How much is an optic worth?

[blacknwhite]

Many men have been very effective with fixed 10x scopes out to 1k yards. As mentioned before, glass quality and quality construction are main focus points. If you are on a budget don’t be afraid to check out some high quality fixed 10x scopes.

 

[seedubs1]

Yup. Absolutely NO reason for Nikon to still be building crap scopes. If customers were informed, nobody would buy Nikon. But since scopes are such “black boxes,” and Nikon is a big name and the glass looks OK, people buy their junk.

And WHY?! It's not like companies are still in DISCOVERY mode...we KNOW what works under bad conditions and heavy recoil. We have for DECADES.

Bill Weaver knew it--and filed his patent--in the 1950s.

Ever hear of a thing called "Micro-Trac"? To this day, it's probably still the most robust and best executed scope erector system ever used. The only thing Bill Unertl had to say about the system was that he should have invented it first.


The 1950s.

Optical glasses and crystals and reticle technologies have improved since then, but tell me again how we are making major progress.


-Nate

 

[42769vette]

And WHY?! It's not like companies are still in DISCOVERY mode...we KNOW what works under bad conditions and heavy recoil. We have for DECADES.

Bill Weaver knew it--and filed his patent--in the 1950s.

Ever hear of a thing called "Micro-Trac"? To this day, it's probably still the most robust and best executed scope erector system ever used. The only thing Bill Unertl had to say about the system was that he should have invented it first.


The 1950s.

Optical glasses and crystals and reticle technologies have improved since then, but tell me again how we are making major progress.


-Nate

I won't hangout in this thread, but I just want to say, it's not that companies doing know how to make quality internals, it's that companies chose to spend their manufacturing dollars elsewhere. Knowing how to do the job, and doing the job are not the same thing.

Companies know that all they have to do is meet a certain price point, and look good inside a store. Function on a firing line plays second fiddle because by the time you get there (80% probably never do) your money is spent.

Where we are making progress is companies are providing more quality for less dollars. Sometimes they do that through thinner margins, s ok sometimes they do that through cutting back elsewhere (ie internals that 80% of the optics buyer will never use). I'm guessing at the 80%. It's not a factual number.

 

[tenring]

My Nikon M-308 crapped out on me, sent it in for repair. They didn't fix anything, just sent me a new Pro Staff in 4x16x50. The old
scope was made in the Philippines, the new one is made in China. Love the new style turrets,easy to use, but the rest is yet to be determined. Hope the M-308 on another rifle never goes bad, guess I'm too much old school. Was that a good deal? Had to buy new rings for the 30mm tube, new Butler Creek lens covers, and a new bubble level anti-cant. WTH, it's only money.

 

[Hohn]

Sorry for the late reply, Rhino. That's the SKMR3, and I think it's (unfortunately) exclusive to Kahles.

 

[Hohn]

Where we are making progress is companies are providing more quality for less dollars. Sometimes they do that through thinner margins, s ok sometimes they do that through cutting back elsewhere (ie internals that 80% of the optics buyer will never use). I'm guessing at the 80%. It's not a factual number.

Hence my comment about the rule of thumb of scope $=rifle $ being WAY out of date.

 

[42769vette]

Hence my comment about the rule of thumb of scope $=rifle $ being WAY out of date.

But the flip side is, rifle's have done the same thing. Back in the 90's you had to pay thousands on a custom build to get sub MOA. Today a 400 dollar rifle will do it. Optics quality to cost ratio has gone down, rifles quality to cost ratio has gone down, so depending on what rifle you buy, its not always out of date. We are very fortunate in this market to be able to pay 1k dollars on a combo that will do 2 MOA at 1k yards.

 

[natdscott]

I won't hangout in this thread, but I just want to say, it's not that companies doing know how to make quality internals, it's that companies chose to spend their manufacturing dollars elsewhere. Knowing how to do the job, and doing the job are not the same thing.

Companies know that all they have to do is meet a certain price point, and look good inside a store. Function on a firing line plays second fiddle because by the time you get there (80% probably never do) your money is spent.

Where we are making progress is companies are providing more quality for less dollars. Sometimes they do that through thinner margins, s ok sometimes they do that through cutting back elsewhere (ie internals that 80% of the optics buyer will never use). I'm guessing at the 80%. It's not a factual number.

Indeedy-do.

Here's a question: what do you know about the margins, etc. for Unertl, Weaver, Redfield and the like in the 1950's and 60's?

Also...do you know of any books on the history of Bill Weaver's company? I know some about their scopes and company, but I'd sure like to know more. I'm a fan.


-Nate

 

[mmpsteve]

Don't understand all the hits on Nikon. I have at least 30 of them, in various configurations, and never had one go bad. Must just be lucky. It's good entry-level glass, IMHO. I have started buying Leupolds in the last few years, but mainly for the smaller ocular bell. Granted, I'm not a practicing long-range sniper, so I don't have the knowledge of you serious shooters, but Nikons have served me well, at a price I could afford to get in the game (even if it's the short game).

 

[seedubs1]

Because Nikons have plastic guts and do not track or last long term. If all you do is dial in zero once and don't shoot your rifle as much as people on these boards do, they'll do fine. But if you are at the range and dial your shots, they won't cut the proverbial mustard.

You can take that same money you would spend on Nikon and buy something that would actually work very well. Nikon skimps on the guts of the scope that you can't see in order to maximize their profits. That's the issue people that actually know something about scopes have with Nikon.

Vortex, Sightron, Weaver, SWFA, etc... all offer MUCH better scopes for the same money.

Don't understand all the hits on Nikon. I have at least 30 of them, in various configurations, and never had one go bad. Must just be lucky. It's good entry-level glass, IMHO. I have started buying Leupolds in the last few years, but mainly for the smaller ocular bell. Granted, I'm not a practicing long-range sniper, so I don't have the knowledge of you serious shooters, but Nikons have served me well, at a price I could afford to get in the game (even if it's the short game).

 

[Hohn]

Yeah, I'm thinking that moving my cheap Nikon 2-7 to the AR would bring a rather rapid death. SA bolt thrust kills cheap optics.

At least, that seems to be the experience of M1A/M14 guys.

 

[seedubs1]

AR's are pretty mild. SCARs and M1a's will eat cheap scopes.

Yeah, I'm thinking that moving my cheap Nikon 2-7 to the AR would bring a rather rapid death. SA bolt thrust kills cheap optics.

At least, that seems to be the experience of M1A/M14 guys.

 

[mmpsteve]

Because Nikons have plastic guts and do not track or last long term. If all you do is dial in zero once and don't shoot your rifle as much as people on these boards do, they'll do fine. But if you are at the range and dial your shots, they won't cut the proverbial mustard.

You can take that same money you would spend on Nikon and buy something that would actually work very well. Nikon skimps on the guts of the scope that you can't see in order to maximize their profits. That's the issue people that actually know something about scopes have with Nikon.

Vortex, Sightron, Weaver, SWFA, etc... all offer MUCH better scopes for the same money.

Thanks for the explanation. I don't know a lot about scope internals, and don't run any of my rifles enough to really push the scopes. I've been transitioning to Leupolds last couple years, mostly VX2's. How do the Leupolds stack up, in the guts department?

 

[Hop]

I'll ask here I guess...

I need to drop weight from my 10/22. It's 8 lbs and I need to get to 7-1/2 for CMP Rimfire Sporter. It might be possible but I'll have to remove my fantastic Vortex 3-12x42 and go with something else like a 10 oz Weaver 4x32. ~$160 I think.

How's that scope glass quality wise? Should I step up to a Leopold 4x? I don't think Vortex has anything in this category.

My 1990 era made in Japan Tasco just doesn't look good.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[VERT]

I'll ask here I guess...

I need to drop weight from my 10/22. It's 8 lbs and I need to get to 7-1/2 for CMP Rimfire Sporter. It might be possible but I'll have to remove my fantastic Vortex 3-12x42 and go with something else like a 10 oz Weaver 4x32. ~$160 I think.

How's that scope glass quality wise? Should I step up to a Leopold 4x? I don't think Vortex has anything in this category.

My 1990 era made in Japan Tasco just doesn't look good.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Sightron makes a 3x9x32 rimfire scope with fine cross hairs and 50 yard parallelex. If specs are accurate it is 6 oz lighter then your Vortex. I am not sure what rings you are running but might be some weight to save there as well. Maybe remove some wood from the stock?

 

[rhino]

I'll ask here I guess...

I need to drop weight from my 10/22. It's 8 lbs and I need to get to 7-1/2 for CMP Rimfire Sporter. It might be possible but I'll have to remove my fantastic Vortex 3-12x42 and go with something else like a 10 oz Weaver 4x32. ~$160 I think.

How's that scope glass quality wise? Should I step up to a Leopold 4x? I don't think Vortex has anything in this category.

My 1990 era made in Japan Tasco just doesn't look good.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Would it be possible to remove 8 oz. from your stock?

 

[Hop]

The factory wood laminate stock is 2 lbs & I'd hate to cut into it (has some collector value). Same as my KKC stock, which is illegal since it has an asymetric / palm swell style grip. I'm not opposed to getting another stock.

Vortex says my Diamondback HP weighs 18 oz and it does have some heavy looking rings and a heavy extended picatiny rail.
A 10 oz (website says 8.5 oz) Weaver 4x, light tip off style rings and standard scope rails should drop enough weight to make 7.5 lbs. Getting proper eye relief using this combo could be a challenge. Typically this setup is way too far rearwards.

[edit - very tempting! Leupold’s VX-3i 1.5-5x is only 9.3 oz but twice the $ as the Weaver. Decisions, decisions...]

 

[seedubs1]

Leupold scopes are fine. They’re typically pretty expensive for what you get, though. You can normally take the same amount of money you plan to spend on a Leupold and get a much nicer scope from another company.

Vortex, Sightron, Trijicon, SWFA, Bushnell’s high end elite lines, and certain models of Weaver are normally where my money goes. You get a lot of scope for the money with those companies. Most of what I buy these days is branded by one of those companies, but actually made by LOW Japan.

Thanks for the explanation. I don't know a lot about scope internals, and don't run any of my rifles enough to really push the scopes. I've been transitioning to Leupolds last couple years, mostly VX2's. How do the Leupolds stack up, in the guts department?

 

[seedubs1]

If you like the Diamondback HP, why not a Diamondback 1.75-5x32? Only downside is no parallax adjustment. You’re probably going to want adjustable or something set at 50ish yards. But the Diamondback is the lowest end Vortex stuff I’d screw around with. It’s made in the PI.....and I’m not buying Chinese glass (crossfire line).

Weaver, Sightron, and Vortex make some nice scopes that will work for rimfire.

Check out the Weaver 2.5-7 and 3-9 rimfire scopes. Wish I hadn’t sold my old 2-7..... good guts and serviceable glass. Nice and light, and better than the Vortex rimfire models coming out of China IMHO.

The Sightron 3-9x32 rimfire is nice as well. Last I read, the S1h scopes were made in the Philippines as well.

Keep in mind, Leupold will reset the parallax if you find one of their scopes you like and it’s not set to what you want.....but they’ll charge you for it.

The factory wood laminate stock is 2 lbs & I'd hate to cut into it (has some collector value). Same as my KKC stock, which is illegal since it has an asymetric / palm swell style grip. I'm not opposed to getting another stock.

Vortex says my Diamondback HP weighs 18 oz and it does have some heavy looking rings and a heavy extended picatiny rail.
A 10 oz (website says 8.5 oz) Weaver 4x, light tip off style rings and standard scope rails should drop enough weight to make 7.5 lbs. Getting proper eye relief using this combo could be a challenge. Typically this setup is way too far rearwards.

[edit - very tempting! Leupold’s VX-3i 1.5-5x is only 9.3 oz but twice the $ as the Weaver. Decisions, decisions...]

 

[Hop]

I checked specs on a bunch and they were heavier. Here's what I have now and it's 7 lb 6 oz. The Loopy got me there and looks very good.

I can take more weight out of the rail and rings. Adding in an empty mag pushes me over 7.5.

I need another really light stock as I'm not going to cut up the OEM one. The KKC is a few oz lighter. The Magpul is way heavier at 2.45 lbs.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk