• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Rifle Scopes Top Shelf Glass

madppcs

madppcs

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
    • Oct 23, 2011
    1,109
    2,091
    44
    Forest hill, Louisiana
    So what really makes glass differ between the TOP tier, premium companys? Are there different manufacturers of glass for scopes? Or is it kinda like the AR-Lower where a manufacturer will make a lower for (ABC) company AND (XYZ)?

    Reason I ask is because I have a Leup Mk4, Nighforce, and I just entered the US Optics world. And to me, my eyes cant tell the difference between my Mk4 glass and my Nightforce glass(When comparing clarity alone)...

    So without taking bells and whistles into play, lets discuss the 1st most important function of a scope. (Being able to see through it.)

    I assume that clarity is like the reference to speed and money. (How fast do you wanna go? = How clear do you wanna go?) Is spending $3500 on a scope worth the (Extra) minute clarity that one may or may-not be able to tell vs. buying a $2000 scope? Is it even the SAME glass? From the SAME company?
     
    Re: Top Shelf Glass

    I think at a certain point it ends up like high end stereo equipment. Diminishing returns. Well at least in regards to clarity. There are other optical benefits that some scopes might have which won't be obvious without extensive use,

    The difference between my NF and leupolds is that the NF has a fixed eye relief, is brighter in low light and doesn't have the weird orange hue that I see in leupolds. (Yet nobody else seems to notice). Mainly I care about how well my scope tracks and the NF does that very well. Some of my scopes see better through glare. Some see better through intense mirage. That's what I notice about my US Optics. Not only is the image more clear, but I see through pretty much all conditions better than with other scopes. Also eye strain is a lot better and reticle focus is solid. Depth of field is really good and parallax is minimal even if it isn't dialed out. Also I notice more through the USO which isn't so obvious when looking out a window. Like better trace and even the back of a bullet being lit up in flight from the sun at our backs.
     
    Re: Top Shelf Glass

    Most people think about optical quality like you could just use "expensive glass" to turn a bad scope into a good scope. That is like thinking that the use of a different steel will turn a gas impingement AR into a piston driven AR, or a Bushmaster ACR into an FN SCAR. Not going to happen, they are different designs and will therefore have different strengths and weaknesses, and they may well use different materials for different parts because the parts serve a different purpose, but using the same materials for both will not make them the same.

    Glass is a material with certain physical properties, and those properties can be specified and standardized just like steel alloys. You need certain physical properties for a certain optical formula to work correctly, and if you are willing to pay for glass with especially desirable physical properties, you may have to pay more because those materials are more expensive. This only makes sense if the use of that material is figured into the overall optical design and is properly being taken advantage of. You cannot replace one glass type in a crappy optical system with a "better" glass type and get good performance, it doesn't work like that.

    If the specs of the material are met, it doesn't matter who made it. For most glass types, there are multiple suppilers that you can choose from, just like you can choose from different manufacturers of the aluminum for the tube.

    Bottom line is, look at the resulting image quality to judge the image quality of a scope, not some fancy marketing talk about who made the glass and who managed to slap the most acronyms on it (ED, HD etc.).

    Oh, and of course image quality is only part of a LR scope, solid mechanical design is a necessary prerequisite to make proper use of the optics.
     
     
    Re: Top Shelf Glass

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Salmonaxe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think at a certain point it ends up like high end stereo equipment. Diminishing returns. Well at least in regards to clarity. There are other optical benefits that some scopes might have which won't be obvious without extensive use</div></div>

    This is pretty much what I was going to say
     
    Re: Top Shelf Glass

    Most higher end optics also have high end glass S&B, Kahles, Premier. Look at a S&B and look through your Leopold you can see a difference, whether it is worth it is up to you. I use IOR scopes they have high end glass (which I prefer) and IMO all the functions that you could want in a mid price range scope.
     
    Re: Top Shelf Glass

    The difference in clarity and light transmission shows up in adverse conditions.
    One member here wrote about a shot he took when hunting at dusk with an S&B. With the low light condition at that particular time, he stated that with any of his other scopes he could not have differentiated the animal (target) from the background and surrounding vegetation, and could not have made the shot.

    Other things like FFP, turrets with double turn elevation indicators, etc., set top tier scopes apart.

    I'm in the process of buying a Bushnell XRS to replace an S&B PMII 5-25. The S&B has the best glass I've ever used and an unreal amount of elevation but I'm afraid I will never take advantage of what it has over the optics Bushnell is turning out right now, and who couldn't use an extra $900 or so?

    There are those, however, that can utilize all of the performance the best rifle scopes have to offer and for them there are S&B, Hensoldt, March, etc.

    Joe
     
    35 years ago, I designed stereo equipment, and my father designed split gears in gun sight adjustments to get rid of backlash.

    Now I am just an old fart.

    Leupold 14X has the resolution of IOR on 10X.

    But when trying to find a stationary brown ground squirrel on brown dirt, the tiny difference in color is lost to the IOR, but can be found with the Leupold.
     
    The first biggest thing is how finely the glass is ground. That is the clarity issue right there. Second is what coatings go on the glass and how many lenses throughout the scope get what coatings. Coatings can help because the 'dampen' the various colors of the spectrum. A great example of that is Steiner Predators over any of their similar type bino's. The coatings on the lenses dampen the basic colors blue and yellow (yellow, blue, and red are basic colors), which makes browns stand out better against greens. (brown is a mix of red, yellow and blue. Green is a mix of blue and yellow). You still see the basic colors, but by dampening the ones the deer has in common with it's background you make it stand out better. That is only one example of many, but the most pronounced of those I've seen.

    Lastly, the construction of the scope has a lot to do with cost. Not just glass and coating quality and ability. A tougher well built scope is going to run a lot more. A scope whose adjustments work the same every time with no slop over time. all the way through it's whole range of travel. That's going to be where a lot of cost is.
     
    Glass is only part of the equation. Everyone harps on how clear the glass is but doesn't think about the internals and the tracking which in my opinion is much more important. You can have the best glass in the world but if you have crap internals and your scope doesn't track you got an expensive telescope. In the higher end scopes you are also paying for the quality and reliability of the internals and tracking over the life of the scope.
     
    Mercedes or a BMW? Honestly, I´d love to upgrade to tier one optics but can´t sweat the price at the moment, too. I looked (and shot on borrowed rifles) through several and to me, from this limited experience, is not in the glass - they´re equally excellent - but in other manufacturing details and ergonomics. In that, Premier and SB stand out for me. Now to find that gold nugget to pay for one of them.
     
    As Rob said, internals are crucial, coatings let you get the most from well made lenses.


    Don't forget the old adage "Buy once, cry once.".

    Then consider resale. S&B, USO, Premier don't last long in the Optics For Sale section. Other brands can hang around for a while.

    Good luck.
     
    I'm craving a Nightforce F1, but the Vortex will have to do for now. This is one expensive hobby!
     
    Rob01 said:
    Glass is only part of the equation. Everyone harps on how clear the glass is but doesn't think about the internals and the tracking which in my opinion is much more important. You can have the best glass in the world but if you have crap internals and your scope doesn't track you got an expensive telescope. In the higher end scopes you are also paying for the quality and reliability of the internals and tracking over the life of the scope.
    Click to expand...

    Agreed. It's about more than glass quality, though that is the easiest difference to spot. After spending all day working with a new Bushnell HDMR, I hopped over to my trusty S&B and was almost floored how much clearer and crisper the image was on the S&B, particularly at full magnification. But that's just one part of the equation and I think you'll find the lower-end optics having more tracking and durability issues than the high-end scopes. And with all of this stuff, it really depends on what you're using it for. Getting a high-end scope for plinking seems just as silly as risking your life in the mountains of A'stan with a Bushnell.
     
    Having spent time in the photography field, the glass itself is important, but a small part of the equation. But, there are non-glass elements that can be used to reduce chromatic aberration and increase overall lens performance.

    Coatings have been mentioned. And are VERY important. Coatings reduce internal reflections, which reduce light transmission and contrast. When you talk about a brown squirrel on brown ground, or very low light conditions, coatings are what make most of that difference.

    Filters have been mentioned. These can increase certain contrasts, but at the expense of others. Filters can be incorporated into the coatings or be a separate item. In photography, filters are add on, so you can pick the right one for the desired result AT THAT TIME.

    Grinding the glass. How accurate are the shapes? Less accurate shapes reduce resolution and can help create internal reflections.

    And then you get into how the lenses are mounted. How well built the scope is. etc. etc.
     
    Rob01 said:
    Glass is only part of the equation. Everyone harps on how clear the glass is but doesn't think about the internals and the tracking which in my opinion is much more important. You can have the best glass in the world but if you have crap internals and your scope doesn't track you got an expensive telescope. In the higher end scopes you are also paying for the quality and reliability of the internals and tracking over the life of the scope.
    Click to expand...

    If you formed your opinions from reading these forums you would think that the glass is THE MOST important factor in a tactical scope. You would have to read through quite a few posts before you found one that was accurate, then you might just pass over it and keep hopping down the popular bunny trail to nowhere.

    Rob01's post is the one that should get your attention if you are into tactical rifles.

    Not to say that bird watching is necessarily a bad thing...
     
    Pretending that image quality doesn't count and is somewhat of a red herring is just as much of a fallacy as neglecting mechanical quality while looking for the best image quality. You can only hit what you can see, and what you can sight in on accurately.

    True, there are cases where optical quality isn't important but accuracy/reliability of the adjustments is. That is the case when the target is clearly and easily visible, but the scope has to be adjusted in order to achieve the correct POA. Probably those cases are more common in LR shooting. But then there's also those cases where the target is barely just visible or has to be identified absolutely positively before you can even decide to make the shot. In those cases the image quality will make or break the shot.

    It may be necessary to set people straight that believe that scope quality=image quality (with the addition of equating "glass" quality, as in the physical material "glass", to image quality, which blurs any possible understanding of what makes good optics before it even arises), but playing image quality off against mechanical quality is almost like telling everyone who asks for a good scope that a good scope will do nothing for him if his rifle doesn't shoot well. Of course it doesn't but that wasn't even the question in the first place.
     
    Hmmm. Maybe you need to re-read the two posts you are referring to?

    Did someone say "image quality doesn't count"?

    We all have bad days...

    Also, the OP's original post may give you some insight to the focus of the thread that Rob01 and I were addressing?
     
    Last edited:
    I might be scourged for this....

    To my eye, NF and Leupold's latest technology are equal and plainly behind my Schmidts and Diavari FL stuff. And I'd say "minute" is an understatement. I'll go a step further...were it not for the reputation for repeatability and crazy toughness that NF has rightfully earned...NF would be just another scope manufacturer trying to play with the big boys. I've owned several NF scopes and never had a moments trouble. Tough as a pit bull for sure. But if the context is optical quality....to my eye, it's apparent which places the superior glass in their products.
     
    What Jefferson said. I never said glass doesn't matter but people get all wrapped around the axle on just glass. It's only one part of the equation and there are more important things in the scope. I wasn't pitting one against the other but trying to get the OP and others who are glass crazy to think about the big picture. Honestly I would rather have a scope with great internals and less impressive glass as you will still hit the target. Get a scope that has great glass but doesn't track. You have a useless tool.
     
    Im not (Glass Crazy) lol.. My point was to take the top tier scopes, and compare the glass to each other. What actually goes into making glass the absolute best, and whats the difference between them. We all know that with different manufacturers you get bells and whistles, and different mechanical options. But what sets the different glass manufacturers apart? Does (ABC Glass company) provide glass for Leupold only? Or do they provide for multiple companies like my reference to AR lowers?
     
    Lukas Koukal said:
    Mercedes or a BMW? Honestly, I´d love to upgrade to tier one optics but can´t sweat the price at the moment, too. I looked (and shot on borrowed rifles) through several and to me, from this limited experience, is not in the glass - they´re equally excellent - but in other manufacturing details and ergonomics. In that, Premier and SB stand out for me. Now to find that gold nugget to pay for one of them.
    Click to expand...

    That would be almost a 3 oz nugget :)
     
    Check out the Steiner 4-16x50. I"ve been shooting one for three years now and it is great. $2,300 MAP, best deal available right now... IMHO
     
    I love my March F 3-24 42mm. Use it on my RW Snyder 308. Clear with floating dot open reticle to not obscure your target. Never let's me down. I'm still a relative newbie and all my rifles still shoot better than me. Just need to get in some more practice.
     
    The "bad" glass has caught up to the "good" glass quite a bit in recent times. Really, I think that durability / construction is a higher-tier issue at this point, unless you get a lemon (visible imperfections at higher zooms), which is obviously statistically more likely with "bad" glass. Either way, lifetime warranties are the industry standard, just be prepared to be without your scope for an extended time period considering how busy everyone is.
     
    Gale passed on 13 years ago, I can no longer find the emails he sent me about scopes, but his internet forum posts can be found.
    He got a contract to build scopes for the marines, and so many many trips to Asia.
    He often said that all lenses are ground with the same program, but the coatings and other parts of the scope make the difference.

    [q]From: Gale McMillan <" gale"@mcmfamily.com>
    Newsgroups: rec.guns
    Subject: Re: [Scopes] Which (non-Leupold) brand is best?
    Date: 11 May 1997 16:49:17 -0400

    Just for the record Nikon doesn't make their scopes or lens. They are
    contracted to the lowest bidder. The last I heard they were being made
    in the Philippines I think. I buy lens from the same manufacturers as
    most of the Japanese Manufactured Scopes so I feel I can speak with
    first hand experience. Lens are polished to a standard which is the
    number and size of digs and dings that are not polished out. Then they
    are coated to aid in light transmission. The better lens are coated
    with a 4 layer coating and all use the same formula. The glass types
    are dictated by the computer designed lens system and the flint and
    crown glass all come from the same areas and the same computer design
    programs are used by almost every one in the industry     What I am saying
    is while you may think one is better than the next. The only difference
    between a Leupold, B&L Simmons or any of the rest of the scopes that use
    Japans lens is the amount of quality control The importer is willing to
    pay for. When it comes to mechanical design only the American companies
    design their own mechanical systems. All Japanese scopes use nearly
    identical designs so there is very little difference. The big
    difference is where the importer wants to fit in the market place and
    what he is willing to pay for. If you stay within the same price range
    it doesn't make much difference what you buy if it is an import. I
    would pay more attention to which company makes it as that is the big
    difference. And one last comment. The scope companies don't polish
    their own lens, they buy them from lens manufacturers and price dictates
    quality.I have been in the lens factory when the buyer for one of the
    best known European scope companies was there on a buying trip so the
    name on the scope doesn't mean a thing on where the glass comes from.

    Gale McMillan[/q]
     
    Last edited:
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Similar threads

    S
    ATI and Tangent Theta Sales Guy Interview (and talk on glass sources)
    Replies
    1
    Views
    361
    Birddog6424
    Birddog6424
    TheMoondog
    Tract Toric UHD 27-55 spotter review
    Replies
    0
    Views
    324
    TheMoondog
    TheMoondog
    P
    Rifle Scopes Zeiss S3 6-36 vs Tract 4.5-30
    Replies
    6
    Views
    760
    penguinofsleep
    P
    diggler1833
    Got a Chance to Compare "Pretty Guud" With "Guud Enuff"
    Replies
    11
    Views
    729
    shields shtr
    S
    Glassaholic
    Rifle Scopes Steiner T6Xi 3-18x56 Review and comparison with NF ATACR 4-16x42, S&B US 3-20x50 and March 4.5-28x52
    Replies
    115
    Views
    5K
    TheBigCountry
    TheBigCountry
    Top Bottom
    Back