High end optics, guys who have owned low budget, "mid level" , and top tier scopes chime in

[_CTAIRGUNNER_]

For once I am really happy with my line up of rifles, they all perform, all have a task and all make me happy. With that said I am assessing my line of optics (glass only, no digital/nv/thermal in this thread).


I have used many different optics from UTG Leapers to Element Optics Titan (this one was my all time favorite) , during NAC I used 2 Discovery Optics 5-25x56 PRS Scopes with Jap ED glass. At the price point of $400.00 it blew everyone away who looked through and used it.

People who have owned all levels of scope, whats the difference between say a Titan, or Athlon Ares vs an NX8 or say a Theos? what warrants the difference in price? (I know its all really subjective but I would love to hear everyones thoughts)

 

[Michael]

As people get older the muscles in their eyes weaken. A higher end scope usually offers: better tactile features, more forgiving eye box, clearer picture, and less headaches.

 

[jps2486]

As people get older the muscles in their eyes weaken. A higher end scope usually offers: better tactile features, more forgiving eye box, clearer picture, and less headaches.

In addition, there are more considerations here. First, IMO, you must be satisfied whether you want FFP or SFP scopes, reticle choice, turrets, parallax capability, and application. Not all scopes, even $4000 models, can always meet that. You can't judge a scope by price alone. I looked through a March scope that had fence posts for a reticle and immediately rejected it. I've owned scopes from $100 Centerpoints to $1500 Sightrons. Today, I kinda like Athlons, Arkens, and Sightrons and since have sold a bunch of others. Personally, I see no need for high price scopes, even though I could afford them.

 

[_CTAIRGUNNER_]

In addition, there are more considerations here. First, IMO, you must be satisfied whether you want FFP or SFP scopes, reticle choice, turrets, parallax capability, and application. Not all scopes, even $4000 models, can always meet that. You can't judge a scope by price alone. I looked through a March scope that had fence posts for a reticle and immediately rejected it. I've owned scopes from $100 Centerpoints to $1500 Sightrons. Today, I kinda like Athlons, Arkens, and Sightrons and since have sold a bunch of others.

I have figured out what reticles I prefer having run through a bunch of different scopes. They definitely can't all meet the same requirements but I do notice a lot of the higher end scopes cover ffp or sfp as well as a handful of reticle options.

One thing that keeps me away from sightron for instance even though I LOVEEEEEEEE looking through their high end scopes is that there are never any numbers on the parallax wheel.

 

[steve123]

As you go up in price typically the quality level goes up too BUT the diminishing returns are much more apparent.

So you pay a lot more $ for slightly more refinement, possibly more reliability, and possibly better IQ.

I'll use a few of my scopes as examples.
If comparing my Athlon Cronus G2 to my S&B PMII 5-25 the main improvement is the IQ of the glass on the S&B, but it's a not huge difference. The controls on the scopes are a wash, they both feel nice but just a different kind of feel. Although the S&B has a revolution indicator the Athlon has daylight bright illume.
That's a $3850 S&B vs a $1400 Athlon. Street price both gotten brand new.

My friend has a Swarovski X5 5-25 SFP hunting scope that has super nice IQ but it is SFP and has a 50Y minimum parallax so not ideal for airguns.

I have a March Genesis 4-40x52 which has nice IQ but man its heavy and pretty much only for Bench, bipod, or tripod and ELR.
So what I'm getting at is some scopes are more ideal for certain objectives.

I looked through a friends Sightron 45x45 fixed power scope. It had great IQ but its a very BR oriented scope.

I haven't been satisfied with the glass in any NF NXS scope. I've owned 5-6 of them.

Another example.
My older eyes for whatever reason does not like the Athlon Ares BTR 4.5-27x56 prescription so I sold all four of them?? My eyes do like the Ares ETR 4.5-30x56. Lots of people like both of those scopes. I like every type of Midas TAC and Helos G2.
It's possible something has changed in the Ares in the last 3 years but I haven't looked through a new one to know.

If possible to do so go on the journey of buying two used scopes at a time then sell the one you don't prefer and repeat until you've landed in a happy place. Because otherwise you will always wonder what you like, or can tolerate, and what you don't.

All that being said if you want super nice glass it'll be very expensive.
Otherwise the scopes in the $1000 to $1500 range often there won't be much difference in IQ. In fact many competing brands are made in the same factories but made to the Optic Co's desired specs. There might be standouts for your eyes though??

 

[_CTAIRGUNNER_]

As you go up in price typically the quality level goes up too BUT the diminishing returns are much more apparent.

So you pay a lot more $ for slightly more refinement, possibly more reliability, and possibly better IQ.

I'll use a few of my scopes as examples.
If comparing my Athlon Cronus G2 to my S&B PMII 5-25 the main improvement is the IQ of the glass on the S&B, but it's a not huge difference. The controls on the scopes are a wash, they both feel nice but just a different kind of feel. Although the S&B has a revolution indicator the Athlon has daylight bright illume.
That's a $3850 S&B vs a $1400 Athlon. Street price both gotten brand new.

My friend has a Swarovski X5 5-25 SFP hunting scope that has super nice IQ but it is SFP and has a 50Y minimum parallax so not ideal for airguns.

I have a March Genesis 4-40x52 which has nice IQ but man its heavy and pretty much only for Bench, bipod, or tripod and ELR.
So what I'm getting at is some scopes are more ideal for certain objectives.

I looked through a friends Sightron 45x45 fixed power scope. It had great IQ but its a very BR oriented scope.

I haven't been satisfied with the glass in any NF NXS scope. I've owned 5-6 of them.

Another example.
My older eyes for whatever reason does not like the Athlon Ares BTR 4.5-27x56 prescription so I sold all four of them?? My eyes do like the Ares ETR 4.5-30x56. Lots of people like both of those scopes. I like every type of Midas TAC and Helos G2.
It's possible something has changed in the Ares in the last 3 years but I haven't looked through a new one to know.

If possible to do so go on the journey of buying two used scopes at a time then sell the one you don't prefer and repeat until you've landed in a happy place. Because otherwise you will always wonder what you like, or can tolerate, and what you don't.

All that being said if you want super nice glass it'll be very expensive.
Otherwise the scopes in the $1000 to $1500 range often there won't be much difference in IQ. In fact many competing brands are made in the same factories but made to the Optic Co's desired specs. There might be standouts for your eyes though??

Thank you for that post, thank everyone who posted in this thread for posting their thoughts. This last line is what I really needed to hear.

 

[Larcat]

I've always had cheapish scopes. I recently got a March LPVO, and totally understand why it's expensive --- especially the pure glass quality, and all the metal work. If it is worth it or not is a different issues, but the damned thing is like an Omega watch.

 

[ctshooter]

I have had, and still do have, all levels of scope from the Bug Buster up through a few March scopes. In the current lineup I would place the Vector Veyron 3-12 and 4-16 in the lower range, Hawke Frontier 30 FFP in the mid and March in the upper. They all do a great job and feel they are worth their cost.

The Hawke is a very nice scope, not too big, lightweight, very nice glass, smooth parallax and zoom, good turrets and a very nice reticle with very good illumination.

The March F is a step up in almost every way from the Hawke, but not necessarily in a mind blowing way. I really enjoy the March F 3-24x42. It's got amazing glass and reticle. It's very compact for a 3-24 (close to 12" and well under 30oz). The turrets are exceptional. Even with only 42mm end the light capturing is exceptional.

 

[Larcat]

.

The March F is a step up in almost every way from the Hawke, but not necessarily in a mind blowing way. I really enjoy the March F 3-24x42. It's got amazing glass and reticle. It's very compact for a 3-24 (close to 12" and well under 30oz). The turrets are exceptional. Even with only 42mm end the light capturing is exceptional.

That is the single biggest thing with the March I have --- no camparison to cheaper scope turrets. They're basically perfect.

 

[jps2486]

One thing that keeps me away from sightron for instance even though I LOVEEEEEEEE looking through their high end scopes is that there are never any numbers on the parallax wheel.

Not many do, but those scopes that have range on their parallax wheels aren't accurate anyway. The best way to solve that problem is to buy a scope wheel and calibrate it yourself.

 

[_CTAIRGUNNER_]

Not many do, but those scopes that have range on their parallax wheels aren't accurate anyway. The best way to solve that problem is to buy a scope wheel and calibrate it yourself.

No but it is a reference point and for hunting, when making a quick adjustment its good to see, other members have commented about how that has been the difference between a kill shot and having to put a second one in....

I think @Ezana4CE was the one who mentioned this in another scope thread which got me reading on it.

 

[Ezana4CE]

Not many do, but those scopes that have range on their parallax wheels aren't accurate anyway. The best way to solve that problem is to buy a scope wheel and calibrate it yourself.

I’m lost on the “not many do” statement. I cannot speak to what many scope have or do. I’ve probably only owned no more than 20 scopes. All, but a lone Sightron, have numbered parallax knobs. I don’t want to have to create or add anything to take a scope on a hunt after mounting and zeroing a scope. I’m not speaking of a field target setup and I don’t use the retilcle find range in the field. The numbers on the knob are mainly numbers corresponding to reticle marks used as holdover references in my DOPE. They work great for that. I have maybe come across one cheap Bushnell scope whose markings don’t coincide with my rangefinder.

Sightron glass is nice to my eyes, but I only own one for the above reasons. If you’re good with purchasing a scope knowing what is necessary for it to be usable for hunting based upon what is discussed in thread I say go for it. I’m of the opinion that Sightrons are great mid-tier scopes to look through that won’t break the bank (my opinion is based upon the one I own and what I’ve read about them). I’m all for purpose driven optics that work well for me and my intended purposes. Scopes with numbered parallax knobs are useful out of the box. I’ve never used a parallax wheel while hunting. I’ve never made ranging tape for a wheel. As a result of being used to using scopes with numbered parallax knobs from the manufacturer, animals I hunt are often shot and killed humanely according to my conscience. Many of these animals have made good meals for me. That’s good for me.

As to the OP’s question about differentiating high-end from mid-tier and low-end optics, I haven’t a clue. I really don’t know what OP’s purpose for high-end glass is.

 

[jps2486]

I’m lost on the “not many do” statement. I cannot speak to what many scope have or do. I’ve probably only owned no more than 20 scopes. All, but a lone Sightron, have numbered parallax knobs. I don’t want to have to create or add anything to take a scope on a hunt after mounting and zeroing a scope. I’m not speaking of a field target setup and I don’t use the retilcle find range in the field. The numbers on the knob are mainly numbers corresponding to reticle marks used as holdover references in my DOPE. They work great for that. I have maybe come across one cheap Bushnell scope whose markings don’t coincide with my rangefinder.

Sightron glass is nice to my eyes, but I only own one for the above reasons. If you’re good with purchasing a scope knowing what is necessary for it to be usable for hunting based upon what is discussed in thread I say go for it. I’m of the opinion that Sightrons are great mid-tier scopes to look through that won’t break the bank (my opinion is based upon the one I own and what I’ve read about them). I’m all for purpose driven optics that work well for me and my intended purposes. Scopes with numbered parallax knobs are useful out of the box. I’ve never used a parallax wheel while hunting. I’ve never made ranging tape for a wheel. As a result of being used to using scopes with numbered parallax knobs from the manufacturer, animals I hunt are often shot and killed humanely according to my conscience. Many of these animals have made good meals for me. That’s good for me.

As to the OP’s question about differentiating high-end from mid-tier and low-end optics, I haven’t a clue. I really don’t know what OP’s purpose for high-end glass is.

Most, if not all, hunting scopes don't even have parallax ajustments. They are set usually for 100 yards, some 50. So why not calibrate your scope to whatever you think will be used most and leave it there? Just a suggestion.

 

[_CTAIRGUNNER_]

Most, if not all, hunting scopes don't even have parallax ajustments. They are set usually for 100 yards, some 50. So why not calibrate your scope to whatever you think will be used most and leave it there? Just a suggestion.

The only scope ive ever had that did not have numbers on the parallax wheel was a sightron. I asked the sightron reps why they didn't while I was at NAC over the past weekend and they said what you said. It just seems silly to me, far more people complain about lack of numbers on the wheel than people who are like meh, not a big deal.

 

[Ezana4CE]

Most, if not all, hunting scopes don't even have parallax ajustments. They are set usually for 100 yards, some 50. So why not calibrate your scope to whatever you think will be used most and leave it there? Just a suggestion.

@jps2486 Fixed parallax scopes aren’t the types of scopes I favor for airgun hunting. They work better with PBs within their point blank range. I typically don’t bait quarry and they move around so I need to know and be confident in my holds at various ranges.

 

[Airgun-hobbyist]

I've read several comments over the years about people not liking the glass because the scope is giving eye strain and/or headaches. Try fine tuning the diopter adjustment. A scope setup video I saw showed eye strain is from the diopter adjustment being out, and also effects the parallax adjustment.

 

[Sc0-]

Usually, glass quality, features/design, and durability. Then whatever importation fee's or MSRP from the manufacturer to the dealers.

For airgun use during daytime, just about any scope will work. If constantly running the parallax wheel and adjustment knobs then you might develop issues down the road. If trying to use the scope in less than ideal lighting conditions then better glass can be beneficial at a higher price tag, on the same note for an even higher price tag the better scopes still have a bright and clear sight picture in the same conditions when set on its highest magnification. A have Sightron SIII's on my FT setups, and Athlon/Vortex on my other hunters, with a few Airmax's for springers and short range rat ventilators. For firearms it's NXS nightforce, Athlons, and a couple of Vortex and SIII's.

 

[cavedweller]

I have figured out what reticles I prefer having run through a bunch of different scopes. They definitely can't all meet the same requirements but I do notice a lot of the higher end scopes cover ffp or sfp as well as a handful of reticle options.

One thing that keeps me away from sightron for instance even though I LOVEEEEEEEE looking through their high end scopes is that there are never any numbers on the parallax wheel.

That’s why most folks spend the time creating a dope chart based on what “they see” as they move the ranging wheel / parallax adjustment

 

[_CTAIRGUNNER_]

That’s why most folks spend the time creating a dope chart based on what “they see” as they move the ranging wheel / parallax adjustment

Maybe target shooters but ppl who pull and plink and use the same rifles for hunting want "reference" points on the scope, 10/10 I've talked to all say same

 

[cavedweller]

Maybe target shooters but ppl who pull and plink and use the same rifles for hunting want "reference" points on the scope, 10/10 I've talked to all say same

My point is - the most accurate parallax wheel you can have, is the one "you create" and "verify" by taking the shots and making a dope chart. It also helps to use ballistics programs like chairgun and strelock pro. I absolutely get what your saying, but how accurate you want to be, is directly related to a time investment.