Can people see the difference?
Well, this question has come up for me when comparing several things, all in the highest end of what you can buy. Tv’s, stereo, etc. But it just came to me that the same may apply for scopes.
It’s all about how well a human can tell the difference. It’s like the difference between two of the best tv’s on the market. If you look at them on paper, you can see what one has over the other based on numbers. But if you just had them side by side you couldn’t see any difference. If you are looking at several things that are up top in quality and they all seem to have dedicated supporters to each one, and they tell how theirs is better than the rest, and another person with a different brand says the same thing, it seems to be this kind of scenario. A matter of preference with the brand, but not because the quality really is better.
So are the highest end scopes at this point? Looking at reviews from the best of the best, high end zeiss, S&B, us optics, and some others, there are brand loyal people that will only buy one because they say it is best, but most of the people who are looking for one that have no preference can not see a difference between them. So are the best of the best in scopes really just a brand choice over true quality?
One may be better than another looking 5 miles out, but again, that is a paper comparison, looking at two side by side you would not be able to see that kind of difference. Only electronic instruments can see that.
I have no real experience with anything better than the varixIII scopes from leupold I have. I played with a rifle that had a S&B on it and it was incredible. Just relating it to looking at other things.
All Replies
Viewing 14 replies - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
I haven’t been kind to it.. 😳 😆 My kit gets a good workout in the field so its got its share of scratches..
If you want me to get you one from over here and send it to you, you need only ask 😀
Pab, if you ever want to trade your 8-32 for my 4-16 or 3-12 plus cash on my end, let me know. I tried to order a couple of the 8-32 but they were out. I like having 3 or 4 power for walking snap shots; but for competition, having 30x is helpful.
aloha,
walt
The light these things ‘suck’ in is amazing. I’m always told its a good sign if the world looks brighter though the scope than the naked eye. If thats the case, my Viper is a good scope 😀
It say’s a “LOT”!!! 😉
Thanks Walt!
Mike
Lama is this your homework your passing off again ??????
I’ve got the top of the range 8-32×60 MTC Viper and I would say its too much scope for my rifle( 24″ .25 with Blod valve) The fixed x10 Viper would be my choice if I could choose again. I never use more than that.
The light these things ‘suck’ in is amazing. I’m always told its a good sign if the world looks brighter though the scope than the naked eye. If thats the case, my Viper is a good scope 😀
Mike, yes, that’s the ones. I bought a couple after reading some good reviews. So far, for the money I don’t think they can be beat for airgun use. I’m told by the distributor that they can also take powder arm recoil, but I don’t have any of mine mounted on powder guns yet. I don’t really have a need to range things that close on a powder gun, so their capabilities would be wasted on a powder gun.
walt
I’ve looked through S&B, Zeiss, Swarovski, Kahles, Docter and leupold.
On a range you won’t find a lot of difference(other than leupold starts to get blurry on me after a few shots). The real difference is at night or at dawnn or dusk. The euro scopes give you 15min to half an hour more ‘light’ in good conditions. Other than that go with what you like and you can afford. In the high end optics a little cost a lot.
Personally I have a 15 to 20 year old 2nd hand Zeiss 6×42 T* on my airrifle. It’s the best I can afford and I shoot 1,5″ groups at 100 meters have a wide sightpicture and cristal clear optics! Made a nice targetturret for it as per Ewoodies design.
My opinion is save on your gun and invest in glass. I’ve seen people buy a €3000 sauer and put a 100 euro scope on it. They would have done equally good with a cz but would have had eough money to put a nice Zeiss on it. That way they would be able to hunt 30 minutes longer at dusk!
Regards,
Marc
Walt, are those the MTC Vipers?
Good Looking Scopes!
Mike
Of course there is a difference.
Optics or stereos, you don’t have to be an expert to know what you like. In the case of stereos, just go in with your favorite vinyl or cd or super cd or dvd. Your ear will tell you. With optics, just look. But once you get past a certain undefined line, they are all pretty good. For a reason. Good glass is expensive.
I have owned or used most of the best, and I stick with medium pricing and medium glass. For instance, on most of my serious rifles I have leupold Mark 4 glass. Used to have Kahles and Zeiss and Swarovski (same as Kahles), sold them progressively in the last few gun shows. The swarovski glass is slightly better than the Mark 4 (30mm M3 and M1, 3.5-10 and 4.5-14), but only in very, very tiny vectors. The resolution is SLIGHTLY better in the euro glass, but it’s so close it’s nearly a tossup. By far, the most significant difference was in color rendition. The european glass, I found, tends to replicate colors much more faithfully and perhaps it was a tad brighter image, but because the Mark4 was built, in my opinion, tougher, I just went with the Mark 4s on most of my high end rifles. I tried the zeiss and found it very good, but I preferred the adjusters on the turrets better on the mark 4 so again, a matter of preference. About a year or so ago I bought a couple of Viper scopes and guess what? They are almost painfully bright, much much brighter than the mark 4 scopes at 5x the price, so I think my next batch of scope purchases will be another 3 or 4 Vipers. They do have more distortion than high end leupolds or zeiss or swarovski, but so do scopes like Burris, which is a good quality mid range scope, but they have almost too much spherical distortion and I’ve come to dislke them over the years. They also have stadia lines that are a bit too thick.
For real hunting or long range air gunning, I would not recommend spending an awful lot on the scope. Stay with something good in the midrange, spend more money on a really good pair of binoculars. You’ll spend more time behind them than you will your scope, so makes sense to spend most of your money there, where you’ll see more use and better return on your money. I bought a pair of Nikon Superior E porros in 8×32, if anyone’s interested. Go here for good reading: http://www.betterviewdesired.com
aloha,
walt
When it comes to the best of the best in optic’s, it’s all about the features and which looks better to you. Not the sight picture, but the scope body its’ self. That and the features. Turrets, reticles etc. The quality is there in all of them. But I wouldn’t put us optics up there with the likes of S&B Zeiss, Swarovski, or Kales. They are hell bent for tough, and have great controls and military use reticles. But the optics aren’t there. Not on the European level. Good Scopes though! 😉
Mike
yes I agree, can you see the difference in stereos, kind of like seeing the wind.
Tv’s take a trained eye to know what to look for, and just like rifles alot depends who aligns/tunes it and the user’s knowledge and experience?
I love to walk in a store with a rack of Tv’s, on the wall Usually one or two are aligned perfectly and rest are detuned.
And listen to how many customers say “That tv has the best picture of All”
what they don’t realize is tomorrow a different tv will have the best picture.
This also brings back memories of in the day of analog stereo, I would walk down the stereo display rack turning all the big volume control knobs wide open and then stand back to watch the salesman/customer get the shit sceared out em?
Sam 🙄
Wish it were me.
Somebody had a couple of bong hits tonight. 😎 😆
Viewing 14 replies - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
😉 😀