A serious question to high end scope users.

[Dave Hoback]

Yeah, I get where you’re coming from. But your $3K range IOR is one thing. (As I said, the IOR would be NUMBER 1 choice, given a choice of any.) But I was referring to the LUDICROUS $5K range Tangent Theta. Which, from outward appearance doesn’t even look as nice as the Valdadas. Just saying. The Tangents might be more awesome than the home shopping network for old ladies, but to me, it is sinfully FUGLY! It’s a monstrosity! Almost 17” long! WTF!? It weights a STAGGERING 40.56oz!! The Turrets have a retarded design as finger grooves, and they Free spin in locked position. WHY? Seriously, what kind of retard designed these things? NO THANK YOU! They just don’t look impressive to me. WAY too long... WAY too heavy.. Has a HUGE Objective Bell and very little room for front ring attachment. FUGLY! But whatever. These aren’t things designed into $2.5K or $3K optics. Hell, my $1K optic doesn’t even have any of this design nonsense!

Oh, not only all that...but for $5K+, they couldn’t even design their own reticle! They just STOLE reticles from a bunch of other makers. The US Optics I’m getting, has the GENIIXR reticle. And wha-da-ya know? This has it as well. Hmm, $5K and they are using OTHERS design features? Dishonest, RIP OFF, much?

[Txhillbilly]

Geez Dave, Get off your cheap azz scope rant. I'm sure Tangent Theta gives a damn if you don't like their prices or features. If you wouldn't ever buy one, then what the hell does it matter?
If you've never looked thru one, then you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

I've got some pretty decent optic's on several rifle's, but they aren't even close to Tangent Theta class optics.

As far as the weight goes, it isn't too bad. My Recon weighs 39+ ounces, PMII's are right at 40 ounces. You wanna talk about a boat anchor, just look and see what a Razor HD weighs, their knocking on 4 pounds, yet a crap load of guy's buy them.

[Dave Hoback]

Where in that was I “going on” about scopes that are beneath you? Yeah, I just don’t buy it.

[NF1E]

I really like spreading my belly on the ground and getting bullets to go at least close to where I want them. Target is a couple years old but a representation of what I enjoy. This is a 50' target shot at 100yds.





8352

[psharon97]

Are you convincing us or your wife?[emoji1]
Haha no one really. The law of diminishing returns really comes into effect here. Say you buy a Crusader from IOR: Is the glass going to be THAT much better to getting a Tangent Theta? I'll be sticking with IOR because I like their reticles. I wish they made more of their tactical line of scopes in MOA, but that's just me. Same could be said for the Nightforce ATACR: would going to a khales be that much better if you already love the features of the nightforce? If you love Tangent Theta, rock on with it. I compete with a Mausingfield, a $1600 receiver.

[wbm]

I like my Leupold "low ends".

[yobuck]

I really like spreading my belly on the ground and getting bullets to go at least close to where I want them. Target is a couple years old but a representation of what I enjoy. This is a 50' target shot at 100yds.





8352
Thats a very nice group.
But fact is that at least some shooters were shooting groups that small 50 or more years ago while using $200 Unertl scopes.
In 1986 the late Earl Chronister set a new 10 shot 1000 yd heavy gun record at Williamsport of roughly 3 3/4”.
And he shot it with a 30x378 topped with a Unertl scope no less.
Todays 10 shot heavy gun record is now about 10 years old and is roughly one inch smaller.
So with todays better quality guns, ammo, and scopes, why hasent it shown up in the results?
Now i am talking about 10 shots not 5, and i am aware of what some of the 5 shot groups are.
We can argue about things like scopes, but there is no arguing about facts.

[Dave Hoback]

I agree. The glass can’t just keep getting better. Only so much light can pass through. I’m sure next year or two some other US scope company will come out calling themselves Alpha/Omega or something. And if they sell for $7k, $8k+++ some people will claim how AMAZINGLY, AMAZING they are, & how the Tangents “Aren’t Even Close”. OF COURSE we’ll hear the battle cry: “You get what you pay for!” I think I’m going to call it “Scope Value Disorder” or SVD .

Look, I love some of the $3K options. Once again, I would LOVE to have an IOR Recon Tactical 4-28x50. I literally DROOL over it! It uses HDR Schott glass, has a 40mm tube, my preferred 50mm objective. I love the reticle, and while yes.. at 39oz, it’s a bit on the heavy side, it as about a perfect length(to me) of just 14” I’ve seen it listed for $2800, but I simply can’t bring myself to spend that. Just goes against my own principal.

[yobuck]

Well in optics, you dont actually always get what you pay for.
But there are a great many who think you do.
Spotting scopes is an area im much more familiar with than i am rifle scopes.
Reason being that all serious long range hunters use large tripod mounted binoculars for hunting.
And a very large percentage of those are made by using 2 spotting scopes in a machined adjustable bracket.
Bausch & Lomb in the 60s offered their very popular Balscope model spotting scope in a twin application as a cataloug item both with and without a rotating 3 eyepiece turret.
Even today, you will be hard pressed to find a clearer higher quality scope than one of those in good clean condition.
There are lots of people paying a premium upgrade for what is called fluro lenses, or some similar name depending on the maker.
But, fact is that the only upgraded lens in the entire scope is the inner element of the objective lens only.
And thats true with all of them including the so called best.
The eyepice glass is exactly the same in all of the scopes. in fact the eyepiece itself is the same in the entire line of scopes.
Advertising laws permit them to imply that the scope has upgraded glass, when in fact it only has a small percentage of it.
Im talking about Kowa, and Swarovski as well as others.
Sit 2 of them side by side on the same day at the same time looking at the same things before you call me out on it.
A few years back a guy on this site by name of Baker, recommended a book called ( Sport Optics ), written by a man named Alan Hale, who was CEO for
Celestron optics.
Read the book, and get an education from someone who knows the optics business.

[Dave Hoback]

I agree with almost everything there Yobuck. But some scopes ARE using 2 & 3 elements of ED glass in their scope. But yes, MOST are using only just the ONE inner element of Extra low Dispersion glass. Which has always made me ponder. Why is it referred to as “ED” glass? Shouldn’t it be “ELD” glass? After all, we don’t call it Extra Dispersion, but rather Extra LOW Dispersion....right? But I digress. Anyhoo, here is a great article I’ve had saved that really explains things well. It also lists the KINDS of ED glass & the companies in Japan, China & Germany who supply it to manufactures. (There are only a few)

http://www.ianmorison.com/everything-about-refractors-part-1-their-objective-lenses/

[jkv45]

Well in optics, you dont actually always get what you pay for.
But there are a great many who think you do.
Spotting scopes is an area im much more familiar with than i am rifle scopes.
Reason being that all serious long range hunters use large tripod mounted binoculars for hunting.
And a very large percentage of those are made by using 2 spotting scopes in a machined adjustable bracket.
Bausch & Lomb in the 60s offered their very popular Balscope model spotting scope in a twin application as a cataloug item both with and without a rotating 3 eyepiece turret.
Even today, you will be hard pressed to find a clearer higher quality scope than one of those in good clean condition.
There are lots of people paying a premium upgrade for what is called fluro lenses, or some similar name depending on the maker.
But, fact is that the only upgraded lens in the entire scope is the inner element of the objective lens only.
And thats true with all of them including the so called best.
The eyepice glass is exactly the same in all of the scopes. in fact the eyepiece itself is the same in the entire line of scopes.
Advertising laws permit them to imply that the scope has upgraded glass, when in fact it only has a small percentage of it.
Im talking about Kowa, and Swarovski as well as others.
Sit 2 of them side by side on the same day at the same time looking at the same things before you call me out on it.
A few years back a guy on this site by name of Baker, recommended a book called ( Sport Optics ), written by a man named Alan Hale, who was CEO for
Celestron optics.
Read the book, and get an education from someone who knows the optics business.

I've noticed spotters and wind-coaches for extreme long range (ELR) shooting, like King Of 2 Miles, will use 2 spotting scopes mounted together like you mentioned.

That's the first time I've seen it.

[Dave Hoback]

I've noticed spotters and wind-coaches for extreme long range (ELR) shooting, like King Of 2 Miles, will use 2 spotting scopes mounted together like you mentioned.

That's the first time I've seen it.

Yup.. Like this: (can buy them as well) Pretty cool way to go. But personally, I like the video camera mounted close to the target with BluTooth hookup to a monitor or even your Smart phone screen. Makes it super, SUPER easy.. AND recorded to download to one’s
You-Shmoob channel so others can enjoy living through the excitement! (Like me, LOL!)

https://i.ibb.co/QPQgFsh/2-E901-EAF-FC97-4-AB2-BF30-DE00-FC0-BFF41.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

[Stumpkiller]

When do you really need optics that cost 3500? When you need everything to work, dialing ranges and windage, parralax correct and in focus at all ranges, point of impact exact in all powers. Less than .1% of shooters "NEED" that.

Need is a very subjective term here. There are few of us here would go to bed hungry tonight for lack of a $1,500 scope. It’s mostly sport and fun. Game animals and targets. Sure, I prefer to meet what I eat and fill the freezer. But it’s not necessary to sustain life. It’s what I enjoy and there is no limit to what that is worth to any individual. I release most of the fish I catch but you can ask The Admiral how much I have invested in poles, reels, lures, a boat, kayak, etc. And you can only hold one at a time. Not necessary but comforting and enjoyable.

[yobuck]

I've noticed spotters and wind-coaches for extreme long range (ELR) shooting, like King Of 2 Miles, will use 2 spotting scopes mounted together like you mentioned.

That's the first time I've seen it.
While there are those who sell the twin spotter setups, most who do aquire the scopes and brackets from separate sources.
Machine skills as well as the machinery itself is required for making the brackets.
Ebay has been a very good source for used scopes, and lots of people get very good bargains on quality scopes there.
Swarovski has recently introduced a modular setup, where you can attach a twin eyepiece section to a single tube in a choice of sizes.
While i havent actually seen one, ive heard of a guy i know having bought one.
He also has a set of the regular 80 mms like the ones posted.
I currently own 6 sets of various size and brands of scopes in brackets.
And yes i can only look thru one at a time.
The most expensive set i currently own are a now older set of 70 mm Kowas TSN 2 scopes.
I saw one on Ebay a few days ago with a starting bid of $350 and there were no bids at the time.
The key ingredient for any good scope is the eyepiece.
Different conditions require different eyepieces as for power for the clearest viewing.
And while pretty much all of the current builders are only offering the zoom/multi power ones, individual power ones are usually better as for clarity.
If i had to pick one power for every day use for glassing while hunting, it would be 15 power.
But on good days with little mirage the higher powers are worth having along.
Today there are some excellant quality large size hand binoculars also.
Quite a few companies are now producing them.
I have a pair of older 15x58 Minox, the newer version of that is 56 mm.
Weve run side by side test on the same day with the 15x56 Swarovskis and the Leica 15x56 and found all three to be very close.
But the Minox is about half the cost.
I have a friend who compared his 15x56 Swaros to the new Tract glasses this past season, and said as far as he was concerned the Tracts were every bit as good. And he is pretty much a Swarovski die hard.
It all boils down to one thing, how good does the equipment or the shooter have to be, in order to accomplish his specific task?
And so far as at least im concerned, not as good as many would have you think.

[Robinhood]

This has actually turned into a good post. A scope is a tool. I have top quality tools in my machinist box. I have top quality tools in my industrial mechanics box at work and at home. It took me years to accumulate them. When I first started shooting, 100 was enough and plenty of scopes fit the bill. I started stretching my legs and needed more. I never got to the level of what competitive PRS shooters need. Luckily my goal is now something like this;
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61H6qh9ge6L._AC_SL1500_.jpg

[Dave Hoback]

That’s a nice little piece of equipment. I do agree Robin. I am fond of precision tools. There are different grades of precision of course. It’s like I said, many years ago $1500 bought a TOP TIER optic. Whereas now, Glass aficionados will say $1500 gets a “ok-good” optic. Those of us used to $500-$600 optics, are typically blown away by that next class in a $1500 scope.

We each have our line drawn in the sand. Well, most of us. Just as I’m looked down at because I CHOOSE Savage 10/110 Actions. But I’m 43 and seen/been through more than a fair share. I certainly don’t give a flying Hoot!

[Robinhood]

I cant remember if you have a rig that is set up for long range Dave. I always think of your MDT stocked rifle and ar's. I don't remember the cartridge your rifle shoots, or if you have others that you are considering for long range. I was also trying to remember your prefered shooting distance.

I started with a SWFA 10X SS for 2 and 300yds. I even shot it at 600 and 1000. That was a strugle at 1K I bought a 20X SS and then traded it for a 16X SS. There is no need to spend big money to have some fun. I know a Green Barret Sniper Operator Bad Arse. When I asked him about scope options for mid range, without knowing anything about my skill level he said, "I used a 10X SS for years. Get one of those."

With SWFA, Arken, Primary arms and maybe a few others, a scope that will suffice is right there for the taking. There are so many things that go into precision shooting ith the scope being one of the last on the list. The guy who wins the match could probably swap scopes with the guy in 10th place and still win. I have seen many guys with the best scope in the field loose to guys with lesser optics.

[Dave Hoback]

Robin, I explained my shooting now in post #16. I’ve never shot rifle in competition, only pistol. Rifle my whole life has been just for fun. And while I’ve “played” with ELR shooting in AZ, it was never more than that. My rifle shooting for many years has been 100-1000yds. Most of the time, less than 1,000. And because of disability & pain taking over more & more of my life and no longer being able to drive, (I know you understand as you’re going through health problems as well.) I rarely even get out to shoot much anymore. But I jump at the chance anytime I can. I still have that same Savage 10, but it’s in pieces right now as it’s getting a full Cerakote & build. New chassis, scope, etc. Same cartridge, 260 Remington. So yes, long range, plenty take them out a MILE after all, but certainly not ELR.

I used the SWFA SS as well. A 20x, and did like it. I do also recommend them for people with certain budgets. Everyone is different. The whole time I lived in AZ, I used a Nikon Buckmaster 4.5-14x40 with BDC reticle. Before this I always just used really cheap optics. I will say, my first high power rifle, Savage model 111 in 30-06 had a Simmons 3-9x40. Tell you what, that little scope held up & gave good accuracy all the years I had it.

[Robinhood]

A friend is building a 7mm Sherman Short. Maybe one of mine will end up on it and i can buy a new heart----lol

[yobuck]

I cant remember if you have a rig that is set up for long range Dave. I always think of your MDT stocked rifle and ar's. I don't remember the cartridge your rifle shoots, or if you have others that you are considering for long range. I was also trying to remember your prefered shooting distance.

I started with a SWFA 10X SS for 2 and 300yds. I even shot it at 600 and 1000. That was a strugle at 1K I bought a 20X SS and then traded it for a 16X SS. There is no need to spend big money to have some fun. I know a Green Barret Sniper Operator Bad Arse. When I asked him about scope options for mid range, without knowing anything about my skill level he said, "I used a 10X SS for years. Get one of those."

With SWFA, Arken, Primary arms and maybe a few others, a scope that will suffice is right there for the taking. There are so many things that go into precision shooting ith the scope being one of the last on the list. The guy who wins the match could probably swap scopes with the guy in 10th place and still win. I have seen many guys with the best scope in the field loose to guys with lesser optics.
At the end of the day at Williamsport they at least used to have a shoot off for all the relay winners thruout the day.
Not sure if they still do, but they used to do that.
Anyway, quite a few of the relay winners wouldnt hang around for the shoot off.
They use a draw system for selecting which relay you shoot.
But given a choice, every shooter would pick the very first relay of the day.
And if you look at the records of the multi day shoots for the best shooters, you will see why.
Much has to do with the luck of the draw.
And thats true with many things in life.