Scoping It Out
TASCO: They are out of business now, so it is a “buy at your own risk” situation- as far as “OLD Inventory. When the “World Class” line came out . . . I put one on a Browning 7mm Mag. It was a fine scope, in every way I can describe. However, Tasco scope designs have changed repeatedly over the years . . . and the poor quality control eventually did them in. They had an upward hill to climb . . . they sold tons of cheapie .22 scopes offered as OEM specials which cemented their perception as “cheap plastic stuff.” Not true, but it seems they were never able to break in to the upper end market successfully. I still have a couple older Tasco “World Class” models mounted, and they work just fine. Quality control and market perception did in a one time huge marketer of optics.
Bushnell has acquired the “intellectual property rights” of Tasco, and is now both manufacturing and marketing what appears to be the entire Tasco line; a visit to
www.tasco.com tells the tale.
SIMMONS: Again, I have had several scopes with no problems. One AETEC had a defective reticle (bumps and dimples on the cross-hairs): Simmons replaced it under warranty, with a $7 handling fee. The Simmons company has been sold and resold . . . again, there are quality control problems. Blount bought them, Alliant bought Blount, and Alliant recently sold off the optics portion (Simmons / Redfield / Weaver). Meade Instruments, a microscope manufacturer, is now the lucky owner. Hard to tell where they are going. I can’t strongly recommend any of the above at the moment, though I do have a Simmons target turret / AO Air Rifle model on my Beeman R9, and it has stood up to the reverse recoil / vibration well. I also have a Simmons 2.5 x 7 Gold Medal handgun scope on my Ruger Super Redhawk .44 Mag., which is a superlative handgun scope that they have discontinued. Of course! There are loads of Simmons tubes out there—made by a variety of plants all over the world. What is in the next box is anyone’s guess.
LEUPOLD: Leupold has had wonderful success with their marketing hype. Persuasive enough that some think they can retrieve their lost rifle from the riverbed after 10 years, and shoot MOA groups immediately. The only scope I have had fully de-gas was a Leupold. The Vari-X III’s I have had are not close to being worth the money, in my view. It appears that the Vari-X II has been given a new life, and a new price as the VX I. The friction “non-click” adjustments are a turn –off for me, along with the single coated lenses and dated, three-piece tube design.
It is not that Leupold makes garbage . . . it is merely the huge price you pay for their full-color ads, and relentless marketing hyperbole. I won’t recommend Leupold, unless it satisfies someone’s ego. They are distinctly NOT worth the money, in my view. A great example of how effective ingenious marketing can be. The Leupold warranty service is consistently given glowing remarks by many, many people. That tells me that far too many are sending their scopes back to Oregon for repair. Perhaps I sound too anti-Leupold? Perhaps. Nobody is making a “huge” mistake with a VX-III, and the resale value is exceptional with Leupold: perhaps better than any other brand. Nobody ever “got fired for buying IBM,” nobody seems completely devastated with a Leupold tube, either. Their labeling leaves a lot to be desired in the “strictly true” department. For example, we “think” that a Leupold VX-II 2 x 7 x 33 really IS a 2-7 power scope. Wrong, of course. The scope is actually a 2.5 x 6.6. A VX-II 3 x 9 x 40 ? No 3 -9 there. Actually, it is a 3.3 - 8.6 power. Crank your Leupold 3 x 9 x 40 VX-II to three power . . . you are off by 10% before you start. On the 2 x 7 x 33? Well, you think you are at two power, no—you are already at 2.5. We are off by 25% before we start. Not one of their Vari-X III models offers a full 3 power zoom range. It makes Leupold scopes no better or worse than they ever have been. But, it opens up a couple of reasonable questions. Why can’t they make a 2 x 7, or why did they choose not to? Why don’t their “3:1 power range” scopes offer 3:1 power? Fair questions. I’ll bet a nickel that most Leupold owners do not know what their scopes will actually do, or not do. I’ve owned Vari-X IIIs - - - I always thought the numbers on the power ring meant something. When you turn your power ring to the “2X” setting, why would anyone think that it is really 2.5 power? Yet, it is.
At one time, lifetime warranties were unusual. Now, it is standard fare with Bushnell Elite scopes, Millett, Nikon, Sightron, and several other brands that offer more for less. Times have changed, my friends.
BURRIS: Though I’ve been asked to comment on Burris, I’ve not had a great deal of experience with them. Yes, I’ve shot rifles with them . . . but I’ve not lived with them long enough to form any hard opinions. They have had a loyal following in handgun glass over the years. The comments I’ve received have been mixed, with more positive comments about their rings than their scopes. Some of their offerings seem “out of touch.” The Burris Electro-Dot hits over an over $300 street price, yet the $160 or so Millett Buck Lightning is a better design, and every bit as clear. Hard to figure what Burris is thinking. Again, I’m not saying they produce weak product . . . their marketing seems disjointed. I can’t tell if they want to be another Leupold, or where their “objective” is. Apparently, there was enough negative feedback on their “Fullfield” tubes to result in a major redesign of the scope as the “Fullfield II.” No one I’ve talked to seems to feel they are the “best,” nor the best value. Their reputation is for a rugged scope, if not optically spectacular. Their warranty turnaround has been reported to be approximately one month, not exceptionally good. The choice is yours, but I’d skip (run) straight to a Bushnell 3200 rather than paying more for less in a Burris Fullfield II. Now that Beretta USA has apparently bought Burris, big questions about customer service enter my mind. If they even have “customer service,” for one?
NIKON: Don’t know much about them, but have a 2 x 7 x 32 Monarch UCC on order. They claim 95% light transmission. Relatively new to the scope market, their line grows bigger every year. As a subtle “shot across the bow” to Leupold, they publish “Actual Magnification” values in their catalog. All are PRECISELY as the scopes are named. I’ve been told that Nikon optics are exemplary. Other scope manufacturers concur; but have vague reservations about their internals. I don’t know, but I’ll have one shortly.
SWAROVSKY: Swarovsky? They make beautiful crystal. I bought a little crystal Swarovsky kangaroo for my mother when I was in Australia. Their AV series scopes are in the $700-$800 range, their PH series tubes run from $1100 to a nosebleed $1600 or so. There were noted as a quality eyeglass maker for decades.
Yes, I have a (very) limited opinion on Swarovsky. Any company that puts out product in that range should have a bullet-proof warranty, there is no excuse not to. Swarovsky does not. A dismal 5 years parts and labor, 30 years parts. Shame on this little Austrian empire.
Oh yes, if you have trouble within the first 5 years, they then take over labor for the balance of the 30 year warranty period. I was born at night. But, not last night. Their crystal holds no more wine than plastic cups, and their tubes do nothing for the hunter that a Bushnell 4200 cannot do at least as well.
MILLETT: Millett has a great reputation for their rings, and rightly so. Their current Buck Silver and Buck Gold scopes are made in China, however they are designed by Millett and backed by Millett’s lifetime warranty. Currently, I have three mounted. A Buck Silver, a Buck Gold, and a Buck Lightning (a “Buck Gold with illuminated cross-hairs). I’m pleased with all three. There is no $70 street price 3 x 9 x 40 scope close to a Buck Silver that I have found. The Buck Lightning is a wonderful tube- you won’t find a better electronic X-hair scope on the market for the money. As opposed to many such tubes that light up the entire reticle, the Millett lights up only the fine cross hairs in the center. For low light / brush shots, or even target shooting on black targets . . . it is a joy. I strongly recommend that anyone looking for a new scope on a budget take a good look at Millett. Millett attempted to enter the scope market with a "moderate to high end" scope back some 5-6 years ago. It was called "the Buck Gold," and was made by Hakko. Dealer cost was close to $300, and it sold like mud. Additionally, Millett and Hakko did not "get along" very well . . . return rates were high, and suggested design changes were met with "that's how we make them" retorts by Hakko. So, the original "Buck Gold" attempt came to an untimely demise.
The current Millett Buck Gold and Buck Silver lines have only been available for the last 1-1/2 years or so. Millett is not a large company, and they have never sought to be primarily a scope company. Their product offering is modest; and AFAIK, they intend to keep it that way. Their focus is on keeping what they have in stock, and keeping their return rate low. Currently, the return rate is under 2% . . . one of the lowest in the industry.
With current product, they aimed at the value to mid-range market. Their lifetime guarantee is no-nonsense . . . you have a problem, they send you a new tube. They have no repair facilities here in the states. That is an expensive proposition should they have QC problems. Their Buck Gold tubes have coil springs (as opposed to flat leaf springs) that keep a constant 14 lbs. of pressure on the adjustments - - - vs. the somewhat variable 8 lbs. of pressure with leaf springs. It may well be overkill for hunting scopes (Millett admits to that), but L.E. and military scopes use coil springs because spring-fatigue induced elevation drift is not a good option, particularly for a rifle in storage for a few years. They claim their Buck Golds to have 91-93% light transmission, and 3.5 " of eye relief - - - 3" on their higher powered examples. Are they perfect? Nope. They use thick aluminum tubes, and are a bit on the heavy side. The cross-hairs on most of their line are metal, not etched glass.
SIGHTRON: I don’t own one, yet . . . people who do seem very happy, though. They tout their 7 layer lens coatings. Ahem. Is 6 enough, but 8 too many? Back in WWII days, the only optics widely coated at all were the Japanese Navy binoculars. Where uncoated lens lost 1% light transmission per lens surface, the early single-layer coats knocked it down to one half of 1%-- a vast improvement. Now, modern multi-coated lens offer light losses of one tenth of 1% or so per lens surface. What we are left with is marketing hyperbole over whose multi-coat is “best.” More noise than substance, the magnesium fluoride (and variant) coatings from all major tube makers work well. Sightron seems to be well worth a look, and AFAIK - - they are made in the good old USA. I do have an SII 3 x 9 on order as this is being written.
BUSHNELL PERFORMANCE OPTICS:
As far as I’m concerned, the Bushnell Elite 4200 is one of the finest scopes available in the world today—that most can afford. It is astonishingly bright, the images just jump out at you. They publish it as “the brightest scope in the world” and I don’t doubt that. Bushnell has the documentation to prove it; it has yet to be challenged. Any dunderhead knows that the bigger objective, the brighter a scope can be. Crank up the X on any scope, it gets darker. THIS dunderhead feels that “bright enough” is just that . . . and only so much light can be utilized by the human eye. Promoted as the only scope made that is fog-proof . . . inside and out (that includes their 3200s as well): the “Rainguard” actually works. You can pay more for a scope, but as far as I’m concerned, a substantially better hunting scope cannot be had. If you settle for the best within a sub-$400 price envelope, the 4200 is my choice. When I first heard of “Rainguard,” I wondered why no one had thought of it before? It was a long development process for Bushnell, and they deserve high praise for this.
The Bushnell Elite 3200 is more affordable, yet is very, very close to the 4200. There are subtle differences, (88% light transmission vs. 95%) but the main difference is that the 4200’s feature a 4X zoom range - - - and the 3200’s are primarily 3X zoom range scopes, though there is an exception. They feature Bushnell’s “Rainguard” coating as well. The 4200 and 3200 Bushnell Elites I can enthusiastically give my highest recommendation to. Like air conditioning, once you try an Elite . . . you will find it very hard to go back! Back in June of 1997, “Gun Tests” magazine gave a thorough, if flawed, evaluation of “3 x 9 Hunting Rifle Scopes.” At that time, the Elite 3000 (then marketed under the Bausch & Lomb brand) was tested with other tubes. It was found superior to the Leupold, Redfield Golden Five Star, Weaver, and the Simmons V-Tac at that time, with the best tracking of any scope tested. They could find no flare in the optics, no point-of-aim shift, no glare, and couldn’t get it to fog. Things have changed in the last five years—the Elite 3200 has just gotten better.
Over the years, I’ve used many, many Bushnell scopes. A Sportsman sits on top of my Ruger 10/22, and it is far brighter and clearer than I expected. I’ve also used their “Trophy” models quite a bit. They have gone through subtle design changes over the years, but their current production 3 x 9 x 40mm Trophy is a well-proven, reliable (if not spectacular) performer. Its 42-foot field of view at 100 yards is rarely exceeded, and it is quite affordable at the approximately $95 street price.
Bushnell has a huge line of optics; there are not many areas not well covered. Their Holosight II, for example, is my favorite 1X sighting system . . . and works well on most anything. Their new “Firefly Reticle” appears to quickly obsolete battery-powered IR in hunting scope in one fell swoop. The pre-dawn and post-sunset minutes now are not based on loss of your reticle in the dark, deep woods. Finally, it is back to your optics. Most people might think, “that’s easy—my old Timex glows in the dark.” So did I! Not true, it actually took some 9-1/2 years of development. Yet another home run for Bushnell.
ZEISS
Perhaps no current scopemaker is carving up former Leupold ground like Zeiss and their “made in USA” Conquest line of scopes. Apparently, Leupold is none too happy about it. People seem confused about them.
1) Neither Leupold nor anyone else makes scopes for Zeiss. Other scope manufacturers DO buy uncoated glass FROM Zeiss for their own product. Zeiss coatings are proprietary, however. No coated scope lenses are sold.
2) Zeiss Conquest tubes are made in Long Island, NY, at Zeiss’ own facility.
3) Zeiss power ranges are as stated.
4) The optics in Zeiss scopes are made by Zeiss, imported from Germany.
5) Zeiss conducts sporadic destructive recoil testing—however, it is a small percentage of their production. NONE of these scopes are sold—they are destroyed after testing.
6) Light transmission through Zeiss Conquest tubes is approx. 93%. Zeiss was quick to point out that what “kills image quality” is the grade of glass. Lead and arsenic content can destructive to scope images--- that is why Zeiss is quite proud of their lead-arsenic-free glass. Production of optical glass requires analysis and variation of the refraction factor, etc., so that the best possible combination and compounding ratio can be selected. To eliminate the use of lead (lead oxide), it was discovered that titanium oxide compares well with lead. Titanium oxide does no harm to human body; it also renders a high refraction factor and is chemically stable. A big plus for scope use is more lightweight lenses, as titanium oxide is very light.
The 93% light transmission seems a bit light compared to other claims. Zeiss explained that they don’t measure “light transmission” like other manufacturers- they go “air to air” not “lens-to-lens.” The lead-free arsenic-free glass allows for non-distorted light- more perceptible and usable by the human eye, along with their own coatings . . . which they feel are a few generations ahead of the many scopegluers.
Naturally, I also asked why they felt they were “ahead?” The answer was, as they actually make their own glass (Schott), they should know just a little bit more about it than people who just buy it.
THE BS OF TUBELAND
There are been tactics used again and again by new scope lines that are worthy of disdain. Often, a new face on the market will have the first several runs manufactured in Japan by Light Optical Works or Hakko—well established OEM’s. AFTER establishing a reputation for quality, off we go . . . Taiwan, Thailand, China, wherever. Find a cheaper OEM, make more pesos is the mantra.
I hear the same questions asked over and over: “Will a xxx scope hold up to the recoil of xxx?” The answer is absolutely positively, no one knows. Most will; that is what they are made to do. Will one example of a mass-produced item last forever? Who knows! Will my new Chevy last 100,000 miles? You tell me. Most scope failures are a matter of operator error. No, scopes aren’t carrying handles, you really shouldn’t use your scope like a crowbar to turn in your rings, and rings that smash and twist your tube aren’t a good thing.
“Where are XXX scopes made?” Another who cares! In a scope factory, I presume. Country of origin guarantees nothing. Anybody take a tour of all major optical assembly plants throughout the world? I didn’t think so. Spec scopes made by OEM’s are just that . . . made to spec. Better glass costs more money, finish grinding costs more money, more QC costs more money. Excellent scopes have been manufactured in most every major country in the world. So have crummy ones. A Thailand tube might possibly be better than a German tube, it all depends how much quality is paid for and put into it by the marketer. Unfortunately, we seldom are privy to that.
Exit pupil is another interesting topic. As far as exit pupil, Ken Marsh states it well: “If the exit pupil is very small, (less than 4mm) the eye must be held very precisely in line with the scope to see. While the human eye doesn’t use more than about 6mm at a time, a larger size aids in maintaining a clear view despite slight movements of gun, head, etc., and greatly speeds target acquisition as well.”
So yes, AFIAK, we are lucky to actually use huge amounts of exit pupil, and as our eyes age . . . we can use less. The 7mm figure that our eyes can dilate to in low-light is used by Zeiss. “Calculating it” is not easily done. Example: Bushnell Elite 4200 1.5 x 6 x 36 spec is for a 14.6mm exit pupil at 1.5 power - - - a far cry from the 24mm you would have in a perfect world.
Though the 6X exit pupil is spot-on at 6mm for this scope, the 1.5 isn’t. Naturally, I asked Bushnell what “the deal was.” Their response: “The confusion is due to the fact that at low power some vignetting occurs. Given that the eye can only utilize about 5MM of exit pupil even in very low light, the vignetting is immaterial and is typical of lower power scopes (at low power only). The magnification is what is claimed. There is no vignetting at high power.”
The “vignetting” is what has been referred to as “tire ring effect,” I’ve always called it tunnel effect. In this case, the 4200 1.5 x 6 has no such effect to my eyes; nor should it - - - as the remaining 14.6mm exit pupil is twice what most any eye can dilate to. The “vignetting” is still there . . . we just can’t detect it (in this case).
I had a rather lengthy discussion with one of a major scope maker’s brass recently. Forgetting who his company was, I asked him what “he personally” would be shooting with. FWIW, the answer was Bushnell, Leupold, or Sightron. As to variances in power, all scopes have some- though normally very tiny (.05X or so), not near the mislabeling on a Leupold 2 x 7. They are all hand-assembled, you have some 12 lenses that need to be properly aligned and focused. One lens out of alignment slightly can significantly degrade / change the scope.
As far as a consumer being able to tell how “durable” a scope is easily . . . there is just no way. That is just faith in what the manufacturer says. As far as “brightness,” he felt that was over-rated. In daylight, most scopes are plenty bright / clear enough . . . and four coatings are optimal. How a tube handles low light / glare, etc., was far more important in his opinion. That is where the 5, 6, 7 layers of coatings come into play, apparently.
Weight was unimportant in his view, as far as EXTERNAL components . . . lightweight being very important as far as longevity of the internals. Problem is, again- how does the consumer know the internal component group weight? We don’t. I asked about the mislabeling of scope powers, something that certainly not happen in other optic areas. I was told that the fact of the matter is that there exists no governing standards- and the power number is considered only a “part number.”
He cited one instance where a Burris 6X scope was popular in rifle shoots where 6X was “the limit.” The Burris 6X fixed was actually above 6.8X. It stayed legal. As to calling a 2.5 x 6.6 a “2 x 7,” I was told that to call it anything else, customers might feel “cheated”—and it would hurt sales.
I asked, “Aren’t they?” Reply: “no comment.”
CONCLUSIONS:
I won’t ask how much money you spend on DVD’s, Nike’s, or blue jeans in your household. That is none of my business, of course. Price is a one-time thing; cost is a lifetime thing. The notion that anyone would spend more on rings and bases than their glass, and invest more time and money sighting in (ammo / range fees, etc.) their new scope than the scope-only price continues to puzzle me.
If you are looking for a value-priced riflescope . . . check out Millett. Show me a better value than a $70 3 x 9 x 40 Buck Silver, I’ll buy a couple tomorrow. The Bushnell Banner “Dusk to Dawn” series rates a close second in this price-tube race, is a broader line, and they are more commonly available.
If you want a high quality scope that will serve you for a lifetime, strongly consider a Bushnell 3200 or 4200 series scope. The 3200’s display that rare combination of affordability and quality. Both are better now than examples from just a few years ago. MUCH better. There ARE scopes available that most would be just as happy with as the Bushnell Elites. The one feature that I personally can’t get past is their wonderful Rainguard. It’s not “Mudguard,” but it is the best (only?) coating of its kind, at least until it gets copied- those who do can expect to find themselves in court. It is a great and long-overdue idea, I suspect it will be widely cloned, and just as widely litigated! With the combination of Rainguard, the Firefly reticle, titanium alloy tube, lufetime warranty, and a $199.95 street price: look for the Bushnell Elite 3200 3 x 9 x 40mm to quickly become the hottest-selling and most satisfying hunting scope in the world. It is March, 2003, as this is being written: wait and see!
Don’t expect a $500 tube to be four times better than a $125 tube; it just isn’t so. Forget the ad copy. Scope makers could all publish resolution specs, actual magnification specs, brightness specs, and allowable tracking variances. Valid hunting issues like depth of field cannot be gleaned from the printed page. Most don’t, and apparently won’t. They are all “bright,” “shockproof,” and “fogproof.” It seems the ad-copy itself isn’t “parallax free,” at any range. My personal wish is that the development in hunting optics would change course from the current trends of high magnification and large objectives. It seems mutually exclusive to want a big objective, yet a lightweight scope. We seem to want brightness and field of view, yet go hunting with 4 x 12 x 50 scopes, rather than 2 x 7 x 32’s.
I can’t fathom a big-game hunting situation out to 400 yards where more than 7X could be required, and have never taken an animal with the scope cranked past 5X. The heavier, big tubes snag more tree branches than big game in my experience. It wasn’t all that long ago when 4X was the standard hunting tube, with 6X reserved for long-range work. Maybe grandpa was a better shot? In any case, we all have more and better choices than ever; that’s a good thing!
Good shooting,
Randy
