What the difernce between a $2000 and a $200 scope?

[MightyBob]

I know optics... as in the theory of. In fact my Ph.D. is in lasers and optics.
I get why coatings, and corrections for parallax, and the various aberrations are important. It also makes scene to me that for a scope, as with a laser, that the mounting and adjustment system is RELAY important and must be resistant to shock to boot. What I have no practical experience with is rifle and hand gun scopes.
So what I am asking is how much of the price of a Leopold, Night Force, or Zeiss etc. is the brand, and how much is the goods? Furthermore, if there is a material deference where do the low cost scope tend to fall short?
mb

[fcr]

$1800.00

[Baja_Traveler]

Just my observation, but the big difference is higher quality of components (heavier tubing, higher quality glass, more accurate moa clicks etc...) and then there are the coatings to improve image brightness and high quality/more precise seals to keep all that argon where it is supposed to be.

Now I'm not convinced that a Nightforce is worth $1000+ more than my Vortex Viper scope (for my intended use) - but then again I'm not depending on it for true combat. I'm positive that if the special forces thought a Bushnell was as good as a Nightforce you'd see them also used in the sand box, but you don't - and it's for a reason.

[Chk Chk Boom]

$1800.00

Beat me to it!

But anyway, yeah I'd have to say just the quality of the scope components as well as the clarity. If you're not going to abuse the scope (eg what could POTENTIALLY happen in the military) and the scope has decent clarity (so you don't have to strain your eyes to look into it), there isn't a reason to fork out the extra money. But if you want the utmost reliability as well as clear glass (no headaches ) then you fork out the extra money.

Ph. D huh? What do you do for a living if you don't mind me asking?

[Pthfndr]

Most of what you pay for in high end scopes is the quality of the components, the quality of the machine work, and the quality of assembly.

Sure, you might buy a low end scope where all the stars aligned when the pieces were picked, machined, and put together so that it is reliable, rugged, and tracks true ALL the time. But the odds are against it.

One thing about scopes, even if you are just a plinker who only shoots in broad daylight at 100 yards on a black & white bullseye target, if the scope doesn't stay together and hold zero, then it isn't worth much is it? How do you know if your crappy groups are you, the rifle, or the ammo if the scope is not reliable.

[MightyBob]

Yha yha $1800... good though.

It sounds like the consensus is along the lines of:
1) High-quality components and over-engendering with the payoff being that you can abuse them and then still use em.
2) To a lesser extent features

Thanks for the insight.
mb

As for me, I mostly blow stuff up with lasers.

[fcr]

Also it is "difference".... just sayin....

[DiscoBayJoe]

I bought a $100 knockoff of a fancy scope. It can't quite zero out, it came with a fake ARMS quick mount that rattles off after about 15 rounds. Junk!

I bought a $50 scope at walmart. It's not nearly as clear as a friends high dollar scope, but its usable on my 10/22.

I really think you get what you pay for; however, unless you are a sniper, i'd think that most of the time the person, not the hardware, would be the weak link once you are looking at a $250+ optic.

[Rob454]

I personally dont go past a 200 $ scope. i dont do distance precision shooting. 99% of my shooting is done 400 yards or less ( basically I can do that with iron sights) if you are into long distance accuracy shooting/sniper stuff then yeah you need a high end top shelf scope. I dont like cheap cheap scopes cause they usually arent that good although my stock simmons scope that came on my Savage rifle is fine for normal shooting I replaced it. A
I personally dont feel like a scope is needed unless youre going past 300 yards or so ( for most shooters)

[MightyBob]

Also it is "difference".... just sayin....

Calculus: YEP
Quantum mechanics: Check
Laser-plasma interactions: Oh yah baby!
Spelling: ... Not so much.
"A man has got to know his limitations" D.H.

[fcr]

Just messin wit ya. I thank the interweb genius peoples for spell check.

[Justintoxicated]

I personally dont go past a 200 $ scope. i dont do distance precision shooting. 99% of my shooting is done 400 yards or less ( basically I can do that with iron sights) if you are into long distance accuracy shooting/sniper stuff then yeah you need a high end top shelf scope. I dont like cheap cheap scopes cause they usually arent that good although my stock simmons scope that came on my Savage rifle is fine for normal shooting I replaced it. A
I personally dont feel like a scope is needed unless youre going past 300 yards or so ( for most shooters)

Dang thats crazy, past 100 yards my FSP sometimes covers the entire target I am shooting at... Even with an eotech the center dot becomes much larger than the bullseye.

[bruce_ventura]

Dang thats crazy, past 100 yards my FSP sometimes covers the entire target I am shooting at... Even with an eotech the center dot becomes much larger than the bullseye.

The sights are not your problem. High power competitors use service rifle iron sights out to 600 yds.

Getting back to the OP's question, when the $2,000 price is justified (not always), the benefits are usually lower glare, higher contrast, better correction of aberrations (higher resolution off-axis), better resistance to shock, better quality control and better warrantee. There are often better features as well, such as nicer tactile feel to the turrets, accurate windage, elevation and parallax adjustments, more elevation adjustment, etc.

Don't expect any dramatic difference in on-axis resolution. The "better glass" thing is a misnomer. It's usually not the glass that makes the difference, it's the surface figure imparted on the lens surfaces during the final polishing process. The better the surface figure, the better the Strehl ratio and contrast (not necessarily resolution). "Good glass" really means the manufacturer spec'd a higher surface figure for the $2,000 scope than that used for the $200 scope. When people say one scope looks "clearer" than another, I believe they are usually reacting to the experience of higher contrast, not higher resolution. In my experience of inspecting and characterizing optical sights, I find it very difficult to judge optical resolution visually. Not so with contrast, and definitely not so with glare. Since the human vision system trades off contrast for resolution, the two are often confused.

Also, shock is not the same as recoil. Shock is the high frequency oscillating acceleration that the scope experiences when the gun is fired. Recoil is the rearward motion of the rifle and the impulse felt by the shooter as the rifle slows down. Shock damages scopes far more than recoil (unless the scope rings are loose). High power rifles (I've measured several from .223 Rem up to .50 BMG) seem to have a similar peak longitudinal acceleration of about 5,000-10,000 Gs when measured at the scope body. The duration of the shock, however, varies a lot (>10X) from one caliber to another. That is why .50 BMG rifles tend to wear out scopes faster than lesser calibers (even though fewer shots are needed to do so, and the recoil is not really that bad).

However, paying $2,000 is no guarantee of high quality. You don't always get what you pay for, so buyer beware...

[LibertyOptics]

Bruce,

Neat stuff. I think we have an opportunity to build some definitions that will help us all speak a common language here.

How about you define, as it relates to optical systems:

Glare
Flare?
Contrast
Resolution
Twilight factor
Relative brightness
"Warm" vs "Cold" color rendition
Chromatic aberration
Depth of field
Field of view
Eye relief (and how it relates to FOV)
Curvature of field
Spherical abberation
Barrel distortion
Pincushion distortion

any others?

Perhaps a comment or two on the importance (or perceived importance) of these features in a riflescope (or binos or spotter) and an example of how these are seen or perceived by the viewer at different levels would be a good idea.

Perhaps this would be another thread. But I feel if Calgunners can all get on the same page on what's important in sporting optics and definitions we all can relate to to demystify this stuff it will be of great educational benefit.

I agree about the surface polishing effects on the optical performance, but I'm still a believer in raw materials and coating too in making a difference. After 6 years I'm convinced there is something "extra nice" about German optics!

Scott

[five.five-six]

What the difernce between a $2000 and a $200 scope?

$1,800