What say you??

[Flyjunky]

As some of you know I've been researching scopes for a new build. There are so many good choices and so many different opinions on reliability, glass quality, etc. it's almost overwhelming on what to believe. But one thing that has come up in my mind during all this research is this question: Does the quality of glass really matter all that much in a scope? If a scope is reliable and has the features you want than isn't that good enough? The quality of glass seems so subjective depending on the person behind the scope and their eyes. You can look through so many threads on this site where somebody says scope X was way more clear and had better lowlight ability than scope Y, yet the next person to respond will say the exact opposite. I see people talking about chromatic aberration, edge to edge clarity, etc but I'm really not sure those things matter in scopes. That matters way more in binoculars and spotting scopes when you're spending hours behind them but does it really matter in scopes?

The conclusion I've come to is that once you reach the $1500+ it's all about splitting hairs in regards to optical quality. I don't think I really need a scope that is "perfectly" clear from edge to edge or has minuscule better chromatic aberration. Is that crazy thinking? Has anyone ever missed an animal because they didn't have a clear edge to edge scope, chromatic aberration was just too much, etc? I can understand that lowlight capability can make a break or break an opportunity but even that is debatable on who is looking through the scope.

Is this more about marketing and hunters being able to show off how much they spent to have the "very best"?

To give you a little of my background with quality glass....I've been a full time photographer for more than a decade and I literally spend almost everyday behind some VERY quality glass. My camera bag has over $37,000 in lenses with the most expensive being $8,200, so I know what it is to look through good glass.

 

[DoneNOut]

You have to wonder also if the person is bias because it is the scope they bought and trick themselves into thinking it's great. Something I didn't know till recent is German Schott glass and Japanese glass. Jap glass is the high whites and blues color renditions that almost burn your retina, lol, while the German made glass is more subdued showing more contrast and high colors of the entire light spectrum. I think once a guy understands that it's easier to understand what one is seeing.

It also comes down to what to look for in critiquing an optic. I didn't know half the things to look for today 20yrs ago. So my frame of reference on what a great scope should look like was extremely limited. You appear to have a great frame of reference, so the evaluation should be much easier and accurate.

 

[257 STW]

For me. The mechanical ability of the scope is most important to me first and foremost. Will it hold zero, will it track straight, will it return to zero, are the turrets tactile or mushy. I`m not a glass snob by any means, and while I do own NF, Burris XTR IIIs, Leupold, and a couple Sig Sauer. The edge to edge, CA, is something I don`t even notice in a rifle scope. My eyes just aren`t that good to tell much of a difference with a quality scope compared to a super high end scope. I`m just fine in the $1000-$1500 range. my .02

 

[DoneNOut]

For me. The mechanical ability of the scope is most important to me first and foremost. Will it hold zero, will it track straight, will it return to zero, are the turrets tactile or mushy. I`m not a glass snob by any means, and while I do own NF, Burris XTR IIIs, Leupold, and a couple Sig Sauer. The edge to edge, CA, is something I don`t even notice in a rifle scope. My eyes just aren`t that good to tell much of a difference with a quality scope compared to a super high end scope. I`m just fine in the $1000-$1500 range. my .02

Great glass ain't gonna do a daggum bit of good if the thing doesn't track.

 

[257 STW]

Great glass ain't gonna do a daggum bit of good if the thing doesn't track.

Fact!

 

[74honker]

I agree with everything said so far. Personally I don't think you have to get to the $1k mark before the hair splitting starts lol. IMO if you are looking at the edge of the glass through a scope you probably aint looking at the right place in the scope. I mean the X is in the middle for a reason. And yes I do hold over sometimes but have never had to look through the bottom edge to make a shot.

 

[asd9055]

I know very little about glass! I just know what I can see! The USAF has a chart that you can place at a distance and evaluate various scopes! I will not buy an expensive scope unless I can do that at dusk light conditions!

 

[DoneNOut]

I agree with everything said so far. Personally I don't think you have to get to the $1k mark before the hair splitting starts lol. IMO if you are looking at the edge of the glass through a scope you probably aint looking at the right place in the scope. I mean the X is in the middle for a reason. And yes I do hold over sometimes but have never had to look through the bottom edge to make a shot.

OMG, no kidding. The edge-to-edge sharpness is only something brought up in some online reviews. I personally don't care what's going on 1/32 inch or less on the edges that I don't see anyway when taking a shot. To see that, you have to defy a proper sight picture.

I only disagree with the money amount of a quality optic. I buy $1500 optics for $900. Some of those optics will have mushy turrets, parallax issues, or tight eye boxes. What one gets with scopes over that price point is parallax correct placement of the front focal plane. Dark lord of optics youtube channel does a great explanation of what you are getting from the really expense options like Tangent Theta.

 

[Mark37082]

I completely agree with the OP as well other responders. It comes down to what your comfortable with. Some people just want the best regardless of the cost. There is nothing wrong with this if that makes them happy. I've been very fortunate to not have issues with many scopes in the last 40 - 50 years. Sure you can tell the difference between a $500 and a $1500 scope. Above that they may have some great features and you may be able to run them over with a truck and still shoot with them, but I don't think that is worth my hard earned $$$. I try not run over scopes with my truck.

 

[JungleShooter]

Hoooo, this is a great topic.
Almost like religions:

● Immovable, almost sacred, time-honed — personal preferences.
● Strong, deep, heart-felt — personal opinions.



We are all very different shooters — with very different preferences and opinions.
● One shooter usually uses hold-overs — so the reticle becomes one of the most critical parts of the scope.
● Another shooter dials most of the shots — so tracking, repeatable turrets with lots of elevation and zero stop become one of the most critical parts of the scope.


● One shooter has already all the "perfect" gear: top gun, accomplished hand loader, Kestrel 5700, LabRadar, the works. Of course, the scope has to fit that "perfect" setup. So, CA, edge to edge, cold-blue tone vs. warm-yellow tone, etc. become important details toward "perfect."

● Another shooter does not have such high level gear — but comes from an optics background (like our OP, but unlike our OP) — lets the optics background strongly influence the shooting hobby.

● Another shooter is a self-confessed optics nerd, this is his/her thing!
● Another shooter is the practical hunter who takes optics just as a tool, to do just one job, identify the target and hit it.



So, yeah, I appreciate the optics nerds and photographers among us. I rejoice with those who have a "perfect" setup. And I like the nerds, because I am one (just not with optics glass, but other things.... ).



Of course, some of the glass stuff DOES have a practical effect — but it depends on your shooting scenarios:
▪ Are you shooting till the last legal minutes — or mostly in plain daylight?
▪ Are you shooting in the deep woods — or in well-lit open plains?
▪ Are you shooting videos through the scope at 240 frames per second (while shooting game) — or are you just shooting game with it?
▪ Do you need to see the target — or do you need to see the hits on target? (The latter requires better glass.)
▪ Are you using your scope as a monocular — or did you bring some nice binos?



We won't agree on the importance of glass quality, because we have different personal preferences, and we employ it in different shooting scenarios.
But it's good to hear all opinions — so we can form our own, adapted to our preferences and scenarios.

Cheers,

Matthias

 

[Mark37082]

JungleShooter - great post and presented very well. I thought it deserved more than just a "Like".

 

[257 STW]

I agree about Jungleshooters post as well. Pretty much covered all the bases, and was done well.

 

[sp6x6]

There is much info and opinoins on here.That is how I ended up with a March 3-24x52 F1.The scope has many great qualities that I want.My background is I shot many game with a 3x9 leupold,as I got older and more range I had a Sheppard,think it was just 10x.Then I got one of the first Leupold tact blackring mildot 14x.This was long time ago by now.Majority of my game out to 800+ taken with that scope I still have on a 325wsm.Ive had mark4,think my 338NM is 11 years old now,then and current March last7 years.The scope has worked great,turrets,low profile,I front carry,binos on front too.ZS,good low end.Now the picky part,scope is not that clear past 20, I use scope for trophy quality and at far range next ridge stuff.I am dissappointed that I have to fuss with paralax way more than I should,it is hard to get sharp count points in a quick set up .I is in no where the same league as my Leupold 5-25 mark 5.Which cost less. I dont hear this from all others but some and think it might be because earlier optic.But as I age I dont want to pack a spotter all the time.Another comparison,sold my kowa 554,becuase it was so close to what my Leupold did that was 60mm and onlt slight heavier.Now the mark 5 is taller turret,34 tube,etc.I would not want it on my packer.But the March should be as good as it optically,cant tell a difference between it from Swaro z5,SS 20x, or my Mark 4 20x. If looking thru and using paralax was like my Leupold I would be estatic,but March remains on rifle as it fits the bill at this point.Im hunting more open country now and Im in scope sizing up game,one day this fall I was flopped out on 3 different bucks by 10 am All with good frames within 800 yrds.

 

[Flyjunky]

JungleShooter - great post and presented very well. I thought it deserved more than just a "Like".

Sorry, I wasn't able to respond last night.

I absolutely know there are differences and some people are willing to pay for those differences, including me. In my list of possible scopes are the ZCO, march, and atacr.

It's really no different than buying a factory rifle or building a custom. I'm building a custom because I want specific things and "better" quality.

I agree that we all have different wants and needs but my question boiled down to: Has anyone with a $1500 scope not been able to take the shot at an animal that a $3000 scope would have allowed?

I know it can be different for target shooters, competition, etc but I was specifically talking hunting situations.