Scope comparison

The Raven · Post by **The Raven** » Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:02 pm

I must have missed some of the Nioa TV episodes but if you thought the Ruger vs Tikka was likely to fire up some debate their scope comparison was very surprising.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLX8r_BH0cA

Now I haven't looked through all of the scopes mentioned but I was surprised at their findings. If you can get past the possible biases involved, I think they did a good job of trying to be fair.

Post by **MISSED** » Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:13 pm

Fair and unbiased are two words that should be used to describe that drivel.

kickinback · Post by **kickinback** » Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:15 pm

Is this the comparison where Leopoldo are declared greatest scope ever made?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Raven · Post by **The Raven** » Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:53 pm

Yes, a supposedly unbiased comparison.

I thought it interesting how they attempted to avoid bias yet came up with some pretty conclusive findings.

Personally I think Leupold are over rated, but then I've never done a comparison or owned one. Maybe that makes me biased

BP72 · Post by **BP72** » Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:50 pm

I've owned leupold vxiii over 20 years , bought a vortex viper then sold the loopy . Bought a rifle with another leupold xv3 again sold it for a vortex viper in this case a pst . Haven't regret either sale

The Raven · Post by **The Raven** » Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:20 pm

For whatever faults the 'unbiased' test had it was the first time I had seen any pretence of a side by side comparison.

What surprised me was how well Meotopa was rated. Yes, not first against Leupold but definitely rated much higher than others. Is there a reason for this beyond the testing? I don't know, but I could not find any association between the testers and the brand either...

I did like the testing method though, something we should seriously try at the next Missathon (or similar). I'd suggest any testing occurs before the 'weather' or eyesight deteriorates

Any chance of buying one of those 'test stands', if I remember correctly they were $129 or one stubby....

Camel · Post by **Camel** » Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:55 pm

When it all comes out in the wash, they get the answers they are paid to find.

macca · Post by **macca** » Wed Nov 02, 2016 4:49 am

Do a search for optic thoughts and you will see some very unbiased scope testing. There are some great ones on tactical scopes and hunting scopes in three certain price ranges.
Glass is subjective depending on your own eyes in certain areas of colour and resolution.
I have owned a lot of different makes of the years. All have faults.
I no longer own any leupold scopes. On my rifles are Zeiss Nightforce March. I would buy Sand B again and Swarvo. My eyes are getting older and I don't have time for lesser glass.
I have had other scopes from cheaper manufacturers that were excellent but often couldn't finf a second one of the same quality . Luck of the draw thing.
I don't mind Vortex, Nikon Lieca Doctor etc.
I recommend buying the best glass you can afford that suits your eyes.
Cheers

macca · Post by **macca** » Wed Nov 02, 2016 5:40 am

Well having wasted 15 minutes on a very doubtful test. I have to say it trends against all other side by side tests I have heard or seen or actually done my self.
Still if it gets people to buy a lupy they have done their job as paid (as Camel pointed out)by Nioa.
I have tried to read a number plate with a vx3i at 5 in the afternoon in shadows but couldn't. Could with a Tasco go figure.
Very very subjective.
Cheers

kickinback · Post by **kickinback** » Wed Nov 02, 2016 8:47 am

We bought my son a swaro x5i for his 21st birthday. I made the mistake of looking through it. All my scopes are now shit. The only other one I would consider is a Zeiss with the schott glass.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Sako 22-250 · Post by **Sako 22-250** » Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:25 pm

Going to send my loopy back must be faulty

Very lucky with the Zeiss's I have must have been made on a good day

Ps I do rate the meopta especially the meostars very bright

The Raven · Post by **The Raven** » Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:49 pm

Yep, I figured that video would set the cats amongst the pigeons.

It was an interesting practical 'test' and the results were very different from what I had expected.

To claim it was unbiased was a bit hard to swallow, but I will agree with the comment that the quality of each scope is very subjective. For example, they tested one particular sunset/dusk. How different would that have been in another part of the country or weather conditions?

I did like the test methodology though (side by side). It wasn't very quantitative but that was a good thing as it's very easy to spout lots of technical statistics to baffle us all. In the end it comes down to what the viewer sees. Literally "in the eye of the beholder".

No, I'm not going to rush out and buy Leupold's or Meopta's. My Tasco, Bushnell, Nikons, and Redfield scopes all do the job well and at the right price points.

Did anyone pick up on the comment that most manufacturers are sourcing the lenses from the same few suppliers?

macca · Post by **macca** » Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:17 pm

[quote="The .

Did anyone pick up on the comment that most manufacturers are sourcing the lenses from the same few suppliers?[/quote]
That is factual. But the specifications to which they are made are not the same. Bit like steel etc etc.
As I suggested do a search and view a few more scientific tests. Where flare transmission and other measurable things are tested as well as the subjective things. These are a bit more believable. And no my favourite scopes don't win in these tests

Cheers

bigfellascott · Post by **bigfellascott** » Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:30 pm

I reckon the best way to be unbiased is to cover the scopes in something so they aren't recognisable (newspaper/rag etc) and compare them side by side at all the diff times of day/night with or without light etc etc and also try and keep the mag/obj the same too.

The worst scope I looked through recently was a Zeiss Conquest 4-14x44 I think it was, it was shite at low light, unusable infact (we both came to the same conclusion when looking through it) and I suspect it may have a problem because I can see real well through the 6.5-20x50 at low light etc.

The Raven · Post by **The Raven** » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:17 pm

bigfellascott wrote:I reckon the best way to be unbiased is to cover the scopes in something so they aren't recognisable (newspaper/rag etc) and compare them side by side at all the diff times of day/night with or without light etc etc and also try and keep the mag/obj the same too.

The worst scope I looked through recently was a Zeiss Conquest 4-14x44 I think it was, it was shite at low light, unusable infact (we both came to the same conclusion when looking through it) and I suspect it may have a problem because I can see real well through the 6.5-20x50 at low light etc.

I agree with the brown bag approach, noting it also works for port tastings....

I also think that many 'cheap' scopes are quite decent. Yes, not optically magical like some brands but 90% there for 10% of the price.

By the way, an email arrived today with this bargain

http://www.gunemporium.com.au/Bushnell- ... CF500.html

AusVarmint