Different scopes from the same Mfg? Your opinion..... Flame suit on!

Ok, I now have 34 scopes, many different mfgs. I like most of them. I am not an Optical Engineer,, just a retired EE.
I don't hunt anymore, but punch a lot of paper during normal daylight here in the Sunshine State. One thing I have noticed is that a LOT of the Chinese scopes (sorry Ziess fans), appear to be VERY, similar. I know that a lot of scopes are made in the same factories 'over there', but maybe with differing QC standards? A LOT of the old USA branded scopes are now made offshore. Simple economics, I don't like it, but it is, what it is.....

Some of the very similar appearing scopes claim to use Japanese glass, assembled in the Phillipines, versus China, where the QC is better, etc. But they SURE do look alike!
I have Hawke, Mueller, Konus, Vortex, Fujinon, Millett, even an FM, that I have been very happy with.
Have had Nikon Monarch, Weaver Kaspa, that were junk. Obviously (??) some of the really low end stuff, NcStar, Barska can be/were ok, FOR the price.....
I have a Japanese Tasco from the early 70s (20X40mm) that I bought new, that is so bright and sharp, it's flat amazing. Can you say SWFA??

Is it really just a crap (sorry about the pun!) shoot anymore ?????

I am always looking for the ultimate cost/performance ratio. Yes, I have several Burris, and several other Nikons as well.
My boss once has several Ziess Scanning Electron Microscopes in his asbestos removal business, but that's a different universe than I play in! ha ha

It just seems the more scopes I have, the more confusing it gets. As I may have mentioned in a different thread, I had a brand new Nikon Monarch 4-16X42mm that was rated by my hunting buddies as WAY inferior to a WalMart Centerpoint $70 blister pack scope. This was the consensus of 4 guys, not just me (blind, so to speak) comparison......The Monarch was not "bad", just not worth the $. It went back the next day.
Just wondering about your thoughts/experiences. PM iffn you wish.....Yes you DO get what you pay for, to a point.

ron

I also think there is a point of diminishing returns on scopes. If it's clear, accurate and dependable, why pay more for a scope that will do the same thing. At some point your bound to start wasting money right ?

My best scopes are Bushnell 4200 Tac Elite, and a new Weaver 4-20 Euro Slam; both are very good scopes for the money and quite clear. But I must say looking through similar power Night Force scopes at the range, I can resolve bullet holes that I could not with mine at the same power at longer distances. In terms of cost/performance, you still need to determine the minimum performance level that is suitable for your needs first

All great responses..... I haven't looked through a NF (yet), and probably would be a mistake for my wallet, if I did.

I have spent quite a bit of time at the nearby Gander Mtn. and looked through the scopes on display, the ones mounted to the stocks. Unfortunately, inside the store, the results are not readily evident.
I was at the local sporting goods store and the owner asked me if I wanted to look at the $1500 scope behind the counter. I quickly said: "NO thank you!!". ha ha
I really enjoy swapping the spare scopes back and forth. Since I have rings on the scopes, it's quick, easy and haven't had a re-zeroing issue (yet!)....
I just bought a 93R17 TR. It came with a Nikon Buckmaster 6-18. The price was not a whole lot less without the scope. I kike it. I can see why so many guys like the Buckmaster. I had a Monarch and it disappointed me so much, I sent it for a return immediately. Nothing really 'wrong', it just was not worth the $.....IMHO.....

ron

I made the mistake of looking through a Swarovski once. It ruined it for all my scopes that's for sure.

Hi. Yep, there was a special on TV not too long ago that showed the Swaro plant. The amount of hi-tech equipment was awesome. Plus, the factory is in the Alps with some of the most beautiful views I have ever seen.

ron

You might check out the newer offering from Burris the E1 . i have bought three in the last year and they are definitely a great buy for the buck. Lots more features than the older FF2s and still reasonably priced.

n4ue
like you I have had many a scope through out my lifetime of shooting. Still have some of the original Simmons & BSA's even an old Tasco(early 70's). Now I look to SWFA I have had it on the bench along side some of the others and most who look through them walk away shaking their heads when they see the clarity and repeatability, then hear the price and realy start shaking their heads,and these are BR shooters with big dollar glass on their guns.
I stick with the fixed power SS because I would go broke if I looked through the variables they offer.
I also use a Weaver T36 nice but you can't turn down for mirage like you can with the Mueller 8-32, or the 6-25.
I put a Redfield 2-7 on my 220f that was a mistake not very bright looking through it and I don't care for the cross hairs,I'll probably change it out for the 6x SS that is in the cabinet.By the way these SWFA SS scopes are the old Tasco disign originally meant for military use,great buy at $300.

I wish they did scope reviews how they do camera lens reviews. They need more objective data and test pictures through the scope in a controlled setting to see what scopes actually have higher resolutions and light capabilities.

Hi Froggy. Yes, I realize that the SS are Tasco offspring. The 'story' I heard is that the SS line was submitted for testing by the SEALs. It was one of the best , if not the best. When 'they' found out there were Tascos, that was the end of that!
Thay have fantastic reviews on SWFAs website, as well they should, but excellent reviews everywhere. If you are looking at their variable power and higher magnification models, the price goes WAY up. I have a lot of older BSAs and a 70s era Tasco 20X40mm that is so bright and crisp, it puts my newer Nikons to shame......

What I was thinking when I started this thread was this:
I spend a LOT of time (retired, ah, life is good) when not shooting, looking for another good/cheap (oxymoron?) scope to add to my collection.
Since I'm always rooting for the underdog, I noticed that a LOT of Chinese scopes look almost identical, except for the name. That begs the question; do all these scopes come from the same factory, have the same glass and the same (or different) QC which would account for the price difference?

One thing that recently 'shocked' me was to find some mfgs are using plastic lenses instead of glass. WTH????

Lastly, b4 I retired, I was an IBM Engineer. On one of many trips to Japan, I was drooling over some beautiful Seiko watches. I asked the nice chap in the shop, how they could sell them so cheap.
Answer. The parts were made in Japan, sent to China to be assembled and sent back to Japan. Most people don't realize it but the Japanese make a lot of $. They have to, everything is very expensive. My hosts were always reluctant to talk about this, but it's amazing what Sake will do!!!

ha ha

ron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RP12

I made the mistake of looking through a Swarovski once. It ruined it for all my scopes that's for sure.

---

+1
None of my scopes have ever worked as well as I thought they did after looking through a Swarovski.

My personal experience, you DO get what you pay for in just about any scope, but you have to look beyond the glass. And if you're going to compare glass it needs to be side by side, outdoors, and at the highest equal zoom(so if one has a Mac zoom of 10x and another of 16x they both need to be set at 10x).
Glass is VERY important to me, but ability to hold/return to zero, accurately calculated turrets(as in, if they are in MOA then 1 MOA=1.047"@100yds exactly), accurately calibrated reticle(subtends correctly at given distances), ability to withstand recoil, other features like zero stop, illuminated reticle, side parallax adjustability, etc. The list goes on and on.
Take the vortex pst line, for example. You get features typically only found in upper end scopes, like illuminated reticle, zero stop, first focal plane. You get this in a sub $1k scope! But you take concessions in the glass department - not down to barska level or anything, but my 4-16 pst was not much better, if at all, than my millet tactical scope.
My most recent purchase was a vortex viper pst 2.5-10x32 ffp mil/mil illuminated reticle scope. I was less than pleased with my 4-16pst due to cloudy glass at max zoom, but the lee zoom level of this new scope seems to have taken care of that problem. It's a very clear and solid scope for the price point.

Bodywerks, hi. I have noticed that the Vortex PSTs don't get the superior 'reviews', that I thought they would. Again, I research every possible lead I can Google on the WWW to see what the different folks have to say about prospective purchases, but decide for myself..... Maybe for the price jump, they expected to see a huge difference in optical quality.
I think that like others have said, you reach a point of diminishing returns with optics glass. Once you get above the low end stuff, the glass gets better but the price increases faster. I have been quite pleased with my Vortex Vipers and Millett LRS-1s and TRS-1s....
I agree that looking at scopes in the store doesn't tell you much. I have a private, well lit range and put up a variety of targets and look through the scopes one after another. I also always try to have a few buddies with me. Unfortunately, due to each individual's eyes, they usually have to refocus the eyepiece, then the objective, so it gets 'involved'. ha ha
But, in the long run. it's my eyes I'm trying to please....... I'd love to have a NF, Swaro, S&B, etc side-by-side.
I just checked out two new scopes Sat, and I'll start a new post about them. That way, I can bore everyone at once. ha ha

ron

Well let me put my two cents worth in.

Vortex and SWFA are two of the best scopes brands you can get for your money ...But .. have you seen the Primary Arms scopes.

I just got one today after the guys at the Savage forums raved about them. I can tell you I have NEVER seen a $159.00 scope that looks and feels like this. The clicks are very positive and the construction is WAY better than the $160.00 price, as a matter of fact, it is way better than all the $500.00 scopes I have bought in the past !

I can honestly say that if I knew about them my Weaver, Bushnell, etc scopes would be gone. I may do a fire sale to get rid of my Weaver and Bushnell's scopes. The 4x16 I have is better tham the 12x power Leopold's that I have. Read the reviews and take a chance !

I might add that I ordered the 30mm Low rings and for the money ... I could not beat it !

If you have questions please PM me, and I'll go into detail about this scope. To say the least I'm impressed so far.

wll

I have been seeing a lot of Primary Arms word of mouth lately. I have one of their reddot and cantilever mounts on an AR and I must say its got almost the same feel and accuracy of the Aimpoints I used in the service. The only thing I am not sure of is durability if its tossed off the back of a deuce & 1/2 or Stryker. Hopefully that wont need tested.

Either way I will be looking at the scopes they offer because of what you said so far. I have just recently purchased a Viper PST 6-24x50 SFP mil/mil and I feel like its the best thing since sliced bread but its also the most expensive scope I have ever bought using the military program. My friend is getting a Leupold and we will do some extensive comparisons as he plans on getting a model nearly Identical but double the price.

If I like what I find I might just replace my Centerpoint scopes with a Primary Arms.

Wll, darn! Just when I thought I had purchased my LAST scope. I'll be interested in the details and look for a PM with questions (soon)...

Thank you!!!

Ackevor, was that comment about the Centerpoints serious? I'm serious when I say that 'for the $', the CP ARE fantastic. A posting I made a while back described how I had a bunch of guys compare a BRAND NEW Nikon Monarch 4-16x42mm scope, to a bunch of my spare scopes. At the end of it all, when I disclosed the cost of each, the guys just freaked out over the CP, which was also a 4-16.
The Nikon went back the next AM.....

ron

n4ue, yes I would actually consider changing over at least my CP on the AR over. Rather often I find myself dialing 400 or so yards and when I dial back down to a shorter known distance using my dope sheet, 90% of the time its off a couple clicks. I have no idea if the other CP on my 22lr has this issue its only been taken out to 200 accurately and 300 for some fun holdovers. Although it never seems to go perfectly back to center when I check zero again. If the Primary Arms scopes will have similar issues then I'm fine with the CP's as they are a tremendous bargain.