Over Magnification a Result of Poor Quality

S

Stats Shooter

New member
So I have been shooting a long time. I have many rifles from .338 lapua to .22 LR including semi automatic, bolt guns, lever action and even a pump action.22. But I have been guilty of buying high magnification scopes at discount prices thinking I needed 24 power to shoot 1000 yards consistently. The main reason for this was that historically I refused to spend much over $300-$400 on a scope. I knew the scopes I was buying were interior but I figured the high end scopes were more bells and whistles than quality.
So finally I i got a huge bonus at work and decided to splurge and bought a Swarovski Z3 . It is a 4-12x50 . The difference is night and day. The picture at 800 yards is as clear as the picture at 100 yards. I compared it to my Nikon monarch 4x16 and was shocked at the difference. With glass that clear, a 3x10 is enough to go to 1000 yards. I'm not made of money so I can't buy a night force or Swarovski for each rifle, but I would rather swap scopes and have a few good ones than a crappy scope for each rifle.
 
Id rather have clarity and repeatable adjustments as well as a eye box that is not critical at diffrent magnification levels,over higher magnification as well.
 
Yep, just bought my first Nightforce a couple of months ago. Well worth it for longer ranges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There is a "decent entry" level for optics starting around 300 dollars (with a few exceptions at lower price points) for long range shooting. After that every extra hundred dollars brings an incremental increase in quality.

I've looked through plenty of great glass and owned a lot of cheaper options. Leupold, Nightforce, Zeiss, IOR, and Bushnell Elite. And yes, spending more does mean you get more sometimes.

But, at the low end for people getting started, an SWFA Super Sniper fixed 10x got a LOT of people into the tactical rifle game (even if it isn't competitive at the top end any more). Bushnells Elite 3200 10x40 as well. It's a pity the IOR 6x42 with mil line reticle went up so much in price, it was excellent.

Jimro
 
Over magnification is usually the result of really effective marketing. Stuff is being marketed to guys who think more/bigger is going to fix not knowing the rifle and/or cartridge.
"...can't buy a night force or Swarovski for each rifle..." All at once. Nothing says you must have high end optics on every rifle immediately. Anyway, swapping scopes between rifles is a gigantic pain in the posterior. Requires sighting in again every time you do it.
 
No argument against top quality, but before I took out my billfold I think I'd see what top competitors in 1,000-yard competition were using.
 
More X's cost a lot more money for the same quality. You can get a decent 3-9X40 scope for $400-$500. Once you get into variable scopes with magnification above about 10X the cost either goes up significantly or quality goes down significantly. The same can be said of objectives larger than 40mm.

Once you get above about $500 in a 3-9X40 scope the quality goes up in very small increments in relation to cost. A $500 scope is significantly better than a $200 scope, but a $1,000 scope may only be slightly better than a $500 scope.
 
As a gunsmith, I look through a lot of scopes, both good and poor quality. While there are different personal measurements for what constitutes "quality" (usually sounds like "that's the best scope I ever bought"), there are real-world measurements that tell you how good the scope really is. Color aberration/shift, light dispersion/transmission, focus clarity, etc. In spite of those real measurements, marketers continue to claim that their scopes are"as clear as scopes costing 2-3 times more". Pure marketing hogwash. Lenses are an internationally-traded commodity, and the price of the lenses depends on the technical factors of the lenses. However, since you opted for a Swarovski scope, you now know what high optical quality is. I tell my clients that are looking for a high-end scope that once they look through a Swarovski, nothing else will do.
 
a cautionary tale on a number of levels. My idiot brother in law owned a rifle with a nikon 4-12 on it. He was once again out of money and was once again selling off his possessions to pay the rates on the things that he had in pawn. He talked me into the rifle wich I never fired and finaly stripped off the scope and sold the rifle about six years later.

Oh, yes, that nikon was beautifully clear. The crosshairs were about 2.5 moa. Stupid scope was nice and clear, but if it covers half of the target at shooting distances, what the heck good is it? It was a scope designed for hunting deer and elk and such and totally useless for any sort of precision shooting. the thing would completely cover a squirrel torso at only 100 yards. Don't buy a piece of equipment from a pinhead. Don't pick something up that you haven't really read up on the exact specs.
 
I will make a few casual observations and experiences from over the years.

The worse optics you can buy today are probably brighter and sharper than the best on the markets 50 years ago. Although I do have an old externally adjustable scope where the mechanics are still working top notch. And a German scope from the 60's that is pretty darn good. But on average, stuff is 1000% better today.

It is much much easier to make a sharp 3-10 scope than a big 6-24x. And it is easier to make a sharp 40x than a sharp 6-24x. Variables, while the fashion today, come at a cost in weight and clarity, for the same dollar.

There is a lot more to a scope than clarity. The inside stuff you cannot see is as important or really more important. First is a cross hair that wont break loose. Then adjustments that work, I dont mean repeatable i mean just working. Box test repeatable, moa range, etc. Then there is weight. A light scope, all equal, is harder to make than BIG heavy monster scope. That includes 50mm objective.

The life time, no limit warranty is great as long as the company stays in business. And honors the warranty.

I was recently shocked to see some very sharp optics on a Chinese Tasco 4x scope. I would not count on anything good from china, but it maybe with the proper QC even that is changing. Then, I cannot, 'see' inside the scope.

Ok, everything changes. Everything. I used to love the old Japanese Bushnells. They went to junk levels, IMHO. Then went onto Nikon for a while, nice glass but some rude surprise on spec for two scopes. Now, I am pretty much sold on Leupold, if I can afford. Since, everything changes, I am open to the occasional low cost Tasco or anyone. I still look at Nikon & Bushnell. For me, contrary to the OPs post, I would rather have a scope on every rifle (that needed a scope as opposed to irons) or buy less rifles. Today, subject to change I think I would get as good a Leupold as I can afford or just go right to bottom with a Tasco. That would be a so-called high end Tasco. I just assume a Tasco is disposable and Leupold is for lifetime. I am not swapping scopes.
 
Truedat, fourbore, but let's stay with discussion of scopes for precision shooting in the general category of a 1,000-yard distance.
 
Just in case nobody has mentioned it, cross hairs a built into a ring, that ring is set on springs, screws slide the ring around within the tube, and sometimes, those contact points don't actually allow the ring to move as precisely as it should. If groups open up after adjusting, this may be the cause. Shooting several rounds vibrates the parts into solid contact. An old test of scopes is using the one inch graph bench rest target. Starting with one square, move to as many others as you want to test. A fine scope should be able to walk an entire foot across a target by adjusting the scope to move exactly twelve moa. You should be able to walk it all over that graph just by changing settings. If groups change as you procede or adjusting it the proper number of clicks doesn't adjust the point of impact properly, there are minorl problems with the scope.

This sort of thing was very obviously a greater problem in the past, and it's a greater problem with inexpensive scopes.


Some people developed the habit of very lightly tapping on the scope on the top and left to shake the contact points after adjusting.

Think about it if you notice problems after adjusting. Just a gentle tap, top and a side with something like a cartridge or small tool is all you need to do.
 
I bought a Swarovski Z5 a few years ago and it is the best glass I own or have ever used. While I can't afford to outfit all my rifles with them when someone asks what is the best I've used, it is the Swarovski. I've read wonderful reviews on the Razors and high end Bushnell Elites, and my son outfitted his LR rifle with one of the Bushnell's, it is very comparable to the Swarovski in my opinion but it also costs more. Hopefully this year I'll get first had experience with a Razor, my cousin put one on a LR build he had done last year and we're supposed to meet up in CO this year for an elk hunt.
 
I seriously wish that optics didn't cost so much.

Does anyone remember the wide angle scopes of the seventies?

Absolute trash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top