Scope criteria?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
johnwoitalla

johnwoitalla

Member
Jul 23, 2021
212
275
California, United States
After going through several brands and models of scopes, I’ve come to the conclusion that I have two main criteria by which I judge scopes. First and foremost is resolution and contrast. I’ve been a photographer for about 127 years and have always been an eyelash counter. I demand a razor sharp image. Without a doubt, resolution is my #1 criteria for optics. Secondly, the reticle must be extremely fine with a tiny, tiny dot. I’m not into “light gathering,” I don’t give a rip about what sort of gas it’s filled with. I don’t care about rare earth elements, aircraft grade metallurgy, or ultra super scientific terminology-I don’t understand 90% of the technical jargon used to promote scopes anyway. Third, ease of operation, and build quality are high up too, but that goes without saying because my first criteria feeds right into the other qualities. The scopes I like/trust most then turn out to be the expensive ones like Leupold, Zeiss, Schmidt & Bender, Swarovski, et al. I’ve bought enough cheap scopes to learn that you really do get what you pay for. 
What criteria do you use when choosing a scope?
 
90% i care about eyebox .. i dont spend hours on a bench i pest, regularly, and a good eyebox puts me on target in spontaneous conditions fast .. the other 10 i do enjoy a clear picture and a nice reticle but id rather buy another gun than spend it all on a scope .. at least for now .. i'll eventually get a high end one just because, just like i plan on putting a nice boyds stock on a couple of my favorite guns ...
 
Upvote 0
1) It must function correctly(little to no POI shift when changing mag and focus, correct hash values, repeatable positive clicking turrets, turrets agree with values on reticle, will it range correctly, etc..) or I won't trust it. Since I have set up a scope testing table and 100 yard range like the one Cyclops Joe uses, I have had a couple scopes fail to be 100% consistently repeatable. This has led to me having to go back and re-evaluate the accuracy of some airguns with one of the 5 scopes I own which ALWAYS pass the functionality test.

2) Reticle that is functional for the application AND pleases my eye. I've found that if I just plain don't LIKE the looks of a reticle, then I won't shoot it well.

3) Lastly, clarity of glass. Many functional scopes that I have used with great success in the past have had what I(and others) would considered poor glass clarity. I'm usually not "taking a picture" of what I'm shooting at, lol.
 
Upvote 0
It’s hard (for me anyway) to break things down in such a simple way, with fixed percentages, but I’ll give it a try.

40% Resolution/Clarity (although there are minimums below which the scope is simply disqualified, so at that point its 100%)

20% Turrets/tracking. If it will not track/click crisply, and return to zero correctly, that’s a big deal

20% Eyebox/eye relief It’s gotta be easy to use, look through and not be so finicky that a 10mm shift in my eye position renders it unusable.

10% Reticle (although if the reticle is poor I just won’t buy it. Still, some are just better than others, even when they are within the acceptable zone.

10% Overall/qualitative/subjective feel. This is quite important to me, but is obviously subjective. The Crimson Trace Series 2,3,5 scopes that I have picked up recently ace this, especially at their (Midway ) sale prices. All my Athlons do well here too.

Chris
 
Upvote 0
I'm no scope snob. I do care about the glass as I shoot far & for precision on paper mostly.
All I know is I judge most scopes compared to my old Japanese Bushnells. 
I can just make out a big ring around Saturn looking through the one on 18x when it's rested on the sandbag. 


We'll see how a Athlon Midas BTR measures up from the same 18x through top end 27x.
 
Upvote 0
If you have doe any serious shooting with a rifle you might want to reconsider the tiny dot in the center. Tried one some years back, the tiny dot will dissapear on a dark background. Seems to be a common complaint when I researched after I found my issue with them. I learned many years back to buy quality scopes, nothing but Burris and Leupold for the past 30 yrs. Still in operation today!
 
Upvote 0
1. Reliability and build quality - Will it hold zero even if it accidentally gets dropped or bumped a few times? Do the turrets track correctly, does it pass the box test? Does the parallax and magnification turn smoothly, does the diopter not have any play and turn smooth as well? To me this is first and foremost and if it’s a no go on this it doesn’t matter how good the glass is or anything else. I would take a reliable scope with marginal glass over a scope with excellent glass that isn’t reliable.


2. Optics - Preferably something with good glass that also has good coatings. It should be clear and not have excessive chromatic aberration. It needs to be bright and help with low light conditions when it’s getting dark out.

3. Reticle - One that fits the application the scope is going to be used for. I do much prefer something with additional aiming points other than the crosshairs or center dot. And I also prefer the center dot over crosshairs but either one will do as long as it’s not overly large or small. It doesn’t work if it completely covers the aim point and more or if you can’t even see the reticle to aim.

4. Warranty - I’m surprised this hasn’t been mentioned yet. If all my other criteria has been met, I really appreciate a solid warranty. Athlon and Vortex come to mind as they are unconditional. Even if you accidentally drop your scope off a cliff or back up over it with your truck they will fix it or send you a new one. This is definitely worth something to me, especially when I am approaching or exceeding $1,000.00 on a scope purchase. It’s nice to know even if I screw it up they will cover it. It also makes buying a used optic less worrisome, send it back to the manufacturer if there is an issue, no receipt required.


 
Upvote 0
How old is old on these Bushnells of which you speak? I have a Bushnell 4-12x40(I think it's a Trophy) on my RWS 54 that I bought in 2001- it is tough as a tank, the moving parts are smooth and precise, but the optics are what I would consider mediocre. I haven't had to make any adjustments on that scope since zeroing it 20 years ago. I also have several 6-20x40 Weaver Grand Slams which are fairly sharp, but well built and reliable. Future scopes will be something like a Leupold, Zeiss, Night Force.
 
Upvote 0
We’re shooting air rifles beyond 100 yards Some times significantly beyond. That changes the demands for the optics as well. Same with powder burners. I was shooting at 500 and out to 800 yards with one of my varmint rifles. Up to that point I thought my leupold scope plenty good enough. Same with my Athlon on my air rifles but when you are testing the limits of the gun the better or even BEST optics are if not a necessary they are a help. One of the things not mentioned often is that looking thru good optics places a lot less strain on my eyes. I think that’s true for most and especially the older guys . I like simple reticles. I’ll dial in what I need. The rest is a distraction to me. Second focal plane as well.
 
Upvote 0
One of the things not mentioned often is that looking thru good optics places a lot less strain on my eyes. I think that’s true for most and especially the older guys . I like simple reticles. I’ll dial in what I need. The rest is a distraction to me. Second focal plane as well.
Click to expand...

Eye strain! Most of the time, looking thru cheaper optics on high magnification my eyes feel like they are shaking. I also prefer second focal plane scopes. Most of the time a First focal plane scope is only usable on half or its magnification. However they are what are selling so someone likes them for sure. Busy reticles remind me of looking thru a dirty windshield covered with bugs. 
 
Upvote 0
My standards are low and in spite of that I seem to punch paper, starling and ground squirrel quite adequately.

Even a lowly BugBuster 3-9 x 32 will do, and does, on my Taipan Vet Long and RTI Performance Compact. 

I will get better glass someday but I am not sure what would be the size and weight of the the lowly BugBuster but better clarity?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu