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.

[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.

[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!

[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

[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?'

[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]

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.

[harvey_s]

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?

Theres so many contradictions here it's difficult to know where to start...

First off you say at any price range...but then you resent paying for the best optical clarity on the basis you only want use 25% of the image...

You mention reliability of holding zero...most scopes will, but whether the turrets are good enough to allow 'dialling' is another matter and again spending more can buy you a better product.

You mention about light gathering...but again you don't want to pay for the best glass to get extra shooting time at dawn/dusk.

If you don't want to spend then you're not ever going to get the 'really good' - but you can get 'good enough' and as long as you're OK with accepting there will be limitations with that that's fine.

The upshot is good optics cost money - how much you value that is up to you...

[Muskett]

Add to the above.
My Leupold has been on my Anschutz 1710, bar a change in ammo with a few clicks either way, it has held zero and doesn't ever need to do more. A very bright scope for its size.

My Zeiss Victory target turrets on a Rem 700 5R Milspec .308 tracks perfectly and held zero through horrific weather conditions. It handle all light conditions and does exactly what I need it to do. The same scope would be £2k now.

My Zeiss Conquest HD tracks perfectly and a neat little scope. When it comes to target turrets and tracking then Night Force is really the start line for full bore rifles. Or a top end brand that builds to the standard demanded, S&B or top end Vortex, Leupold. Not every mid range scope will keep track over time. In fact few do and some just comes down to luck. I wouldn't trust any budget scope to track well, or hold track precision for long.
If you don't need to track then there are some nice glassed budget scopes. Zero and leave alone. Use their ladder reticule or aim off. 100m isn't going to test any glass in good light, though bright glare and dusk might. I sold my MTC Mamba light because it couldn't handle glare; great NV add on scope though.

Last point. How tough are you on your kit? Budget scopes are pretty soft and don't handle rough treatment well. Top end scopes should do decades of heavy use. The budget scopes would be in the bin by then. Some scopes have to be pampered which might be fine in the back garden or on the range. Sometimes I venture further and then I'll take the combos that are up for an adventure; that can't be done on the cheap.