Everyone always advocates spending at least at much on glass as the rig. Now, my cousin shoots a 30-06 with a cheap tasco all day and it stays true. Are we talking adverse conditions? How the scope sucks in more light? The clarity? Explain to me why after you get to a certain point, riflescopes get prohibitedly expensive. I've been lookin at a bushnell elite 3200 10x40 mildot for $225. My cousin tells me I'm an idiot for even thinking about spending that much on glass... yet to you guys, its so cheap. Whats goin on here?
Rifle Scopes What truely defines good glass?
- Thread starter NorthEastWinter
- Start date
Re: What truely defines good glass?
LOL...you are trying to start a flame war aren't ya?
I think the term "good glass" is used on the shooting boards rather loosely. Me being from the astronomy and birding side, I have more rigorous definition of "good glass".
From what I've seen in scopes, I think it is important to set apart what I consider to be good glass from good optical design. The interaction of the two gets confused.
Here is how I would define "good glass"...beware, it will get engineeringish:
1. Lens are fully multicoated
2. Lens used are edge blacken
3. Lens used results in apochromatic image
4. The coating on the lenses all seek to destructively interfere with same light wavelength as to not lose other parts of the light spectrum
Now as for "good design":
1. Scopes are designed with higher F ratios
2. Eyepiece lens are more complicated well corrected 5 or more element designs
3. Objective lens could be doublets or triplets with possible ED elements to ensure apochromatism - related with #3 of good glass
4. Scope tube is adequately or well baffled to maximize image contrast
5. Scope tube has enough diameter so light doesn't get bent too much and cause either image distortion or reflections off the tube.
The very best alpha scopes use a combination of good glass and good design
LOL...you are trying to start a flame war aren't ya?
I think the term "good glass" is used on the shooting boards rather loosely. Me being from the astronomy and birding side, I have more rigorous definition of "good glass".
From what I've seen in scopes, I think it is important to set apart what I consider to be good glass from good optical design. The interaction of the two gets confused.
Here is how I would define "good glass"...beware, it will get engineeringish:
1. Lens are fully multicoated
2. Lens used are edge blacken
3. Lens used results in apochromatic image
4. The coating on the lenses all seek to destructively interfere with same light wavelength as to not lose other parts of the light spectrum
Now as for "good design":
1. Scopes are designed with higher F ratios
2. Eyepiece lens are more complicated well corrected 5 or more element designs
3. Objective lens could be doublets or triplets with possible ED elements to ensure apochromatism - related with #3 of good glass
4. Scope tube is adequately or well baffled to maximize image contrast
5. Scope tube has enough diameter so light doesn't get bent too much and cause either image distortion or reflections off the tube.
The very best alpha scopes use a combination of good glass and good design
Re: What truely defines good glass?
Fill out your profile and spend a little time wandering through the optics forum......
Fill out your profile and spend a little time wandering through the optics forum......
Re: What truely defines good glass?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CanPopper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL...you are trying to start a flame war aren't ya?
I think the term "good glass" is used on the shooting boards rather loosely. Me being from the astronomy and birding side, I have more rigorous definition of "good glass".
From what I've seen in scopes, I think it is important to set apart what I consider to be good glass from good optical design. The interaction of the two gets confused.
Here is how I would define "good glass"...beware, it will get engineeringish:
1. Lens are fully multicoated
2. Lens used are edge blacken
3. Lens used results in apochromatic image
4. The coating on the lenses all seek to destructively interfere with same light wavelength as to not lose other parts of the light spectrum
Now as for "good design":
1. Scopes are designed with higher F ratios
2. Eyepiece lens are more complicated well corrected 5 or more element designs
3. Objective lens could be doublets or triplets with possible ED elements to ensure apochromatism - related with #3 of good glass
4. Scope tube is adequately or well baffled to maximize image contrast
5. Scope tube has enough diameter so light doesn't get bent too much and cause either image distortion or reflections off the tube.
The very best alpha scopes use a combination of good glass and good design </div></div>
Cool story bro
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CanPopper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL...you are trying to start a flame war aren't ya?
I think the term "good glass" is used on the shooting boards rather loosely. Me being from the astronomy and birding side, I have more rigorous definition of "good glass".
From what I've seen in scopes, I think it is important to set apart what I consider to be good glass from good optical design. The interaction of the two gets confused.
Here is how I would define "good glass"...beware, it will get engineeringish:
1. Lens are fully multicoated
2. Lens used are edge blacken
3. Lens used results in apochromatic image
4. The coating on the lenses all seek to destructively interfere with same light wavelength as to not lose other parts of the light spectrum
Now as for "good design":
1. Scopes are designed with higher F ratios
2. Eyepiece lens are more complicated well corrected 5 or more element designs
3. Objective lens could be doublets or triplets with possible ED elements to ensure apochromatism - related with #3 of good glass
4. Scope tube is adequately or well baffled to maximize image contrast
5. Scope tube has enough diameter so light doesn't get bent too much and cause either image distortion or reflections off the tube.
The very best alpha scopes use a combination of good glass and good design </div></div>
Cool story bro
Re: What truely defines good glass?
very helpful, thank you
very helpful, thank you
Re: What truely defines good glass?
Having a good image is fine and all but if it won't track as advertised, and be repeatable, then it's a paper weight. You can do just fine using a scope with poor optics and excellent mechanicals.
Spend the dollars on a scope that works properly, the optical properties won't be far behind.
Having a good image is fine and all but if it won't track as advertised, and be repeatable, then it's a paper weight. You can do just fine using a scope with poor optics and excellent mechanicals.
Spend the dollars on a scope that works properly, the optical properties won't be far behind.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
You can never spend enough on a scope. A quality scope will last a lifetime. Europeans usually spend more for the scope than the rifle. Here we usually spend more for the rifle then the scope. A quality scope is an investment that will retain its value. But remember. A scope makes you see better not shoot better.
You can never spend enough on a scope. A quality scope will last a lifetime. Europeans usually spend more for the scope than the rifle. Here we usually spend more for the rifle then the scope. A quality scope is an investment that will retain its value. But remember. A scope makes you see better not shoot better.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
I am certain that the folks who sell optics absolutely love this site.
I am certain that the folks who sell optics absolutely love this site.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
When you get a chance to compare a Tasco to a Nightforce, a Bushnell to a Schmidt & Bender, or a BSA to a Leupold, you will see the differences. Quality is something you pay for.
Most of the money goes into good lenses. You are getting coke-bottle glass for $20, hubble telescope glass for $2000. Edge to edge clarity, distortion free, color and light transmission..you pay for that.
Quality tubes are durable, usually sealed with noble gases, and the exterior finish is usually a hard anodizing that holds up to abuse.
Good scopes have repeatable adjustments in the turrets. Crisp, audible or felt clicks that are consistant and even in their engagement. If you click 3 up, and 3 down, the turret is in the same location every time. A cheap scope will feel mushy and inconsistant.
Compare US Optics, Premier Heritage, Schmidt & Bender, and Hensoldt's products to the lower tier scopes and SEE the difference.
When you get a chance to compare a Tasco to a Nightforce, a Bushnell to a Schmidt & Bender, or a BSA to a Leupold, you will see the differences. Quality is something you pay for.
Most of the money goes into good lenses. You are getting coke-bottle glass for $20, hubble telescope glass for $2000. Edge to edge clarity, distortion free, color and light transmission..you pay for that.
Quality tubes are durable, usually sealed with noble gases, and the exterior finish is usually a hard anodizing that holds up to abuse.
Good scopes have repeatable adjustments in the turrets. Crisp, audible or felt clicks that are consistant and even in their engagement. If you click 3 up, and 3 down, the turret is in the same location every time. A cheap scope will feel mushy and inconsistant.
Compare US Optics, Premier Heritage, Schmidt & Bender, and Hensoldt's products to the lower tier scopes and SEE the difference.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
Yeah I've spent hours in store comparing clarify and light transmission. Seems to me that the guys who'll talk gunscopes with me mostly seem to think that a 1 or 2 percent better light transmission isn't worth the 300% to 500% price increase. They'll go on and on about american, japanese and central european lenses and some that are even crystal. Where does this extra little bit of difference come into play?
Yeah I've spent hours in store comparing clarify and light transmission. Seems to me that the guys who'll talk gunscopes with me mostly seem to think that a 1 or 2 percent better light transmission isn't worth the 300% to 500% price increase. They'll go on and on about american, japanese and central european lenses and some that are even crystal. Where does this extra little bit of difference come into play?
Re: What truely defines good glass?
The difference comes into play in the long term.
Almost every scope looks great right out of the box or on the gun store shelf, the money comes into play in the long term reliability and the long term durability of the coatings.
The big dollar scopes that I use go to work with very little concern for their safety. They spend hours in the sun, they get exposed to sand, rain, fingerprints, etc and still they look every bit as clear as the day I got them. There is no break down in the quality.
I have seen many, lower quality scopes who's glass after similar use look as though you are using it underwater. They develop a haze to them because their coatings have broken down, even if the internal happen to last.
The biggest issue, is inside, the mechanics of the scope, but in terms of the glass, the difference for me is long term, after heavy unapologetic use.
The difference comes into play in the long term.
Almost every scope looks great right out of the box or on the gun store shelf, the money comes into play in the long term reliability and the long term durability of the coatings.
The big dollar scopes that I use go to work with very little concern for their safety. They spend hours in the sun, they get exposed to sand, rain, fingerprints, etc and still they look every bit as clear as the day I got them. There is no break down in the quality.
I have seen many, lower quality scopes who's glass after similar use look as though you are using it underwater. They develop a haze to them because their coatings have broken down, even if the internal happen to last.
The biggest issue, is inside, the mechanics of the scope, but in terms of the glass, the difference for me is long term, after heavy unapologetic use.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NorthEastWinter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yeah I've spent hours in store comparing clarify and light transmission. Seems to me that the guys who'll talk gunscopes with me mostly seem to think that a 1 or 2 percent better light transmission isn't worth the 300% to 500% price increase. They'll go on and on about american, japanese and central european lenses and some that are even crystal. Where does this extra little bit of difference come into play? </div></div>
Other than the biggest, obvious advantage of long term durability that has already been mentioned, the only time I really notice the difference between a $200 scope and a $2000 scope is in lower light conditions. In a hunting situation, or at the range as the sun goes down, you will notice a big difference between great glass and decent glass. In perfect conditions, I can see just as well with a lower priced scope as a high dollar one. that is what made it so difficult for me to part with the funds for a high end scope the first time. Now that I have done it, I could never go back. It would be akin to switching back to standard definition TV.
This doesnt even address the issues with returning to zero after repeatedly dialing your 6-700 yard(much further for others) dope. This is another factor that distinguishes the high dollar scopes from the cheaper ones. and is critical if you intend to dial elevation, obviously.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NorthEastWinter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yeah I've spent hours in store comparing clarify and light transmission. Seems to me that the guys who'll talk gunscopes with me mostly seem to think that a 1 or 2 percent better light transmission isn't worth the 300% to 500% price increase. They'll go on and on about american, japanese and central european lenses and some that are even crystal. Where does this extra little bit of difference come into play? </div></div>
Other than the biggest, obvious advantage of long term durability that has already been mentioned, the only time I really notice the difference between a $200 scope and a $2000 scope is in lower light conditions. In a hunting situation, or at the range as the sun goes down, you will notice a big difference between great glass and decent glass. In perfect conditions, I can see just as well with a lower priced scope as a high dollar one. that is what made it so difficult for me to part with the funds for a high end scope the first time. Now that I have done it, I could never go back. It would be akin to switching back to standard definition TV.
This doesnt even address the issues with returning to zero after repeatedly dialing your 6-700 yard(much further for others) dope. This is another factor that distinguishes the high dollar scopes from the cheaper ones. and is critical if you intend to dial elevation, obviously.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
Quality and durability is what i want!!
There is truely not 1 scope that can do everything. They all have pluses and minuses. You need to decide what you are doing and find the scope that can do it the best for you.
The only way a scope will do 100% of what you want it to do is if you shoot the same thing day in and day out.
But if you shoot tactical matches and or work in a tactical envirnoment you will never find a scope that will give you the advantage in everything thats why I say you will never find a scope that will do it all.
I want dead on adjustments and reliabilty in my tracking. I can give up a little in other areas if i can get that.
So with everyones eyes being different and the way you shoot being different everyone is going to have different opinions.
Quality and durability is what i want!!
There is truely not 1 scope that can do everything. They all have pluses and minuses. You need to decide what you are doing and find the scope that can do it the best for you.
The only way a scope will do 100% of what you want it to do is if you shoot the same thing day in and day out.
But if you shoot tactical matches and or work in a tactical envirnoment you will never find a scope that will give you the advantage in everything thats why I say you will never find a scope that will do it all.
I want dead on adjustments and reliabilty in my tracking. I can give up a little in other areas if i can get that.
So with everyones eyes being different and the way you shoot being different everyone is going to have different opinions.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
Go to dunhams or gander mtn and drop $75 on a scope and $25 on rings. About the time you get it sighted in on a 50bmg you will be pulling it back off to use as a stir stick for mixing paint!
Go to dunhams or gander mtn and drop $75 on a scope and $25 on rings. About the time you get it sighted in on a 50bmg you will be pulling it back off to use as a stir stick for mixing paint!
Re: What truely defines good glass?
When I read a post on this site, where somebody has posted "great glass", I'm thinking exceptional optical clarity and quality. Yet, like the saying: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", it is somewhat difficult to compare lens systems because each user has different vision characteristics and much of our vision is selective. Another factor I believe to be a wildcard is contrast and other color balance factors that are engineered into the optic.
Theoretically, the best optic would be the lens with greatest clarity, and color neutrality, showing no change at any magnification level, but are riflescopes or any terra observation lenses actually engineered to deliver those parameters? Probably not. I'm not an optical engineer so can't answer definitively, but along with cost and manufacturing design considerations, there is the matter of what the consumer expects from the product.
Doing a google on telescope design and other key phrases, I found a 6mmBR.com article (http://www.6mmbr.com/optics.html). The author states, "Image Contrast: Take two scopes with equal optical resolution (sharpness), and give one better image contrast and it will be better for target use. More contrast helps you resolve fine lines and pick out bullet holes better. Some scopes have excellent light transmission, but they would appear much sharper if they were tuned for better contrast. Image quality can also be improved with lens coatings that filter out UV and specific blue wavelengths that degrade perceived image sharpness."
Recently saw that Hensoldt Optronics or maybe a Zeiss spotting scope I looked at has optional Yellow filter available.
I have wondered for a while why screw in lenses weren't ever used on a rifle scope. Why not get the color balance YOU need and want? Skylight and other color filters make a lot of difference on film. A Red or Green filter will heighten variations in the color warmth of various subjects. Might show camouflaged persons or gear more clearly as well. A UV filter can cut the haze and for sure would keep your objective lens free from dirt or having its coatings scratched.
Hell, quality SLR cameras have interchangeable viewfinders and one in particular, a sports-finder Nikon/Canon could be adapted to scopesights. Why not offer a way to use huge objective lenses but with adjustable height occular lens?
Basically, what I am saying is "Best Glass" is much a matter of color balance and contrast; for the perception of the user. If you can alter your scopes contrast and color balance with filters, many "lesser scopes" might not be lesser at all...
I find that most "great glass" scopes are too damn heavy and have ungainly long ocular lens groups, long tubes, long objective lens, and sometimes even have turret housings that are several inches long. Did I mention that over 3lbs with rings is "too damn heavy"?
Needless to say, a "great glass" or "good glass" scope will not show any distortion anywhere in the sight picture at any magnification.
Any decent scope manufacturer/importer with even a pretense of customer service will have a fully staffed warranty & repair/service facility here in the USA. If not, what good is your "great glass" should the scope need adjustment, repair or you want it updated or changed?
I think all manufacturers could do better on inspections. New product that ships with easily spotted defect(s) is a disgrace.
Turret design and range of movement, reticle design and integration, illuminated reticle, parallax adjustment and ocular lens adjustment are all further factors that help define the scopesight, but aren't really related to the lens system clarity and performance.
I guess if a scoped rifle were left on the dash of a truck in the direct South Texas Sun, inside temps would be approaching 175F or more. Pretty good test of scope toughness. Would your warranty cover it were failure to occur? Some might not as they don't warrant problems arising from customer negligence.
There are many variable size filter housings in the photo industry. A pro photographer couldn't have a set of filters for each lens objective size and every format he used. So there are clamp-on frames and adapters... Might be very interesting to see how Leupold mk4, Burris XTR and other 2nd tier; even NightForce compare with filter adjustments for the user.
Fascinating topic.
When I read a post on this site, where somebody has posted "great glass", I'm thinking exceptional optical clarity and quality. Yet, like the saying: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", it is somewhat difficult to compare lens systems because each user has different vision characteristics and much of our vision is selective. Another factor I believe to be a wildcard is contrast and other color balance factors that are engineered into the optic.
Theoretically, the best optic would be the lens with greatest clarity, and color neutrality, showing no change at any magnification level, but are riflescopes or any terra observation lenses actually engineered to deliver those parameters? Probably not. I'm not an optical engineer so can't answer definitively, but along with cost and manufacturing design considerations, there is the matter of what the consumer expects from the product.
Doing a google on telescope design and other key phrases, I found a 6mmBR.com article (http://www.6mmbr.com/optics.html). The author states, "Image Contrast: Take two scopes with equal optical resolution (sharpness), and give one better image contrast and it will be better for target use. More contrast helps you resolve fine lines and pick out bullet holes better. Some scopes have excellent light transmission, but they would appear much sharper if they were tuned for better contrast. Image quality can also be improved with lens coatings that filter out UV and specific blue wavelengths that degrade perceived image sharpness."
Recently saw that Hensoldt Optronics or maybe a Zeiss spotting scope I looked at has optional Yellow filter available.
I have wondered for a while why screw in lenses weren't ever used on a rifle scope. Why not get the color balance YOU need and want? Skylight and other color filters make a lot of difference on film. A Red or Green filter will heighten variations in the color warmth of various subjects. Might show camouflaged persons or gear more clearly as well. A UV filter can cut the haze and for sure would keep your objective lens free from dirt or having its coatings scratched.
Hell, quality SLR cameras have interchangeable viewfinders and one in particular, a sports-finder Nikon/Canon could be adapted to scopesights. Why not offer a way to use huge objective lenses but with adjustable height occular lens?
Basically, what I am saying is "Best Glass" is much a matter of color balance and contrast; for the perception of the user. If you can alter your scopes contrast and color balance with filters, many "lesser scopes" might not be lesser at all...
I find that most "great glass" scopes are too damn heavy and have ungainly long ocular lens groups, long tubes, long objective lens, and sometimes even have turret housings that are several inches long. Did I mention that over 3lbs with rings is "too damn heavy"?
Needless to say, a "great glass" or "good glass" scope will not show any distortion anywhere in the sight picture at any magnification.
Any decent scope manufacturer/importer with even a pretense of customer service will have a fully staffed warranty & repair/service facility here in the USA. If not, what good is your "great glass" should the scope need adjustment, repair or you want it updated or changed?
I think all manufacturers could do better on inspections. New product that ships with easily spotted defect(s) is a disgrace.
Turret design and range of movement, reticle design and integration, illuminated reticle, parallax adjustment and ocular lens adjustment are all further factors that help define the scopesight, but aren't really related to the lens system clarity and performance.
I guess if a scoped rifle were left on the dash of a truck in the direct South Texas Sun, inside temps would be approaching 175F or more. Pretty good test of scope toughness. Would your warranty cover it were failure to occur? Some might not as they don't warrant problems arising from customer negligence.
There are many variable size filter housings in the photo industry. A pro photographer couldn't have a set of filters for each lens objective size and every format he used. So there are clamp-on frames and adapters... Might be very interesting to see how Leupold mk4, Burris XTR and other 2nd tier; even NightForce compare with filter adjustments for the user.
Fascinating topic.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
1. Can I identify the target?
2. Can I hit the target.
Everything else should be designed to support those two goals.
1. Can I identify the target?
2. Can I hit the target.
Everything else should be designed to support those two goals.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
What I'm basically aiming for is for the best and brightest in the forum to all converge on a topic they know very much about. I know there are some who'll respond... those who are responding just to flex the little knowledge they have. After all, knowledge is like jam, the less you have the more you try to spread it...
But so far I am overwhelmed by the vast array of legitimate attributes a scope should possess to be truely great. The sad part about this is, I am obviously the small fish in the pond. That only leaves room to grow.
The reason behind my inquiry is to take these attributes and pound forums like these and others for those who have or reviewed these mediocre scopes to find out which is the best in their respective price range. Everyone knows a big name scope manufacturer is going to put out a scope on par with others within it's price range. That's akin to yelling Porsche at a VW rally, people's heads are still going to turn. VW's are still tanks in comparison to most cars around the world in terms of engineering. I'd rather drive a solid VW, that hasn't broken my bank book, over an overpriced Porsche with air conditioning AND heated seats that can run simultaniously.
I understand I get what I pay for. But you all can't tell me there aren't a few diamonds in the rough. A scope that can return to zero over and over again (thank you hydro556),be reliable after years of abuse (thank you lowlight), and have lens coatings stand up to the test of time (again, thank you lowlight).
CanPopper opened my eyes, so to speak, to achromatic vs apochromatic images. Which then led me into learning about spherical aberration (really good stuff for those who wish to learn). After a night of research, I started to realize what he was talking about.
So if there is anyone out there that can attest to a good entry level scope for the money, please, let me know.
Sorry about the topic. I just wanted to draw the big cheeses out into the open. Maybe I have the blood of a sniper afterall...
What I'm basically aiming for is for the best and brightest in the forum to all converge on a topic they know very much about. I know there are some who'll respond... those who are responding just to flex the little knowledge they have. After all, knowledge is like jam, the less you have the more you try to spread it...
But so far I am overwhelmed by the vast array of legitimate attributes a scope should possess to be truely great. The sad part about this is, I am obviously the small fish in the pond. That only leaves room to grow.
The reason behind my inquiry is to take these attributes and pound forums like these and others for those who have or reviewed these mediocre scopes to find out which is the best in their respective price range. Everyone knows a big name scope manufacturer is going to put out a scope on par with others within it's price range. That's akin to yelling Porsche at a VW rally, people's heads are still going to turn. VW's are still tanks in comparison to most cars around the world in terms of engineering. I'd rather drive a solid VW, that hasn't broken my bank book, over an overpriced Porsche with air conditioning AND heated seats that can run simultaniously.
I understand I get what I pay for. But you all can't tell me there aren't a few diamonds in the rough. A scope that can return to zero over and over again (thank you hydro556),be reliable after years of abuse (thank you lowlight), and have lens coatings stand up to the test of time (again, thank you lowlight).
CanPopper opened my eyes, so to speak, to achromatic vs apochromatic images. Which then led me into learning about spherical aberration (really good stuff for those who wish to learn). After a night of research, I started to realize what he was talking about.
So if there is anyone out there that can attest to a good entry level scope for the money, please, let me know.
Sorry about the topic. I just wanted to draw the big cheeses out into the open. Maybe I have the blood of a sniper afterall...
Re: What truely defines good glass?
northeast.....two things....you really need to complete your profile....
and........if you get up and away from the keyboard maybe....just maybe some one near you will allow you to peek some glass.
binos. .....spotters and rifle optics all got their use and needs....
if you spend any time in some glass in the field.....and DO NOT GET HEADACHE....then this is something you may wish to consider.....but like all things in life ...you get what you pay for.....if at the end of the day you head off to the barn with a two Tylenol headache....well, ................
northeast.....two things....you really need to complete your profile....
and........if you get up and away from the keyboard maybe....just maybe some one near you will allow you to peek some glass.
binos. .....spotters and rifle optics all got their use and needs....
if you spend any time in some glass in the field.....and DO NOT GET HEADACHE....then this is something you may wish to consider.....but like all things in life ...you get what you pay for.....if at the end of the day you head off to the barn with a two Tylenol headache....well, ................
Re: What truely defines good glass?
Couple of things:
When someone on here says "great glass" they are usually talking about the overall quality of the telescopic sight. Not just the actuall glass of said optic.
A good quality scope must, IMHO first and formost work. It must be acurate and it must be repeatable. Then it must be durable, it must be able to do the first two things under adverse conditions and after unforseen abuse.
I also think it is very important that you be able to spend a lot of time peering through it and not get eye strain. The human eye will try to remder a perfect image. If your scope makes this easy, your eye does not strain and you don't get a headache (as ripper said).
The thing is, by the time you meet the first few requirements, manufacturers are usuallly also using top notch lesses. It is hard to find a rock solid scope with top notch optical remdition and vise versa.
By the time a company designs, sources and constructs a product with top notch internals, it would be silly to put in sub-par lenses, and again, vise versa.
There are plenty of affordable scopes available that will meet 95% of shooters core needs. The question you have to ask is what is it worth to have an optic that can handle the other 5% "just in case" you wind up needing it?
Yes, you can buy several lower end scopes for the price of one high end one. In other words, if you scope breaks, you can afford to replace it a few times for the same money. But, what iff it breaks during a competition, what about a mission, what if you are in country and can not get a replacement for a few weeks?
These are questions only you can answer. As to what scopes will cover the said 95%, research Falcon Menice, Millet, Bushnell, Nikon, WO Tac, Leupold, etc. Everything is a compromise, even if you are spending $3000 on a scope. i.e. is S&B better than USO? Depends on what you value in a scope.
Couple of things:
When someone on here says "great glass" they are usually talking about the overall quality of the telescopic sight. Not just the actuall glass of said optic.
A good quality scope must, IMHO first and formost work. It must be acurate and it must be repeatable. Then it must be durable, it must be able to do the first two things under adverse conditions and after unforseen abuse.
I also think it is very important that you be able to spend a lot of time peering through it and not get eye strain. The human eye will try to remder a perfect image. If your scope makes this easy, your eye does not strain and you don't get a headache (as ripper said).
The thing is, by the time you meet the first few requirements, manufacturers are usuallly also using top notch lesses. It is hard to find a rock solid scope with top notch optical remdition and vise versa.
By the time a company designs, sources and constructs a product with top notch internals, it would be silly to put in sub-par lenses, and again, vise versa.
There are plenty of affordable scopes available that will meet 95% of shooters core needs. The question you have to ask is what is it worth to have an optic that can handle the other 5% "just in case" you wind up needing it?
Yes, you can buy several lower end scopes for the price of one high end one. In other words, if you scope breaks, you can afford to replace it a few times for the same money. But, what iff it breaks during a competition, what about a mission, what if you are in country and can not get a replacement for a few weeks?
These are questions only you can answer. As to what scopes will cover the said 95%, research Falcon Menice, Millet, Bushnell, Nikon, WO Tac, Leupold, etc. Everything is a compromise, even if you are spending $3000 on a scope. i.e. is S&B better than USO? Depends on what you value in a scope.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
North East Winter.. Hmmm, Is it November yet? I want snow !! White Gold!
Anywho.. What defines good glass is how much it costs... And I must say.. The customer service behind given scope...Hint Hint
North East Winter.. Hmmm, Is it November yet? I want snow !! White Gold!
Anywho.. What defines good glass is how much it costs... And I must say.. The customer service behind given scope...Hint Hint
Re: What truely defines good glass?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Supersubes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Having a good image is fine and all but if it won't track as advertised, and be repeatable, then it's a paper weight. You can do just fine using a scope with poor optics and excellent mechanicals.
Spend the dollars on a scope that works properly, the optical properties won't be far behind. </div></div>
Ding ding we have a winner. I have had $2000+ scopes that didn't track and they were useless to me and were sold off. I want a scope that has good glass and tracks. No use being able to see something if when you dial your dope it isn't what it should be.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Supersubes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Having a good image is fine and all but if it won't track as advertised, and be repeatable, then it's a paper weight. You can do just fine using a scope with poor optics and excellent mechanicals.
Spend the dollars on a scope that works properly, the optical properties won't be far behind. </div></div>
Ding ding we have a winner. I have had $2000+ scopes that didn't track and they were useless to me and were sold off. I want a scope that has good glass and tracks. No use being able to see something if when you dial your dope it isn't what it should be.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BOLTRIPPER</div><div class="ubbcode-body">northeast.....two things....you really need to complete your profile....
and........if you get up and away from the keyboard maybe....just maybe some one near you will allow you to peek some glass.
binos. .....spotters and rifle optics all got their use and needs....
if you spend any time in some glass in the field.....and DO NOT GET HEADACHE....then this is something you may wish to consider.....but like all things in life ...you get what you pay for.....if at the end of the day you head off to the barn with a two Tylenol headache....well, ................ </div></div>
Did you read any of my posts?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BOLTRIPPER</div><div class="ubbcode-body">northeast.....two things....you really need to complete your profile....
and........if you get up and away from the keyboard maybe....just maybe some one near you will allow you to peek some glass.
binos. .....spotters and rifle optics all got their use and needs....
if you spend any time in some glass in the field.....and DO NOT GET HEADACHE....then this is something you may wish to consider.....but like all things in life ...you get what you pay for.....if at the end of the day you head off to the barn with a two Tylenol headache....well, ................ </div></div>
Did you read any of my posts?
Re: What truely defines good glass?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NorthEastWinter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Everyone always advocates spending at least at much on glass as the rig. Now, my cousin shoots a 30-06 with a cheap tasco all day and it stays true. Are we talking adverse conditions? How the scope sucks in more light? The clarity? Explain to me why after you get to a certain point, riflescopes get prohibitedly expensive. I've been lookin at a bushnell elite 3200 10x40 mildot for $225. My cousin tells me I'm an idiot for even thinking about spending that much on glass... yet to you guys, its so cheap. Whats goin on here? </div></div>
NorthEastWinter,
Good glass for what? Hunting dogs presenting a good 3" target at 400 or 500 yards on the plains? Hunting medium to big game in thick brush in mountain or hill country at 100 to 200 yards? Shooting man size paper or steel targets at 800 to 1,000 yards and beyond? What caliber? What bullet weight?
Your cousin shooting his cheap Tasco on his 30'06 never changing his scope elevation or windage adjustments can get away with it because his 30'06 has enough juice to be zeroed at PB range and know that basically from 100 to 300 yards he can be reasonably sure to hit a deer sized target. If your cousin had to change his elevation and windage adjustments repeatedly to shoot outside the range where he would have a high probability of making the kill he would quickly find that cheap Tasco scope to be more of a hindrance to bringing home the meat. IMO a cheap scope that breaks or cannot reliably shoot a box is a very expensive scope for precision shooting because I'd be wasting so much ammunition trying to get back to zero after trying to dial for an 800 or 900 yard target. So do you see the difference? So the question remains good glass for what purpose? The saying horses for courses hold true here too.
HTH!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NorthEastWinter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Everyone always advocates spending at least at much on glass as the rig. Now, my cousin shoots a 30-06 with a cheap tasco all day and it stays true. Are we talking adverse conditions? How the scope sucks in more light? The clarity? Explain to me why after you get to a certain point, riflescopes get prohibitedly expensive. I've been lookin at a bushnell elite 3200 10x40 mildot for $225. My cousin tells me I'm an idiot for even thinking about spending that much on glass... yet to you guys, its so cheap. Whats goin on here? </div></div>
NorthEastWinter,
Good glass for what? Hunting dogs presenting a good 3" target at 400 or 500 yards on the plains? Hunting medium to big game in thick brush in mountain or hill country at 100 to 200 yards? Shooting man size paper or steel targets at 800 to 1,000 yards and beyond? What caliber? What bullet weight?
Your cousin shooting his cheap Tasco on his 30'06 never changing his scope elevation or windage adjustments can get away with it because his 30'06 has enough juice to be zeroed at PB range and know that basically from 100 to 300 yards he can be reasonably sure to hit a deer sized target. If your cousin had to change his elevation and windage adjustments repeatedly to shoot outside the range where he would have a high probability of making the kill he would quickly find that cheap Tasco scope to be more of a hindrance to bringing home the meat. IMO a cheap scope that breaks or cannot reliably shoot a box is a very expensive scope for precision shooting because I'd be wasting so much ammunition trying to get back to zero after trying to dial for an 800 or 900 yard target. So do you see the difference? So the question remains good glass for what purpose? The saying horses for courses hold true here too.
HTH!
Re: What truely defines good glass?
GuGu says he thinks "Good Glass" is slang for dependable scopesight, as used on this board.
At the recent scope comparison in Alvin TX, it was all about optical clarity. Guys could twist turrets and adjust parralax; but all those opinions and reviews were based on optical clarity. I maintain, if optical clarity weren't the primary concern of shooters on this board, the comparison would have been conducted in another fashion. If operation of scope were the primary concern, a test session at a range, with 5 or ten shooters firing in rotations; or testing in the hayfield in Alvin with scopes mounted on rifles with boresight-collimators would have resulted. It didn't.
Most on this board firmly believe that the more they spend on a telescopic sight, the better they will shoot. Since most shooting is a mental activity; they shoot better with better optics.
But, does seeing the target at 1000 yds, albeit a bit crisper, but without any "gain" over another scope enable making a better shot? Probably not. If both scopes are side by side and properly zeroed/registered on the target, and both use an L aiming point allowing precise reticle placement, and if wind & velocity conditions are the same; IN THEORY the shot will arrive at the same place on each target.
My point is being able to count the dots per inch on the target print job doesn't enable finer accuracy over a "lesser" scopesight that nonetheless allows a clear and precise sight picture.
First and foremost the scopesight is a Sight, not a telescope for observation.
As has been pointed out, shoot enough, and own a ranging or varmint type reticle in a decent scope, and you probably will just trust your ability to hold-off and have no need for turret manipulation. Lindy, on this site, mentions that he does not dial under 800yds.
Much of what is discussed on this site relates to sport and competition. Match shooting is a mental discipline. For F-class bipod supported 1,000yd target shooting, probably the more money you spend to obtain the best gear might enable you to place with or ahead of others using that same level of gear.
I owned an NXS 8-32x 56mm for about 6mos. Sold it because it was heavy, overly long and cumbersome. I replaced the NXS with a Mark4 10x Ultra which fits my field use needs better. The rifle no longer weighs 16+lbs. Optical performance may be less, but the scopesight as a balanced instrument does move point of impact with precision and repeats very reliably. It is a sight, not a digiscoping telescope. Presumably, I am sure of my target BEFORE I raise rifle and position the reticle upon it, otherwise I have no grasp of shooting safety.
Good Glass means different things to different people, but on this board 85% of members equate it to optical quality. The expert shooters know they can make their shot and don't need the gear to bolster their confidence.
GuGu says he thinks "Good Glass" is slang for dependable scopesight, as used on this board.
At the recent scope comparison in Alvin TX, it was all about optical clarity. Guys could twist turrets and adjust parralax; but all those opinions and reviews were based on optical clarity. I maintain, if optical clarity weren't the primary concern of shooters on this board, the comparison would have been conducted in another fashion. If operation of scope were the primary concern, a test session at a range, with 5 or ten shooters firing in rotations; or testing in the hayfield in Alvin with scopes mounted on rifles with boresight-collimators would have resulted. It didn't.
Most on this board firmly believe that the more they spend on a telescopic sight, the better they will shoot. Since most shooting is a mental activity; they shoot better with better optics.
But, does seeing the target at 1000 yds, albeit a bit crisper, but without any "gain" over another scope enable making a better shot? Probably not. If both scopes are side by side and properly zeroed/registered on the target, and both use an L aiming point allowing precise reticle placement, and if wind & velocity conditions are the same; IN THEORY the shot will arrive at the same place on each target.
My point is being able to count the dots per inch on the target print job doesn't enable finer accuracy over a "lesser" scopesight that nonetheless allows a clear and precise sight picture.
First and foremost the scopesight is a Sight, not a telescope for observation.
As has been pointed out, shoot enough, and own a ranging or varmint type reticle in a decent scope, and you probably will just trust your ability to hold-off and have no need for turret manipulation. Lindy, on this site, mentions that he does not dial under 800yds.
Much of what is discussed on this site relates to sport and competition. Match shooting is a mental discipline. For F-class bipod supported 1,000yd target shooting, probably the more money you spend to obtain the best gear might enable you to place with or ahead of others using that same level of gear.
I owned an NXS 8-32x 56mm for about 6mos. Sold it because it was heavy, overly long and cumbersome. I replaced the NXS with a Mark4 10x Ultra which fits my field use needs better. The rifle no longer weighs 16+lbs. Optical performance may be less, but the scopesight as a balanced instrument does move point of impact with precision and repeats very reliably. It is a sight, not a digiscoping telescope. Presumably, I am sure of my target BEFORE I raise rifle and position the reticle upon it, otherwise I have no grasp of shooting safety.
Good Glass means different things to different people, but on this board 85% of members equate it to optical quality. The expert shooters know they can make their shot and don't need the gear to bolster their confidence.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
N.E.W. my friend, did you notice no one said what they actually owns/uses, first off, determine what you want, which you have already done, you apparently have done some shopping to know what a Bushnell elite 3200 10x40 mildot is, "you get what you pay for", like this fine scope 3/25-56 Titanium $7179.00
personally i am using two of these, *CONTRACT OVERRUN* CSO Aluminum Series 3-9x42, $299.95, two of these, *CONTRACT OVERRUN* CSO Aluminum series 2-16x44, $569.95, and one of these, *CONTRACT OVERRUN* CSO Aluminum series 5-25x42 $499.95
you got some great responses.., now ask them what they shoot with.
N.E.W. my friend, did you notice no one said what they actually owns/uses, first off, determine what you want, which you have already done, you apparently have done some shopping to know what a Bushnell elite 3200 10x40 mildot is, "you get what you pay for", like this fine scope 3/25-56 Titanium $7179.00
personally i am using two of these, *CONTRACT OVERRUN* CSO Aluminum Series 3-9x42, $299.95, two of these, *CONTRACT OVERRUN* CSO Aluminum series 2-16x44, $569.95, and one of these, *CONTRACT OVERRUN* CSO Aluminum series 5-25x42 $499.95
you got some great responses.., now ask them what they shoot with.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Piston Pete</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
you got some great responses.., now ask them what they shoot with.
</div></div>
Currently, USO and IOR, I have also owned/used Nightforce, Leupold, Nikon, Bushnel, WO Tac, Leatherwood, Centerpoint, BSA and Simmons.
Of those, I would recomend in their prospective price points:
USO, IOR, Nightforce, Nikon, Bushnell, WO Tac, Leatherwood and Centerpoint.
With your snide comment, I assume that you have owned several diferent optics and settled on Counter Snipers (since you think you got a great deal with "contract overruns")? Yes, that was sarcasm.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Piston Pete</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
you got some great responses.., now ask them what they shoot with.
</div></div>
Currently, USO and IOR, I have also owned/used Nightforce, Leupold, Nikon, Bushnel, WO Tac, Leatherwood, Centerpoint, BSA and Simmons.
Of those, I would recomend in their prospective price points:
USO, IOR, Nightforce, Nikon, Bushnell, WO Tac, Leatherwood and Centerpoint.
With your snide comment, I assume that you have owned several diferent optics and settled on Counter Snipers (since you think you got a great deal with "contract overruns")? Yes, that was sarcasm.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Swamper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">GuGu says he thinks "Good Glass" is slang for dependable scopesight, as used on this board.
...snip...
Good Glass means different things to different people, but on this board 85% of members equate it to optical quality. The expert shooters know they can make their shot and don't need the gear to bolster their confidence.
</div></div>
I disagree with you on the 85% comment (imagine that). Most of the experienced shooters on here will tell you that repeatability and reliability are paramount, but you are ignoring the fact that with that usually come top notch image rendition. A top of the line scope has all of the above, the mid level ones have everything to a lesser degree, and the really cheap ones, well...
Your choice of scope meets YOUR needs, and thats the way it should be. You just have a tendency to bash anyone elses choice of scope because their gear meets their needs and not YOURS.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Swamper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">GuGu says he thinks "Good Glass" is slang for dependable scopesight, as used on this board.
...snip...
Good Glass means different things to different people, but on this board 85% of members equate it to optical quality. The expert shooters know they can make their shot and don't need the gear to bolster their confidence.
</div></div>
I disagree with you on the 85% comment (imagine that). Most of the experienced shooters on here will tell you that repeatability and reliability are paramount, but you are ignoring the fact that with that usually come top notch image rendition. A top of the line scope has all of the above, the mid level ones have everything to a lesser degree, and the really cheap ones, well...
Your choice of scope meets YOUR needs, and thats the way it should be. You just have a tendency to bash anyone elses choice of scope because their gear meets their needs and not YOURS.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
After much research and time spent at the bench.
Regardless of the type of day, elevation, relative humidity, strength of wind or, perhaps most importantly, my own attitude...
I am convinced more than ever that this represents the very best glass.
After much research and time spent at the bench.
Regardless of the type of day, elevation, relative humidity, strength of wind or, perhaps most importantly, my own attitude...
I am convinced more than ever that this represents the very best glass.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
I am convinced more than ever that this represents the very best glass.
lol -- swarovski crystal right??
technical aspects and specifications can be reviewed for the tramsmissions elements in scopes forever, although they rarely go as far as good camera lenses. have yet to see scopes compared for modular transfer function (except for zeiss who go into it in depth), off axis shifts,etc. and even if they did would it represent the synergism from a superior product represented by the good stuff were the product is better than the sum of the parts. As was mentioned the physiological aspect (headaches, neck upper shoulder cramps, eye strain)is dealt with even less. The extremely small time frame spent on the scope during a hunt should preclude any comparison with scopes associated in this group, as well as the long time frame spent on the group possible for a pd hunt. The optics chosen by the people on this site are a result of these factors not a cause of them. (just a target shooter and hunter here - but thats why I read the site) Maybe the tasco group should come with a bottle of tylenol to "even up" the playing field.
I am convinced more than ever that this represents the very best glass.
lol -- swarovski crystal right??
technical aspects and specifications can be reviewed for the tramsmissions elements in scopes forever, although they rarely go as far as good camera lenses. have yet to see scopes compared for modular transfer function (except for zeiss who go into it in depth), off axis shifts,etc. and even if they did would it represent the synergism from a superior product represented by the good stuff were the product is better than the sum of the parts. As was mentioned the physiological aspect (headaches, neck upper shoulder cramps, eye strain)is dealt with even less. The extremely small time frame spent on the scope during a hunt should preclude any comparison with scopes associated in this group, as well as the long time frame spent on the group possible for a pd hunt. The optics chosen by the people on this site are a result of these factors not a cause of them. (just a target shooter and hunter here - but thats why I read the site) Maybe the tasco group should come with a bottle of tylenol to "even up" the playing field.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NorthEastWinter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> How the scope sucks in more light? </div></div>
If you find a scope that "sucks in light", buy it!
Black holes pull in light, scopes do not - to my limited knowledge.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NorthEastWinter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> How the scope sucks in more light? </div></div>
If you find a scope that "sucks in light", buy it!
Black holes pull in light, scopes do not - to my limited knowledge.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
You know what I meant, light transmission.... by the way, I've never come across any rancid coolaid either... doesn't mean it doesn't exist! lol
But yeah, good idea, what does everyone use? Or have used in the past. Possibly what you've used when you started out. Such as, what beginners scopes worked best for you and why?
You know what I meant, light transmission.... by the way, I've never come across any rancid coolaid either... doesn't mean it doesn't exist! lol
But yeah, good idea, what does everyone use? Or have used in the past. Possibly what you've used when you started out. Such as, what beginners scopes worked best for you and why?
Re: What truely defines good glass?
Started out with the following:
1. Mueller Tactical 4-16x50 on the .223 Savage 16
2. Mueller Multishot on .22LR and PLR-16
3. Mueller TacII 3-10x44 (a rebranded Sightron) on Savage 116 .300 Win Mag
Now I have:
1. Mueller TacII on the rebarreled with ABS barrel .223 Savage 16
2. Leupold VXIII 5.5-20x50 LRT on the rebarreled (with Rock Creek AMU contour) Savage 116 .300 Win Mag
3. Burris Timberline 2-7x26 on the PLR-16
4. Mueller Multishot on .22LR
I don't need top dollar glass for 100 yard guns. The longer the range the gun, the better the glass I use. For the short range guns, I pick scopes for light weight, low mags, and compactness (while decent glass).
As for spotting bullet holes, I got the baddest optics around for that such as apo telescopes with binoviewers, the Pentax PF100ED spotter, and quality modified astronomical binoculars.
Started out with the following:
1. Mueller Tactical 4-16x50 on the .223 Savage 16
2. Mueller Multishot on .22LR and PLR-16
3. Mueller TacII 3-10x44 (a rebranded Sightron) on Savage 116 .300 Win Mag
Now I have:
1. Mueller TacII on the rebarreled with ABS barrel .223 Savage 16
2. Leupold VXIII 5.5-20x50 LRT on the rebarreled (with Rock Creek AMU contour) Savage 116 .300 Win Mag
3. Burris Timberline 2-7x26 on the PLR-16
4. Mueller Multishot on .22LR
I don't need top dollar glass for 100 yard guns. The longer the range the gun, the better the glass I use. For the short range guns, I pick scopes for light weight, low mags, and compactness (while decent glass).
As for spotting bullet holes, I got the baddest optics around for that such as apo telescopes with binoviewers, the Pentax PF100ED spotter, and quality modified astronomical binoculars.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
What does everyone else think of that? A super sniper
What does everyone else think of that? A super sniper
Re: What truely defines good glass?
great scope for the $ but also look at the Falcons
great scope for the $ but also look at the Falcons
Re: What truely defines good glass?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Supersubes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Having a good image is fine and all but if it won't track as advertised, and be repeatable, then it's a paper weight. You can do just fine using a scope with poor optics and excellent mechanicals.
Spend the dollars on a scope that works properly, the optical properties won't be far behind. </div></div>
Ding ding we have a winner. I have had $2000+ scopes that didn't track and they were useless to me and were sold off. I want a scope that has good glass and tracks. No use being able to see something if when you dial your dope it isn't what it should be. </div></div>
Which 2k brand are you referring to?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Supersubes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Having a good image is fine and all but if it won't track as advertised, and be repeatable, then it's a paper weight. You can do just fine using a scope with poor optics and excellent mechanicals.
Spend the dollars on a scope that works properly, the optical properties won't be far behind. </div></div>
Ding ding we have a winner. I have had $2000+ scopes that didn't track and they were useless to me and were sold off. I want a scope that has good glass and tracks. No use being able to see something if when you dial your dope it isn't what it should be. </div></div>
Which 2k brand are you referring to?
Re: What truely defines good glass?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gugubica</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I disagree with you on the 85% comment (imagine that). Most of the experienced shooters on here will tell you that repeatability and reliability are paramount, but you are ignoring the fact that with that usually come top notch image rendition. A top of the line scope has all of the above, the mid level ones have everything to a lesser degree, and the really cheap ones, well...
Your choice of scope meets YOUR needs, and thats the way it should be. You just have a tendency to bash anyone elses choice of scope because their gear meets their needs and not YOURS. </div></div>
GuGu,
Why the bitchy comments? Who have I bashed here? Is it "bashing to raise a question or two?
Imagine you disagree with my 85% swag on how many equate optical rendition (sight picture) to "good glass"? Why not swag your own number? Just take a Scientific Wild-Ass Guess... Here is some of what helped me swag my number:
There are very few on this board (proportionately to number of registered members which are now about 20,000?) that have the experience and ability of Lindy Sisk. Lindy says he don't dial until a target is over 800 yds. IIRC he shoots two .308s. Yet the guy is not a LEO or soldier, he is an instructor. Get's paid to teach people how to shoot longrange. Must be a lot of fun. Lots of trigger time.
With a .308win, just how many 1000yd shots you figure there are out there that a guy with that rifle will take, if he can get closer. My perspective is: Not Many. Always shoot from your best vantage point is one of the cardinal rules of sniping.
Look at the replies on this thread concerning specific scopes and the most common topic on this board, "what should I buy?".
Dude, if you know scopesights and you know how to shoot; you don't really ask "what should I buy?". You KNOW or you don't.
I fudged on 85% in my estimation. I would up it to closer to 95%.
Why? Because out of 22,000 or so members, there might be 1,000 who aren't gadgeteers who're always geeking for the next best and most touted up products.
Maybe you got 2 rifles? Maybe you got 40 rifles? Are they all gonna be wearing the "good glass"? If you got two and you got the bucks, buy the S&B PM-II or whatever and be pleased, until one breaks and you gotta send it to Germany for repair...
I find it preposterous that so many on this and other "commercial" shooting boards spend tens of thousands on rifles and scopes, but don't own the reamers their barrels are chambered with, and don't understand chamber dynamics; but no matter if they are a good shot, they are gadgeteers and don't have the precision accuracy inquisitive mind.
There is one brand of "good glass" that can't fix/repair/service nothing on their scopes; but maybe they will replace defective product with product that might not prove defective? Oooh, but guys here post, "...Love my scope!".
Having the gear is the gadgeteer's goal. Maybe putting that $3500 scope on that $4k rifle is a means to assure the owner will practice?
You know, if you look at the 22K members here, and who posts information or detailed opinion about Shooting In-Practice and theory, versus who posts "Love my new Brand X scope, rifle, stock" or whatever; there are very few guys posting much of any "content".
Don't matter to me what you buy or what you think of what I own. Why should it? How is it "bashing" if I point out that Company A don't have but 2 employees in its whole USA distribution network? How is it "bashing" if I mention that most of the "good glass" scopes (not Leupold per hide opinion), are boat anchor heavy? How is it "bashing" if I point out that being able to discern and see the target is effectively (enough to be "effective") is all that I or any rifleman "needs" from his/her scopesight?
It is just too bad that so many are herd animals in their thinking. Although there is surely nothing wrong with owning "good gear", there is lots of "good gear" that the experts here gripe about as if they were an emerging market sector. In reality, there are so few of us buying the "really good gear" that any large optics company can't make a decent profit tooling up for the demand.
Ask yourself why one of the biggest euro optic makers has only a 2 man garage-band operation in the USA? Good Glass without a repairman or tech, much less a tech service facility within 7500 mi. Call it what you want; I know it to be junk.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gugubica</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I disagree with you on the 85% comment (imagine that). Most of the experienced shooters on here will tell you that repeatability and reliability are paramount, but you are ignoring the fact that with that usually come top notch image rendition. A top of the line scope has all of the above, the mid level ones have everything to a lesser degree, and the really cheap ones, well...
Your choice of scope meets YOUR needs, and thats the way it should be. You just have a tendency to bash anyone elses choice of scope because their gear meets their needs and not YOURS. </div></div>
GuGu,
Why the bitchy comments? Who have I bashed here? Is it "bashing to raise a question or two?
Imagine you disagree with my 85% swag on how many equate optical rendition (sight picture) to "good glass"? Why not swag your own number? Just take a Scientific Wild-Ass Guess... Here is some of what helped me swag my number:
There are very few on this board (proportionately to number of registered members which are now about 20,000?) that have the experience and ability of Lindy Sisk. Lindy says he don't dial until a target is over 800 yds. IIRC he shoots two .308s. Yet the guy is not a LEO or soldier, he is an instructor. Get's paid to teach people how to shoot longrange. Must be a lot of fun. Lots of trigger time.
With a .308win, just how many 1000yd shots you figure there are out there that a guy with that rifle will take, if he can get closer. My perspective is: Not Many. Always shoot from your best vantage point is one of the cardinal rules of sniping.
Look at the replies on this thread concerning specific scopes and the most common topic on this board, "what should I buy?".
Dude, if you know scopesights and you know how to shoot; you don't really ask "what should I buy?". You KNOW or you don't.
I fudged on 85% in my estimation. I would up it to closer to 95%.
Why? Because out of 22,000 or so members, there might be 1,000 who aren't gadgeteers who're always geeking for the next best and most touted up products.
Maybe you got 2 rifles? Maybe you got 40 rifles? Are they all gonna be wearing the "good glass"? If you got two and you got the bucks, buy the S&B PM-II or whatever and be pleased, until one breaks and you gotta send it to Germany for repair...
I find it preposterous that so many on this and other "commercial" shooting boards spend tens of thousands on rifles and scopes, but don't own the reamers their barrels are chambered with, and don't understand chamber dynamics; but no matter if they are a good shot, they are gadgeteers and don't have the precision accuracy inquisitive mind.
There is one brand of "good glass" that can't fix/repair/service nothing on their scopes; but maybe they will replace defective product with product that might not prove defective? Oooh, but guys here post, "...Love my scope!".
Having the gear is the gadgeteer's goal. Maybe putting that $3500 scope on that $4k rifle is a means to assure the owner will practice?
You know, if you look at the 22K members here, and who posts information or detailed opinion about Shooting In-Practice and theory, versus who posts "Love my new Brand X scope, rifle, stock" or whatever; there are very few guys posting much of any "content".
Don't matter to me what you buy or what you think of what I own. Why should it? How is it "bashing" if I point out that Company A don't have but 2 employees in its whole USA distribution network? How is it "bashing" if I mention that most of the "good glass" scopes (not Leupold per hide opinion), are boat anchor heavy? How is it "bashing" if I point out that being able to discern and see the target is effectively (enough to be "effective") is all that I or any rifleman "needs" from his/her scopesight?
It is just too bad that so many are herd animals in their thinking. Although there is surely nothing wrong with owning "good gear", there is lots of "good gear" that the experts here gripe about as if they were an emerging market sector. In reality, there are so few of us buying the "really good gear" that any large optics company can't make a decent profit tooling up for the demand.
Ask yourself why one of the biggest euro optic makers has only a 2 man garage-band operation in the USA? Good Glass without a repairman or tech, much less a tech service facility within 7500 mi. Call it what you want; I know it to be junk.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
Scopes have been a part of the Gadget Guy trend for quite some time. To me, the scope is just a tool. To many, it represents how serious and professional they are about their sport.
Scopes have been a part of the Gadget Guy trend for quite some time. To me, the scope is just a tool. To many, it represents how serious and professional they are about their sport.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
Another vote for the SuperSniper, great scopes.
Another vote for the SuperSniper, great scopes.
Re: What truely defines good glass?
Haven't owned enough to make any comparisons but I've got a hand me down Leupold VX-II from my dad and it's been thrashed around for the last couple years.
On the filter aspect. Off the top of my head.. a pair of lens covers, bored out and threaded would probably handle the shock. and could be threaded to handle any of the camera lens filter caps.
Haven't owned enough to make any comparisons but I've got a hand me down Leupold VX-II from my dad and it's been thrashed around for the last couple years.
On the filter aspect. Off the top of my head.. a pair of lens covers, bored out and threaded would probably handle the shock. and could be threaded to handle any of the camera lens filter caps.
