Optic quality level.

[Executive]

I have firearms with high quality (Leupold VX-III) scopes and basic quality (Simmons 44 Magnum) scopes. I was wondering before buying my next optic, just how important is the quality or perception of quality. I do a lot of photography where I use nothing but high end Nikon lenses, but the results are clear in the pictures. How does this translate into the realm of sporting optics, riflescopes in particular. I honestly can not tell the difference between my Leupold ($400) and my Simmons ($40) scopes. Admittedly I have never used either in a low light situation. Each is 3-9X30. What do you guys think?

Regards,
Chris

 

[C-pher]

I think that it also has to do with how it's made. How well it can stand up to shock and the like. I don't know that much about optics either. But that's what I understood when I heard about people.

 

[KMaurer]

Once you get past the obvious comparisons (power, objective size), I'd say that there are are four differences between scopes: low-light performance, ruggedness, adjustments and resolution.

You can get a good idea of the relative performance under low light conditions at your range any evening. Ruggedness is the the ability of the scope to resist the sort of abuse that comes from long term shooting, bumping into stuff and getting exposed to "the great outdoors" in all its glory. Resisting this abuse means not only staying in one piece and operating condition, but also retaining the zero. The adjustments for elevation and windage on one scope might be easier to make than on a comparable scope, both in terms of ease of use (quick and accurate) and in their resistance to unintended change.

Resolution is the hardest ofr most people to guage, often because it's not well understood. Basically it's a measurement of an optical systems ability to distinguish two small objects close to one another. It depends on a lot of factors. Rather than attempt to understand it theoretically, I'd suggest getting a copy of the military standard test target and try out your scopes. I don't have a handle on commercial sources, but it's described in detail at http://www.efg2.com/Lab/ImageProcessing/TestTargets/.

Ken

 

[M1911]

When it's 15 minutes before dawn and raining and you're in Alaska on a $10,000 hunt, you'll be really bummed when you see that trophy bear and raise up your el cheapo scope to see that it is fogged up.

 

[Cledus J. Crabb]

Spend the most you can afford..........you'll never be sorry.

 

[Cross-X]

Leupold stands at or near the top of the heap for some very good reasons. Nikon scopes ain't chopped liver, either.

 

[KMaurer]

OK, my original reply was the Jack Webb, just the facts version. Beyond that, all my rifles that wear glass wear Leupolds.

Ken

 

[Executive]

Spend the most you can afford..........you'll never be sorry.

I'd like to paraphrase this by saying: "Buy the best you can afford." This goes for EVERYTHING I spend my hard earned money on. Any Cledus, you are absolutely right: you'll never be sorry.

I am like everything about my Leupold scope. I really do prefer the way it feels, the sturdiness, the way the feel of the adjustment knob... Just looking through it, I 'm not sure it's worth 10x as much as the Simmons. And sadly, I will not be on a $10,000 hunt in Alaska any time soon . I'll try to hang around the range at dusk to check things out too.

Regards,
Chris

 

[dreppucci007]

Definitely a Leupold...That's what I own and will keep buying.

 

[Greg Derr]

I liek the Leupold scopes myself, But Burris makes a great handgun scope with the long eye relief. Either a dot or crosshairs. Been used on handguns at Perry for a number of years by some top shooters. Gil Hebard carries them. Greg

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

When I was gearing up to start working at Gander Mountain, I knew that I was going to be selling optics, and that I really knew very little about them.

I looked around for a good book on the subject, and found
OPTICS FOR THE HUNTER by John Barsness, who is a long time guide and writer and editor for RIFLE magazine.

Great Read!

Your local library can get a copy on interlibrary loan, I'm sure.

BTW, Barsness thinks we spend way too much money on guns, and not nearly enough on our optics.

He says that if he were starting from scratch, and had a thousand dollars to spend, he's spend three hundred on a good used rifle in an all around caliber like 30-06, two hundred doallars on a good rifle scope, two hundred and fifty on good binoculars, and the final two hundred fifty on a good spotting scope. (He's a Montanna boy, and out there the spotting scope is a necessity. Here in the East, probably not.)

Regards
John

 

[JuergenG]

One can't do wrong with a Leupold (own experience with my Vari-X III 3.5-10x50) or a Nikon (heard from a friend using one).
Also can't go wrong with a Zeiss or Schmidt & Bender (my K31 is fitted with a 10x42), whereas those play in a different league of pricing.

 

[Skald]

I'm happy with my Nikon, took my first deer at 6:05am in low light conditions @ 100+ yds.