This is topic Old rule of thumb? in forum Optics forum at The New Huntmastersbbs!.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://www.huntmastersbbs.com/cgi-bin/cgi-ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000074
Posted by Bryan J (Member # 106) on February 01, 2011, 06:23 PM:
Twenty some years ago the local gun shop always had something in the back with my name on it. I bought them a Ben Franklin at a time. I stayed current on what was available from almost anyone. Now…. not so much.
It was probably a salesman that I trusted that made the statement. “Spend as much for glass as you do on the rifle.” Most of my rigs are set up like that and I have yet to be disappointed. I did skimp a time or two and was disappointed.
Is that rule of thumb still valid today?
I don’t know maybe it never was valid?
Posted by CrossJ (Member # 884) on February 01, 2011, 07:20 PM:
Don't know about the spend as much as the rig deal, but I do believe you get what you pay for. Do I think you need a schmidt(sp?) and bender or a Nightforce....thats up to you. I personally like swarovski and zeiss. I know Lb will accuse me of being a snob, but I like them. And wtf, it could be an heirloom my kids can fight over when I'm gone....lol
Posted by RagnCajn (Member # 879) on February 01, 2011, 08:19 PM:
It depends on what I intend to use the rifle for. My once a year Antelope rig, 25-06AI has a MK 5 on it. I want to know my dial ups will be there when I need it.
My PD Rifles carry anything from a 6-24 Sightron/8-32 Burris/4-16 4200 Bushnell.
The one thing I have found in scopes is each brand has a bargain vs quality model.
Like Geordie says, You get what you pay for in optics. There are no free rides when considering optics.
Edited because I can't my fingers won't type what my brain is thinking.
[ February 01, 2011, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: RagnCajn ]
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 01, 2011, 08:28 PM:
Hey? Why are you picking on me, Geordie? I don't own a scope of less quality than Leupold and augment those with several European jobs. In fact seems to me, if anything the glass probably costs more that the rifle. In some cases, a lot more, and that's as it should be. Are you taking cheap shots at me because I have been picking on your buddy TA?
Good hunting. LB
Some friend!
Posted by TA17Rem (Member # 794) on February 01, 2011, 09:15 PM:
I had a chat a couple of weeks ago with a friend of mine from a group I belong to. I asked him about N/F scopes and Leupolds and a few others.
Here is a reply I got from him on the matter..
quote:
Light transmission through the scope is what we're concerned with. The more light you let in (larger objective lens) the brighter the image. But, the higher the magnification, the darker the image. Divide the objective diameter in MM by the magnification (say 10x50mm) and you get an Exit Pupil (the little circle of light you see in the eyepiece when you hold a scope about 18 inches from your eye.) This EP corresponds to our own pupils which dilate from about 2mm in bright sun to 7mm in darkness. If the scope's EP is smaller than our own, we don't get as bright a view as we could. Ideally, a scope's EP should be 7mm wide to match our pupils in dimmest light. BUT, with age, our dilation decreases, perhaps as much as 2mm or 3mm. Highly variable. In general, I've found that a 4mm EP is adequate for putting a black crosshair onto a medium-toned animal (deer, coyote) 45 min. after sunset, perhaps an hour after (depending on other brightness factors I'll cover below.) So, a 42mm scope divided by 10X power gives you a 4.2mm objective, which I find more than adequate for 99 percent of my shooting. If I were specializing in super long range shooting after sunset and didn't need to carry the scope all day, I'd get a 50mm or even 56mm objective in order to keep the EP above 4mm at higher powers. A 15x50mm would yield a 3.5mm EP. A huge 56mm objective would only increase that to 3.7mm. A 10x55mm would give you 5.5mm. To get a maximum brightness from a 7mm EP, you'd need a 10x70mm scope. Probably ain't gonna find one.
Now, here's what really makes a huge difference in brightness: Anti-reflection coatings. They don't weigh anything, don't enlarge the physical size of the scope but more than double the light transmission. Here's how: raw glass reflects about 4 percent of light striking it and another 4 percent leaving it, for a loss of 8 percent per lens. Scopes have as many as 8 lenses total. Do the math, folks. One layer of magnesium sulfide anti-reflection coating cuts that reflection loss in half. Additional layers can knock it as low as 0.02 percent per air-to-glass surface. The end result is that using maximum layers of anti-reflection coatings produces scopes that transmit 95 percent of more of the light that enters. Combine that with a 4mm or larger EP and you're doing the best you can.
This means that a perfectly, multi-coated 10x40mm scope can easily transmit a brighter image than a poorly coated 10x56mm. Cheap 50mm and bigger objective scopes often add a "field stop" inside the main tube just behind the objective. This looks like a common washer and largely is. It's job is to eliminate poor-quality edge light from the big lens, which makes for a sharper image. This is what apertures (f-stops) in a camera do. It's a gimmick enabling companies to make/sell cheap scopes with huge objectives. But there is little or no brightness advantage.
The other thing anti-reflection coatings do is increase contrast by controlling flare and glare. Reflected light bounces around in a scope to create that fuzzy, foggy-looking haze we most commonly see when we look toward the low sun with a cheap scope. The entire view becomes muted, usually tinged orange. This is from all that uncontrolled, reflected and re-reflected light bouncing around inside. It's plenty bright, but not useably bright. Stop the reflections and you end up with a saturated view with crisp images that stand out. You can check all this stuff by aiming your scopes just off the low sun at sunrise and set. Do it with expensive and cheap models and you'll soon see the differences. Be sure to clean dust from the objective lens because all those dust specks reflect light to create haze and a dim image.
Increased contrast is useful because it helps us see the difference between subtle color hues like gray sagebrush and a coyote pelt, deer antlers and branches. Contrast increases resolution in low light situations.
By the way, if your scope has side parallax adjustment, it has an extra lens inside. Parallax adjustment is simply turning a lens to perfectly focus the image onto the reticle.
There's a lot going on in a scope, but since most of it is hidden in that dark tube, manufacturers can pull the wool over our eyes.
By Ron Spomer
quote:
Night Force scopes appear to me to be slightly superior to Leupold's VX3 line in optical precision and overall fit/finish and durability. But I haven't compared NF against Leupold Mark Vs. This is an an important point. Many scope makers have several lines from cheap to high dollar, so you have to compare the proper classes. NF were/are designed for heavy duty, military sniper work, as are the Mark Vs. You pay a weight penalty for the big, tough sniper scopes, but they are durable and tough. Zeiss are super precise, of course, and their range finding scope is unbelievable. So's the price. My compromise for spot and stalk coyote work would be the Zeiss RF binocular (ranges to 1,700 yards in a half second, one push of the button -- best in the business) coupled with either a MOA dial scope or one with multiple reticles. Check out Vortex's newest sniper scopes. They are surprisingly excellent and precise. I'd opt for the one without the windage MOA turret and use the MOA harsh marks on the reticle for holding into the wind. Faster, just as effective. One dial to turn is enough for me.
Ron Spomer
Posted by CrossJ (Member # 884) on February 02, 2011, 06:42 AM:
Sorry Lb....I was almost certain it was you making comments about being a 'optic snob' or something along those lines. It was at the campout 2 years ago....you know, when Paul was strutting around with his NF scope....lol.
Posted by knockemdown (Member # 3588) on February 02, 2011, 06:59 AM:
Hi, my name is Fred & I have a scope addiction...
Admission is the 1st step, ain't it?
Posted by Az-Hunter (Member # 17) on February 02, 2011, 08:58 AM:
Im humbled reading this particular thread. I have three dedicated coyote rifles, they all wear the exact same optic, a Simmons Whitetail Expedition 1.5X6 heavy duplex, which cost the princely sum of a hundred bucks.
Im wondering now, how I even manage to kill a fucking coyote?, must be my old point shooting skills:)
Posted by DanS (Member # 316) on February 02, 2011, 09:43 AM:
The most expensive brand new scope I have ever purchased was a Leupold VX3. I have got some great deals on Zeiss, Lee-o-polds, Nikons and such.
Unlike Vic, I just don't trust the lower priced scopes like Simmons and Tasco's, and probably haven't given them a fair chance to fuck up on me.
Posted by JD (Member # 768) on February 02, 2011, 09:55 AM:
Good point Vic, I knew someone would be the voice of reason. Many people I know will back up that notion as far as a "calling" scope goes. I like the cheap 50MMs myself with a sun shade, never had a problem yet, in fact the only bad scope I ever fought with was a high dollar gold ring POS loopy.
Although, if I were a serious big game hunter, which I am not, I sure as hell wouldnt spend thousands of dollars & months of planning & let the whole trip pivot on a hundred dollar scope, but I think that point is obvious to this crowd.
Nothing wrong with having the best equipment but you dont NEED a porche to get to walmart.
quote:
“Spend as much for glass as you do on the rifle.”
That old "rule of thumb" was an incredible sales spin put into play by a scope manufacturer.
Posted by Az-Hunter (Member # 17) on February 02, 2011, 10:08 AM:
Please; do not think Im knocking good glass. All I used to run was the gold ring stuff, 6-24s on my PD rifles, and 2-7s on my predator rifles. All those rifles and glass are long since traded(bad habit I have), so when I accquired the new crop of rifles, I simply refused to buy the pricey stuff any longer. Ive yet to make a trade or sale where I gathered my cost of good glass on rifles, it's just the way the gun world works.
Gawd forbid I ever peek thru a Khales or Ziess scope, I'd then realize what shitty glass Im running. Im sure Im on the tail end of my hunting endeavors, so I just stick with what Ive been using, and so far, Im able to wack a few each winter.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 02, 2011, 10:17 AM:
There's your humbled coyote fucker, it's Vic! Simmons? If I bought a rifle with a Simmons on in, I'd remove it before walking in the door.
Besides, I think I read, somewhere, that Vic got to actually look through a decent scope (last year, maybe?) and actually saw what all the fuss was about. He probably won't admit it, now? Too busy telling us we're all wrong, any junk scope is adequate.
I have this hilarious image of Paul M strutting around with a barbell size Nightforce scope. Was he acting real uppity, too? OMG! That must have been special!
Good hunting. LB
Vic humbled. Yeah, right!
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 02, 2011, 10:25 AM:
There's your humbled coyote fucker, it's Vic! Simmons? If I bought a rifle with a Simmons on in, I'd remove it before walking in the door.
Besides, I think I read, somewhere, that Vic got to actually look through a decent scope (last year, maybe?) and actually saw what all the fuss was about. He probably won't admit it, now? Too busy telling us we're all wrong, any junk scope is adequate.
I have this hilarious image of Paul M strutting around with a barbell size Nightforce scope. Was he acting real uppity, too? OMG! That must have been special!
Good hunting. LB
Vic humbled. Yeah, right!
Posted by Az-Hunter (Member # 17) on February 02, 2011, 10:28 AM:
You know better Leonard, I was serious. Im sure there's been more than one guy who Ive hunted with, think to himself, what the fuck is he doing with a piece of shit Simmons on that nice rifle?
I should be chagrined....but Im not, past that point now I guess:) Hell; I used to be a fine physical specimen, now Ive got a pot belly,wrinkles, and no hair, and Im past that too.
Trust me, I can appreciate good glass, I just don't use it any more.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 02, 2011, 11:06 AM:
Losing your hair? I wondered why you never take that Ducks Unlimited hat off?
See, Vic wears sort of a uniform, same type of boots same pants same denim shirt, or sometimes a subdued checked job, maybe on weekends? Along with the Mexican wrestler sneakers. Never shaves, but it never gets longer?
And, rumor has it that he is selling a map of all his favorite stand locations before he moves. I hear DanS is the highest bidder, thus far? Now I hear he is cutting the map into equal pieces! My piece looks suspiciously like Higgins' area around Eloy. I'VE BEEN ROBBED!
edit: I think we are having next year's Ronde in your new trailer? You are in charge of bringing the Meskin girls in.
[ February 02, 2011, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
Posted by DanS (Member # 316) on February 02, 2011, 11:20 AM:
quote:
Along with the Mexican wrestler sneakers
I thought those were bowling alley boots?
Damn now the secret is out about the map, I'm going to have to sell off a few more rifles to afford the new bids.
Posted by JoeF (Member # 228) on February 02, 2011, 11:54 AM:
I like nice scopes, too.
That said, in this day and age of $700 plain Jane factory rifles if anybody thinks they need to spend more on a scope than the rifle to get an adequate scope they are fooling themselves and cutting in to their travel budget.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 02, 2011, 12:32 PM:
Yeah, uh huh? Wait 'til you get old, Joe.
edit: haha, Dan! I hear your piece of the map is of downtown Douglas! That rascal! I'm going to take MacNeal off the banned words list!
Good hunting. LB
You guys need to understand. Vic hunts Bluebird days, no long johns, just thin cotton camo and his Wranglers. It's no wonder he doesn't have the need to line up on a song dog before actual sun up.
And, another thing. All this talk about adequate glass doesn't take into consideration night hunting. There is no question that the best you can afford is money well spent.
[ February 02, 2011, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
Posted by JoeF (Member # 228) on February 02, 2011, 12:37 PM:
Does it get cheaper to travel then?
Just funning with you, but $700 buys lots of "adequate".
Posted by JoeF (Member # 228) on February 02, 2011, 12:41 PM:
One of my most troubling indicators of aging; aside from needing bifocals, is that my beloved fine duplexed Leupold 4x33 rimfire just ain't enough scope for what a guy uses a rimfire for, anymore.
Posted by Paul Melching (Member # 885) on February 02, 2011, 12:48 PM:
Just goes to show what happens when you dont pay attention! That was not a nightforce scope I do not, nor have I ever had a nightforce scope. As a matter of fact someone else is the new proud owner of that barbell scope and it was a grest piece while I had it. While All you bolt action only cranks were busy drooling over my AR, you failed to see that mounted atop that machinegun was a very special piece of glass.I have a very common burris scope on that rifle now and the difference being that instead of taking the center out of a dime it now takes the center out of a quarter. good enough for hunting! the real difference is about two grand. I like my AR but truth is nothing will replace my 22-250 complete with bolt action, and a bsa scope the bsa stands for barley see anything. lol
[ February 02, 2011, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Paul Melching ]
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 02, 2011, 01:07 PM:
Well, if that's what I think it is, and the dastardly koko took a surreptitious and totally unauthorized photograph of somebody handling Paul's POS, and even though Kelly threatened to post that pic because koko himself is technically challenged, it never happened due to bribery and threats. How's that for a run on sentence?
But, if 'ol chicken legs wasn't prancing around with a high dollar Nightforce, what on earth WAS it?
I'm starting to think Geordie doesn't get ANYTHING right?
Good hunting. LB
edit: quote:
I now have a very common burris scope on that rifle now
.....and I have the Burris box it came in? Is that what you're trying to say?
[ February 02, 2011, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
Posted by Paul Melching (Member # 885) on February 02, 2011, 01:21 PM:
No you have the nice box the burris 'signature' that sits on my 30-06 came in. rotflmfao
and Geordie is right about a lot of things just missed it on this one!
Posted by Paul Melching (Member # 885) on February 02, 2011, 01:43 PM:
KOKO
When you gonna release the photos! Leonard fondling my machine gun! while Geordie full of lust looks on. shit you could maybe sellem to the enquierer.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 02, 2011, 02:17 PM:
Sits in the safe, unmounted. I'm going to have one built especially for it. Be looking for the coming out party.
Good hunting. LB
Posted by CrossJ (Member # 884) on February 02, 2011, 02:21 PM:
Well Hell!!! Reality is subjective to the individual.....right? I know I heard Lb say that, and I'm pretty sure Paul had a fortunes worth of glass on his machine gun. Oh well, thats what I'll swear to in court.
Maintain
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 02, 2011, 02:31 PM:
You worry me, Geordie! You must be working too hard, or something? You need to get out and kill something.
I just can't recall the incident ever taking place; right Paul? Koko, stay out of this!
Good hunting. LB
Posted by Az-Hunter (Member # 17) on February 02, 2011, 02:36 PM:
I recall that incident too....just can't put a brand on the piece of glass? IOR....miopta?...some gawd damned odd ball optic?
Posted by Bryan J (Member # 106) on February 02, 2011, 02:46 PM:
You guys crack me up.
Joe, you are NOT helping. LOL I’m sure the buyers remorse will pass when I get the product in hand. Thanks for the opinions all. Gives me more to consider next time.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 02, 2011, 02:59 PM:
That's great, Mr Vic Simmons! Oddball optics, indeed!
These guys are UNBELIEVABLE! I should move this discussion to the UFO Forum. Err..What the hell is it called now? Right, the CONSOLIDATED PIN HEAD FORUM. That's where this mush belongs!
Good huntin. LB
Posted by TA17Rem (Member # 794) on February 02, 2011, 03:09 PM:
Bryan J: If you ever need one of those cheap junky scopes give me a holler. I have abunch of them laying on the shelf. ( Tasco,Burris,Swift, Bushnell, Simmons and a few other brands) Non of which are even good enough to put on a 22 rifle. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 02, 2011, 03:12 PM:
What he said! ^
(can't believe I said that!)
Posted by Paul Melching (Member # 885) on February 02, 2011, 03:35 PM:
Geordie they say the memory is the second thing to go.
Oh well! it was U.S. OPTICS a fine scope indeed.
This place is the only fun I had all day.
hey heres a first only got up to 42 degrees here whats up with that?
Posted by JoeF (Member # 228) on February 02, 2011, 03:52 PM:
Resounding endorsement......
Posted by CrossJ (Member # 884) on February 02, 2011, 05:22 PM:
U.S. Optics!!!!!!.....thats what I said wasn't it?
On another note, I have spent the last two days trying to dig out from the blizzard. Finally got out this afternoon. I will post pics when my internet gets better. It has worked, but been very slow.
Maintain
Posted by Az-Hunter (Member # 17) on February 02, 2011, 05:51 PM:
There you go; Geordie jogged my memory too....yeah, US optics, I remember looking at it, lots of knobs and stuff.
If you have any of those cheapo Burris scopes laying around Leonard, shoot one my way.....I can up-grade:)
Posted by Cdog911 (Member # 7) on February 02, 2011, 06:01 PM:
Is it cold there Bryan? Must be the cold sluggishing up your dial up. LOL So damned cold here that I went out to grill burgers and smoke a cigar. Grill had trouble getting warm anough to cook beef and the cigar was so cold it kept going out. Now, THAT'S cold, I think the windchill here has been about -25-30 all day.
Posted by Bryan J (Member # 106) on February 02, 2011, 07:24 PM:
Damn cold Lance, but not as cold as other places. I think I will let the tap drip overnight though.
Thanks, TA. I have had experience with three of what you listed. (around 20 years ago) The Tasco and Bushnell would hit the pie plate at 100 consistently. The Buris was just not a good match for me, I was always struggling with the eye relief on it. It seemed dark but shot fairly well as I remember.
Things can change and that is why I asked. The little guy is going to be needing one in a few years, for him a Simmons may be perfect.
Posted by JD (Member # 768) on February 02, 2011, 08:01 PM:
I shoot most of my coyotes well under 100 yds, I could do that with iron sights. Not a thing wrong with expensive glass, just don`t NEED it. I do find the "snobbery" to be interesting though, I knew LB & Tim were starting a special club of some sort Maybe an "Optic Snob forum" is in order.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 02, 2011, 08:23 PM:
I'm not real crazy about Burris.
As I recall, it was Ronnie Robison that really liked them but I think he had a relative involved at Burris, something like that and quite understandable. I still own one Burris, it's a 6X24 for squirrels and such. Has no brightness ability in the optics whatsoever. I have never seen a scope with worse twilight capability, although it sorta looks like a Nightforce.
I think Leupold makes some decent scopes but I'm not thrilled with some of the stuff they make for the budget minded.
Good hunting. LB
edit: Me and Tim, JD? Yeah, we go way back, like you and Berry.
[ February 02, 2011, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
Posted by TOM64 (Member # 561) on February 02, 2011, 09:04 PM:
Simmons? Surely you jest.
I had a simmons about 25 years ago and had to send it back 3 times but the third time I smashed the POS with a hammer and told em to keep it.
I was reminded of that the other day as I was at the range a guy was trying to get his scope (a simmons) sighted in. I finally offered to bore sight it for him as he wasn't even on paper and the elevation knob was just spinning without moving anything.
I use Leupold VXIII's and a couple of MK4's. SWFA has a pretty good clearence on MK4 scopes now, I bought a 4.5-14 and a 3.5-10 for around $750 each. They are clearer than my VXIII's.
Posted by TA17Rem (Member # 794) on February 02, 2011, 09:17 PM:
I could see if a caller lived in a area with high population of coyotes he could get by with most anything for a scope knowing there will always be more coyotes to call to if the scope messes up a shot for them.. Some of us don't have those high numbers so we have to make each shot count and I'm not one to chance it on a 150.00 scope so I'll spend a little more money and get a good one...
Some of the features I don't like about some scopes is they don't have click adjustments, just turn it a little at a time till scope is zero, nothing there to keep it locked in place..
And on others they have a click adjustment but its not posative enough to keep the dial in place and when you fire the gun or have it rideing around in the truck the dial will move..
Sure most any brand of scopes can have a problem or have one develope and I have this happen more with the cheaper scopes. One scope the lens fogged up on the inside, on a Tasco the cross-hair fell out, another scope would'nt hold its zero and on some the parrelax got out of wack.. I've got six Leupolds and one super-sniper that get used and are still holding up and have out lasted the cheaper scopes that I have owned..
Posted by UTcaller (Member # 8) on February 03, 2011, 02:00 AM:
I've used quite a few different brands of scopes over the years.Both cheap and not so cheap.I have really come to appreciate the better quality scopes on my calling/hunting rifles.Over the last couple years I've replaced all of my scopes with Swarovski and Zeiss optics.I've never regretted spending the extra cash.
Good Hunting Chad
Posted by UTcaller (Member # 8) on February 03, 2011, 05:04 AM:
Speaking of cold.Just got back from a few days of calling in Northern Nevada,Damn that Desert can get cold especially with the wind.
Good Hunting Chad
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 03, 2011, 06:23 AM:
Hope you left a few?
Posted by UTcaller (Member # 8) on February 03, 2011, 07:25 AM:
It was actually a very successful trip for this time of year,especially with how much the wind blew.
But in answer to your question,yes we left a few for ya. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Good Hunting Chad
Posted by DEL GUE (Member # 1526) on February 08, 2011, 10:41 AM:
Speaking of cold, it's cold here, too. 57 degrees, with a 16 mph wind gusting to 25.
In the old days I used Weavers. Now most of what I have is Loopie Vari-X III's. I do have a couple of Nikon's and a new Redfield, and I'm prolly gonna get more Nikon's.
I never was excited about Tasco's and Bushnell's and such. I had a Burris once (may still have it) but didn't like it. When you changed power the whole rear eyepiece moved, which is a pain with a scope cap on it.
My philosophy is that a rifle is just the delivery vehicle. It has to be well-done to deliver consistently to the same point. But a scope is the guidance system. I wouldn't want a POS scope on my rifle any more than I'd want a $100 Magellan GPS on an ICBM. The scope has to be clear, sturdy, and the adjustments repeatable. And it should have a good guarantee in case it takes a dump, because a certain percentage of everything made (by anybody) is defective. It's funny, though, cuz my old Browning T-Bolt that I bought in the 70's is still wearing an old Marlin 4x32 scope with a crosshair and has always worked great.
I'm a fan of the new Nikon BDC, as it seems to work, and Nikon supports it nicely with their Spot-On programme on their website. The Nikons are reasonably priced and seem to work pretty well.
I do, however, believe that a scope should be mounted to a rifle, and not a rifle mounted to a scope.
[ February 08, 2011, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: DEL GUE ]
UBB.classicTM
6.3.0