Optics

[tribb]

The cheap ones work but for how long ?
Run a high end scope then go run a lower end and you'll know why they are lower end.
The guys that put their life on the line in war zones are not using Arken They are using Night Force, and Schmidt and Bender for a reason.
I think everyone should be able to enjoy the hobby so spend what you can and have a good time but I do believe in the saying buy once cry once.

Very well said

The cheap ones work but for how long ?
Run a high end scope then go run a lower end and you'll know why they are lower end.
The guys that put their life on the line in war zones are not using Arken They are using Night Force, and Schmidt and Bender for a reason.
I think everyone should be able to enjoy the hobby so spend what you can and have a good time but I do believe in the saying buy once cry once.

. Very well said

 

[std7mag]

I think a great value in a scope is the Sightron S1 4-12 with A/O and 20 MOA of vertical and 10 MOA windage each side in stadia hash mark on the reticle. $249. Fantastic value and very functional.

I have that scope.
I still have yet to figure out why a scope manufacturer thinks an adjustable objective is a good idea.
I set mine on 100 yards and leave it there.
I much prefer an adjustable paralax. At least it's much easier to reach.

Lately I've been getting scopes from Crimson Trace.
Their Hardline is more expensive than the Sightron, but it's better in almost every way.
Excellent glass, smooth controls, good tracking.
The feel is of much better quality.
Even compared to my 4-20X56 STAC and my SIII 10-50X60 LRTD.

Decent glass on the Sightron's, but not as good as Crimson Trace and the controls are clunkier on the Sightron's.

 

[med358-boise]

I have that scope.
I still have yet to figure out why a scope manufacturer thinks an adjustable objective is a good idea.
I set mine on 100 yards and leave it there.
I much prefer an adjustable paralax. At least it's much easier to reach.

Lately I've been getting scopes from Crimson Trace.
Their Hardline is more expensive than the Sightron, but it's better in almost every way.
Excellent glass, smooth controls, good tracking.
The feel is of much better quality.
Even compared to my 4-20X56 STAC and my SIII 10-50X60 LRTD.

Decent glass on the Sightron's, but not as good as Crimson Trace and the controls are clunkier on the Sightron's.

I'll checkem out

 

[Capt Nag]

I used to hunt exclusively with iron sights until a few years ago when I wanted to test my ability to shoot at longer distances. I still keep a couple rifles without scopes for hunting varmints under 150 yds but I have adapted to using scopes more and more. I look for clarity and eye-relief as well as weight in deciding what scopes to buy. So far I am really happy with the choices I have made in the lower tier section ($300-500). I don't abuse my gear so I am sure they will last me as long as I need them and for the distances I shoot (under 600 yd). Hard to justify spending more on a scope when I am just filling a freezer or killing/chasing off unwanted varmints.

I keep iron sights on my rifles too.
It's called Insurance!

 

[std7mag]

I keep iron sights on my rifles too.
It's called Insurance!

I only have a couple of rifles that have open sights.
M1 Carbine
Henry Single Shot in 45-70.

Otherwise I haven't had open sights on a rifle in 40 years.

 

[waynemc]

Buy a $1000 scope and run it hard for a year and come back. Does it still hold zero? Does it track? Is it consistent?

The premium scopes can just handle more use and abuse in my experience and I'll pay an extra $2000 for the warm-fuzzy feeling my next shot will doped right.

If you dial for an 800 yard shot five times a year, $1000 glass is probably (maybe) fine.

arken glass not very good . just wasted 500.00 on one.

 

[bultinkle]

Scopes have 2 jobs

See target (glass)

asign impact location (reticle/zero)

People care a LOT about the 1st one, yet everything over 100$ can achieve "good enough" at this to kill an animal inside ~600 yards.

People don't seem to give a snot about job #2 which is making sure the reticle stays where it's supposed to. There is tracking testing, but No testing of retention in almost any single gun magazine or YouTube review of scopes.

Why is that?

 

[med358-boise]

Scopes have 2 jobs

See target (glass)

asign impact location (reticle/zero)

People care a LOT about the 1st one, yet everything over 100$ can achieve "good enough" at this to kill an animal inside ~600 yards.

People don't seem to give a snot about job #2 which is making sure the reticle stays where it's supposed to. There is tracking testing, but No testing of retention in almost any single gun magazine or YouTube review of scopes.

Why is that?

I suspect because it is more difficult to do in a controlled manner and it takes more time. Even though they are youtubers and making money by doing tests, many people content producers may not have the patience or requisite rigor.

Consider that a losing zero test to be fair really has to be the exact same set up because to simulate real world conditions you "deliver and impact to the forend" for example and the rifle stock and action take some of the impact and transfer the shock wave to the mounts and rings and then to the scope. So to be fair you need 5 of the exact same rifle, with the same stock, same mounts and rings to test 5 different scopes. Otherwise, you don't know that the same shock wave hit the scope. That would be a PITA and also take a a lot of time.

So in short, getting an apples to apples comparison of the same impact to the gun caused X vs Y scope to behave differently is difficult.

 

[doctorjj]

I think it's simpler than that. I think most people, incorrectly, assume that the inner workings should work. And if they don't, especially on a lower end scope, they just think it's bad luck that theirs crapped out on them. And they also, incorrectly in a lot of cases, believe that if they pay a lot for a scope the internals will definitely be better and work like they should. It's only tests like Form's that start to expose that as false.

 

[Bob2650]

One of the other ways to look at this issue is that some hunters think that an expensive scope will make them a better shot.
My opinion is that Ammo should be the biggest expense because great optics and a super accurate rifle won't make much difference if your not a good shot.
Fortunately, we don't have many poor marksmen around here.

 

[pavementends]

Given that glass is expensive, that should be the cost difference. With modern machining it should not cost any more for the mechanical parts. The larger scope tubes should allow for more robust internals. Way back when the earth was young the Weaver Micro-trac was revolutionary. The adjustments mostly worked and were repeatable. The bird watchers argue every year about which spotting scope is the best and often it still depends on the reviewers eye. After you are satisfied with the glass quality and the scope is mechanically sound not sure what spending more buys you other than look what I got.

 

[bultinkle]

I suspect because it is more difficult to do in a controlled manner and it takes more time. Even though they are youtubers and making money by doing tests, many people content producers may not have the patience or requisite rigor.

Consider that a losing zero test to be fair really has to be the exact same set up because to simulate real world conditions you "deliver and impact to the forend" for example and the rifle stock and action take some of the impact and transfer the shock wave to the mounts and rings and then to the scope. So to be fair you need 5 of the exact same rifle, with the same stock, same mounts and rings to test 5 different scopes. Otherwise, you don't know that the same shock wave hit the scope. That would be a PITA and also take a a lot of time.

So in short, getting an apples to apples comparison of the same impact to the gun caused X vs Y scope to behave differently is difficult.

I think this is one scenario where you're sacrificing good for perfect, and it can be controlled within general reason. How come every nightforce holds up to all the 18 and 36" drops on the same rifle on another site that others fail on?

I've requested it from YouTube channels multiple times. It's not because it's not repeatable imo, it's because they are going to be out the money for the scope when it doesn't work and they don't want to lose that money. They have told me so.

It's not about making sure we have scopes that work, it's business. I think the industry knows most scopes can't hold zero to 2-3ft falls and they don't want to deal with the compromises to fix that.