Point of Diminishing Returns

[CharlieNC]

I shoot a 223 in mid range Ftr using a Sightron SIII 8-32, and do reasonably well. Generally speaking I know the misses (out of the 10 ring) are on me. I am contemplating upgrading to a little higher magnification and glass quality. Looking through a few NF and a Vortex Golden Eagle, besides the higher mag I cannot "see" what I may expect to gain. But having not shot these at a match I understand this is not necessarily the complete picture. For those F-class shooters as you have progressed up the ladder of better/more expensive scopes, at what point would you say you reached the point of diminishing returns where higher price no longer gave you a noticeable improvement in your scores? And what aspects of sighting were improved (eg, I know higher mag will enable me to sight more precisely in the x-ring)?

 

[Cowtownup]

I'm not a highly experienced shooter, however I have seen the benefits of higher magnification at mid range. I went from a 4-16 Vortex to a 12-42 NF BR so the jump was quite greater than you will be taking going from a 32 power Sightron. My scores went up CONSIDERABLY when I was able to aim much smaller. I shot 3 cleans this past year with 42 power NF on calm days at midrange. But like I say, if you were going from a 16 or even 24 power scope to a 42 power then I would almost guarantee you higher scores.

 

[Ned Ludd]

The diminishing return on max scope mag for me was the first time I crossfired. It was a pinwheel "X" and I came in second even though I had a higher X-count because of it. After experiencing a similar result on a couple more occasions, I started dialing down the mag. Most of my F-Class competition scopes are NF 12-42 NXS, although I also have a couple of the 8-32s and a new Competition I haven't tried out at the range as yet. I typically run these scopes between 30X and 35X depending on the mirage and where the target number boards are located in relation to the target frame. I have not noticed that running my scopes at 30-35X has diminished my ability to hold a fine enough increment on the target, although I would guess that reducing the mag down to the mid-20X range would probably start to create that issue. A lot will depend on your eyes/vision. I know a number of very talented F-Class shooters routinely run mag in the 40-50X range (or higher if they have it), particularly in Open Class where tracking of the rifle is probably on average a little straighter than in F-TR. However, the risk of crossfiring for me is simply too great to do that.

 

[CharlieNC]

What about the cost of optical qualilty? I know this is very subjective. But I haven't been blown away by the more expensive scopes I've looked through so far, but certainly have not seen them all.

 

[mac86951]

I enjoy my 45x Leupold until the mirage starts... 30-36x is about right for me at 600y.

-Mac

 

[boltman223]

I'm not a highly experienced shooter, however I have seen the benefits of higher magnification at mid range. I went from a 4-16 Vortex to a 12-42 NF BR so the jump was quite greater than you will be taking going from a 32 power Sightron. My scores went up CONSIDERABLY when I was able to aim much smaller. I shot 3 cleans this past year with 42 power NF on calm days at midrange. But like I say, if you were going from a 16 or even 24 power scope to a 42 power then I would almost guarantee you higher scores.

Does you're sightron have the dot in the crosshair? My 8-32 does and it seems to hamper my ability to precisely aim especially at 1000 yds. I would like to get something without the dot. A 12-42 NF would be nice.

 

[dkhunt14]

The glass in a SIGHTRON is pretty good and clear. Where I see the difference in the higher end glass is when conditions are not good. Early in the morning with it really dark, really dark days with black clouds or shooting into shadows. Most scopes look good when it is bright and clear. Matt

 

[jr600yd]

If your using the scope on a target rifle don't get all hung up on "glass quality". You'll be shooting at a rather large target at a known distance with a clear field of view not trying to pick antlers out of the brush.

 

[Ned Ludd]

I have not observed the optical quality changing with respect to increasing mag on any of my NF scopes. I would generally characterize NF glass as very good. It's not the absolute best I've ever looked through, but very good.

 

[JDBraddy]

When I upgraded from a Vortex Viper 6-24x50 to a NF NXS 12-42x56, at first I was sort of disappointed, I didn't notice much improvement, which sort of soured me on spending for high end optics, but now that I've been shooting the Nightforce for a while, I recently went back to the Vortex mounted on another rifle, and noticed huge differences in contrast and light gathering going the other way. There's an old saying, you don't appreciate something until it's gone. I guess you have to learn to get used to the difference before you can really notice when it's not there.

 

[Switchbarrel]

I think you sorta have your answer between your own post & Matt's reply.
The Sightron SIII series is probably one of the best VALUES out there.

To get minuscule improvements from where you're at, the price goes up exponentially. There are improvements to be had but, they don't come cheap.

What I think are the next two rungs up the pricing ladder, It would be interesting to set your scope up alongside a Nightforce BR and the Vortex Golden Eagle to see if your eyes can notice a vast improvement. Try it early or late in the day as Matt suggests. Decide at that point if the add'l $350 -$550 is worth it (if you were to sell your scope to offset one of their cost).

-Rick

 

[msinc]

What about the cost of optical qualilty? I know this is very subjective. But I haven't been blown away by the more expensive scopes I've looked through so far, but certainly have not seen them all.

Depends on what you are calling a "more expensive scope".....but, it's probably because you weren't looking thru them at "almost dark". There are several things you pay for in a scope, to me the top three are...ability to hold zero, ability to track {winding the turrets up and down and having them return to where you started}, and how long you can still see to shoot when the sun goes down. That last one {quality optical glass/resolution, grind quality/coatings} is where they really start to get expensive and it's not exactly something that "jumps right out at you" in daylight hours if you just pick it up and have a look.
Japanese glass is fine for target shooting, it tracks good and holds zero no problem. Try to take it on a hunt where the animal doesn't typically show until right at dark and you might not be going to a taxidermist. There are no bad or disappointing high end scopes out there, but if you are not trying to fill a trophy room up with mounts and/or you are doing all your shooting in daylight hours then you will probably find that there's not much of a big "return" for your extra investment.
I have never had any problems with a Leupold or even a Nikon Monarch on my varmint/target/fun rifles, but go black bear hunting in Alaska or over bait with anything less than a Zeiss or Leica??? Zero chance, I wouldn't bother to waste my time.

 

[CharlieNC]

I have answered my own question. Got the new Vortex Golden Eagle and with it I can see through mirage on 60X, where I could not see on 32X with old scope. So the ability to better target on the x-ring was achieved.

 

[Nowhere Man]

I recently bumped up from a Sightron SIII 10-50x to a March 8-80x. The glass on the March is noticeably better than the Sightron. But, I'll admit, it didn't show in my latest match.

 

[dmoran]

Higher end optics prevail on/in poor optics days/conditions.
On/in good optics days/conditions, there is not as much to be gained.
My 2-cents
Donovan

 

[nakneker]

I like what was stated about shooting in poor conditions, some of the more costly scopes have an edge in doubt. I don't shoot competition so my thoughts come from long range hunting. The things that matter to me the most in an optic for shooting distance is reliable/accurate turrets, does it hold it POI and optical quality. Id rather have a scope that was lagging in the optical department if I knew I could count on it holdings it's zero and that the turrets did what they were designed to do, give you reliable clicks and returns.

 

[Mr.Knowit all]

What about the cost of optical qualilty? I know this is very subjective. But I haven't been blown away by the more expensive scopes I've looked through so far, but certainly have not seen them all.

IMO You have to have them next to each other and go back and forth if you really want to get down to "it". For example: IMO When I tested my BEAST against my 4.5-27 Gen 2 I could not tell much if any at all at lower and mid-range mag. but when I turned them up to max (I estimated where 25x was on my Vortex) the BEAST came out ahead- it was obviously clearer glass at 25x IMO. I am not that good of a shot to need a little more clarity for an extra $1800. If possible try to find someone at the range and ask them if they don't mind if you look through a scope they have that you are interested in buying. Folks do that fairly often where I shoot.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

If you have a riflescope that has reliable adjustments, a solid point of aim, sufficient magnification for the task and presents a clear view of the target, getting a "better" one will not increase your scores. In essence, about the only thing a riflescope will do is subtract from your score by not performing properly. For F-class, when you get into the 30X range with solid adjustments, it's no longer the scope that's holding you back and you can get such a scope for around $1,000.

So why would people pay a lot more money for a scope that will not directly add points to your score at every outing? What a great question!

A few years back, I posted on this site, a report on my experience going from an NF NXS 12-42X56 to a March-X 5-50X56. I explained why I was looking for "better", what specs I was looking for and why, and what the end result was.

The bottom line was comfort. When you spend a lot of time looking through a riflescope, a better quality scope makes it a better experience than a lower quality scope. When you can see the target clearly, when you can place the tiny dot of the reticle surgically on the target, when you can just lie there and look and not get eye-strain, when you just can't wait to get behind that riflescope again and look through it; you will know that you have the right scope for you. That will make you enjoy the game even more and that may even enhance your performance.

I have been working on my setup on the line to where I have my spotting scope at my left eye and my riflescope at my right eye and I just transition back and forth looking at conditions and firing from that position. Still need a little more tweaking, but it's almost there.

So, you can read all the reviews that you want, you can ask for all the opinions that people are happy to provide, it all comes down to you and what you want to achieve and then coming up with a list of specifications for your equipment. With that in hand, you can decide what to buy, if anything, to achieve your goal.

 

[Shynloco]

I shoot a 223 in mid range Ftr using a Sightron SIII 8-32, and do reasonably well. Generally speaking I know the misses (out of the 10 ring) are on me. I am contemplating upgrading to a little higher magnification and glass quality. Looking through a few NF and a Vortex Golden Eagle, besides the higher mag I cannot "see" what I may expect to gain. But having not shot these at a match I understand this is not necessarily the complete picture. For those F-class shooters as you have progressed up the ladder of better/more expensive scopes, at what point would you say you reached the point of diminishing returns where higher price no longer gave you a noticeable improvement in your scores? And what aspects of sighting were improved (eg, I know higher mag will enable me to sight more precisely in the x-ring)?

CharlieNC,
If I may suggest, you can get opinions of the best scope power to "upgrade" to and if your think about it, most consider the best glass they can afford for their own personal preferences. But may I suggest a way you can determine what is the best scope that is, is to go to some official NRA and recognized competitions and see what the winners are using. An alternative would be to look up the results of NRA sanctioned national shoots and find out what scope/glass the top ten shooter are using. This game/hobby of competition shooting isn't cheap and many of the top shooters are provided with the best equipment to compete with. So since money isn't an issue for them, they will choose the best glass they feel will get them the WIN. I doubt "diminishing returns" ever enters into their considerations. Remember, you can't hit what you can't see. The rest is up to you, your equipment and your abilities to shoot.

Just something to consider in choosing what glass works best in your situation AND what you can afford.

Alex