Rifle Scopes Factory Freaks

[the once-ler]

I wanted some input on this...
I have heard this so many times "Which scope is better ____ or ____?" And the conversation usually goes on post after post about how this scope or that looks sooo much better and clearer and "____ brand done!"
What I would like to know is how much of that is actually variation from scope to scope as in different batches of the same make and model. Has anyone here had two of the same scope side by side, one looks great and the other not so much. And why would that be, bad batches of glass, poor QC or the guy on assy line had a bad hangover?
What have you guys seen?

 

[sib1948]

Shouldn't be an issue with premium scopes, but I'm sure some defective ones slip through from time to time like in any business.

 

[the once-ler]

I have seen so many posts about Nightforce. Some guys say the glass is incredible and others say meh

 

[Lowlight]

Depends on the year of manufacturer, like with NF.

A guy can look at an NXS and think it's flat and not pop, or they can look at newer version and think its great. Why NF quietly updated a lot of the glass, so guys will use a 2 year old or older and think it's not great, vs a more recent one.

Kahles updated their coating as everyone was comparing it to the S&B and felt it needed more contrast, so they responded.

Any way you slice it, glass comparison is subjective. No two see it the same and preconceived notions of what they should be seeing carries over heavily.

Also over time some coatings break down quicker than others, how it was cleaned matters, exposure to bright sun, etc. all that breaks down the coatings. Very few compare apples to apples.

 

[the once-ler]

And that is my exact point LL! When you make an inquiry here or anywhere about which is better, almost all input is invalid. Not only each person sees each optic different, the variances between each and EVERY one are different.
The reason for this post is I just got in a second scope, identical to two others and I can see very subtle differences in each one. They are spaced a good bit between serial numbers leading me to believe they were built in separate batches from each other.

 

[Lowlight]

The point should be if you're looking at the glass, and trying to see which is better, your priorities are wrong.

These are not spotters, treating them like one is silly. We're not using the to count the feathers on a bird, or photograph through, we're using them to adjust the bullet on target.

 

[steve123]

I can't comment on the why or how but I had this happen twice.

Two Horus Predator 8-26's, one had noticeably better glass and the others parallax didn't focus well past 400Y.

Three BSA 4-14's. Two are pretty much the same. One has slightly better glass.

I looked through a old NXS that had unimpressive glass. The newer F1 I owned had very good glass.

I had a USO that they must of robbed some glass out of a Tasco to put in it, LOL. They sent it back with Leupold MK1 glass so the improvement wasn't much better. I've looked through some USO's that were fine.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

And that is my exact point LL! When you make an inquiry here or anywhere about which is better, almost all input is invalid. Not only each person sees each optic different, the variances between each and EVERY one are different.
The reason for this post is I just got in a second scope, identical to two others and I can see very subtle differences in each one. They are spaced a good bit between serial numbers leading me to believe they were built in separate batches from each other.

I wouldn't say input is invalid. I would say they are subjective for a multitude of reasons including you own conclusion. I do agree that optic discussions can be frustrating. At some point, and this is subjective too but based on observation, optic detail gets lost with shooting fundamentals. Example, I see seasoned shooters with basic quality scopes out shooting those other seasoned shooters with much more expensive scopes. However, I do not go up to people with high dollar scopes and ask them what convinced them it would give them an edge because that would be rude and the answer would be moot anyway. It is harder to say when the entire firing line is using the higher dollar scopes. I believe I seen a instructional video "Rifles Only" on this site years back whereas one guy showed up with a basic Burris and a data card taped to the stock and ended up in the top 10 at the end of the field course whereas the rest of the class showed up with more than they needed and it still didn't make a difference for the vast majority. That was an observation by the instructor that was passed on to the video audience that stuck with me and I continue to see that same result at the range myself. Probably because I'm looking for those sort of results.

 

[the once-ler]

LL and Culpeper I agree completely with both of your statements. Optic gunsights are a tool, nothing more, nothing less. We use that tool to achieve a goal. ie LL putting a bullet on target.
However there is a big difference between a beat-ass Pinto and a Lexus LFA. The pinto will get you there but there is no pleasure in it and you ain't pickin up no chicks along the way.
Comparing one optic to another is one thing but if I offered to let you shoot a rifle with a CounterSniper or a Hensoldt most would grab the Henny.
Then there are the real professionals, the ones that 1/2" can mean the difference between the life of an innocent or a fellow friendly.

 

[Lowlight]

You're confused, you're talking magnification and not the scope's clarity.

You can buy a $299 SWFA Super Sniper and not have an issue, "seeing the target" as long as you have the magnification to match the use.

That is part of the problem, people confusing magnification, then they roll into contrast and feel if the colors don't pop they are missing something. Meanwhile the target they shooting has the contrast built in so it's a non-issue from the start.

If you need to fulfill a specific needs, like the ability to shoot at dusk or dawn, the ability to reach into a canopy and pull a camouflaged animal out of the shadows, well then of course a cheap, weak optical solution is not gonna work. Then it requires you spend the money as well as well as understand the optical solution to solve the problem. It's why you see fancy hunting scopes that have 56 objectives and 8x fixed magnification. The variables are trying to do a bit of everything with bit of a compromise. This is the problem, people not understanding the compromise or the solution required to solve the problem they are gonna encounter.

Most can go into any Cabelas and pick a scope off the shelf and "see" great, they can look across the parking lot, maybe read a plate @ 300 yards, and feel it's a great scope. However you're paying of accuracy, durability and the overall life of the coatings more so than any level of clarity. Sure higher end scopes do seem to be better, well that is because they invest more, but most scopes, even the worst of the bunch have better than 90% transmission. The issue is, is it 91% or 96% ? And for how long will it all last.

Accuracy, Durability, and not glass quality is what makes a scope stand out, glass quality in the long term is the only way to tell where there difference is when looking at that part of the equation.

 

[the once-ler]

Frank you just made me remember boar hunting in Germany in the moonlight with my dad in a swaying hochsitz. He used a Kahles fixed 8x56 and you could make out even the finest details just by the moon. The Germans are/were the real pioneers, their old world glassgrinders really brought these awesome products into being. All the German hunters and guides we were with always made it a point that the quality of the optic really made or broke your weapon system and the quality of your hunt.

 

[Opticsspecialist]

the main thing I've found is everyone sees and perceives things differently. the best thing you can do is look through said optic in natural light and see how it agrees with you.

 

[E. Bryant]

I've owned several scopes, and rarely have I seen any substantial variation from one to another. I did have a older Nightforce NXS 5.5-22x56mm (don't know the exact age, but it was old enough to have the silver mechanically-engraved markings) that had optical performance which quite simply blew away any other examples of the same model that I'd owned.

 

[BCP]

I've seen that too with different scopes from the same lineup. One thing about glass quality right now is that we are really spoiled with a lot of options that are all good. Even the sub 1000 dollar scopes are good enough, and some of them are really nice with good color, contrast, no chromatic aberration, etc.

 

[the once-ler]

A CA test is a really good way to judge how refined the optical train is on a given example. Put the scope on it's highest mag and in sunlight pick a bright white object with a dark background off in the distance. The whiter the object and darker the background the better. Look for purple/blue ghosting fringes around the white objects. With the advent of ED and flourite lenses it is easier to achieve the 3 color crossings (red/green/blue) but blue is still the hardest crossing to nail and will give an indication how much effort was put into the design or if there is an issue with an individual optic.

 

[Lowlight]

If you based it off CA, the Nightforce would win out over the Henny, or did you say Countersniper, either way, pretty much all my Hensoldts have more than above average CA in them, except for the 3-26x, that one is cleaner than the others.

Again, we are looking at targets, not birds, so a bit of color fringing on the edges never caused a miss.

 

[ahhshoot]

Things that matter in a rifle scope in order of importance (imo):

1. Tracking
2. Tracking
3. Tracking
4. Holds Zero
5. Turrets match reticle
6. Focal Plane
7. Durability
8. Glass clarity/contrast

I would much rather have a scope that I can crank to 1200 yards elevation and bring it back to zero and keep the same POI before any adjustment. Additionally I would not really like to do math equations in my head with a scope that has MOA turrets and Mil dots in the reticle, or have to remember to be on a specific mag when ranging or doing holdovers with an SFP scope. Even the worst scopes I have looked through, the glass was more than adequate to get the job done. If your scope doesn't hold zero or track true, you won't be doing anything but wasting ammo. This is what imo has made the SS scopes such a popular choice. The glass is not great...not bad but not good, but those who know what they are after are more than happy to drop $300 on a scope that tracks true and holds zero rather than something that has nicer glass and doesn't.

 

[the once-ler]

Tracking and holding zero almost goes without saying and of course the most important, that is what I would call a "basic function" The rest is just the cherries and cream on top and that is what I was referring to. The better the scope the more cherries and cream. There is a reason many of us will hurtfully shell out $3500+ for a scope that does the same thing as a $300 SS. Will a $300 SS track and hold zero.. yes... will a $5000 S&B do the same... yes. just more pleasurably so

 

[ahhshoot]

Tracking and holding zero almost goes without saying and of course the most important, that is what I would call a "basic function" The rest is just the cherries and cream on top and that is what I was referring to. The better the scope the more cherries and cream. There is a reason many of us will hurtfully shell out $3500+ for a scope that does the same thing as a $300 SS. Will a $300 SS track and hold zero.. yes... will a $5000 S&B do the same... yes. just more pleasurably so

That's why I own ss, steiners and night force... No $&b in the stable yet...







Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 10043]

Tracking and holding zero almost goes without saying and of course the most important, that is what I would call a "basic function" The rest is just the cherries and cream on top and that is what I was referring to. The better the scope the more cherries and cream. There is a reason many of us will hurtfully shell out $3500+ for a scope that does the same thing as a $300 SS. Will a $300 SS track and hold zero.. yes... will a $5000 S&B do the same... yes. just more pleasurably so

luxury that does not make a difference at the end of the day. This has been pointed out by others here. People are not missing out on something if they cannot budget a multi-thousand dollar scope.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[the once-ler]

luxury that does not make a difference at the end of the day. This has been pointed out by others here. People are not missing out on something if they cannot budget a multi-thousand dollar scope.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

That's the insanity of it all, and it's becoming more so with the cost of these damn things going thru the roof! The question I ask is why buy a $5k optic then?

 

[Deleted member 10043]

It is sort of hilarious when you think about it. Some of those scopes would only be in most hands if they are young, qualified, and it was issued and/or it was the way they make a living. Some people buy those optics because they can and there is nothing wrong with that. However I cringe when a newbie is advised to spend that kind of money on his first rifle when it is obvious in his profile that he doesn't know shit and asking for practical recommendations. Know your audience. Not every shooting enthusiast was born into the "Operator As Fuck" era or even heard of it. There are readers of this BBS that read those sort of recommendations and think well that is "Dumb As Fuck". But different strokes for different folks. The answer to your question is not supply and demand. There is no shortage of buyers that is leading to a shortage of rifle scopes that is leading to higher prices to equalize supply and demand. However, there might be a waiting list on the higher dollar scopes that lead to demand pressure that lead to quality problems like you and others have described as well. The market bears what it can and the invisible hand of supply and demand takes care of itself, which can be found all over the Internet when a manufacturer fucks up quality to meet the demand no matter how irresponsible that demand may be. And it can be an individual or something as big as the government creating demand that leads to overpriced shit. Who is to blame? The buyer or the seller? It is all about economics to the manufacturer. The man just wants a scope of his choice. Right?

 

[the once-ler]

I just wonder how many scopes S&B and Hensoldt are actually gonna sell since the price of admission went to $7k on their new flagship models. They probably aren't gonna be flying off the shelves and they should have plenty of time for good QC

 

[Deleted member 10043]

They will manufacture only as many orders as they receive. You can't be first but you can be next.