Rifle scopes in general

[delta13soultaker]

An M24 is normally delivered under a Leupold...since maybe forever.

I've been putting Leupolds on deer rifles since I was able to afford my first one...I think part of the first real paycheck I ever earned was saved up for a Leupold. Never had a problem with one, so I've been buying them every since for centerfire.

Tranter, ever gotten to mess with a Unertl?

[Doc1911]

S&B is ok - if you desire to go high $$$:

[GMFWoodchuck]

I suspect most any scope under 10 or 12 power will be fine. Under 9 and it's almost impossible to find a bad one vision wise. As far as the higher power ones go it does become a money game. You get what you pay for. The higher the power the exponentially harder it is to make it clear due to optical physics. Glass needs to be smoother, tubes thicker, and etc. That doesn't mean that a 2 dollar tasco that came mounted on the marlin 60 .22LR that I got a few years ago is any good. It just means that if you pay a 150 or more on a variable scope up to the 7X or 9X at a reputable dealer (Bass Pro Shops, Gander Mountain, Midway, whoever) the scope should be okay.

[USMC-03]

Originally Posted by TranterUK

Just as a footnote, I always liked the fixed powers, like a 6x40, not so popular nowdays, so many variables.

I'm in agreement with you here Tranter. I've always prefered fixed power scopes.

Originally Posted by delta13soultaker

An M24 is normally delivered under a Leupold...since maybe forever.

I've been putting Leupolds on deer rifles since I was able to afford my first one...I think part of the first real paycheck I ever earned was saved up for a Leupold. Never had a problem with one, so I've been buying them every since for centerfire.

Tranter, ever gotten to mess with a Unertl?

I'm also a Leupold fan, but I do have one Unertl 12x on my varmint rifle; great scopes and I wish I could afford a few more.

[TranterUK]

Originally Posted by delta13soultaker

Tranter, ever gotten to mess with a Unertl?

No, I havent. Though they have a good reputation.

I have never been a sniper, too much skill and math required, but that Nimrod was the business. I had it for a while atop a PH M82. The combo made it hard to miss at any reasonable distance with clear view!

Delta, I agree about the leupold. I have one on my carbine and its very good indeed.

[delta13soultaker]

Originally Posted by USMC-03

I'm in agreement with you here Tranter. I've always prefered fixed power scopes.


I'm also a Leupold fan, but I do have one Unertl 12x on my varmint rifle; great scopes and I wish I could afford a few more.

Ty, you ol' Marine, I should of known you had one. That's a good one. Could get spoiled shooting with one of them.

Originally Posted by TranterUK

No, I havent. Though they have a good reputation.

I have never been a sniper, too much skill and math required, but that Nimrod was the business. I had it for a while atop a PH M82. The combo made it hard to miss at any reasonable distance with clear view!

Delta, I agree about the leupold. I have one on my carbine and its very good indeed.

It's a good scope. A lot of the new scopes have a bit of cosmetic look put on them, I guess to appeal to the market. A Unertl is normally 100% function. Will it surpass a new top shelf Leupold? Probably not, but you can beat a Leaupold into pieces with a USMC issue Unertl and the Unertl might not even lose its dope

Did you take that Nimrod off a galatz? For some reason the American fixed mil optics lean more to 10x, or did.

What the heck were you doing with an M82...practicing at taking pot shots at LPAR Pechora?

[USMC-03]

Originally Posted by delta13soultaker

Ty, you ol' Marine, I should of known you had one. That's a good one. Could get spoiled shooting with one of them.

Unfortunately it doesn't have the micrometer zero adjustments so it's use is pretty much limited to varmint hunting. But it's got great clear optics...

[delta13soultaker]

Yeah I noticed there's no turret on top.

[TranterUK]

Originally Posted by delta13soultaker

Did you take that Nimrod off a galatz? For some reason the American fixed mil optics lean more to 10x, or did.

What the heck were you doing with an M82...practicing at taking pot shots at LPAR Pechora?

What was I doing with an M82? Hitting the mark is what (Not Ruski kit). Perfect for distance, though the heavy barrel was heavy, big surprise, and it maxed only 5 rds, no magazine like the later PH 85.

The galatz? No, though I did try (on ranges) the 7.62 Galil (easy to spot, square mag rather than curved for 5.56mm) and found it an excellent rifle. The one I tried was a full length assault rifle. I wonder if they made the SAR in 7.62? If they did that would be quite a weapon.

[delta13soultaker]

I just wondered because that Nimrod is like their Leupold.

There is a 7.62 NATO SAR, but it's a good bit bigger than the 5.56mm. I don't think they have the same handling. I also thought the IDF had some qualms with them, the little SAR; not the design, but that lacked the reach of the old AR, and even M16, which could stand off an AK enough to matter. I think IDF likes the M4/M16 more than we do...lol The South Africans like the SAR though.

I saw some MARs shooting at night...talk about flash...they look like torches. That is a neat little weapon. I'd like to see a 9mm or .45 ACP version.

[TranterUK]

Originally Posted by delta13soultaker

There is a 7.62 NATO SAR, but it's a good bit bigger than the 5.56mm. I don't think they have the same handling. I also thought the IDF had some qualms with them, the little SAR; not the design, but that lacked the reach of the old AR, and even M16, which could stand off an AK enough to matter. I think IDF likes the M4/M16 more than we do...lol The South Africans like the SAR though.

Some interesting points delta. I cant really comment on the 7.62 vs 5.56 Galil. While I have fired the 5.56 a great deal, the 7,62 was just a little range time. Distance wise, I wouldn't trust the SAR as far as I would the Car15. Whats better between the Galil and the Car15/M16? Better people than I have asked that one. My view, the Galil is better because less to go wrong, break or loose, also a folding stock you can put through a door. Which would I choose? Close call, but the Car15 had one advantage, weight. That tinny toy was sure easy on my delicate, weedy arms.

The South African SAR? Your thinking R4, actually a Galil with a longer stock. I kinda liked the R1, a 7.62 SLR. I spent some time with SAs. A larnie, which was lacker if dangerous (SA talk).

[TranterUK]

SADF incident: Officer 'Are you standing on your head?' Soldier: 'Sorry Sir' Officer: 'are you standing on your head', 'No Sir' 'Then your belt is upside down'.

Two guys in an argument, found with one on the floor, one standing above him trying to fire his 9mm at him, with the guy on the floor holding the slide out of battery.

Officer friend in charge of security of building, all the soldiers on patrol had empty mags, the officer had a doz loaded mags in a box under his desk! They diddnt trust them....

Some of those SAs were crazy...

[delta13soultaker]

The weight...yeah, no doubt. Durability? Israelis, IDF, will tell you they've broken some Galils, for what it's worth.

Aside from weight, my big knock is on the Galil magazine well. To just explain what I mean...An M4 you just seat the mag straight in; to remove, you raise your trigger finger to the release, press, and the mag falls out...easy. I don't like how a Galil, you have to tilt it in like an AK, then find that release with your thumb and physically pull out the mag. Reloading the damn thing is an adventure. (I think if I used a Galil, I'd get the M16 adapter and use our magazines, just for that reason.) I won't knock the handguard on the Galil though...you can pop the top off a beer bottle with it.

Yes...the "R" rifles. They can call it what they want....they own the license I think. But it's a Galil Whoever else too. There's probably more in South America than all of Africa right now, under different names, even including imported "R" types.

Galil ain't a bad rifle. I know I praise the M4 highly, and usually point out the IDF barely uses Galils, but I'll give the Galil its due. When I worked with Estonians, they were happy with theirs. We procured rails for theirs so they could mount our optics.

[kansas45]

I find the WOTAC scopes to be very good. Check them out here www.sightwonders.com I use the 4-14x50 on my Tikka .308 for 600 yd competition. It's the Generation 3. I am waiting to buy a Gen 4 when they are in stock again.

[TranterUK]

What, in the opinion of the group, is a good all round scope? Lets consider most here may wasnt to use the rifle for self defence, but most of the use will be range side. There is going to have to be some compromise.

1.5-4 x 24? 6x40? And what about the reticle? For defence, I have to go German post, but its no good for accurate long range shots, or is it?

I have taken a shine to the Leopold varmint, (I think its called). I look forward to checking it out at a local store when they get one in.

[VegasTech702]

Originally Posted by new308handloader

NightForce NXS 5.5 x 22 x 50mm
Great scope.....but they are proud of them and the price shows it.

I want...

Seriously its going to take a while before I could save enough to possibly get one. In the meantime I will probably buy something like a Nikon or Leupold in the meantime for somewhere about $300.

[USMC-03]

Originally Posted by TranterUK

What, in the opinion of the group, is a good all round scope? Lets consider most here may wasnt to use the rifle for self defence, but most of the use will be range side. There is going to have to be some compromise.

1.5-4 x 24? 6x40? And what about the reticle? For defence, I have to go German post, but its no good for accurate long range shots, or is it?

I have taken a shine to the Leopold varmint, (I think its called). I look forward to checking it out at a local store when they get one in.

Tranter, I generally prefer fixed power and 4x, for the most part, is the best all around magnification. I have a 6x Leupold target with mil-dot reticle that I use for medium to long range work and really like it. For real long range shooting, other than varmint hunting, 8x to 12x is optimal. I also like either fine crosshairs with target dot in the center or mil-dot. I've never been a fan of post reticles since they obstruct the target so much.

[300 H&H]

One of the reasons Unertl scopes are bright and clear (if maintained, and they are very rebuildable.) is that they are externally adjusted. This means they do not have a smaller tube set inside the main tube, as is done on a constantly centered retical scope. The Unertl is constant centered because of it's external adjustments. It has three less lenses in the errector tube (and they are of smaller size to fit the tube) and all of the lenses are full size. Kahles and Nickle and some other european manufactures held out for some years, insisting the internally adjusted scopes they were selling were superior to constant centered designs because they could use less lens elements, and all the len's are full tube diameter. They were right about their design being superior in light transmission, as intuativly you can see this would be true. But, eventually they all jumped on the constant center reticule band wagon, as they are easier to mount on a rifle that is drilled and tapped inaccurately, as the mount would not have to be adjustable to get a rough zero, and fine tune with the scope adjustments, to keep the retical centered.....

I like scopes to be of the period of the rifle they are mounted on. Old high quality scopes give up little to there modern counter parts. Plus many of them are assembled in such a whay they can be serviced at some future time. Many, most scopes sold today are not servicable, as no one will work on them. Todays scopes use many parts that are plastic and are glued together, and cann't be disassembled. Of course the more expencive scopes of today are not built this way, and are very good. How much better the glass and the coatings on it are still to be debated today, in my opinion. Has anyone noticed "relative brightness" is a term no longer used to rate new scopes. I wonder why they would dicontinue this important charicteristic when rating new glass?

Great glass will always be great glass. A scope can be purchased with a lifetime of use in mind. They have been building them for decades!!

Regards, Kirk

[delta13soultaker]

Originally Posted by TranterUK

What, in the opinion of the group, is a good all round scope? Lets consider most here may wasnt to use the rifle for self defence, but most of the use will be range side. There is going to have to be some compromise.

1.5-4 x 24? 6x40? And what about the reticle? For defence, I have to go German post, but its no good for accurate long range shots, or is it?

I have taken a shine to the Leopold varmint, (I think its called). I look forward to checking it out at a local store when they get one in.

I hesitate to answer. My inclination is to choose a specific optic for a task.

Self-defense, my preference is zero power/parallax free dot optics. My ingrained insurance habit is to set point of impact at a zero for very close range; rely on the BUS for longer range. (You can't blame the optic if you have a traditional zero, forget to hold high at a close threat amongst a neutral party, and tag someone's favorite aunt.) This practice is not relevant to most people and not accepted by many either.

Hunting I like a relatively low power cross-hair scope. I buy the variable power, but habitually set it for a wide field of view.

A good 4x scope with a vertical scale makes sense for intermediate ranges, but a highly proficient marksman with iron sights and a flat shooting rifle will have a higher count of first round hits than a moderately proficient marksman with a 4x scope with a vertical scale. A highly proficient marksman with a 4x scope with a vertical scale will just be a slightly faster highly proficient marksman, and with a bit less effort.

For very long range fire against men, I can't imagine a better optic than 10x with a mil dot. Just my person opinion, but I'd never intentionally give up the ability to do milliradian conversions inside my scope when the target is 1,000 meters away, both trajectory and range estimation, without needing to emit any laser radiation. I know of no other optic that will allow a faster correction for a kill, without relying on batteries and/or without becoming more visible on the left hand or right hand sides of visible light on the electromagnetic spectrum.

[LDBennett]

Here's some optical facts that apply to scopes.

Brightness:

The diameter of the front objective lens determines the apparent brightness of the view. The diameter of the tube rarely constrict the view of the target as the optical designs always give a tube big enough to assure it does not vignette the scene being observed. The human eye can open its diaphragm to between 5 to 7 mm. Any apparent view through a scope or binoculars that results in an effective view as projected on the human eye that is larger than that is wasted. The human eye will only open up to those sizes in extremely dim light (or when on drugs!). So large diameter objective scopes are only meaningful in dim light situation like when hunting at dusk or dawn. Most states outlaw such hunting but apparently such hunting is common in Europe. That's why the European scopes go for large objectives.

The rule of thumb of the size of the projected view in mm's is the diameter of the objective divided by the power of the lens system. Take a 40 mm objective 4 power scope and the diameter of the projected view is 10 mm, which is way larger than the eye can accommodate and the diameter of the objective is wasted.

Coatings on lenses:

Coating on lenses were introduced to optical systems during WWII and got onto camera lenses in the 1950's and on scopes sometime later. Coatings minimize internal reflections off the lens surfaces and it takes multiple coating to cover the entire color spectrum of light. But even a single layer coating increases the apparent contrast of the viewed image. "Vintage" scopes are rarely coated and modern scopes with coated lens often create a more contrasty image than most any Vintage scope.

Scope fogging:

It was found in the middle of the 20th century that if dry nitrogen were introduced under pressure to the scope (eliminating the moisture ladened air), that had been sealed to be able to hold the nitrogen forever with rubber seals, that the scopes would not fog when taken from a warm environment (like the hunting cabin) to the cold outside world. "Vintage" scopes are rarely if ever dry nitrogen pressurized as that was a process uisually not done until after the 1950's. So modern scope generally don't fog.

Optical glass and lens system formulas:

When optical designers started using computers to design optical glass and lens system formulas (the position and curvature of the many elements in the lens system) lens systems became markedly better in optical performance. Lens system designed before computers were simple while modern optical lens systems are more complex and can make sharper images.

Self centering reticule:

When the reticule is placed in the first focal plane of the lens system, changes in the elevation and windage adjustments decenter the reticule. That does not happen when the reticule is placed in the second focal plane after the erector tube. European scopes often place the reticule in the first focal plane (who knows why???) and all modern American designed scopes always place it in the second focal plane. When the scope has adjustable power and the reticule grows in apparent size that means the reticule is in the first focal plane whereas it will not grow in apparent size if placed in the second focal plane.

Windage and elevation adjustment:

When internal adjustment were added to scopes in the period after WWII, the mechanism were not all that good. It was common for test reviews to "shoot the square" to assure the scope always returned to the same point of aim after extensive manipulations of the adjustment. Tester today don't bother as those adjustment designs are so good today that all scope would pass that test every time, no problem.

Even inexpensive scopes have benefited from all these advances as they are mainstream now and common. An inexpensive modern scope MAY make an image that is better than some of the most expensive (in their day) vintage scopes.

The point is:

Modern scopes are better than almost any "Vintage" scope in almost all respects, even the moderately priced ones. The truly cheap ones can be junk and should be avoided. Stay with the moderately and more expensive priced scopes and chances are you will not be disappointed. '"Vintage" scopes are highly overrated in my opinion.

LDBennett

[300 H&H]

LD,

With all do respect, what do you define vintage as? To me we are talking post war coated optics late 50's, but mostly 60's and 70's era. I have looked through all the modern top end scopes, unfortunaly in stores they are sold in, and I am unimpressed. I am constantly aware however of the fact that every manufacutrer of any product is constanly reviewing to see if it can be made cheaper, as price determines what sells and what doesn't, now much more so than ever before. As good as you say the new stuff is, I, from my experiance am constantly amazed at how good SOME of the older scopes were, even in comparison with the new scopes.

I know some bench rest shooters who would disagree with you about the mechanics inside a very resected firms scopes. They are modifing them by super gluing or using a screw in the adjustments to forever fix them in one spot. Then they are using Unertl scope rings with external adjustment to zero. Why? because they will NOT hold zero with the adjustment loose....

Quality is what we all want. Are we really getting it today?

Regards, Kirk

[LDBennett]

300 H&H:

Admittedly the cheapy scopes are junk and I excluded them from my choices. I normally buy Leopold, Burris, Weaver, and Bushnell (no lower than Trophy series). I can't afford the European scopes! In fact, I don't think I can afford Leopold or Burris for that matter, anymore! My scopes have all been purchased over the last 25 years.

But I have looked through vintage scope before and the lack of coatings seriously limits their use to me. Our range looks right into the sun in the morning when there is no wind (we get afternoon breezes starting about 11:00 AM so morning shooting is the rule if you care about accuracy). I swear I can tell whether a scope has coated elements or not by a view through it. The contrast is superior in coated optics. Coated optics are not post WWII for scopes, I think. Coated elements in scopes didn't occur until about 30 years ago if that early (??). At least that's my recollection.

I have no idea why a BR shooter would need to glue the adjustments. It may be just the same as the other outrageous things they practice that allows them to shoot in the"teens". I and most everyone I know doesn't shoot in the teens or have the ability or even the need to. So why should we be worried about an accuracy degradation at those levels. Most good modern scope adjustments work just fine for normal shooting including impromptu target shooting at the local range. Such systems in the "Vintage days" may not have. Of course Bench rest equipment in the day was superior to the scopes found in those days on most rifles as used by the "unwashed masses".

While I appreciate your love of vintage scopes used by the bench rest shooter of the day, I find the pursuit of such scopes or the ones found on the guns of the masses from those days futile and not rewarding. Modern scopes work just fine for most gun pursuits and are not inferior in any way except perhaps for the extreme benchrest crowd. But we all get to choose, don't we. And both you and I have made our choices. Neither of us has made the wrong choice!

Here's to good shooting!

LDBennett

[300 H&H]

LD,

It is nice to have a guy like you around. You understand technical things in a way that few do. Lens systems are one of the things you probably know more about than I do. My test is simply my eyes. Until I was in my early 40's I was blessed with 20/10 vision, and I have always thought my eyesight was as good as anyones. I have found out over the course of time that my eyes have expencive taste!! Yes through the miricle of technology there has been some improvement. But remember where we have been in years past... Example, the camera's on the SR-71 spy plane. What decade do you suppose they were made in? I am sure we have some thing better than that now, perhaps space based? Any way do you see my point? Top end optics of the day were quite good. Without lab testing my eyes tell me so.

May be I am getting worse eyesight as I age. But nodays when ever I look through a 70's Weaver K series scope, one that has been refurbished like a K-1 6X that I have had for years (we used to think of these as cheap scopes) and I come away thinking they really were pretty good scopes. Even when I compare them to the newest of todays. They bring twice or more of what they cost new nowadays, maybe that says something...

LD, I sure wish I could spend an afternoon with you at the range. I am quite sure we would have a great time, and that I would learn a thing or two!! And in a shop with machine tools, who knows what we might come up with.....

Good shooting to you, Kirk

[riflelink]

Nikon rifle scopes are the best. I always use them and will too.

[TranterUK]

Originally Posted by riflelink

Nikon rifle scopes are the best. I always use them and will too.

Ok, interesting. I have always thought of Nikon for air, light cals and rim fire. How do they hold up with full bore, for example 7.62 x 51s/ 7.92s etc?