Is glass quality in scopes actually a factor?

[Wprinkle]

I completely "see" why glass quality is top concern for spotting optics, zero argument here. But with aiming devices is it that important? I honestly can not really say that the glass difference between say SWFA, Leupold, Nightforce SHV, Swaro or Maven is enough to even be a factor. I have 20/15 vision so I'm not blind. I have never missed anything at distance with a "lower quality" optic and thought "damn if I had better glass that would be a dead animal." Low light maybe, maybe not. Yet I argue almost daily with a buddy who swears Nightforce SHV glass is so bad its unusable...

Am I more ratarded than I thought or is the scope glass thing being blown way out of proportion?

EDIT: Talking only about glass quality and with big game animals. I understand shooting hornytoads at 800 meters is different.

 

[Gstew1930]

Nope. i couldn't agree more

 

[HuntHarder]

Obviously, there is a point to where it could impact your ability to kill. The scopes you named are above that threshold in my opinion. Similar to eye box. Even tight eye boxes, you are able to get aligned and make the shot. Having a nice, forgiving eyebox is so much better to shoot tho.

 

[JohnsIsl]

I think low light.... the very best will offer an advantage over the very worst.

 

[Wrench]

Depends on what you want to do. We live in this era where you are not taken seriously if you don't shoot 100 round groups and glass quality is part of that.

600 and beyond coyotes get pretty tough to see with mediocre glass. For 200 yard deer in a field...anything works.

At 20/15 vision you have a distinctive advantage over much of the world. I went from 20/200 to 20/10 & 20/15 post eye surgery and the benefits of that were remarkable. The most significant was the correction of my astigmatism which allowed my color contrast to get so much better that orange cones hurt my eyes post surgery. I could spot a deer in trees much easier.

 

[Formidilosus]

I completely "see" why glass quality is top concern for spotting optics, zero argument here. But with aiming devices is it that important? I honestly can not really say that the glass difference between say SWFA, Leupold, Nightforce SHV, Swaro or Maven is enough to even be a factor. I have 20/15 vision so I'm not blind. I have never missed anything at distance with a "lower quality" optic and thought "damn if I had better glass that would be a dead animal." Low light maybe, maybe not. Yet I argue almost daily with a buddy who swears Nightforce SHV glass is so bad its unusable...

Am I more ratarded than I thought or is the scope glass thing being blown way out of proportion?

It is mostly way overblown. Once glass reached Leupold Vari-X II levels, you aren’t missing big game animals in US legal light due to “glass”.

And, the largest factor is people see what they want to see. Years ago I taped up a Simmons scope- IIRC it was a Grand Slam, told everyone it was a high end prototype scope from one of the best European/German companies. It was an event where everyone was comparing scopes, binos, and spotters all mounted on tripods. Nearly everyone- and I mean over 20 people that all used alpha glass exclusively; remarked how clear and bright it was compared to the Swaro Z3 and Z6 right next to it. Only a few said they could tell no difference, and only one IIRC said it wasn’t as good.

They were very upset with me when I took the tape off.


Having said all that- if two scopes are both durable and reliable, have the same size, weight, and reticle- I will take the one that has better glass. BUT- I would choose a better eyebox and FOV over better glass first.

 

[atmat]

Really, it just depends what you’re shooting, when you’re shooting, and where you’re shooting.

I’ve never had an issue with big game animals. But I imagine wood chucks at distance on a cloudy late evening might be a different story.

 

[Mule3006Elk]

All others factors are meaningless if the scope can't zero. I agree, they are an aiming point. Somewhat subjective. I believe the current state of ones eyes determine what they feel is "clear." As eyes age that once "clear" glass may seem less so. But to say SHV is unusable is laughable.

 

[Mule3006Elk]

It is mostly way overblown. Once glass reached Leupold Vari-X II levels, you aren’t missing big game animals in US legal light due to “glass”.

And, the largest factor is people see what they want to see. Years ago I taped up a Simmons scope- IIRC it was a Grand Slam, told everyone it was a high end prototype scope from one of the best European/German companies. It was an event where everyone was comparing scopes, binos, and spotters all mounted on tripods. Nearly everyone- and I mean over 20 people that all used alpha glass exclusively; remarked how clear and bright it was compared to the Swaro Z3 and Z6 right next to it. Only a few said they could tell no difference, and only one IIRC said it wasn’t as good.

They were very upset with me when I took the tape off.


Having said all that- if two scopes are both durable and reliable, have the same size, weight, and reticle- I will take the one that has better glass. BUT- I would choose a better eyebox and FOV over better glass first.

I 100% believe that. It's funny when the pre-test expectation is high the brain doesn't want to let you down.

 

[Kyguy]

"Glass" is the most overblown factor in scopes today. Everything but the absolute shittiest of the shit has glass good enough for most daylight LEGAL hunting light situations. Notice the LEGAL daylight. A couple of years ago, I was sharing a blind with my cousin down in a heavy wooded area. I had a nice rifle, Trijicon Huron 3-9. He had a walmart package Savage Axis with whatever basic cheap scope came on them at the time. Perfect situation to do some comparisons. Was everything better through the Trijicon? Of course it was. There was definitely a difference. Was his good enough to make the shot during LEGAL light? Yup. Could I see better AFTER LEGAL light? Absolutely.

The proper reticle for your situation is more important than the glass. Accurate adjustment and retention of zero is more important than glass. Eye relief is more important than glass.

 

[HuntHarder]

I will edit but I should have included ATACR, ZCO, and the Trijicon Ten mile.. I just down own those anymore.. I have no issue with the eyebox on any of them, ya some are better than other but again nothing that has been a concern.

For me, where i am at, I would pay extra $ for better glass. I enjoy the image of my higher quality scopes. Most on this site, likely would not. My Nx8's are def. Good enough, but then again, so are their Moar reticles for me. When I shoot my Zeiss scopes, I immediately go wow, those Nx8's glass and eyeboxes are nowhere near this. So if I can get my cake and eat it too, durable, reliable, great glass and lightish weight. It's all preference and I know I am likely in the minority on this site regarding rifle scope glass.

 

[flyfisher117]

Never once have I had a big game animal in the crosshairs and thought “damn this scopes optics are garbage”. That includes a BSA I borrowed once.

Though anymore as I plink and enjoy practicing with my hunting rifle I appreciate the nicer glass.

 

[Nevwild]

Depends on what you want to do. We live in this era where you are not taken seriously if you don't shoot 100 round groups and glass quality is part of that.

600 and beyond coyotes get pretty tough to see with mediocre glass. For 200 yard deer in a field...anything works.

At 20/15 vision you have a distinctive advantage over much of the world. I went from 20/200 to 20/10 & 20/15 post eye surgery and the benefits of that were remarkable. The most significant was the correction of my astigmatism which allowed my color contrast to get so much better that orange cones hurt my eyes post surgery. I could spot a deer in trees much easier.

What kind of surgery did you have? My astigmatism is a real problem and I’d love to get that corrected.

 

[OneGunTex]

On the one hand, it's somewhat binary. Good enough or not good enough.

At the lower end though, it really does make a difference. I upgraded from the super cheap scopes that came on Walmart combo rifles to <GASP> a Vortex Viper, and was amazed.

Still never looked through "alpha glass" but holy cow you get an extra 15min of shooting light and a couple hundred yards of range with "decent" glass over $h!t glass

 

[JohnJohnson]

BUT- I would choose a better eyebox and FOV over better glass first.

1000x this.

 

[Grizzle]

Low light is a real thing for guys depending on hunt area. In BC we are legal one hour before and after sunrise for big game and that 30-60 time a lot of opportunities come up. Another thing to think about is under canopy especially in the Northwest. The best stormy blacktail hunting days are "low light" all day hunting timber and even a clear day will be dark under canopy way before legal light.
As far as clarity/ quality I'll agree reliability comes first but better is definitely better. Shooting at 500 yards in heavy snow I could definitely make out the target easier with my buddies vx5 than my rs1.2 to the point it was hard to define the edges of the plate with the maven and pretty easy with the leupold. Would I trade him scopes... nope but ... if the rs1.2 was better it would be nice so happy to hear the prototypes are as good or better for a lower price. As said before by many Id be happy to put deposit down on a couple. Thanks to everyone involved for making this project a reality.

 

[Grizzle]

Another big factor rarely talked about is anti fog coatings performance. I've seen some really nice/expensive scopes not work for shit in wet climates. Would be nice to see a little testing in that direction to

 

[Ice-kub]

I think, I feel, I heard lol that a big part of it is that people have been "groomed" if thats the right term, to want glass that is crystal clear blah blah blah, and because the scope cost multiple mortgage payments there's no way it should lose zero, unless dropped. I always heard growing up not to drop a rifle or it'd lose zero.

As a marketing point, clear glass or better glass is easier to demonstrate at the optics counter when you can pick them up and look through them. That's usually how the Jim at cabelas sells scopes, "what's your price range? Here's the clearest glass in that category..."

 

[nm.otter]

For low light, objective size and exit pupil matter more than the glass recipe does.

 

[1000yards]

Couldn't agree more. I held out on buying a SWFA for a long time thinking it couldn't compete with my Leupold's and Swaros in dark timber / last light. Now I've shot a couple hogs under straight MOONLIGHT using my 3-9.