How to choose a rifle scope
I want to share my thoughts on this subject. It helps me processing my own view and shall serve as a note-to-self. Maybe it can be useful for other people as well.
As is the case with any selection process, the first step is asking the right questions to establish what you need/want/can have.
* what is the budget?
* how good is your eye sight?
* how far will you shoot realistically? 250 m shooting a rabbit is far by some people's standard, and is average by others' standard.
* do you mind weight?
* will you be shooting from a stable position (e.g on top of a truck, always prone, or shooting off a tripod), or free hand?
* do you want to buy locally or do you not mind buy from overseas and weight for a month to get your purchase?
Here are some of my views and tips which I learned through trial and error:
1. MIL is easier to calculate in the head, easier to use for range estimation, and easier to remember. If all else is equal, buy MIL scope.
2. Unless it is for a centrefire gun that is to be used within a range with no bullet drop, reticles with mil/moa markings are useful. Dialing is nicer if you have time to do it, but sometimes you do not, and sometimes one can forget the starting point (on a non-zero stop scopes) or lost count of clicks. Use reticle hold over is quicker and easier.
3. Having said the above, they do not matter on cheap scopes where : 1, the reticle markings are not accurate, and/or 2, the turret clicks are not accurate. It may be surprising to a new shooter (and not at all surprising to experienced shooter) that the vast majority scopes do not have either or both accurate. Usually nothing under $1,500.
4. I like light weight as much as the next guy but light weight often comes at the expense of either cost or quality of the internals. Leupold makes the lightest scopes in each class it competes in but at the same time has the worst reputation of all mid-high end scope makers in terms of turret accuracy. Take the weight advantage if you choose not to dial. A further point on this subject, the weight saving/burden is somewhat muted when compared with other gear that you may be carrying. Sometimes I wonder why worry about extra 300 gram in the scope when i am wearing cheap and heavy Warehouse gumboots that weighs a kilo?
5. People tend to put too much emphasis on glass quality. While high end scopes are nicer to look through, past the "above average" point, image quality really means very little in a scope. I am a photography hobbyist too, while resolution, CA, colour cast, distortiona ll matter to photography - because you want a nice image hanging on your wall - they do not matter when you shoot. You simply need the scope to clear enough so you can see the target and place the target over the crosshair. Even scopes of image quality "below average" can do this adequately. nicer image quality usually is far more noticeable to customers than dialing accuracy or reticle accuracy, that is why most manufactures put more effort in image quality than they do mechanical quality. Leupold for example, generally have excellent image quality when compared to other scopes of the same class. That business strategy has proven to be successful.
6. Having said point 5, you look through your scope a lot, the better the scope's image quality, the more pleasing it is. Since shooting and hunting is a hobby in the first place, buying something that is pleasing may be the right way to go anyway.
7. The main advantage with FFP is that you can use different magnifications and the reticle lines still work. Most scopes lose image quality at maximum magnification. This presents a problem for SPF, for example in a given scope the reticles is only correct at x24 being the maximum magnification, but the shooter may prefer x20 because the image is sharper and brighter, has less CA, less haze, more FOV and better contrast. Whereas if it was an FFP scope, the reticle is correct at 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24.
8. A point to remember about FF is that FFP is great for 10x~30x. But below 5x, FFP is definitely a compromise regardless of the brand and model. The center of the reticle can be too small to see clearly, especially in poor light, when you shoot at minimum magnification you may have to guess where the centre is (because you cannot see it). illumination is the most effective way to mitigate this, restricting magnification range is the second. For example, a 4-16 FFP scope will have thicker low end (thus more clear) reticle lines than a 3-24 FF scope.
9. A lot of scope reviews make a big deal about the quality of turret "click" - how tactile, how much resistance, how smooth, how loud etc. While i am sure these qualities are tangible, I am not sure of their value. the focus on these is similar to that on image quality, because it is immediately tangible, it gets a lot of attention. This is not dissimilar to camera reviews making a big deal about of the quality of the shutter sound. It is nice to have nice shutter sound (and turret clicks), but adds little functional difference once it is "above average".
10. Adjustment range is pretty important for a scope that is intended for longer range shooting. but adjustment range generally comes at a cost, usually in the form of scope weight, tube size, and price. Also generally speaking, the larger the magnification the less adjustment range. 40MOA is generally quite low by today's standard. Some Leica scopes have abysmal range. from my research Vixens' range is also on the low end. Leupolds are usually on the low side (VX5HD 3-15 and 4-20 only has 75MOA/22Mil). Some of the new players that try to compete against the established brands often focus and promote their adjustment range advantage. Riton is a relatively new american brand. its X7 3-24 has 35Mil of travel, its x7 3-18 has a whooping 46Mil of travel. They use 34mm tubes and are heavy. Delta Titanium is also to be mentioned, despite being only a 30mm tube and has x24 power magnification, has a very respectable 100 MOA (29Mil) range, and it manages to keep the weight down. Titanium's weight is inline with Leupold VX6HD.
