Very surprised by this as well. The data seems a little erratic other than the top 3.
Rifle Scopes 2014's Best Scope ShootOut
- Thread starter BullyDog
- Start date
Very surprised by this as well. The data seems a little erratic other than the top 3.
If he used tunnel free range, the Schmidt and Bender 5-25×56 would have tested 3rd, not 1st.
The Hensoldt 3.5-26x56 doesn't appear to have much reticle choice.
This got me interested in the Zeiss 6–24×56, but it appears to be SFP only.
I'm surprised the Schmidt and Bender 3-27×56 tested relatively poorly, but the review saved me from spending the $2,300 extra over the 5-25x56 (MTC H2CMR).
The Hensoldt 3.5-26x56 doesn't appear to have much reticle choice.
This got me interested in the Zeiss 6–24×56, but it appears to be SFP only.
I'm surprised the Schmidt and Bender 3-27×56 tested relatively poorly, but the review saved me from spending the $2,300 extra over the 5-25x56 (MTC H2CMR).
As with telescopes, all else being equal, aperture wins in terms of optical performance:
Telescope Buyers' FAQ - Part Two
Yep. I have a 16" kit telescope that beats the finest 3" refractors on the planet when I compare them. The larger objective collects a lot of photons.
However, the 3" refractor is much easier to transport and setup. So these are the trade-offs you face just like with a rifle scope.
A 50mm or smaller scope that is matching or beating a 56mm rifle scope in optical clarity and resolution is doing a very good job. A smaller objective puts even the best scope in the world at an immediate disadvantage optically. But again, it's lighter and more compact. Pick your poison...
Telescope Buyers' FAQ - Part Two
Yep. I have a 16" kit telescope that beats the finest 3" refractors on the planet when I compare them. The larger objective collects a lot of photons.
However, the 3" refractor is much easier to transport and setup. So these are the trade-offs you face just like with a rifle scope.
A 50mm or smaller scope that is matching or beating a 56mm rifle scope in optical clarity and resolution is doing a very good job. A smaller objective puts even the best scope in the world at an immediate disadvantage optically. But again, it's lighter and more compact. Pick your poison...
Last edited:
Rye daddy - did they give you any indication if the new reticles could be retrofitted to older PR scopes?
That's exactly what I want to know!! The new Tangent Theta scopes are supposed to have more reticle options.... I was wondering if they would change out Premier reticles as well. I thank I heard that Tangent Theta wouldn't work on reticles or change reticles on sent in scopes like Premier did. But, does US Optics still change reticles out????
Mr Weber did not indicate anything about older PR scopes. I originally got in touch with him because I wanted to buy a TT 5-25x56 but wasn't crazy about the 2 reticles offered so I inquired about whether it would be possible to buy a new one with Gen 2 XR and if I didn't like it could I send it in and have a different reticle put in when they become available for a fee. His reply was that they would not be offering reticle swaps on TT scopes, it was too costly and too much risk of dust getting in the tube.
He suggested if I wasn't sure about the Gen 2 XR that I should wait to buy as they were working on other reticle opitions and hoped to have some after the first production run of scopes was done. That's when I replied that they should consider the MSR, to which he said they already were.
So the only thing said specifically to me was that once you buy a Tangent Theta they will not change the reticle for you. Plange may be able to tell you if they can do a reticle change on a Premier in Virginia.
Edit to add: I was very impressed with the candid manner in which Mr Weber replied to my emails, and the time and consideration he gave my concerns. Made me as someone who's nobody in the industry, just a regular prospective customer, feel very good about doing business with them. Everybody likes to be validated I guess.
Last edited:
My experiences with them have been positive as well. I like to talk to the "Honey" who answers the phone!! I believe she's in Canada. I have the phone number of the guy in Virginia involved with Tangent Theta... Who is that,, American Armament Co.?? I'm not worth a shit with names, but he's the guy I was told would contact me back regarding a tech question. He called the next day and apologized for not calling sooner! I was impressed by their service! Since then, I've called him back 2 times and he's like a tick on a coon dog, about that phone!! I just wished he would let me work the kinks out on the new scope. You know, shoot it some, for about eternity, to see if it works! LoL!!
This too, REALLY unexpected.
Ryedaddy - thanks for the info
I've read the ATACR uses the same glass as the BEAST.
I'm a bit shocked at where the Kahles ended up as well. I've had it out on a number of occasions with an S&B 5-25 right next to it and have felt that more than once it out performed the Schmidt. Guess my eyes are playing tricks on me or I'm just missing something???
-VB
A buddy of mine has a Kahles with the MSR, Its a really nice reticle.
We put our rifles side by side, His Kahles and my Premier
We went back and forth, looking at each, on the same magnification range. AND, the premier was noticeably sharper, brighter, and just looked a little cleaner. When side by side, the kahles seemed a little foggy to me.
BUT, then we put the Bushy XRS next to it, And although the bushy tracks and performs great, it was lacking in all optical criteria to both the premier and kahles, Not even close.
I would say the kahles and premier are close, edge going to the premier in about all categories.
We put our rifles side by side, His Kahles and my Premier
We went back and forth, looking at each, on the same magnification range. AND, the premier was noticeably sharper, brighter, and just looked a little cleaner. When side by side, the kahles seemed a little foggy to me.
BUT, then we put the Bushy XRS next to it, And although the bushy tracks and performs great, it was lacking in all optical criteria to both the premier and kahles, Not even close.
I would say the kahles and premier are close, edge going to the premier in about all categories.
Maybe it's just my eyes, but I actually sold my Premier and replaced it with my Kahles, no joke. I just don't know what to make of all this, especially after Kahles updated their coatings from Gen 1 to Gen 2. I figured it would come out much closer to the S&B. I'm a little bothered by the results though that's probably obvious. I feel like I now have a sub-par product for what I paid LOL... Well, live and learn I suppose. Probably will sell it at a loss and finally upgrade to the Schmidt, which is what I should have done three years ago.
-VB
Last edited:
What i find lacking (unless i'm totally missing it or is included in ergonomics and will be published later) is an eyebox evaluation as i believe it's also important part of riflescope usage. For example Hensold or Zeiss simply blow S&B out of the water here and is really no contest (in this particular feature).
I was under an impression that all tested products are somewhere in the "above countersniper china knockoff" category, so using subpar in the contex of these scopes is rather inapropriate. Even the worst performing scope in THIS test will perform (bar serious mechanc flaws) adequately and WILL NOT be a limiting factor in rifle/shooter system. But i guess many just simply want to have best of the best based on what other say and not their own needs and experiences.
If you're referring to my use of the term "sub-par" it was half in sarcasm and the other half in frustration. You're right, I agree that to even make the list for this evaluation puts these scopes way above "sub-par". On the other hand, I am a competition shooter and shoot a lot and I'll be damned if there's going to be any competitor out there in the field that has an equipment advantage over me. I want the best money can buy for my comp gun, plain and simple. I'm not sure why that's difficult to understand???
Assuming you are not a rookie and have certain amount of competitions under your belt, do you feel that your current equipment is hindering your ability to perform snd if so why do you have it/ bought it if it does. Reading a test by someone (regardless of methodology and effort) on the internet is better measure and more relevant to you than your 1st hand experience? I understand you being sarcastic but there are plenty of people who continually chase their tail buying new and newer tech gizmos and gadgets all the while lacking in building THEIR shooting skills. Don't have one iota problem with wanting best of the best, hell if i were to compete against you i'd be thrilled. I'm not afraid of the guys with new items at every match, silent types with old beat up gear are the ones to look at and be "afraid of".
What the hell is this crap? When does school start again for the kiddies? Quite clearly, they have too much free time.
Yep. Add me to the list of people who'd appreciate a possible explanation for how the ATACR is rating higher than the BEAST when they have either the same glass or the BEAST has "better" glass depending on who answers the question.
I'm no optics engineer, but as I've read in the past SFP scopes have a clarity advantage over FFP scopes, all else being equal. Seems the differences seen in this one off evaluation show that, to a minor degree.
Thanks Brother,
I'd never heard that before for some reason. I guess that could also help explain the high performance of the Zeiss, which IIRC is SFP? Although I have yet to ever hear anyone say anything less than stellar about the Zeiss glass.
If it was only the ATACR that did better than the Beast I can turn a blind eye.......but the NXS? Makes me think they're doing something wrong but clearly I am by no means someone who can make such a claim. Would like someone that does have the knowledge to chime in and get their take on it.
There are a lot of factors that go into looking at something, especially with a scope. This is why it gets repeated over and over, these tests are subjective. Using several people helps develop an average but we all still see it differently which is why many default to eye test charts.
I think the reason we see SFP scopes do better is a trick of the brain, call it an optical illusion. Because the reticle stays one size, the mind thinks what it is seeing is better, or bigger. When it adjusts with the magnification like a FFP we tend to perceive it as providing less information.
If you're second guessing you choice off this, you misunderstand the point. It's not bird watching, it's a tool, no different than a wrench. Open, Box, Adjustable, Crescent, they all have their purpose. Clearly guys are winning matches with the Bushnell, it doesn't hinder their ability to beat 99 other shooters or more when it comes time put bullets on paper.
These are elaborate eye test, we are inserting a scope to see if we get an advantage, or even just stay the same. Scopes are about so much more than spotters. Tracking, adjustments, features, Reticles, eye box, magnification, it goes well beyond looking through them as it's a sighting system, not just an observation device.
I wouldn't sweat it, it shows that everyone sees things different and you have to see it with your own eyes. It's why I stopped talking glass and focus on use. The glass all works, it's the features, and use that changes everything.
I think the reason we see SFP scopes do better is a trick of the brain, call it an optical illusion. Because the reticle stays one size, the mind thinks what it is seeing is better, or bigger. When it adjusts with the magnification like a FFP we tend to perceive it as providing less information.
If you're second guessing you choice off this, you misunderstand the point. It's not bird watching, it's a tool, no different than a wrench. Open, Box, Adjustable, Crescent, they all have their purpose. Clearly guys are winning matches with the Bushnell, it doesn't hinder their ability to beat 99 other shooters or more when it comes time put bullets on paper.
These are elaborate eye test, we are inserting a scope to see if we get an advantage, or even just stay the same. Scopes are about so much more than spotters. Tracking, adjustments, features, Reticles, eye box, magnification, it goes well beyond looking through them as it's a sighting system, not just an observation device.
I wouldn't sweat it, it shows that everyone sees things different and you have to see it with your own eyes. It's why I stopped talking glass and focus on use. The glass all works, it's the features, and use that changes everything.
LL,
That's where I'm at on the whole thing. The test is an interesting exercise, but every single scope up there, several of which I either own already or will be purchasing shortly, are better than the Leupy Mk4 I started with, and I used the Mk4 with no problems other than reticle/turret compatibility.
It's fun to see where our scopes rank, but I can't see where any of those scopes would cost someone a competition unless there's a tracking issue.
That's where I'm at on the whole thing. The test is an interesting exercise, but every single scope up there, several of which I either own already or will be purchasing shortly, are better than the Leupy Mk4 I started with, and I used the Mk4 with no problems other than reticle/turret compatibility.
It's fun to see where our scopes rank, but I can't see where any of those scopes would cost someone a competition unless there's a tracking issue.
That is a factor, was each scope completely adjusted for each tester?
I have no idea the answer... But it can be a big factor.
Also was anything done to "time" the magnifications to try and measure it prior. Just using the markings can be a big issue. We're they all calibrated to 10x or was one 9.5x, another, 10.2x, another 10.8x, etc. this can be a factor too.
I have no idea the answer... But it can be a big factor.
Also was anything done to "time" the magnifications to try and measure it prior. Just using the markings can be a big issue. We're they all calibrated to 10x or was one 9.5x, another, 10.2x, another 10.8x, etc. this can be a factor too.
I was very surprised to see the Kahles 624i score in the bottom 30%....
This is contrary to my own expeience with this scope, compared to the Schmidts and NFs that I also own, as well as to the considerable anecdotal high marks here on the Hide, both with the Gen I and Gen II glass versions of the 624i.
This is contrary to my own expeience with this scope, compared to the Schmidts and NFs that I also own, as well as to the considerable anecdotal high marks here on the Hide, both with the Gen I and Gen II glass versions of the 624i.
In the write up he says that all scopes were at 18x and that he used a method to ensure that each was actually at a true 18x rather than taking the scope's markings at face value. He provided a link for how that process was accomplished but I'll confess to not reading all of it.
As far as the diopter, I didn't see a specific mention, but he says that the testers had access to the Parallax/side focus to "adjust the scope to their eyes".
Here's the link for how he went about calibrating the scopes to 18X:
http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/06/30/how-to-measure-the-apparent-magnification-of-a-scope/
Last edited:
Would have been interesting to see a Gen II Razor thrown in the mix.
Here's another look at how they did compared to there price. I took these prices off various web pages, some may be off a few hundred. S&b 5-25x56 $3500
Hensoldt $6900
Zeiss, $3000
Nf atacr $2300 ,
Ior recon, $3200
Lp, mk 8, $4600
Beast, $3500
Oso, $3100
Nxs, $2000
S&b, $6000
Ior, $2275
March, $3100
Bushnell, $1575
Steiner, $3200
Kahles, $2100
Lp, mk 6, $2500
Vortex, $2000
Bushndll, $1000
Clearly in some cases the more you spend the better quality glass you get, but not in all cases. Interesting no SCOPE with an objective lens smaller than 50mm did very well, while some with a 50mm out did others with larger objective lens. If you want a SFP SCOPE the ATACR is clearly the way to go. IF A FFP is what you are.looking for the Zeiss, recon,beast, and USO look like the best bang for the buck, but for a couple hundred more you can have the cream.of the crop.
Hensoldt $6900
Zeiss, $3000
Nf atacr $2300 ,
Ior recon, $3200
Lp, mk 8, $4600
Beast, $3500
Oso, $3100
Nxs, $2000
S&b, $6000
Ior, $2275
March, $3100
Bushnell, $1575
Steiner, $3200
Kahles, $2100
Lp, mk 6, $2500
Vortex, $2000
Bushndll, $1000
Clearly in some cases the more you spend the better quality glass you get, but not in all cases. Interesting no SCOPE with an objective lens smaller than 50mm did very well, while some with a 50mm out did others with larger objective lens. If you want a SFP SCOPE the ATACR is clearly the way to go. IF A FFP is what you are.looking for the Zeiss, recon,beast, and USO look like the best bang for the buck, but for a couple hundred more you can have the cream.of the crop.
Last edited:
If I'm not mistaken and if I am please be gentle. The parallax setting should be set according to magnification and should be the same for every eye as long as the diopter is adjusted for that eye. So I believe if the magnification setting was set at 18x and the the initial parallax adjustment was done then all that would need adjusting every time a new tester got behind the scope is the diopter. Since everyone has different vision and changes as we get older the diopter is a crucial adjustment and factor to this test. I left a comment on the site asking if indeed they were able to adjust it. Again, I'm not 100% sure about this it is strictly what I believe to have experienced. I know every time I've gotten behind someone elses scope at the range I've needed to adjust the diopter, not the parallax, to see exactly what the original shooter was seeing.
A really intriguing Blog!
My own, personal, limited, and completely unscientific side-by-side comparison with the NF scopes clearly indicates this order:
1. BEAST
2. ATACR
3. 5.5-22x56 NXS
But maybe that's just me.
I guess I'll have to eventually get a S&B to see what it's all about now.
optics planet.
I own 2 scopes that I have spent a bunch of time behind.
A Zeiss 6-24x56 and an NXS 3-15x56.
While I consider the NXS glass to be very good with great resolution and clarity, the Zeiss glass literally blows it out of the water, along with every other scope I've been able to compare it to in the field. Most notably in low light conditions.
My experience with the quality of the Zeiss glass seems to mirror his results. But, my sample size is much smaller than his.
However, if I were shooting a comp, I would grab the NXS every time.
The Zeiss has 1/20 mil clicks, a regular Mil Dot Reticle, 4 mils per turn, and no zero stop. All fine for hunting, my intended use, but not ideal for tac-comps.
A Zeiss 6-24x56 and an NXS 3-15x56.
While I consider the NXS glass to be very good with great resolution and clarity, the Zeiss glass literally blows it out of the water, along with every other scope I've been able to compare it to in the field. Most notably in low light conditions.
My experience with the quality of the Zeiss glass seems to mirror his results. But, my sample size is much smaller than his.
However, if I were shooting a comp, I would grab the NXS every time.
The Zeiss has 1/20 mil clicks, a regular Mil Dot Reticle, 4 mils per turn, and no zero stop. All fine for hunting, my intended use, but not ideal for tac-comps.
It was a foregone conclusion people were gonna disagree, still a very good test and shows what you might want to look at when judging for yourself.
Read on here just last week where people say, they only needed 5 minutes with a scope to form and opinion and while they may have indeed formed an opinion looking out a shop window, or down their local KD range, it misses much and leaves a lot to be desired. There is a reason optics companies have a variety of test equipment, and and don't leave this to chance, or do it by eye.
The more disagreement, the more discussion, then 6 month latter it will be written in stone and taken as gospel.
Read on here just last week where people say, they only needed 5 minutes with a scope to form and opinion and while they may have indeed formed an opinion looking out a shop window, or down their local KD range, it misses much and leaves a lot to be desired. There is a reason optics companies have a variety of test equipment, and and don't leave this to chance, or do it by eye.
The more disagreement, the more discussion, then 6 month latter it will be written in stone and taken as gospel.
Same here. Especially since I just bought one. lol
Thanks. The scope they link to in the blog and show in their photos is the 624i which I am seeing on OP in the $2800 range. They do show another 6-24 for 2100 which made me wonder about the test, but they are showing the 624i in the photos at least.
I'll admit that I have a 624i and replaced a Nightforce NXS F1 with the Kahles and I have been happy with it for my uses with it so far. Kind of surprised it's in the bottom too as others have said. Next time I get the chance I'll try to do a side by side comparison with others scopes or maybe do some of these optics test of my own with it just to try and learn more about the ratings just to increase my knowledge on it all a little.
I guess when my 624i arrives in a week or two we'll be comparing with the NXS, eh?
lol - yeah I'm gonna need some help locating a Kahles K624i scope for $2100 on optics planet. 
Yep, I would have liked to see the new RazorII and the TT included in the mix, oh well maybe next year.
Seems like my old eyes get worse by the month so I'm glad the S&B 5-25 did so well on image quality because I'll be needing it more as time goes by! I know that sometimes I'll focus those S&B's up thinking to myself how pristinely clear they are only to discover a few minutes later I didn't have it focused as sharp as I could have.
One other comment, nobody has mentioned variance between optical clarity among same brand scopes or same exact model. Very obvious in less expensive brands I have owned but noticeable in 2 of my S&B's. My 3-20 is a absolutely brilliant scope! With slightly more pop compared to my 5-25 even though it's only a 50mm objective. I just got another S&B 5-25 on Monday, still sitting in the safe opened but not mounted. I'm interested in trying to see if I can tell any differences in it and the other 5-25. Well, besides how the click action feels, the new scope has more distinct feeling clicks for sure.
Seems like my old eyes get worse by the month so I'm glad the S&B 5-25 did so well on image quality because I'll be needing it more as time goes by! I know that sometimes I'll focus those S&B's up thinking to myself how pristinely clear they are only to discover a few minutes later I didn't have it focused as sharp as I could have.
One other comment, nobody has mentioned variance between optical clarity among same brand scopes or same exact model. Very obvious in less expensive brands I have owned but noticeable in 2 of my S&B's. My 3-20 is a absolutely brilliant scope! With slightly more pop compared to my 5-25 even though it's only a 50mm objective. I just got another S&B 5-25 on Monday, still sitting in the safe opened but not mounted. I'm interested in trying to see if I can tell any differences in it and the other 5-25. Well, besides how the click action feels, the new scope has more distinct feeling clicks for sure.
Honestly my gear in no way has ever hindered my performance or caused me to miss something I should have hit. I love the Kahles and may end up keeping it for a while. Just don't like the idea of someone having something "better" than what I'm running with. I do tend to chase my tail when it comes to gear and I'm not sure how helpful it is...
You will be fine. The results for them are quite mind blowing to me as they are a very nice setup. I believe the test was done with an AMR reticle which wouldn't have been my first choice to send out. Too much going on in that reticle. It's way less cluttered than say a Horus reticle but still fairly busy. I think that took a lot away from the overall appearance of the Kahles.
Let me rephrase that if I can. I can form an "initial" opinion in five minutes. Given a couple of months of use and time.on the range that opinion can change. If I led anyone to believe my opinions were set in stone and would not change over time I apologize.
Exactly dead nuts on the money with this statement.
I think the March Tactical 8-80x56mm scope is the best one for long range shooting made today. These are the best prices I've found.
March 8-80x56mm Scopes - March Optics - Scopes
1000 yds Benchrest - YouTube
March 8-80x56mm Scopes - March Optics - Scopes
1000 yds Benchrest - YouTube
Attachments
Last edited:
This test just doesn't line up with what I've personally seen through these scopes. The glass on the Kahles is extremely nice, right up there with S&B.... but whatever
You know, while this is a very interesting test and a good read. I don't think its the end all of optics testing. I'm going to have to agree with Frank's comments. I have one of the Zeiss scopes that did so well in this test. While the Glass is great the turrets, elevation range, and reticle are in my mind lacking and were handicapping my rig and shooting. I recently picked up the Steiner 5-25 that rated very low in this test but is a joy to use and get behind. If I was bird watching this test would be more appropriate. I think maybe I'm finally starting to get it.
Last edited:
