How do you know a scope is good?

[Hsing-ee]

Any price range... how can you tell if a scope is reliable in that the zero does not wander, that it is not adding in some other variable to throw shots and drift? How important is crispness all the way to the edge when only the central 25% is actually used in the act of aiming?

I know the more expensive scopes have better optical clarity and so-called 'light gathering' but how important is this in just aligning the sights with the point of impact?

How does one 'judge' a scope?

The advice I have seen is vague, mostly along the lines of 'try a bunch of them out'... and reviews even say that very expensive scopes are not all that good. I understand how to assess a rifle or pistol but have no real idea with scopes.

Consequently I have relied on old Japanese Tasco 2-7x32 AO scopes that I know are good because they were used by many FT shooters in the 90s. They seem good quality, but they are old tech now... or are they?

[bighit]

What suits your eyes may not suit others .

Some may not have a problem with a reticle that is full of lines but you may .

If you can try it on your rifle then testing it for tracking ( is that the right term) to see if it goes back to zero .

Look through them and see what suits you not the other shooters out there.

[I. J.]

Personally, when checking scope clarity I dont do it during the day with its bright sunlight and most scopes look good but in the evening when the light is fading.

[BigDuncs]

I am often surprised just how variable people's opinions are on the same scope. There's a lot of individual preferences that can make one person like a particular scope/brand while others don't. It can be very subjective indeed.

The 'purist' way of testing how scopes track and what I do on all my full bore scopes is to do a form of the 'box test'.

That is to (in the case of full-bore - but adaptable to any rifle/scope by changing distance) mark up a large paper target with one aiming point in the centre. You need a good weather day, a very steady shooting position with bipods and bags as appropriate, and not to be in any rush. At 100 yds, shoot one shot with a zeroed rifle at that centre aiming point and hopefully it will be a bull. (If the rifle ammo can't hold a good zero, the scope test is pointless - and I would be wanting well less that 1 MOA accuracy).)

Then increase elevation by say 10 MOA (minutes) which is 10" (or 10.47" to be precise at 100 yds) and fire another shot. Then go right another 10 MOA and fire a shot. Then down 20 MOA and fire a shot, left 20 MOA and fire again, up 20 MOA and shoot again, and then right 10 MOA and down 10 MOA and you should be back in the centre again.

If this is a perfect 'box', you've a good scope which tracks properly.

As I 'dial' (ie change elevation/windage) for all my range competition shooting, perfect tracking is critical so all my scopes are now Nightforce, a few Leupold and a couple are Zeiss.

I have given the box dimensions that I use but of course, it doesn't have to be 10/20 MOA movements between shots.

And if you 'holdover' instead of 'dial', please ignore the above!

[angrybear]

The only way to know is to try it & see how it performs

When it comes down to it you know if it suits your eye, you know when you look through it, if the picture is clear or noticeably distorted & you know if you like the reticle.
Any more than that you either need a crystal ball or will find out in time

[Hsing-ee]

Ok so buy every scope and slowly work my way through them til I hit ‘the one’.

Starting with Richter Optic at £25. Maybe one of those cheapies will be it!

[TonyL]

What suits your eyes may not suit others .

Some may not have a problem with a reticle that is full of lines but you may .

If you can try it on your rifle then testing it for tracking ( is that the right term) to see if it goes back to zero .

Look through them and see what suits you not the other shooters out there.

Personally, when checking scope clarity I dont do it during the day with its bright sunlight and most scopes look good but in the evening when the light is fading.

Yep; would agree.

[MartynB]

Personally, when checking scope clarity I dont do it during the day with its bright sunlight and most scopes look good but in the evening when the light is fading.

Very true I.J.

[angrybear]

Ok so buy every scope and slowly work my way through them til I hit ‘the one’.

Starting with Richter Optic at £25. Maybe one of those cheapies will be it!

No need to be snarky
You can tell within 30 seconds in the dealers whether you like the reticle, or not,
5 minutes looking up & down the street at things near & far, adjusting the mag & focus should give you a pretty good idea about clarity & edge crispness.

Whether the zero will move etc is unique to that actual scope two items can come off the same production line, one lasts a life time the other fails within a year,
hence the only way to know what happens is to wait & see

I really don't understand what else you think there is

[Kes]

Ok so buy every scope and slowly work my way through them til I hit ‘the one’.

Starting with Richter Optic at £25. Maybe one of those cheapies will be it!

Lol.

I've encountered a fair old bit of glass "snobbery" amongst fellow shooters over the years so I get you.

I've always firmly held the belief that if you can clearly and easily see what it is you want to shoot at, at the distance you want to, then the scope is "good" enough.

[Muskett]

Young eyes, old eyes, and then there are people who it seems are blind as bats! There is quite a spectrum in eyes.
Then the amount of scopes not set up to those eyes. The start is to have the crosshair at least in sharp focus to the sky.
Lastly to have that crosshair lie flat on the target with both in focus.
To add difficulty add variable magnification. If that isn't enough it add loads of magnification range too.

All the above is a huge ask out of glass. Better scopes accomplish it without too much fuss and little perceivable distortion.

Then how that glass deals with light. Strong light and little light. One that is forgotten is cross light and shadow.

How forgiving is the eyebox is a big one.

Then there is parallax and how thats dealt with. The range where most of the work is going to be done.

Lastly, repeatability if target turrets are going to be used often. Quality counts here, though if zero is left on a setting for years it becomes less important so long as it stays set.

As can be seen there is a lot to design in, plenty to get right and plenty that can effect the final result. Some scopes just seem to get more right than others. Some makes have a reputation that rarely gives a bad result, others its far more hit and miss especially if they have a huge range they are marketing.
The test is in the field. American scopes tend to be good in bright light. European scopes better in the gloom. Asian scopes can be all over the place and rarely do bad varied light well.
And then there is price.

[Hsing-ee]

No need to be snarky

OK but if I was then I would need a scope with some kind of anti-snark, right? Or snark-adjustable, perhaps integrated with a cant compensator for when I'm a bit cantish?

There does seem to be a huge diversity of opinions about scopes and I have noted down the useful advice on this thread, but I am none the wiser.

What about 'what are the scopes the top HFT shooters use?'

[Hsing-ee]

Lol.

I've encountered a fair old bit of glass "snobbery" amongst fellow shooters over the years so I get you.

I've always firmly held the belief that if you can clearly and easily see what it is you want to shoot at, at the distance you want to, then the scope is "good" enough.

Snobbery seems to be the thing. The ranges we shoot at shouldn't require something costing £1000. It just has to keep the reticle in strict relation to the bore and be clear enough to see what its pointed out, rather than be able to see the fibers off the edge of a bullet hole at 900 yards for me. Scopes are fragile necessary evils and I resent paying tons of money for one.

[Muskett]

I listed how difficult it is to design and build a scope. Now whats good.
Glass has improved, well making a lens has and now they are fairly cheep. Glass somehow has got lighter, and less lenses used.

Scope snobbery! The best made and most expensive are certainly exceedingly brilliant. They should be chosen to match the rifle, intended use, and what light might be encountered. Spend $30 -50,000 on a safari and the cost of the scope isn't the big one. The top end scopes survive years of use on howling Scottish Highland hills too. For the military tough, reliable, and must deliver are rather important (the helicopter taxi cost £1,000 an hour.)

Mere mortals don't need quite so much. So what mid range scope?
Target or hunting turrets. Do you need to dial or would aim off for drop suffice? Can you do it off a reticule, FFP, or SFF? Then parallax; do you want crisp at 10m? Lastly, FFV and light gathering?

Recent new manufacturing means tolerances have never been better. Cheaper scopes use softer materials so wear to cutters is minimised. Add that to the glass then scopes can be made well to a lowish price, but go too low they are a bit "soft", and best to be treated with kid gloves.

Only recently are scope manufacturers delivering scopes that meet market wants; and very specialised wants they are too. Rather than generic wide market, they are bringing designs with the features now demanded. More features, more complex, more to go wrong, more wear. And there are more shooting specialised disciplines. All gives a flooded and too many options market. I agree the frustration of finding the right one for "you" isn't easy.

See what others are using, and how they are using them. Ask if thats how you want to use your scope?? Click Click target turrets, or ladder reticule, or old school aim off points of aim???? When you have your "feature list" then there might be half a chance to zero on models that give those features. And then you might have to make compromises anyhow.

[Jesim1]

Lets put aside the quality of the glass for a second, as although this goes up by price, it does get to a point that even a mid range scope is well in excess of what we need for air guns at under 100m for arguments sake, and as everyone's eyes and opinions are different, it's actually hard to measure or quantify.

The big issue with scopes is more to do with adjustability, accuracy, repeatability, smoothness and precision of the optics/mechanics/reticle and overall function - and that's the bit most people overlook.

For back yard plinking a £35 scope is just fine, you may want to get a better one for hunting or low light conditions, and these then tend to add money to the mix Start to look at range finding and your into big mags and clearer optics, your now looking at mid priced scopes as a minimum, and the appropriate mounts will cost more than your hunting score for rabbits at 30m And we are not done yet, when you start to look at precision and repeatability then your looking at 1/8MOA adjustability, and it then needs to actually reflect these adjustments, so more money, and actual testing rather than just trying in the field. Your looking at box testing the scope by the click at you regular distances, so for BR as an example, your looking at 25m and every click representing just under 1mm, which is what you want for this type of shooting - but does you scope deliver, and are you and your set up good enough to test it in real life?

So many times when doing BR I'll adjust my scope by one click, and it does not move the POI at all, another click and it suddenly shifts 3mm Even an expensive scope does not guarantee this level of precision, but it should have a far better chance of doing it than a £25 Amazon special

So although brand, reputation, price and quality are good metrics to set you on the right path, the use of the scope plays a major part of the decision making process, along with price and the actual performance of the scope in all areas.

Let's just assume a really cheap scope will not perform like a dearer one - because they don't! But in saying that, it's possible to get a good mid priced scope which is better than a poorer high end scope - and that is where it gets difficult, because just like individual barrels perform differently with different pellets, the sum of the parts of the internals of a good scope do not always add up to the end result in an even manner, so trial and error are required to find a good one.

So in summary - not all scopes at any price point are equal, and although price is not a guarantee of a better scope, with a bit of research it can at least put you in the right ball park for a scope which is suitable for the purpose your buying it for