Weaver Grand Slam 6-20x40 Redfield Revolution 4-12x40 Nikon Monarch 6-24x50 Bushnell Trophy 4-12x40 clarity of image testing: The first group of five testers
met for two hours, during which time each tester, using the scope jig, looked through every scope at a metal building which was 100 yards away from the bench. The temperature was in the 60s, and it was overcast. The testers were asked to make a “forced ranking” of the scopes. At the end of the test period, I compiled the data sheets and discov- ered that each of them had selected a different scope as his or her favorite! The 4-12x Cabela Alaskan, the Redfield Revolution, the Leupold, the Swarovski, and the Weaver were each selected. At the next session, seven testers
met for 3½ hours and went through the same testing process. When compiled, the top choices were: Redfield, Leupold, Swarovski, and the 6-24x Cabela’s Alaskan.
Session No. 3 consisted of three
testers and the same protocol: Swarovs- ki, Leupold, and the 4-12x Cabela’s came out on top. At the last session, No. 4, I had four
testers, same protocol: Swarovski, 6-24x Cabela’s, Leupold, and, for the first time, the Simmons appeared as a favorite. My most significant conclusion
from these “static tests” was that the scope manufacturers are doing a superb job in building optics that meet their customers’ requirements! On several occasions, my testers could not come to a conclusion on which scope they liked the best until I insisted that they make a choice. As one of them said, “It’s a choice between great and greater. I like ’em all!”
clarity of image
in low light condition testing: The next test took a great deal of
time (11 sessions) because of the nar- row window of opportunity I had in which to conduct it. I wanted to have the participants use the scopes, set in the jig, to read an “eye chart,” (actually a poster with different sized lettering on it) at a range of 50 yards, at different angles to the sun, during the last half hour before sunset. At the end of this test, there were four scopes that were selected by virtue of having the most “votes.” The Swarovski, the Leupold,
the Nikon, and the Bushnell Elite each got more than one vote. Visibility Of Reticle In Low Light Conditions and Ease Of Adjustment Testing: All of the testers gave each of the
scopes very high marks in both these areas.
The final phase of the test and
evaluation was the field work. Each tes- ter was allowed to pick his or her two fa- vorite scopes. I mounted each one on the Kimber and the Ruger, sighted them in for zero at 150 yards, and we went hunt- ing for ground squirrels in the granite outcroppings. In these field trips, such things as ease of target acquisition, field of view, and objective lens focus capabil- ity were brought up as issues, but not so important as the single, overriding issue of clarity. Ground squirrels are small, black creatures that live in rock crevices and ground burrows. They’re busy little animals, so there’s rarely a lot of time to estimate range, get the sight picture, and squeeze off a round. Everyone enjoyed themselves immensely, the squirrel population was reduced by a couple of dozen on two ranches, and the shooters were happy with the performance of both scopes and rifles. So what conclusions did I reach
as a result of the 2½ months of testing with the team of 19? As the title of this article indicates: Different Scopes for Different Folks. 1) The application to which you
intend to apply your rifle scope makes a huge difference in your selection criteria. The big game hunters were interested in the smaller end of the power range. Rapid target acquisition was extremely important to them, and therefore field of view was a major is- sue. The size and shape of the reticle was of less importance; many preferred a rather bold cross hair. The ability to “scope out” the size of horns and ant- lers in dwindling light made the light gathering capabilities of the scope quite important to them. 2) Varminters were interested in
being able to have a wide power range available to them, since their targets tend to be small, furtive, and can appear anywhere from 10 yards to 200 yards away. They preferred a finer cross hair than the big game hunters, with the Du- plex style being the number one choice of reticles.
3) The paper punchers and bench
rest shooters wanted big power and the skinniest crosshairs available. Size and weight of the scopes was of little con- cern to them since they do “set piece” shooting and do not have to lug their rigs around the countryside. 4) In rifle scopes, one size defi-
nitely does not fit all. Each of the manu- facturers who supplied the scopes for this test make a wide range of shooting glass with a large number of features from which to choose. Of all the scopes, and all the categories of testing, the Swarovski made the largest number of appearances on the “best of” list. At our final meeting, when I really pressed them hard, and reminded them that money was no object in their selection, all but the target shooters said they’d start saving up for a Swarovski. The target crowd wanted at least 36x mag- nification. The marvelous thing about today’s
scope market is that if you’re a shoot- ing enthusiast, one of these companies makes a rifle scope that will fulfill your requirements, regardless of which of the shooting disciplines you prefer. While my sample of 19 showed their personal preferences and fell into rather neat little categories, you may be a varmint hunter who prefers a fixed-power 10x with a post and crosshair reticle. Well, it’s out there, just waiting for you. Author’s note: The Riflescope
Evaluation Form used a rating scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being excellent and 5 being poor. Scopes were judged on clarity of image, brightness, visibility of reticle, and ease of adjustment. Judges could also make observations and com- ments.
www.varminthunter.org Page 67
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212