Rifle Scopes High End Tactical: Part II

[koshkin]

I now have enough scopes in hand, so to speak to start another comparison of high end scopes.

The original article was not so much a comparison as an attempt to look at the best Japan has to offer (March and Vortex Razor) against a couple of similarly priced European competitors (Premier and IOR). Here is the original thread.

Because of very different configurations involved, that article did not make for an apples-to-apples comparison. However, I enjoyed working on it and there was enough response from it to decide to do another one. This one is going to make for a better comparison. Here are the scopes I have on hand:

Premier Heritage 3-15x50
Leupold ER/T 4.5-14x50 (with H27 reticle)
IOR 3.5-18x50FFP
US Optics 3.2-17x44
Nightforce NXS 3.5-15x50 F1

S&B PMII 4-16x50 is currently on its way to me (should be here tomorrow or Monday) and I am working on securing a Hensoldt 4-16x56 to add to the line-up.

I'll let you know how it goes.

I will head to the range tomorrow to start with sighting in some of the scopes I already have on hand. If any of you are in Southern California and know where Angeles Range is, stop by.

ILya

 

[jrob300]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Ilya,

You will NOT be comparing to the scopes in the first review? Or you will use the data from that review and integrate it to give a comprehensive comparison? Specifically interested to see how you think the Razor compares to this crop.

John

 

[shadysmitty]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Thanks for your review and your time. Much appreciated.
Thanks

 

[leadbullet]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

thanx for the time and effort involved in this testing, can't wait for the results.

 

[magnum_99]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Cool. Mucho interested in this comparison.

 

[koshkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ilya,

You will NOT be comparing to the scopes in the first review? Or you will use the data from that review and integrate it to give a comprehensive comparison? Specifically interested to see how you think the Razor compares to this crop.

John </div></div>

I still have the two scopes that served as a baseline in the original article: IOR 3-18x42 and SWFA S.S. 10x42HD. It is not a perfect way of doing this, but I should be able to get a reasonable idea how the Razor stacks up by comparing to those two baseline scopes again.

ILya

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

This is going to be a very good write up. I haven't had the opportunity to try out the IOR or Hensoldt yet so it will be interesting to see how they stack up.

 

[Rthur]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Outstanding, really looking foward to this comparison! Rthur

 

[feenix]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Can't wait.
I'm considering all 7, except the Leupy.
Kinda pullin' for the IOR (so I can save cash) but secretly hoping the Henny is just so good in NH1 that it's a no brainer (minus one kidney).

Thanks Ilya for all you're time!

 

[svt_tactical]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Looking forward to it ILya!

 

[sniperaviator]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

I have a couple of suggestions for you:

1. Take some targets and shoot some holes in them with a 308. Put the targets out there at 3-400 yards and see which scopes can see the bullet holes the best. You could also get a Snell Eye Chart and see which scopes can read the smallest letters. This tests the scopes ability to see DETAIL.

2. At dusk, line up all the scopes on benchrests. As the sun sets, focus on those bullet holes (have the targets facing west). See which scopes can still see the bullet hole detail in low light. Everyone makes a big deal of light gathering. It is only at low light that it matters.

Try and keep it from just subjective evaluation such as "I looked through the Yakiti Yak scope and the optics were FANTASTIC! Such detail, such color!" Human emotion and mood effects are too great. From one time to another you get different results depending on your mood.

In short, try and do it with scientific based experiments, not just subjective evaluation.

You've got some terrific scopes to evaluate there. Very good idea.

 

[Plange]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Ilya,

I really like Sniperaviator's suggestions using bullet holes or one of your charts you were telling me you used. But I like the idea of stretching all the scopes abilities in low light conditions.

Not everyone shoots in low light but it really would be a neat test as I know what our scopes do light transmission-wise. I have a photospectrometer here at the shop but a real world side by side would help me for sure.

Thanks,

Paul

 

[dcjs]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sniperaviator</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have a couple of suggestions for you:...</div></div>
All valid points, but I think you need not be worried, ILya is one of the (if not the) most competent people who still post here about optics. While the human factor cannot be eleminated from such a comparison entirely, a skilled observer is able to seperate between his "objective" findings and subjective preferences, that's why I found the review so refreshing.
I can't even remember the last time anyone else here used the terms "resolution" and "contrast" seperately in a meaningful manner as in the first part of the review, usually everything concerning image quality just gets thrown together as that elusive "clarity"-term for lack of understanding of the different aspects of image quality.

Difinitely looking forward to part II.

 

[jasonk]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I can't even remember the last time anyone else here used the terms "resolution" and "contrast" seperately in a meaningful manner as in the first part of the review, usually everything concerning image quality just gets thrown together as that elusive "clarity"-term for lack of understanding of the different aspects of image quality.
</div></div>

I too think ILya will do a great job, he takes this stuff very seriously.

As for throwing it all into the term clarity, I don't necessarily have an issue with it. Clarity seems to be the chosen term for the overall opinion of how the scope performs optically to the users eye. I could care less if a scope has great contrast if the resolution sucks. Brightness, resolution, contrast, focus, detail, etc etc are not important if you don't have the right mix of them all.....having the best of one and the worst of another is no good.

I am really looking forward to the article and will be interested to see where ILya puts the emphasis on how one benefit weighs against another. In a tactical scope I have much different wants and needs than in a benchrest scope.

 

[Plange]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Jason,

Your not going to send him one of your Hensoldts for this?
I know Ilya said on Monday he was going to line one up- thought maybe you had a few "lying" around you could lend him....LOL

Paul

 

[SWFA]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sniperaviator</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have a couple of suggestions for you:
</div></div>

Good suggetions for Joe the plumber. Have you read any of ILya's previous reviews/evaluations?

 

[dcjs]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jasonk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...
As for throwing it all into the term clarity, I don't necessarily have an issue with it. Clarity seems to be the chosen term for the overall opinion of how the scope performs optically to the users eye. I could care less if a scope has great contrast if the resolution sucks. Brightness, resolution, contrast, focus, detail, etc etc are not important if you don't have the right mix of them all.....having the best of one and the worst of another is no good.
...</div></div>
Jason,

on the one hand, it is of course the overall end result that matters and if you have two scopes in front of you, you will usually be able to pick a favorite, and that's what matters to <span style="font-style: italic">you</span> after all.

On the other hand, understanding some of the basic aspects of image quality and "talking the same language" about them helps tremendously when you want to help somebody else who cannot evaluate the optics in question understand what he can expect from an optic, or receive that information from someone else, for that matter.

Also, this should help avoid the commen "Dude, did you insult my scope or what?!"-reaction that often happens around here when somebody criticizes something about the image quality of some scope. With camera lenses, people (even on internet forums) are usually aware that no lens ist "optically perfect", and it is generally accepted that camera lenses with extraordinary technical data will most likely have some shortcomings in image quality under certain conditions. This is probably due to the fact that with a camera lens, you can capture the image and compare it to images taken with other lenses, which is not easily possible with a scope. Thus, it is even more important to "talk the same language" if you want to do any kind of in-depth review of an optic.


Regards,

David

 

[jasonk]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

David,
Points taken. I'm sure given your profession you are much better suited to pick out the differences than I am. I appreciate the above clarifications.

Jason

 

[Lowlight]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

I know 99% of the end users focus on <span style="font-style: italic">"glass quality"</span> -- clarity, resolution, brightness, but...

Really the question has to be how it works, not just short term but long term. Does it track, does it hold up to repeated use, does the parallax stop working properly when you add the rings, this in my opinion is more important than whether or not it looks crispy out of the box.

Most scopes <span style="text-decoration: underline">look</span> great when you open up the box, however after they are out in the sun, after they have been wind blown, sand blasted, cleaned after being dirty, does the clarity hold up or do they start to haze like so many sub-$1000 scopes do as well as a few +$1000 scopes.

There is more to breaking them out of the box and looking through them, saying, <span style="font-style: italic">"Oh my this looks great"</span> -- I mean the parallax thing is really disappointing that I can walk up to scope on command turn the parallax and say to the owner,<span style="font-style: italic"> "hey you have to move your rings because the parallax isn't doing anything".</span>

Function over Fashion if you will. I have yet to <span style="text-decoration: underline">not</span> be able to see a 1000 yard target even with a $299 Weaver.

 

[jrob300]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I mean the parallax thing is really disappointing that I can walk up to scope on command turn the parallax and say to the owner,<span style="font-style: italic"> "<span style="font-weight: bold">hey you have to move your rings because the parallax isn't doing anything</span>".</span> </div></div>

Frank,

Could you explain this for me in English please. I must have stayed up too late last night. Not following you.

Are you saying that the eye relief was set wrong?

John

 

[Lowlight]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I mean the parallax thing is really disappointing that I can walk up to scope on command turn the parallax and say to the owner,<span style="font-style: italic"> "<span style="font-weight: bold">hey you have to move your rings because the parallax isn't doing anything</span>".</span> </div></div>

Frank,

Could you explain this for me in English please. I must have stayed up too late last night. Not following you.

Are you saying that the eye relief was set wrong?

John </div></div>

It's pretty simple,

When you put the scope in the rings the parallax knob turns but does nothing internally so there is no change in focus or parallax. Take the scope out of the rings and the parallax works, the scope will return to focusing again. I see it happen just about every PR 1&2, the user is usually pretty clueless. Parallax has nothing to do with Eye Relief.

Not rocket science here... more glass less function.

 

[jrob300]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Parallax has nothing to do with Eye Relief.</div></div>

Whew. That's a relief (pun intended). Thought I'd missed something really important at some point. Thanks for the clarification.

John

 

[Driftwood]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

I look forward to the review I am in the market for a new scope and am considering three you are covering. Any idea on when it will be done? I have time, I am just curious. I enjoyed reading the East vs West article. I am sure this one will be just as informative.

 

[SWFA]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Scopes with a side focus parallax adjustment use a lens positioned in the tube between the objective housing and the saddle section. Many scope's tubes will slightly deform if rings are over tightened and cause the internal parallax adjusting lens to bind or not be allowed to move its entire range, which does not allow you to adjust for parallax. Often the dial still rotates and novice uses do not realize that it is not doing anything.

Please note that this can also happen when rings are properly installed to the correct torque setting but in most cases that we encounter the user has well exceeded the proper torque and simply setting the screws to the proper torque will fix it. If it does not then you have to move the ring more towards the objective or look at purchasing a set of more precise rings or a scope with more robust construction.

 

[opeagle]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

I think we will get good info from the review. The choice of high end optics will still be up to the purchaser but we will be armed with good information.

 

[opeagle]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

We will have great info from ILYA once the review is done. Information is king when buying especially things you cannot try first.

I personally throw out my thanks to ILYA for his efforts.

 

[Dragos83]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

In the same boat as Driftwood; still looking for the perfect scope for my new rifle. Been considering (S&B, Premier, USO, Nightforce, Razer). I appreciate all the work you are putting into your articles and reviews ILYA.

 

[macman2564]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

TAG

 

[koshkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

I just got home from a nice day spent at the range. And found that this thread has developed a bit in my absence.

I'd like to address a few points that came up:

1) I will address both optical and mechanical qualities of the riflescopes the best I can. I am always open to suggestions on how to test them best. With these scopes I will follow my usual evaluation process:
-mount each scope on a rifle, sight in, check tracking, check repeatability of all controls, etc. These scopes will have stints on 338LM and either 223 or 22-250
-shoot at targets at varying distances, stare at some resolution charts during daylight, twist the knobs around some more
-take scopes off the rifles, set them up on tripod(s) before sunset and continue staring through them side by sid eas the sun sets and for some time after. At this point, I will be looking at both resolution and color charts, in addition to various targets of opportunity. As the light gets low, check for various low light artefacts in presence of bright point-like light sources at different locations.
-repeat the exercise above on a different days since how well our eyes function varies day by day.
-do another resolution/contrast/flare/etc test with scopes off the rifles in the middle of a sunny day (that is one good thing about California). Too much light can bring our surprising image flaws, just like low light can.

2)On reliability testing: I do not try to break scopes, but I do not baby them either. Either way, even if a scope breaks on me, while I will obviously report on it, in order to pronounce a particular scope reliable or un-reliable, I would need a whole lot more statistics. Those statistics can only be collected by a number of users over time.

3) To continue on that whole pesky subject of statistical significance: everything that I do here is based strictly on the sample of one (well, I ended up with a different Premier scope this time around, so it is a sample of two in Premier's case).

4) On what I did today: I worked out the Leupold ER/T on my AR-15 and the IOR on a 22-250 Savage. Both tracked perfectly (the extent of my tracking test is limited by a 2ft by 4ft target at 100 yards). The furthest targets I shot were at 400yards and both scope performed well. I also had a couple of guys who are relatively new to optics look through this assortment side by side and tell me what they think.

One of the reasons I spend so much time on optical quality is that I find optics interesting (probably explains why I majored in applied physics). Also, with scopes of this caliber, I expect them to be reliable and to track well. However, they likely espoused somewhat different philosophies when the optical design was done and I try to verbalize those differences the best way I can.

In a nutshell, I do not expect to find a bad scope in this group (although I will be overjoyed if I dig up something bad, since that gives me more material to write about

). I do expect to determine that they are best suited for different applications.

ILya

 

[MeridianNW]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Keep up the good work ILYA, you have a lot of interested followers, obviously!

We appreciate your time and expertise.

 

[elmerdeer]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Thanks Ilya for all the review work, makes our job when trying to pick which scope to buy aloy easier!!!
Elmer

 

[koshkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

It looks like I will have all the scopes in hand soon.

S&B PMII is here and Hensoldt is on the way.

ILya

 

[Moose72]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ILYA</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It looks like I will have all the scopes in hand soon.

S&B PMII is here and Hensoldt is on the way.

ILya </div></div>
Awesome, I can't wait to read your reviews on the scopes.. I really liked your last review you did.. Thanks for putting in the time and effort..

I'm looking at either getting a S&B or a Hensoldt for my new build, so I want to see how they fair against one another..

 

[crnkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Ilya,

All I want to see is tracking, tracking, tracking.

All of the scopes should be good to look through.

All of the scopes light gathering should be able to be calculated by Light transmission and lens diameter data.

All of the scopes have functions that have been covered hundreds of times.

Tracking is all I look for in a scope review. If it doesn't track, its not worth its $$$ in scrap metal, so it will get sold. Please, please, please do a lot of tracking testing. Box tests are not enough for me.

Thats my request, take it for what you will,

Chris

 

[jasonk]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crnkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ilya,

All I want to see is tracking, tracking, tracking.

All of the scopes should be good to look through.

All of the scopes light gathering should be able to be calculated by Light transmission and lens diameter data.

All of the scopes have functions that have been covered hundreds of times.

Tracking is all I look for in a scope review. If it doesn't track, its not worth its $$$ in scrap metal, so it will get sold. Please, please, please do a lot of tracking testing. Box tests are not enough for me.

Thats my request, take it for what you will,

Chris</div></div>

While I don't disagree....tracking is something that can be fixed. Given the scopes that are going to be reviewed, they all should track, but if they don't the customer service of the high end guys is typically very good and they will make it right. If one test scope happens not to track but is tops in all other ways, I'd not cast it aside and call it scrap metal.

 

[koshkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

I check tracking fairly extensively. Aside from the box tests, I glue a bunch of dots onto random spots on the target and then use the reticle to figure out the adjustment needed. That both checks tracking and whether knobs and the reticle are properly calibrated together.

ILya

 

[crnkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jasonk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crnkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ilya,

All I want to see is tracking, tracking, tracking.

All of the scopes should be good to look through.

All of the scopes light gathering should be able to be calculated by Light transmission and lens diameter data.

All of the scopes have functions that have been covered hundreds of times.

Tracking is all I look for in a scope review. If it doesn't track, its not worth its $$$ in scrap metal, so it will get sold. Please, please, please do a lot of tracking testing. Box tests are not enough for me.

Thats my request, take it for what you will,

Chris</div></div>

While I don't disagree....tracking is something that can be fixed. Given the scopes that are going to be reviewed, they all should track, but if they don't the customer service of the high end guys is typically very good and they will make it right. If one test scope happens not to track but is tops in all other ways, I'd not cast it aside and call it scrap metal. </div></div>

Yeah I guess.

But you cant polish shite unfortunately. If a scope comes to me, after shelling out 4 weeks pay, and it doesn't track, its going straight on trademe (nz ebay).

If a company has good customer service, and poor quality control, its going backwards. My company is great in both areas, its not hard.

Good to know Ilya, I cant wait for this review!

Chris

 

[AWP]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Can't wait for the review.

 

[sharac]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

You stated you have/work for a good company but you state in a paragraph before that if scope "is broken" you sell it on ebay instead of getting it fixed... I guess your company is making good profits that you are able to throw away several % just to try the scope....not to mention it tells a lot about your ethics...

All of the scopes in review WILL and DO track and perform as they should only question is which of the lot is best. However i'm pretty sure there won't be a clear winner as all are so close and none far ahead. Some will have crisper image, some better contrast, some bigger and more forgiving eyebox so in the end (i think, and i am eager to read Ilyas findings) it will come down to personal preference and feature/brand choice.

 

[crnkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Yes, I like to try before I buy?

What's $30-$50 to find if a scopes junk or not? If a scope turns up broken, having passed QC, what does that tell you?

I don't see your problem?

 

[sharac]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

No problem at all...

 

[crnkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Sweet, go away then.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

I look forward to seeing this but a lot of assumptions are made just because the scope is expensive... I have read it more than once.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One of the reasons I spend so much time on optical quality is that I find optics interesting (probably explains why I majored in applied physics). Also, with scopes of this caliber, I expect them to be reliable and to track well. However, they likely espoused somewhat different philosophies when the optical design was done and I try to verbalize those differences the best way I can.</div></div>

I honestly think this is backwards... and assuming they are reliable is not the same as checking.

I get it, the tracking will be checked, but I can say I have seen issue with more than one scope on that list above, and none of the issues have anything to do with glass.

and this opinion seems to be spreading:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While I don't disagree....tracking is something that can be fixed. Given the scopes that are going to be reviewed, they all should track, but if they don't the customer service of the high end guys is typically very good and they will make it right. If one test scope happens not to track but is tops in all other ways, I'd not cast it aside and call it scrap metal.</div></div>

Won't get into the CS side of things... but still assuming a lot.

Test them, all... check them both with rings and without, check them under recoil and check them for accuracy.

Remember all those early 3-18X IORs that died around the 200 round mark, because it matters. Looking good and working well out of the box is one thing, can they hold up is another.

 

[sharac]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Can you be more specific on the subject? I would expect that high end scopes ABSOLUTELY must track and work as intended, especially since a lot of them are meant/targeting for "serious" customers (military, LE)... Any less would be a shocker...

 

[MinorDamage]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sharac</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you be more specific on the subject? I would expect that high end scopes ABSOLUTELY must track and work as intended, especially since a lot of them are meant/targeting for "serious" customers (military, LE)... Any less would be a shocker... </div></div>

Leupold is used on many military platforms. However, a good number of them have issues with tracking. I agree, you can "expect" something, but it doesn't always make it so based on price, number in use, or customer service.

Josh

 

[Lowlight]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sharac</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you be more specific on the subject? I would expect that high end scopes ABSOLUTELY must track and work as intended, especially since a lot of them are meant/targeting for "serious" customers (military, LE)... Any less would be a shocker...</div></div>

There is a LOT of emotional investment made in scopes of this caliber because they cost so much. People feel their decision on which one they purchased is a direct reflection on them as people, so it creates a no win atmosphere for someone who puts doubt into that decision.

With that, I won't expand on what I have experienced... it only causes a shit storm. I have no interest in poking anyone in the eye, if every scope on the list works as expected and in the end it only comes down to who's glass is slightly is better than the other, well everyone can consider it a win... or not. I still personally check each and every one over time... trust me when I say, I have scopes here due for review which are being used every week on a variety of system because no longer will I get a scope on Monday, shoot it on Wednesday and review it on Friday.

As has been written, any scope can and will break. There have been endless threads on the subject, polls, reviews, anecdotes, you name it, we have written and discussed it until the horse has rotted away. As long as you are happy in your purchase, and it works within the context of your shooting, who am I say different, even if my cross section is a little broader than the guy who says, "I have being using "X" brand for 2 years and I have never had an issue"... if that is his experience, there is no denying it as truth. The arguments are just not worth it anymore if you ask me.

I look forward to the review whatever the outcome.

 

[hochung]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Frank, you got me rolling on the floor here at many levels.

 

[sharac]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Ok np i understand the issue as everyone praises its horse...
I just thought that high end scopes would be perfect (minus the occasional hiccup). Another reason more to consider "budget" scopes as a viable alternative.

 

[Redmanss]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sharac</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok np i understand the issue as everyone praises its horse...
I just thought that high end scopes would be perfect (minus the occasional hiccup). Another reason more to consider "budget" scopes as a viable alternative.</div></div> The high end scopes do have very few flaws, but even the best BMW or Ferrari can have issues and need a tune up. Same with scopes. All everyone is saying is you have to inspect and check them when you get them and periodically during their service life. Any mechanism can fail, especially when ultimate precision is a must, and you can't take it for granted that it is perfect and indestructible.

Budget scopes bring budget quality and performance, and will likely fail at a higher rate. Just how "budget" they are will give you a pretty good indicator on whether they will be correct at first purchase, and also how long a service life they will have.

 

[Timo Turl]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Frank, for the sake of clarity (no pun intended) can you give us an idea of how many rounds you put down range when evaluating a scope ? I'm guessing it is in the hundreds and if it isn't it needs to be if the review is to have credibility.

One thing i haven't seen tested is a scope's ability to cope with climatic changes. Working well on a nice sunny day at a range isn't the same as it operating in humid conditions where moisture is a factor or in extreme cold for days at a time. AI built a rifle to work in those conditions. Do each of these scopes ?