What are the the traits of a good optic

[6500rpm 670]

One of the forums I hit touched on accurizing a rifle and one of the better posts seemed to state it was a better choice to invest in a good optic (this was for shooting at distance, 100-500 yards) than on high tech barrels or other gun upgrades. Unfortunately, I've never researched anything dealing with scopes and I thought it was a good question to ask with the range of prices being so varried. So when looking for a quality scope, what seperates the top tier from everything else? Any good links on information is another bonus.

[Scott Kenny 144]

Generally, the price of any optic is indicative of it's quality (higher dollars = better scope), but there are a few scope makers that seem to punch well above their weight ('more scope for the money'), and others that seem to be more expensive than their feature list would warrant.

 

How clear is the glass? One gun store had a little wooden 'gunstock' with 2 rubber block that you could stick scope into. Put a Bushnell or a Redfield into one block and a Leupold into the other, and it was amazing how much a difference there was between the sharpness and clarity of the two scopes. Sold me on Leupolds that very minute.

 

My biggest selection point is manufacturer's warranty and reputation. I think we all know about the Leupold warranty, and Vortex Optics has a warranty that's better. Both start out "if it has our name on it...", but Vortex also warranties rings.

 

ACOGs and Nightforce scopes have a reputation for being literally bulletproof, as do EOTech red-dots (iirc). As in, they have taken bullet hits and still work.

 

Does the zero change when you change magnification? Happens on some cheap scopes, and it doesn't on the more expensive ones.

 

For a variable-power scope, where the reticule is compared to the target image. That is, does your reticule stay the same size while the target gets closer, or is it always the same size compared to the target? A First Focal Plane scope (one where the reticule stays the same size on the target) is a couple hundred more than a second focal plane (the traditional setup).

 

Let's see here... oh, almost forgot the type of reticule! Is it a basic crosshair, a mil-dot, or proprietary? I actually like both the mildot and the POSP style, myself, but there are a lot of others out there, too.

 

How much eye relief does the scope have? That is, how close do you have to be to the scope to be able to see through it? I like long eye relief on my scopes, had a bad experience with a 7mag hitting my forehead every time I pulled the trigger. Plus, with training you can use a long eye-relief scope with both eyes open.

 

Does the scope have a bullet drop compensator? That is, can you adjust the elevation and not have to use a hold-over if you know what the range to the target is? Some scopes have them, like the TIP2 scope on my rifle (and PSO/POSP scopes). Bullet Drop Compensators are round-specific, so they are bought not just for that rifle, but for a specific caliber and bullet weight.

[Mephis 82]

To tell a good optic from a bad optic will require experience in either using them or setting them side by side.

 

To a novice, his first scope regardless of what it is will probably seem great. When that individual takes it a little more seriously and invests a little more money he'll learn for himself what his money got him.

 

 

Traits of a good optic are one that does not distort the image in any way, and gives a very flat appearance to the image. It's bright and crisp, with higher resolution than your eyes alone will provide, with minimal discoloration. A lower magnification but higher quality optic may give you more confidence placing your bullets than a lower quality higher magnification scope, for example, because you will have a much better defined image. It won't lose zero when banged around, or shot extensively. The adjustment turrets won't require a screw driver, and they will be very positive in feel, with repeatable adjustments, meaning you can zero your scope and adjust it and when bringing it back to where it was zeroed it will be dead on still.

 

It shouldn't have issues handling bright daylight conditions, or darker dusk/dawn light conditions, the image should still be as bright as your eyes can see it.

 

For the money, buying a $400-500 range leupold will provide you with everything I mentioned. Most other manufacturers will cost you considerably more in my experiences.

And the single biggest way to stay away from crap is to avoid anything that mentions or hints towards tactical. While that ACOG might be nice, for $1000 you're getting $500 optics built to be driven over by a tank and still be usable. Going with a more hunting-style scope will give you the best glass out there for a hell of a lot less money, which is why I pointed towards leupold.

 

Another important and often overlooked thing is the optic's size and weight. Often cheaper optics will weigh much more and be much larger. Going with a more expensive optic will typically be much lighter and more compact.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Tombs

[getitat 609]

Hello

 

Although, as an exception, some manufacturers (such as Romanian IOR) build hunting scopes as a sideline, and their "tactical" scopes are their main lines.

And until recent dollar devaluations and some popularity of the marque, IOR represented a terrific value in really robust mil-spec quality optics. I wouldn't say they are nearly the value they once were, but they are still worth a mention.

 

JMHO....

-guido

[TonyRumore 1,332]

Don't overlook the fact that even when you have several of the exact same make and model scope, one may be quite a bit more clear than the others. You won't see it much with the higher end scopes, but it is very noticeable on the cheaper models.

 

Also, I have yet to see any variable scope, regardless of cost, keep it's image as crisp at the very top end of it's power range. They are usally very crisp up until about 80% of total magnification and then the image starts to deteriorate. That why I always purchase more top end magnification than I plan to use, and never run the optic up past about 80%.

 

Tony

[kevin.rose0@gmail.com 62]

And until recent dollar devaluations and some popularity of the marque, IOR represented a terrific value in really robust mil-spec quality optics. I wouldn't say they are nearly the value they once were, but they are still worth a mention.

I have an IOR FFP mil-dot 3-18s with mil turrets. Very nice and at least $500 less than anything comparable a few years ago. Have it on a 700 police, used it in a tactical class and in 1000 yard shooting. Eye Relief a bit less than ideal, but otherwise is great.

[sickness 89]

One of the forums I hit touched on accurizing a rifle and one of the better posts seemed to state it was a better choice to invest in a good optic (this was for shooting at distance, 100-500 yards) than on high tech barrels or other gun upgrades. Unfortunately, I've never researched anything dealing with scopes and I thought it was a good question to ask with the range of prices being so varried. So when looking for a quality scope, what seperates the top tier from everything else? Any good links on information is another bonus.

 

Well, generally you're going to look at three things:

 

Light transmission (how much light enters the scope, and how much reaches your eye)

Brightness (how much light is collected in the first place)

Clarity (how distortion-free is the final image that is projected to your eye)

 

And it is important to realize that these three factors are all highly dependant on the quality of the glass and coatings used. Obviously, high-quality optical glass is important, and the lenses need to be ground to a uniform shape. Lower quality glass and poorly shaped lenses will distort the image. Typically, a scope with poorly ground lenses will be fuzzy or distorted out towards the edges of the image. A high quality scope will be bright and clear edge-to-edge.

 

The anti-reflective coating will allow a large percentage of light falling on the lens to pass through it, rather than be reflected. For the front "objective" lens, this affects the light gathering potential of the scope (as does the size of the front lens). A 40mm objective with good coatings can appear brighter than a 50mm with garbage coatings, but all things being equal the bigger the lens, the more light it will collect.

 

After the light passes through that front lens, it is now inside the tube where it will hit some internal lenses. These lenses will also be coated, and if there are poor coatings some light will get reflected back out towards the front of the scope. On cheap scopes the rear of the lenses will not have coatings at all, or again will have poor coatings, so that some of the reflected light will AGAIN be reflected back to your eye. This bouncing around of the internal reflections is what causes cheap scopes to appear fuzzy.

 

So, you want "fully coated" optics in your scope. But not all coatings are created equal. Apart from the materials standpoint, which is usually a matter of proprietary recipes, there is the mechanical process of getting the coatings onto the lens in a uniform way. In cheap scopes, the coatings may be thicker on certain areas of the lens than others.. this causes further distortion.

 

In bright, well-lit conditions looking downrange at high-contrast black and white targets, you may look through a Bushnell and Leupold and scoff at the disparity in price for a relatively small difference in image quality. But take those scopes out into the field, and peer out into brush or cover, and the difference is obvious. Likewise, a high-end Leupold and a Zeiss will seem very comparable on a sunny day of hunting .. but you'll notice the difference in dawn/dusk conditions.

 

In variable power scopes, even very expensive ones, it is not uncommon to find POI changes at different zoom settings. This is due, in part, to the lenses being ground in such a way that the thickest part of the lenses are not all in perfect alignment. In better scopes, this effect is greatly minimized.. often to the point that the deviation is less than the spread of one's bullets, so it doesn't matter much. But, of course, you can avoid the issue altogether with a fixed power scope.. and fixed powers will be brighter and clearer due to the absence of extra lenses.

 

So, in short.. there are some major technical hurdles with producing the finest scopes and that is where your money goes, the question is - do you need the quality?

 

If you're just looking to print some rounds on paper, a Zeiss or a high-end Leupold are overkill, and you will be well served by a mid-range Leupold. I know a guy with a low-end Leupold Rifleman scope that he has had on his Remington 700 forever .. all he does is punch paper, and he gets some impressive groups. If you're going to hunt, or shoot distance in field conditions where there may be atmospheric issues, or low-light issues .. it really does help to pay for a top-tier scope and you are sure to notice the difference over anything less.. and that is part of the problem with good glass, actually.

 

It is like TVs. If you get used to a modern LCD hi-def TV, looking at an old analog set is nearly painful. Pretty soon, you'll need to replace EVERY TV you own. Same with scopes. Once you get accustomed to good glass, it gets very expensive to start topping all your rifles with it.. if you can resist that temptation though, it sure does make you appreciate your $2500 scope all the more.

[Mephis 82]

Don't overlook the fact that even when you have several of the exact same make and model scope, one may be quite a bit more clear than the others. You won't see it much with the higher end scopes, but it is very noticeable on the cheaper models.

 

Also, I have yet to see any variable scope, regardless of cost, keep it's image as crisp at the very top end of it's power range. They are usally very crisp up until about 80% of total magnification and then the image starts to deteriorate. That why I always purchase more top end magnification than I plan to use, and never run the optic up past about 80%.

 

Tony

 

 

I agree with having some major differences in the exact same make an model. The DMS1 I got awhile back seems to have a lot better clarity than any of the others I've seen around.

 

As far as variable scopes, I think that issue becomes a lot more apparent when its a 1-4x or any scope that has a very broad range. The 2-7 leupold I got just recently seems to be pretty equal throughout the entire range but when it's just about pitch black out there's a noticeable difference in light transmission between the lower end and the higher end. Calculating the exit pupil it seems about right for my age. 4.7mm is getting pretty small for an exit pupil. But it's brighter than my millett at 4x, which calculated out to 6mm for an exit pupil.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Tombs

[psl sniper 963]

the best scopes ive found for the money are the romanian lps scopes. same one found on the psl. if you look around they can be found for really good prices. they mount right onto my favorite guns. they hold zeroe like nothing else. they are bright and clear. only down side is they are only 4x magnification. but for the 400 to 500 yrd range its more than acceptable. when i first picked up my psl i was able to hit decent groups at 600 meters using the standered 4x.

 

i like them so much that when i found another complete scope set (everything included) for $64.00 on ebay, i snatched it as quick as possible. damn thin is in PERFECT shape. you can usually find them in the $50.00 to $100.00 range. even the older "rougher" looking models still work great just my on the matter.

[uriahmenchaca 2]

I found all this information helpful, thank you guys. I am familiar with tactical, but new to the world of scopes.