Author: koshkin
Subject: What general-purpose scopes are 'tough?'
Posted: May/09/2013 at 16:11
Interesting discussion.
Subject: What general-purpose scopes are 'tough?'
Posted: May/09/2013 at 16:11
Interesting discussion.
A few points:
-Talking about which brand is toughest is a non-sequiter. Not all scope lines within each brand are built to the same level of quality. The best example of that is Bushnell which offers several product lines, some of which are excellent, while some others are ... less so.
-Generally, the only true determinant of how durable a particular riflescope is to have access to the statistics of how many scopes make it back to the repair facility and for what reason. Only scope makers have that data and they are not exactly sharing it. I have seen these numbers for a few scope makers that I have a good relationship with, but I was sworn to keep it to myself.
-Anecdotal evidence that comes out in threads like these is seldom reliable because most consumer do not see enough scopes to make any solid conclusions. Internet reputation of different brands is usually a function of who screams the loudest, rather than which scope is truly more reliable. It is not uncommon to see someone tout the toughness of his pet scope, while praising the customer service in the next post and mentioning that the scope went back to the service center multiple times.
-I do, of course, have my personal (similarly anecdotal) opinion which is that most similarly priced and featured scopes from a decent quality makers are similarly reliable (or tough if you prefer that word).
-Some of the generalizations about particular scope features that I saw earlier in this thread are patently inaccurate. One example is that Burris scopes have short relief. Some do and some do not. Generalizing for the whole brand is seldom accurate.
-On the 4.5-14x40 Leupolds mentioned above: whether in a 30mm or a 1" tube these are the same scopes with cosmetic variation and external turret design variations. The internal mechanics and optics are the same. Coatings occasionally differ, but even there I have my doubts.
-On service reps in various customer service centers: it is very uncommon to find one that actually knows what he is talking about, unless it is a very small company you are calling. I have talked to quite a few scope companies over the years and with all the larger ones I usually have to go through a couple of people to be forwarded to someone who can tell the difference between his ass and an elbow. That is neither good. nor bad, but rather a fact of life.
-On how scopes are built: there are a few contract manufacturers out there and most scopes are built by them (there are, of course, exceptions with some companies being either big enough or expensive enough to "roll their own"). However, an optical sight is not a LEGO toy. You do not pick and choose components and slap them together. It is a fallacy perpetuated by mechanical engineers and other technically competent people in their own fields who do not understand optics. Optical systems simply do not work that way. You can choose particular features you want, but then the system has to be designed for it. Most contract makers also have some reference designs that are offered to multiple customers who may use them with cosmetic or other external tweaks. However, you can also have a proprietary design created by them, or you can come to them with your own design, that they will manufacture.
ILya