Overrated /over priced rifle scopes

this was a test that one of the tac groups did.you would not believe some of the test they put them through.the nail thing stuck in my mind but all the other test where just has harsh.i will try to find the results of the test.i do remember the leupold m4 was one of the first to go.they where doing a test on scopes and the answer product qd mounts.the nightforce scopes and the qd mounts both passed number one.
 
this was a test one of the sniper groups did.the nail test stuck i my mind but all the other test where just has harsh. the nightforce past with flying colors.the m4 leupold didnt pass.
 
Leupold, Nikon, Burris are over priced and over rated.
I got a BSA Platinum 8-32X and I'm happier than a pig in poo with it. It's mounted on my Walmart Savage .243
Frankie B /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
 
Hey Baldie, you were robbed.
web page

I like my Nightforce alot but it is a bit too big for anything but PD shooting.

I absolutely LOVE my Kahles. I don't think there is a better scope value on the market today.

Over-rate glass? I don't know. I get an eyegasm when I look through a Swarovski or a US Optics. I can't afford to buy either one but I don't know if that would qualify them as over-rated.
 
In all my years of working/teaching/attending sniper classes, have never seen anyone with a NF optic. Do you know who that was doing the test? In addition, NF optics is the only company that would not send test samples for evaluation. Spoke to their VP when he asked how the optics would be tested. Explained the square test, return to zero test, and field applications using click adjustment for real world work. Never heard from them again. I don't understand this as I would want my optic tested against the best optics in the world with side by side comparisons using the exact same tests.

I agree with RR on the click adjustment and return to zero matter for long range work. However, for the avg. hunter this is not something they need. In testing all the optics through a square test for true click adjustment and return to zero, only 4 scopes could pass it. M4 and VX III 30mm LR Leupold, Schmidt & Bender, and a military 10x optic from Bushnell made for a contract.

However, again for the average hunter not shooting PD's at long range, only holding a zero is key. Only scopes with true click adjustment can be run on a square test anyway. Friction adjustment have a hard time with anything.

As in the brightness control I mentioned in my other post using coatings, it appears using a scope for a hammer is another gimick used for sale promotion. It is not that the other scopes can't do it. It is because use does not demand it. Schmidt & Bender is a steel tube optic and could be used for a hammer as well but don't think you will see anyone trying it that way. Scopes for practical applications need to be as light as possible, stand up to harsh treatment, and be reasonable in price. M4's are for military/LE use and do not need to hammer nails.

As stated by FB, it your choice does the job that is all that matters. Everyone has different needs from their optics.
 
I don't know why Nightforce wouldn't let you test thier scope Steve, I've done the square test with mine four times since I've owned it and it passes every time. Same with zero return.

I have noticed, (though it may be my old, half blind eyes
), that the paralax adjustment knob when adjusted for zero paralax at a desired range, (no crosshair shift when moving my head) throws the subject out of crisp focus. Conversely, when I focus on the object using the paralax adjustment, it will induce paralax at that range.

Go figure.
 
Truthfully......someone who regularly kills PD's, rock chucks, or coyotes with a used $150 Handi Rifle that has a $40 Tasco scope on top of it probably thinks anything else is overpriced/overrated.

JMO - BCB
 
dsmpics044.jpg

i have had just about all of them and this is the best one i have had.you get what you pay for in my opion .but most will work. later donovan
 
they did all test that you mention before and after they used the scope for a hammer.this test had nothing to do with nightforse.not one of the other scope made it through the hammer test.i cant find the article but when i do i will post it.they did the hammer thing trying to mess up the scope and qd mounts .the guy that did the test said he still used the setup on one of his rifles.the test was also for the answer products qd scope mounts.they where moving scope between diff guns and keeping up with the adjustments.he said that after all test the scope and mounts returned to zero.this is what gave me the ideal to put picatiny mounts on all my rifles.i have arms qd rings that are guaranteed to go back to zero on all my scopes..so all i have to do is keep up with the adjustments according to what rifle i have the scope on.i been doing this for years.trust me the nightforce always goes back to where it surpose to be.when i first started doing this i would anyways go and shoot it to make sure it was right. i dont even do this anymore.you have to have a scope with good target turrents to do this.this way you can use one scope on multible guns.saves alot of money.nobody has to sell me on nightforce.i have been using them for years.they are awesome scopes.but they are high when it comes to the price.
 
Tony,
That normally is an indication that you do not have the occular focused quite right. It needs to be focused at infinity. Try refocusing the occular giving plenty of time with your eyes focused at infinity between adjustments.

These adjustments become much more critical with older eyes. Young eyes can adjust for out of focus stuff, older eyes can't.

Jack
 
sightrons are also way-underated! I have a limit of about 400 bucks per-hunting rifle scope so they get bushnell 4200's and my rimfires get 150-200 dollar sightrons.
 
I go with a general rule of thumb. The glass should cost twice as much as the iron.

I have had most all the major brands, and I will stick to Nightforce on my shooting rifles, and Bushnell, Trijicon, or Ziess on my hunting rifle. Now, if I could just find another cheap Swarovski, I might change my mind.
 
Thanks Jack. I've got my ocular focused for the crosshairs. They're nice and crisp but maybe I can live with a little blur on the crosshairs to sharpen up the target. I'll give it a try.
 
I think high end Leupolds rate the term overpriced. I've seen $1000 Leupolds that didn't look as nice as $150 Bushnells. I'm sure the Leupold would be much more durable but optically, I've never been impressed by them. Don
 
Tony, Jack has a point. After I got my eyes worked on had to go back and re work all my optics. Good to hear it works.

VM the system you are using is one I have talked about for many years. The Picty system is the only way to go for taking one good scope for use on different rifles. The only problem back then was the Picty rails cost an arm and leg and rings were expensive too. Finally, got Warne interested in this project and they introduced affordable rails and rings with nuts whereby one could use a torque wrench for mounting. They make rails for just about every type of rifle now. These even work for AR's it you have high ring system.

Over the years have heard both good and bad about the NF but until I get one to work with for myself will leave opinions alone. My opinion has always been for that kind of money would buy a Schmidt & Bender. Hopefully, one of these days will have time to get back to the NF boys to see if they are interested in testing again.

Leupolds cost $1000.00? That is high!
 
steve, a guy named seekins bought him a CNC machine and turns out excellant rings and bases for a very reasonable price. do a search for seekins precision, think my 20 MOA lh 700 base was 79.99
RR
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top