Fair enough Chuck so I will try to address that point by point, but you have made a good strong argument so I guess we might just have to agree to disagree on this one.
1. Not much argument on this point, as far as sufficient goes. Most scopes in this price range have excellent optical quality.
2. I will have to agree with you here by default as well. I am not overy sensitive to weight, matter of fact I am fan of guns on the heavy end, guess that is because of my competitive background where heavy guns rule.
3. Have sufficient adjustment- Here is where I have to disagree. Sufficient adjustment is one place where I think alot of scopes fall short. If a centerfire rifle will not hold 1 moa or better I don't keep them. A 30-06 for example is fully capable of making clean kills at 800-1000 yds. For 95 percent of shooters that is just too far, so it is not an issue. Well for me it is. I recently gave my son a standard weight Rem 700 30-06 that would shoot just a hair over 1/2 moa, one Leupold I had on it only had enough elevation to go 600 yds, another I put on it would go to 700 before running out. I shoot that rifle alot at 700 yds from field postition and made more then one a believer in my capability with that rifle. Now one could argue that energy is a problem at that distance, my only argument is that a 165 gr placed in the kill zone at that distance will kill. I could do that with that rifle. I don't expect you to agree with this Chuck but in a more perfect world 75 moa of windage and elevation adjustment would serve me much better then the 30-40 that is more common on scopes of this price range.
4. Hold zero- Now this is one area where every scope has a mind of its own. Most scopes in this price range will hold, but I think the percentage that will not is too high. Especially on heavy recoiling rifles. This is subjective I know based on experience, but my experience is what gives me this opinion. Your experience may be different and I won't fault you for it, it is just what we have personally experienced that gives us our opinions. Also when I consider under what conditions a scope will hold zero my parameters are pretty tough. A stout bang on the scope is not sufficient excuse for a zero change. Most would consider this normal for the scope to lose zero after getting bumped hard, well it might be normal but IMO it is not acceptable. The USMC sniper program does not consider it acceptable either which of course is why they use the very stout Unertel. I just think that our scopes could/should be tougher. Maybe this is an unreasonable expectation, but then again I have never been accused of being real reasonable. :lol:
Also alot of these scopes WILL change zero as you change power on the variable power scopes. That is an area that should be addressed by the manufacturers.
5. eye relief- about the only scopes in this price point that have too little eye relief are some of the compacts so no argument here.
So I guess in a nutshell I am satisfied in the areas of eye relief, optical quality, and weight. Where I am not satifisfied is ability to hold zero/reliability, and range of adjustment.
One more category is reticle design. I can live with alot of reticle designs but IMO , NO hunting scope on the market has a reticle as good as the Trijicon Acog TA01. This reticle is good to 800 yds and could be made to go farther. Leupolds Boone and Crocket reticle comes close as does the Pentax/Burris ballistic plex, however they both give out at too short of range and are not that handy for range estimation. IMO a spin off of the Acog good to 1000 yds and with a range estimating feature like found on the Soviet SVD Dragunov would be ideal. Then again I think all my hunting rifles should be dual purpose. Must be the old Jarhead in me coming out, but I still think the Chinese might attack anytime, Guess thats why I keep my M14 :wink:
One last thing more of a question then a statement. Would it be physically possible to make a variable with a reticle like the Leupold Boone and Crockett that would be correct at all magnification settings? I don't think so, because the way they are built now, the reticle is in the focal plane that keeps the reticle from changing size and if changed to another focal plane the reticle would change size and we would be back in the same boat. Is it possible ? I don't think so but I am more of a driver then a mechanic so I don't mind asking these type of questions even if it displays my ignorance on a subject. I don't claim to be real smart, just real experienced.
This has been a good discussion and has got me thinking in another direction, which is pretty common for me as my mind pecan pie wanders ice cream from time to donuts time.
What is the future in optics? I think electronics is where it is going. The common every day digital camcorder gives me alot of ideas. My El cheapo that is 3 years olds zooms from 0-400 power. Hmm Why not a scope that shows a digital image rather then just an optical one. I know there is a time lag now, but with increased technology that might get to the point where that is no longer a problem. Light gathering? Well that would be a mute point with night vision capability and or thermal imaging capability. Reticle style ? Why not a choice for the situation, if it was digital, a whole bunch of choices could be yours at the touch of the button. Laser rangefinding ? Well why stop there when you could add in a wind/altitude/humidity detection ability with an onboard computer that calculates the variable just like an M1 Abrams tank. I know this all might sound far out but in one form or another ALL this technology exists now. It would just be a matter of putting it into one package and a price shooters could afford. I think we will see something like this someday. First it will be very very expensive and only available to the Military. I have allready heard rumors such a prototype exists and is being tested by the Military now, but they are just rumors. However if a dullard like me can think up such a thing, I am sure someone has or is allready trying to build it. What do you think? 8)
