Optics: Why is it such a subjective topic?

[2L8]

Optics are such a subjective topic for many reasons as we know. I wanted to open this up as a safe place to share what the parameters we contemplated before “laying down the cash $$” for our next Optic purchase, regardless of price, <$100 />$3000, whatever...Details, details, details

This is NOT a “brand” conversation so please refrain, as it will muddy the conversation. This is a personal experience explanation of “why” you purchase the particular optics you do, at the price point you did. Country of design/origin is permitted.


Patrick

 

[JungleShooter]

That's an excellent question...!

(I'll wait with my response.)

Matthias

 

[Sqwirl57]

Thats a broad question that I really can't answer easily. My typical system is to wait for Midway to blow out the previous gen of an optic at half price. They're usually 95% of the quality at 1/2 the price of the new version.

Personal preferences for these optics are FFP, target, uncapped turrets that track well, and a 44mm or larger objective, with an internal adjustment range of at least 60moa. Bonus points for locking turrets and a zero stop. Glass quality is somewhat important but not a deal breaker if the price is right. I just don't use them when it's too dark out.

I have zero issues using the cheap stuff though but don't generally dip below the UTG line. They are just barely passable as "decent" but I have yet to kill a single one on even magnum springers so they get a pass.

 

[boscoebrea]

Problems will arise because of people's eyes, the bridge of their nose, and their ability to realize the nuances that it takes to make and see the difference in "glass"
Many people can go beyond the thought that good glass can make them a better shooter,yet they do become good shots without $$$$scopes.
Now that I have roiled some,I will say that for over 20 years or more there have been "charts" , tests, comparisons, etc on many different scopes in many price ranges.
I Think it is a great idea, the more comparisons the easier it is to "SEE" which scopes make the Same lists.....
I will never pay more for a scope than the gun it is mounted on.
The poster is 100% right,"glass" is such a personal thing,like dog breeds,lol..

 

[Airgun-hobbyist]

I choose based on several factors. These factors are a list of "check boxes" with features that I am looking for in a scope for a particular gun. It has little to do with the price even, because I have scopes that are inexpensive and others that are more costly. But as a whole, they all have most of the same boxes checked off. My list is something like this, in no particular order...

What gun is it going on
FFP or SFP
MOA or MIL
Magnification range
Holdover hash marks
Reticle tree
Parallax adjustment range
Dialer turrets or capped
Lighted reticle
Short or long
Light or heavy
Glass clarity
Peer Reviews
Adjustability
Strengths and weaknesses
Cost versus features

 

[Solo1]

Well to try to answer i shoot field target and paper mostly. I do hunt some. So to list what is important to me
Moa over mill more aim points
I like a dirty recticle aim points
The reticle must be large enough to be seen in dim light
Illumination is a +
Focus to 10 yds
Clear as possible at a reasonable price. Don’t like to go over $600
The scope im using now on most of my guns fits this and i can see 177 pellet holes at 100 yds (6-24 power) and works well up to 30 cal. There may be better but i have not found it yet
Oh need to add needs to focus sharply and reliably preferably ffp

 

[Vetmx]

I treat scopes the same way I try to base my decisions on everything. I don’t buy a Dodge truck or Honda car and declare it the best. You can’t until you own everything. I’ve owned optics from the bottom to the top. Jumped on the FFP bandwagon then bailed off. Was enamored with optics that looked like Jackson Pollock did the reticles. Now I definitely know what I like for hunting, what I like for the bench and what will work for both. Scopes are personal so I have no recommendations, just observations.

 

[Revoman]

Top of the list is clarity. Then brightness. I prefer FFP with side parallax adjustment. Illuminated I can do without, yet most brands include it, so it's tough not to have it (makes the scope heavier and cost more).

Mike

 

[delooper]

I don't consider a hell of a lot. I wanted some digital night vision, so I got it. I wanted an adjustable-zoom optical scope that could hold zero, so I got that (and sold the scopes that came with my Crossman springers). And I got some red dots, because often-enough, that's all I need. And I got some laser pointers, since they're also often-enough all I need.

Strangely enough, the optical scope that can hold zero is the thing I use the least often, and these are the things that seem to get the most discussion on the forum.

 

[bigHUN]

I had many scopes before and even today I have more scopes then I have guns. I have the mounts setup for quick swapping around depend what game I will play today, long range, mid range or close ups.
I established my own preferences for my rings shooting.
I want a power to see my POI at 100 - 200 so I don't need to pack an extra spotting scope.
I am shooting random days shine or rain, and random time of the day, the sun is going around me, cut the glare and Fata Morgana - mirages as much possible.
I was mostly holdover for some longer time but this year I got more into clicks, I can see a value there.
SFP, I hate to see the reticle image is changing.
MOA

 

[L.Leon]

For me it’s depends on the gun it’s going on and intended use. Which might be true for most of us. What my scopes “must have” for air gunning?
FFP
IR
SF

 

[N2 Shooter]

I hunt and pest. I need something that makes both of these an elementary exercise. I am in no way enamored by testing my skills, I want what I'm aiming at dead by any means necessary. That is why I use scopes with Built In Ballistic Calculators. Some say it's like cheating, but I'm playing to win.

 

[steve123]

I don't know what I can add but like everyone else I don't want to spend anymore money than I have to so finding a good deal and saving some dough is one of the top priorities. So very rarely do I pay retail anymore.
I also try to do my research so I have a good idea what others think about something before I buy it.
Next is how good is the warranty and what standing the Co has in financial strength or in other words words will they be around for the long haul.

Me;

It took years but I've nailed down what works for me best.

For long range I like /mil turret/mil click/, 34mm FFP scopes and usually in the 5-25x56 range.
All .2 mil tree reticles, .1 mil clicks, 10 mil per revolution, zero stop, distinct turrets lacking lash that line up well, locking turrets wanted if possible, rev lines on the turret stem, illuminated, euro style diopter adjustment, good glass at minimum. And close focus especially for the airguns.

Learned a few years ago that for general purpose a lower powered variable FFP DMR style with side focus, or DFP LPVO with side focus, are the way to go for me for closer in and faster acquisition. Again in mil/mil with close focus.

I learned this year that strictly for BR I prefer high magnification SFP scopes with a very simple reticle. Almost don't care if mil/mil but using .05 mil clicks would suit me best.

Discouraged with Red Dot scopes because of astigmatism which makes what used to look like a nice round dot when I was younger to now appearing as a red colored single celled organism, lol. So 1x prism scopes with a diopter are my preferred for this type of optic.

 

[Smok3y]

Yikes… there are so many variables to choosing a scope, many of which Airgun-Hobbyist mentioned. So I’ll skip all the specs that are needed to narrow down the list and I’ll focus on the two things that determine whether I’ll keep the scope, and therefore keep my money invested in it. Most of the specs are just choosing what is right for an application, but many of those still won’t make the Final Cut. I don’t mind buying scopes and trying them out and selling them if they aren’t for me. Price mostly doesn’t matter, because I have found good expensive scope and less expensive scopes. I try to stay mid tiers if I can to allow for more purchases .

As far as I’m concerned the most important thing can’t be found on paper specs, and the other is hard to be sure.

My 2 most important factors after sifting thru specs:

1. Reticle - I feel like the reticle is too often secondary in people’s choices, but for me is one of the most important. The obvious stuff like clean reticle vs tree reticle and MOA/MIL are usually as far as people take it, if they do at all. Those are important, because some reticles can be downright unusable, but I also think some of that is part of the general spec finding mission.
   • I have found that reticle thickness has become extremely important to me, more so in SFP scopes. I haven’t found this to be a major issue in most FFP scopes, but it has been in a few cases. Much too often, the reticle size is much too thin and I have a difficult time seeing the reticle, even after properly setting up the scope. This has been one of the main reasons I have personally rejected scopes. I had to make a chart the last time I was purchasing a SFP scope to compare reticle thicknesses, to save me rejecting a few more. I am very glad I did, because I found that a few I thought I wanted to try were even thinner than some I didn’t like. I am happy when these specs are published so I can check them out in comparison to what I have liked.
2. My eyes… I don’t even know what a lot of the scope optical terminology means when smart people talk about it, but I know what my eyes see.
   • Diopter range is something that is often not published, but I have wondered if it is not a spec that has allowed me to like a few scopes more than others. Back to the reticle and properly focusing it, I have been able to focus it better on a handful of scopes than others, and I have often wondered if it was related to the diopter adjustment range and my (bad) eyes.
   • Resolution/contrast - whichever you prefer, your eyes will tell you. What is important to me most often, is on paper in low light, because my “range” is through the woods at my property. I like shooting at tiny targets and the lighting is not great, so what my eyes prefer in that situation is most important. They don’t put that on a spec sheet.

 

[Mr.H]

Problems will arise because of people's eyes, the bridge of their nose, and their ability to realize the nuances that it takes to make and see the difference in "glass"
Many people can go beyond the thought that good glass can make them a better shooter,yet they do become good shots without $$$$scopes.
Now that I have roiled some,I will say that for over 20 years or more there have been "charts" , tests, comparisons, etc on many different scopes in many price ranges.
I Think it is a great idea, the more comparisons the easier it is to "SEE" which scopes make the Same lists.....
I will never pay more for a scope than the gun it is mounted on.
The poster is 100% right,"glass" is such a personal thing,like dog breeds,lol..

Indeed! I'm in my mid 60's, I wear progressive bi-focal, and I have an astigmatism in my shooting eye. To you guys that have "normal" vision, consider yourself fortunate. My selection for scopes is probably not the same as the rest of you.

 

[Harv24]

N/A

 

[2L8]

Remember. BRANDS of scopes are not relevant to this post, as I said in my original. Mention of a brand could negate your legitimacy to members here. Be real and be legit. No BS.

Patrick

 

[rcs9250]

I often hear “clear glass”, “bright glass” and similar. I’ve never looked through a truly top of the line scope to see what that’s like, that might be a good thing. I spend, typically $300-$1000 on a scope sometimes a touch over a thousand if the scope excites something in me. I try to separate want from need but want can win, but it’s OK because it just means easier resale if I find something better or more exciting. I’m not a sniper, I don’t pretend to be one, so I don’t need a scope that has a bazillion MOA or MIL elevation. I don’t really need a Christmas tree reticle, but some easy to differentiate stadia lines on elevation for holdovers are really appreciated as I most often do hold overs in the woods and carry a range finder and reticle sketch for dope, windage typically isn’t an issue in the woods I hunt. My hunting is generally under 40yds but have dope to 50yds. At the gun club I’ll tinker with clicks after getting a zero but because I have a very short attention span I use holdovers in the woods so I don’t forget to adjust the elevation adjustment in the heat of the moment. The shot opportunities aren’t every five minutes so when I get one I want it to count.
To sum up, the price range I buy usually has decent glass, I guess. A quickly useable reticle is an important feature. And of course magnification for the intended purpose holds a lot of weight.

 

[dizzums]

because it depends on what your doing ... big difference between punching paper from a bench and blasting that little mudwhistle chewing your property up behind the garage . .

 

[CyberDyneSystems]

Different priorities.

Some will prioritize turrets, some reticle, SFP vs FFP,. rtc.

For me, optical quality is number one. (I'm more of a holdover guy, than a turret twiddler, mostly because I'm too dumb to fully get used to adjusting a scope on the fly) so that moves that priority way down.

Reticle is important too,. but I'll still work with an odd reticle before I work with bad glass. And yet I can fully understand why some would be exactly the opposite.