Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Gear & Accessories > Optics & Mounts > Expensive optics?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-24-2012, 05:49 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: nowhere,that other state
Posts: 944
Liked 319 Times on 197 Posts
Likes Given: 399

Default

Because most optics aren't made to withstand the use and abuse a rifle scope is made to take. There is a lot of design and testing done on scopes. Think about it a mid grade Leupold VX-3 has to withstand everything from a 22lr to a 416 rigby or 50bmg. In guns ranging in weight from 5 to 35#.

__________________
gunnut07 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 06:10 PM   #12
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Vincine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Adirondack Mts.
Posts: 3,112
Liked 1446 Times on 747 Posts
Likes Given: 1208

Default

Full multi-coatings on all glass surfaces cost more than partial. Small lenses are more difficult to assemble and glue together dust free & centered than larger glass. Complexity and durability are usually design opposites and don’t get along. The clicks on turret adjustments need to be both small & durable, so you may have tiny machined pieces instead of cheaper stamped gears. Cutting tiny threads precisely to tight tolerances takes time. That or you can go with a high rejection ratio. All of the small springs/tension pieces, screws, etc., above takes more time to assemble than simpler designs.

I used to be a press photographer. Nikon & Canon lens specs were 1/2 a wavelength and the glass was held in the lens mount with three screws. Leica lens specs were 1/8 a wavelength and had eight screws holding the glass in place. You could see the difference between Leica and Nikon slides, although it wouldn’t survive the reproduction process. As strong as the Leicas ($$$$) were, the Nikons & Canons ($$) were strong enough for press work.

If you're only shooting bench rest on bright days you can get by with less involved or robust designs. If you’re hunting, or in a war zone getting shot at, maybe you need something that can give you a usable image at dusk, stand rough treatment, and still maintain repeatable clicks. Thus the expense.

__________________
"Sometimes I pretend to be normal, but it's boring and I go back to being me."
"You might as well be yourself, people won’t like you anyway."

Last edited by Vincine; 11-28-2012 at 07:11 PM.
Vincine is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 07:02 PM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Jpyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sewell,NJ
Posts: 4,815
Liked 761 Times on 441 Posts
Likes Given: 456

Default

You guys are overlooking one major aspect...size and weight, ok 2 aspects. A microscope and a telescope are not intended to be carried around so they can be heavy and bulky. A rifle optic has to accomplish precision in a small, relatively lightweight package. The precision gears and optics required to achieve maximum magnification with no optical distortion in a relatively short focal length costs money. You can buy inexpensive scopes but will suffer from blurring, erratic adjustments, decreasing brightness and chromatic shifting around the edges. Same reasons that Saturn appears as a dim blob of light on a Walmart telescope but you can count the rings on an "astronomers" scope of the same size.

__________________

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

Jpyle is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 09:24 PM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
maddoccanis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 44
Liked 11 Times on 8 Posts
Likes Given: 11

Default

Thanks for all your responses. I don't hunt, so I am admittedly ignorant. I just wondered about the huge discrepancy between low end and high end optics. I have looked at low end items and do not see them as particularly bad. Today I received a catalog from Orion telescopes and you can buy a telescope that would have been a university quality research scope for $2200. I have seen rifle scopes for this price. I see that ruggedness has to be engineered in, but that shouldn't be expensive. Multiple lenses would add to the cost, but to minimize distortions the minimum number of elements should be used. Light gathering is mostly a function of the diameter of the aperture. I'm not saying anyone is wrong for buying what they want, I just think there are really good optics out there cheap. I have bought a lot of photo optics that are great.....doc

__________________
maddoccanis is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 11:59 PM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
jjfuller1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: oakfield,ny
Posts: 4,178
Liked 972 Times on 645 Posts
Likes Given: 535

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddoccanis
Thanks for all your responses. I don't hunt, so I am admittedly ignorant. I just wondered about the huge discrepancy between low end and high end optics. I have looked at low end items and do not see them as particularly bad. Today I received a catalog from Orion telescopes and you can buy a telescope that would have been a university quality research scope for $2200. I have seen rifle scopes for this price. I see that ruggedness has to be engineered in, but that shouldn't be expensive. Multiple lenses would add to the cost, but to minimize distortions the minimum number of elements should be used. Light gathering is mostly a function of the diameter of the aperture. I'm not saying anyone is wrong for buying what they want, I just think there are really good optics out there cheap. I have bought a lot of photo optics that are great.....doc
You didn't say what prices you were talking about still. I find the $160 nikons to be amazing. But if I had a .50 it would wear the $2000 swarvoski.
__________________
I have been a silent witness
to all of America's finest hours.
But my finest hour comes
when I am torn into strips and used as bandages
for my wounded comrades on the battlefield,
When I fly at half-mast to honor my soldiers,
Or when I lie in the trembling arms
of a grieving mother
at the graveside of her fallen son.
jjfuller1 is online now  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 01:11 AM   #16
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JonM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 16,219
Liked 4462 Times on 2355 Posts
Likes Given: 255

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddoccanis View Post
Thanks for all your responses. I don't hunt, so I am admittedly ignorant. I just wondered about the huge discrepancy between low end and high end optics. I have looked at low end items and do not see them as particularly bad. Today I received a catalog from Orion telescopes and you can buy a telescope that would have been a university quality research scope for $2200. I have seen rifle scopes for this price. I see that ruggedness has to be engineered in, but that shouldn't be expensive. Multiple lenses would add to the cost, but to minimize distortions the minimum number of elements should be used. Light gathering is mostly a function of the diameter of the aperture. I'm not saying anyone is wrong for buying what they want, I just think there are really good optics out there cheap. I have bought a lot of photo optics that are great.....doc
good internals arent cheap because they cant be cast or stamped when the parts are that small. they have to be machine cut from stock. a low end scope will self destruct under medium to heavy usage. retaining zero under vibration is a difficult thing to do. a el cheapo scope just doesnt cut it when the erectors holding the crosshairs are made of cheap aluminum.

different kinds of guns beat on scopes harder than others. the recoil impulse of a m1a will beat the snot out of a scope harder than a 338winmag. ive seen plenty of redfields and leupolds with snapped broken or delaminated lenses. they are cheap for a reason. while mostdo just fine there are enough instances to be careful what your using em for.

ive currently got a vortex 4-12x on my scar17 for my deer hunt trip to tejas next week. if it breaks no biggee ive got iron sights as a backup. my wife with her stolen from me savage 10fcp-sr and nightforce 4.5-15x f1 nxs. if you put those two scopes side by side the difference is immediate and no doubt apparent. turn the adjustment knobs on both look at the edge clarity of the glass and the click adjustments are solid.

will the vortex on my rifle get deer?? yup all day long and it does ok at range. but its a LOT easier with the nightforce in the dusk and morning hours its readily evident as well what the price difference covers.

price doesnt mean its good because its expensive or bad because its cheaper in cost. for most shooting needs scopes in the 150-300$ do just fine. when you get into precision shooting or prepping for the end of the world you might want something more precise and rugged.

precision like ruggedness cost $$. its true of astronomy telescopes or biological microscopes just as it is of rifle scopes. you can see cells just fine with a microscope from the toy isle of walmart but if you want to do side by side stereoscopic comparison of cells or disect cells you need something a bit more precise.
__________________

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things...

JonM is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 02:23 AM   #17
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Vincine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Adirondack Mts.
Posts: 3,112
Liked 1446 Times on 747 Posts
Likes Given: 1208

Default

@ the OP:

Microscopes, telescopes, camera lenses & rifle scopes are probably very similar, except for one thing. Rifle scopes are routinely and regularly subjected to serious shock, thousands of times. It's a degree of durability the others don't have to be engineered to meet. That said, I do believe you start to get diminishing returns after a few hundred dollars. As I'm sure you know, to go from perfectly adequate to perfect, more than doubles the cost, without a commensurate bang for the buck. Those last several points to 100% are very expensive.

__________________
"Sometimes I pretend to be normal, but it's boring and I go back to being me."
"You might as well be yourself, people won’t like you anyway."
Vincine is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 11:12 AM   #18
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
c3shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Third bunker on the right,Central Virginia
Posts: 15,738
Liked 7555 Times on 3289 Posts
Likes Given: 1120

Default

Would add that the quality of the glass is only one component of the quality of a scope. Usually multiple lenses- and the product used to attach one lens to another affects transmission of light. Coating on lenses is another.

I have a CHEAP 60 power Chinese spotter scope. I needs full sun on the target, or looks like you are peering thru morning fog. Have a 24X varmint scope, cost a LOT more, much smaller, much more rugged- and brighter than a new penny.

Would love to be able to put my Cassegrain scope on a rifle. It would last for one shot.

__________________

What we have heah is.... failure to communicate.

c3shooter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 12:24 PM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: nowhere,that other state
Posts: 944
Liked 319 Times on 197 Posts
Likes Given: 399

Default

Many of the high end scopes (Leupold Mk4, nightforce, ect...) are built with thicker tubes thicker glass and what not.

OK glass cost is all dependent on what you are doing.

My f-class gun wears a Sightron SIII 8-32x56mm scope. $850 to $1k. This scope has to be spot on when I make click adjustments moving from 800 to 1000 yards. I can't afford to have it make adjustments like a $150 hunting scope where 1 click might be 1/8 MOA and the next 1/2MOA sure it averages out to 1/4MOA click. My scope has to shoot the box almost perfectaly or else it goes back or gets sold.

Many of my shooting buddies who shoot bench rest use March Scopes made by Denon Optics. These scopes are hand build by 1 of 4 Japenese Optical Engineers. They have ever part made to their exacting specs and they hand assemble and fit these scope. Their cost $2000+ they are totally worth it.

If you think $1k scopes are not worth the money then I ask you to go to a store and talk to someone and take a Lower end say Bushnell Banner scope out and look out side with it along with a Leupold VX-3 or other high end scope and look at them side by side. Don't look through scopes in the store this is how many people do it. Are you going to be deer hunting inside a gun store?

You claim you are ignorant about rifle scopes but, when guys who have been hunting and shooting all of their life and many of which have scopes ranging from $100 to $1000 pass on information to you, you dismiss what we are telling you.

I could care less about how much some dang telescope cost. A telescope, microscope and a rifle scope are 3 vastly different animals and you can't compare prices, build quality, optical clairty on them. That is like saying a BMW 7 series not worth the money because a Cessna 172 cost x amount. You are not trying to compare apples to oranges, you are trying to compare the taste of an orange to that of a dog turd and Hákarl (See Foot Note).




Foot Note: http://www.theexpeditioner.com/2011/06/16/my-encounter-with-hakarl-the-worst-tasting-food-on-earth/

__________________
gunnut07 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 01:08 PM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
maddoccanis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 44
Liked 11 Times on 8 Posts
Likes Given: 11

Default

I don't dismiss what anyone says. I'm just curios. Everybody has the right to buy what they want. I didn't say they were wrong. Enjoy....doc

__________________
maddoccanis is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Why is 410 so expensive bwalka General Shotgun Discussion 33 02-12-2012 05:59 AM
7mm-08; why so expensive? edwardo Ammunition & Reloading 5 01-28-2012 05:35 PM
expensive day at the fun shop partdeux General Handgun Discussion 4 09-11-2011 03:04 AM
Expensive site R-BOLT The Club House 4 08-01-2009 05:29 PM