Good glass
- Thread starter madHatter
- Start date
On the budget side, Primary Arms might fit the bill. I've used their 1x6 out to 700. They also make 4x14 with bdcs for .308.
My 1-6X Primary Arms is my favorite scope. My deer rifles wear Leupolds, although I don't really use them for deer any more. The rifle I am using this year (suppressed 30-30) is wearing a Primary Arms 1-4X
I'll never be good enough to shoot farther than a decent Leopold will handle. Probably a few better but it would take a much greater shooter than me.
I've got three "nice-ish" scopes that I've compared side by side... Leupold VX-II, Nikon Monarch, and a Zeiss Conquest. All are 3-9x40 and all are mounted on bolt guns. I have no complaints about any of them, but what I've noticed:
The VX-II is very clear, gathers light well at dusk (like being able to see much more clearly through the scope than without it), and has a fairly thin border.
The Nikon is also very clear, gathers light equally as well as the VX-II, but has a very thick border around the field of view.
The Zeiss is really, really clear, gathers light about the same as the other two, and has almost no border at all- it's seriously like just seeing a magnified bubble.
The VX-II is very clear, gathers light well at dusk (like being able to see much more clearly through the scope than without it), and has a fairly thin border.
The Nikon is also very clear, gathers light equally as well as the VX-II, but has a very thick border around the field of view.
The Zeiss is really, really clear, gathers light about the same as the other two, and has almost no border at all- it's seriously like just seeing a magnified bubble.
Redfield Revolution is what I put on bolt actions. Made in the US and owned by Leupold and cheaper.
http://redfield.com/riflescopes/
http://redfield.com/riflescopes/
thats a cool review. I have the nikon and like it a lot but have never compared it side by side
Just to clear up a little misconception created by the optics industry. Scopes do not "gather light". The amount of light that gets through to glass (which is naturally reflective) and to your eye depends on a number of factors, but none of them actually pull in photons.
1. The quality, or lack of impurities in the glass. Lead, and arsenic are added to lower end glass to help remove impurities but leave behind traces of their presence and degrade light transmission and image quality. It's a quick and dirty way to make some serviceable glass, but it's definitely low end. Glass that is allowed to cool very slowly (takes time and time = $$) is better. Nothing added, impurities come out naturally. Glass quality is graded like a diamond. Less impurities = higher $$$. There's really no bargain in glass.
2. Quality of coatings. Since glass naturally wants to reflect light, coatings must be added to allow light to pass through. A number of factors will affect quality of image and light transmission here. First off is the obvious, quality of coatings. Phase coated, etc and terms thrown around but not understood by many. The stupid "ruby lens" coating that tasco used to use was purely a marketing gimmick. Anyway, the quality of the coatings, number of layers, and surfaces coated will affect light transmission greatly. "Multi-Coated, Fully Multi-Coated" all mean something a little different. Multi-coated simply means that the lenses are at least multi-layer coated to reduce reflection. This does not tell you anything about the quality of the coatings though. Fully multi-coated tells you that BOTH sides of the lenses are coated (usually done on slightly higher end optics). This prevents scatter as the light leaves the lens and helps to focus it on the next lens in the tube. Again, this gives no indication of quality.
3. Tube construction. Obviously light needs to be directed down the tube of the optic with an extreme amount of precision to avoid losing those photons. A misaligned lens will affect focus and brightness. Better components, a higher grade of accuracy when milling, and more precisely cut lenses will help to reduce light loss. Again, this takes money.
4. Objective lens size. Yes, a larger objective lens provides more surface area for light, but the human adult pupil can only dialate to about 5mm maximum. If you look at the exit pupil diameter of a 50mm scope, that's 5mm. Anymore light than that, and it is not visible, it's projected around the outside of the pupil. This is why a 50mm Tasco is less bright and clear than a 40mm Nikon..the previously mentioned factors concerning light transmission. More hits the lens with the Tasco, but less makes it through. The biggest advantage to a larger objective lens size is FOV (field of view). As power increases, FOV decreases, a larger objective lens helps to compensate.
Moral of the story, $$$ is about the best indication of quality in optics. Marketing buzzwords don't mean anything. Look through the scope, and make comparisons in low light.
1. The quality, or lack of impurities in the glass. Lead, and arsenic are added to lower end glass to help remove impurities but leave behind traces of their presence and degrade light transmission and image quality. It's a quick and dirty way to make some serviceable glass, but it's definitely low end. Glass that is allowed to cool very slowly (takes time and time = $$) is better. Nothing added, impurities come out naturally. Glass quality is graded like a diamond. Less impurities = higher $$$. There's really no bargain in glass.
2. Quality of coatings. Since glass naturally wants to reflect light, coatings must be added to allow light to pass through. A number of factors will affect quality of image and light transmission here. First off is the obvious, quality of coatings. Phase coated, etc and terms thrown around but not understood by many. The stupid "ruby lens" coating that tasco used to use was purely a marketing gimmick. Anyway, the quality of the coatings, number of layers, and surfaces coated will affect light transmission greatly. "Multi-Coated, Fully Multi-Coated" all mean something a little different. Multi-coated simply means that the lenses are at least multi-layer coated to reduce reflection. This does not tell you anything about the quality of the coatings though. Fully multi-coated tells you that BOTH sides of the lenses are coated (usually done on slightly higher end optics). This prevents scatter as the light leaves the lens and helps to focus it on the next lens in the tube. Again, this gives no indication of quality.
3. Tube construction. Obviously light needs to be directed down the tube of the optic with an extreme amount of precision to avoid losing those photons. A misaligned lens will affect focus and brightness. Better components, a higher grade of accuracy when milling, and more precisely cut lenses will help to reduce light loss. Again, this takes money.
4. Objective lens size. Yes, a larger objective lens provides more surface area for light, but the human adult pupil can only dialate to about 5mm maximum. If you look at the exit pupil diameter of a 50mm scope, that's 5mm. Anymore light than that, and it is not visible, it's projected around the outside of the pupil. This is why a 50mm Tasco is less bright and clear than a 40mm Nikon..the previously mentioned factors concerning light transmission. More hits the lens with the Tasco, but less makes it through. The biggest advantage to a larger objective lens size is FOV (field of view). As power increases, FOV decreases, a larger objective lens helps to compensate.
Moral of the story, $$$ is about the best indication of quality in optics. Marketing buzzwords don't mean anything. Look through the scope, and make comparisons in low light.
Last edited: