Rifle Scopes Image-quality evaluation

[fastfwd]

This question is probably for Ilya or one of the other experts, but I'm open to input from anyone.

When I was shopping for scopes and just looking through them indoors in a store, or very briefly outdoors, I noticed that sometimes the lower-priced/lower-reputation scopes seemed noticeably "better" than the MUCH higher-priced/higher-reputation ones: Side-by-side, the image in the cheaper scope was obviously brighter -- and not clearer, exactly, but maybe higher-contrast -- than the image in the expensive one. And I'm sure that the extra cost of the pricier scopes wasn't just for durability or ergonomics or whatever, so even though I'm not dismissing the possibility that some cheap scopes might actually be really awesome, I think it's more likely that my naive impression of the cheaper scopes' optical quality was wrong.

I've now bought a couple of scopes that I'm extremely happy with. One's a Razor HD2 4.5-27 and the other's an M5Xi 5-25 -- so they're NOT those cheap ones that looked surprisingly good -- but I still wonder about what I experienced while I was shopping.

What I'm thinking is that maybe the expensive scopes were showing me a really accurate image but the cheaper ones showed me a distorted image that looked a lot better in one obvious dimension but wasn't so great in others -- like, remember the Blue Blocker sunglasses that used to be advertised on late-night TV? They were super cheap, but when you put them on it was like somebody switched on the lights. Really impressive, except that after a while you'd notice that they actually made things LESS clear -- but the high-contrast effect of the yellow lenses initially overwhelmed your perception of subtler features.

There's a similar effect in hi-fi audio systems: A system that's playing a little louder almost always sounds "better". The higher volume can overwhelm your perception of shortcomings in resolution, imaging, naturalness, etc.

So, my questions:

1. Could it be that in some cheap scopes, something as simple as a colored lens -- if not actually a colored lens -- is distorting the image, but in a way that makes it initially seem brighter or clearer than the accurate image produced by more-expensive scopes?

2. How can I, a novice with ordinary vision, judge the optical quality of a scope? I don't mean with any sort of scientific rigor -- but just as I can judge a stereo system by playing particular music or test tracks while listening for certain telltale characteristics, are there simple tests that I can perform while holding a scope for a few minutes in a store? What should I be looking for? I'm sure this has been asked before, so if it's easier to just point me to an old thread or something, that would be great.

 

[ken226]

Broad daylight at close distances dont give a realistic impression of glass quality.

Lens coatings that alter colors on cheapo scopes give a false impression of quality.

A good test is a side by side comparison looking at something that taxes light transmission, specificically color and target edge clarity. Low light conditions is the real test.

Try a side by side comparison, under low light conditions, @ 100 yds, using an optomotrists eye chart and a image with lots of colors.

Maybe a couple pics of hot bikini-clad girls. See if you can discern they eye color, hair color, etc.

See which are the smallest letters you can read on the eye chart, with each scope.

The results are pretty obvious.

I did this at a rifle school in Waco.

During the first couple days, i kept hearing comments like "super snipers just as good" and "your paying for the name".

During the lowlight target discrimination drills, those comments stopped on their own. Everyone got to try everyone elses optics, at picking out specific targets from magazine pages @ 100yds.

The spotter had a photobook containing the same images that were posted on the targets. The spotter called out specific targets using things like hair color, eye color, clothing colors, etc.

That set of drills was the one where the Swaros, S&Bs, USOs, IORs and Nightforce scopes really showed where the money was spent.

As for a quick test you can perform in the store. Nope.

Thats why sites like this one are great. Plenty of guys here have already done these types of courses, and happily share the results.

I use a USO scope, due to my experience at that school. Its good in low-light, and it has solid mechanics as well. I would also be happy with S&B, Khales, and plenty of others as well.

If your going to shoot only during the day at white painted steel, most anything would work.

 

[fastfwd]

Thank you, @ken226, that's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for.

sites like this one are great. Plenty of guys here have already done these types of courses, and happily share the results.

Yes, I'm grateful to everyone whose reviews and discussion here led me to buy the scopes that I ended up getting. My shopping experience showed me that I wasn't anywhere near knowledgeable enough to select a scope based on just my own evaluation.

 

[Jefe's Dope]

Just like audio, time behind the scope will begin to show it's limitations/downfalls. Both cheap and expensive.

There's a lot more to a scope than the quality of it's glass. Although that's is a big part of it. But how it holds up to recoil, drops, weather, how it tracks, internals, type of materials used, etc.

The hardest part is the optics as it's, much like audio, very subjective. Not all eyes are the same. How your brain reproduces the image is different than my brain and why scientific, objective testing is often used.

 

[shoobe01]

...Lens coatings that alter colors on cheapo scopes give a false impression of quality....

This is a big one, that has gotten to optics in the last 10-15 years slowly as coatings get available to everyone, but is true of all sorts of stuff, like TVs, for ever.

It is well known how to trick people into thinking they are seeing sharp, brilliant colors. If you have no morals, you tweak the output/transmission path to do that.

So, look for reproduction. As mentioned above, have a reference image to compare to and make sure it's not bright/good, but "correct."

 

[Glassaholic]

Broad daylight at close distances dont give a realistic impression of glass quality.

Lens coatings that alter colors on cheapo scopes give a false impression of quality.

A good test is a side by side comparison looking at something that taxes light transmission, specificically color and target edge clarity. Low light conditions is the real test.

Try a side by side comparison, under low light conditions, @ 100 yds, using an optomotrists eye chart and a image with lots of colors.

Maybe a couple pics of hot bikini-clad girls. See if you can discern they eye color, hair color, etc.

See which are the smallest letters you can read on the eye chart, with each scope.

The results are pretty obvious.

I did this at a rifle school in Waco.

During the first couple days, i kept hearing comments like "super snipers just as good" and "your paying for the name".

During the lowlight target discrimination drills, those comments stopped on their own. Everyone got to try everyone elses optics, at picking out specific targets from magazine pages @ 100yds.

The spotter had a photobook containing the same images that were posted on the targets. The spotter called out specific targets using things like hair color, eye color, clothing colors, etc.

That set of drills was the one where the Swaros, S&Bs, USOs, IORs and Nightforce scopes really showed where the money was spent.

As for a quick test you can perform in the store. Nope.

Thats why sites like this one are great. Plenty of guys here have already done these types of courses, and happily share the results.

I use a USO scope, due to my experience at that school. Its good in low-light, and it has solid mechanics as well. I would also be happy with S&B, Khales, and plenty of others as well.

If your going to shoot only during the day at white painted steel, most anything would work.

^^^ What Ken said. I realized this about 6 years ago, I had to conduct my own tests and what I found was during the day many scopes performed quite admirably, but it was when the light got low that the differences became very apparent. Also, all of us are very subjective regarding what we like in an image, contrast, color, etc.

OP - you're not too far off in your assessment regarding audio systems, but just like audio systems require ears, optical systems require eyes and we can all be somewhat different in what our preferences are. I think this is one of the biggest contributors to the many threads about Brand X vs. Brand Y and why you hear some people saying they love brand X and hated brand Y and yet others give the very opposite opinion. If you hang around here long enough you will begin to see trends with certain scopes, either highly praised or continuously bashed. Keep in mind you have to sift through the internet "noise", these are the reviews where 20 shooters are praising a model and 1 or 2 are absolutely bashing it, sometimes bad experiences can taint your point of view, so if you got burned by Brand X you feel that all of Brand X products stink and will forever stink. I tend to be an "early adopter" and have bought my fair share of scopes that were just released to market, some of those have been impressive and others have been less impressive.

I am working on wrapping up a scope review that I call the $1k scopes which I consider to be pretty much entry level for FFP long range scopes, are there cheaper scopes, yes, but too many have traditionally had quality and reliability issues, heck, even some more expensive scopes have had quality and reliability issues but that's beside the point. Have manufacturers stepped up their game in recent years, I believe they have and in many ways its making the margin smaller and smaller between Tier One, Tier Two, Tier Three scopes (where Tier One represents the pinnacle of optical/mechanical design and performance and generally has resided in the $3000+ arena, Tier Two is hot on their heals within the $2000 - $3000 range and Tier Three the $1000 - $2000 range and so forth), obviously there is bleed over by some models that cost less but perform more like their more expensive peers and some more expensive models that don't perform to their price point.

 

[fastfwd]

Great info, guys. Thank you.

 

[steve123]

What I've noticed when in the store and observing people looking through scopes is they forget to put each scope at the same magnification and don't adjust the diopter or even know to focus the image with the parallax knob. It's hilarious, sometimes I can't stand it and mention that, half those guys look at me like I insulted their mother, lol.

Not saying you do this but it bares mentioning here.

Plus the cheaper scopes are usually lower power magnification so they seem brighter.

 

[fastfwd]

What I've noticed when in the store and observing people looking through scopes is they forget to put each scope at the same magnification and don't adjust the diopter or even know to focus the image with the parallax knob.
....
Plus the cheaper scopes are usually lower power magnification so they seem brighter.

I adjusted the diopter and parallax, but I didn't set magnification the same on every scope.

Instead, I adjusted the scopes I was comparing to the same FOV. And yeah, it makes sense now that by doing that, I was setting the magnification of the better-FOV scope higher -- so naturally its image would be dimmer than if it were set to the same magnification as the other, narrower-FOV scope.

Thank you for pointing that out. Looking back now, I should have used the reticle to equalize magnification and then compared FOV and the other characteristics. Next time I'll make sure to do that.

 

[Glassaholic]

I adjusted the diopter and parallax, but I didn't set magnification the same on every scope.

Instead, I adjusted the scopes I was comparing to the same FOV. And yeah, it makes sense now that by doing that, I was setting the magnification of the better-FOV scope higher -- so naturally its image would be dimmer than if it were set to the same magnification as the other, narrower-FOV scope.

Thank you for pointing that out. Looking back now, I should have used the reticle to equalize magnification and then compared FOV and the other characteristics. Next time I'll make sure to do that.

Next time try and get your store to allow you to take the scopes out on a bench or something stable after the sun sets. You'll get a much better idea of how they perform in low light and outdoors. Try and look in shadowy areas and see how much detail you can discern from each.

 

[5RWill]

If your going to shoot only during the day at white painted steel, most anything would work.

While i agree with everything stated and agree with this, just wanted to say lower quality glass can still present issues given a target that is in shade and hasn't been repainted. Not necessarily a consistent scenario but not unheard of either. Even on a scope that is by no means considered "cheap". My example/experience was my XRS. That scope was an absolute workhorse, there was little to not like about it for it's time considering what i paid. However shooting a KYL stage at 400ish yds placed in the shade with the last target a 1 MOA circle with no paint on it was an eye opener. I lost it completely.

Truthfully as of late i've kind of been like Bill three of the last four scopes i've bought were all pretty much early adoption upon release. No official reviews to go on, just gave it a shot. Though at a certain price point there is a level quality to be expected. Thus far i haven't really been disappointed with those last four purchases/trades.

I agree with all the above though. Finding objects of detail at distance, as well low light testing, contrast charts, Snellen eye chart, etc. is a good way to really evaluate said glass for your eyes and figure out what you might prefer. I've been meaning to refine the way i compare scopes much like Bill does his reviews but just haven't had any time as of late so for the scopes i have all i can offer is my opinion within reason.