Optics value over time.

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mstirton

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
225
Location
Manchaca, TX
I know some swear that their 1990 Leopold has crystal clear glass, excellent light transmission, and perfect tracking but how much better has optics tech/manufacturing gotten over the last 20+ (or 50) years?

I think several optics manufacturers/distributors are making scopes in the mid-lower tier that would have been very impressive to the most discriminating of shooters 20 years ago. Nikon monarch, Bushnell elite, sightron, vortex viper, weaver tac to name a few. These all defy the old adage of spending more on a scope than the rifle it is on. I only started shooting in '01 so I'd like to hear from those of you with a scope that cost you $300 around 1990 and another you got recently for the same amount ($525 adjusted for inflation).

Bottom line, will my decent scopes today be worth anything to my son in 30 years? Pretty sure the guns will based on past performance.
 
Weaver has been making great scopes for a very long time actually. They started making the T series scopes in 1977. And glass technology hasn't really improved. There are lots of great camera lenses around form a long time ago. Manufacturing processes have gotten better though. And maybe more important is that Japan now builds a lot of quality scopes where in the past top quality only came from Europe and the USA. China also makes some decent stuff now and everyone knows what they do to prices.
 
I scoped one of my rifles with a Weaver K6 E last week and shot sub 1 inch at 160 yds. Other than being a little less magnification for older eyes, it was clear and tracked correctly, with just a very little bit of fuzzy around the outside of the lens.

I remember my first Vari X 3. "Holy crap" I thought as I looked through it at dusk the first time I hunted with it.....

I think scope makers have gotten the point that use, for hunters, is at dusk and dawn; and that they need to provide clarity and resolution to catch market share.
 
Within the same price range the glass on all of them is about the same. You can buy a $200 Leupold, Nikon, Burris, Vortex, Redfield, or several others. You'll have hard time telling the difference in the glass. Same thing when you move up to the $300-$400 range or the $1000+ range. Chances are good they all buy the glass from the same suppliers anyway. It is the other features that determine which I buy.

But you will be able to note the differnces between a $200, $400, or $1,000 scope regardless of who made each of them. How much you spend is a personal decision. I consider the $300-$400 range the sweet spot. All the quality I can use and it won't break the bank. There are a few $200 scopes I could be content with, but the extra $100 for a VX-2 vs a VX-1 for example is worth it to me even though the difference in quality is small. Once you start looking at most of the sub $200 scopes the quality just isn't there.

Bottom line, will my decent scopes today be worth anything to my son in 30 years? Pretty sure the guns will based on past performance.
Click to expand...

No. Scopes have a limited lifespan. After about 25-30 years the rubber seals start to dry rot and the dependability starts to be questionable. I know some are still using scopes that are older. I wouldn't trust one on a once in a lifetime hunt in wet conditions. Some of the better makers such as Leupold will replace seals for free for a lifetime which does help. But technology does march on. Newer scopes will continue to improve.

Just as an example, in 2012 Leupold revamped their entire VX line of scopes. My 2012 made VX-2 that cost $300 is a better scope than a 5 year old VX-3 that cost $500. Most any of the $200 scopes today are far better than a Varix-III scope that cost $400 in the 1990's.
 
I think that electronic scopes will replace traditional scopes within a decade or two, and consequently today's scopes won't be worth much. There are just too many potential advantages with electronic scopes to continue with a system where we have lens size determined by the human pupil. The future will be a series of small "scopes," each at a fixed power, transmitting light to a ccd, which relays it to an oled screen in the eyepiece. Electronic scopes would weigh less (much smaller lenses), have incredible zoom ratios like 1-50x, perfect tracking, zero parallax, infinite reticle choices, improved reliability (zero moving pieces), and eventually a lower price point due to their simplicity.
 
FWIW: I actually called leupold to ask a similar question a couple months back. They said that the new vx-1's were better than the vari-x iii's from 20 years ago. No just the lenses, but also the materials holding the lenses, the springs, etc.
 
Greyling--No disrespect to Leupold, but...what did you expect them to say? They are in the business of selling product.

Corn-picker--interesting take. You may very well be right.
 
like said, "FWIW" Tech did (according to him) go back and look at the specs of my varix3 and compare them to the new vx1 before making his judgement. That said, I sold the vari 3 and bought a new vortex. It's a much better piece of glass, though the design is not as sleek.
 
"A new company in Texas is selling a precision rifle with a unique technology that allows even an inexperienced shooter to hit a target 10 football fields away."

That's from this web page:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/11/news/companies/trackingpoint-gun/

That company also makes a scope that allows you to shoot from behind cover. The rifle and the scope gets to stick out around the corner while you watch a video screen that can rotate and shows you what a scope would show you. There are all kinds of things those scopes and that rifle will do. The price certainly isn't cheap but new technology always starts off expensive. In a decade we might all be able to afford one.

So Corn-Picker hit the nail right on the head IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top