Why do some scope makers refuse to disclose their source of glass & who polishes it.
They must have some reasons I was wondering what those reasons might be.
They must have some reasons I was wondering what those reasons might be.
Rifle Scopes Some scope makers refuse to disclose their source of glass & who polishes it: Why
- Thread starter ronas
- Start date
My guess(s) are:
1. If you knew that you could find out how much they pay for materials, guess how much they pay for labor, then watch as your jaw drops at their MSRP
2. It may be to keep competitors from using the same materials and undercutting their high prices. I imagine if someone could build an S&B for half of what S&B does and sell it for half of what S&B does, they would.
1. If you knew that you could find out how much they pay for materials, guess how much they pay for labor, then watch as your jaw drops at their MSRP
2. It may be to keep competitors from using the same materials and undercutting their high prices. I imagine if someone could build an S&B for half of what S&B does and sell it for half of what S&B does, they would.
I've tried finding just basic info on internal scope designs, out of pure curiosity, and havent found anything meaningful.
The biggest reason is that the manufacturer of the glass is largely irrelevant to the vast majority of scope buyers. Who makes it is far less important than how it is specified and manufactured.
One of the (very) few glass manufacturer names that is readily recognized here makes everything from lenses for high-end scopes to simple flat panes of glass that are used for appliance fascias. I'm pretty damn sure that you could go to them, get lenses made that were roughly the same optical quality as the bottom of glass cookware, and then advertise that your fancy new scope uses Brand X glass. Would this having any meaning? Nope, none at all.
One of the (very) few glass manufacturer names that is readily recognized here makes everything from lenses for high-end scopes to simple flat panes of glass that are used for appliance fascias. I'm pretty damn sure that you could go to them, get lenses made that were roughly the same optical quality as the bottom of glass cookware, and then advertise that your fancy new scope uses Brand X glass. Would this having any meaning? Nope, none at all.
All the answers above sound correct to me, especially this one.
It's pretty interesting, I used to test camera lenses as part of my living and I always thought it was funny how photo folks get all excited about Schott glass and Zeiss this and Leica that... I've tested Schott glass based lenses that were simply kickass and have also found absolute DOGS made from the same glass.
On another note, one of the largest manufacturers of the highest grade optical glass is also well know for making budget glass... but their name is so famous and highly regarded, that people will pay a premium for that budget glass that is no better than old window glass.
The thing that I found the funniest by far was that the best photographic lenses I've ever come across weren't even made with german glass... but with japanese glass. Easily out-resolved anything germany could come up with.
Fuji > Zeiss
I just spoke with Dave at US Opics and what is stated above is what I gathered was at least U S Opics reason for keep information secret. I called Dave because it is a US Optics scope I'm interested in purchasing. I can understand that they are having glass made by manufactor X to their specifications. If the glass is not what they order they will no doubt reject it. Same as to the company that polishes and make the glass a useable lens. So long as US Optics has excellent quality control their should be no problems.
The lens coatings are AT LEAST as important as the glass itself.
I certainly agree with you but I'm thinking scope makers are going to keep that info. secret too.
Bottom line: I have two Premier Heritage 5-25x56 and I just want the glass to be at least as good as those two. If the price of the Premier had not gone into the stratosphere I'd probably just get another.
Since there's only a few different plants around the world that make glass, most scope makers get their glass from the same plant.
Lots of camera lenses are made with PLASTIC lenses now. The are less expensive to make and work very well. It would make no difference with the softer lenses being internal. It all has to do with the refractive index needed for the application. A lighter lens can hold up to recoil better. All we care about is reliability, image quality, price, weight, etc...
Thats not surprising, scope manufacturers keep many trade secrets, . Ive heard some disclose what specifications they have for certain models as far as light transmission per lens or small insignificant figures regarding their standards...Ive heard as much as their acceptable scale with a lens quality as well as averages (full light transmission, actual magnification range and acceptable accuracy in mag ring, adjustments etc..) However, information such as the number of lenses used or anything to do with assembly or their purchases is not disclosed (from my experience... ive spoke with a few about it).
There may be some that are more open. there are surely a few that are more pleasant to speak with and are more comfortable spending time on the phone discussing or explaining their products
There may be some that are more open. there are surely a few that are more pleasant to speak with and are more comfortable spending time on the phone discussing or explaining their products
Almost all manufacturers get their glass from the same places...Asia (china and japan) and/or Europe Leupold is honest about this.. US Optics may be the only US made scopes that uses US made glass that I know of. Just like cars, they may be assembled in the US but the parts are from all over.
Bingo. I am pretty certain there is another place for coatings and what not after the glass arrives. As far as making glass there is likely a large menu of options and materials offering lots of customization and price points but all the glass for everyone rolls out of the same facilities.
Zeiss, Meopta, and IOR all disclose that their glass is sourced from Schott Glasswerks.
I worked for a long-defunct optical contractor in the late 1960's. Customers ranged from NASA (Apollo Command Module Windows, and an entire Solar Optical Tracking and Observation telescope network, arranged worldwide in an equatorial line, over a dozen altogether), National Bureau of Standards, Sandia labs, etc.
We performed assembly to extreme standards, but did not produce any of the optical lenses, mirrors, or plates it employed. They come from sources ranging from Zeiss to Edmund Scientific. In some cases, one contractor produced the glass blanks, another did the grinding and polishing, and yet another did the coatings. We did the mountings.
My responsibility was to engage and follow all the subcontracting. Among many items, Fabry-Perot Interferometer Plates and Spacecraft Windows, commercial camera lenses and $200,000 NASA telescopes (in 1968), my mandate was always the same. It gets done right or it get done over, and done over costs people their jobs, myself included. In some cases, that potential included intangible treasures like the lives of American Astronauts.
As stated above, originators make products to all standards, and the important component is not something you hold in your hand, it's something you hold in your heart.
While it's not often possible to make relevant determinations with the naked eye, one eventually develops a 'critical eye' for quality, maybe from the sheen off a coating, or the shape of the distortion in a reflection against a white wall. I have lived through the Made In Japan prejudice, and see it now in the Made in China antipathy. The name of the country mean little now, less than before, will be less yet to come. The Japanese have earned a good rep and the Chinese are coming along rather well too. There was a time when things made in Germany held an almost mystical reverence; this may still be so, it may not.
The important name is the one on the box, and the esteem in which they hold that name, their own name.
Greg
We performed assembly to extreme standards, but did not produce any of the optical lenses, mirrors, or plates it employed. They come from sources ranging from Zeiss to Edmund Scientific. In some cases, one contractor produced the glass blanks, another did the grinding and polishing, and yet another did the coatings. We did the mountings.
My responsibility was to engage and follow all the subcontracting. Among many items, Fabry-Perot Interferometer Plates and Spacecraft Windows, commercial camera lenses and $200,000 NASA telescopes (in 1968), my mandate was always the same. It gets done right or it get done over, and done over costs people their jobs, myself included. In some cases, that potential included intangible treasures like the lives of American Astronauts.
As stated above, originators make products to all standards, and the important component is not something you hold in your hand, it's something you hold in your heart.
While it's not often possible to make relevant determinations with the naked eye, one eventually develops a 'critical eye' for quality, maybe from the sheen off a coating, or the shape of the distortion in a reflection against a white wall. I have lived through the Made In Japan prejudice, and see it now in the Made in China antipathy. The name of the country mean little now, less than before, will be less yet to come. The Japanese have earned a good rep and the Chinese are coming along rather well too. There was a time when things made in Germany held an almost mystical reverence; this may still be so, it may not.
The important name is the one on the box, and the esteem in which they hold that name, their own name.
Greg
Last edited:
There is one other small problem, the "Made in...." statement. There are far too many companies that have large amount of their work done outside the US (China for example), do some of the final work here and claim "Made in USA". There are those that sell shirts for example, the cloth is made outside the US, the cutting is done outside the US, but the final sewing is done in the US, and they like to claim made in USA. Assembled in USA, would be a more honest way of putting it. I've heard there are at least two high-end scope makers from europe, that in fact have a lot of glass made in China. I would think if company X had its glass made and ground in the USA, you would hear about it in their ads-every chance they got, in fact they would put it in big red letters ---100%American made comes to mind.
Some companies do not disclose where various components come from to keep those very component providers from knowing that they are sole source providers. It gives those companies additional leverage during contract negotiations.
Similar threads
