How much better can scopes get?

[Zachary]

There is no doubt that scopes have come A LONG WAY in the last 35 to 40 years.  Optics are brighter, clearer, and sharper; scopes themselves are more durable and reliable; and new technology such as illuminated reticles has been welcomed. 

However, how much better can scopes get?  Granted, we are talking about the upper-level of scopes and scope quality.  Very good scopes, that are relatively reasonably priced, have about 95% light transmission.  Higher priced scopes such as the Leupold LPS and VX-7 has about 99%.  Well, as for optics specifically, how much better can it get? 100%?  Even if yes, there really is not that much difference between 95% and 100%, much less 99% and 100%.

Scopes are also very durable nowadays compared to way back then.  Scopes like Leupold VX-III and Bushnell Elite 4200, for example, have been tested to withstand recoil equivalent to thousands of rounds of a .375H&H Mag.  But how much better can they get?

Don't get me wrong, there are A LOT of crappy scopes out there, and I don't need to mention them, because most of you know which ones they are.  But, at what point can we say that the scope industry has reached their peak in  both quality and performance?

I would imagine that scopes could always be lighter and perhaps more compact.  But how much better do you think that scopes can get?  And in what specific areas?

Zachary

[Cement Man]

I have been asking myself the same question.  Seems like all of the major optics outfits have introduced scopes with performance ranges and prices that have really gone up.  I've enjoyed the recent bargains in the discontinued Nikon Monarchs, Weaver Grand Slams, Sightron SII's and Bushnell Elites as they bring out more of the newer models.
I think in the future we'll see more integral laser rangefinder scopes, incline calculators. 
I see Bushnell has a new 6500 series with 6.5 magnification range ..... a 4.5X30 power riflescope!  Better make sure you have that thing turned down before you get in the tree stand.    I have different rifles, with different scopes, for different purposes, so I wouldn't want that much range.
I like a lot of the things I am seeing - side focus, constant eye relief, better turret knobs, better lense coatings, etc. but for me, anyway, I think my needs and desires have been pretty much filled with many fine products which can be had for less than $300.  I won't be the first kid on the block with a 4.5X30 scope.  I would rather they made a 4200 fixed 2.5X, 4X, and 6X, but that's not the trend in today's market.  JMO

[The Sodbuster]

I would imagine that scopes could always be lighter and perhaps more compact.

Yeah, they can make 'em more compact, but I'm not sure that's a good thing.  As it is, I frequently can't mount my scopes as far forward as I'd like.  Recently put a new 3-9X40mm monarch on a long action rifle.  The combination of long action separating the rings and the relatively short scope mean that mounted it as far forward as it will go, it's still too close, especially when I sling up in either sitting or prone position. 

They could remedy this by making scopes with less eye relief, but since many are put on hard kicking rifles, this isn't likely to happen.  Guess I'll need to buy forward mounting rings if I want to move it up a quarter to half inch.  Sometimes it's the length of tube between the bells that limits movement, other times it's the turrets that limit movement.

[Cement Man]

Good point Sodbuster.  I like a lot of the new compact offerings, but they are really limited when it comes to mounting.  Sometimes I forget that and buy a scope I really can't put where I wanted it because it just won't work on the intended rifle.  Extension rings can only do so much.

[eye shot]

I have newer Bushnells, Weavers, Nikons, and Burris, but when it comes to serious hunting I put on the 38 yr. old Redfield Widefield! I've had it on .17, .308, .50ML, and 12ga. slug guns and has never lost zero! I know the optics aren't quite as bright, but the Illuminator model was. IMO scopes haven't advanced much at all or very little.

[Dave in WV]

They're better made overall but the selections are starting to suck. Look at the Nikon Monarch line. The 4x, 2x7, and 3x9 have been dropped. Want a heavier reticle? Good luck finding it ready made in a scope you want not what the scope maker decides for you. I should have bought a Elite 4200 1.5x6 with the firefly when I could have even if I don't need one now. If you want a shorter, lighter, fatter scope with a reticle that would look at home in a U-boat periscope there are hundreds of them.

[lilabner]

 I can't get excited about riflescopes of superb optical quality. Any riflescope that gives a decent sight picture, is tough, waterproof and holds zero is good enough for me. There are several scopes in the $200 price bracket that work fine. Think about how much you use optics. Binoculars get by far the most use, then spotting scopes, and the riflescope may get a minute or so when game is located. Binoculars that don't have quality glass can give you double vision, eye strain and maybe even a headache after several hours of use. Spotting scopes that aren't crisp and sharp make it tougher to judge animals at long range and who wants to make a long stalk on an animal that doesn't measure up. If the riflescope isn't razor sharp, no biggie. You just need is a decent sight picture. Out of curiosity, I tested an ancient steel tube K4 compared to a thousand dollar scope at last light to see how much more shooting time the high priced glass would buy. Under 60 seconds, as it turned out. If and when I upgrade it will be binoculars.

[Cement Man]

lilabner,
I tend to agree with you that optical quality is sometimes emphasized to extreme, and a scope is after all a gunsight so reliability, durability, repeatability are of supreme importance.  Also agree that the binocs and spotting scopes are crucial to have good optics.  I have never felt the need or the value in the "high dollar" scopes.  The only thing I would say is that the last couple of years it seems like most every deer I've shot has been right at the last minute or the first minute of daylight.  I've been looking through a Nikon Monarch or a Bushnell 4200 and either have to or want to make sure it's antlerless or not , etc.  Anyway, I feel that these scopes although moderately priced (I got the Monarch 4X40 for about $160 on clearance - super scope!) give me at least 5 minutes, maybe longer than some of my older ones.  The last one I shot was within a minute of shooting time on a dark dreary morning about 65 yards in the woods.  We either shoot does or trophy bucks as part of our management plan so I want to clearly identify a doe or the quality of a buck before I shoot.  That Monarch really impressed me - like turning the lights on.

[Luckyducker]

I think optics are kind of like the electronics industry.  Just when you think there is nothing left to dream up and make they bring out some gizmo you never needed until it shows up on the scene and now you can't live without it but when you get it, if you are like me, you haven't the faintest clue how to make it work.  I was amazed when remote control television sets came on the scene, but I guess I'm showing my age here.  Really though, I believe more technology will avail itself on the market but will start in the labratories.  I just saw a show on the Outdoor Channel last evening about the Trijicon scopes.  Now those are really out there, cause they are nuclear powered boys and girls.  You just watch and see what the American inventor can dream up.  Me on the other hand, I'd be throwing stones like some neanderthal if invention were left solely to my creative juices.

[300S+W]

                                  For a month or more I've been searching the web,looking at magazines,and asking guys like us for info on low range variable scopes. Want something that max's out at 5 or 6(would have went to seven or eight),fits a long action without the extension stuff(there went one seven and one eight),doesn't weigh over 1lb with rings and lens covers(there goes another eight),has GOOD eye relief, larger than 20mm objective,and cost not much over $400. I want to spend as close to $400 as I can. You know,buy the best you can afford. Oh there was one eight that would do(discontinued).  Since I didn't want a scope with a flashlight inside I ended up with two scopes to pick from,the Leupold VXlll 1.75-6x32 and the Burris Sig Safari 1.75-5x32. Never read or heard a bad word about either one,all good stuff. The deciding factor was the reticle. Only Leupold offered a heavier reticle for low light use(I said no flashlights). So anyways,now I've got to decide who to give my money to. It SHOULD NOT have been this hard to find a scope I wanted. Like DaveWV so elequently put it "selections are starting to suck". Not if your looking for something that rivals the HUBBLE!

                                                                       til later

[jason280]

It seems lately that the trend isn't as much about making scopes "better", but seeing how much extra stuff they can add on to them.  In fact, I think the optic world has just about peaked in terms of clarity and sharpness, which shows with the large number of brands offering very good scopes (>92-95% transmission) at competitive prices.  It seems now most makers want to see how many bells and whistles they can bolt on to attract the next potential buyer.  Scopes are getting bigger, with larger tubes and gigantic objective lenses, and have some of the most complicated reticles I have ever seen.  You can get lighted reticles, range finding reticles, circle reticles, and some reticles that don't even make sense.  You can get them in 1", 30mm, and even 35mm tubes, with prices approaching that of a down payment on a house.  Fact is, some of the scopes have simply become too complicated and too expensive.

Now, I understand the needs of the target shooter are completely different than those of a hunter.  I shoot tactical rifles with mil-dots, hunting rifles with standard duplex, and target guns with fine X-hairs.  However, reality is, virtually all my shooting needs could be covered with one scope type.  But, human nature is never about what you need, but about what you want. 

[Swamp Fox]

Unless a person has 20/05 vision, high end optics "see" better than most folks eyes. That would be why scope mfgs. are doing other things to make new scopes appeal to shooters.

[Dave in WV]

I found an solution to my previous post recently. I bought this scope for my M70 30-06. $30 over the online retail price of a standard VX2 3x9x40. I ordered from the custom shop. I'm not a Leupy slut but I like this scope. This goes with what Swamp Fox posted.