Glass snob question 😁

[Bubblehide]

When it's low light, with a canopy of pine, and a deer comes walking across your trail at 200 yds, and you want to identify it - fawn buck/doe? That nice 10 pointer you had on camera/ or his brother, the not quite as big one, or even the difference between a doe and a 3" spike, and you've got 5-10 seconds to make up your mind, it becomes an observation device until the second before you pull the trigger. Such a ridiculous argument that happens on every optics forum. I think it comes from brand loyalty. Guys buy swaros and talk about how much better their glass is than the NF guys, and the NF guy talks about how bomb proof his scope is compared to the swaro guy. Or whatever. They spent the $ and need to defend their purchase. I know what I want, you know what you want. Can't we leave it at that. Could maybe someone answer one of the actual questions I asked, cause that's why I joined?

And to think I thought you said you came here to learn. I suppose learning the hard way is an option though.

 

[KenLee]

And to think I thought you said you came here to learn. I suppose learning the hard way is an option though.

He learned he can't buy a Nightforce for under $2000 that will do what he wants within his budget. You can't shoot what you can't see...or identify.

 

[Gallahad]

The best thing is to purchase a scope that does both, has bulletproof internals as well as good glass. They’re not mutually exclusive, but to purchase a scope ONLY because it has good glass is ridiculous, and the opposite is also true. You asked for our opinions on a public, online forum on your proposed options for optics. Just consider that maybe we have a different point of view that’s just as valid as yours, even if you think it’s faulty. And if you don’t like our responses, you can always ignore them.

Not a nightforce owner, so your argument is null and void there. But I do believe in purchasing quality, rugged, and reliable optics that will maintain zero under normal use and occasional abuse. That’s how most of us feel here on Rokslide, because we’ve been burned by mechanical optic failures in field, even when the “glass” still looked good.

Check out the Trijicon Credo HX and Huron lines of scopes. They’re a stripped down, modern optic with great glass and (from some of the tests on here), Trijicon seem to have solid internals. They’ll all be eons ahead mechanically of the Swaros and the Meoptas you’re looking at, and their glass is great to boot. Plus you don’t need a second mortgage to pick one up. That Huron looks like it’s got a reticle you’d like. Winner-winner, backstrap dinner.

Ok. Never indicated I wanted glass at the expense of poor mechanics. In this post you gave helpful information in that regard with the trijicon. I generally assume if I'm spending over 1k on an optic it's going to do what it's supposed to mechanically. Maybe I'm wrong? I threw in the "or whatever" in my post assuming you may not be a NF guy. I totally respect your opinions whether I actually agree with them or not, just been overwhelmed on several forums by pi$$ing matches over this topic. I apologize if I overreacted. I thank you for your good suggestion and thoughts. I really do appreciate it.

 

[nobody]

I generally assume if I'm spending over 1k on an optic it's going to do what it's supposed to mechanically.

Unfortunately, through the testing being performed here (check the long range hunting forum, there’s a sub-forum titled “Scope Testing” or something to that affect), mechanical reliability does not correlate with price spent. One of the most popular optics on here, SWFA fixed powers, are about $300 and are known to be mechanically great, both in zero retention and tracking.

Contrast that with the Leupold MK5 test (check that subforum), one of the most expensive optics tested, and both of the test subjects failed MISERABLY. An optics company needs to specifically design and test for zero retention from impacts, and the vast majority don’t. The Trijicon, though we don’t know to what extent, is impact tested. Leupold tests to “50,000 G’s of force,” but impacts scare them.

You’ll see patterns the longer you’re here, one of them being we place an emphasis on zero retention and durability, and glass is secondary. Not that we don’t want good glass, but we’ve decided that we would rather have Leupold VX3-ish glass quality and rock solid internals, rather than Swaro Glass and VX3 (or Swaro, for that matter) internals. Once the glass is “good enough” to not be the reason you don’t make a kill, anything better is just a bonus. But most scopes are mechanically inferior.

Then there’s the rabbit hole of mounting systems, action torque specs, action/trigger mechanism reliability, it’s never ending…

I really would encourage you to check out the Trijicon, it’ll probably be the closest to what you’re wanting.

 

[Happy Antelope]

Ok. Never indicated I wanted glass at the expense of poor mechanics. In this post you gave helpful information in that regard with the trijicon. I generally assume if I'm spending over 1k on an optic it's going to do what it's supposed to mechanically. Maybe I'm wrong? I threw in the "or whatever" in my post assuming you may not be a NF guy. I totally respect your opinions whether I actually agree with them or not, just been overwhelmed on several forums by pi$$ing matches over this topic. I apologize if I overreacted. I thank you for your good suggestion and thoughts. I really do appreciate

Unfortunately, through the testing being performed here (check the long range hunting forum, there’s a sub-forum titled “Scope Testing” or something to that affect), mechanical reliability does not correlate with price spent. One of the most popular optics on here, SWFA fixed powers, are about $300 and are known to be mechanically great, both in zero retention and tracking.

Contrast that with the Leupold MK5 test (check that subforum), one of the most expensive optics tested, and both of the test subjects failed MISERABLY. An optics company needs to specifically design and test for zero retention from impacts, and the vast majority don’t. The Trijicon, though we don’t know to what extent, is impact tested. Leupold tests to “50,000 G’s of force,” but impacts scare them.

You’ll see patterns the longer you’re here, one of them being we place an emphasis on zero retention and durability, and glass is secondary. Not that we don’t want good glass, but we’ve decided that we would rather have Leupold VX3-ish glass quality and rock solid internals, rather than Swaro Glass and VX3 (or Swaro, for that matter) internals. Once the glass is “good enough” to not be the reason you don’t make a kill, anything better is just a bonus. But most scopes are mechanically inferior.

Then there’s the rabbit hole of mounting systems, action torque specs, action/trigger mechanism reliability, it’s never ending…

I really would encourage you to check out the Trijicon, it’ll probably be the closest to what you’re wanting.

Snipershide has a fairly Indepth tracking review also, pretty fun read. https://www.snipershide.com/precision-rifle/scope-tracking-test-results-2020/

 

[Gallahad]

I just took a trip outta town. Found a Cabela's with trijicon and Zeiss stuff. Zeiss blew the accupoint out of the water. MUCH better eye box, better edge to edge, better color, much sharper/crisper. Dialing up to high mag, trijicon was very finicky, and never got as clear as it did at low power. Zeiss was just the opposite. Zeiss tunneling was almost nill, trijicon was noticable. the Zeiss was a V6, so it's not apples to apples $$$. But I'm thinking the fl diavari is the way to go. My eyes seem to like Zeiss coatings. I couldn't look at an amplus 6, still don't know how it compares.

 

[sdupontjr]

The Zeiss V6 is a very nice optic. I had a 3-18 V6 and the only reason I sold it was I wanted the illuminated dot which my S&B has. Won't go wrong with that purchase.

 

[Gallahad]

In case anyone has interest, I looked through a few more scopes today. Swarovski z6. ( All scopes I've looked at are of 16-24 max mag range, as that's what they had.) The z6 wasn't noticably better to me than the z5. If anything, I would say the eye box was a hair more finicky than the z5. Glass seemed the same as a z5 to my eyes, even though I know the z6 had hd glass. Higher zoom probably means another lens though? I believe that, for my eyes at least, the only thing I'd be paying extra for in a z6 would be the 30 mil tube.

Then looked at 2 Leupold vx6hds. First one looked great. Magnification set on 8 looked the same as the Swarovski on 10+? Eye box was a tad easier, color was warmer, but parallax was definitely worse on the leupy. Edge to edge was good, but not as good as the Swarovski. Then I looked at the 2nd example, to see a different reticle. This leupy wouldn't focus on the 60 yd target until the side focus was turned up to 300 yds. I couldn't get it as clear as the first one at any point. Same scope, different ret. Says something about Leupolds quality control to me. I actually did NOT like the illumination on the vx6s.

I'd still like to see an amplus 6, but I don't know if there's one in Wisconsin!

 

[madcalfe]

well ill chime in. looking through scopes in the store doesn't tell you much.
I'm guessing the diopter isn't set up correctly in any of the scopes you've looked through.
vx5HD and vx6HD have the same glass. but their record for retaining zero is horrible.
swaro has nice glass and their light but it stops at that, one bump you might as well get a return label to Rhode island.
I can 2nd what some guys are saying here about scope durability over glass clarity.
i went through 2 4000$ kahles before going to nightforce atacr.
ill trade a little bit of clarity for durability.
personally id look for a S&B if your caught up in having to have nice glass

 

[morgaj1]

I get wanting the best glass but at the end of the day, if a scope isn’t a reliable aiming device, it is useless. As much as I love Swaro glass, I won’t own another one of their scopes.

If the glass on Nightforces and Trijicons don’t do it, I would look at S&B Klassik: great glass and know reliable scopes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MTElkChaser]

I was looking at this thread and read it all the way through. I’ve looked through 1” tubes that were perceivably better to my eyes than a 30mm tube. But like you, I prefer at least a 30mm tube and that’s all that I have on my rifles.

I called a buddy of mine that I sheep hunt with and asked what Swarovski scope he has on his sheep rifle. It’s a Swarovski Z5i 3.5-18x44 and he could literally buy any optic he wanted. He said that they used to call this model the “Sheep Hunter” due to its light weight and brightness. I’ve shot that rifle quite a bit with that optic and always thought it was pretty incredible for having a 1” main tube. If you liked the Z5, but want a 30mm tube, I’d go with the Swarovski Z6 in a 2.5-15 magnification range. You’d have the choice of either a 44mm or 56mm and you’d get the 15x max power and 30mm tube that you’re looking for. I don’t think you’d regret buying another Swarovski… Good luck!

 

[Gallahad]

Thanks again for the advice guys. I did like both Swarovskis I've had, a z3 and a z5. They both held zero, but I baby my glass, and my guns. A lot of them are in custom furniture that I made. Functional art is how I look at some of my guns. Hardest kicker I have now is a 6.5 swede. That's what my new glass will be atop. We know the best way to judge optical quality is with our own eyes, as we all may see a bit differently. I've tried to look through what I could. My eyes see Zeiss as much warmer than Swarovski. I have read the exact opposite from others. Understanding reliability is even harder. Can't beat up a scope in store! All I can go on is either other peoples experiences or my very limited experience. Warranty may come into play, but I don't wish to have a scope in the mail rather than on my rifle. A few posts back, it was said of Swarovski "I will never own another one of their scopes". I have heard from a ph in Africa that leicas, Magnus being the prime example, simple come apart on the inside, while z6s are all he puts on his dg rifles anymore. Conflicting opinions abound, but everyones experience is real. If I had 2 scopes crap out on me, I probably wouldn't buy anymore either. If I had several that worked well on heavy recoiling rifles, I would. I have thought about just getting a klassik, they are great glass, and tanks, but truthfully it's easier/ more comfortable for my eyes to get behind a Zeiss. I'm just rambling now, but maybe someone will just gift me a nice new hendsolt.

 

[Valsport]

I get wanting the best glass but at the end of the day, if a scope isn’t a reliable aiming device, it is useless. As much as I love Swaro glass, I won’t own another one of their scopes.

If the glass on Nightforces and Trijicons don’t do it, I would look at S&B Klassik: great glass and know reliable scopes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The old Bushnell Elite Tac have nice glass for the $$, but for me NF budget line, never been behind the other alphas like S&B, ZC, TT, etc

 

[Gallahad]

Figured it out! Need a company to put me together a 3-18x56 in a z6 tube with a razor g4i-bdc reticle, With Zeiss victory ht glass, and atacr internal mechanics.

 

[Gallahad]

After going down the rabbit hole on the drop test/holding zero issue, I learned that you could probably count on one hand (maybe 2) the number of scopes that will hold zero after a drop with any consistency. Now that is a generalization that many here have pointed out, but it's remarkable to me that manufacturers will declare how shock resistant there product is, but only test it with recoil motion. I even came across a video claiming a "drop test" in which a scope was bolted into a machine VERTICALLY AND FACING THE CEILING, and the mechanism dropped, coming to a sudden stop. This is nothing but a recoil test. As I said before, I don't care if a scope dials correctly. I simply don't do that. But it better hold zero. That seems like a harder gem to find than a good dialer. I do run cased rifles strapped to my four wheeler, and I believe one good bump could be just like a drop, as the scope is on its side.

Anyhoo, while I'm going to have another look at an accupoint, I'm really thinking klassik at this point. I like the looks of the L1 ret. And I'm sure I will be happy with the glass. I like the accupoint triangle post too, and the mag range is nice for what I want. I know the klassik will be better in low light, and I think that's more important. I have no way of comparing side by side, and I'm wondering which model klassik will have the best eye box. 2.5-10x56, @17" long. 3-12x50, @13" long. 4-16x50. (No L1 ret. Available for this scope)@ 17" long. ???

 

[madcalfe]

After going down the rabbit hole on the drop test/holding zero issue, I learned that you could probably count on one hand (maybe 2) the number of scopes that will hold zero after a drop with any consistency. Now that is a generalization that many here have pointed out, but it's remarkable to me that manufacturers will declare how shock resistant there product is, but only test it with recoil motion. I even came across a video claiming a "drop test" in which a scope was bolted into a machine VERTICALLY AND FACING THE CEILING, and the mechanism dropped, coming to a sudden stop. This is nothing but a recoil test. As I said before, I don't care if a scope dials correctly. I simply don't do that. But it better hold zero. That seems like a harder gem to find than a good dialer. I do run cased rifles strapped to my four wheeler, and I believe one good bump could be just like a drop, as the scope is on its side.

Anyhoo, while I'm going to have another look at an accupoint, I'm really thinking klassik at this point. I like the looks of the L1 ret. And I'm sure I will be happy with the glass. I like the accupoint triangle post too, and the mag range is nice for what I want. I know the klassik will be better in low light, and I think that's more important. I have no way of comparing side by side, and I'm wondering which model klassik will have the best eye box. 2.5-10x56, @17" long. 3-12x50, @13" long. 4-16x50. (No L1 ret. Available for this scope)@ 17" long. ???

it should say on S&B website the amount of eye relief in each scope.

 

[Gallahad]

Eye "box" can be a subjective term. Eye relief is only a part of it. In my view it's how comfortable and easy it is to view through the scope. Is there tunneling? The distance from eye to scope, the sweet spot ,very small or forgiving? Is it bright and clear right to the edge of the glass? How easily does eye fatigue set in when viewing.

 

[sdupontjr]

Can't speak on the 4-16, but the 2.5-10x56 Klassik I once had, had a very good eye relief. No matter how I threw it up, I always had no issues with getting a full field of view and not have to wander my head around to find it either. You'll be very happy with that purchase.

Here is built 700 in 308 I had with the 2.5-10x56 Klassik on it. Blue printed 700 action, shilen select match 20" barrel, grayboe stock, zewel trigger, bedded.




And the funny thing about this rifle is that my stock tikka T3 lite 308 shoots better than it did.

 

[Gallahad]

I think I'm decided on a Schmidt. Klassiks are an incredible thing for the price. Posed a question about them on this forum yesterday. I wanted the L1 reticle, but it looks like I can only get a Hungarian with that ret.
Ain't that the way it goes with guns . I like t3x's, but as rifles have gotten cheaper to produce, and more accurate, the look and feel has become, let's just say non-traditional. Some rem, win, Ruger, savage rifles look like disposable pot metal toys, or some like Lazer guns. I don't dare get one, because for all the reports I see, the majority are tack drivers, and I'd hate to love such an ugly thing! I remember being a bit younger and handling an older m77 in a hardware store, thinking what a fine piece of engineering it was. Couldn't come close to affording it at the time. Have had several since. The best shooter was the one with the thinnest barrel in 6.5x55. go figure. Wish I still had that one. Have gotten into more European stuff as I get older. Some of those old manufacturers still understand guns should be pretty, and accurate. Guess we all got our gun vices!

 

[isocyanate]

You're on the right track, IMO.

In after the dumpster fire, but a 4-16x50 Schmidt PMII is basically peak riflescope, in my book. I've shot stuff at full on night with the one I had. Five inch steel target at 300 by moonlight? Literally no problem. Never should have sold it, as used ones are rare and the 4-16 ultrabright that I want now is like 4 grand. Not happening any time soon.