Is sharp and clear glass necessary?

[R.Morehouse]

I have also had the T-36 and really liked it for 100-200yd BR. I have a March fixed 50 & the 36-55EPZ that serve me well.......And i just bought an older T-36 with a set of the old orig. Arnold Jewel adjustable rings on it and i am sure it will be all i expect it to be and surely hold POA.....

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Is sharp and clear really necessary and important criteria for a rifle scope? When there is mirage, a crisp image is impossible anyway. My scope doesn't have the sharpest glass going and it is sometimes out of focus when I set it for a parallax-free image (I have severe astigmatism). And, yet, it hasn't seemed to hurt my scores.

Same with a spotting scope. Do I need an expensive spotting scope with amazing glass to read mirage, especially when I'm focusing only half way to the target?

I personally don't like to get the headaches cheap glass gives you after looking through it for extended periods... ugh!

Generally scopes with better glass cost more money. Do you need to spend more money for the better glass in some of your situations? Maybe not. But is better glass all you are paying for? The answer is No. More expensive scopes usually have better mechanics as well (not always, but in most cases they do). So you're not paying all that extra money just for better glass. You're also usually getting better tracking, more reliability to hold zero under recoil, better illumination controls, a better focusing mechanism, and better reticle choices. So you might be able to accept the lesser quality of glass in a cheap scope, but are you willing to have inferior mechancal functions and abilities? It's all up to you.

I love high end glass in a riflescope, but I place more value on the mechanical reliability of the optic. If I can have both, then I'm a happy camper. And there are good scopes out there for $1200-$1700 that will run with the best the European big names have to offer with much higher price tags. I bought a $2800 riflescope recently and it performed flawlessly in testing, but another scope costing $1000 less had slightly better glass and matched it in mechanical reliability testing. So I no longer own the more expensive scope. Simple as that

 

[Falfan2017]

Went to an f class match today and looked through a Schmidt bender 12-50, nf nxs, nf competition and march 10-80. I have a Japanese tasco fixed 36 that I was using today and a sightron siii 10-50. I think any of these scopes allow you to be competitive. Comes down to what reticle you like and do they hold poa. My tasco was the darkest image but still plenty bright to see the rings and the clarity wasn't much worse than the nxs. The nf competition seemed to be the brightest and clearest with the march and sb right there with it. Sightron and nxs were a notch below those. But as long as you can see the rings and the reticle works for your eyes it doesn't seem like a little extra clarity would help that much.

 

[JFrank]

Is sharp and clear really necessary and important criteria for a rifle scope? When there is mirage, a crisp image is impossible anyway. My scope doesn't have the sharpest glass going and it is sometimes out of focus when I set it for a parallax-free image (I have severe astigmatism). And, yet, it hasn't seemed to hurt my scores.

Same with a spotting scope. Do I need an expensive spotting scope with amazing glass to read mirage, especially when I'm focusing only half way to the target?

Sharp and clear is definitely a good thing to have for Benchrest "
Tracking and holding zero is number 1( if it doesn't track its trash)
IMO

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Went to an f class match today and looked through a Schmidt bender 12-50, nf nxs, nf competition and march 10-80. I have a Japanese tasco fixed 36 that I was using today and a sightron siii 10-50. I think any of these scopes allow you to be competitive. Comes down to what reticle you like and do they hold poa. My tasco was the darkest image but still plenty bright to see the rings and the clarity wasn't much worse than the nxs. The nf competition seemed to be the brightest and clearest with the march and sb right there with it. Sightron and nxs were a notch below those. But as long as you can see the rings and the reticle works for your eyes it doesn't seem like a little extra clarity would help that much.

Please take this in the spirit that it was meant.

I read your review and could not help thinking that it was woefully incomplete and perhaps somewhat misleading.

You compared several different scopes and gave a quick overall impression. So I have some questions.

Since your Tasco is fixed at 36X, did you think to set all the other scopes at the same magnification? If you did not do that, the comparisons are meaningless. All scopes should have been set at the same magnification so you would have the same field of view and image to compare.

I am not familiar with the March 10-80. I do know of the March-X 8-80X56, perhaps that's the one you meant?

There are over half a dozen different Nightforce NXS riflescopes. Which one did you look through?

When you refer to a riflescope, you need to provide the magnification as well as the objective lens diameter, so we know exactly which scope you are talking about and what to expect from it. I am unfamiliar with the Sightron scopes and had to go look them up to find out the SIII 10-50 is actually a 10-50X60. Big lens.

So, if you could revise your post, and give the correct names of the riflescopes as well as at which magnification they were set when you looked through them, I would really like to read your review again.

 

[swd]

The OP never mentioned what kind of shooting he does but from a F Class or any competitve point of view, any time I can see better I have an edge over the guy who can't. At our match's 1st-3rd very often comes down to X count or 1 point. When the mirage starts to get bad if you can shoot an extra X or 2 or an extra point because you have better glass then it is an advantage. If you shoot somewhere that mirage isn't an issue sure lesser glass could keep up, but not where I shoot.

All of this assumes equal tracking and ability to hold POI..

 

[Bart B.]

How much does your $X,000 zoom scope move the target image relative to the reticle as magnification or range focus is changed?

How much backlash does its W & E adjustments have across +/- one click? Note: group shooting is not a good test unless the biggest groups are 1/3rd the 1 click claimed change.

 

[johara1]

It's all relative...nothing is written in stone. If you own a modestly-priced (~ $250-$300) 36X scope, I'm betting the glass quality of a Nightforce NXS 12-42x56 scope would absolutely blow it away to most people's eyes. But at the next level, the glass of a NF NXS 12-42x56 won't hold a candle to the quality of the glass in a NF Competition scope. Many such "relative" comparisons can be made amongst commonly available scopes in today's market. However, the better the features, typically the greater the cost; and at the highest end of the scale, extra bells and whistles will likely far exceed the cost of improvements/differences that distinguish low to medium-priced scopes.

The real question is where does the lower cutoff for "minimum acceptable" clarity fall? The answer is that it depends to some extent on the individuals eyes and preferences. Certainly, it is highly desirable to have some minimum level of glass quality such that you're not losing points that are directly attributable to poor glass quality. But past a certain point, the actual return on your investment will go south in a hurry. I would also point out that there are other scope features such as turret function/repeatability, and having a reticle you like that doesn't move once set, are likely to be equally important as the quality of the glass. It is generally a good idea to buy the best glass you can afford - a scope that meets some minimum level of performance and functionality such that it will not be the limiting factor in your game.

By analogy, it is also theoretically possible to "overscope" a given rifle setup. For example, you will probably not get the most for your money by putting a $3500+ March scope on top of a bone-stock low-end Remy 700 factory rifle. Once purchased, you will always have the scope, so your money won't be lost, and you can always sell a good scope or use it on a different rifle. But perhaps someone just starting out with a very modest rifle setup would be wiser to get a little more for their money by going with a slightly less expensive scope, and spending a little more on reloading equipment and supplies.

In the end, my suggestion is usually to buy the best you can afford, whatever that may be, with the following caveat: if the best you can afford at some given point in time will be a limiting factor, you're probably better off saving your money until you can afford to buy some better that won't be limiting. Money spent on a tool that doesn't meet the minimum acceptable criteria is money wasted.

That is quite a statement, I only ever saw bullet holes at 1000 yds and it was with a NXS 12-42x56 and it held point impact but having had Four comps. that wouldn't hold point of impact and with a fussy eye box the NXS was superior. The Vortex GE holds point of impact and is clear enough to shoot small but I had issues in heavy mirage but it shot good enough to win at half the price as a NF comp. The real bargain is the Sightron SSSVED10-50x56TD. better glass than the NF scopes, brighter solid movement non fussy eye box and the best parallax adjustment going and way less money than a NF. comp. The only issue is the the weight and it is 6oz. heavier than the NF. BR....... jim

 

[Ned Ludd]

That is quite a statement, I only ever saw bullet holes at 1000 yds and it was with a NXS 12-42x56 and it held point impact but having had Four comps. that wouldn't hold point of impact and with a fussy eye box the NXS was superior. The Vortex GE holds point of impact and is clear enough to shoot small but I had issues in heavy mirage but it shot good enough to win at half the price as a NF comp. The real bargain is the Sightron SSSVED10-50x56TD. better glass than the NF scopes, brighter solid movement non fussy eye box and the best parallax adjustment going and way less money than a NF. comp. The only issue is the the weight and it is 6oz. heavier than the NF. BR....... jim

Jim - if you think Sightron or Vortex has better glass than NF, perhaps your money would be better spent at the eye doctor. Anyone that has spent any time here at all knows you never pass on an opportunity to rant and rave about how bad Nightforce is. Frankly, your observations on that topic got old a long time ago.

 

[J F Johannes]

 

[DennisH]

YES!

I have tried all of them up to a March and US Optics.

For the money, it's hard to beat a NightForce BR Model. I like these scopes for competition and "HUNTING"!

 

[johara1]

Jim - if you think Sightron or Vortex has better glass than NF, perhaps your money would be better spent at the eye doctor. Anyone that has spent any time here at all knows you never pass on an opportunity to rant and rave about how bad Nightforce is. Frankly, your observations on that topic got old a long time ago.

It is funny I said the Vortex will shoot good but the optics aren't as good. The SVSSed glass series Sightron new for 2018, is better than the NF. comp No rant just fact. or maybe you can't read?? jim