Are glass optics becoming obsolete?

[3Crows]

This fellow is probably hoping you have a digital scope in need of a software upgrade or a dead battery about to quit. He is also probably thinking of how tasty and crunchy you might be.



Of course, electronic optics are being used in combat. But the refresh rate, that bear is moving really fast and needs a pretty good and precise hit even with a .45-70 or more. Optical scopes refresh at my brain speed, slow as that is, digital scopes blur and drag and lag. All I have seen do anyways. I would not want to hit where he was, I would want to hit where he will be and exactly where I would need to, Lord forbid.

 

[BlackICE]

I never want to see that kind of image in my scope whether it is digital or optical. I don't like brown stuff in my pants as the last thing that happens before I'm six feet under.

 

[357cal]

➊ One of the current drawbacks of digital scopes is the lack of rapid adjustment of elevation and windage.
Sure, it's not problema if you have one with a range finder, or if you want to use holdover. But I'm a die-hard dialer, so... — gimme some turrets!
➠ This would be a very easy fix.


➋ Another current drawback for me is the long time it takes to power up the unit. For rapid shots when stalking this is just too slow.
➠ But no doubt, this will improve drastically soon.


➌ I expect that these 2 hurdles to digital replacing glass will be overcome soon.
However, hurdle number 3 is the image quality for long range shots and for seeing small kill zones.
And that's a much bigger technological challenge, and one that might take a whoooole lot longer to overcome.

➠ I will continue to trust in glass, all the while using digital when needed.
Glass at least has no malfunctioning or discontinued apps.

Matthias

“I’m a die-hard dialer—gimme some turrets!”
As far as distance with a digital scope, if you're shooting a pcp you will never run out of scope or as you say:

image quality for long range shots and for seeing small kill zones.

Totally get it. Dialing’s tactile, precise, and muscle-memory fast for experienced shooters. But in dynamic setups:

• Most digital platforms allow precise holdover with real-time ballistic overlays.
• Paired with a laser rangefinder, you’re already on target before any turret twist.
• As for lacking tactile feedback? Easy fix—some units now emulate turret adjustments digitally, and physical hybrid controls are coming.

Glass might win for mechanical satisfaction, but digital wins when speed and adaptation matter.

➋ Slow Power-Up Time​

🗣 “For rapid shots when stalking, it’s just too slow.”

Fair. Earlier units were sluggish to boot. But newer optics—especially those geared for hunting—have:

• Fast-boot modes
• Sleep timers with instant wake
• Remote activation via e-caller or wrist toggles

This isn’t a hardware limit—it’s a firmware tweak. And yeah, it’s already improving with every release.

➌ Image Quality at Long Range​

🗣 “Glass still beats digital for spotting small kill zones.”

Right now? That’s true. Edge clarity, color fidelity, and definition in digital scopes can’t yet match a $2k+ Schmidt & Bender or Nightforce lens stack.

But:

• Many IR-capable digitals aren’t built for long-range glass-level clarity—they’re designed for low-light engagement, tracking, and threat ID.
• Glass scopes struggle in total darkness, fog, or thermal contrast zones—where digital thrives.
• And digital zoom + high-res sensors are improving fast.

This is the real race: image fidelity vs. adaptive visibility. Both have their zone.

Field Takeaway​

Glass offers fail-proof simplicity, pristine optics, and tactile control—no argument there. But digital gives:

• Faster multi-target acquisition
• Ballistic auto-compensation
• Seamless transitions across light and distance

In a blind, with IR, thermals, and multitasking under pressure, digital wins me time. Glass wins me stillness.

Why not use both? Just don’t tell me turret dialing beats real-time ballistic overlays for pure speed. Let’s keep it honest—and field-tested.

 

[357cal]

Get back to me when digital optics can do this:

 

[357cal]

Get back to me when digital optics can do this:

 

[MongooseV8]

Pretty cool, but for context I was making first round hits on moving ground squirrels at 400-600yds back then. How many rounds did it take to walk your hits in on those big steel plates? Not trying to take anything away from your videos, they are certainly impressive.

 

[357cal]

Pretty cool, but for context I was making first round hits on moving ground squirrels at 400-600yds back then. How many rounds did it take to walk your hits in on those big steel plates? Not trying to take anything away from your videos, they are certainly impressive.

“first-round hits on moving ground squirrels at 400–600 yards.” Impressive—if the squirrels were politely holding still and waving orange flags. Let’s pull apart the ballistics vs. bravado.
Let’s say you’re shooting a 6mm slug at ~2950 fps:

• Time of flight to 600 yds: ~0.75 sec
• Squirrel shift in that time: 6–12" sideways
• That’s enough for it to walk clean out of your kill zone mid-shot. Just 3 mph crosswind = ~6–9" lateral drift. Add in mirage and you’re aiming at a blurry blur trying not to breathe too hard.
  

  What It Would Take​

  • Sub-MOA rifle with confirmed dope
  • Spot-on wind call and environmental readings
  • Predictive lead on a squirrel’s movement
  • Perfect execution—all in less than 1 second
    Consistent first-round hits? Doubt it. One-off? Maybe—with luck and a squirrel that forgot how to squirrel.
  
  
  Bottom Line: If it happened, it was one for the books. But for most of us in the real world—it’s a great tale, not a viable tactic.
  
  
  

 

[MongooseV8]

“first-round hits on moving ground squirrels at 400–600 yards.” Impressive—if the squirrels were politely holding still and waving orange flags. Let’s pull apart the ballistics vs. bravado.
Let’s say you’re shooting a 6mm slug at ~2950 fps:

• Time of flight to 600 yds: ~0.75 sec
• Squirrel shift in that time: 6–12" sideways
• That’s enough for it to walk clean out of your kill zone mid-shot. Just 3 mph crosswind = ~6–9" lateral drift. Add in mirage and you’re aiming at a blurry blur trying not to breathe too hard.
  

  What It Would Take​

  • Sub-MOA rifle with confirmed dope
  • Spot-on wind call and environmental readings
  • Predictive lead on a squirrel’s movement
  • Perfect execution—all in less than 1 second
    Consistent first-round hits? Doubt it. One-off? Maybe—with luck and a squirrel that forgot how to squirrel.
  
  
  Bottom Line: If it happened, it was one for the books. But for most of us in the real world—it’s a great tale, not a viable tactic.
  
  
  

Lol ok, I have been hunting California ground squirrels for more than 20 years. I have enough time behind a scope, I dont need to prove anything to anyone. It took me years of rifle combos, match time, and pest time to get to that point. FYI its considered rude to call someone a liar without knowing anything about them. I think we have had enough time together, none of which has been enjoyable or productive so I will bow out and ride off into the sunset.

 

[swopever]

My take on glass vs digital scopes is weight, weight, weight. When the digital with batteries is the same or less weight than glass........ Why wouldn't I switch to digital if resolution is same?

Reminds of late 1990s when people wondered future of film vs. digital cameras......

 

[357cal]

Lol ok, I have been hunting California ground squirrels for more than 20 years. I have enough time behind a scope, I dont need to prove anything to anyone. It took me years of rifle combos, match time, and pest time to get to that point. FYI its considered rude to call someone a liar without knowing anything about them. I think we have had enough time together, none of which has been enjoyable or productive so I will bow out and ride off into the sunset.

I think that would be a smart move.

 

[JungleShooter]

Why not use both [digital and glass]?

Yupp. That's just what I said in my post.

 

[357cal]

This fellow is probably hoping you have a digital scope in need of a software upgrade or a dead battery about to quit. He is also probably thinking of how tasty and crunchy you might be.



Of course, electronic optics are being used in combat. But the refresh rate, that bear is moving really fast and needs a pretty good and precise hit even with a .45-70 or more. Optical scopes refresh at my brain speed, slow as that is, digital scopes blur and drag and lag. All I have seen do anyways. I would not want to hit where he was, I would want to hit where he will be and exactly where I would need to, Lord forbid.

Even if you're 70 yards way, no scope is your best bet. The charging bear can cover 70 yards in 3 sec and I'm not going to pullup a rifle and have time to look for my target no matter what the scope. If I'm going to hunt in brown bear country, I'm carrying a .44 magnum 300–340 gr hard-cast lead and at least 1 month of under pressure practice before hand!!!! Thank GOD I live in N.Y.

 

[357cal]

My take on glass vs digital scopes is weight, weight, weight. When the digital with batteries is the same or less weight than glass........ Why wouldn't I switch to digital if resolution is same?

Reminds of late 1990s when people wondered future of film vs. digital cameras......

But the digital is doing a lot more:
Most of what ZULUS does would normally require separate gear:

• Glass scope
• Night vision device
• Laser rangefinder * ballistics calculator
• Field recorder
• Remote viewing system

Carrying all that? You’d blow past ZULUS’s 47 oz total in no time. The real win here is consolidation: less gear, fewer wires, smoother setups.

Yes, it’s heavier than glass—but every ounce is doing work. As far as distance, if you're using a pcp and from what i have seen here most Arnt pushing past 300-400 yards which the Zulus can handle easily