Top tier glass review-Zeiss, Schmidt, ZCO, Tangent Theta, NF, Leupold, Kahles, Vortex, and Burris.

[Xycod]

Interesting review over on SH.

Optics Comparison

Purpose As a competitive shooter, we often hear the question of which optic is best. While there are many components of an optic that contribute to the overall quality and its ability to perform, this review only focuses on optical clarity/resolution. The definition of clarity and resolution for...

www.kineticsecuritysolutions.com

 

[hp48gx]

that's a great review. thanks for posting.

 

[JGRaider]

Optical quality in a riflescope.....not anywhere close to my first priority when choosing a hunting scope. A scope's job is to steer bullets to a consistent and repeatable POI.

 

[Thinkingman]

Optical quality in a riflescope.....not anywhere close to my first priority when choosing a hunting scope. A scope's job is to steer bullets to a consistent and repeatable POI.

Interesting perspective.
I would say this illustrates the difference between target shooters and hunters.

 

[Pronghunter]

Hmm. So a Leupold Mark5 has better optical qualities than a TT….in all these test performed?

 

[MidGAHunter]

Interesting perspective.
I would say this illustrates the difference between target shooters and hunters.

With all due respect, I think it shows the difference in those that know better and those that don't. I used to be one that was hung up on glass quality. After having scopes with great "glass" fail me (that is they wouldn't steer the bullet where it was supposed to go), I started pursuing different optics for my rifles. That doesn't mean you can't have great glass in a reliable scope (who doesn't want both!?) as those scopes certainly exist. But glass quality should not be the top consideration in a riflescope purchase.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

Interesting perspective.
I would say this illustrates the difference between target shooters and hunters.

How so? Whether you are target shooting or hunting repeatability and reliability are more important than glass quality.

 

[JGRaider]

How so? Whether you are target shooting or hunting repeatability and reliability are more important than glass quality.

Yep. He obviously missed the point.

 

[idig4au]

Interesting results! Shows how everyone’s eyes are different I suppose. I’ve never been impressed by nightforce optically, while my S&B scopes continually impress me In that aspect. According to this comparison, S&B are rubbish.

just another example to take what you read in the internet with a grain of salt. As the saying goes, opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one.

 

[MidGAHunter]

just another example to take what you read in the internet with a grain of salt. As the saying goes, opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one and they typically stink.

FIFY.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Optical quality in a riflescope.....not anywhere close to my first priority when choosing a hunting scope. A scope's job is to steer bullets to a consistent and repeatable POI.

Depends on what you’re “hunting”. Competition and profesional varmint hunters/abatement hunters would highly disagree.

 

[JGRaider]

Depends on what you’re “hunting”. Competition and profesional varmint hunters/abatement hunters would highly disagree.

I highly doubt it.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I highly doubt it.

Why would you doubt facts? I owned and managed thousands of abatement acres and was a competitor in many varmint hunters association competitions. Optical quality, especially during low light conditions is the difference in tens of thousands of confirmed kills per year. Just for one shooter.

If you think a shooter is going to sacrifice that many kills, for a scope that looks like you’re looking through a Jaritos bottle at dawn and dusk but it “can be shot after being dropped” you’re hilarious.

 

[PVHunter]

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Xycod]

For me personally and for hunting as I do optics and durability are a both top priority, but especially the glass/fov, everything else follows but I’m assuming durability is a given,…
otherwise swfa or a bushnell would do for the most part and not break the bank both having great track records. So imo why bother with more if not for the glass. I personally buy top tier scopes for the glass first and foremost and again durability should be a given.

Also the scopes in the above test should pass a box test. I see the point on tracking and it’s a must, but I’m not shooting dog $ glass even if a scope does track. I want both.

 

[JohnJohnson]

If you think a shooter is going to sacrifice that many kills, for a scope that looks like you’re looking through a Jaritos bottle at dawn and dusk but it “can be shot after being dropped” you’re hilarious.

I'm unclear on why you think someone needs to step down to looking through a coke bottle in order to get repeatable adjustments on a scope. If you can get 95%+ of the glass quality and also a more reliable scope, that seems like a good option.

 

[JGRaider]

Right on JJohnson. $300 chinese scopes have optics that allow shooting well past legal shooting light nowadays. To think only high $$$ scopes have a monopoly on optics is a joke. I guarantee if you offered any competition shooter, hunter, or whoever else to choose between a scope that holds zero every time and tracks perfectly, or a scope that halfassed does that task but has great optics, great optics won't be the choice.

 

[Thinkingman]

How so? Whether you are target shooting or hunting repeatability and reliability are more important than glass quality.

Maybe I'm coming from a place of ignorance...Maybe it's generational.
If I'm using quality binoculars to spot game in shadows or in fading light and my riflescope cannot provide a comparable image, what does it matter that it's 'repeatable'?
What does repeatable even mean?
If I pull a rifle out of the safe and it doesn't shoot to point of aim every time, that's either a scope issue, mount issue, rifle issue or shooter issue.
I have a Tikka T3 in 7-08 that is my primary deer rifle. Every September it comes out of the safe, I slide a Nosler 140gr BT cartridge in the dirty chamber of the dirty barrel and pop a perfect 2" high bullseye at 100yds.
I'm MPBR out to 300+.

If that doesn't work, I need to be a better hunter.

It's never a different story...same thing every year since I've owned it...15 years? Nikon Monarch glass is excellent, on a par with my Nikon Premier LX binoculars.
That first cold-bore shot is the one that matters because that's the one that will count in the field.

Notice that I didn't mention my ballistics app on my phone and my windage value from my Kestrel 5700 and my custom turrets and my this that and theother.

Target shooters, especially competition shooters get wrapped up in screwing turrets to the point that it's an evolution of the video games they grew up with.

I would humbly submit it takes a more experienced shooter to eschew all the gadgetry and focus on making great shots with simpler equipment.

 

[JGRaider]

I agree with you on that example. Mechanical reliability trumps everything else, and fortunately there are some scopes that offer both, affordably.

 

[Pronghunter]

Lots of gibberish here.
All I know is if I have binos (Swaro EL, Zeiss RF etc) that give me the advantage of counting mule deer tines of a bedded buck in dark timber 500 yards away, my riflescope damn sure better be able to as well. Actually more importantly my riflescope. If my scope can’t do what my binoculars can then shot placement might as well be out of the question. There are a ton of people that could get by with a $300 Tasco. But there are some of us that rely heavily on a rifle scopes ability to see the smallest detail in some of the worst conditions. Argue that all you want, but if you have to make the argument that a rifle scope is only an aiming device that steers a bullet in a direction, then we aren’t the same.