Reply With QuoteProbably
.
Have had some retail gun dealers who have been running their own shop for 30+ years tell me that today's medium priced scopes are every bit as good or better than yesterday's highest priced scopes ?
That is, today's $400 scope is every bit as good in optical quality, adjustments, and reliability as the $1,000 scope of 30+ years ago.
What say ye ?
.
Probably
I think that has always held true. Optics have steadily gotten better so a medium priced scope of any era would be better than a higher priced one from a former era.
Charlie
laportecharlie
Originally Posted by laportecharlie
Old thread but still the question prevails. I bring this up as all I hear on the net is Vortex scopes. I personnaly have never looked through one or done a side by side comparision. When I was growing up Leuopold reigned and when I compared even there top models to my Huskemaw without biased the later was better. Is Vortex replacing the popular Leopold of days of old? I think so.
IMHO science and engineering is giving us scopes that are far beyond Leopold in the days of old. Just as our barrels and actions have gotten better. Manufacturing Equipment is now computer controlled with tolerances no human can come close to. The same with scopes and their glass. Grinding methods and medium again made by tight tolerance machinery allows glass to be finely ground.
Take my go to brand Sightron. Great glass and tracks just as well as popular high end night force and Kahles. But for a thousands or more less.
Just as our cars would seldom last 30,000 miles on the days of old and now they go for several hundred thousand, scopes are no different.
Well, yeah.
Try looking at a Zeiss scope from the 1920's or 30's. Then pick up one from the 70's and then one from today.
The advances in optics and coatings over the past 100yrs is huge. And even more so in the last 30. The biggest jump in availability is due to far east production quality improvements.
This might be the new indoor world record for the oldest thread I have ever seen being resurrected
In the 70's I had a friend whose father had a custom Mauser in 25-06 with a 10x Unertl scope. The scope was about two feet long and adjustments were on the bases. The optics were incredible . . . but the field of view at 100 yards was about 10 feet. As kids at the range we all clamored to shoot that rifle. It was a tack driver . . as they say.
For hunting? Variable power, wider field of view, better light gathering, FireDot reticles. No question a $1,000 scope now would beat that scope that cost maybe $100 in 1970. But then, with inflation, that would be an $820 scope now. So it shows we have better scopes now. Maybe.
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance." Last words of Gen. Sedgwik
Bought a Japanese made Weaver V-24 years ago. Still a great scope with very good glass.
I still like the 70's era Balvars, have an 8B purchased around '74 or '75, and added a pair 6 - 24x Balvar's with 1/8th minute target dot reticle in last couple years. My 338WM still wears the Leupold Vari-x 2 I installed in 1991.
Purchased 2 Weaver K-series scopes this past year, a 4x & 6x both -60Bs. I was stunned by the clarity.
For new glass, Vortex HSLR and PST Gen 1 no complaints with either.
Last edited by PhilC; 03-01-2025 at 09:31 AM.
I have seen way more new scopes fail than the old ones... but we are asking much more of them. It used to be (for the most part) zero the scope and never touch it again. Me and a friend almost got beat when we were trying to help his dad out by getting him a better zero on his hunting rifle because adjusting a scope was a mysterious ordeal that required a little luck and some magic.
Now we expect cheap chinese made scopes to dial accurately and repeatable. I may get a little more experience on this matter though- a new shooter just bought his first scope and I'm going to help him out. It is a Athlon Midas Tac 6-24... has to be made in china- but has a lot of feature going for it, good reticle, ffp, exposed elevation turret with zero stop and was on sale for $350. Wanted him to go with something a little better- but kind of curious to try it out also.
Apart of the manufacturing process and machining precision there is also a progress in glass composition, additives, consistency and clarity. Low end scopes will remain low end but I'll bet every bit that current medium tier scope glass would be a wet dream of a high end manufacturer 30 years ago.
the old external optics are very precise, simple to fix the adjustments if needed. down side a bit heavy and yep they are long with a limited field of view. mounts one on receiver other out on barrel- some say that effects accuracy but I never seem to have a problem ( 10 shots 600 yards inside 1"/ 308 or 3006) Have had many over the years I have one Balvar 6-24 left yet needs to go somewhere to have the optics re-coated ( common problem with flaking) . They are pricey to acquire now days.
I agree with much that is being said and will add that with the newer coatings more scopes give a brighter image in low light conditions.
I have the same Athlon Midas Tac on my Savage model 10 FCP in 308, and I’m extremely happy with it. Recently started shooting long range and it was in my budget range. The glass is great as is the tracking. The Athlon warranty is also hard to beat.
Yeah, not a fan of buying chinese optics- but have to give the scope credit so far. Glass was pretty respectable and it worked. It only took 2 shots to get it zeroed (obviously shot more to verify and help him practice)- but after bore sighting it the first shot was on target- using the reticle to measure showed that it was 3 moa low and 7 left. Dialed that into the scope and the second shot was right on. The target wasn't big enough to do a tall target test of the tracking- but it had enough room to dial 10 moa and at 100 yards the group center was 10.5" higher than point of aim, so exactly what it should be. It should work good for him.... I've paid a lot more and gotten a lot less- and was pleasantly surprised by it.
I am trying an Athlon Argos 8-34x56 (30mm tube). I didn't want to spend a lot of money but needed more power than my Diamondback 16x. Had it out this morning shooting side by side with my Burris XTRII Fclass scope, 8-40x50 (34mm tube). Yeah, I know, apples to oranges.
First thing, it is an FFP. Don't care for them, but, I can deal with it. Target shooting I like thinner reticles at higher magnifications. Second most obvious is smaller FOV. Probably due to tube dia (I can't find exit pupil spec).
The focusing is pretty good and optics clarity is ok as long as not at max power. At 24x it is on par with the Burris at 40x. When up over 30x the chromatic stuff starts in. Again, not a huge deal, just obvious this is not real high quality glass.
For the price I paid (it was also on sale) I am happy with it. I figure most of the time I will be shooting with it set at around 25-30x anyway.
I believe that is true, but I can't offer any evidence because I don't have any examples of high-end scopes from yesteryear to compare to the high-end scopes I have today! The first good scope I bought was in the '80s when I bought a 2.5-8 Leupold variable scope. That seemed like Nirvana compared to the scopes I was used to. Unfortunately, it stayed on the 338 Win Mag I sold when I left Alaska in '89.
I too am a Sightron fan. I bought a used S11 4x16x42 a few months ago for $100. I now have two of these, found a new old stock one for $250. In my opinion, you have to spend a lot more money than that to better these. I also have had quite a few Leupold scopes. My Sightron scopes are great for my needs. Without spending spending a mortgage payment on it.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks