Comparing scopes

Sasquatch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,132
Location
RDU
Rating - 100%
33   0   0
(rant)

Every other market seems to have some kind of standard for how to measure their products. The gun market is mixed- example for rifle accuracy, some will advertise: "Less than 1 MOA using precision ammo". Then again, there's the BS of gun safes- not hard to find an 80-gun safe that is smaller than a 64-gun of another brand.

What's the story with scopes? Why isn't there a metric that you can use to compare scopes? And I mean, even within a company's own lines: Nikon has Black/Monarch/Prostaff, etc. I assume the Blacks are better- but by how much? And how do they define better? They're certainly more expensive.

I'm an engineer- if I can't measure it, then I don't trust it. I've got lots of scopes from different brands, and some I 'like' and some are sitting on the shelf- because I don't 'like' them. Can't tell you why- and my family members disagree with some of my thumbs-up/down ratings. This seems to be the case with scopes- and the market probably depends on this purely subjective measure for their own marketing ends- don't like a scope, pay more money or another brand and it will be 'better'. And this intentional obfuscation probably keeps the high-end scope companies in business- they likely are better- but by how much? Worth 4x the price for 1.5x the benefit?

What I'd like to see (standardized) are metrics such as these:

  • Overall Light transmission % (this takes care of the BS of multi-coated versus fully multicoated, etc.)
  • Light distortion % (how much color shift is there)
  • Edge distortion (the difference between image accuracy at the center and the edges- which is actually not a huge need for me- as I pretty much only shoot what's in the center, but it would be a metric of a 'better' scope)
  • etc.
And to compare this you use a device you clamp onto the end of the scope, with a standardized target and lighting and it spits out a chart with all those metrics?

Am I asking too much?
 
What I'd like to see (standardized) are metrics such as these:

  • Overall Light transmission % (this takes care of the BS of multi-coated versus fully multicoated, etc.)
  • Light distortion % (how much color shift is there)
  • Edge distortion (the difference between image accuracy at the center and the edges- which is actually not a huge need for me- as I pretty much only shoot what's in the center, but it would be a metric of a 'better' scope)
  • etc.
And to compare this you use a device you clamp onto the end of the scope, with a standardized target and lighting and it spits out a chart with all those metrics?

Am I asking too much?



You seem to be primarily concerned with the glass, which is fine.

I've divided scopes into 3 main areas,

1) Optics ( Self explanatory )
2) Mechanics ( will it hold up )
3) Functionality for my intended purpose ( features such as Parallax ~ No Parallax , Reticle style, IR or No IR , etc )


One item / part that crosses the Optic & Mechanical Threshold is the "Eye Piece" , "Ocular", "Fast Focus " ( what ever one wants to call it ) as MANY are Loose and this includes all >>manufactures<< to one extent or another.

One manufacture that I have a good relationship recently introduced some of its New scopes ( 2019 ~ 2020 ) with a "Locking Ring" on the "Eye Piece" which is a good thing.
I have been talking with them off & on for the last two years or so about small changes to Improve their product and while I'm sure I was not the moving force in their change for an Eye Lock, it's welcome.


Sas,

If you are not aware of the following reviews and content I'm sharing below, both sources get ito the "Optics & Glass Quality" and in different reviews show their testing methods.

Both sources offer many reviews for scopes and you may have to research UT to find more.



Says he Broke an "ATACR Nightforce"

 
Tracking of the turrets is the best standard. There are videos online that confirm the tracking of scopes.

Clarity of glass is another, but that is subjective to the user depending on a number of factors.
 
Clarity of glass is another, but that is subjective to the user depending on a number of factors.
G,
I'm not calling you out as you are an Advanced User, however in the interest of putting some relevance to this for the sake and interest of more novice shooters trying to make heads & tails of scopes and to the OP question / concern, I believe he is wishing for a "Standard " to which all scopes can be compared to for optical quality.
Now I don't believe there are any ( or at least any agreed to and used by the industry ) which makes it difficult when buying a scope only to find out it's not what a shooter wanted or expected.

Presuming one can see through a scope (acceptably ) IMHO the single most important thing is that it "Holds Zero."
If a scope will hold Zero then the reticle can be used for shot placement and it frees up time.
Frankly, I don't care for scopes with a parallax adjustment ( short ~ med range ) because it's one more Knob to turn.
 
G,
I'm not calling you out as you are an Advanced User, however in the interest of putting some relevance to this for the sake and interest of more novice shooters trying to make heads & tails of scopes and to the OP question / concern, I believe he is wishing for a "Standard " to which all scopes can be compared to for optical quality.
Now I don't believe there are any ( or at least any agreed to and used by the industry ) which makes it difficult when buying a scope only to find out it's not what a shooter wanted or expected.

Presuming one can see through a scope (acceptably ) IMHO the single most important thing is that it "Holds Zero."
If a scope will hold Zero then the reticle can be used for shot placement and it frees up time.
Frankly, I don't care for scopes with a parallax adjustment ( short ~ med range ) because it's one more Knob to turn.

Correct. I wanted to elaborate on what I believe sets apart an entry level scope and higher end scopes. High end glass clarity is extremely subjective, considering they're all nearly perfect optically. Most users of that glass consider tracking among the higher importance items, given that we all believe these scopes will hold zero 100% of the time.

The other big item most people overlook in the process is getting a strong/secure mount (rings or mount) and making sure your scope is level. I would recommend the Spuhr IDSM as it takes out a lot of the work to ensure those items are met.

I don't consider myself to be an expert, by any means, and I wish to expand my knowledge in this field, so by all means if you see something that is less than correct, please correct me.
 
Correct. I wanted to elaborate on what I believe sets apart an entry level scope and higher end scopes. High end glass clarity is extremely subjective, considering they're all nearly perfect optically. Most users of that glass consider tracking among the higher importance items, given that we all believe these scopes will hold zero 100% of the time.

The other big item most people overlook in the process is getting a strong/secure mount (rings or mount) and making sure your scope is level. I would recommend the Spuhr IDSM as it takes out a lot of the work to ensure those items are met.

I don't consider myself to be an expert, by any means, and I wish to expand my knowledge in this field, so by all means if you see something that is less than correct, please correct me.
LoL,
I'm not correct you my friend .
It's just we have a better understanding of the scope thing than some or most.
I've encountered experienced shooters that were having a difficult time with their scope.
Two common mistakes, 1) Eye piece isn't adjusted property, 2) Parallax is misadjusted as well, 3) yes , loose monuts , I'll fitting mounts, etc
 
these standards will not happen in the industry and to be frank is not worth the time to do unless you want to do another youtube channel. as @YeeHaa posted, most users can not even get their mind around focusing the reticle or god forbid that for good parallax adjustment might not be a target image... Or even the ideas that 40x is not better then 15x

John
 
On mechanical vs optical quality, it depends on your application IMHO. For me I'm concerned with the optical clarity in the center 50% of FOV, the eye relief/eye box dimensions, adjustable or appropriate parallax and a graduated reticle, preferably MOA. The only mechanical aspect I am greatly concerned with is holding zero.

Because I will have a graduated reticle and don't shoot 1000 yards, I don't care that much about the accuracy and repeatability of the turrets, all I need is to get it zeroed.

No use for FFP, for ranging and holdoffs I'll always be at full mag or if I ever want to use it at half or quarter mag I'll just do the simple math. Can't do that as well with FFP, the reticle gets too small.

IMHO there is a lot of hype around features and quality levels that most of us simply don't need. I get that long range shooting is an engaging sport, but I try and focus on skills that might come in useful in my AO and the odds of ever having a 1000yd shot around here are pretty slim! All I'm saying is don't get caught up in the hype and consider the capabilities that you actually need.
 
Last edited:
What John said. I would take your engineer hat off, pick features that are important to you and look at scopes in your price range for them. Tracking, power range, FFP or SFP, glass etc. Lots of good optics out today. More so than even 10 years ago. Just do the homework and find what works for you.
 
You mean a way to measure against each other other than:

eye relief
optical pupil size at maximum magnification (affect light transmission %)
weight

Generally those 3 things are how I narrow down optics, then the rest come into play.
The older I get the more a 4X fixed power scope looks so nice, light and simple for about 90% of the reasons I need a magnified optic.
 
I've got a couple of NightForce NXS, a Schmidt & Bender PMII, and a Sig Sauer Whiskey 5 if you ever want to take a look at them. All have their pro's and con's and like a firearm, should be considered per the application intended.
 
Good discussion all- yes, features, tracking, durability aside, I wanted a metric for the "this glass is brighter". Honestly, I've got a bunch of scope and I think I can buy my way to nirvana, but always get disappointed. My brightest (subjective) scope is a Burris I have mounted on my hunting rifle. It's also one of the cheapest I own.

I'll check out the channel, thanks.
 
There is no "metric" especially for glass. Lower power scopes will appear brighter at times so assuming your hunting scope isn't a higher powered optic. What scopes do you have and use?
 
A lot of manufacturers claim 90+ percent light transmission.....maybe but some scope just have better glass than others. Sniper central used to have some good reviews......but like said glass clarity is opinionated. It would be awesome if there was some type of standardization.
 
There is a machine and it costs about $40k that measures resolution and some other "metric" but cant remember
what at this moment. What it does measure, mfrs wont publish. Why I dont know. I do know that the 2 metrics vary from scope to scope, same model, same mfr. I had a $400 scope tested on said machine and it tested in the range most $200 scopes test at but for the money it is a great scope and allows me to get hits on steel at 1000yds. I have a $1k Leupold and a $2000 NF that have clearer, sharper looking glass but they get me the same hits at 1000yds.
 
MTF...modular transfer function is the other thing the $40k machine measures besides resolution. Those 2 things mean something to the mfrs but as far as I can tell, dont mean squat to the shooter really. The mfr I know who owns the machine is most interested with testing competition scopes to compare against theirs.
 
I'm reading this right now- seems pretty good, and some agrees that there's a lot of BS n scope advertising

How do you sell good image quality? Every magazine ad for every scope company for a riflescope talks about how well you can see. You pretty much have to tout something: patented coating recipe, extra low-dispersion glass, “high definition” glass, etc. None of these things by themselves are of any importance and (by my estimate) nearly 100% of what you see in a typical advertisement is, at best, misleading and at worst, pure BS. However, all these tricks are necessary for attracting enough attention to a particular product to at least get you to consider it. – ILya Koshkin​
 
Just like any advertising. They want you to buy their product whether it be cars, rifles, coffee etc. Ilya does some good writing on optics and if you wanted to talk to him personally he is over at Snipers Hide and a couple other forums.

Again find a quality company and pick the features and reticle you like. You are really putting in a lot of effort trying to find something that you won't find because it's not out there. And the small stuff you find doesn't really trickle down to anything that the shooter will see in the end.
 
What started this rant was that I'm drooling over the Nikon black scopes on closeout. But, I am struggling to justify the purchase unless it was truly 'better'. My one Nikon M-series scope is great, so I like the brand.
 
What started this rant was that I'm drooling over the Nikon black scopes on closeout. But, I am struggling to justify the purchase unless it was truly 'better'. My one Nikon M-series scope is great, so I like the brand.
FWIW

From what I understand the Nikon X1000 series and UP have an Etched Reticle and any series below the X1000's have a wire reticle.

An Etched Reticle is an upgrade, IMHO.

I have never owned a Nikon, have looked through them and I think they are CLEAR.

Also, one of my "Pet Peeves" ( in which holds true for SFP ) the Eye Piece in the few Nikons I looked at were tight or tighter than other scopes , ( Bushnell ) , etc.
 
"Better" would be in the features and how they fit your needs. I am sure the glass is a little better but never owned a M series. The FX1000 are good scopes but not sure you know Nikon is stepping out of the scope market now and I have heard mixed reports on whether they will or won't support the scopes after they do. Just something to think about but with the Lower prices it might be worth the gamble although it's your money so only you can decide.
 
Nikon is stepping out of the scope market now and I have heard mixed reports on whether they will or won't support the scopes after they do.

True , they are stopping to make rifle scopes, and as to warranty;

Dan Zimmerman says:
November 19, 2019 at 10:11

Nikon isn’t going anywhere. They’ll still be very much in business and honoring their warranty.

Reply
82d63cc3b9f05e44a5d9249877bb028a
Buckstalker says:
November 20, 2019 at 20:33
Their warranty has completely changed in the past months to only include manufacturers defects, no accidents are covered on ANY of their products, similar to Leupold in that regard, read the small print folks. ( https://en.nikonsportoptics.ca/service-and-support/warranty page) I am in the industry and have been told by sales rep that Nikon was terrified of having one of their scopes used in an “incident” (human conflict) occurring using one of their scopes.

In the end, they made decent stuff, but are a conflicted company trying to promote hunting and shooting in one division of the company and green peace in the other division.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/nikon-is-exiting-the-rifle-scope-business/
 
I would avoid Nikon, even if they're trending toward a social justice "woke" company. The fact that items are no longer in production leads me to believe that a warranty claim will likely be pushed more toward being denied, just for the simple fact that supply will eventually run out and they can't support additional claims.
 
I ended up buying the Nikon, and it is very nice. But, I also brought out an Athlon and a Burris and had several family members compare (all set to 16x) the image. The Nikon was 'brightest', and probably tied with the Burris with the Athlon bringing in 3rd place. But here's the thing- for what we are shooting (<500 yards) all were deemed to be good enough and the difference minor at best.
 
Holy chit!

Having not shot with glass of any type for the first 50 years of my life I feel like a ground hog in a discussion of astrophysicists!
 
I ended up buying the Nikon, and it is very nice. But, I also brought out an Athlon and a Burris and had several family members compare (all set to 16x) the image. The Nikon was 'brightest', and probably tied with the Burris with the Athlon bringing in 3rd place. But here's the thing- for what we are shooting (<500 yards) all were deemed to be good enough and the difference minor at best.
All the same objective diameter?
 
Back
Top Bottom