Does it really matter which $3000 scope you buy?

[KevinDean]

Just lurked for 2 hours after researching scopes to replace a few of my junkers. Looking at MK5, Vortex III, Nightforce, Trijicon etc..

As we know, you ask 10 professionals about which chainsaw, which drug reduces cholesterol or who makes the best rifle scope and you'll get 15 answers. I found repeated arguments over which scope is holding zero (not to mention all the other specs we want) and lots of extreme opinions looking for general ideas.

I'm surprised that ANY of these scopes might be expected to hold a "perfect" zero over months, weeks or even days as there is so much more involved in making that happen (rifle, ammo, weather, mount, scope etc.). At least what a long range shooter might consider zero.

I'll narrow my thought to just a scope's mechanical assembly. I've built 24 bit absolute optical encoders for space telescopes and single digit micro-radian per degree C pointing stability laser systems. To even test these systems over a specified temp range requires severe stability from low CTE materials like invar coupled to high resolution sensors. Everything is jelly when you're looking sub milliradian and that is exactly what long range shooters are doing.

Have none of the trade groups gathered a selection of these scopes and sent them to a test house to get shock/vibe/temp flogged for stability as it is not hard to do. Surely there has been military testing because there are mil specs for optics.

So barring some miracle scope, they will ALL lose their zero at some microradian level that nobody is sharing. Until they do we're left with durability, optical quality, ergonomics, functionality and maybe warranty?

 

[Dioni A]

Rifle Scope Field Evaluations

rokslide.com

You have a lot more reading to do.

 

[2-Stix]

NF if you want it to work...I just saved you a lot of reading...but as Dioni A said...you have lots of reading.

 

[sdupontjr]

What do you intend to do with it? Makes all the difference in the world depending on what is your intended purpose for the optic. Dialing (a lot), target precision, low light hunting, open prairie. All these factors play into which optic I would choose.

 

[MallardSX2]

Yes. It really does matter.

It's likely the last scope I will every buy before the divorce.

$3000 for a scope. Lord have mercy.

 

[JGRaider]

I hunt wide open country and have for 40+ years. The day I need a $3000 scope to kill something is the day I take up golf.

 

[RockAndSage]

Have none of the trade groups gathered a selection of these scopes and sent them to a test house to get shock/vibe/temp flogged for stability as it is not hard to do. Surely there has been military testing because there are mil specs for optics.

So barring some miracle scope, they will ALL lose their zero at some microradian level that nobody is sharing

OP, it's cool to see someone here that has your degree of experience in optical sciences, and I genuinely hope that over time you can add to our understandings of things at the higher end of it all. There are a couple of aspects to all this that are being conflated though, that are understandable.

First, you're right that in the context of rifle scopes, that at the microradian level they will all lose their zero - as you noted, coefficients of thermal expansion are a thing. And these things are built for field realities of rifles and individual consumers, not tanks or aerospace - meaning they'll be far lighter and less rigid, at least with current materials science. That said, at the microradian level, very few people are capable of noticing that level of difference in any given condition - and it seems those changes in zero likely return to where they were when the conditions that gun, ammo, and scope are returned. Regardless, click adjustments alone on a scope might be a full order of magnitude or greater beyond the levels you're talking about. What you're looking for is the reasonable level of capability that you the shooter, your gun, and your ammo are capable of utilizing.

The second thing though, is that there is virtually nothing in the civilian gun world beyond ammo that seems to have any standardized testing body, testing specifications, or standardized tests like ASTMs by which anything can be judged or publicized. Accuracy, reliability, durability, precision, etc - they're all subjective and without objective, standardized measures of rating.

It's the greatest shortcoming of the industry, and allows for a torrential sewer of charlatanism.

 

[doc holiday13]

Have you looked at the used scope market? Lots of great high end scopes on discount. Scopes are fairly easy to rehab if they start going bad

 

[KenLee]

Yes. It really does matter.

It's likely the last scope I will every buy before the divorce.

$3000 for a scope. Lord have mercy.

Yes. It really does matter.

It's likely the last scope I will every buy before the divorce.

$3000 for a scope. Lord have mercy.

For 2 decades I thought any scope over $200 was insane. Next 2 decades I thought over $500 was insane. 4 seasons ago, I bought an alpha scope and have since thought that I should have bought one 2 decades earlier.
Divorces are generally worth every dime and effort.

 

[Macintosh]

Maybe it should be the first scope after the divorce?

 

[K9kodi]

Just make sure it’s not marital property haha. Sorry to hear about that mess it’s never fun. Sometimes a breath of fresh air, but most of the time it’s a deeep long painful breath before you can breathe again.

I’m not sure if there is a scope we can purchase that meets your professional requirements.

 

[KevinDean]

Well you're all correct that I have lots of reading to do to catch up. That eval link looks lots of
hard work being shared which is very valuable and will take some time to chew.

RockAndSage - I know for a fact that I can no longer be depended upon to consistently hold inside of one moa. Certainly not uRads but I would like to know that the error is mine and not the hardware.

Probably the only thing stopping a thorough test spec for rifle scopes is the manufacturers themselves. That would put many of them out of business if they did poorly or refused to test. The other result is 100s of thousands of hours of voluntary testing to wide ranging levels of quality by well-intentioned shooters with various levels of skill and experience (many of them following scientific methods) who then document their work for magazines or forums. It just takes time to wade through all that data so we don't spend good money on crappy equipment.

Or you can just ask a few folks who are already in up to their eyebrows.

I really wasn't wanting to spend 3k each on 2 or 3 scopes but after doing "a lot of reading" anything less than $1000 must be garbage and evidently a lot of $2500 scopes can't be depended upon either..

Less then a dozen of my rifles are high grade safe queens and don't get used. Gonna sell.

I need to pare down way too many mediocre rifles with $500 scopes to a dozen reliable - professional tools with rugged optics that can hunt OR shoot bench rest and take up a lot less space. What scope do you run on a McMillan stock 700 26" bull .300 RUM if you might ELR Elk or paper? I'll be retiring before long and have a lot more time to spend. Have another 700 with Leopold mk3 / Douglas barrel in .270 for whitetails. Winchester 70s, Sakos, Weatherbys Brownings, lever guns and way too many AR 10s/15s. Need to gun show most of this hardware.

I might do some friendly competitive shoots but nothing serious. Same for shotguns / skeet. I do have a few ARs configured with thermal and evidently need to up my optics game there too with Vortex or something.

Nightforce, Trijicon and others with military cred may be where I lean for durable long range.

 

[sdupontjr]

I hunt wide open country and have for 40+ years. The day I need a $3000 scope to kill something is the day I take up golf.

I know, I thought the same thing. But I hunt hard woods and open areas. My hard woods block out the sun and I had bought and sold so many optics looking for low light capability and finally said the hell with it and bought a SB Polar. It sucked at first, but glad I did.

 

[wind gypsy]

The cost goes for different focuses IMO. I wouldn't put a Kahles on par with a ATACR for durability but if I had to bet on one of the two tracking perfectly i'd bet on Kahles. I'd also bet on a NF being good enough. If I had to bet on a MOA scope showing up with a Mil turret, having ghost clicks, or losing zero - the MK5 would get my money. But they have nice reticles, glass, are lighter, and cost a little less than the others you mention.

Just dont waste $3k on a March..

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

It doesn't matter to me because I'll never spend that much money for a scope!

I have 6 Leupold VXIII's (1 3x10, 4 4x14 and 1 6x18) and they have done the job for for over 10 years and all cost less than $1,000 when I bought them. They all hold their zero and all of my rifles shoot less than MOA , which suits me just fine.