Scope comparison

[Rich]

Four of us compared some scopes. About noon the weather was totally clear and about 80 degrees. Our ages are 84, 63, 44, and 30. We compared the following.

12-42X56 NightForce Got a great deal for $750; which included Leupie quick release rings and bases.

6-24X40 Weaver Traded a brand new in the box 8-32X Burris Signature for it (after three returns from Burris).

6 1/2-20X50 VX-III John Lachuck couldn't remember what he paid.

6-24X40 Bushnell 4200 Again John couldn’t remember.

3-15X42 Sightron II $411

4-16X40 Tasco World Class $75

2 1/2-10X40 Tasco $71

20-60X60 Tasco spotting scope $89 Tom said he shopped all day and found only one spotting scope, a Leupold, was any better than the Tasco. This included Nikons and others for a lot more money!

The test:
I lazered a power pole 451 yards distance. All of us could easily read the numbers on the transformers with the NightForce and the Tasco spotting scope set on 40X; with the NightForce being slightly better. When these two were set on 20X the NightForce and the Tasco spotting scope were obviously better than either the Leupie or the Weaver. Between those two the Weaver was better. The Leupold was only the slightest bit better than the 4200.

When they were all set on 15X the Sightron II came in last.

When everything was set on 10X, we included the two Tascos. Everyone except me said the Tascos were better than the Sightron II. Maybe it's psychological. But when I pay $411 for a Sightron II and only $75 and $71 for a couple Tascos, my mind tells me the Sightron II is better.

Positively all the scopes except the inexpensive Tascos gave natural colors. The Tascos had a very slight yellow tint. I never noticed this before.

A side note. When I purchased the Sightron II, I compared it side by side outside the store after sunset with a 4-12X40 Swarovski ($750) and a 3 1/2-14X50 Leupold LPS ($1004). The Sightron II ($411) and the LPS were instantly and obviously better than the Swaro. I thought the Swaro would win, so I started with it.

I found a twig about two blocks way and memorized its surroundings. Next I checked it out with the LPS. It was not a twig, but two twigs very close together. Again, I looked through the Swaro and saw a twig. Next, I looked through the SightronII: Two twigs.

Am I telling you either of these Tascos is better than that Swarovski for resolution? You bet! All the others had A.O. Don't flame. Don't ask me about focus or eye box. Go to the store and compare for yourself.

[Bayrat]

Rich,


Everyone except me said the Tascos were better than the Sightron II.

I would agree with you. I find this rather surprising, but then, folk's visual perceptions do vary quite a bit.

I have three Tasco's that range from slightly better than junk (4-16 AO Mil dot) to a rather good Bantum on my 20 ga.

My 6-24 AO mil dot Sightron II is far better in clearity than any of my three Tascos, at any magnification setting.

Bayrat.

[LampLighter]

What would be a good choice in the 100 to 200 dollar range for a target scope in the 6x24 range ? It would be for a very accurate .22 rimfire with it's shooter very skilled in distance shooting ?

[Bayrat]

I had hoped so..... until I bought that 4-16 Tasco mil dot. It was under $200.00.

Then I learned that only so much quality can be put into a high power variable scope with a low price limit.

As with my other Tasco's, at it's lowest power setting everything looks great. However, the other two variable Tasco's have good clearity at max power, but they are only a 2-7 power and a 1.5 - 4 power. With the 4-16 Tasco, at high power is where the quality, or lack of quality, REALY shows up. I'd hate to see how bad it would be if this same Tasco could go all the way up to 24 power.

In comparison, the Sighton 6-24 is just as crisp and clear at 24 power as it is at 6, but then it cost about 4 times more than the Tasco. Another thing I like about the Sightron is that it's mil dots are larger and ranging is set up for the full 24 power. I find it much easier and more accurate to judge size of objects being ranged.

With my Tasco, the mil dots are very small and it's set up to range at only 10 power, not the full 16 power. It comes with a conversion table for other power ranges, but, the poor clearity at 16 power makes it tough to get as accurate a dot/space size comparison of the target. So I have to dial the power down to 10, range it, figure it, then back up to full power. As such, it's a real PITA when distant woodchucks only hold still for a few seconds at a time.

Then there's the eye strain factor. With the Sightron, I can spend hours looking through it at 24 power. The Tasco, I get a head ache after about 15 minutes of my eyes trying to deal with the lack of clearity at 16 power. I thought about putting it on one of the kids guns, but I don't want their young still-growing eyes having to deal with poor optics.

So now the Tasco 4-16 sits in the scope parts box as a reminder to never spend too little on a scope when I want to see small, distant objects clearly.

Bayrat

[Rich]

Gentlemen,

I compared a 12-42X56 NightForce with a 4 1/2-30X50 Bushnell 6500 side by side with both set on 30X. I looked at some pine needles and bark on a tree about 200yards away. No matter how I adjusted them, I could not tell any difference in the details. Both were very sharp.

I posted this on another forum and one person responded, "I'm not surpresed. They get their lenses from the same company."

[AK-49]

Rich mount both a Nightforce scope and your Bushnell 6500 scope on a 50 cal and fire one shot and then look through the two scopes and compare.

Nightforce glass compares in quality to Swarovski glass. There is so MUCH more to rating a scope than just taking a look through it as you are describing.

Attend a benchrest match and see how many weavers, tascos and bushnells wind up in the winner's circle. There are only three scopes that I would invest in those being Swarovski, Nightforce and Leupold.

[Rich]

AK-49,

I doubt I will ever have a .50 on which to mount the two scopes in question since I am not the least bit interested in a heavier rifle than my .375-.416 Remington. It comes in at eleven pounds. It has had a 4-16X Tasco mounted on it for many years. It even went to Alaska as my main rifle. The other was a .300 Weatherby and it also had a 4-16X Tasco. The third rifle was a 7STW and it also had a 4-16X Tasco. It's not that my host could not afford something else, he is a veterinarian.

I say “has had” because my son-in-law needed a good scope for a loaner so I took it off and loaned it to him. When he finishes, I will return it to its rightful place. Since at the present time I am not shooting competition, I will not be considering what the competitors are using. My next scope will be a 2 1/2-16X42 Bushnell 6500. It will go on my .257 Weatherby.

I guess if I was prejudice, I would be prejudice toward the Tascos because they have been so reliable and such great values. My son-in-law thinks the NightForce is at least 10 times better than the Tasco, so I guess I am in the minority.

[AK-49]

I read the reviews at cabelas, lots of people think that they are a good deal for the money... I would recommend reading all of the reviews before making a decision on a tasco world class scope. IMHO Nightforce and Tasco are not in the same league by any stretch of the imagination.

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/links/link.jsp?id=0018873711683a&type=product&cmCat=SEARCH_all&returnPage=search-results1.jsp&Ntk=Products&QueryText=tasco&sort=all&Go.y=7&_D%3AhasJS=+&N=0&Nty=1&hasJS=true&Go.x=13&_DARGS=%2Fcabelas%2Fen%2Fcommon%2Fsearch%2Fsearch-box.jsp.form23&_dyncharset=ISO-8859-1

[Bayrat]

Rich,


I guess if I was prejudice, I would be prejudice toward the Tascos because they have been so reliable and such great values.

I can easily agree with this for some models of Tascos. However, about 12 years ago, Tasco must have made, or bought, a line of cheap scopes, because this Tasco 4-16 AO mildot (not labeled on it or the box as what model), was cheap not only in cost, but in the way it looks, adjusts and clearity.

My 2-7 is a Tasco World Class and it's held up very well. I only took it off the 20 ga because I got the Tasco Bantam (I was wrong, it's a 1.5-4.5, not 1.5-6 power) for it's wider field of view and better low light visability in deep woods.

Both were under $200.00 new (over 10 years ago).

Now that my old eyes can't use open sites very well anymore, the 2-7 Tasco sits on my favorite 22lr Squirrel gun.

Both the World Class and the Bantam have held up great to alot of pounding recoil, hot days at the range, rain, snow, and being bounced from a tree stand a few times.:rolleyes:

I will say that the Sightron still has an edge on clearity over both my World Class and Bantam. Especially at high magnification where I need it most.

But I'm not about to replace the World Class, or Bantam. They are both do a good job and I don't see that a more expensive scope will do a better job of what I use them for.

Bayrat.

[Hi Ball]

Damn! I have to agree with AK-49 in so much that there is certainly more to judging a rifle scope than looking through one at the bench in the sunlight. You must mount that scope on at least a medium recoiling rifle, like a .338 Win mag. Also look and judge your scopes in dim or low light situations, this will really set them apart usually.

I have used Leupold, Bushnell and Nikon rifle scopes the last 15 years and see know reason to spend out of pocket for expensive European glass. I will continue to do so as long as the above scopes render me the great service I have been getting all these years.

[Greybeard]

That Awful Scope Company. Yep that is what TASCO stands for. Have only had one. It was ok and did magnify objects like it was supposed to do. But then one day it rained while hunting. After about 2 hours, I could see nothing but a cloud inside the scope and I think it was raining iside there as well as outside. Scope went into the garbage can when I got home and never have touched one since. I have never had a Leupy fail and so far the one Sightron II that I have has not failed either. Greybeard/

[AK-49]

i always laugh when i hear some people say that they went into a store to make comparisons and the tasco produced a sharper looking image than either the leupold or the swarovski. Scopes are more than just a monocular on a clear day. Buy a tasco or burn your money amts to about the same thing.

[Rich]

It surprises me that when there is a thread about warantees, all brands are reperesented. They brag about how quickly the company got on the repair.

I used to be a Burris fan. After three of the 8-32X Signatures failed on a .223 Savage, I didn't buy anymore of them. When I had two 4-12 Fullfields fail due to fogging, I didn't buy any more of them. When the second 2 1/2-7X failed, I switched to something that is just as clear and has not failed in years of service. It is a 1/2-8X Leupold.

Ignorant prejudice is fun. I used to rely on it myself. Occationally I still do. Slowly I am becoming informed. So are the fellows who I hang around with.

Last summer my son-in-law challenged a fellow who was bad mouthing his Tasco. He had a Swarovski on his rifle. My son-in-law suggested he take a shot at the propane bottle hanging 590 yards away. No sighters, just dial and shoot. The guy wouldn't do it, so my son-in-law dialed his Tasco up to the proper setting and fired his 7 Mag. It was a hit. Then he dialed it back to 100 yards and hit the X in the X ring. Certainly good enough is good enough; even if it only cost $100.

[Hi Ball]

Rich I remember years ago, when even that good looking Edsel automobile used to be able to drive down to the bank without breakingdown and having to be towed. The man next door to us had one of those Edsel's and I never saw a car get towed back home or be towed to a repair shop so often as his Edsel.

It was pretty to look at and dad said it had good power to, however it just would not run for a very long time on the street. It would have won first place in the stock car shows, as long as it didn't have to drive around the block.

Point is there are many cheap rifle scopes out there and a lot of high dollar scopes too nowdays. However, I will stick what has serviced me well over the years and Leupold still ranks #1 in my eyes for dependability and warranty work. ;) :) :D :cool:

[ncboman]

I have a plain ol $29 Tasco 4X on a 30-30 that did this several hundred times over about 30yrs.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v50/ncboman/ncboman%20deer/heart_shot.jpg

I'd call it fairly reliable.

:D

ncboman

[Rich]

Hi Ball,

The Edsel sounds like the Jags of the last few years:D. I have a doctor friend who told me the only people who can afford one are those who can afford two. That way they always have one to drive while the other is in the shop. But, if I had the money, I would have two so I could drive one. They look great!

[Hi Ball]

Now seeing as how I had to work darn hard for my money in this life of mine all these years, I tried to get the best possible quality for the money spent. This also applied to rifle scopes. I just never saw the need to have a rifle scope that was better than a Leupold, Nikon, Bushnell or the Redfield years ago. I just cannot fathom the thought of spending $1,400 dollars for a Swaro. or Leica rifle scope and get 10% more for my extra 1000 bucks.

[Rich]

Hi Ball,

I'm with you on that thought!

[Hi Ball]

Now I have NEVER seen anyone who has had a TASCO or SIMMIONS rifle scope that worked for a couple of hunting seasons period. Now the fact that a post has been put up telling me they have used one for 30 frigging years, is beginning to sound like some Politician running for office and I'll leave it at that folks.

Now the reason I say that is because I have worked at several gunstores in the past 4 decades and can frankly tell you all the Simmons ranked #1 in returns with TASCO a close #2nd to the newer "Redfield" scopes that popped up a couple of years ago. You need to pick a scope company with a good track record and that spells LEUPOLD, NIKON, BUSHNELL and BURRIS at the bottom of those mentioned.:) :) :cool:

[Sabre]

Now I have NEVER seen anyone who has had a TASCO or SIMMIONS rifle scope that worked for a couple of hunting seasons period. Now the fact that a post has been put up telling me they have used one for 30 frigging years, is beginning to sound like some Politician running for office and I'll leave it at that folks.

Now the reason I say that is because I have worked at several gunstores in the past 4 decades and can frankly tell you all the Simmons ranked #1 in returns with TASCO a close #2nd to the newer "Redfield" scopes that popped up a couple of years ago. You need to pick a scope company with a good track record and that spells LEUPOLD, NIKON, BUSHNELL and BURRIS at the bottom of those mentioned.:) :) :cool:

That's funny, I've got a 45 year old Weaver K-3 that's still going strong and a 20 year old 4x Tasco that hasn't given me a bit of trouble either. Along with several other K and V series Weavers and a Bausch & Lomb ranging from 10-30 years old that continue in perfect service.

[Altjaeger]

That's funny, I've got a 45 year old Weaver K-3 that's still going strong and a 20 year old 4x Tasco that hasn't given me a bit of trouble either. Along with several other K and V series Weavers and a Bausch & Lomb ranging from 10-30 years old that continue in perfect service.

If not for bad luck I would have no luck at all with Tasco of the 2 scopes and pair of binos I've had.

My Weaver V 4.5 got foggy after 20 years and I never had it resealed. I should have as I am told the fellow who bought their surplus parts and repaired them for years has died. I have 3 K series given me 4-5 years ago mounted on several rifles and going strong after all these years. No complaints with the old Weavers. I hear good things about the new Weavers but no experience.

I bought a used rifle with a Simmons and it gave out quickly. Sent back for repair they sent a new one free. It lasted about 3 years. I also have a pair of Bushnell Banners going strong after 10 plus years so no complaints with them.

[Sabre]

If not for bad luck I would have no luck at all with Tasco of the 2 scopes and pair of binos I've had.

My Weaver V 4.5 got foggy after 20 years and I never had it resealed. I should have as I am told the fellow who bought their surplus parts and repaired them for years has died. I have 3 K series given me 4-5 years ago mounted on several rifles and going strong after all these years. No complaints with the old Weavers. I hear good things about the new Weavers but no experience.

I bought a used rifle with a Simmons and it gave out quickly. Sent back for repair they sent a new one free. It lasted about 3 years. I also have a pair of Bushnell Banners going strong after 10 plus years so no complaints with them.

Strange as it may sound, I've never owned anything from Simmons. Have several of the L.O.W. Japanese Weaver classic's and they are excellent scopes. Better IMO than the Nikon pro-staff series scopes {of which I've had a 2-7x32 and a 3-9x40} at a similar price point and better than my 3-9X40 Bushnell Elite 3200 for a few dollars less. The only scopes I've ever had crap out on me were a 1.5-4.5x20mm Tasco Bantam and a 4x32 Bushnell Banner.

[Greybeard]

Interesting as I also have an old Weaver K3 and it also never has failed. It must be a good scope and I have never taken it off that rifle (30-06) because it kept on doing its job. The one TASCO I had did not keep on doing its job and it went into the garbage can. Greybeard/

[Hi Ball]

Whooooooa HOSS!!! :eek: :( Now I said nothing about Mr. Weaver or his outstanding rifle scopes of days past.........Now DAYS PAST is the real clue here OK!:rolleyes: Over 40 plus years ago if my memory serves me correctly.:)

I used to own a K-6 that was on a .270 winchester years ago for long range hunting of mule deer. I also had a couple of K-3 rifle scopes, one on a 30-06 and one on a .300 Win mag back in the early 60's. They were fine scopes for their day but will never match the optics or clear glass of today. However, the were the go to scope for most working men during that time.

[Chuck S]

Have you noticed that folks who pay the big bucks for scopes, or fly reels for that matter most always justify and love them? I've been there and done that to my:o discredit. Problem is that often in head to head tests, the inexpensive rods, reels or glass will win, hands down, on any number of qualitative fronts. Name doesn't necessarily equate to quality.

To make matters worse, many if not most scope manufacturers sub out the scopes or parts thereof to companies ranging from Sri Lanka to Ecuador and everything in between. Weaver, Redfield, Tasco, Simmons, Burris, Leupold et al have at one time or another produced a scope that's not quite up to snuff in clarity, moisture resistance light gathering and more. To accurately compare scopes for instance you have to compare the name and year model or even month and model as the scope manufacturers shop for bargins.

When trying to decipher the scope mess, chuck Hawks offers some relief but for sure one can not get help from most of the many equipment whores who go by gun writers these days as they've completely lost touch with reality. Come to think of it I haven't seen a blow by blow, fair comparison on optics for years!:eek:

[Bushman]

Chuck, Outdoor Life runs them every so often and just this month's August gear issue they review eleven variables.

[Chuck S]

Not sure I've seen that review. However if it's like most that I've seen from the Outdoor Life folks for the past ten years or more, it's sadly lacking as far as an objective review. I will make it a point to try and locate and read the review.
Did they have an objective test for light gathering, scope weatherproofing, focus, parallax, etc on which to base their review? :confused:

[Bushman]

Well they gave 5 out of 11 three and a half stars out of a possible four. The only one that they gave the full four star rating was the Swarovski Z6i-3-18x50. The price of that scope in their price/value scale rated a "B" and the price, are you ready for this? $2,849.(!!!!) They do list their testing methodology on page 78 using four different people. They rated the Trijicon AccuPoint 3-9x40 as the best low light scope even ahead of the Swarovski. I was way surprised at how much lower that they rated the Zeiss 3-12x56 with only a "C" in light gathering and that with the largest front end in the test. My own Zeiss with a 42mm front objective I think is better in low light than my Swarovski with the 42mm front objective.

[DancesWithKnives]

About 10-11 years ago a Field and Stream writer took a load of binos to an optics lab and had them tested for light transmission, resolution, etc. That took a lot of the subjectivity out of the process. I'd like to see that done with rifle scopes.

Those 6:1 zoom ratio Swaros are impressive to look through but the price is pretty brutal.

DWK

[Chuck S]

Bushman that doesn't sound objective at all. You are likely right on your Ziess. The test that Dances with Knives described sounds more along the line of objectivity rather than "look what we use, so go buy this," type of review. Those reviews are nothing more than a glorified advertisement and usually sprinkled liberally with BS and nonsense and quite a detriment to the magazine, the writers and the sport:rolleyes:.

Good Hunting
Chuck S:cool:

[Hammerxc]

the old board had a optic thread that had a nice chart on it. some mag had run a scientific test on scopes and rated them for optical quality, light gathering, etc.

i wish someone could find and post that again.

[Bushman]

That would be me. An old member named Woods Eye and I were kicking this topic around a few years ago. The January 1998 (#175) issue of Rifle Magazine had not only a great article on scope resolution by Dave Scovill and scope brightness by John Barsness, but that acuity chart on page 70. That is the chart that I used into full darkness to help decide which scope worked best for me in low light. It was kind of like an eye chart for scopes and binoculars.

[Hi Ball]

SABRE......Just so YOU know, that I know the quality of Mr. WEAVERS rifle scopes from years ago. Yes, WEAVER was a word that meant top quailty for those hunters of yesteryear and you didn't have to take out a 2nd on your house to be able to afford one of his very good rifle scopes.

However, WEAVER like REDFEIELD is NOT the rifle scope they were decades ago and that is a true FACT. I would rate them perhaps one step ahead of a Simmons or TASCO rifle scope. However, not in the same league with Leupold, Leupold, NiKON or even BURRIS.

[Rich]

SABRE......Just so YOU know, that I know the quality of Mr. WEAVERS rifle scopes from years ago. Yes, WEAVER was a word that meant top quailty for those hunters of yesteryear and you didn't have to take out a 2nd on your house to be able to afford one of his very good rifle scopes.

However, WEAVER like REDFEIELD is NOT the rifle scope they were decades ago and that is a true FACT. I would rate them perhaps one step ahead of a Simmons or TASCO rifle scope. However, not in the same league with Leupold, Leupold, NiKON or even BURRIS.


You might relook at the original post. Five experience shooters compared all the scopes. Thye were all allowed to adjust them anyway they wanted. Five guys who range in age from thirty to over eighty. The Weaver came out looking better than Leupold.

[billt]

Leupold has always been the scope all others were judged by. Still is to some degree. I have several Leupold's that have all given me good service. With that said I think a lot of scope companies have been catching up to, and in some cases have even exceeded Leupold in quality, clarity, and price. There was a time I wouldn't think of putting anything else on a rifle besides a Leupold. Not any more.

I set up 2 Savage .308's this past year with the 5-15X Bushnell 3200 Elite Tactical. It's been a fantastic scope that is every bit as clear as any Leupold I own. They both hold zero and will focus to crystal clarity. I'm so impressed with them I'm going to order another for my new Savage 110 FCP-K in .300 Win. Mag. I just purchased a few weeks ago. Bushnell is making some really good glass these days, and they are priced attractively as well.

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/7352/savage12ftr003kp9.jpg

Savage 12-F/TR in .308

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8191/005ze5.jpg

Savage 10-FP also in .308

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/6979/009iuj.jpg

Savage 110 FCP-K .300 Win. Mag.
I think it will be wearing another 3200 soon. Bill T.

[bugsNbows]

I believe the glass on the Bushy Elites is from L.O.W. in Japan...and it is very highly rated. I have two 4200's and like them a lot.

[Rich]

I believe the glass on the Bushy Elites is from L.O.W. in Japan...and it is very highly rated. I have two 4200's and like them a lot.

I read the glass in the 6500 is the same glass used in the NightForce. I don't know, but my next scope will be a 6500.

[bugsNbows]

Yes, Nightforce glass is supposedly L.O.W. also. The 6500 and 4200 Bushy have the same glass.

[Sabre]

However, WEAVER like REDFEIELD is NOT the rifle scope they were decades ago and that is a true FACT.ES

Yes it is a true fact ,which I know VERY well as I own a half dozen of the old El Paso made Weavers AND a half dozen of the new Japanese Weavers from Light Optical . The FACT IS the new LOW Weavers are so much BETTER than the old USA made Weaver's that there is simply NO COMPARISON. As I said before, I also own a couple of Nikon pro-staffs, a Bushnell Elite 3200 and a Sightron S-1. The new Weavers are the best of that bunch without question and as far as I can tell the full equal of any scope currently on the market for less than 250.00 including Leupolds.

[Sabre]

Rich, Are you comparing these scopes in any way other than for utmost optical resolution in full daylight ? One way I've found my Weavers to be superior to my Nikon's, Sightron and to a lesser degree the Bushy 3200 is in light gathering and image quality under very low light hunting conditions. In particular, when peering into a very dark pine forest from the lighter open hardwoods or a field at dusk, the Weavers "penetrate" {for lack of a better word} better into the gloom, while the others tend to "wash out" more. Suffice it to say, I've compared all of my scopes under every imaginable hunting condition over a period of several years now and all of my serious deer rifles are now wearing Weaver's while the Nikon's, Sightron and Bushnell have been relegated to varmint rifle duty.

[Hi Ball]

This rifle scope buying issue is almost like the guy who sports the biggest "diamond ring" into the saloon. I have hunted a good portion of this USA and several places across the big pond and never ever needed a $1000 dollar, $1,500 or $2000 dollar rifle scope or Bino's to kill the game intended or view it's particular rack of horns.

A good $300 to $450 rifle scope will suffice in 98% of all big game hunting! I'll stick to my guns on that issue any day or better yet 24/7. I been a big fan of Leupold but lately it has been BUSHNELL that has gotten my hard earned dollars.

There 3200 series rifle scopes are top shelf and I have purchased 5 of them in the last 6 months and placed them on various rifles. Now 3 of those rifles are going to be used for varmint hunting out WEST. A Bushnell variable with mil-dot reticles and turrets for two of those rifles in the 3200 Elite series. Now these rifle scopes are at least a $100 dollars cheaper with just as good of quality as the comparable Leupold rifle scope.

[Rich]

Rich, Are you comparing these scopes in any way other than for utmost optical resolution in full daylight ? One way I've found my Weavers to be superior to my Nikon's, Sightron and to a lesser degree the Bushy 3200 is in light gathering and image quality under very low light hunting conditions. In particular, when peering into a very dark pine forest from the lighter open hardwoods or a field at dusk, the Weavers "penetrate" {for lack of a better word} better into the gloom, while the others tend to "wash out" more. Suffice it to say, I've compared all of my scopes under every imaginable hunting condition over a period of several years now and all of my serious deer rifles are now wearing Weaver's while the Nikon's, Sightron and Bushnell have been relegated to varmint rifle duty.


I must confess. We compared them in totally blue sky at at least 90 degrees; and at a less than a game target. It was the "HIGH VOLTAGE" letters on a tranformer about twenty-five feet up. I think we were 411 yards away, but we could have been further.

[Rich]

Rich, Are you comparing these scopes in any way other than for utmost optical resolution in full daylight ? One way I've found my Weavers to be superior to my Nikon's, Sightron and to a lesser degree the Bushy 3200 is in light gathering and image quality under very low light hunting conditions. In particular, when peering into a very dark pine forest from the lighter open hardwoods or a field at dusk, the Weavers "penetrate" {for lack of a better word} better into the gloom, while the others tend to "wash out" more. Suffice it to say, I've compared all of my scopes under every imaginable hunting condition over a period of several years now and all of my serious deer rifles are now wearing Weaver's while the Nikon's, Sightron and Bushnell have been relegated to varmint rifle duty.


I must confess. We compared them in totally blue sky at at least 90 degrees; and at a less than a game target. It was the "HIGH VOLTAGE" letters on a tranformer about twenty-five feet up. I think we were 411 yards away, but we could have been further.

I just went back and read the original post. I forgot to include one of the fellows. That means we even had a diveristy of ethnicity. The other fellow was Dale Martinia. A gunsmith from Sacramento area. I don't know his age.