How do you know a scope is good?

[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.

[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

[Muskett]

All good points above.

One reason Sidwinders are good is because they were designed from scratch and the machinery was all new to make them. All the new toys and advances in one scope. Priced very keenly too. To get all the features make them a bit big. They shpuld be repeatable for a good while, ie all the parts keep working and doing what expected.
When a manufacturer brings new technology, new machinery, and new models often the products are pretty good. Though its needs to be new design rather than some dusted off old one.

A good few branded scopes are older designs from older machinery with a few bits remodelled just to look a tad different.
Choice of coatings also adds to the mix, cost, and light performance.

Yep, its a minefield, which is why few recommend a scope. Just too many variables.

[Hsing-ee]

Ok I see ... is there a custom place that makes an interchangeable fore sight for a BSA Scorpion PCP? I’ve already got a Walter match diopter.

[Rockhamster]

I've been using a dirt cheap, Chinese manufactured scope for the last four years or so. I brought it as a 'stop gap' whilst I saved up for something decent, like I said four years!

The point is it holds its zero and whilst the glass is obviously allegedly not the 'best' in the world, it does it's job and is perfectly adequate for MY needs and requirements.

Fact that is doesn't carry a sexy, expensive known name may bother some but I'm not fussed. Need to remember that a lot of scopes are manufactured or, at least, contain Chinese components.

Make your own conclusions. ��

[Shed tuner]

Plinking 20-30 yards, a 4x32 or 6x40 costing no more than £70 is plenty for me.
Hunting out to 40, lower light leves etc, a 3-9 for up to about £150
HFT - bushnell 10x40 about £150 imported a while back (around £300 new UK)
BR I can see going up to £300 (e.g. Super Sniper 20x)
If you do a lot of lamping, then the 7x50 meopta is a great scope, but still less than £300 (it might be more now, I had mine years ago)
FT of course is a whole different party.

For most airgun usage out to 45 yards, I can't see much point in spending more than £150.. For niche situations, yeah, £300
I have a bunch of cheap scopes that work OK - Hawke Panorama EVs seem good value for example (under a £ton new). NS Gameking 3-9x40 was £30 brand new in a clearance (sportsman's I think) a couple of years ago, and is just fine for the money.. not the crispest, of brightest, buit for £30 !? But the panoroma is a whole lot better. Even a £20 SMK 4x28 is actually not bad clarity for garden ranges - it's way better than the nasty milk bottle stuff of old. I really don't like the mountmaster range though - clear enough but lots of them seem to break on springers (erector tubes and rets).

Works OK for me means it holds zero and I can clearly see my target and ret. On the cheap scopes I've noticed plenty where the box test will show some lateral movement when doing vertical adjustments, and vice versa, but as long as it's not too extreme, and it goes back to the zero at the end of the test, I'm fine with that. They won't have great light transmission, and the image may be slightly unclear towards the periphery, but it's nice and clear in the middle 75%.

Cheaper scopes these days are just so much better. I remember the old hawke pro-stalk - terrible clarity. Same with most of the tasco varmint 6-24x - but the 2.5-10s were much better (all on the same mag). The little cheap hawke reflex 3.5-10x44 was clearer than all of them by a mile. It was a complete lottery.

Just some ramblings from my own experiences.

[angrybear]

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.

Ah right, so you don't actually want "a good scope" you want cheap, but without being complete tat, that's good out to 50yds.

It's not snobbery, it's talking about completely different parameters


Ooo, nasty snark, get back in the cage now.

[Hsing-ee]

Ah right, so you don't actually want "a good scope" you want cheap, but without being complete tat, that's good out to 50yds.

It's not snobbery, it's talking about completely different parameters


Ooo, nasty snark, get back in the cage now.

He he ... I like quality ‘fings’ as much as the next chap .. I suppose it’s where does the point of diminishing returns occur in terms of performance? A £1000 scope isn’t going to be 10x better than a £100 scope but a £10 scope is not as good as iron sights. I think I’ll just shut up now.

[angrybear]

He he ... I like quality ‘fings’ as much as the next chap .. I suppose it’s where does the point of diminishing returns occur in terms of performance? A £1000 scope isn’t going to be 10x better than a £100 scope but a £10 scope is not as good as iron sights. I think I’ll just shut up now.

No need to shut up, because you're looking at it from a different situation/view point than I am, the point being that the requirement needs to be clear.

& while you're correct a £1000 scope will not be 10x better than a £100 scope,
a £300 scope probably will be 3x better