Rifle Scopes, what is enough?
Rambling Warning!
I’ve been participating in several discussions about scopes, glass quality and features. It’s gotten me thinking, what is enough?
If you want top end, names like Zeiss and Leupold are first up. These are top end scopes that command high price tags. I was looking at Leupold FFP, 3.5x to 25x, side focus, etc. It’s only $4300. High end Zeiss scopes can be in the same price ranges. The thought that you must spend $1000 and up to get quality a scope is common.
In the past, that might have been correct, but is it today? What do you really need to spend to get a scope of quality, adequate for hitting starlings at150 yards?
In the camera world, there are so many variables that we need an independent party to provide comparisons. There’s a web site called DXO Mark (DXOMARK.COM) that attempts to fill the void. If I want to compare Nikon to Canon or Nikon to a third party like Tamron lenses for things like light transmission, sharpness, and other elements that are important to camera nuts, I can go there and get an idea of what is going on. I’m not aware of anything similar for rifle scopes, but if you go there, you’ll get the idea of what I’m talking about.
It would be nice to be able to compare scopes the way I compare lenses. Example, I was considering purchasing a Nikon 70-200mm lens because it is supposedly much sharper than my 55-300mm. According to DXO Mark, it really is much sharper. DXO Sharpness score is 27 for the 70-200mm and a 6 for the 55-300. Sounds like a lot, but here’s the real question though. Does it make enough difference to warrant the $2800 for a new lens or the $1200 to $1500 for a used lens. In my case, probably not.
The initial scores were shot on different cameras. DXO Mark allows you to select the camera the lens was tested on, so when that was changed to be the same across the board, the scores changed dramatically, showing that the coupled with the sensor in my camera were so close, it really didn’t make $1500 worth of difference to me. All lenses are sharp and clear and highly usable, but the more expensive lens, just a bit more.
Leaving cameras, going back to rifle scopes –
I don’t know of anything like DXO Mark for scopes, so we can’t compare there, however, we can extrapolate a couple points.
If your eye is the camera sensor in this case, and you are considering a $4300 Leupold compared to a MTC Viper Pro ($4,300 compared to around $600), can you really tell the difference in a meaningful way? For some of us, the OCD kicks in and there’s that minor thing really bugs us until we get it fixed, I understand that!), but is there really a meaningful difference?
In the camera world, all decent lenses used to come out of Japan. Not so anymore. Philippines, and now China produce some phenomenal products. That decreases the cost of the glass and assembly considerably. My Redfield Spotting Scope (Redfield now owned by Leupold) with the 80mm objective lens and costing only $300. To my eye (and my wife’s) was the equivalent of much more expensive scopes on the shelf. It was made in the Philippine’s. I compared it against the KOWA, Leupold, and Swarovski scopes and yes, there were differences, but for the money, the Redfield was more than adequate. In Yellowstone, several people with much more expensive scopes remarked that this was surprisingly bright and sharp. Little chromatic aberration.
Now, is it as good as a Swarovski? That all depends on how you look at it. If I’d had to spend the $2000 or more for the Swarovski, or even the $900 for the equivalent Vortex, I’d still be waiting to buy the scope. Scope in hand is worth thousands on the shelf. Grizzly at 400 to 500 yards were crystal clear. Would the Swarovski view been better? Sure, but that scope would have still been on the shelf at the store, so doing me absolutely no good.
Lastly, the thought that any scope under $500 isn’t worth wasting your money on (Which I’ve been told many times) simply isn’t true. Can you get better scopes than the BSA 4-14x44 FFP that retails for $300? Sure, but I really like the combination of features, sharpness and brightness, even at highest magnification.
Enough rambling for today. In summary, scope quality has changed radically over the past 20 years for the better. I’m now much less concerned with glass quality (crappiest glass today is light years ahead of 40 years ago,) but I am concerned with the feature list, such as FFP, magnification, Mil-Mil systems and such. In my opinion, you should be somewhat concerned with the glass and much more concerned with the overall light transmission, turrets, magnification, eye box, and other features. Most glass today is adequate.
I’ve left lots up there for people to shoot at (pun intended), so take your best shots!
Rambling Warning!
I’ve been participating in several discussions about scopes, glass quality and features. It’s gotten me thinking, what is enough?
If you want top end, names like Zeiss and Leupold are first up. These are top end scopes that command high price tags. I was looking at Leupold FFP, 3.5x to 25x, side focus, etc. It’s only $4300. High end Zeiss scopes can be in the same price ranges. The thought that you must spend $1000 and up to get quality a scope is common.
In the past, that might have been correct, but is it today? What do you really need to spend to get a scope of quality, adequate for hitting starlings at150 yards?
In the camera world, there are so many variables that we need an independent party to provide comparisons. There’s a web site called DXO Mark (DXOMARK.COM) that attempts to fill the void. If I want to compare Nikon to Canon or Nikon to a third party like Tamron lenses for things like light transmission, sharpness, and other elements that are important to camera nuts, I can go there and get an idea of what is going on. I’m not aware of anything similar for rifle scopes, but if you go there, you’ll get the idea of what I’m talking about.
It would be nice to be able to compare scopes the way I compare lenses. Example, I was considering purchasing a Nikon 70-200mm lens because it is supposedly much sharper than my 55-300mm. According to DXO Mark, it really is much sharper. DXO Sharpness score is 27 for the 70-200mm and a 6 for the 55-300. Sounds like a lot, but here’s the real question though. Does it make enough difference to warrant the $2800 for a new lens or the $1200 to $1500 for a used lens. In my case, probably not.
The initial scores were shot on different cameras. DXO Mark allows you to select the camera the lens was tested on, so when that was changed to be the same across the board, the scores changed dramatically, showing that the coupled with the sensor in my camera were so close, it really didn’t make $1500 worth of difference to me. All lenses are sharp and clear and highly usable, but the more expensive lens, just a bit more.
Leaving cameras, going back to rifle scopes –
I don’t know of anything like DXO Mark for scopes, so we can’t compare there, however, we can extrapolate a couple points.
If your eye is the camera sensor in this case, and you are considering a $4300 Leupold compared to a MTC Viper Pro ($4,300 compared to around $600), can you really tell the difference in a meaningful way? For some of us, the OCD kicks in and there’s that minor thing really bugs us until we get it fixed, I understand that!), but is there really a meaningful difference?
In the camera world, all decent lenses used to come out of Japan. Not so anymore. Philippines, and now China produce some phenomenal products. That decreases the cost of the glass and assembly considerably. My Redfield Spotting Scope (Redfield now owned by Leupold) with the 80mm objective lens and costing only $300. To my eye (and my wife’s) was the equivalent of much more expensive scopes on the shelf. It was made in the Philippine’s. I compared it against the KOWA, Leupold, and Swarovski scopes and yes, there were differences, but for the money, the Redfield was more than adequate. In Yellowstone, several people with much more expensive scopes remarked that this was surprisingly bright and sharp. Little chromatic aberration.
Now, is it as good as a Swarovski? That all depends on how you look at it. If I’d had to spend the $2000 or more for the Swarovski, or even the $900 for the equivalent Vortex, I’d still be waiting to buy the scope. Scope in hand is worth thousands on the shelf. Grizzly at 400 to 500 yards were crystal clear. Would the Swarovski view been better? Sure, but that scope would have still been on the shelf at the store, so doing me absolutely no good.
Lastly, the thought that any scope under $500 isn’t worth wasting your money on (Which I’ve been told many times) simply isn’t true. Can you get better scopes than the BSA 4-14x44 FFP that retails for $300? Sure, but I really like the combination of features, sharpness and brightness, even at highest magnification.
Enough rambling for today. In summary, scope quality has changed radically over the past 20 years for the better. I’m now much less concerned with glass quality (crappiest glass today is light years ahead of 40 years ago,) but I am concerned with the feature list, such as FFP, magnification, Mil-Mil systems and such. In my opinion, you should be somewhat concerned with the glass and much more concerned with the overall light transmission, turrets, magnification, eye box, and other features. Most glass today is adequate.
I’ve left lots up there for people to shoot at (pun intended), so take your best shots!
