What's Most Important in Rifle Scope Quality?
- Thread starter Bart B.
- Start date
jds holler
Gold $$ Contributor
It would depend on the intended use, but I'd say that optical quality would come AFTER durability under recoil for internal mechanics and crosshairs. Best optics in the world are worthless if your crosshair is loose or non-existent. jd
Plus one! If a scope is not consistent and reliable with adjustment returns you've got junk. Repeatability is everything.
R.Morehouse
Gold $$ Contributor
Sometimes weight is a factor as well.......
Plus two!
So far, I’d say that in my limited experience, repeatability seems to trump every other scope characteristic.
Even in disciplines like FTR, where there are weight limitations, or PRS where you’re having to lug your kit around, serious competitors are always going to gravitate toward the lightest scope that will still track properly, rather than an even lighter weight alternative which behaves erratically.
In dawn/dusk stalking, where light gathering is the Holy Grail and ‘locked-down’ setups and aiming off are de rigeur, experienced stalkers will again tell you that reliability is the key. There’s no point being able to see the beast, if you have no confidence in the scope.
I think in the past I’ve been guilty of assuming that nowadays reliability is a given, and that a scope should be judged on its secondary and tertiary characteristics such as optical clarity and reticle design. But unfortunately, scopes which are actually bomb proof are still the exception to the norm.
For me, optical clarity is actually way down the list, but of course it doesn’t stop me from getting sucked into the debate every single time, even although I should know better.
My current favourite scope isn’t: the brightest; most forgiving; most pleasant; or lightest on the market - but it does track!
I’d be interested to hear what you guys think?
Even in disciplines like FTR, where there are weight limitations, or PRS where you’re having to lug your kit around, serious competitors are always going to gravitate toward the lightest scope that will still track properly, rather than an even lighter weight alternative which behaves erratically.
In dawn/dusk stalking, where light gathering is the Holy Grail and ‘locked-down’ setups and aiming off are de rigeur, experienced stalkers will again tell you that reliability is the key. There’s no point being able to see the beast, if you have no confidence in the scope.
I think in the past I’ve been guilty of assuming that nowadays reliability is a given, and that a scope should be judged on its secondary and tertiary characteristics such as optical clarity and reticle design. But unfortunately, scopes which are actually bomb proof are still the exception to the norm.
For me, optical clarity is actually way down the list, but of course it doesn’t stop me from getting sucked into the debate every single time, even although I should know better.
My current favourite scope isn’t: the brightest; most forgiving; most pleasant; or lightest on the market - but it does track!
I’d be interested to hear what you guys think?
As posted, it depends on what you are doing with it. If you are target shooting in the middle of the day then ability to enhance what is being viewed might not be number one and tracking/repeatability would be up there high on the list {as already indicated}. If however, you are hunting some animal that typically doesn't arrive until right at dark then optical performance in low light conditions will be at the top. This reverses the argument "if it wont track I cant hit anything"..."if I cant see it I cant hit anything either!!"
These days, most scopes will hold zero, but not all will last when it comes to having the turrets frequently ran up and down to adjust for long range shooting. That includes many which are designed or intended for just this purpose.
My woodchuck and target rifles have mostly Leupold scopes. I have an old Mark 4 that tracks perfectly. But, when it comes to a big game rifle mine all have Zeiss or Leica scopes. {Also Kahles and Schmidt and Bender...I have too many hunting rifles!!}
One thing we can all agree on when it comes to scopes...the good ones are expensive and the second rate ones are not worth using.
These days, most scopes will hold zero, but not all will last when it comes to having the turrets frequently ran up and down to adjust for long range shooting. That includes many which are designed or intended for just this purpose.
My woodchuck and target rifles have mostly Leupold scopes. I have an old Mark 4 that tracks perfectly. But, when it comes to a big game rifle mine all have Zeiss or Leica scopes. {Also Kahles and Schmidt and Bender...I have too many hunting rifles!!}
One thing we can all agree on when it comes to scopes...the good ones are expensive and the second rate ones are not worth using.
Based on the scope testing being done and reported on this forum, I question if that is a true statement. Even with top branded hunting scopes there is always one or two in the arsenal that require re-zero from season to season or even session to session. I always attributed the cause being load related, atmospheric aberration (mirage), shooter error, barrel heat- bedding effects.....never questioning the optics ability to hold POA. Now that I have personally used a scope checker to check a few high-end comp. scopes- one that moved incrementally to a full 5/8" @ 100 yds after just 5 shots-2 other scopes tested moved a tad after 1st shot, then held- I now have serious doubts that most scopes hold POA. Keep in mind I am a accuracy addict, and flyers in any of my rifles are just not acceptable to me.
Last edited:
jds holler
Gold $$ Contributor
Bingo!
What make and model is your scope checker?
Can it resolve backlash error to less than 10% across one click on a windage or elevation knob ? Or a 1/10th MOA shift of the reticle about point of aim across its power range?
I built my own because I wanted something that was repeatable to 1/20th MOA. No rifle shoots bullets into groups that small all the time.
Ezell checker. I did not touch the W or E once I got the subject scope to reconcile with the POA as the proven scope. I don't use variable power optics for SR BR.IME I don't see where they are necessary in that game.
You lost me on the need to build your own checker. I tested 3 scopes, one moved (alot) the other 2 tested exactly alike. Results were very similar to like scopes tested by others.
FWIW -tracking is not a concern for me as I click the dot to the last bullet hole if needed early in the agg, shoot to verify then prefer to hold off the remainder of the agg.
Last edited:
Ledd Slinger
Silver $$ Contributor
It's hard to put a finger in a single most important attribute of a riflescope because there is a lot of features that have to work together in order for it to be deemed 'reliable'.
Accurate and repeatable W/E adjustments are very important, but if your parallax adjustment can't lock the reticle in perfectly at different ranges, it will move on target if your head placement is a hair off from the last shot.
Then say your W/E is spot on and parallax adjustment is perfect, well now that doesn't really matter if your scope has faulty internal mechanics that won't hold zero under recoil.
Then of course you need good glass to see the target.
A scope is a mechanical device that requires ALL functions to work perfectly in harmony. Any one of them fails and the functionality of the other adjustments really doesn't matter. They are all important.
It's like trying to argue that the most important part of a vehicle is the engine. Well if your brakes or transmission don't work then it really doesn't matter how well the engine runs
Accurate and repeatable W/E adjustments are very important, but if your parallax adjustment can't lock the reticle in perfectly at different ranges, it will move on target if your head placement is a hair off from the last shot.
Then say your W/E is spot on and parallax adjustment is perfect, well now that doesn't really matter if your scope has faulty internal mechanics that won't hold zero under recoil.
Then of course you need good glass to see the target.
A scope is a mechanical device that requires ALL functions to work perfectly in harmony. Any one of them fails and the functionality of the other adjustments really doesn't matter. They are all important.
It's like trying to argue that the most important part of a vehicle is the engine. Well if your brakes or transmission don't work then it really doesn't matter how well the engine runs
The parallax adjustment is not in the scope. Parallax is caused by the aiming eye being off the scope's optical axis. By definition, parallax is caused by an angle between two viewing axes. When the aiming eye is on the scope optical axis, there is no parallax regardless of where the scope range focus is set. Scopes' range focus mechanics (opposite the windage knob or the objective lens barrel twisting) move lenses only in its optical axis, does not move the reticle.
The parallax adjustment is moving your head to put your eye on the scope's optical axis.
Last edited:
I am not well versed into the mechanicals inside the scope. But I can insure you that adjusting the Parallax knob on side parallax scopes or rotating the objective bell on adjustable AO scopes to minimize reticle movement at a specific target distance will result in a clearer sight picture and more accurate shooting.
For scopes that have preset parallax- no adjustment means-one can minimize parallax be going father away with eye relief and center the image in the resultant outer black ring aka vignetting.
But for certain the most precise method is to use a scope that has adjustable Parallax. This is why scopes marketed for Hunter Class BR which by rule mandates 6x maximum optics are parallax adjustable.
That's true. Both adjust the objective lens system to focus target image on the reticle. Exactly like a camera lens focusses subject image on the sensor (digital or film).
Same as spotting scopes or binoculars focussing a distant object image at the focal point of their eyepiece(s), exactly like rifle scopes do where their reticle is.
Fixed range focus scopes' parallax problems are solved the same way; move your aiming eye onto the scope axis.
Last edited:
I said "most"....I believe that pretty much covers what you are alleging, so what part of it is not true??? You referenced checking a "few" high end comp scopes which leaves a great many "unchecked". Are you saying that "most" scopes wont hold zero???
I have a scope checker too and my experience is that most {many, not all just to be clear} will very definitely hold zero. My point was that, also in my experience, many {there's that word again} will not stand too much running up and down of the turrets before they quit tracking. I will define "tracking" as the scopes ability to return to the same exact spot when you run the turrets in a square. E.g., up 20 clicks, left 20 clicks, down 20 then right 20 to return to the original exact spot on the target. Again, what is not true???
Colnagotex
Gold $$ Contributor
Thats an easy one. The answer is both. Why compromise one or the other when both are achievable in the same scope?
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.