mlw332
Member
I am ready to order the optics for my gap. Tell me the pros and cons to a front focal plane vs rear
one more optic question
- Thread starter mlw332
- Start date
- Status
Zak Smith
Member
It's all out there if you just do a little research
article | Practical Long-Range Rifle Shooting, Part II - Optics
article | Practical Long-Range Rifle Shooting, Part II - Optics
Bill_Rights
Member
Zak,
As you can tell, I am just getting into figuring out scopes for long-range (long = needing to adjust elevation) shooting as well. Your article you steered mlw332 to, "OPTICS FOR PRACTICAL LONG RANGE RIFLE SHOOTING", was excellent! I learned a lot and need to study it more.
I am on a budget and just learning, however, so I spent $250 on a "tactical" mil-mil scope which is even described as a trainer. Here are the deets; have a look and see if you wouldn't recommend it to shooters like me. I think it has all the features you favor, except for illuminated reticle (for sure) and zero-stop (maybe - it has re-settable zero and I need to go back and see about the stop):
BY CONTRAST, much as I'd love to have a top-flight scope, just to have one, I definitely do not fall into the category you mention at the end of your article:
As you can tell, I am just getting into figuring out scopes for long-range (long = needing to adjust elevation) shooting as well. Your article you steered mlw332 to, "OPTICS FOR PRACTICAL LONG RANGE RIFLE SHOOTING", was excellent! I learned a lot and need to study it more.
I am on a budget and just learning, however, so I spent $250 on a "tactical" mil-mil scope which is even described as a trainer. Here are the deets; have a look and see if you wouldn't recommend it to shooters like me. I think it has all the features you favor, except for illuminated reticle (for sure) and zero-stop (maybe - it has re-settable zero and I need to go back and see about the stop):
BY CONTRAST, much as I'd love to have a top-flight scope, just to have one, I definitely do not fall into the category you mention at the end of your article:
Zak Smith
Member
The danger is if/when it doesn't track or loses zero. The proof is when you use one for a long time and it does not fail.
That linked one is probably not a bad "first scope" to work with and see what you like. (It does not have a zero stop, BTW.)
Everyone who ends up with a great scope or custom 1911 or trap gun that costs more than their car looks back and wishes they just started out with the best stuff. (Cue Grandpa Simpson voice: "It'll happen to you!") Hindsight is 20/20, though, and we learn a lot about what's best for us by using cheaper stuff to start. You might decide you're an MOA/MOA guy, or you might learn whether you need a 3-15x scope vs. a 6-25x scope, and so on.
Everyone who ends up with a great scope or custom 1911 or trap gun that costs more than their car looks back and wishes they just started out with the best stuff. (Cue Grandpa Simpson voice: "It'll happen to you!") Hindsight is 20/20, though, and we learn a lot about what's best for us by using cheaper stuff to start. You might decide you're an MOA/MOA guy, or you might learn whether you need a 3-15x scope vs. a 6-25x scope, and so on.
On fixed power scopes there is no significant difference between 1st and 2nd focal planes, but on variable power scopes the 1st plane reticle remains at a constant size compared to the target, while 2nd plane reticles remain a constant size to the user as the target image grows and shrinks. Most scopes are 2nd plane reticle. I wouldn't worry about it.
Bill of R: I like your enthusiasm and your willingness to learn. However I would avoid buying any more low-end scopes like BSA, Barska, NCstar. You really do get what you pay for. As a starting point, the Vortex Diamondback and better, Burris Fullfield II's & Redfield all make fine scopes and can be had between $100 and $200 (all with lifetime warranty too). Also, more magnification requires the quality of the scope to be better, so try not to overdo it on magnification.
Example: a NCstar scope that does 8x-32x magnification will have the worst image on the planet, while a high end 1x-4x magnification scope will have the best. Unless you want to spend several hundred dollars, I would avoid magnifications above 12x.
Though many people like them, I am not really a fan of Nikon Monarch scopes, but I find the 1.5x-4.5x scope I own is completely acceptable, yet the 4-16x42 Monarch was sub-par. Just another point about magnification here.
Bill of R: I like your enthusiasm and your willingness to learn. However I would avoid buying any more low-end scopes like BSA, Barska, NCstar. You really do get what you pay for. As a starting point, the Vortex Diamondback and better, Burris Fullfield II's & Redfield all make fine scopes and can be had between $100 and $200 (all with lifetime warranty too). Also, more magnification requires the quality of the scope to be better, so try not to overdo it on magnification.
Example: a NCstar scope that does 8x-32x magnification will have the worst image on the planet, while a high end 1x-4x magnification scope will have the best. Unless you want to spend several hundred dollars, I would avoid magnifications above 12x.
Though many people like them, I am not really a fan of Nikon Monarch scopes, but I find the 1.5x-4.5x scope I own is completely acceptable, yet the 4-16x42 Monarch was sub-par. Just another point about magnification here.
Bill_Rights
Member
Art,
Yeh, I am no advocate or defender of BSA scopes. This series is made in China
. All my other ones are at least made in Korea, Phillipines or Japan. The attraction of this particular line of BSA scopes is that these ones are (supposedly) a special collaboration between MidwayUSA and BSA, and, presumably, Midway directed BSA to get the "feature mix" right. By "right", I mean in agreement with Zak and ThunderShot (or whatever - I can't see peoples' tag lines while I am composing a message). The other BSA scopes I can see on their web site are not attractive at all, 'cept maybe an AimPoint look-alike or some other red-dot (going from memory here).
Yes, there is no zero-stop. Point taken about high magnification. I will check that out more fully.
Yeh, I am no advocate or defender of BSA scopes. This series is made in China
. All my other ones are at least made in Korea, Phillipines or Japan. The attraction of this particular line of BSA scopes is that these ones are (supposedly) a special collaboration between MidwayUSA and BSA, and, presumably, Midway directed BSA to get the "feature mix" right. By "right", I mean in agreement with Zak and ThunderShot (or whatever - I can't see peoples' tag lines while I am composing a message). The other BSA scopes I can see on their web site are not attractive at all, 'cept maybe an AimPoint look-alike or some other red-dot (going from memory here).Yes, there is no zero-stop. Point taken about high magnification. I will check that out more fully.
Bill,
I feel I'm about to ramble, and further, to ramble about stuff you didn't ask about. I drank coffee too late and I'm bored
I've bought around 15 or 20 scopes, and I've sold more than I currently own. I value quality optics more than the rifle itself. I bought every one of them blind, and sold, without too much of a loss, simply to upgrade. All of my remaining scopes are in the $300-$600 range. That's not to say I'm a professional or a snob, it's just how it evolved. I have never owned a truly high-end scope like Nightforce or Swarovski.
If you're curious I own; a Burris Signature Select, a couple Leupold VX3's (did not appreciate the VXII line), a couple Zeiss Conquests and one low powered Nikon Monarch. All I really care about are image quality, repeatability, durability and a manufacturer who backs their product. Others do appreciate things like zero stop, fancy reticles, high magnification and big objective lenses. I'd like to think because my scopes don't have tactile features, the money I am paying goes toward image and quality, not features. The one feature I do wish I had is illuminated reticles!
While a couple of my scopes have BDC reticles, if I'm shooting beyond 200 yards, I prefer to dial-in elevation with the turrets and not use the reticle. I use a rangefinder and I keep a very small laminated cheat-sheet with very precise ballistic info for the loads I make, tells me how many clicks to come up for various distances. The hashmarks on a BDC reticle will never be precise (unless they're custom) and will correspond to odd distances if you do the math. I almost never shoot beyond 400 yards and when I do, it's plinking on BLM land. Without looking I think I need to come up around 30 clicks, if I'm zeroed at 100 yards to reach 400 yards. So I rarely if ever do a full turn on my elevation turret, so a zero stop feature is wasted on me.
I'm simply giving you a different perspective than Zak, though Zak certainly knows more about optics than me.
I have to admit that I haven't looked through any lower end scopes in more than ten years. The last time I did, it was a Simmons that came bundled on a fairly hard kicking rifle. I did more than look through it - I bashed it against my skull! It left a pretty severe laceration above my eyebrow that should have been stitched (poor eye relief). So your BSA may be better than I think, or not.
If you want to test your scope - and your rifle and ammo are accurate enough and you have a decent rest, try the following:
fire a group at the lowest magnification and another at the highest magnification, you're looking to see if the Point Of Impact shifts, not how big/small the group is.
Change you elevation turret 15 clicks and see if you POI shifts horizontally, do it again by changing windage and see if elevation POI is affected.
Change either turret 15 clicks and see if the POI actually matches the change, change it back, re-check.
I took a look at the Midway site you pointed to (I hadn't looked in my first post). I have to admit, I've never seen a BSA with those types of specs and fully multi-coated lenses. It wasn't fair of me to label your scope. I sort of write BSA off as the sort of $50 item that comes from Walmart in a plastic shell that you'll cut yourself on while fighting to get it out of the packaging.
Perhaps it wasn't fair of me to classify all of their products the way I did.
If you can get to the range and compare your scope to a more traditional brand, I'm curious to hear what you think of the image.
I feel I'm about to ramble, and further, to ramble about stuff you didn't ask about. I drank coffee too late and I'm bored
I've bought around 15 or 20 scopes, and I've sold more than I currently own. I value quality optics more than the rifle itself. I bought every one of them blind, and sold, without too much of a loss, simply to upgrade. All of my remaining scopes are in the $300-$600 range. That's not to say I'm a professional or a snob, it's just how it evolved. I have never owned a truly high-end scope like Nightforce or Swarovski.
If you're curious I own; a Burris Signature Select, a couple Leupold VX3's (did not appreciate the VXII line), a couple Zeiss Conquests and one low powered Nikon Monarch. All I really care about are image quality, repeatability, durability and a manufacturer who backs their product. Others do appreciate things like zero stop, fancy reticles, high magnification and big objective lenses. I'd like to think because my scopes don't have tactile features, the money I am paying goes toward image and quality, not features. The one feature I do wish I had is illuminated reticles!
While a couple of my scopes have BDC reticles, if I'm shooting beyond 200 yards, I prefer to dial-in elevation with the turrets and not use the reticle. I use a rangefinder and I keep a very small laminated cheat-sheet with very precise ballistic info for the loads I make, tells me how many clicks to come up for various distances. The hashmarks on a BDC reticle will never be precise (unless they're custom) and will correspond to odd distances if you do the math. I almost never shoot beyond 400 yards and when I do, it's plinking on BLM land. Without looking I think I need to come up around 30 clicks, if I'm zeroed at 100 yards to reach 400 yards. So I rarely if ever do a full turn on my elevation turret, so a zero stop feature is wasted on me.
I'm simply giving you a different perspective than Zak, though Zak certainly knows more about optics than me.
I have to admit that I haven't looked through any lower end scopes in more than ten years. The last time I did, it was a Simmons that came bundled on a fairly hard kicking rifle. I did more than look through it - I bashed it against my skull! It left a pretty severe laceration above my eyebrow that should have been stitched (poor eye relief). So your BSA may be better than I think, or not.
If you want to test your scope - and your rifle and ammo are accurate enough and you have a decent rest, try the following:
fire a group at the lowest magnification and another at the highest magnification, you're looking to see if the Point Of Impact shifts, not how big/small the group is.
Change you elevation turret 15 clicks and see if you POI shifts horizontally, do it again by changing windage and see if elevation POI is affected.
Change either turret 15 clicks and see if the POI actually matches the change, change it back, re-check.
I took a look at the Midway site you pointed to (I hadn't looked in my first post). I have to admit, I've never seen a BSA with those types of specs and fully multi-coated lenses. It wasn't fair of me to label your scope. I sort of write BSA off as the sort of $50 item that comes from Walmart in a plastic shell that you'll cut yourself on while fighting to get it out of the packaging.
Perhaps it wasn't fair of me to classify all of their products the way I did.If you can get to the range and compare your scope to a more traditional brand, I'm curious to hear what you think of the image.
Last edited:
Bill_Rights
Member
Improved optical coatings in last decade
Art,
If you haven't looked at the quality of low-end optics in the last 10 years, then you may be in for a pleasant surprize.
First, let me qualify myself: I have spent a significant portion of my career in the vacuum thin-film deposition equipment industry, with a heavy "major" in optical coatings. Especially in the highest-of-high-end optics: Military ring-laser gyros, coatings on the emissive facets of solid state laser diode chips, wavelength-division multiplexing filters for telecom and on and on. Some of these devices have hundreds of individual layers of the utter highest quality thin films, else, if there was any absorption at all, the optic as a finished unit would be opaque. Not only that, the thickness of each individual layer often must have been controlled to 0.1%, 0.01% or even parts-per-million accuracy, in the case of WDM filters.
With that background, rifle scope anti-reflection (AR) coatings in the visible wavelength range are not highest-of-high-end coatings. By today's standards, they are not even high-end films, which is to say, you would need instruments far more sensitive than the human eye to tell the difference a "high-end" coating makes versus a "standard" coating. At one time, 10, 15 or 20 years ago, high-end rifle scope AR coatings (which are nowadays considered "standard") could only be grown or deposited by industry heavy-weights such as OCLI, JDSU, Pilkington, Bausch & Lomb, Zeiss, Swarovsky, Honeywell, Barr Associates, Nortel Networks, AVIMO, Leybold Optics, and on and on (not that all of those ever did rifle optics). I have engineered and sold optical coating eqipment to all of those and more. What happened was, the optical coating equipment and the processes became a comodity item, so these high-end (military, space, telecom, etc.) suppliers no longer had a profit center or a exclusive competitive advantage in the marketplace based upon the coatings. So they outsourced that operation (Barr Associates was a USA-based "mom & pop" coating house that moved into this role) for formerly high-end coatings which were now standard. Eventually, those standard operations moved off shore, from Europe and USA to the Eastern Rim countries.
The up-shot of all of this is that you are likely to obtain, today, a Chinese, Indonesian, etc. coating that, 20 years ago, you could only obtain from the high-end companies. How do you think your Nikon or Canon camera drops $200 every few years when you buy a new one? Peeling of coatings, change of absorbance, cloudy coatings, etc. are no more acceptable to Nikon's and Canon's customers than they are to you and me.
Therefore, I would suspect that lens coatings are "off the table" as a distinguishing feature between a $2000 scope and a $200 scope. Maybe its a factor for a $40 scope.
I think there has been a similar price drop and quality increase in glass material quality and polishing accuracy, but somebody in that industry would have to judge.
So, the GOOD NEWS is that we no longer have to PONTIFICATE to newcomers about optics quality, regarding the optics themselves. Assembly accuracy, stability of mounting, mechanical adjustment quality, etc. may still be a factor.
Art,
If you haven't looked at the quality of low-end optics in the last 10 years, then you may be in for a pleasant surprize.
First, let me qualify myself: I have spent a significant portion of my career in the vacuum thin-film deposition equipment industry, with a heavy "major" in optical coatings. Especially in the highest-of-high-end optics: Military ring-laser gyros, coatings on the emissive facets of solid state laser diode chips, wavelength-division multiplexing filters for telecom and on and on. Some of these devices have hundreds of individual layers of the utter highest quality thin films, else, if there was any absorption at all, the optic as a finished unit would be opaque. Not only that, the thickness of each individual layer often must have been controlled to 0.1%, 0.01% or even parts-per-million accuracy, in the case of WDM filters.
With that background, rifle scope anti-reflection (AR) coatings in the visible wavelength range are not highest-of-high-end coatings. By today's standards, they are not even high-end films, which is to say, you would need instruments far more sensitive than the human eye to tell the difference a "high-end" coating makes versus a "standard" coating. At one time, 10, 15 or 20 years ago, high-end rifle scope AR coatings (which are nowadays considered "standard") could only be grown or deposited by industry heavy-weights such as OCLI, JDSU, Pilkington, Bausch & Lomb, Zeiss, Swarovsky, Honeywell, Barr Associates, Nortel Networks, AVIMO, Leybold Optics, and on and on (not that all of those ever did rifle optics). I have engineered and sold optical coating eqipment to all of those and more. What happened was, the optical coating equipment and the processes became a comodity item, so these high-end (military, space, telecom, etc.) suppliers no longer had a profit center or a exclusive competitive advantage in the marketplace based upon the coatings. So they outsourced that operation (Barr Associates was a USA-based "mom & pop" coating house that moved into this role) for formerly high-end coatings which were now standard. Eventually, those standard operations moved off shore, from Europe and USA to the Eastern Rim countries.
The up-shot of all of this is that you are likely to obtain, today, a Chinese, Indonesian, etc. coating that, 20 years ago, you could only obtain from the high-end companies. How do you think your Nikon or Canon camera drops $200 every few years when you buy a new one? Peeling of coatings, change of absorbance, cloudy coatings, etc. are no more acceptable to Nikon's and Canon's customers than they are to you and me.
Therefore, I would suspect that lens coatings are "off the table" as a distinguishing feature between a $2000 scope and a $200 scope. Maybe its a factor for a $40 scope.
I think there has been a similar price drop and quality increase in glass material quality and polishing accuracy, but somebody in that industry would have to judge.
So, the GOOD NEWS is that we no longer have to PONTIFICATE to newcomers about optics quality, regarding the optics themselves. Assembly accuracy, stability of mounting, mechanical adjustment quality, etc. may still be a factor.
Bill thanks for reading my ramblings and responding. You clearly have better knowledge of glass and coatings. I can certainly confirm your statements about advances in glass and coatings by noticing an image quality difference in a 20 year old Vari-X III and a newer VX3. The only fly in your ointment is the fact that, optically, 20 year-old Leupolds outperform new, cheaper scopes, IMO (read on for details).
My fear of the less expensive scopes is, even if they do have acceptable image quality, the other nuances and features might not be up to a level you and I expect. Those "features" include tracking, durability, longevity, warranty service (in practice, not the written warranty) and just overall quality. Thoroughly test your BSA and see how it does. I truly hope it performs for you!
I am all for trying to save money or "upset" an established company like Leupold with an upstart company like Vortex. I did recently buy a Vortex Viper in 2-7x32 for $160. I read a lot of claims that they are as good or better than the Leupold VX III/3 line.
I had the Viper for a couple months and thought very highly of it and still do, especially for the money. But when I finally sat down and compared it against my 20 year old VXIII, I found the Leupold was certainly better, not sure if it's worth 2-3 times the price though, but for me it is worth it. I'll share with you my full comparison if you ask.
While I would certainly agree Leupold's are overpriced (I've bought mine used), I've also found the less established brands almost always fall short against the players that have been at this for a long time. It's a question of value -- simply, is it worth it to spend the extra money. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saving enough money on a Vortex to to be able to fill up your truck two or three times. Though you're suggesting I'm wrong about the BSA and you certainly could be right, there is a line I will not go under, until our conversation BSA is one of those brands I would never consider. I still can't help but think you paid for a lot features in your BSA and over time you may find it lacks quality in other areas - I'm just being honest and not sugar coating my thoughts.
I did sell the Viper and lost a 20 dollar bill in the process, well worth the $20 for the experience.
I'll also add that I'd shop the used market as a way to save money over buying a questionable brand. I paid $200 for my last VXIII and it's in exceptional condition. No, I would not have paid $400 for it new.
My fear of the less expensive scopes is, even if they do have acceptable image quality, the other nuances and features might not be up to a level you and I expect. Those "features" include tracking, durability, longevity, warranty service (in practice, not the written warranty) and just overall quality. Thoroughly test your BSA and see how it does. I truly hope it performs for you!
I am all for trying to save money or "upset" an established company like Leupold with an upstart company like Vortex. I did recently buy a Vortex Viper in 2-7x32 for $160. I read a lot of claims that they are as good or better than the Leupold VX III/3 line.
I had the Viper for a couple months and thought very highly of it and still do, especially for the money. But when I finally sat down and compared it against my 20 year old VXIII, I found the Leupold was certainly better, not sure if it's worth 2-3 times the price though, but for me it is worth it. I'll share with you my full comparison if you ask.
While I would certainly agree Leupold's are overpriced (I've bought mine used), I've also found the less established brands almost always fall short against the players that have been at this for a long time. It's a question of value -- simply, is it worth it to spend the extra money. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saving enough money on a Vortex to to be able to fill up your truck two or three times. Though you're suggesting I'm wrong about the BSA and you certainly could be right, there is a line I will not go under, until our conversation BSA is one of those brands I would never consider. I still can't help but think you paid for a lot features in your BSA and over time you may find it lacks quality in other areas - I'm just being honest and not sugar coating my thoughts.
I did sell the Viper and lost a 20 dollar bill in the process, well worth the $20 for the experience.
I'll also add that I'd shop the used market as a way to save money over buying a questionable brand. I paid $200 for my last VXIII and it's in exceptional condition. No, I would not have paid $400 for it new.
Last edited:
Strykervet
member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,610
You can get a low end 3-9 Leupold for the price of the cheap scope, it will be a good one to learn on, and you can retire it to a hunting rifle or what not when you get a good target scope. This way you don't even have to buy junk or make the mistakes we all made with cheap scopes.
IMHO, the VXII and less are nothing to write home about, while a VX3 and better are pretty fine scopes. The trouble is, the premium price Leupold asks and gets. I have found there is plenty of competition for the low power Leupold's at lesser prices, while it's difficult to beat a higher magnification Leupold for less money. I have found the Burris Signature Select line to be right around the VX3 quality for less money - if buying new. I own one SigSelect in 4-16x44 w/ adjustable objective and I absolutely love it.
Don't forget this is all opinion and I'm not shy about sharing mine.
Don't forget this is all opinion and I'm not shy about sharing mine.
Bill_Rights
Member
Art,
Vet, I already have a hunting scope with covered turrets and simple cross-hairs reticle. I could not learn what I want to learn with that, even if it was platinum-plated highest-quality.
You are both correct, that it is never a mistake to buy known quality items. They will last a lifetime and it will be a pleasant life. I am old enough to have learned that lesson. BUT, I also know that market dynamics are such that, aside from brands that can command a premium just because of their reputation, every supplier's prices will be coming down as their quality goes up. Ain't Capitalism great! But also, you will have a) a few premium brands passing off middling quality at a premium price and b) a few low-end brands passing off real junk at a middling price. Don't Capitalism suck. Caveat Emptor. But ususlly the market corrects itself and the high price-to-quality-ratio sellers get caught. Ain't Capitalism great, again!
Again, in no way am I touting BSA (although, WW II could not have been won without the 50,000 BSA 500 motorcyles that the Brits and their commonwealth buds used for most of what we used the Jeep for), BUT I do trust, somewhat, the reputation of BSA-in-combination-with-MidwayUSA. I think that Midway may have come in and corrected lack of management vision at BSA and shown BSA what would be a good product to do. Maybe. Again, it is a market gamble, and somebody, like me has to be a "guinea pig". That's the way a free market works. I don't mind playing that role once in a while. My pridefulness, which is abundant, does not always have to have the known-best.
That may well be. At my level of disposable income, that's OK. I wanted an exposed elevation turret and matching reticle (Mil-Mil, NOT Mil-MOA!!) to learn the fire-drill of long (mid-) range scope-assisted shooting. Once I learn the fire-drill, I may buy a quality target scope.
Vet, I already have a hunting scope with covered turrets and simple cross-hairs reticle. I could not learn what I want to learn with that, even if it was platinum-plated highest-quality.
You are both correct, that it is never a mistake to buy known quality items. They will last a lifetime and it will be a pleasant life. I am old enough to have learned that lesson. BUT, I also know that market dynamics are such that, aside from brands that can command a premium just because of their reputation, every supplier's prices will be coming down as their quality goes up. Ain't Capitalism great! But also, you will have a) a few premium brands passing off middling quality at a premium price and b) a few low-end brands passing off real junk at a middling price. Don't Capitalism suck. Caveat Emptor. But ususlly the market corrects itself and the high price-to-quality-ratio sellers get caught. Ain't Capitalism great, again!
Again, in no way am I touting BSA (although, WW II could not have been won without the 50,000 BSA 500 motorcyles that the Brits and their commonwealth buds used for most of what we used the Jeep for), BUT I do trust, somewhat, the reputation of BSA-in-combination-with-MidwayUSA. I think that Midway may have come in and corrected lack of management vision at BSA and shown BSA what would be a good product to do. Maybe. Again, it is a market gamble, and somebody, like me has to be a "guinea pig". That's the way a free market works. I don't mind playing that role once in a while. My pridefulness, which is abundant, does not always have to have the known-best.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked