How do you know a scope is good?

[Portzy]

An interesting thread. Something I have noticed though, unless I have not read everything in fine detail is that most comparisons are polarised. That's to say we seem to be discussing relatively simple air rifle / rim fire scopes such as Hawke or NS against high end manufacturers such as Zeiss, Swarovski, et al with not much mention of anything in between. Like I said, I may have missed something.

Now, the point of my post. Supposing that I have an itch for a step up myself and I fancy something "wallet relevant" mid or upper market, simple no frills and all the money in the construction and glass, low profile capped turrets, L4A or similar reticle, wide field of view and low mag 1.5 to 6.

I can opt for either Zeiss Victory HT 1.5-6x42 at £xxxx or Hawke Endurance 30 WA 1.5-6x44 at nearly a quarter the price of the Zeiss. Either scope will eventually be destined for a centre fire in .222Rem but for now it will be on a rim fire.

So, in this instance it's Hawke v Zeiss, there's nothing in the Swarovski, Steiner, or Leica stables that appeals by the way.

[Muskett]

I would look through the Bushnell, then Vortex, then Zeiss Conquest lines.

You really need to know exactly what you want to achieve when going to even higher grades of scopes like Swaro and Zeiss Victory ranges. (Swaro has the best glass and builds lighter than Zeiss. The features on Swaro aren't ideal for target use; Zeiss do a little better. I do fancy a Swaro, a very specific one, for a Blaser though.)

I have kept a Zeiss Conquest HD5 because it is not big, has locking target turrets, and pretty bright. The only annoying thing is side parallax starts at 50m. This is important if you intend at some point to put a NV Add On, such as a WDV or Pard 007, behind the scope, as these require parallax under 50m, possibly as low as 20m. Many higher end scopes don't go down far enough. Its why I have several Bushnell Legend Ultras because they have this feature (no longer made but they should have something similar.)

1.5x is bayonet range low (Roe deer in the woods?). x6 on a .222Rem isn't going to do a Magpie at 300m which this cartridge can do. Now my gamedealer only wants head shot rabbits I use x10 and above mag on my .22LR and .17HMR. X6 is best for solid hit vermin control.

With so many models its hard to suggest anything much. Plus built in luck means one person has a great time and another a heap of grief, can't get on with it., both having the same scope.
Again match what you need from the scope, its real use not some "every feature fantasy" (which we all do.) Match its scale to the rifle too; sporting, culling, or battleship gun.

[old barn]

[/QUOTE] I have kept a Zeiss Conquest HD5 because it is not big, has locking target turrets, and pretty bright. The only annoying thing is side parallax starts at 50m. This is important if you intend at some point to put a NV Add On, such as a WDV or Pard 007, behind the scope, as these require parallax under 50m, possibly as low as 20m. Many higher end scopes don't go down far enough. Its why I have several Bushnell Legend Ultras because they have this feature (no longer made but they should have something similar.)
[/QUOTE]

The good news is the ''new'' Zeiss Conquest V4 can be purchased in 10yd and 50yd min parallax depending on your needs. Just got the 6-24x50 10yd min parallax version and i'm impressed. When i get a minute i'll do a review

[hareng]

A scope has to perform the most basic of functions, that is to hold zero.
Unfortunately its not limited to cost at over £3k a pop.

[Muskett]

"The good news is the ''new'' Zeiss Conquest V4 can be purchased in 10yd and 50yd min parallax depending on your needs. Just got the 6-24x50 10yd min parallax version and i'm impressed. When i get a minute i'll do a review"

Only the 4-16x50 has that low parallax feature. The V4 is now 30mm tube which is becoming, if not already, the market standard. Makes it overall a bit bigger than my HD5 4-16X44 1" tubed jobby, which is fine if the rifle can handle that. Sure should grab in the light.
I like the target locking turrets as they aren't big, and give you real flexibility to dial range in. With this option the Z-Plex is my choice as its a great plex being supper fast in the field.

Being picky then all the Zeiss conquests are a little eyebox sensitive over the higher models. But then all the mid range, and yes even at £1k?? it is still a mid range scope, are. Exactly how forgiving any design is is difficult to ascertain without a good play; here unless you have had a top notch scope then you will never really understand. (Gets annoying when lamping with shooters not finding their sight picture!)

Do write it up; nice one.

[HW777]

Back in the real world where air gunners want good clear edge to edge optics that reliably track and hold zero, even if getting knocked about in normal use and at a price that does not drain the pocket dry.

I'll say these brands have performed well for me and have not cost me a fortune.

Bushnell

Nikon

Tasco AG's

[Phil Russell]

I only read through this topic a few minutes ago. One thing I have noticed while reading here is the use of the word 'cheap'. Now to me it has two distinct meanings: firstly that the cost is low, lower than some (arbitrary?) reference point. Secondly that it implies what can be described at 'tat'; unreliable, easily broken, not up to the job equipment. I will suggest that while these two meanings can go together in all walks of life, for scopes they frequently do not. It is thus very possible to get a scope that does not cost a lot of money, say between £80 and £150 which is perfectly adequate for the job and in the majority of situations will perform no less than a scope costing 10x that sum i.e. it will allow the shooter to see the target and shoot at it and do so in a repeatable manner. Of course there are even cheaper scopes and I accept that a scope costing £20 - £30 may only be suitable for plinking and short range hunting but could well struggle in the reliability stakes and competition use.
So ... by definition, I own and use several 'cheap' scopes in as much that they were very affordable but to me they are reliable, suit my purpose and have not failed me.
Cheers, Phil

[Hsing-ee]

This is an excellent thread. Eventually I will try to strain out the meat of the Mulligan as there are some diverse views here.

My own tuppence worth is I have just looked through my collection of three Nikko Stirling Tiara 4x28 7/8" tube scopes from the 60s and 70s and one of them is WAY better in terms of clarity and brightness.

Could it be with the lower end scopes it's not the brand or the model but getting lucky with an individual device?

[old barn]

"The good news is the ''new'' Zeiss Conquest V4 can be purchased in 10yd and 50yd min parallax depending on your needs. Just got the 6-24x50 10yd min parallax version and i'm impressed. When i get a minute i'll do a review"

Only the 4-16x50 has that low parallax feature. The V4 is now 30mm tube which is becoming, if not already, the market standard. Makes it overall a bit bigger than my HD5 4-16X44 1" tubed jobby, which is fine if the rifle can handle that. Sure should grab in the light.
I like the target locking turrets as they aren't big, and give you real flexibility to dial range in. With this option the Z-Plex is my choice as its a great plex being supper fast in the field.

Do write it up; nice one.

All the models below are available in 10yd parallax including the 4-16x44, 4-16x50 and 6-24x50. These are the 'new' models. Hope that helps. (when ordering make sure they check they are sending you the one you want 10yds or 50yds min parallax, i got them to check the parallax wheel it will say 10 or 50)

CONQUEST V4 4-16x44 #60
522935-9960-000

CONQUEST V4 4-16x44 #68 -
522935-9968-000

CONQUEST V4 4-16x44 #60 -
Ballistic Turret
522935-9960-080

CONQUEST V4 4-16x44 #68 -
Ballistic Turret
522935-9968-080

CONQUEST V4 4-16x44 #64 -
Ballistic Turret
522935-9964-080

CONQUEST V4 4-16x44 #68 -
Ballistic Turret with Locking Windage
522935-9968-090

CONQUEST V4 4-16x44 #64 -
Ballistic Turret with Locking Windage
522935-9964-090

CONQUEST V4 4-16x50 #68
Ballistic Turret
522945-9968-080

CONQUEST V4 4-16x50 #64
Ballistic Turret
522945-9964-080

CONQUEST V4 4-16x50 #64
Ballistic Turret with Locking Windage
522945-9964-090

CONQUEST V4 4-16X50 #93
Ballistic Turret
522945-9993-080

CONQUEST V4 6-24x50 #60 -
Ballistic Turret
522955-9960-080

CONQUEST V4 6-24x50 #68 -
Ballistic Turret with Locking Windage
522955-9968-090

CONQUEST V4 6-24x50 #89 -
Ballistic Turret with Locking Windage
522955-9989-090

CONQUEST V4 6-24x50 #65 -
Ballistic Turret with Locking Windage
522955-9965-090

[Muskett]

Thats great. I'm a real fan of this Zeiss line. I really like their Z-Plex in the field. Target Benchrest shooters might want even thinner reticule but then they can faff all day long to take their shot.

I had two HD5's one a 44 the other a 50, both with locking target turrets and the plex. I kept the 44 as it was just a little jem and optically not over stretched having highest mag at x16. Had it on my Annie HMR though I rarely used the target turrets after a while. Most of the time set at x8 though for the long shots there was the option to crank up; though the FOV got a bit tight at that x16. Absolutely rock solid.

[old barn]

Thats great. I'm a real fan of this Zeiss line. I really like their Z-Plex in the field. Target Benchrest shooters might want even thinner reticule but then they can faff all day long to take their shot.

I had two HD5's one a 44 the other a 50, both with locking target turrets and the plex. I kept the 44 as it was just a little jem and optically not over stretched having highest mag at x16. Had it on my Annie HMR though I rarely used the target turrets after a while. Most of the time set at x8 though for the long shots there was the option to crank up; though the FOV got a bit tight at that x16. Absolutely rock solid.

They now do a fine centre crosshair for target shooters. I went with the 65 ret which has a very fine crosshair as i do some BR. Here's a link to pdf file for available reticles. (tells you whether suitable for target shooting etc)

https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/co...amphlet_us.pdf

[Bluefan]

This is an excellent thread. Eventually I will try to strain out the meat of the Mulligan as there are some diverse views here.

My own tuppence worth is I have just looked through my collection of three Nikko Stirling Tiara 4x28 7/8" tube scopes from the 60s and 70s and one of them is WAY better in terms of clarity and brightness.

Could it be with the lower end scopes it's not the brand or the model but getting lucky with an individual device?

My thinking is that you’re correct, ordered two identical scopes one superior to the other same supplier same time suppose one was a Friday afternoon one .

[harvey_s]

This is an excellent thread. Eventually I will try to strain out the meat of the Mulligan as there are some diverse views here.

My own tuppence worth is I have just looked through my collection of three Nikko Stirling Tiara 4x28 7/8" tube scopes from the 60s and 70s and one of them is WAY better in terms of clarity and brightness.

Could it be with the lower end scopes it's not the brand or the model but getting lucky with an individual device?

Or perhaps after 50 or 60 years one has deteriorated less than the others...

[Muskett]

Two possible reasons two identical scopes aren't quite so identical.
First off, manufacturers often changed coatings to meet prices. Often happened with branded scopes.
Second, fixed parallaxed scopes could have been set for air rifle 25m, rimfire 50m, or full bore 100m. Same scope different target market. Use one at the wrong distance and they are yuck. If they can be reparallaxed then from yuck to rather good all in the a turn of the front lens.

One more for luck. Some older scopes lose their nitrogen, and all matter of things start growing inside!!!

[Jesim1]

They now do a fine centre crosshair for target shooters. I went with the 65 ret which has a very fine crosshair as i do some BR. Here's a link to pdf file for available reticles. (tells you whether suitable for target shooting etc)

https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/co...amphlet_us.pdf

Is that you Hants? Have you just joined on here ?

James