have been looking at Bushnell Elite 3200's, but really really want a Zeiss *drool* My friend has a 3.5-10 Zeiss Conquest at his shop, it has target turrets and one of the range finding recticles. Not sure if it's worth the $700 asking price though. I want that one to go on my .300 Win Mag. I have a VX-II 3-9x40 on my .338 Win Mag.

 

[davewilson]

i assume you want a variable and not a straight power scope. straight powers are much cheaper and very dependable. don't know what power range you're looking for, but my vote goes to Sightron. i think they are the best value for the money. Bear Basin has the 4x16 Big Sky for 479.