Arken EP5 5-25x

[J.Baker]

The EP5 is a decent low end scope. I just put one on my new LH CZ 457 Varmint 22lr for some local stock class precision 22 matches. I always laugh when the internet and youtube guy's brag that a $500 scope compares to scopes that cost 3x-6x as much. They don't, they compare to scopes in the same price range and that's it.

Agreed - but 90% or more shooters can't decern the subtle differences in optical quality between those cheaper scopes and the high dollar ones. Most have no clue what chromatic aberration is, much less how to identify it. Likewise most don't know how to look for numerous other differences in lenses to be able to tell the difference between so-so, good and great lens quality. For the vast majority, the mechanicals being reliable and consistent far out weights the quality of the glass on their list of priorities for a scope. Bad/cheap glass can also be doctored to appear better than it is (to a degree) with different lens coatings (Burris is notorious for this with a coating that gives all their scopes a slight yellow-ish hue to the image to make appear brighter - just like yellow tinted shooting glasses do).

I've also found that most don't deploy their optics at times or into environments that will quickly exaggerate and expose the defects or deficiencies in their glass and/or coatings (dawn/dusk, overcast and misty, foggy, etc.) as these days a large percentage of shooters are "fair weather range day" types. If the glass is good enough for them to clearly see their target on a nice clear sunny day at the distance(s) they want to shoot it's "good enough" for them - and it's hard to argue against that point even.

[Dave Hoback]

Tell me this: how do operators hit targets, shooting with Night Vision? The optical quality of night vision is horrendous! Much worse than some of the cheapest glass out there! So how is it they are successful more often than not?

[Txhillbilly]

Agreed - but 90% or more shooters can't decern the subtle differences in optical quality between those cheaper scopes and the high dollar ones. Most have no clue what chromatic aberration is, much less how to identify it. Likewise most don't know how to look for numerous other differences in lenses to be able to tell the difference between so-so, good and great lens quality. For the vast majority, the mechanicals being reliable and consistent far out weights the quality of the glass on their list of priorities for a scope. Bad/cheap glass can also be doctored to appear better than it is (to a degree) with different lens coatings (Burris is notorious for this with a coating that gives all their scopes a slight yellow-ish hue to the image to make appear brighter - just like yellow tinted shooting glasses do).

I've also found that most don't deploy their optics at times or into environments that will quickly exaggerate and expose the defects or deficiencies in their glass and/or coatings (dawn/dusk, overcast and misty, foggy, etc.) as these days a large percentage of shooters are "fair weather range day" types. If the glass is good enough for them to clearly see their target on a nice clear sunny day at the distance(s) they want to shoot it's "good enough" for them - and it's hard to argue against that point even.

Oh, I agree. Scopes and lens coatings have come a long ways from what they were in the past. Most shooter's will never actually need high end scopes for the purpose they use them for or the conditions that they shoot in.

[Txhillbilly]

Tell me this: how do operators hit targets, shooting with Night Vision? The optical quality of night vision is horrendous! Much worse than some of the cheapest glass out there! So how is it they are successful more often than not?

The NV that they use would surprise you. It isn't the cheap stuff that civilian's buy.