New or older glass??

[Bayouboy76]

Morning y’all! I have an experience to share and wondering if anybody has had the same. I purchased a like new , made in the USA Burris Signature 3-9x40( forward offset elevation/windage) on EBay. I also ordered a “new and improved “ Burris Signature HD 2-10x40. Yesterday evening I waited till I could barely see the sunlight in the horizon, I picked out a huge oak tree about 700 yards or so on the side of a hill through a field. I looked through the new Burris and could see the tree but couldn’t make out anything around the bottom of it. Picked up the old Burris and could see cows laying under the tree. Old one was way brighter and clearer. Just seems to me the newer one would have better glass than a 20 year old scope. Anyone share a similar experience??

 

[WestNE]

To me this is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. I think both were priced roughly the same even with a 20 year gap.

I've spent a little time with the new signature and they're comparable to others at their pricepoint but to me most of increased price is in features and possibly mechanics. The glass is better than the fullfield, i guess, but not by much. That's not a slam, i find even the new fullfield to be better than most competition in the price range.

The older Signatures always seemed to punch way above their weight, this is mainly hearsay as i was too young to afford one in their heyday. I knew several guys, that had experience with a lot of high end scopes, and they seemed to settle on signatures or black diamonds. I never heard any comment on comparisons to Euro scopes but they seemed to think there was little made in the US or Japan at the time that could top the.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[Bayouboy76]

To me this is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. I think both were priced roughly the same even with a 20 year gap.

I've spent a little time with the new signature and they're comparable to others at their pricepoint but to me most of increased price is in features and possibly mechanics. The glass is better than the fullfield, i guess, but not by much. That's not a slam, i find even the new fullfield to be better than most competition in the price range.

The older Signatures always seemed to punch way above their weight, this is mainly hearsay as i was too young to afford one in their heyday. I knew several guys, that had experience with a lot of high end scopes, and they seemed to settle on signatures or black diamonds. I never heard any comment on comparisons to Euro scopes but they seemed to think there was little made in the US or Japan at the time that could top the.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

I agree with all your saying. I’ve liked Burris for awhile they make a good scope. I can’t see paying almost double for Leupold when I can’t see the difference optically. I’ve just always heard that even the newest cheap scopes are better optically than the premium scopes from 20+ years ago, but it dose not seem so In this case. I think the average person can’t see the difference in any scope price point during daylight hours. It’s at dusk when it comes down to the nut cutting.

 

[Bryant S. Campbell]

What power were you looking through each? At 10X the 2-10X40 will have a 4mm exit pupil while the 3-9X40 at 9x will have a larger 4.44mm exit pupil.

 

[Bayouboy76]

What power were you looking through each? At 10X the 2-10X40 will have a 4mm exit pupil while the 3-9X40 at 9x will have a larger 4.44mm exit pupil.

Both at 3x then at 9