Rifle Scopes At what distance does glass "really" start to matter to you?

[mercervillerental]

So my typical shooting is paper at 100 yards with an occasional (every 6-8 weeks) trip to a range out to 600 yards, which is the farthest I've shot to so far. At the moment I have a Vortex PST Gen 2 5-25 on my 6.5 RPR which seems to serve me well but I'm wondering if I'm limiting myself if I ever get out past 600...or if my life could even be easier in the meantime at that distance. I don't really have any complaints with the PST but I wouldn't say I'm thrilled to look through it consistently.

At what distances do you typically find better glass really makes a difference? I know this is very subjective but curious to get the collective wisdom of the group.

 

[Steel head]

I don’t think it makes a big difference really for rifle scopes.
I’ve spotted my own hits with a vortex HS-T at 1400 before and can spot my own hits at a mile with my ancient Horus falcon.
Having great glass is more a luxury than a necessity as Long as your current glass isn’t tragic.
My Cronus has better glass than my spotting scope and it resolves hits at a mile and a half quite well.

 

[NY700]

This may sound backwards but it’s at 100 yards that I want killer glass that can support high magnification

when I’m shooting at 100yds I’m either getting my scope dialed in and zeroed. Or I working up load development. Either way Im using paper targets with fine grids. My new favorite targets for this are grid out at .1mil lines and than thecenter is broken down further and I want to resolve those grids and make sure that my cross hairs are locked in.
1K yds 1200yds I’m dialing in back. Less magniglfication. And absolute clarity isn’t needed to see a 1 or 2 MOA target

What I appreciate the better glass with better coatings is they seem to handle mirage better and here in texas there is always mirage

 

[DownhillFromHere]

My $0.02 is that if you aren't competing - on the clock, trying to discern shot-up (dark gray) targets against a possibly dark background or in shadow, through mirage, especially 300 yards or more - then your Viper PST isn't going to give you a huge amount more than, say, a Razor 4.5-27x56. I have both of those. The glass is better on the Razor but the main advantage of the more expensive optic for me is the feel/operation and legibility of the controls. If feel and feature set is worth the extra $$ to you, by all means make the investment.

I have taken the plunge and ordered a ZCO 5-27x56, which reportedly has miraculous resolution and ability to "cut" mirage. It's interesting and frustrating to look through a scope, hands off the rifle, at a bullseye-type target at 300-500 yards and the dot is floating all over the place. We'll see.

 

[Clearlight]

Whenever mirage and target resolution is important. Add higher mag for group shooting.

 

[PJC]

I am shooting a 5-25 Vortex PST Gen II out to a mile. No issues.

 

[Gatorshark]

You have plenty of scope for what you are doing. Learn your setup and its capabilities like the back of your hand, and you've already beat most rigs with "high-end" glass.
Dont mistake "want" with "need".

 

[seanh]

For me, I want quality glass is close in as 50 yards. Distance wise, as far out is I'm capable of shooting whatever caliber the optic is on. Additionally, I want edge-to-edge clarity with no bending or blurring of the image throughout the entire power range... throughout the power range is where my current scope, Burris XTR II 5 to 25, fails.

Don't get me wrong, my scope is phenomenal optic for the price. It just seems that optic quality has suffered in order to gain options... completely understandable. When I called Burris about my issues, they're willing to take it in check it out and possibly return to me a new one. But after speaking with their tech department it seems that my issues are known and there's really not much that can be done about it. Other than buying a much higher end optic. So, I had to figure out what's important. And when I do that the scope satisfies most my needs.

The short of it is this. If the scope satisfies most of your typical usage / practical needs then it's a good purchase. If somebody is trying to find a scope that satisfies 100% of their needs 100% of the time across every possible scenario then they'll likely be unhappy a percentage of the time.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

In practical terms, I shot a 6-24 sub-$100 Tasco in 1000yd F Open for several years. In practical terms, it did not impede my ability to shoot strings of consecutive X's on several occasions. In all of this, everything had to be working adequately for this to happen.

What issues I may have had, which were equipment/ammunition related, were not associated with the optics.

When I replaced that optic, the key improvement was the addition of a focus/parallax knob. That greatly simplified the ability to sweep the intervening distances in order to discern mirage and trace.

In the end, for myself, all the mechanical factors take a back seat to the wind.

These days, my priorities are less concentrated on glass as in the ability to more quickly acquire and employ a shooting solution. My method concentrates on the combination of an LRF and BDC reticles.

Greg

 

[Jayhawkhuntclub]

what distances do you typically find better glass really makes a difference? I know this is very subjective but curious to get the collective wisdom of the group.

You'll notice in low light. But in daylight, your PST will take you to a mile just fine. I've shot a mile with lesser glass.

 

[E. Bryant]

Distance is but one of many variables that will dictate the requirements for optical performance. Go try to hit something really tiny with a .22LR at 50 yards and it'll be clear that distance isn't even the most important one.

 

[ManUtdManiac]

I like a really refined parallax. As was mentioned earlier, it's great for mirage/wind determination.

If, on the other hand, you're into PSR and the speed shooting/ahainst the clock, then you want an optic that has a minimal need to adjust parallax over a wide range of distance. One less thing to fiddle with while you're undergoing your epileptic fit with your bolt manipulation...

 

[AZgeek]

My $0.02 is that if you aren't competing - on the clock, trying to discern shot-up (dark gray) targets against a possibly dark background or in shadow, through mirage, especially 300 yards or more - then your Viper PST isn't going to give you a huge amount more than, say, a Razor 4.5-27x56. I have both of those. The glass is better on the Razor but the main advantage of the more expensive optic for me is the feel/operation and legibility of the controls. If feel and feature set is worth the extra $$ to you, by all means make the investment.

I have taken the plunge and ordered a ZCO 5-27x56, which reportedly has miraculous resolution and ability to "cut" mirage. It's interesting and frustrating to look through a scope, hands off the rifle, at a bullseye-type target at 300-500 yards and the dot is floating all over the place. We'll see.

Interested in their "cut mirage" claim. Do they define it in any quantifiable way?

 

[ManUtdManiac]

Interested in their "cut mirage" claim. Do they define it in any quantifiable way?

Minutes Of Feels or MOFs. It's the same as the crap people spew when "reviewing" something and they say "It's awesome". What the fuck is 'awesome'?

 

[AZgeek]

Mirage is the good glass killer out in the desert Southwest. Had to ask. LOL.

 

[b2lee]

To me... the term 'Glass' is thrown around way too much....for me...it was all about 1. Reticle I like. 2. Turret accuracy. 3. Turret feel....4. Parallax forgiveness...which after getting a good scope...may need to move up the list a bit.....and 5. Eye box relief range....then glass.

All that being said...I've taken my 3-18 PST Gen II out to 2500 yards....but now I shoot a ZCO 5-27 and I'm not looking back. If you can afford nice....buy nice.

 

[E-Tool]

.0001 microns. Glass for me is more about light transmission through the glass (brightness), not about range beyond the glass. The magic happens inside.

 

[Fig]

 

[whatsupdoc]

Im shooting in lite rain, two rifles one has a Argos the other has a S&B. Fog starts rolling in covering the farthest targets first (steel painted white with red sprayed dots) the fog made the steel invisible but I could pick up the red dots with the S&B where with the argos not so much.

They say glass is subjective, not that day.

 

[candyx]

Hillary telling everyone how long Bill's dick is , that explains why he uses Cigars to please women.

 

[ManUtdManiac]

Hillary telling everyone how long Bill's dick is , that explains why he uses Cigars to please women.

nah - that's Hilary illustrating how close Epstein came to spilling the beans before they suicided the motherfucker (her words, not mine).

 

[cdeiglmeier]

Glass is a subjective thing, but only when you're comparing within each (price) tier of optics. Comparing a ZCO or TT or S&B to a Vortex PST or Athlon or Bushnell etc. is like comparing a Subaru WRX to a Ferrari. The Subaru feels all sporty and fun and "fast" until you drive a Ferrari. But comparing a ZCO to a S&B or to TT is where the subjective nature of glass becomes apparent just like comparing a Ferrari to a Lamborghini they are a lot closer and a lot more similar than they are different. I can't tell you a specific distance that high end glass becomes the clear winner because to me it's the clear winner from the beginning. But, if you're just shooting groups at 100-200 yards and then occasionally shooting at 600 a PST is not going to hold you back. It might be more enjoyable to shoot a higher end optic but it's not going to buy you impacts/hits on target. It's just a more pleasurable viewing experience and thus overall shooting experience. When paying for the high end optics you're not just paying for the glass, you're paying for solid, tested, and rugged internals/mechanics of the scope that function in the most adverse conditions. The scopes can be banged around without losing zero, the turrets can be spun up and down over and over again and are accurate every single time. It's the refinements that you're overall paying for compared to a lower cost scope. Just like a Subaru WRX/STI or a Corvette versus a Ferrari. You're paying for the refinements and/or luxuries of the mechanical entity. The engineering/design as well as the fit and finish being extraordinarily better on the car that costs $250k versus the $50-80k. Similar thing with scopes/optics in general.

 

[SRPowah]

Better glass is better at all distances. Weather conditions determine where it starts to make a difference for me, not distance.

 

[E. Bryant]

.0001 microns. Glass for me is more about light transmission through the glass (brightness), not about range beyond the glass. The magic happens inside.

1 angstrom, eh? That's getting pretty aggressive, even for surface finish specifications (you're down in the neighborhood of the diameter of a hydrogen atom).

 

[chase723]

Personally, I like looking at stuff in high fidelity. If your not shooting simply for an impact on any part of the target, but also using your scope as an observation device/PID/evaluating an animal whatever then IQ is important at all distances. I used to have an astigmatism and then had PRK. It was like going from looking at the world from an impressionist point of view to seeing in 4K. I now see/notice a lot more stuff that I literally didn’t see before and had no idea I was missing...seeing in 4K is way better. If all you care about is seeing a black smudge on a white painted piece of steel then who gives a shit...I want to see a lot more than that.

 

[Ledzep]

Not so much about distance as it is magnification here. If it's a 10-15x max zoom level, I'm cool with PST Gen2 level glass. If it's below 10x then Gen 1 PST is great. I don't buy cheaper scopes with tall top ends.

I have 2 Vortex Razor AMG's (6-24x) on my serious use rifles (PRS & ELR) because to my eyes the glass is about as good as it gets. That's not to say I couldn't make it happen with less. I had a Gen2 PST on the PRS rifle for a long time when money was more of an issue than it is now and I don't believe it cost me any points on any stages. No price tag makes any of them see through mirage, either.

 

[yakmastermax]

In my experience mirage from suppressors and less than optimal light is where the higher clarity better color glass starts to pull ahead! From a "tactical" standpoint though there is always the argument to get the best performance you can afford.

 

[Bakwa]

Highest quality scope you can justify, at all distances, all the time. That's what I say.

If money wasn't stopping me, I'd have ZCO's, Tangent Theta's, and Hensoldt's on all of my rifles. But alas, I must settle. Buy the best you can afford. I don't think I've ever said, "This tool is too nice. I should have bought something that makes this job a little harder."