which scope??
- Thread starter 1shot
- Start date
Ledd Slinger
Silver $$ Contributor
Well 5.5-22 isn't any better for versatility over the 5-20. Pretty much the same thing.
Ledd Slinger
Silver $$ Contributor
Trijicon 5-50x56 are made by LOW in Japan so probably not repaired in the states. Would have to call them and ask.
Most NF components come from Japan too, including the glass which I believe is also made by LOW.
Meopta (Czech Republic) makes their TS-82 spotting scope and puts NF custom clothing on it for them.
Last edited:
Valdada scopes are not made by LOW. Most major players that contract with LOW have service centers right here.
Edit: Dr. Dennis (Nightforce), during his interview, was quite clear about the glass they use. They purchase from Europe, Japan and China. Valdada uses Schott glass only. In fact, the only components Valdada doesn't produce in house is the glass and electronic components. Both of which are sourced from Germany. LOW is a major optics manufacturer for numerous companies. The warranty and service work is provided by the companies they produce the scopes/binoculars for. They are not a service center.
Edit: Dr. Dennis (Nightforce), during his interview, was quite clear about the glass they use. They purchase from Europe, Japan and China. Valdada uses Schott glass only. In fact, the only components Valdada doesn't produce in house is the glass and electronic components. Both of which are sourced from Germany. LOW is a major optics manufacturer for numerous companies. The warranty and service work is provided by the companies they produce the scopes/binoculars for. They are not a service center.
Last edited:
Maybe so but i read the threads on here where the scopes were gone a long time. There were mutiple people saying their scopes were sent away. Some said they couldn't even get info from them. Some said it was a year and no scope yet.
Maybe same thing about Schmidt and bender. My buddy sent his to Virginia to their service center in August. The only answer he gets from them is, their is something wrong and they sent it to Germany. He wanted his scope for hunting season and has called them every week. 3 months is too long to wait for something you paid over 3 grand for. Matt
hogpatrol
Gold $$ Contributor
Same as the Delta Stryker, wasn't it?
JRS , I'm always interested in who makes what . When you say "Glass" , do you mean the raw glass or the final Lenses ? I think Schott actually makes the Glass . It is vital to also Design , Grind , Polish , and Coat the Glass into the final Lenses . Do you or anyone else have any idea who does this ? Does Schott ( for example ) do the whole deal or is some of it subcontracted ? Same Question for LOW ? TIA .
Ledd Slinger
Silver $$ Contributor
I can comment on the Burris XTR 8-40. First off, it's a FFP reticle scope. Reticle is thick and the optics are horrible at higher magnification levels. Turrets are nothing to write home about either. I think you could get a better optical experience through a $200 Barska scope if that gives you any idea of how bad I thought the glass was
Valdada polishes and applies their proprietary coating on the Schott glass.
LOW gets it's glass from an associated company, lida Light Ltd/Light Glass Ltd. They produce and finish optical lenses.
Edit: Very few scope manufacturers produce, grind, polish and coat their own lenses.
Last edited:
I bought an IOR 6-24 rifle scope maybe 15 years ago. After a year or so I noticed that the focus moved after almost every shot. I sent it back to Val and received it back in a very reasonable amount of time. The tech that works for Val said that they mounted my scope on a rifle and it was fine, but they replaced it anyway. The moving focus was a well known issue and the tech denied knowing anything about it, but sent me a new scope. When I got the new scope and mounted it, the focus moved on the first shot and every one after that. It is still like that to this day. The problem with IOR scopes is Val and his employees. I would gladly mail my scope to Romania and wait 8 months if it came back fixed. I have 2 Nightforce scopes both NSX and the glass is inferior to the IOR by a big margin.
Ledd Slinger
Silver $$ Contributor
I've been hearing and reading about a lot of focus based failures on the IOR scopes as well. It's ashame too because the couple IOR scopes I've looked through in the past had amazing glass.
Swarovski relies on Schott for it's optical glass. Schott has many big name clients.
Last edited:
Alex Wheeler
Site $$ Sponsor
I still like old reliable scopes. Even mid grade glass with a good design. Some of these high multiplier scopes with supposedly top glass dont look as good as the old NXS or NF BR model with non hd glass. I think the optical design is every bit as if not more important than the quality of the glass. But for me scopes are aiming devices. They need to track, hold zero and have good features, I use binos and spotters to find game. I dont know anyone that uses their scope to watch game or find it, most use them to aim with. I dont get the obsession with having the scope with the best resolution or color rendition, it wont do the aiming job any better.
THATS RIGHT
Ledd Slinger
Silver $$ Contributor
I would have to disagree with that as a blanket statement. Of course a scope needs to be solid mechanically and I never used to be very concerned with scope glass quality until a hunting situation I encountered a couple years ago. I was in the mountains and spotted what appeared to be a nice buck about 700 yards away. There was only about 10 minutes of shooting light left. He had just come out of a tree line to feed and had the darkness of the forest behind him. I could easily pick out his form and see he had a large antler frame with my 10x binoculars (didn't have my spotter cuz I was packing light). I loaded a round and cranked my scope up to get a closer look. I was having a hell of a time finding him in my scope on higher mag levels (Zeiss HD5 5-25x50). I finally had to crank my scope down to about 10x-12x to locate him but again could only see that he had a large antler frame. Realized he was in the spot i was just looking on higher mag levels. But then when I zoomed in, I couldn't pick up any detail of his antlers in the low light levels to determine if he was a shooter. With the high mag I needed to field judge, the contrast of his body color blended with the background making it hard to even see him unless he moved which also made aiming very difficult. In normal daylight, I know I could have seen every tine on his head, but with the very low light levels, the glass and coatings just weren't good enough to tell what he was. So I didn't take the shot. Shooting light finally faded to darkness and I was left on a high mountain ridge wondering if I just missed a chance at a huge buck. Could have been a very high scoring rack, but I'll never know. Due to that event, I now have a very different opinion on riflescope glass quality.
Last edited:
Alex Wheeler
Site $$ Sponsor
Optics are kind of interesting in how they work. Im not schooled in their design but I have some experience with low light resolution. In my case resolution starts to fade fast in low light even with the best glass on the market. The image is still bright enough to see but resolution gets poor. According to swaro, this is a function of the exit pupil and your eyes. Which makes sense in your case, exit pupil gets smaller when you cranked up the mag. How much glass quality will help I dont know because I have had the same experience with the best stuff out there. The astronomy people seem to have gravitated to 8x56 and 10x56 binos for this reason.
jimmymac
Jim McGregor
No first hand experience but this will shed some light.
http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/ior-round-three.3939133/
It kept me away from the brand. It’s a shame too because I was looking hard at the 36 fixed power because of the great reviews it gets. I’d still like to have one, but it is hard for me to justify spending $1200 knowing that customer service after the sale is crap. If it breaks, I’m not interested in spending another $1200 on a new scope to keep me in the game while im waiting for a repair that may drag on indefinitely. No thanks. Maybe I’d feel different if my budget was bigger, but those kinds of dollars are not insignificant to me.
Ledd Slinger
Silver $$ Contributor
Yeah the aperture of light reaching the retina is pretty small with 50 mm objective on 25x. But i have seen higher quality scopes than my Zeiss HD5 perform better in very similar lighting conditions. Low light is definitely the true test of optical quality. This is where Swarovski and Leica really shine. And not just with resolution, the accel with contrast in low light as well. If I had to choose between superior contrast or superior resolution in low light, I would probably go with contrast. Due to the lack of contrast from my HD5 in that situation, I could not make out there antlers against the dark background on the mag levels I needed to field judge. Seemed to just all blend together so there was no chance of even telling if the resolution was there or not. If I would have had my spotting scope (Meopta S2 HD at the time) I would have been able to tell if his whiskers were all the same length in that light
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.