Rifle Scopes Outdoor life scope comparison

[fredreded]

I was taking my son to the dentist this morning and saw the August 2009 issue of Outdoor Life sitting there. They had a bunch of gear comparisons so I thought I'd take a look. Thumbed to the scope comparison / review and started to take a look. A Swarovski won the top pick with four stars and an overall value of an "A" rating. (a reasonable choice I suppose given the hunting slant).

As I kept reading I was shocked. They reviewed the NXS 2.5-10x32 and gave it two and a half stars and an overall value of a "C". The Zeiss Diavari T got the same. Bushnell had a scope that beat both of these in that guys opinion and a $99 Cabelas brand ranked close to the top as well. The NF and Zeiss were both towards the bottom, having been beaten by a bunch of mid range scopes.

I didn't have a lot of time to read the whole thing so I just skimmed it. Never really read many issues of Outdoor Life so I don't know much about the magazines reputation. That said, unless I'm missing something, that author and editor need their head examined.

Has anyone else read the article? What's up with that?!

 

[Bob Shaver]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

Most red-blooded Americans want a Corvette, most will settle on Chevette's.

Your typical gun rag reader is only concerned about getting an optic that will only be used for 30 seconds during deer season.

Take the article with a grain of salt.

 

[glock24]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

I remember reading a beer tasting report in a men's magazine. They ranked Stroh's as their top pick. I bought a case, and puked it up before the night was over. Fired-brewed shit is what it was.

I think Outdoor Life ranked the scopes according to their largest advertisers . . .

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: glock24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think Outdoor Life ranked the scopes according to their largest advertisers . . . </div></div>

As do the majority of magazines!

Just think, I could have a couple dozen Cabela's brand scopes, and here I sit waiting on a Premier, how silly of me!

 

[fredreded]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: El Shavewa</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Most red-blooded Americans want a Corvette, most will settle on Chevette's. </div></div>

Sure that's true but most will not then turn around and say that the Chevette will blow the doors off the Corvette.

That position is one that even Freud's reaction formation cannot fully explain.

The advertising explanation certainly has merit but talk about over reaching!

I am not shocked that there are shills and hacks out there, just shocked at the magnitude of the distortions.... I mean, I own a NF 2.5-10x32 and it's top tier kit... but then again, I've never owned a Cabelas scope... Maybe sobrbiker is on to something here...

 

[TCA4570]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

How did the Tasco 6-18 duplex with target turrets do?
May be able to trade for a 8-32 NF with a reader!
But till then, I like shooting in the fog.

Follow the money.

 

[SavageStag]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

They should have reviewed the BSA Sweet 17. It's got foggy glass, doesn't track,...they would have loved it!

 

[chad3]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

They are also not using the scopes for tons of different ranges, etc. How are the tracking on those scopes? Does it "come up" each time? Does it go back? FFP, what the heck is that?

How is the dawn/dusk viewing? I think you get my drift.
Take it with a grain of salt, I'm sure the other ones will drop that one deer a season, maybe even hit a few targets downrange the week before!!!
Chad

 

[okiefired]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

Oh man, this is great. Yeah, ya know that Outdoor Life, being the "new" gunrag that it is and all, thier writers probably know nothing about optics or any kind of gear in general. Ya know those pussy hunters, they never put thier equipment through any kind of rough use or adverse conditions so what could a mag concentrating on them and thier needs posibly know. I bet thier advertisers get all thier good reviews, unlike the totally unbiased opinions that get spewed all over this forum. I've got an idea, lets all write the guy that wrote that article and tell him what FFP means. On second thought, I'll let someone else do it. I probably dont know myself.

Sorry for bein such a smart ass but I just read this and well, it was pretty hard to get through without feeling a little silly. Come on folks, trashing Outdoor Life for not knowing anything about optics? I mean they may not be the ultimate authority but...........

okie

 

[Lindy]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

Most of "Outdoor Life"'s readers are hunters. So is the perspective of their writers.

That means that the considerations of the precision rifle community are not very relevant to them, and we would be better off to simply ignore what they have to say.

 

[Guest]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

Here is the summary page of the article.... in case someone here hunts.

 

[Yippeekiay]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

Lindy has it right on. I shoot w/ some friends who are srtictly hunters and have a hard time accepting their parameters for what's good. I finally decided to just let it go. If it puts meat in the freezer who am I to judge?
Have to figure also they look at the gear we have and consider it a waste of money and such.

 

[Guest]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

I don't see it as an us and them situation at all.
Maybe because I'm one of them?

Granted, some hunters shoot for minute of deer, but many want their shots to hit exactly where they intend for them to hit. So in that regard, their equipment and their skills need to be the best they can be. That's precision shooting.

What you don't find as much in the hunting side of things is an attitude that says unless you have X rifle, X mounts, X ammo, and X optics, you're not doing it right.

In that regard, hunters tend to be a bit more open-minded and willing to try something other than Kool-Aid.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

I had an exchange of emails with their shooting editor, Jim Carmichael. In an article on optics, he had described a minute of angle as being 1 inch at 100 yards.

It took an involved explanation to convey to him that a MOA is 1.047 inches at 100 yards, and while that won't make a difference at most hunting ranges, with a .308 at 1000 yards, the difference in point of impact between the two angles is around 20 inches.

His point of view is that most of his readers are hunters, and don't need to understand the difference.

I understand his perspective - but I don't share it.

So, I don't read that magazine.

 

[1911fan]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: okiefired</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Come on folks, trashing Outdoor Life for not knowing anything about optics? I mean they may not be the ultimate authority but........</div></div>

Yeah, but the people paying for the subscription don't know they're not experts. The editor's opinion that his readers don't need to know the difference between a minute and an inch speaks volumes.
Seems to me if you are going to go out and print something people are paying you for, it had damn well better be factually correct. In this case it's not.


1911fan

 

[Grump]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

Simple--ONE of the criteria is price/value.

For $99, the Cabela's scope scores B+ to B- on everything.

Perception is that if it takes 10x the price to go from a B- to an A, the "bang for the buck" becomes enormous.

The problem for we who have looked through a lot of these things and sometimes been betrayed by inexpensive scopes ALSO being cheap on the repeatability and accuracy of clicks, is that the Outdoor Life article grades the scopes on an ordinal scale disguised as a ratio scale.

There may be a bigger difference between an A and a B in "Image" on that scale than between a B and a C. On the other hand, heavy users of optics put a large value on seemingly subtle differences in optical quality at the top end.

Outdoor Life is NOT writing for the Snipers Hide audience.

 

[knockemdown]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

I can hardly stomach "reading" any hunting magazine anymore. Or fishing, for that matter...

 

[summitsitter]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

I got the mag the other day and read the article.. I can see why they ranked some scopes the way they did but can't on others. Thought the Zeiss would get an A+ in low light. As a manily hunter I can understand why this article turned out the way it did. I know about 200 people that hunt and I 3 of them dial in. There isn't very much reason to dial for 300 yards. Most just want a scope that will hold it's zero. Now I'm speaking from a dear hunters point of view here, but most of the stuff that matter to long range shooting doesn't amount to a hill of bean to a hunter. We're talking 300-350yds at the most. Glass quality really isn't that big of an issue. You never here anyone say man that deer sure looked clear through my new scope. Most hunter are going to buy that $200 scope over a $1000 dollar one anyday. Becuase for there purpose it serves just fine.

 

[Guest]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

I have entire article scanned, but I won't post it all here.
The savvy can figure it out, but <span style="text-decoration: underline">DO NOT</span> post links or the rest of the images here.

 

[mike26038]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

Heck, I want to know where I can get The Vortex Viper 6.5x20 at for $230, as the article says.

 

[Guest]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

That would be a good price, wouldn't it?

 

[okiefired]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

I dont believe there are many here who think Outdoor Life is targeting the Hide or those like us as thier audience. I agree with Lindy to a certain extent and that a snipers uses and requirements on optics are very different and much more critical. However, some requirements cross the line between the two disaplines and any other for that matter. Reliability, repeatability, clarity, build quality (toughness), weight, cost, look, feel all are attributes almost every scope user is concerned about. To act like there is nothing useful being printed by any writer of the mag because the editor didn't have the correct understanding of moa is going a tad too far IMO. If we look into the history of Outdoor Life I think we'll find that some very very serious and knowlegable riflemen have contributed. I dont subscribe to any hunting rags anymore either. I subscribe to Precision Shooting and American Rifleman, neither are geared for the tactical shooter either but both have useful information from time to time, especially PS. Of course if your like me, its not hard to find someplace you can learn.

I'm sure that the levels of knowledge of optics varies greatly between the membership of the Hide. I will guarantee you that not all is higher than that of the writers of Outdoor Life. I will also guarantee you that not all of the "facts" stated by even the most knowlegable of this forum are "factually correct". Sorry for taking so long to say so little.

okie

 

[Graham]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: okiefired</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree with Lindy to a certain extent and that a snipers uses and requirements on optics are very different and much more critical....To act like there is nothing useful being printed by any writer of the mag because the editor didn't have the correct understanding of moa is going a tad too far IMO...levels of knowledge of optics varies greatly between the membership of the Hide...I will guarantee you that not all is higher than that of the writers of Outdoor Life.</div></div>I see what you are getting at, but that misses the point.

The value of the article, and the knowledge shown by its writers and editor, is evident in the assumption made in the first paragraph: "We test each scope's ability to return to point of aim after ramping up and down the magnification."

If your scope changes its point of aim with magnification change, send it back - because it's broken.

If the writers don't know this, they have very little knowledge. If they know it, but wrote that first paragraph anyway, then they can't write.

 

[SpotcheckBilly]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

Outdoor Life?

Wasn't that the rag that published Zumbo's infamous column on the AR15?

If that's the case, remember that when you think about credibility. If I'm mistaken, please accept my apologies.

 

[okiefired]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

Graham, I dont understand what your saying, kinda dense ya know

. Dont we all test our scopes ability to return to POA? I dont believe they ever said it was OK for a scopes POA to change did they? I would imagine they also believe as you do that if it does change, "its broken". I think that section on methodology, "How We Test", is pretty straight forward and its conclusions would be useful to most if not all of us.

okie

 

[Graham]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

You could be right: If so, maybe they're just testing to see whether the scopes they have are broken. In which case, the article is even dumber than I first thought.

 

[okiefired]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

Your correct Spot but it was a "blog" he had for a while in OL. I dont believe his comments on the AR where ever claimed to be fact but just one of his many "opinions" stated in HIS blog. IIRC, didn't OL dump him real soon afterwards? Remember, he was a hero to thousands before that little BS session and without question many of his advocates are in fact quite knowlegable.

okie

 

[okiefired]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

I'm sorry Graham, you've lost me somewhere. It seems as though your saying that if they test one of the performace requirements of a scope, then they're being dumb? If it is, then add me to that dumb group too because I always test the repeatability of a "new to me" scope. Anyway, to each his own brother. Your opinion has always been valued to me on this forum.

okie

 

[Graham]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: okiefired</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm sorry Graham, you've lost me somewhere.</div></div>I'm saying that whether or not a scope is broken is not a performance requirement. If they are testing what the scope does, or how well it does it, then it's a true test. But if they're just confirming that that the darn thing works, then rating each according to criteria that includes whether or not it is broken, it's only a marketing exercise.

 

[TCA4570]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tucker301</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't see it as an us and them situation at all.
Maybe because I'm one of them?

Granted, some hunters shoot for minute of deer, but many want their shots to hit exactly where they intend for them to hit. So in that regard, their equipment and their skills need to be the best they can be. That's precision shooting.

What you don't find as much in the hunting side of things is an attitude that says unless you have X rifle, X mounts, X ammo, and X optics, you're not doing it right.

In that regard, hunters tend to be a bit more open-minded and willing to try something other than Kool-Aid. </div></div>

Well said!
Shoot what you brought.
Everybody is different, why do the rigs have to be the same?

Any word on reader that want to trade?

 

[Buzzsaw]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

Kinda switching gears here. I read ALL the "gun rags". It seems more now than ever, every article I read, it seems the writer is using his pen like it's his pecker and how his is bigger than everyone elses. They are Always the best shot, won this , won that. None are humble, they are experts..the last word. Another thing is how much do they get paid? Everyone of them seems to own thousands of priceless guns and go on safari two or three times a year. One in particular is Craig Bodington. I do like him, he is pretty down to earth but he's a retired Marine and writes for these rags (which I like too) How can he afford to have so many high dollar double rifles, many other customs and goes to Africa like I go to the grocery store.

Ya'll know what I mean?

 

[TCA4570]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

Just read an article on sighting in for long range.
400 yards!
Do you have to pull the cap off and change the wheely thing?
"Can I borrow a quarter." (Too many stories to type.)

One thing I know is Bro can kick my ass!

 

[okiefired]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

Well, may all be true Graham but I would never consider a scope test legitament or complete if it didn't include testing repeatability. I can honestly say that off the top of my head I cant ever remember seeing a scope test that didn't include it. I agree that it shouldn't have to be tested but lets face it, most scopes do not perform as they should in that department and need to somehow be weeded out.

okie

 

[Niles Coyote]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: okiefired</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, may all be true Graham but I would never consider a scope test legitament or complete if it didn't include testing repeatability. I can honestly say that off the top of my head I cant ever remember seeing a scope test that didn't include it. I agree that it shouldn't have to be tested but lets face it, most scopes do not perform as they should in that department and need to somehow be weeded out.

okie </div></div>

Graham is referring to a change in impact as you dial through different magnifications on the power ring of a variable scope, which should never change and not be part of a performance/comparison test. I think you may be thinking of the repeatability of adjustments in the turrets, which not all scopes do reliably.

Not trying to be an ass, just trying to help.

 

[3wide]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

The article acomplished one thing, it got people talking about the magazine.

 

[okiefired]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Niles Coyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: okiefired</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, may all be true Graham but I would never consider a scope test legitament or complete if it didn't include testing repeatability. I can honestly say that off the top of my head I cant ever remember seeing a scope test that didn't include it. I agree that it shouldn't have to be tested but lets face it, most scopes do not perform as they should in that department and need to somehow be weeded out.

okie </div></div>

Graham is referring to a change in impact as you dial through different magnifications on the power ring of a variable scope, which should never change and not be part of a performance/comparison test. I think you may be thinking of the repeatability of adjustments in the turrets, which not all scopes do reliably.

Not trying to be an ass, just trying to help.
</div></div>

Your right Niles, thanks. I got off on repeatability a few posts back somehow. Sorry Graham, think I got my head out off my ass now.

Edit to say, just to be clear, I still dont see how the testing was carried out to be too far off. Once again, JMO.

okie

 

[45.308]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

I use to be an outdoor gear tester and can honestly say, if you are honest in your review of said kit and that kit company has major coin in advertising and such with your parent company, you will lose your job. I gave an honest review on headlamps and Petzl on/off switched failed from the opening of the package and on several subsequent lamps, I said so in public website review and that I would never use one and would discourage everyone from buying Petzl and several days later I was fired. But rehired to a lessor degree, I had to make a full in person apology behind the scenes and in public. Petzl still refused to ever work with me until I gave them a perfect review even though I was compensated by their competing company. I am sure they still resent me because I still resent them for making me lie. There is politics behind the scenes. I learned the hard way about being honest and open.

Plus, kit companies pay certain individuals to use their kit and they expect their kit to get nothing but great reviews. It totals into about 5-7% of the wholesale cost of an item. I learned this the hard way, meeting at the Bears Tooth. Company dood, "You give me a bone I will give you a bone". Me being stupid or like up front with bark on. "Exactly what does that mean?" The more praise you give, the more our name gets out there, the more users buy our stuff, the more money we make, the more money you make, plain enough." Yep, I understand it that way!

Soon after this I was a pre-production gear tester. Company would send gear they had thought up, give it to me to try, now they wanted very honest feedback on hits and misses so they could make the changes before going full production. I have a piece of kit that I think only two were ever made, it sucked. This feedback never make it to the public unless someone as they always did see you using it and of course they ask questions and then you must word your words carefully. I have a few of my ideas in the backpack, clothing and footwear market. This is a sample of what would be tested. A half half = clothing made from two different fabrics and/or designs basically split in half, left boot one design the right boot something different, etc. used over a period of time giving feedback on what worked and what did not.

Moral of the story is......There is money and politics behind every gear review along with personal biases. If Luepold gave me free scopes, paid for me to elk/deer/sheep/goat hunt or even a big bone like hunt Africa, who do you think would get the better review...SB, USO, Premier or Luepold, its as easy answer.

Owners, vendors and retailers who invest money in a product do not like to hear bad things about their stuff even if they deserve it 100%. My problem was and still is now that I do not have a dog in the fight, honest and will call it bad if I see it that way, there is no smoke and mirrors with how I see something these days.

Remember years ago when Four Wheeler mag did their truck of the year award and the Jeep had an oil leak, broke a motor mount and did not start one morning yet in the matrix it received perfect scores for mechanical and won wheeler of the Year? How much money do you want to guess they put into advertising? Wish I knew.

 

[knockemdown]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

It would take a serious amount of crackpipe smoke in front of the objective to grade the "image" of an NXS with a B-, as compared to the C grade of a BSA Catseye...

 

[wadebrown]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

I disagree when people mention that hunters do not need high quality glass. A lot of game moves in the first and last 30 minutes of the legal hunting day. I spend a fair amount of time hunting in cedar swamps and without quality glass I can not ID the animal in the first and last 30 minutes. All of my hunting guns wear Meoptas and my tactical have Nightforce's. I have used Meoptas for hunting the last 8 years and think they make a great optic for the price.

My two cents,

 

[chad3]

Re: Outdoor life scope comparison

You are on here...
Need I say more?
Chad