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

[JohnJohnson]

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.

Why? If the animal is 500 yards away and you want to shoot it there, you're going to need to dial your elevation, right? If what you dial isn't what you actually get in adjustments, you're going to miss or wound it.

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.

No one is arguing that a scope's only job is repeatable adjustment. That's just its most important job and if you have to take a 5% reduction in resolution to get that, you should. The pearl clutching over that reasoning is weird and the idea that a 5% reduction in resolution takes you from a ZCO Optic down to a Tasco is ridiculous. If you're supposedly hunting in the worst conditions how can pure glass quality be your most important factor when so many things on a riflescope can fail or your adjustments can be incorrect? You just end up getting a crystal clear view of your miss.

 

[Pronghunter]

Why? If the animal is 500 yards away and you want to shoot it there, you're going to need to dial your elevation, right? If what you dial isn't what you actually get in adjustments, you're going to miss or wound it.

No one is arguing that a scope's only job is repeatable adjustment. That's just its most important job and if you have to take a 5% reduction in resolution to get that, you should. The pearl clutching over that reasoning is weird and the idea that a 5% reduction in resolution takes you from a ZCO Optic down to a Tasco is ridiculous. If you're supposedly hunting in the worst conditions how can pure glass quality be your most important factor when so many things on a riflescope can fail or your adjustments can be incorrect? You just end up getting a crystal clear view of your miss.

You may want to reread what I posted. You’re arguing with me about something I never stated. Reliability is always first followed by repeatability. But glass for me should be right there with reliability.

 

[sneaky]

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

? Who cares if the glass is clear but you have no confidence in the scope actually performing its main task. Putting rounds on target. That applies to both disciplines.

 

[sneaky]

Give a competitive shooter, or hunter, or anyone else the choice between a scope that’s mechanically good with $300 chinesium glass & a scope that’s mechanically good and optically good, and I guarantee they take the latter.

Which is not the example he gave you to pick from. Of course they would take the option you offered, but that wasn't the one he used. You guys are using different parameters in your option choices.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

You picked up on that huh?

His example is not reality in 2022. You can have a scope that is both mechanically and optically good.

Optically good and optically alpha are two different things. Swaro’s don’t hold zero like nightforce. You can buy an NX8 or NXS and you have good glass with excellent reliability and repeatability. You can buy a leupold VX6HD or Mark5hd and have excellent glass and mediocre repeatability and iffy reliability. You want excellent everything you are in ATACR territory, you have to pay for it.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

I was purposely using binary good/bad based on the previous example given, but I get what your saying.

I wouldn’t characterize the ATACRs that I’ve had as excellent or in the alpha tier. They can be good enough for a lot of applications, but there’s without a doubt better scopes out there.

Maybe not, but tangent theta doesn’t have the reliability. Swaro doesnt. Who has alpha glass and offer the repeatability and reliability that NF does?

 

[Ryan Avery]

Average glass is good enough in a rifle scope. Not once in the ten years that I used an NXS(average glass) was I not able to find/shoot an animal(elk, moose, wolf, coyote, deer, bear) or a target in a comp that I glassed up with my Swaro binocular or spotter. The reticle options made me switch scopes, not the glass.

 

[madcalfe]

well im currently running a kahles and can say it has way better glass than a ATACR.
that said my kahles is currently being sent in for warranty for the 2nd time in over a year.
its tracked flawlessly and i have no concern about that aspect of the scope but the actual durability of the scope isnt there. Which is why im stepping down to a ATACR or possibly up to a zco

 

[Ryan Avery]

ZCO blows out an ATACR. And Tangents are as reliable as anything out there.

I assume you’re referring to the tEsT done on here. If you put aside all the silliness, AND put aside the small number of shots used to determine results AND the small sample size of scopes looked AND the fact that the shooter can’t maintain sub-MOA 10 shot groups, and only look at the data: Tangent does better then several other scopes that were said to have “passed”. But I can’t get passed all the other garbage anyways, so I’m going off of my own real world experience with ZCO, Tangent, and ATACR. Like always, I recommend that you (or anyone else) go buy stuff, use stuff; and make up your own mind based on experience.

What's silly to me is a $5000 scope can't take a little side impact.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

What's silly to me is a $5000 scope can't take a little side impact.

You beat me to it…lol.

 

[JGRaider]

I'll take a measly LRHS over anything mentioned in that test, for reasons R Avery and a couple others mentioned. I've killed/culled a few hundred big/medium sized game animals, not including hogs which numbers several hundred alone. I've never had a mid priced scope fail to deliver in the optics category. Toughness and holding zero are another matter. Had a Swaro A fail miserably while attempting to kill a big 190" muley several years ago. Swaro fixed it, I sold it.

 

[JGRaider]

Why anyone would care to giveaschitttttt about that data is beyond me. A guy needs to find out what works for what he's doing, from experience and not reading about it, and get after it.

 

[Pronghunter]

Here's four results from the "testing". At least one was claimed to have failed and at least one was claimed to have passed.
View attachment 428770

The average American has a 6th grade understanding of math. I'll give a hint to anyone that falls into that category: the mean radius is what you should be looking at and will be more reliable than the extreme spread.

If anyone can tell me why any one of the above passed or failed based on the actual data (again, putting everything else aside), I'm all ears.

I believe Bryan Litz recently posted an explanation on what these are acceptable.

 

[Thinkingman]

? Who cares if the glass is clear but you have no confidence in the scope actually performing its main task. Putting rounds on target. That applies to both disciplines.

You've somehow jumped to a wildly inaccurate(!) conclusion.
I wouldn't own a scope that didn't have my confidence holding zero.
That's why I own exactly ZERO Leupolds.
My Burris and Nikon scopes rarely need the turrets touched.
I have the reliability thing, what makes a scope different to me is the image quality and reliability in the field.
Here's a group at 100 and 200 that required no adjustments.
The rifle, scope and ammo are dead reliable...Every time.

 

[pyrotechnic]

Or can it……pyrotechnic’s did fine. Every TT is thoroughly tested before leaving, including “whip” testing. I don’t purposely drop my gear, but heavy stuff has inadvertently fallen on mine. But precision instruments made from thin aluminum tubes filled with glass, springs, and small parts can break, so I try to avoid it.

I’ll post up the actual data from the tEsTiNg tomorrow if I have time.

I'm still quite tickled with my TT if anyone gives a shit.

 

[Coyote conquest]

That's interesting for sure. Just looking at the results I knew there would be a lot of hurt feelings before reading the thread