Perception of quality

[redneck2]

I’m in the LGS yesterday. Out on display on top of one of the counters is an AR type rifle with an Athlon scope. I’ve read good stuff about them here, but never looked thru one. Since it’s right there I take a peek.

The glass was, well, awful. The waves and wiggles were so bad that it was like looking at mirage on a hot black top road on a summer day. An hour on the prairie dog field would drive me crazy. And this was just looking across the show room. I’ve had many Leupolds and none ever did that. The picture quality appeared crisp, but the waves made it unusable for me.

My hunting buddy had a Nikon P223. It would black out around the edges and was fuzzy. It also had waves in the glass. I saw one at another shop where the counter guy was raving about how great it was. It also had waves in the sight picture.

this is something I just don’t understand. If you’re absolutely stuck at a price point, I get that. But, there are reasonable alternatives that I’ve seen (weaver) that had far better glass. Do guys just not see what’s there?

Dunno.

 

[bersaguy]

I've never seen a scope that had waves in the glass...at any price point. Not saying that that's not a thing, but mostly what I've found is either a dark picture through the scope, or cloudy or poor eye relief causing that black fuzzy around the edges. I was surprised to see Vortex scopes seemed to have a much brighter and clearer picture than the Nikon scopes I looked at, being the Vortex models I looked at were nearly half the price. Not sure of their durability though

 

[redneck2]

I've never seen a scope that had waves in the glass...at any price poin

I hold my eye looking straight ahead and move my head from side to side. I was really surprised at the waves and wobbles

I suppose there’s a difference between deer hunting where you usually look thru the scope for short amounts of time versus prairie dogging or target

 

[LoonWulf]

I've got a few Athlons, and besides some fish eye on one Argos, I've never seen anything like what your describing.

My experience is everyone's eyes are different, how we settle behind scopes is different, usage is different, and Ive also found that how I focus a scopes ocular can completely change the way I see the image, both reticle and target. For me or using the gray sky technique works on scopes with adjustable objectives, but I not for fixed.

Do guys just not see what’s there?

So truthfully, and at least from my current experience, no I don't. But that doesn't mean I disagree with you necessarily.
I recently compared a pair of MK4s, to each other, and then one to an Athlon Argos, and Midas BTR, as well as an Intensity, S&W (supposedly old hakko), Nikon buckmasters, and a bushnell trophy.

The only scopes shot we're the athlons, mk4, and s&w. Over all the Mk4 was a better scope hands down, it's image was more natural, and the turrets are at least as good, or better than the Midas, and way better than the others (which arnt dialer scopes tho).

But the Mk4 wasn't enough better than the Midas for me to not sell it to the guy who set up the deal, and go buy another Midas. I can live with the very slightly overly "bright" image

I spend hours at the range, but only mins at a time looking thru my scope, we're I to live behind it, I might have kept the Leupold.

 

[taliv]

I can deal with some flaws in scope glass. The “chromatic abberation” craze a few years ago was a good example. Depending on what I want it for I may not care about resolution or brightness as long as it tracks. Sometimes the eyebox is more important. Or depth of field. Or whatever. But fish eye always drives me crazy.

 

[cdb1]

Slow down, I see spots, the lines on the road just look like dots.

 

[LoonWulf]

But fish eye always drives me crazy.

Yeah, that one is frustrating. The scope that did that went back for a bad turret....which, after some thought, was probably me not tightening the turret lock screws, and the one that came back didn't do it....also the last time I buy a 10x+ scope with no AO or SP adjustment.

 

[jmr40]

Athlon makes several levels of quality. In my experience the quality of the glass in most scopes within the same price range is very close. There is a very good chance the glass all came from the same manufacturer anyway. The deciding factor is other features. I've never owned an Athlon, but their better quality scopes have a good reputation, their budget scopes are just that. Budget scopes. The Nikon P223 is one of the cheaper Nikons, but they also make some very good scopes.

 

[mjsdwash]

I worked in Seattle, down the street from a luxury car dealership, in a place where parking is extremely limited. One day, a new, as in less than 5 miles on the odometer "high performance car" comes rolling in, and parks. It had stalled on the road, and coasted in. The dealer sent several mechanics to get it running, none could, and after three days, we told them we were having it impounded. The customer still bought one that day, despite a breakdown during a test drive, because its a "really great car". Perception of quality is a very real things. I have since seen two different cars of the same brand rack up $800 in damage from having an oil line bumped lightly during service. Many brands hold their standing reputation as their greatest asset, and assume it will always be that way..

 

[redneck2]

their budget scopes are just that. Budget scopes

Good thing to remember

 

[jmorris]

You don’t always get what you pay for and can sometimes get real bargains.

I turned a real expensive scope into kaleidoscope with my 50 BMG in just a few rounds and threw on a 25 year old Tasco that held up for the 120 rounds we shot that day before being returned to the rifle it came off of.