Jump to content

Scopes - what makes one better ?


Hamster
 Share

Recommended Posts

Let me first state that I do not believe the notion that some scopes "suit" one eye or the other, I am happy to be shown and proved wrong but the concept makes no sense to me, why would any manufacturer be prepared to potentially alienate a sector of the market 🤨 why not just make them so they stand an equal chance of appealing to 99% of our eyes ?!

Over the years I have owned at least two dozen makes and models none of which could be described as high end simply because I have had no need for such scopes, at some point in the future I hope to buy and learn to use dial in type of scopes as recommended by people such as Matt Dubber. 

Tasco TR 4-16x44, Optima 5* 4-12-x40, various Original cheapo's, various BSA cheapo's, one or two Hawke including a Sidewinder, Nikko Stirling, Tasco 2-7x32 (which turned out to be fake rubbish), Simmons, etc,.

As we know when it comes to harnessing low light there is a theoretical point of diminishing returns with regards to size of objective lens which the industry has decided is 56mm, fine. When it comes to harnessing clarity there appears to be no such limits 🤨 that's always confused me a tad. I mean if you take your naked eyes when you're neither tired nor fatigued as an optimum and then stare at an object or area from your optimal distance, (lets assume it's one meter), (low light notwithstanding because that's a different subject), the picture that you SEE cannot surely be improved upon ? So surely there has to be a point of diminishing returns with scopes clarity as well ? I know we are told the jump in price to £sillymoney scopes' gains beyond a £500 scope are small but what I suspect is that the "gains" all but diminish beyond £200 ! 

A few years ago when I needed to buy a hunting scope to put on my FAC air gun I looked through lots of new and used scopes outside the shop and was confused to find that many tricked up scopes in the £400 range seemed to lack image sharpness, by contrast a Nikko Stirling Panamax 3-12x50 which I settled on at a mere £140 simply blew them away ! The added advantage with the Panamax is the wide field of view which allows you to find moving quarry quickly. 

A few weeks ago I was out shooting with my rim fire which happened to arrive with a cheap "Walther" 3-9x40 scope as it was bought used (always set on 8 power), up to that point I'd never found the scopes clarity wanting until I started shooting at a plastic bin buried in slurry some 80+ yards away. I found that seeing the holes though possible wasn't easy and adjusting the rear lens made little difference, yet the same target and holes when viewed through the Panamx (always set on 11 power) became almost crystal clear (given the distance). This made me think whether the cheap Rangemaster Nikko Stirling that I had on my HW95 would fare better than the Walther and of course it does hence I have now swapped it onto the rimmie. When viewing various object at various ranges with the cheap Rangemaster and the barely mid price Panamax the difference in clarity is very very small which again makes me think whether enough usable clarity isn't achieved much earlier in the price range than we're often led to believe. 

Now I'm not arguing for one moment that a Zeiss or Swarovski can be compared to a Panamax but taking added specification such as BDC aside do they offer meaningfully better seeing ability ? What is your experience and preference with rifle scopes ? 

Edited by Hamster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its all down to clarity and finish to the lenses and the special coatings for light transmission. I agree that for normal shooting conditions and daylight the high end scopes are not necessary.

The other quoted specs are usual weather proofing and rugged build quality in keeping you zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have tried many different types, from unknowns through Nikki Sterling, Hawke and finally settled in Leopold for both my rf and cf. Mate has a variety of S&B, Swarovski etc on his cf’s with which you can zoom in on the targets on Warcop ranges....astonishing clarity and mag’. If I was shooting quarry at around 300 mts or further away I could understand, but I just tend to go for something which will get the job done at a reasonable price. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main difference will be at last light and first light. With decent glass you will see the light gathering abilities. In normal daylight situations you may not notice. All down to the individual I suppose. if you dont need that extra bit of clarity for the large sum of extra cash it costs then thats your choice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bumpy22 said:

The main difference will be at last light and first light. With decent glass you will see the light gathering abilities. In normal daylight situations you may not notice. All down to the individual I suppose. if you dont need that extra bit of clarity for the large sum of extra cash it costs then thats your choice

+1:good:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bumpy22 said:

The main difference will be at last light and first light. With decent glass you will see the light gathering abilities. In normal daylight situations you may not notice. All down to the individual I suppose. if you dont need that extra bit of clarity for the large sum of extra cash it costs then thats your choice

A few weeks ago I had just that low light situation when out shooting magpies, as mentioned I normally have the NS Panamax set on 11 power but found that I could no longer easily see the birds coming in to the trees so turned the power down to 6 and was delighted and a fair bit amazed to find that it made a huge difference.

To be honest as much as I believe super expensive scopes will have been better, the "time frame" or extended window of opportunity with such rapidly failing light is so tiny that it makes little difference, my cheap scope coped perfectly well even then without even having to go down to lowest magnification setting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brilliant, this is exactly my experience (although I prefer the thinner reticle of Hawke over nikko)

Recently backed up with my experience of binoculars, I went to shop prepared to spend up to 500 if I could see the difference, ended up with Nature Trek for 140 (as suggested on here) as I couldn’t make value of the incremental difference (although they were worth the 70 more than vantage to me)

I am however sold on the 56 mm lens and will be buying 3-12*56 Hawke Endurance before long..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...