My comparison: Trijicon Tenmile HX vs. Vortex Razor LHT vs Vortex DB Tactical

[Darwin]

TL;DR: The high end scope was better but not glaringly better.

I recently bought a Trijicon Tenmile HX 3-18x50 FFP and a Vortex Razor LHT 3-15x50 SFP. I have had a Vortex Diamondback Tactical 4x16x44 FFP (unmounted) sitting in a safe for a long time. Since they are all unmounted, I was able to take them onto my front porch and try to compare them with various points of interest from about 100 yards out to a communications tower approximately 1600 yards away (per Google Earth) without freaking out my neighbors.

I was really excited to see the difference in coughing up the dough for a higher end scope like the Trijicon vs the cheap, I didn't really know any better at the time, Diamondback. I have to say I was disappointed in how much, or really how little, I perceived the difference in glass quality to be amongst them. Maybe it's a comment on the relative value/quality of the DB, I don't know.

The Tenmile is definitely better when looking at the tower 1,600 yards away. But it wasn't amazingly better as compared to the DB. I thought the DB was pretty clear at the 1600 yard distance. I don't think I expected the DB to look like I was looking through wax paper or something, but I really thought there would be a very stark contrast in the quality of what I saw. There was a difference, but I wasn't blown away by the difference. Candidly, I thought the DB looked the clearest of the three when looking at things 100-200 yards. Even though it was only 16x compared to the Tenmile's 18x, the mailbox at 200 yards actually looked like the DB had the higher magnification.

The LHT was maybe better than the DB at 1600 yards. It was honestly too close for me to call, but that tells me even if it was better, it was only marginally so. At 100 and 200 it was the worst of the 3 in my opinion. Again, for the price difference, I expected a much wider gap in view quality.

It was also interesting to me that on the DB, while I could adjust the parallax if I wanted to, I really didn't need to do it, regardless of whether I cranked the magnification up to 16x or not or whether the object was 200 yards away or 1,600. On both the Tenmile and Razor LHT, big changes in magnification and big changes in target distance both required changing the parallax to get a crisp image. Maybe that's a sign of higher quality, maybe it's just a weird quirk. I don't know, but would be interested to hear others' thoughts on that.

I'll admit, I'm not an expert optics. This is my completely untrained, under-educated, in-expert opinion. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong things, like not focusing on the view at the outer edge of the scope versus the center. For my "comparison" I ignored the eye relief. All I did was try to compare the clarity of what I was seeing.

I also didn't have a setup where I could set them up on a solid foundation with all three in a row pointed at the same thing at the same time so I could just move my eye from one to the next and back again. I had to put each one down, pickup the next one, find the "target" again and look while trying to remember how the image through the prior scope looked.

Am I crazy? Was my comparison fatally flawed? Is there something else I should have done to see and understand the difference in glass quality?

 

[sndmn11]

Am I crazy? Was my comparison fatally flawed? Is there something else I should have done to see and understand the difference in glass quality?

Sounds like you were in comparing observation devices

 

[JohnJohnson]

Am I crazy? Was my comparison fatally flawed? Is there something else I should have done to see and understand the difference in glass quality?

I'll link a guy who compares optics sometimes and shows video through the lenses. It may give you some ideas of what you should be looking for when comparing "glass". Color fidelity/contrast, how it controls chromatic aberration, resolution, low light performance, depth of focus, eyebox, eye relief, clarity outside of the center of the reticle, etc. Out of curiosity, did you make sure the diopter on each scope was set up properly for your eye before comparing them?

 

[Darwin]

Sounds like you were in comparing observation devices

I am not sure what you're saying.

 

[ljalberta]

I suspect the distinction is that your comparison is focused on the viewing experience of simply looking through the glass, but not necessarily on the aspects that some would first evaluate for an aiming device (ie: things like return to zero, tracking, zero retention, reticle usability/intuitiveness).

 

[Hnthrdr]

I am not sure what you're saying.

You were looking at the optical qualities of these scopes not at the aiming qualities or their abilities to hold zero or return to zero.

 

[sndmn11]

I am not sure what you're saying.

They were unmounted and you looked through them like they are intended to be spotting scopes; observation devices rather than aiming devices.

 

[Darwin]

I'll link a guy who compares optics sometimes and shows video through the lenses. It may give you some ideas of what you should be looking for when comparing "glass". Color fidelity/contrast, how it controls chromatic aberration, resolution, low light performance, depth of focus, eyebox, eye relief, clarity outside of the center of the reticle, etc. Out of curiosity, did you make sure the diopter on each scope was set up properly for your eye before comparing them?

Thanks. Yes, I did set the diopter for each of them. When I first got the LHT, that was definitely a problem.

It was a bright and clear sunny day, so low light performance wasn't something I could test. Color I would say was generally the same. The communications tower is a lattice style tower so it has vertical lines, horizontal lines, and diagonals, so I thought it made a good thing to use for comparison since it has straight lines at different angles. It is also FAA red/white painted, so there was color to see.

My setup wasn't perfectly stable, both the scope and my head could move. I had it resting on something but I needed to pan/tilt and hold it by hand. It's not like it was mounted on a rifle and I could mostly anchor my head with a cheek weld. That's why for my purposes of just focusing "on the glass" I ignored so comparing eye box and eye relief.

As to comments about evaluating them as observation devices and ignoring tracking, reticles, etc. Fair. But that wasn't my intent. I admit, part of why I bought the Tenmile wasn't just glass quality but based on reviews, how well it tracks, holds zero, etc. All things that I agree are very important in the overall evaluation of Scope A vs. Scope B.

However, many reviews on scopes, when they compare "high end" to low quality "budget" talk about the contrast in the quality of the glass, the sharpness in the image and how much better the higher end glass is in comparison. That, admittedly, is really all I was looking at when I did this, with my point being I was very surprised (based on those types of reviews and comments) that there was not this unmistakable difference in the quality of the image.

It wasn't like looking at an SD TV and then looking at an HD or 4K TV. It was more like looking at an HD TV at 720P vs 1080P. Sure there's a quality difference but not nearly one as stark as going from SD to HD. Maybe that was an unrealistic expectation. In some ways, maybe that's my question... was expecting there to be a very distinct difference when comparing only the image quality unrealistic?

 

[Dioni A]

Thanks. Yes, I did set the diopter for each of them. When I first got the LHT, that was definitely a problem.

It was a bright and clear sunny day, so low light performance wasn't something I could test. Color I would say was generally the same. The communications tower is a lattice style tower so it has vertical lines, horizontal lines, and diagonals, so I thought it made a good thing to use for comparison since it has straight lines at different angles. It is also FAA red/white painted, so there was color to see.

My setup wasn't perfectly stable, both the scope and my head could move. I had it resting on something but I needed to pan/tilt and hold it by hand. It's not like it was mounted on a rifle and I could mostly anchor my head with a cheek weld. That's why for my purposes of just focusing "on the glass" I ignored so comparing eye box and eye relief.

As to comments about evaluating them as observation devices and ignoring tracking, reticles, etc. Fair. But that wasn't my intent. I admit, part of why I bought the Tenmile wasn't just glass quality but based on reviews, how well it tracks, holds zero, etc. All things that I agree are very important in the overall evaluation of Scope A vs. Scope B.

However, many reviews on scopes, when they compare "high end" to low quality "budget" talk about the contrast in the quality of the glass, the sharpness in the image and how much better the higher end glass is in comparison. That, admittedly, is really all I was looking at when I did this, with my point being I was very surprised (based on those types of reviews and comments) that there was not this unmistakable difference in the quality of the image.

It wasn't like looking at an SD TV and then looking at an HD or 4K TV. It was more like looking at an HD TV at 720P vs 1080P. Sure there's a quality difference but not nearly one as stark as going from SD to HD. Maybe that was an unrealistic expectation. In some ways, maybe that's my question... was expecting there to be a very distinct difference when comparing only the image quality unrealistic?

Although it's a pretty common metric for people to compare it some of the least meaningful or important aspects of a rifle scope. If a scopes primary function is as an aiming device so long as you can see what you're aiming at it's able to accomplish that task. I think that's the point he was trying to make.

 

[ljalberta]

However, many reviews on scopes, when they compare "high end" to low quality "budget" talk about the contrast in the quality of the glass, the sharpness in the image and how much better the higher end glass is in comparison. That, admittedly, is really all I was looking at when I did this, with my point being I was very surprised (based on those types of reviews and comments) that there was not this unmistakable difference in the quality of the image.

I agree that I’ve seen people write this before. But it’s hardly a rule in real life based on my experiences. The actual quality of the glass will vary widely from brand to brand and model to model, and price does not always directly relate.

 

[jfk69]

Lots of good comments here. I would add that good quality glass shows up best when light is dwindling. That is when you see the difference. Lots of glass looks great when it’s bright and sunny out.

 

[Long Cut]

Thanks for the write up.

I’m not optics expert, either. I will say that when I upgraded my Vortex Diamondback 12x50 bino’s to the Maven B1 8x42’s, the difference in optic clarity was night and day.

-I no longer get headaches glassing for long periods of time is the biggest takeaway. Across the board, those Mavens destroy the Vortex. 12x50 compared to 8x42 is a significant difference in glass size and abilities, but the Maven B series seriously stood out, to me.

With riflescopes I feel maintaining zero, tracking, reticle options and low-light ability are also very important- regardless of price tag.

 

[Kyguy]

I've learned over the years that "glass" is a subjective thing. What looks spectacular to me may look like trash to someone else. Each persons eyes are different, in every aspect of vision acuity and color perception. Glass is the least important aspect of a rifle scope, even the cheapest of scopes nowadays have enough brightness and clarity to handle 90% of any hunting or shooting situations. I can use as example from a hunt last season. My cousin and I were sitting in a blind, down in a creek bottom. He had a Savage package rifle with whatever $30 scope came on it, I had a $250 Crimson Trace on mine. Still not a high end optic, but literally 8 times the price of his. We kept trading back and forth, and it wasn't until the last 10 minutes in the blind that we thought my scope provided a decided advantage, but his was still enough to watch a couple of does until the last vestiges of legal shooting time. Granted this was at 80 yds in a brush bottom, but you get the point. It was good enough that he killed a nice buck at 100 yds 15 minutes after legal shooting light opened the next morning. "Glass" is a much bigger deal in binoculars and spotting scopes, but it's still subjective. Another comparison.... I picked up a pair of Razor HD 10x42 last summer as an "upgrade" from my 15 year old Bushnell Legend 8x32 (Old Bushnell, these were made in Japan by LOW), I think I paid $350 for them. I spent the next several evenings sitting out on my deck looking over the 500 acre farm across the power line clear cut with both pairs, and I can't tell you that there was a single bit of difference between them, other than the magnification, to MY eyes, but there's a $700 price difference. I bought the Vortex used, on a good deal, but I still can't say that I gained anything over the Bushnell, when it comes down to it.

 

[manitou1]

They were unmounted and you looked through them like they are intended to be spotting scopes; observation devices rather than aiming devices.

I struggle with telling the difference with glass quality when trying to freehand rifle scopes.
Strapping them to a tripod has worked for me when comparing rifle scopes. Even then, you still get some head movement but can reduce it if you can set the tripod up where you can rest your chin or elbows/chin on a table or something to steady your nogging behind the optic.

Best is comparing mounted on a rifle.

 

[Kurts86]

If you want to compare scope optical quality shoot them past 400 yards within 30 minutes of sunrise and sunset. Also have some high end binoculars on hand, my personal glass threshold for minimum scope optical quality is whether or not I can relocate game with a scope that I can find with my Swarovski SLC binoculars. If someone cannot tell the difference between and $30 scope and a $250 scope I really question what their optical baseline is for primary observation binoculars.

Scope glass quality becomes a non issue starting around $1k and is at best the 3rd or 4th most important quality far behind durability, tracking and reticle usability in broken conditions.

 

[Kyguy]

If you want to compare scope optical quality shoot them past 400 yards within 30 minutes of sunrise and sunset. Also have some high end binoculars on hand, my personal glass threshold for minimum scope optical quality is whether or not I can relocate game with a scope that I can find with my Swarovski SLC binoculars. If someone cannot tell the difference between and $30 scope and a $250 scope I really question what their optical baseline is for primary observation binoculars.

Scope glass quality becomes a non issue starting around $1k and is at best the 3rd or 4th most important quality far behind durability, tracking and reticle usability in broken conditions.

I didn't say there wasn't a difference. I said the difference wasn't enough to prevent cleanly taking an animal in those conditions. I stand by my comment that it's different for each person. Even the optics companies can't give straight answers on it. Last year, I was debating buying a VX5 over a VX3. I called Leupold to discuss the difference and find out why the VX5 was more than twice the cost of the VX3. Their exact words were "the coatings on the VX5 let you have approximately 15 minutes longer shooting time, depending on conditions, than the VX3". Then I asked if the glass itself was the same, the difference was only the coatings? He said he wouldn't comment on the glass, the coatings were the main difference, other than the differences in the 5x erector assembly and the actual tube construction.

I'll also say again, I don't care about the "quality of the glass", because just about any of it is good enough nowadays. I want it track, hold zero, and be durable. People were killing animals at 400 or 500 yds back in the 60s with 4x scopes that were about as clear as a coke bottle. And that was "high end glass" back then. I'm all for people spending as much as they want on an optic, investing in high end is never really the wrong way to go. But worrying about the glass itself is the last thing to be concerned with.