by Trevor_B on Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:04 am
I've had the opportunity to handle and use many brands, every one that we carry here and then countless more. Everything from the $10 Tasco to the $4000 Hensoldt. It is very true that price does reflect quality of optic. There is a Very noticeable difference from a $100 scope to a $1000 scope as well. First is is over clarity of the glass, lesser optics do not have bright and crisp images. Same magnification and objective, pricier brands DO have better glass and it is noticeable. This comes from the glass itself, but the coatings are a huge difference. better coatings mean more light transmission therefore a brighter picture. The turrets are another huge give away. When you spend a little more you will get a more solid turret that is dependable and repeatable. I know ever time I click a Nightforce 1/4 MOA turret, that bullet will move 1/4 moa the very next shot. On a scope under $200, it may take a few shots for the turret to settle in. I personally like to be able to shoot a box perfectly, and not have it look like a box with a circle around it.
Better glass, better coatings, repeatability, durability, construction, erector housing are just some of the features that determine what makes a better scope. People that disagree about glass might need to check the birding forums as well. I've never seen more scrutiny on optics, and its very valid. The differences are noticeable to trained eyes, and inches and mm's matter at 1000 yards.
there is always the right tool for the job. I am a huge fan of Nikon and their Monarch series suits my needs for the majority of my shooting. You DON'T always NEED to spend thousands on optics, a few hundred dollars can do the job a lot of the time. HOWEVER, there are differences that ARE very noticeable.
I've had the opportunity to handle and use many brands, every one that we carry here and then countless more. Everything from the $10 Tasco to the $4000 Hensoldt. It is very true that price does reflect quality of optic. There is a Very noticeable difference from a $100 scope to a $1000 scope as well. First is is over clarity of the glass, lesser optics do not have bright and crisp images. Same magnification and objective, pricier brands DO have better glass and it is noticeable. This comes from the glass itself, but the coatings are a huge difference. better coatings mean more light transmission therefore a brighter picture. The turrets are another huge give away. When you spend a little more you will get a more solid turret that is dependable and repeatable. I know ever time I click a Nightforce 1/4 MOA turret, that bullet will move 1/4 moa the very next shot. On a scope under $200, it may take a few shots for the turret to settle in. I personally like to be able to shoot a box perfectly, and not have it look like a box with a circle around it.
Better glass, better coatings, repeatability, durability, construction, erector housing are just some of the features that determine what makes a better scope. People that disagree about glass might need to check the birding forums as well. I've never seen more scrutiny on optics, and its very valid. The differences are noticeable to trained eyes, and inches and mm's matter at 1000 yards.
there is always the right tool for the job. I am a huge fan of Nikon and their Monarch series suits my needs for the majority of my shooting. You DON'T always NEED to spend thousands on optics, a few hundred dollars can do the job a lot of the time. HOWEVER, there are differences that ARE very noticeable.