OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc. Homepage SWFA     SampleList.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Scopes > Rifle Scopes
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Burris/Zeiss/Swarovski/Kahles?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials.

Burris/Zeiss/Swarovski/Kahles?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Message
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/18/2007 at 08:44
Oh, I am sure he will be happy with his choice, no doubt, but that is what these forums are all about.  As I said, I was just adding my 2 cents and believe me, I will keep the change and take just as many deer with my Bushnell Elites, Nikon Monarchs, Sightron SIIs and many "lesser" scopes.  I have a couple friends who are optometrists and they all swear by Leupolds and would never own anything else, just like everyone else around here.  I still defy you to prove to me that a Kahles is better than a Nikon Monarch on an objective basis and that if it is, by what ever margin, that the difference will make a difference in the field and I will extend that comparison to any scope.  The Zeiss is one scope I would buy, as it is reasonably priced as compared to the others.  Unless I missed it, what rifle and caliber is this scope going to be mounted on?
Back to Top
ajlandis View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: September/02/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 56
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ajlandis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/18/2007 at 11:13
Originally posted by steadyshot steadyshot wrote:

 Lastly, any suggestions on a mount and rings for this setup on a 30-06 remington 7600 series?

Back to Top
ND2000 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: January/29/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 308
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ND2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/18/2007 at 11:29
Dolphin -

"I still defy you to prove to me that a Kahles is better than a Nikon Monarch on an objective basis and that if it is, by what ever margin, that the difference will make a difference in the field and I will extend that comparison to any scope."

I don't need to prove anything to you, you've obviously made up your mind for yourself.  No different than vehicles...

"I have a couple friends who are optometrists and they all swear by Leupolds and would never own anything else."

Would be just like an optometrist or other professional not up to speed on the optics market to purchase a Leupold. Heck, I made that mistake myself about 6-7 years ago. Thankfully steadyshot is not one of them.  Total overpriced glass and a marketing machine with the "Made in the USA theme."  Some things should not be made in America, and good optics is one of them. 

ND2000
You either get what you pay for or what you deserve.
Back to Top
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 15635
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RifleDude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/18/2007 at 20:34

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

 I still defy you to prove to me that a Kahles is better than a Nikon Monarch on an objective basis and that if it is, by what ever margin, that the difference will make a difference in the field and I will extend that comparison to any scope.  The Zeiss is one scope I would buy, as it is reasonably priced as compared to the others. 

 

I own 2 Kahles and 2 Nikon Monarch scopes, and although I have no quantitative proof of anything, I can tell you what my eyes tell me.  Kahles delivers better resolution, better sharpness out to the edge of field, less off axis flare, better overall clarity, and better twilight performance.  The Monarch is certainly a good scope, but it doesn't compare to Kahles, which is as it should be due to the price difference.  Kahles is also superior to Zeiss Conquest you refer to.  I've never heard from anyone who owns both who disagreed with that statement.  In the same manner you demand proof, one could also reverse the question and ask you how you know this isn't true, if you haven't owned and/or spent a lot of time behind all these scopes to make a fair comparison.

 

My statement has nothing to do with price, only head to head quality differences, because value is subjective.  I totally get that the high asking price of the German and Austrian scopes aren't worth it to many shooters, no matter how good the optics are.  I recognize that beyond a certain price point, the law of diminishing returns kicks in and ever slight incremental improvements come at a price increase out of proportion to the difference.  You've obviously determined that for you there's a limit to what a scope, any scope is worth and aren't willing to pay a price beyond that limit, and that's perfectly understandable.  But, still, what anything is worth is up to the individual to decide, and that still doesn't mean that the uber-priced scopes aren't technically superior to scopes costing 1/3 as much.  The high end $1200+ scopes are definitely superior optically to the $400 scopes -- there is absolutely no doubt about that, because it costs more to use superior glass, coatings, construction, tolerances, design, and mechanics.  Most people who do a fair head to head comparison will see that for themselves, even if they don't see a difference proportional to price.  Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not the improvement is worth the considerable price difference.   Although I have a few "special" rifles that I wanted to mate up with truly superb optics, I don't have super expensive scopes on all my rifles, nor do I want to or could afford to do so.  But just as with rifles and other equipment, I do get a lot of satisfaction from occasionally owning something of uncompromising, world-class quality.

 

Yes, you can kill a deer using any scope -- sometimes.  There are plenty of hunters that bring home venison year after year using $39 scopes.  But on an elk hunt last year, one of the guys in my hunting party missed a shot at a nice bull when he threw his economy "package deal" rifle topped with a sub- $50 scope to his shoulder and the scope was totally filled with condensation.  Can the same thing happen with more expensive scopes?  Yes, but very infrequently.  I recall a post a while back where you stated you had a POI shift with your Nikko Stirling scope when you changed magnification.  This is fairly common with inexpensive scopes, and almost never happens with truly high-end scopes, because they are not only optically superior, but usually mechanically superior as well.  If it happens when you're zooming the power on the buck of a lifetime, and this causes you to miss, a $1K scope suddenly isn't so expensive anymore, especially when factored over a lifetime of hunting... at least to me.  It's true you can get a lifetime of good service from a $250 scope, and you can get some decent optics in that price range.  But if you're someone who's picky about optics, enjoys superior image quality, and wants to squeeze every last bit of available legal light out of a hunt, then a $1K + scope may be worth every penny to you.  For many people, once they experience truly superior optics, they never again look at lesser products the same way.  Many of those same folks, just like you, doubt the value of great optics until that point.  I witnessed just such a transformation with 2 of my hunting buddies.

 

Have you used a Kahles scope extensively from which to base your assumption, Re: Kahles vs. Monarch?



Edited by RifleDude
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.
Back to Top
Rancid Coolaid View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8813
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rancid Coolaid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/18/2007 at 20:48
For the record, I am a strident Conquest fan, but I'll be damned if my new Swaro ain't worth every bit of the almost 2X price.  it is solid, optically great, and extremely clear edge to edge.  maybe tomorrow I can take the Swaro and closest Conquest to the range and really compare them - but know this: if you buy the Swaro, you will not be disappointed.  And if you buy the Conquest, you will not be disappointed BUT you'll wonder if you should'a bought the Swaro!
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn.
Equality is something you whine about not being given.
Back to Top
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 15635
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RifleDude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/18/2007 at 21:09
I agree 100%, RC.  I've found Swaro and Kahles are pretty much equivalent optically.
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2007 at 10:30
Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

 I still defy you to prove to me that a Kahles is better than a Nikon Monarch on an objective basis and that if it is, by what ever margin, that the difference will make a difference in the field and I will extend that comparison to any scope.  The Zeiss is one scope I would buy, as it is reasonably priced as compared to the others. 

 

I own 2 Kahles and 2 Nikon Monarch scopes, and although I have no quantitative proof of anything, I can tell you what my eyes tell me.  Kahles delivers better resolution, better sharpness out to the edge of field, less off axis flare, better overall clarity, and better twilight performance.  The Monarch is certainly a good scope, but it doesn't compare to Kahles, which is as it should be due to the price difference.  Kahles is also superior to Zeiss Conquest you refer to.  I've never heard from anyone who owns both who disagreed with that statement.  In the same manner you demand proof, one could also reverse the question and ask you how you know this isn't true, if you haven't owned and/or spent a lot of time behind all these scopes to make a fair comparison.

 

My statement has nothing to do with price, only head to head quality differences, because value is subjective.  I totally get that the high asking price of the German and Austrian scopes aren't worth it to many shooters, no matter how good the optics are.  I recognize that beyond a certain price point, the law of diminishing returns kicks in and ever slight incremental improvements come at a price increase out of proportion to the difference.  You've obviously determined that for you there's a limit to what a scope, any scope is worth and aren't willing to pay a price beyond that limit, and that's perfectly understandable.  But, still, what anything is worth is up to the individual to decide, and that still doesn't mean that the uber-priced scopes aren't technically superior to scopes costing 1/3 as much.  The high end $1200+ scopes are definitely superior optically to the $400 scopes -- there is absolutely no doubt about that, because it costs more to use superior glass, coatings, construction, tolerances, design, and mechanics.  Most people who do a fair head to head comparison will see that for themselves, even if they don't see a difference proportional to price.  Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not the improvement is worth the considerable price difference.   Although I have a few "special" rifles that I wanted to mate up with truly superb optics, I don't have super expensive scopes on all my rifles, nor do I want to or could afford to do so.  But just as with rifles and other equipment, I do get a lot of satisfaction from occasionally owning something of uncompromising, world-class quality.

 

Yes, you can kill a deer using any scope -- sometimes.  There are plenty of hunters that bring home venison year after year using $39 scopes.  But on an elk hunt last year, one of the guys in my hunting party missed a shot at a nice bull when he threw his economy "package deal" rifle topped with a sub- $50 scope to his shoulder and the scope was totally filled with condensation.  Can the same thing happen with more expensive scopes?  Yes, but very infrequently.  I recall a post a while back where you stated you had a POI shift with your Nikko Stirling scope when you changed magnification.  This is fairly common with inexpensive scopes, and almost never happens with truly high-end scopes, because they are not only optically superior, but usually mechanically superior as well.  If it happens when you're zooming the power on the buck of a lifetime, and this causes you to miss, a $1K scope suddenly isn't so expensive anymore, especially when factored over a lifetime of hunting... at least to me.  It's true you can get a lifetime of good service from a $250 scope, and you can get some decent optics in that price range.  But if you're someone who's picky about optics, enjoys superior image quality, and wants to squeeze every last bit of available legal light out of a hunt, then a $1K + scope may be worth every penny to you.  For many people, once they experience truly superior optics, they never again look at lesser products the same way.  Many of those same folks, just like you, doubt the value of great optics until that point.  I witnessed just such a transformation with 2 of my hunting buddies.

 

Have you used a Kahles scope extensively from which to base your assumption, Re: Kahles vs. Monarch?

All of your points are well taken and I do not advocate using 39 dollar scopes on any rifle.  My points should also be well taken.  Subjective assessment of any product is biased from the start and when you put a Kahles or Swarovski on the table next to a Bushnell Elite 4200, any connoisseur of fine rifles and scopes will start drooling over the former.  They have automatically been programmed to believe they are better from the start, from forums such as these and from others who tell them the same and the fact that they are so expensive.  I sill defy anyone to prove to me that they are better optically and mechanically than the latter and no I cannot prove to you that they are inferior.  My guess would be that they do provide some benefits, but are they truly visible to the naked eye, or are they purely a measurable.  There is a certain thing called placebo effect.  This also applies to products as well as medications.  Take for example a 300 dollar Baikal sxs shotgun I purchased.  Nice shotgun, screw in chokes and selective triggers and decent wood.  Everbody who looked at it said, huh.  I took the gun to the shop and did a number on the wood and then proceeded to show it to a number of people, without letting them know the brand.  Next thing I was hearing was that gun must have cost around 1500 dollars.  Sort of like a brand name.  Alot of people put down Leupold, over priced and the optics are inferior.  Other people swear by them as they say the optics are superior and they are as rugged as any scope made.  Who is correct?  I do not own a Leupold, just like I do not own any of the Euro models.  The point is, there has to be a subjective assessment of these scopes when there is such a wide divergence of opinion.  I do not see the divergence of opinion with the Euro models.  Does this mean they must be superior?  Logic would make you think so.  But, that is not the case.  Actually, given the reasons above, logic tells us that looking through a scope is a subjective assessment and is biased from the start.  I know that doing objective assessments, blindly, of scopes would be expensive and logistically difficult, it could be done, but I am afraid there are some manufacturers that do not want to see this happen.  One last note.  No, I do not own any of these Euro models, as previously stated.  Yes, I have peered through many a one at many a gun shop, especially a local shop, not only indoors, but outdoors.  Do I see a big difference?  No.  Did I look through them at near darkness?  No.  I do have one friend who hunts with a Kahles on a Browning BAR.  Have I shot his rifle.  Yes, on many occasions and no I did not see anything special about his scope, even at low light, but not near darkness.  No, I do not know the model or mag. range.

 

On another note, the Nikko Stirling that I referred to you d

Back to Top
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Trinidad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2007 at 10:59

I have been fortunate lately with the opertunity to work via remote out of Nevada and

Dolphin I wish you can be here when night comes in the desert, I can promise you

that a mid-price or mid-level quality scope will not be servicable after a certain point

out here. It is very peacefull and almost magical when you shoot out here, a big

change for me bieng stuck in the big city on high concrete buildings and pollution.



Edited by Trinidad
Back to Top
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 15635
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RifleDude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2007 at 11:13

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

They have automatically been programmed to believe they are better from the start, from forums such as these and from others who tell them the same and the fact that they are so expensive.  I sill defy anyone to prove to me that they are better optically and mechanically than the latter and no I cannot prove to you that they are inferior.  My guess would be that they do provide some benefits, but are they truly visible to the naked eye, or are they purely a measurable.  There is a certain thing called placebo effect. 

Yes, the performance advantages are very visible to the naked eye.  Again, I own all the scopes you mention.  I know about placebo effect, and this doesn't apply, because there is nothing imagined about the fact the optics are better in the high end scopes mentioned, based on merely a suggestion of them being better.  They are better.  I don't discount the possibility that different people's eyes see things a different way.

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

Take for example a 300 dollar Baikal sxs shotgun I purchased.  Nice shotgun, screw in chokes and selective triggers and decent wood.  Everbody who looked at it said, huh.  I took the gun to the shop and did a number on the wood and then proceeded to show it to a number of people, without letting them know the brand.  Next thing I was hearing was that gun must have cost around 1500 dollars.  

If you did that at your local gun shop and that stymied the people working there, that says a whole lot about the competency of your gun shop, because I've seen and handled all kinds of Baikal shotguns, and nobody with any knowledge of firearms, good metal finishes, and proper wood to metal fit would even remotely confuse a Baikal shotgun, even from a distance, with one costing $1500.

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

I do not own a Leupold, just like I do not own any of the Euro models.  The point is, there has to be a subjective assessment of these scopes when there is such a wide divergence of opinion.  I do not see the divergence of opinion with the Euro models.  Does this mean they must be superior?  Logic would make you think so.  But, that is not the case.   

You just said you don't own any Euro scopes and you just said there was no divergence of opinion with the Euro models.  Given that, how can you say that it isn't the case that they are superior?  By your own admission, you don't own one, so for crying out loud, how do you know?  With all due respect, sounds like you're criticizing something you know nothing about.  So are you then saying that those of us who CAN tell a definite difference in the high end scopes at best are just imagining things and at worst, don't know what we're talking about?  Koshkin here on this forum is an optical physicist and makes his living in the optics field.  He has equipment available to him to test such things as light transmission.  He will tell you that the higher end optics are higher end not because of a brand name, but because of real performance advantages.  If you don't want to believe this, fine, but it's wrong to assume just because you believe something to be false that others who hold that the same is true is wrong.  You simply don't place the same value on a scope as others do, which is also fine.

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

Actually, given the reasons above, logic tells us that looking through a scope is a subjective assessment and is biased from the start. 

How do you know it's biased from the start?  Ironically, you're making assumptions based on your own biases.

 

Here's an analogy for you.  You're a big Weatherby fan.  The Weatherby MK V costs roughly 3 times that of a Savage 11F, essentially the same differential between the low/mid range and high end scopes mentioned, maybe even more so.  Using your analogy, both rifles will kill deer, year after year, and in fact, the low end Savage will probably be every bit as accurate as the Weatherby, maybe more so.  Given this, why would anyone in their right mind spend 3X more money on the Weatherby than the Savage?  That's a rhetorical question we both know the answer to, but it is analogous to the questions you posed about scopes.

 

The simple fact is you just don't place as much value on a scope as you do the rifle and you don't see benefits to owning the high end scopes as some of us do.  There's nothing wrong with that, but don't criticize others as being foolish with their money when you admittedly don't know much about what you're criticizing.



Edited by RifleDude
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.
Back to Top
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Trinidad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2007 at 11:47

Budget high performance combo.

 

http://www.swfa.com/pc-8607-1219-kahles-3-9x42-helia-kx-rifl escope.aspx

 

and

 

 

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=77905936

 

total:

$1200 maybee less on 1$ starting auctions.

 



Edited by Trinidad
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2007 at 11:58
I agree, I wish I could be somewhere like that.  Where I live is nothing but alot forest and fields and you hunt the tree lines.  Boring.  Alot of times it goes from usefull light to almost total darkness in a matter of minutes, making any scope useless.  And of course illegal, here.
Back to Top
steadyshot View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: November/27/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 45
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote steadyshot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2007 at 12:05

Trinidad-

Thanks for the link.... Name recognition aside, would you put the purchase of the Kahles 3-9x42 helia KX ahead of the Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10x50mm?

ps- your making my decision process frustratingly fun!

Back to Top
ND2000 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: January/29/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 308
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ND2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2007 at 12:12

Steadyshot -

 

I know you asked the question of Trinidad, but you can bet that the Kahles KX will outperform the Zeiss Conquest, despite the larger objective of the Conquest.  I tried them out directly side-by-side in late July (along with Swaros, Leupolds, Bushnells, etc.), at dusk, at an event put on by one of the local hunting stores.

 

ND2000

You either get what you pay for or what you deserve.
Back to Top
steadyshot View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: November/27/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 45
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote steadyshot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2007 at 12:28

That is kind of what I was figuring.......I'm definitely going to give it a look.

thanks for the feedback ND2000

Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2007 at 12:32

Rifledude wrote:

 

Yes, the performance advantages are very visible to the naked eye.  Again, I own all the scopes you mention.  I know about placebo effect, and this doesn't apply, because there is nothing imagined about the fact the optics are better in the high end scopes mentioned, based on merely a suggestion of them being better.  They are better.  I don't discount the possibility that different people's eyes see things a different way.

 

  Again, you say the advantages are very visible to the naked eye.  As I said, is this subjective bias that you are unaware of, or is this for real.  The mind is a very strong admistrator and will instruct its pupil according to not only the input optically, but input via what is know already about the product at hand.  This is psychology is know as subjective bias.  Very powerful, now we are in my league.  It is not that I do not believe you, it is that with my experience as noted above, I have not seen the huge difference you elude to.

 

 

 

 

Rifledude wrote:

 

If you did that at your local gun shop and that stymied the people working there, that says a whole lot about the competency of your gun shop, because I've seen and handled all kinds of Baikal shotguns, and nobody with any knowledge of firearms, good metal finishes, and proper wood to metal fit would even remotely confuse a Baikal shotgun, even from a distance, with one costing $1500.

 

 

I did not say I showed the shotgun to folks at a local gun shop, but to people who came in and out of the house.  The overall fit and finish of the gun was enhanced with the work I did, of which I take great pride and I must say, I do a very good job.  Overall the point was lost on you.  The point was that marketing, i.e. changing the appearance of a plain jane shotgun, can and will bias ones opinion of a product.

 

 

 

Rifledude wrote:

 

You just said you don't own any Euro scopes and you just said there was no divergence of opinion with the Euro models.  Given that, how can you say that it isn't the case that they are superior?  By your own admission, you don't own one, so for crying out loud, how do you know?  With all due respect, sounds like you're criticizing something you know nothing about.  So are you then saying that those of us who CAN tell a definite difference in the high end scopes at best are just imagining things and at worst, don't know what we're talking about?  Koshkin here on this forum is an optical physicist and makes his living in the optics field.  He has equipment available to him to test such things as light transmission.  He will tell you that the higher end optics are higher end not because of a brand name, but because of real performance advantages.  If you don't want to believe this, fine, but it's wrong to assume just because you believe something to be false that others who hold that the same is true is wrong.  You simply don't place the same value on a scope as others do, which is also fine.

 

As previously stated, while I do not own any of the Euro models I have had a fair amount of opportunity to look through many, with the limitations noted in my previous post and have shot quite a few rounds through my friends Browning BAR with a Kahles scope, model and mag. range unknown.  And no, I am not saying you are imagining things, as I stated above, I do believe you can tell a difference.  I just cannot tell a huge difference.  Measurements are what is needed and if you say Koshkin has made measurement showing superiority, that is one start to prove they are superior.  But again, along with measurements, the ultimate test, is a double blind test, which I have said is expensive and logistically difficult, but could be performed.

 

Rifledude wrote:

 

How do you know it's biased from the start?  Ironically, you're making assumptions based on your own biases.

 

Here's an analogy for you.  You're a big Weatherby fan.  The Weatherby MK V costs roughly 3 times that of a Savage 11F, essentially the same differential between the low/mid range and high end scopes mentioned, maybe even more so.  Using your analogy, both rifles will kill deer, year after year, and in fact, the low end Savage will probably be every bit as accurate as the Weatherby, maybe more so.  Given this, why would anyone in their right mind spend 3X more money on the Weatherby than the Savage?  That's a rhetorical question we both know the answer to, but it is analogous to the questions you posed about scopes.

 

The simple fact is you just don't place as much value on a scope as you do the rifle and you don't see benefits to owning the high end scopes as some of us do.  There's nothing wrong with that, but don't criticize others as being foolish with their money when you admittedly don't know much about what you're criticizing.

 

 

Anytime a product reviewer of any type, knows what product he is reviewing is automatically biased from the start.  Before you look throught a BSA, you know good and well that you expect to find mediorce optics.  Now, if you are unaware it is a BSA and look through the scope, your comments will be unbiased and fair.  They may or may not be the same.  With reference to the rifle analogy.  I just happen to be a Weatherby collector and in years to come, will hold their value much more than my basic Savage rifles.  But, on another point, I cannot get my two basic Savages to shoot anywhere near to the accuracy of any Wby. I own.  However, I just hanloaded some cartridges, specifically for the 7mm-08 with a Hornady OAL/Comparator gauge and then I bet it will shoot just as accurately as the Wbys.  One last thing.  I have never criticized anybody for buying a Euro scope.  If I had excess money, I would own one or two. 





__________________



Edited by Dolphin
Back to Top
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Trinidad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2007 at 13:46
Originally posted by ND2000 ND2000 wrote:

Steadyshot -

 

I know you asked the question of Trinidad, but you can bet that the Kahles KX will outperform the Zeiss Conquest, despite the larger objective of the Conquest.  I tried them out directly side-by-side in late July (along with Swaros, Leupolds, Bushnells, etc.), at dusk, at an event put on by one of the local hunting stores.

 

ND2000

 

Back to Top
steadyshot View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: November/27/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 45
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote steadyshot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2007 at 15:56

Trinidad/ND2000,

You've got me tempted to pony up the extra $$ for the Kahles.  I see they offer several reticles.  Any suggestions or advantages/disadvantages bewteen the 4a and the 4D (ballistic type plex for different ranges) that you would suggest?

Back to Top
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Trinidad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2007 at 16:10
Back to Top
steadyshot View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: November/27/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 45
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote steadyshot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2007 at 16:27

Thanks, I was already at the link, but helpful.  Also, at the Kahles link you sent under the "Product reviews" section the article "optics talk 6_2004.pdf" I read, and was unaware, that Kahles was purchased by Swarovski and has operated as an independant company under them since 1974!  No surprise they are in the "same league".

thanks again-

Back to Top
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Trinidad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2007 at 16:37
Originally posted by steadyshot steadyshot wrote:

 No surprise they are in the "same league".

thanks again-

 

Better IMO.

 

Here is Chris on the topic, he is comparing the CL and C,CS,CSX,CBX. models to his previous AV scope.

Chris Farris
TEAM SWFA - Admin
TEAM SWFA - Admin
Avatar
www.RifleScopes.com

Joined: 01/October/2003
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2647
Posted: 15/January/2005 at 14:12 | IP Logged Report Post Quote Chris Farris

Swarovski does own Kahles but they are not a lower brand or a brand they use for military applications.

 

When Swarovski bought Kahles, Swarovski did not even have a rifle scope line.  Kahles is the worlds oldest scope maker.  Read their history here.

 

For a while Swarovski held Kahles back and used their ideas on Swarovski scopes.  Since about five years ago they stopped sharing technology and Kahles has really excelled.  Their new CSX line has taken Europe by storm.  Their new one inch line to be launched this month is already being called the finest one inch scope in the world.  Their new Multi-Zero feature is one of the best innovations in recent history.  After seeing the new Kahles scopes and knowing what all went into them I have already taken my Swarovski off my #1 gun and sold it.



Edited by Trinidad
Back to Top
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 15635
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RifleDude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2007 at 16:52
Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

  Again, you say the advantages are very visible to the naked eye.  As I said, is this subjective bias that you are unaware of, or is this for real. 

YES!!!!!  I don't know how many times or how many different ways I can tell you definitely, undeniably, emphatically YES, it is for real!  No, it isn't my mind playing tricks on me because I have preconceived notions of what I'm expecting to see.  I have used all of these scopes in all conceivable light and environmental conditions and I say again, I notice a difference.  I fully acknowledge that once you get to the Zeiss Conquest and above level of quality, the differences become more subtle, but the differences are definitely there.  You simply don't believe what I'm telling you -- that's the crux of it, which is fine.  You're entitled to your opinion.

 

Do you actually think literally tens of thousands of people around the world who notice a real, noticeable difference between mid level and high end optics have all just been hoodwinked into believing it to be so?  Don't you think if that were the case that hordes of people would eventually protest that "the emperor has no clothes" and word would soon get out that high end scopes are no different than Monarchs and Elite 4200s except for higher price?

 

Until you've compared the scopes in question in all light conditions, how can you confidently assert with absolute certainty that there isn't a difference, using psychology as evidence of your premise, no less?

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

Overall the point was lost on you.  The point was that marketing, i.e. changing the appearance of a plain jane shotgun, can and will bias ones opinion of a product.

No, your point was not at all lost on me; I disagree with your point.  While I do agree that in many cases, marketing is a very effective tool in shaping consumers' preconceived opinion of products, you belittle the collective experience of many on this forum when you say, in effect, that we're all victims of clever marketing and therefore, we lack the ability to objectively evaluate scopes because we're too dazzled by prestigious brand names.  You don't want to spend that kind of dough for the high end scopes, then by all means, don't.  But just because you can't conceive that high end optics could possibly provide tangible benefits, you then try insist that the rest of us really don't see what our eyes tell us with certainty we see, just because you don't.

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

As previously stated, while I do not own any of the Euro models I have had a fair amount of opportunity to look through many, with the limitations noted in my previous post.
 

But see, those are some pretty darn critical limitations.  The absolute worst lighting and environmental conditions is what separates the superior optics from the average stuff, conditions you can't duplicate inside a store or while shooting your buddy's rifle during good lighting at the range.  Plus, some people simply aren't as attuned to noticing and appreciating subtle differences in image quality when ultimate image quality really isn't a big deal to them.

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

And no, I am not saying you are imagining things, as I stated above, I do believe you can tell a difference.  I just cannot tell a huge difference. 
 

Now, you're crawfishing a little.  First you say "I defy you" to show me a difference, and assert that any perceived difference is just because of suggestion and bias and now you say you cannot tell a "huge" difference.  Either there is a difference or there isn't.  You say that those of us who can definitely see a difference are influenced by marketing hype, now you say you believe I'm not imagining things.  It can't be both.  Either we actually see a difference or we're victims of marketing hype.  Which is it?



Edited by RifleDude
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2007 at 19:51
Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

  Again, you say the advantages are very visible to the naked eye.  As I said, is this subjective bias that you are unaware of, or is this for real. 

YES!!!!!  I don't know how many times or how many different ways I can tell you definitely, undeniably, emphatically YES, it is for real!  No, it isn't my mind playing tricks on me because I have preconceived notions of what I'm expecting to see.  I have used all of these scopes in all conceivable light and environmental conditions and I say again, I notice a difference.  I fully acknowledge that once you get to the Zeiss Conquest and above level of quality, the differences become more subtle, but the differences are definitely there.  You simply don't believe what I'm telling you -- that's the crux of it, which is fine.  You're entitled to your opinion.

 

Do you actually think literally tens of thousands of people around the world who notice a real, noticeable difference between mid level and high end optics have all just been hoodwinked into believing it to be so?  Don't you think if that were the case that hordes of people would eventually protest that "the emperor has no clothes" and word would soon get out that high end scopes are no different than Monarchs and Elite 4200s except for higher price?

 

Until you've compared the scopes in question in all light conditions, how can you confidently assert with absolute certainty that there isn't a difference, using psychology as evidence of your premise, no less?

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

Overall the point was lost on you.  The point was that marketing, i.e. changing the appearance of a plain jane shotgun, can and will bias ones opinion of a product.

No, your point was not at all lost on me; I disagree with your point.  While I do agree that in many cases, marketing is a very effective tool in shaping consumers' preconceived opinion of products, you belittle the collective experience of many on this forum when you say, in effect, that we're all victims of clever marketing and therefore, we lack the ability to objectively evaluate scopes because we're too dazzled by prestigious brand names.  You don't want to spend that kind of dough for the high end scopes, then by all means, don't.  But just because you can't conceive that high end optics could possibly provide tangible benefits, you then try insist that the rest of us really don't see what our eyes tell us with certainty we see, just because you don't.

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

As previously stated, while I do not own any of the Euro models I have had a fair amount of opportunity to look through many, with the limitations noted in my previous post.
 

But see, those are some pretty darn critical limitations.  The absolute worst lighting and environmental conditions is what separates the superior optics from the average stuff, conditions you can't duplicate inside a store or while shooting your buddy's rifle during good lighting at the range.  Plus, some people simply aren't as attuned to noticing and appreciating subtle differences in image quality when ultimate image quality really isn't a big deal to them.

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

And no, I am not saying you are imagining things, as I stated above, I do believe you can tell a difference.  I just cannot tell a huge difference. 
 

Now, you're crawfishing a little.  First you say "I defy you" to show me a difference, and assert that any perceived difference is just because of suggestion and bias and now you say you cannot tell a "huge" difference.  Either there is a difference or there isn't.  You say that those of us who can definitely see a difference are influenced by marketing hype, now you say you believe I'm not imagining things.  It can't be both.  Either we actually see a difference or we're victims of marketing hype.  Which is it?

No, as I have said, I do believe you when you say you can see a difference.  Yes, I say there is a subjective bias.  Psychology literature is littered with this fact and is proven without a doubt and may have an impact on your perception of the subjective difference in your perception of that difference.  You nor anyone else can measure that difference.  So realize, I have said multiple times, I believe you, when you say you can see a difference.  I believe you.  That point should be settled.

 

You say my point was lost on you.  Apparently it was.  I was not belittling anyone on the forum for being unable to evaluate a rifle scope and its optical and mechanical qualities.  Quite to the contrary as we discussed the Nikko Stirling and its problems.  You and I know that, through experience, that alot of low priced scopes, while at lower powers have decent optics, when turned to full magnification, tend to blur out.  I believe and have never said to the contrary that most forum members are well educated on how to evaulate a scopes qualities, some better than others, some more educated than others.  Having mounted literally hundreds of scopes for me and friends, I have been exposed to the realities of scopes, to include not only their optics, but their mechanical limitations with respect to what rifles they can be mounted on without extension rings, proper eye relief, etc.  My experience is quite extensive in this area.

 

In my profession, the powers of observation are what makes one person better than the next.  I pride myself on being one of the best in my field, hands down.  Unforunately, I suffer from OCD and will go over every aspect of piece of a mechanical object, whether it be a rifle scope, rifle, rifle action or mechanical watch with extraordinary detail.  So I am very atuned to looking for differences in any products, to include rifle scopes.  Yes, you are entirely correct.  I do not have the exprerience you do.  But, I have never said you are imagining things, but that your bias may account for belief in a huge difference between scopes.  As I have said over and over, I do believe you can see a difference.  I believe you missed those parts of my post.  Therein explains why I can believe you can see a difference, but still be biased.  I do not believe anyone who buys one of these scopes is actually a victim of marketing hype, in fact I do not believe they are a victim at all.  The reputation of these scopes precede themselves.  The thing that only counts, is if you are happy in the end after your purchase, whether it be a Euro scope or mid-level model and that is a concept I have never deviated from.  One question to ponder.  I have seen many posts comparing the more reasonably priced Euro scopes from Meopta and IOR to Swarovski and S&B, finding them to equal optically and mechanically.  These posts were from reliable members from the best of my recollection.  Is this true, or is this reverse bias, hoping these scopes do perform equally.  Another interesting note.  I never find a Mercedes Benz driver complaining of his car, despite the fact they have one of the worst repair records of any car on the road.  Could it be the large sum of money that has biased his opinion of the automobile.

 

 

 

Back to Top
ND2000 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: January/29/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 308
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ND2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2007 at 19:59

"One question to ponder.  I have seen many posts comparing the more reasonably priced Euro scopes from Meopta and IOR to Swarovski and S&B, finding them to equal optically and mechanically.  These posts were from reliable members from the best of my recollection.  Is this true, or is this reverse bias, hoping these scopes do perform equally."

Most people like to justify their purchase more than anything else.  At least with respect to binoculars, I own two German pairs, one is a Swarovski EL and the other is a Minox HG.  While I would say the Swaro is not 2.5X better optically, the magnitude of the price differential, it is without question better.

Most people also tend to base their view on what they see in a store.  Most scopes look pretty good in a store under that type of lighting.  In addition, most scopes will work quite well on a sunny day.  Give me poor lighting conditions and poor weather, and I'll also take the Swaro or S&B (using only the names you reference...).

You either get what you pay for or what you deserve.

ND2000
You either get what you pay for or what you deserve.
Back to Top
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 15635
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RifleDude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/20/2007 at 21:21

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

I have seen many posts comparing the more reasonably priced Euro scopes from Meopta and IOR to Swarovski and S&B, finding them to equal optically and mechanically.  These posts were from reliable members from the best of my recollection.  Is this true, or is this reverse bias, hoping these scopes do perform equally. 

 

I can't comment on Meopta, as I haven't seen one outside of a store.  I do however have scopes from IOR, Swarovski, and S&B.  The IOR is very, very good optically.  It definitely gives the Swaros, S&Bs and Zeiss' of the world a run for their money, which makes their scopes excellent values among top tier scopes.  However, to my eyes, it doesn't quite equal those 3 in terms of resolution, though I don't think the big 3 scopes are better in direct proportion to their increase in price, only better.  Keep in mind I'm not saying that a $1500 Euro scope is 3X better than a good $500 scope, only that it is better.  I also don't necessarily think all Euro scopes are worth what they cost; otherwise I'd have more of them.  Most of my scopes fall into the mid-price category.  This is why I think the Kahles and Swaro 1" tube scopes are a good value -- they aren't inexpensive, but optically, they are right up there with their 30mm cousins but priced at $400 - $500 less.

Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/21/2007 at 08:12
All of these threads of this type have lead me into buying the product of discussion, so that I can have hands on experience.  I can afford one, but with a new baby, a wife and trying to build a house, its hard to hide that kind of purchase, as compared to the Uberti Remington 1858 New Army Taylor conversion to a 45 lc is just bought.  Any good reliable sources for used models or do any of you guys have any that you want to sell, looking for an upgrade or change for any of your rifles.  From what I hear from alot of you guys, the S&B is the toughest of all and I guess that is what I would be interested in, but any would peak my interest.  I have done this with several products and formed my own opinions, mostly positive.  So, I am willing to take the leap, but hiding a purchase like this is going to be hard.  Also, what do you guys think about the Leupold line that costs almost as much as these Euro models and who is buying them?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.284 seconds.