Chinese Clone (counterfeit) Scopes
john
called "Clone Scopes" from China?? I've purchased three and am
considering another. Two of the three I have are both excellent. Metal
tube, crystal clear glass, repeatable settings, generous eye relief
and both have held their zero on heavy recoiling rifles. The lemon I
got I can't say anything good about it except it is as attractive as
the genuine scope it copied. It is otherwise a real piece of manure
not even suitable for use on a 22RF rifle.
I know it is a crap shoot buying from a Mainland or Hong Kong Chinese
merchant. Their ability to translate diminishes as soon as they have
the money in their hands. The big plus and the reason I'm rolling the
dice is the cost savings. I'm assuming and if I'm wrong please speak
up and respond. Most rifle scopes or main component parts of scopes
are manufactured in China. I'm assuming again the "Made in the USA"
might only mean assembled in the USA.
One of my good Chinese scopes I paid apx $100, standard shipping from
China included. The purchase was made apx 2 and a half years ago. The
scope now costs a bit more as our fearless leaders in DC continue to
print money. The scope is a copy of a name brand costing well over
$1200.00. So far, so good. Apx 3-350 rds of 338 Mag. As I worked up a
load using various bullet weights and powder charges. I've raised and
lowered the elevation reticle. After returning to the original scope
setting and shooting the factory ammo I sighted it in with. The
target's impact was dead on. I have enough confidence in the scope, if
necessary I'd carry it into combat. I got similar satisfactory results
with my other Chinese scope on a custom 35 Whelen. Three clicks up for
225 gr and three down for 250. The lemon scope is an AR-15 handle
mount I now use as a monocular to read the target on the handgun
range.
------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
Win a Fulton Armory M14 rifle while helping the Cause!
Get your MPFO raffle tickets at http://myguns.org/
------------------------------------------------------
Argent
# Does anybody have anything either good or bad to say about the so-
# called "Clone Scopes" from China?? I've purchased three and am
# considering another. Two of the three I have are both excellent. Metal
# tube, crystal clear glass, repeatable settings, generous eye relief
# and both have held their zero on heavy recoiling rifles. The lemon I
# got I can't say anything good about it except it is as attractive as
# the genuine scope it copied. It is otherwise a real piece of manure
# not even suitable for use on a 22RF rifle.
The good? You got scopes cheap.
The bad? By your own sample 1/3 is a piece of crap, so the real price
to you is 50% higher than what you paid. They are stealing the
designs of current scopes that someone in a capitalist country that
plays by the rules spent a lot of money designing, testing,
manufacturing and marketing. You are supporting a repressive
socialist regime that pays their workers almost nothing, if they pay
them at all (can you say slave labor?). You are supporting a country
that has no regard for safety, the environment or rights of the
workers. You are not buying American, or even buying from our allies
in the free world. And as you have no doubt found out with the bad
scope, there is no warranty that is enforceable.
#
# I know it is a crap shoot buying from a Mainland or Hong Kong Chinese
# merchant. Their ability to translate diminishes as soon as they have
# the money in their hands. The big plus and the reason I'm rolling the
# dice is the cost savings. I'm assuming and if I'm wrong please speak
# up and respond. Most rifle scopes or main component parts of scopes
# are manufactured in China. I'm assuming again the "Made in the USA"
# might only mean assembled in the USA.
It might for the cheap scopes, but shockingly, a lot of the better
scopes are actually made in the country they are based in. Such as
Leupold is really made here in the US, Nikon in Japan, Zeiss in
Germany, etc.
edi...@netpath.net
experience is they're far better.
RONSERESURPLUS
# Does anybody have anything either good or bad to say about the so-
# called "Clone Scopes" from China?? I've purchased three and am
# considering another. Two of the three I have are both excellent. Metal
# tube, crystal clear glass, repeatable settings, generous eye relief
# and both have held their zero SNIPPED!!
Hello JOHN
As Ya said, many Chinese scope are being imported and many of the
Knock off's are avail at many Places! I see the Quality of So Called
Knock of scopes as really having improved the last 10 years or so? I
know thier was a time when Chinese scope of most kind were absolute
junk, as ya said, now it's still a Crap shoot, but that seems better
and better each year? Roll the Dice and take your Chances, but at
1/20th the cost of the Hight $ scopes they are a value to me, as I see
it?
RON
Long Ranger
By all means continue to buy a Chinese knock-off of a quality
scope. Your reward will be in there somewhere. Maybe this will turn out
like the electronics industry in the sixties. Remember when TVs were made in
America?
RBnDFW
# Does anybody have anything either good or bad to say about the so-
# called "Clone Scopes" from China?? I've purchased three and am
# considering another. Two of the three I have are both excellent. Metal
# tube, crystal clear glass, repeatable settings, generous eye relief
# and both have held their zero on heavy recoiling rifles. The lemon I
# got I can't say anything good about it except it is as attractive as
# the genuine scope it copied. It is otherwise a real piece of manure
# not even suitable for use on a 22RF rifle.
Based on the reviews, I ordered one of these last week:
http://swfa.com/Vortex-6-24x50-Crossfire-Rifle-Scope-P43585.aspx
Bob Holtzman
#
# As Ya said, many Chinese scope are being imported and many of the
# Knock off's are avail at many Places! I see the Quality of So Called
# Knock of scopes as really having improved the last 10 years or so? I
# know thier was a time when Chinese scope of most kind were absolute
# junk, as ya said, now it's still a Crap shoot, but that seems better
# and better each year? Roll the Dice and take your Chances, but at
# 1/20th the cost of the Hight $ scopes they are a value to me, as I see
# it?
Everything's dollars and cents to you, huh?
--
Bob Holtzman
Key ID: 8D549279
"If you think you're getting free lunch,
check the price of the beer"
Ledgewalker
called "Clone Scopes" from China??
~~~~~
A while back there were some out there that said Leupold on them, to
leupold�s surprise that is. It�s hard enough buying a tool or lamp
made in China, but I�d rather eat mud than place a China scope on my
guns. If that day ever comes, I�ll take up golf and shoot birdies...
Ray, aka RMR
(Si vis pacem
para bellum)
john
#
# The good? �You got scopes cheap.
#
# The bad? �By your own sample 1/3 is a piece of crap, so the real price
# to you is 50% higher than what you paid. �
Not exactly, the good scopes cost apx a hundred a piece. The junker I
paid about 40 with shipping. Turned out to be the same scope I could
have bought from J&G Sales for 39.95.
They are stealing the
# designs of current scopes that someone in a capitalist country that
# plays by the rules spent a lot of money designing, testing,
# manufacturing and marketing. �
They are not "stealing" the designs. Name brands that are marketed in
the USA, marketed, not manufactured. Many if not most or all USA scope
manufactures with the exception of Leupold. Closed their factories,
sent the manufacturing first to Japan, Taiwan and now mainland China
and said build them for me. Now it is not uncommon to find the same
Chinese manufactured scope come in different brand name marked boxes.
A comparison I made locally on two 3-9X50 scopes. The only differences
were different logos on the reticle caps, one came with flip-up lens
covers, the other had conventional elastic band covers, a fancier box
for one and more than $45 difference in cost from the same dealer. If
the scopes were removed from the box, reticle caps removed there would
be absolutely no way to distinguish one from the other. The higher
priced scope also had better illustrated instructions. Both scopes
included the exact same rings.
.
You are supporting a repressive
# socialist regime that pays their workers almost nothing, if they pay
# them at all (can you say slave labor?). �You are supporting a country
# that has no regard for safety, the environment or rights of the
# workers. �You are not buying American, or even buying from our allies
# in the free world. �And as you have no doubt found out with the bad
# scope, there is no warranty that is enforceable.
I'm not doing anything different than BSA, Tasco, Simmons, Bushnell to
name a few or even Jap manufactures like Pentax and Nikon. If I buy
XYZ brand scope, say for example from Cabala's I'm still supporting
the same Chinese manufacture to build it. I'm also supporting a USA
company, possibly a foreign owned company to import, box and
distribute it. I can take advantage of the same lower labor costs the
name brand co utilizes and import it myself. Sure I'd prefer to buy a
USA manufactured rifle scope but I can't justify spending more for a
scope than the cost of my rifle. I'd love to have a $1600 Leupold
Tactical on my favorite deer rifle that is at best worth about $350.
#
# #
# # I know it is a crap shoot buying from a Mainland or Hong Kong Chinese
# # merchant. Their ability to translate diminishes as soon as they have
# # the money in their hands. The big plus and the reason I'm rolling the
# # dice is the cost savings. I'm assuming and if I'm wrong please speak
# # up and respond. Most rifle scopes or main component parts of scopes
# # are manufactured in China. I'm assuming again the "Made in the USA"
# # might only mean assembled in the USA.
#
# It might for the cheap scopes, but shockingly, a lot of the better
# scopes are actually made in the country they are based in. �Such as
# Leupold is really made here in the US, Nikon in Japan, Zeiss in
# Germany, etc.
I don't know for certain but I really doubt that any scope regardless
of where it was made that doesn't say made in China on it doesn't have
a portion of it's components that are made in China. Friend of mine
has a Nikon digital camera that says made in Japan on it but the
removable Nikon marked lens says made in China.
Louis Boyd
# By all means continue to buy a Chinese knock-off of a quality
# scope. Your reward will be in there somewhere. Maybe this will turn out
# like the electronics industry in the sixties. Remember when TVs were made in
# America?
Yes, I remember when TV's had round 10" black and white tubes and you
went to the corner drug store each weekend to test and swap out the
dozen or so weak and gassy vacuum tubes. As a percent of one's wages
they cost ten times what a 30 inch digital HDTV costs today, ones which
will typically run five to ten years with no maintenance. Yes, they
were all "Made in the USA" back then. Philco, Zenith, RCA, etc. Ya got
to love the good old days. At least you got to see Ed Sullivan and I
Love Lucy on the and you didn't have to watch a President selling health
insurance. You watched cigarette commercials instead.
john
# By all means continue to buy a Chinese knock-off of a quality
# scope. Your reward will be in there somewhere. Maybe this will turn out
# like the electronics industry in the sixties. Remember when TVs were made in
# America?
#
I remember in the late 60's working on an assembly line for Motorola
making circut boards for color tv's. One day myself and several other
employees were called in for a meeting to tell us our jobs were being
transfered to Mexico. I was not eleigible for re-hire into another
position because of my 1A draft status. Remember Motorola's late 60's
advertising blitz, "the works in a drawer" and "proudly made in the
USA".
The TV's cardboard boxes had a little American Flag and beneath it
"MADE IN THE USA". Truth was Mexican mfd components were partially
assembled south of the border. Some minor final assembly including the
Japanese mfg picture tube and packaging was all that was done in
America and the tv's were all marked made in the USA. Maybe the law
has changed since the late 60's but since I lost my job I see the made
in the USA label with a bit of doubt in my mind.
Ledgewalker
Japanese mfg picture tube and packaging was all that was done in
America
~~~~~"
That’s the ticket right there. Very few items are “made” entirely in
America, more like assembled in America. That’s what I mention when
folks say buy American cars. I can’t say for sure, but will bet at
least 40% of there components, (mostly electronics) comes from who
knows where. Its a catch 22. I bust my hump and pay extra to buy
American while still not getting what I want. Like they say, its
pretty hard to get the toothpaste back in the tube, and its only going
to get worse. Somewhere we got off on the wrong exit...
Ray, aka RMR
(Si vis pacem
para bellum)
------------------------------------------------------
Joe Bleaux
To each their own, but I don't see a problem with things assembled <wherever>
out of components made in <here, there, and everywhere>. Most of us gun
enthusiasts like Belgian and Japanese Brownings, German Weatherbys and HKs,
English Holland and Hollands, right along with "American-made" Winchesters,
Remingtons, Marlins, Colts, Smiths, etc. And I'd rather have some in the US
employed by the various "foreign" automakers at assembly plants here than none
at all. Moreover, much of the world is a fan of a variety of US-made products.
For an odd little example, the first-class "goodie bag" on Emirates airline
(owned by "Arabs") is filled with "American" toiletries, like Right Guard, which
is now made in the US, Canada, Mexico, etc. by a German company run by folks
from a variety of countries, including the US. Long story short, I'm not
against "world trade" as long as it is reciprocated among all or most nations,
and alarmist "news" stories aside, it pretty much currently is, with the US
getting a reasonable share.
Joe
IGot2P
# To each their own, but I don't see a problem with things assembled<wherever>
# out of components made in<here, there, and everywhere>. Most of us gun
# enthusiasts like Belgian and Japanese Brownings, German Weatherbys and HKs,
# English Holland and Hollands, right along with "American-made" Winchesters,
# Remingtons, Marlins, Colts, Smiths, etc. And I'd rather have some in the US
# employed by the various "foreign" automakers at assembly plants here than none
# at all. Moreover, much of the world is a fan of a variety of US-made products.
# For an odd little example, the first-class "goodie bag" on Emirates airline
# (owned by "Arabs") is filled with "American" toiletries, like Right Guard, which
# is now made in the US, Canada, Mexico, etc. by a German company run by folks
# from a variety of countries, including the US. Long story short, I'm not
# against "world trade" as long as it is reciprocated among all or most nations,
# and alarmist "news" stories aside, it pretty much currently is, with the US
# getting a reasonable share.
#
# Joe
Well said.....I totally agree.
Don
john
# To each their own, but I don't see a problem with things assembled <wherever>
# out of components made in <here, there, and everywhere>.
Joe I'm 100% in agreement with you. I would really prefer an American
made scope and if I were a one or two rifle hunter I'd probably invest
in a Leupolds. The rifle I usually hunt with currently has an American
made 1960's Weaver 4X on it. As I age I've become more of a collector
and shooter and own numerous rifles. My eyesight is failing and I can
no longer use irons reliably on sporting rifles. If I want to continue
to shoot I need to put scopes on several rifles and simply said,
spending $5-750+ on each rifle would be a foolish waste of money.
I can buy cheapie scopes here in the USA, be it Cabela's, Wal or K
Marts they are all going to be Chinese mfg. I can spend 100-$150 at
Wal-Mart or buy the same scope for 45-$60.00 via Ebay from a Chinese
merchant. Either way I'm going to support the Chinese factory to build
it. The way I see it. My buying direct from China. I'm depriving the
American worker of work that gets paid to import, box and distribute
it. I don't see my doing the leg work, buying it direct. Keeping the
difference in cost in my bank account and spending it elsewhere in the
USA any more un-American than me depriving an American auto mechanic,
plumber or gardener of work by my doing the work myself.
I'm anxiously awaiting my Chinese scope's arrival from mainland China.
One big downside to buying over seas. Is either the long wait, 2-5
weeks or paying way to much for X-press postage. I'm a cheapskate, so
I'll wait, just like the ol'saying "on a slow boat from China". If
anybody is interested I'll post on the quality of the scope after it
arrives.
Louis Boyd
# If anybody is interested I'll post on the quality of the scope after it
# arrives.
#
The trouble is you won't know if it's going to fall apart until you've
put a box or two of cartridges through the rifle. And few people
notice that the Mil dots on some Chinese scopes aren't really calibrated
in milliradians until the try to use them for their intended purpose.
I bought a Leapers brand scope just to use as a magnifier on a
rangefinder. It has a decent clear image but it's mil-dot reticle
isn't calibrated in anything resembling mils.
penultimate
> ...
John:
Several hopefully useful points:
1. There are of course many reasons why your eyesight might be
"failing" in a way that seriously impairs your ability to shoot with
iron sights. But certainly the most common reason associated with
aging is the development of cataracts. If so, you are probably
avoiding driving at night because you are blinded by glare from
oncoming headlights and tail lights in front of you look like flares.
I bring this up because that was my experience, in tandem with no
longer being able to get anything approximating a clear sight
picture. And, for me, it was pretty easy to think these losses were
those of aging just as when I started to require reading glasses a few
years before. NOT SO! When I complained specifically about the night
driving problem to my ophthalmologist, he looked carefully, saw the
relatively early stage cataracts, and recommended lens implant
surgery. "Miracle" is the closest description of the results I can
offer. Although I still needed reading glasses, my vision was
restored to 20/20, my night vision problems were gone, I could again
read highway signs far down the road, and I could shoot iron sights
again! So, if my description is anywhere near your experience, I
really encourage you to visit a good ophthalmologist.
2. Leupold scopes, the oldest 50+ years, have naturally migrated to
every rifle that I actually take hunting (except for a couple with
open sights). Other scoped rifles (with mostly pretty good scopes -
Nikon, Burris, etc.) adorn rifles that go to the range, but not the
field. I have posted elsewhere why a Leupold is a first choice for a
hunting rifle, but it basically boils down to decent optics with long
and forgiving eye relief in a parallax free and tough package. It is
my impression that I am on target enough quicker with a Leupold to
matter. I just look at the target while I bring the rifle to my
shoulder and suddenly I become aware of a magnified view with cross-
hairs near where I want them. The only other scopes which have given
my that same "feeling" are an old Weaver 4X "El Paso" (with really
pretty crappy optics) and, more recently, a Burris Full-field II that
I think was extremely impressive in its "Leupoldlikeness." I bring
this up because your "1960's Weaver" is probably "El Paso" marked.
Weaver knew the properties which are most desirable in a hunting scope
and scrimped a bit on optics to so that he could deliver them more
economically than was then the case with Leupold, Bausch and Lomb, and
Redfield, his major competitors at the time.
3. Like many who might prefer to have a Leupold but for price, you
note a price much higher than I have ever paid for the Leupold scopes
that I do have. Leupold certainly does make scopes even more
expensive than the range you quote ($500 - $750), but, in general, the
price tags you seem to think is typical is for a scope model with
specifications and features I don't want or need (e.g., "tactical"
windage and elevation controls, Adjustable Objectives, an extended or
higher power variable range, etc). All I want is a basic 3x, 4X, or
6X fixed power, or a ~1-5x, ~2-7X, or 3-9X variable with a 1" tube and
30-40 mm objective. From Leupold these are not cheap. But new I
would expect to buy a fixed power model for under $250 and a VX-3 (not
a VX-2 or "Rifleman") model in this variable range for around $300.
And, with a Leupold, if the price was right I would gladly buy a 20
year old used scope AND MUCH PREFER THAT SCOPE IN THE FIELD TO MOST IF
NOT ALL OF THE "BETTER" BRAND SCOPES NEW FROM THE BOX. Remember that
Leupold's warranty is lifetime and transferable.
4. All of which brings me to questions of value. Mount your China
scope, shoot the rifle once leaving a couple of ring marks, and then
try to sell the scope used on an "as-is" basis on e-Bay or at a gun
show. What will it bring? My guess is $5 to $10, if that. Certainly
I do not look at a cheap scope on a used rifle as adding one cent of
value - except if the scope mounts are of high quality (e.g.,
Leupold).
Look at what used Leupold scopes go for on e-Bay and notice that there
are lots of willing bidders. I am sure there might be an exception,
but it is certainly my impression that I could get at least as much
money for a used Leupold five or more years old as I paid for the same
scope new! Now, mind you, I am not so stupid as to say that owning a
Leupold is the same as money in the bank. But I am saying that, when
it comes to resale, whatever you spent on the "China" or other cheap
scope is money flushed down the toilet. If you have the money to buy
a Leupold, the idea that cheap scopes are a better deal is arguably
false.
Bob Holtzman
# On Mar 13, 11:39 am, john <zivendine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
# > ...
#
# John:
#
# Several hopefully useful points:
#
# 1. There are of course many reasons why your eyesight might be
# "failing" in a way that seriously impairs your ability to shoot with
# iron sights. But certainly the most common reason associated with
# aging is the development of cataracts.
I would disagree here. Cataracts do not occur universally. Far more
common is presbyopia or loss of visual accommodation.
.........snip..........
# Although I still needed reading glasses, my vision was
# restored to 20/20, my night vision problems were gone
.........snip.........
That's strange. When I had my cataract surgery I became markedly more
glare sensitive. Bright oncoming head lights are especially troublesome.
...........snip.........
# I just look at the target while I bring the rifle to my
# shoulder and suddenly I become aware of a magnified view with cross-
# hairs near where I want them.
.........snip........
Can you explain why Leupold would be better in this respect? What you
describe is usually more a matter of stock fit than scope brand.
..........snip.........
--
Bob Holtzman
Key ID: 8D549279
"If you think you're getting free lunch,
check the price of the beer"
penultimate
Bob:
1. Presbyopia happens to everyone and is a simple loss of elasticity
in the lens with age, not a loss of acuity. You optician does a
perfectly fine job correcting this natural consequence of aging with
glasses. If your distance vision is "normal", reading glasses are all
that is required. But shooting-wise, I would consider presbyopia
("old eyes") is an inconvenience in shooting open sights, but not a
barrier - especially if you use a peep. A cataract is the end of
shooting with open sights.
The operable phrase in John's post was "failing vision" and the
single most common reason for "failing vision" is a lenticular
cataract. You are correct that cataracts are not a universal problem,
but neither is "failing vision." Cataracts are more common the closer
you live to the equator and most common in people that spend a lot of
time out of doors. They become more likely (and worse) with age.
Cataracts are the development of milky or opaque or translucent
inclusions in the lens that cause optically uncorrtable visual loss,
often "spotty" in its early stages. There is no solution other than
surgery. Trying to shoot open sights in the presence of an early
stage cataract is among the world's most frustrating experiences.
You mention glare sensitivity after cataract surgery. In some people
"crud" forms on the implanted lens surface in the first few months
after surgery. I had that happen in the case of one of my two eyes
and bright oncoming headlights were a problem. I complained to my
ophthalmologist. He peeped in my eye, saw the crud, and scheduled me
for a five minute session with a laser which was used to "blast" the
crud off the plastic lens surface. End of problem. He told me this
happens sometimes to some people, sometimes (as in my case) in only
one eye but was usually cured permanently with the laser treatment. A
rare few require follow up blasts every few years. You might want to
check with your ophthalmologist. After the surgery, I am more
sensitive to bright light - something I deal with by wearing sun
glasses more than I used to.
2. .........snip........
Can you explain why Leupold would be better in this respect? What you
describe is usually more a matter of stock fit than scope brand.
----------
You of course are correct that stock fit makes a difference in how
quickly you can get a well aimed shot off. Proper selection of scope
rings and a scope which fit "you" also matter and I am always amused
at the idea that someone might select, mount, and sight in a scope on
"my" rifle. I have ranted a bit about this in the past.
But the scope itself - e.g., a "china" model vs a Leupold make a huge
difference,
Leupold designs its big game hunting models (I am without comment
regarding other "specialty application" models) to have long AND
"noncritical" eye-relief. Sometimes "non-critical" is referred to
as "non fussy" - the point being that you can move your head around
and back and forth over a big range while getting a fully filled
viewing field. If eye relief is long and non-fussy, your view of the
target will not go away as you move the scope into your field of
view. A well fit stock still matters. But not nearly as much. This
is not a new idea. Long and non-critical eye relief is a
characteristic of many older scope models (like a 60's vintage
Weaver). To my awareness, today it is a notable feature in the
Leupold's, Sightron's SII line, and, surprisingly, the Burris model I
noted earlier. I have never seen "long and non-critical eye relief"
in a cheap scope, most of which, irrespective of eye-relief, I would
describe as fussy as a dickens, in most cases in association with eye
relief that is too short.
The distance by which eye position may be varied forward and back and
side to side with a fully-filled scope view is sometimes called the
"optical box" and Leupold hunting models scopes can be characterized
as displaying a "big optical box." Leupold's "optical box" is much
bigger than most other "quality" scope models and hugely so relative
to most of the cheaper scopes. Parameters for the optical box should
be in the printed specifications for a scope - but they are not. You
have to do side by side viewing comparisons to really know what I am
talking about --- which unfortunately are hard to do with an unmounted
scope in a store. But once you do these comparisons and appreciate
how the "big box" leads to better shooting, you will never be tempted
to buy a "small box" scope at any price.
As to how big the box should be, I encourage you to put a piece of
masking tape a buddy can mark on on the side of your gunstock. While
standing, mount your gun, close your eyes, and get real comfortable
with your cheek on the stock. Have your buddy mark where your eye is
lengthwise relative to the stock. Do the same prone, If you are like
me, the marks will differ by almost 2". A sensible person might think
a well designed scope has an optical box at least 2" long.
The question is why all scopes are not built today as "big optical box
designs" like the Leupold's. The answer is money and lies in the fact
that people buy scopes that look good because few have the knowledge
and experience to buy on the basis of what works best. A "small
optical box" design can achieve a crisp and bright design using
cheaper components and in less critical alignment- and it is the view
which people buy. Conversely, a big optical box design is very
demanding of high quality optics to achieve satisfactory sharpness and
brightness. So long as you think the scope that yields the best view
you can see in the store at the lowest price is the best scope, you
will never know that you might have gotten a shot off 3 seconds
quicker with a Leupold.
RBnDFW
I have a new Leopold Rifleman, an older Redfield wideview, and I have a
$100 10-24x50 Vortex scope coming. I intend to take all three to the
range soon and try to understand the differences.
misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
# A while back there were some out there that said Leupold on them, to
# leupold’s surprise that is. It’s hard enough buying a tool or lamp
# made in China, but I’d rather eat mud than place a China scope on my
# guns. I
A related peice on american icons no long made there:
http://photo.newsweek.com/2010/3/brands-no-longer-made-in-the-usa.html
Bob Holtzman
# 1. Presbyopia happens to everyone and is a simple loss of elasticity
# in the lens with age, not a loss of acuity. You optician does a
# perfectly fine job correcting this natural consequence of aging with
# glasses. If your distance vision is "normal", reading glasses are all
# that is required.
Doesn't work that way. Prescription lenses won't restore the ability to
*perceive* the front sight and target to be in focus simultaneously. If
you have presbyopia you can have the lenses ground to allow you to focus
on the front sight but the target will be as out of focus or more so
than
before. I fought this for years before I found the solution. It entailed
using an optically adjustable diopter in the rear sight and adjusting
the depth of field with the iris to encompass the front sight and
optical infinity.
# But shooting-wise, I would consider presbyopia
# ("old eyes") is an inconvenience in shooting open sights, but not a
# barrier - especially if you use a peep. A cataract is the end of
# shooting with open sights.
I agree that untreated cataracts are the end of shooting, as well as
most anything else, but uncompensated presbyopia is the end of
*accurate* iron sight shooting.
# The operable phrase in John's post was "failing vision" and the
# single most common reason for "failing vision" is a lenticular
# cataract. You are correct that cataracts are not a universal problem,
# but neither is "failing vision."
"Failing vision" is a nebulous term that can have a number of
interpretations, including failure to focus on the front sight and/or
the target, as well as loss of overall acuity.
# Cataracts are more common the closer
# you live to the equator and most common in people that spend a lot of
# time out of doors. They become more likely (and worse) with age.
#
# Cataracts are the development of milky or opaque or translucent
# inclusions in the lens that cause optically uncorrtable visual loss,
# often "spotty" in its early stages. There is no solution other than
# surgery. Trying to shoot open sights in the presence of an early
# stage cataract is among the world's most frustrating experiences.
#
# You mention glare sensitivity after cataract surgery. In some people
# "crud" forms on the implanted lens surface in the first few months
# after surgery. I had that happen in the case of one of my two eyes
# and bright oncoming headlights were a problem. I complained to my
# ophthalmologist. He peeped in my eye, saw the crud, and scheduled me
# for a five minute session with a laser which was used to "blast" the
# crud off the plastic lens surface. End of problem. He told me this
# happens sometimes to some people, sometimes (as in my case) in only
# one eye but was usually cured permanently with the laser treatment. A
# rare few require follow up blasts every few years. You might want to
# check with your ophthalmologist. After the surgery, I am more
# sensitive to bright light - something I deal with by wearing sun
# glasses more than I used to.
OK, now you've gone and done it. You've confused an old man. In one
sentence you said that the laser treatment cured the problem and three
sentences later you said you're more sensitive to bright light nd have
to wear sunglasses more often (that's how I deal with it but it's not so
good for night driving). Having said that, it's an interesting idea
which I'll check out with my ophthalmologist.
#
# 2. .........snip........
# Can you explain why Leupold would be better in this respect? What you
# describe is usually more a matter of stock fit than scope brand.
# ----------
# You of course are correct that stock fit makes a difference in how
# quickly you can get a well aimed shot off. Proper selection of scope
# rings and a scope which fit "you" also matter and I am always amused
# at the idea that someone might select, mount, and sight in a scope on
# "my" rifle. I have ranted a bit about this in the past.
#
# But the scope itself - e.g., a "china" model vs a Leupold make a huge
# difference,
#
# Leupold designs its big game hunting models (I am without comment
# regarding other "specialty application" models) to have long AND
# "noncritical" eye-relief. Sometimes "non-critical" is referred to
# as "non fussy" - the point being that you can move your head around
# and back and forth over a big range while getting a fully filled
What you refer to as "non-critical" I believe is actually the result of
a large exit pupil, a feature of quality *low powered* optical systems.
#
# The distance by which eye position may be varied forward and back and
# side to side with a fully-filled scope view is sometimes called the
# "optical box" and Leupold hunting models scopes can be characterized
# as displaying a "big optical box." Leupold's "optical box" is much
# bigger than most other "quality" scope models and hugely so relative
# to most of the cheaper scopes. Parameters for the optical box should
# be in the printed specifications for a scope - but they are not.
The max and min eye relief and the exit pupil dia are generally
available. These parameters as you note define the optical box.
#
# As to how big the box should be, I encourage you to put a piece of
# masking tape a buddy can mark on on the side of your gunstock. While
# standing, mount your gun, close your eyes, and get real comfortable
# with your cheek on the stock.
In the field I seldom had time to get "real comfortable" in any
position.
Take care and remember: it's more fun when they go in the middle. So
said Herb Hollister, a noted smallbore shooter in the 1960s.
--
Bob Holtzman
Key ID: 8D549279
"If you think you're getting free lunch,
check the price of the beer"
David R.Birch
presbyopia, then I had LASIK surgery in 2000. I was checking out cheap
readers at the Dollar Tree, I usually get 2.00 or 2.50 for reading,
put on some 1.25 power and found that I could see across the store AND
well with in arms reach. Without readers, anything closer than arms
length is blurred.
I tried them at 25, 50 and 100 yards, now I can see the pistol sights
and the target, not all in perfect focus, but better than when I was
nearsighted with glasses. Good for iron sights on rifles, too. I wish
I had discovered this before LASIK, I could have been shooting better
back when I used to use contacts.
David
penultimate
> ...
1. Re. Presbyopia
a. While I find the fact that it may now take me all night long to do
what in my youth I did all night long, I have not found what some
might consider aging related diminished capacity a barrier to enjoying
the activity. With the benefit of bionic eyeballs, I am really not
aware of shooting iron sights more poorly now than in my youth. But
except for a little casual geezer competition with military bolt
actions in recent years, my interest in shooting has never included
competitive target shooting and maybe the Alzheimer's has made more
forget possibly greater prowess long ago. I can in my 60s manage 2 -
3 MOA groups with a Swedish Mauser, 2 MOA with a peeped Savage 1899,
and minute of pie-plate with a buckhorn sighted M99.
b. I don't have any trouble with a sight picture which puts the front
bead on the target, but maybe I have a longer barrel.
2. Re. Cataracts
My comment re. sunglasses has to do with so much more light getting
through the bionic eyeballs (brightness) than was getting through pre-
surgery home-grown eyes. Indeed, after the first eye was done, I
would see a sheet of paper as bright white in color through the bionic
eye and as a brownish yellow through the "unfixed" eye. Post-surgical
"crud accumulation" (as occurred over a couple of months with one eye)
led to "flaring" and "star burst" type perceptions during night
driving, much as had been the case pre-surgery. Note that shortly
after surgery, I did not have this problem and I went back to the
doctor because I noticed it developing and wondered what was up. If
your ophthalmologist confirms a similar happening in your case, I
think you can look forward to some improvement.
3. Re. Leupold scopes
> ...
result of
> ...
systems.
Noting that exit pupil size at the point of design eye-relief is given
by dividing objective diameter in mm by optical power, you are correct
with regard to "L/R/U/D" flexibility in eye positioning. An exit
pupil larger than the eye's entrance pupil is necessary to avoid
vignetting as they eye is moved in the plane of the exit pupil. Since
4 to 5 mm would be pretty much the limit of maximum pupil size in us
old folks, obviously, "planar eye-forgiveness" with a 30 to 40 mm
objective is limited to the lower range of power values. But design
for a long eye relief (which has next to nothing to do with exit pupil
size) is essential for "non-critical forgiveness" in the along the
"fore/aft" dimension. The reason, as I understand it, is that longer
eye relief provides for a shallower conic angle in the "ray
projection" of the optical path and contributes to a greater "depth of
field" much like a higher f-stop setting (corresponding to a smaller
iris aperture size) on a camera. The result is a longer optical box.
It is this "box property" that I think is most important. I judge it
to be about 2" long with one of my Leupold variables at 4X.
There are two "expenses" of this approach:
a. First is that a long eye relief design ups the ante on optical and
mechanical precision, lest for example, parallax be a huge problem.
Generally, cheap scopes have avoided such designs because glass, lens
grinding, coatings, and alignment become more critical lest QC
variation reveal obvious defects in a greater percentage of product.
b. Designing for a longer eye relief is, at equivalent power settings,
is at the expense of a slightly narrower field of view. Lots of
scopes advertise "Wide field of view" as an asset in target
acquisition and this is certainly the case if a clear view through the
scope is already established before the target is acquired. Leupold,
however, (and rightly in my mind) thinks that "long and non-critical
eye relief" is more important to target acquisition in a hunting
context. In the field, I fix the target with my eye, hold that view,
and literally stick the scope in between my eye and the target as I
mount the rifle. With a Leupold scope, I do not recall ever having
trouble trying to find the deer or elk AFTER mounting the rifle. I
foolishly bought a Nikon Monarch for a Ruger #1 maybe 10 years ago,
only to discover that there was insufficient eye relief to mount the
scope without use of "extension bases." I later removed the Nikon in
disgust after blowing a jump shot opportunity on the largest bull elk
I have ever seen with tags in my pocket because I couldn't get a clear
view through the scope in the second or two I had to shoot. This made
me start to understand that I really did shoot a bit quicker with a
Leupold and why. I was taught this approach to shooting with a scoped
rifle by my father over 50 years ago, circumstantially one scoped with
a Leupold 4X mountaineer with a big dot reticle. Taking advantage of
the "Leupold approach" to getting a shot off may take some training; I
can not accomplish it with the several Nikons in the safes - scopes
that I think are optically very good. Note that I have not examined
every scope model available and that I am only characterizing what is
true for me.
4. Max and Min eye relief
> ...
Not so. Eye relief is defined relative to the fixed location of the
exit pupil behind the eyepiece. Maximum and minimum eye relief
parameters define the location of the exit pupil in the case of a
variable power scope with the maximum value being expected exit pupil
location at minimum scope power and the minimum value at the maximum
power setting. Eye relief varies with power in most (and mostly the
less expensive) variable scopes in the manner described. A few (and
increasing number of) variable power scope models (mostly more
expensive) offer constant eye relief at all power settings. The
lengthwise component of the optical box is an ultimately perceptual
attribute with its closer boundary at the exit pupil. You can
visualize, locate, and measure a scopes "exit pupil" by fixing scope
in place pointed at a bright light bulb and forming an image on a
piece of paper. I say "expected" location because on cheap scopes you
may not locate the exit pupil where the specifications say it should
be.
5. "Comfortable"
> ...
As I have become a better hunter and more adept at finding the game
before it finds me (and older and lazier), I have found that I have
much more often greater time to pick and make a shot than in the
past. But still I think the majority of shot opportunities are over
and gone within several seconds. Having to scrunch your head around to
get a view through a scope is not conducive to a quick shot. My point
about getting real comfortable with eye's closed is that I think in
any particular position, that's where rifle is most inclined to go, on
its own, when you must shoot in a hurry. This is the best way I know
to diagnose whether your scope and how it is mounted is a help or
hindrance to quick shooting.
Jim Bianchi
# On Mar 16, 10:06 am, Bob Holtzman <hol...@cox.net> wrote:
# Post-surgical "crud accumulation" (as occurred over a couple of months
# with one eye) led to "flaring" and "star burst" type perceptions during
# night driving, much as had been the case pre-surgery. Note that shortly
# after surgery, I did not have this problem and I went back to the doctor
# because I noticed it developing and wondered what was up. If your
# ophthalmologist confirms a similar happening in your case, I think you can
# look forward to some improvement.
Ok. I've had cataract surgery (lens replacement w/implants) in both
eyes. According to my opthalmoligist and my own experience, the implanted
lens seems to develop some kind of 'crud' that is a sorta tissue build-up on
one side of the lens. This results in the visual field getting 'foggy' to
some extent (it varies -- it doesn't happen every time or if it does, not in
the exact time). After about 5 months, my opthalomologist did a proceedure
involving something called a 'YAG laser.' (I've no idea what that stands
for.) Essentially what this does is to 'zap' the crud, which destroys it --
after which it shouldn't ever recur.
Now, if you are a competitive (or even amateur) target shooter (or
hunter), you should most definitely tell your opthalomologist. The focal
length of the new implanted lens can be chosen to accommodate your needs.
(One of my lenses is fine for reading/writing on the pooter, the other is
more suited to long range vision.)
Tony
# On 2010-03-09, RONSERESURPLUS<ronsere...@gmail.com> wrote:
# #
# # As Ya said, many Chinese scope are being imported and many of the
# # Knock of scopes as really having improved the last 10 years or so? I
# # know thier was a time when Chinese scope of most kind were absolute
# # junk, as ya said, now it's still a Crap shoot, but that seems better
# # and better each year? Roll the Dice and take your Chances, but at
# # 1/20th the cost of the Hight $ scopes they are a value to me, as I see
# # it?
#
# Everything's dollars and cents to you, huh?
I know that with me, dollars and cents always enters into purchasing
decisions when I'm calculating value. The last rifle I purchased was a
Swiss K-31. $270 was the amount I was willing to pay for the accuracy I
was probably going to receive.
If a Chinese scope gives reasonable performance for a fraction of the
price, I wouldn't have a problem buying it.
But that's for shooting deer. If I was using the rifle in battle to
defend my life, I'd probably be willing to spend much more (on both
rifle and scope).
Kevin D. Snodgrass
# the exact time). After about 5 months, my opthalomologist did a proceedure
# involving something called a 'YAG laser.' (I've no idea what that stands
# for.) Essentially what this does is to 'zap' the crud, which destroys it --
# after which it shouldn't ever recur.
yttrium aluminium garnet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nd:YAG_laser
john
is following it about the scopes. My scopes arrived from China in less
than 2 weeks. As I expected they are Leupold clones. The scopes appear
to be excellent quality. Crystal clear glass, very solid feeling
audible clicks and the parallax adjustment works like a charm.
Previous models I purchased have held their settings with heavy
recoil. The settings were repeatable as I moved the reticle up, down
and back again. I'm going to install one on a 458 win mag and give it
a test run in a day or two. I will launch as many shots as I can
stand. If the settings hold as well and are repeatable as they were in
my 338 Mag I'm going to buy more. I understand the cheaper labor costs
in China but I feel like US manufactures owe the US consumer an
explanation why they charge $1600.00 for a scope the Chinese can copy
and sell for about $80.00. I would really like to believe I'm some how
wrong or missing something. Feel free to flame my patriotism. I do
want to support USA manufactures but not for an additional $1520 per
scope for something that so far operates just as good.
Gray Ghost
# I know this thread has wondered into eyesight but just in case anybody
# is following it about the scopes. My scopes arrived from China in less
# than 2 weeks. As I expected they are Leupold clones. The scopes appear
# to be excellent quality. Crystal clear glass, very solid feeling
# audible clicks and the parallax adjustment works like a charm.
# Previous models I purchased have held their settings with heavy
# recoil. The settings were repeatable as I moved the reticle up, down
# and back again. I'm going to install one on a 458 win mag and give it
# a test run in a day or two. I will launch as many shots as I can
# stand. If the settings hold as well and are repeatable as they were in
# my 338 Mag I'm going to buy more. I understand the cheaper labor costs
# in China but I feel like US manufactures owe the US consumer an
# explanation why they charge $1600.00 for a scope the Chinese can copy
# and sell for about $80.00. I would really like to believe I'm some how
# wrong or missing something. Feel free to flame my patriotism. I do
# want to support USA manufactures but not for an additional $1520 per
# scope for something that so far operates just as good.
in truth they really aren't even competing. At $1600 buying one is simply out
of the question. At $80 yes.
penultimate
I know this thread has wondered into eyesight but just in case anybody
less
than 2 weeks. They came packed on a nifty hanger inside a nice, plaid
polyester
sport coat. As I expected they are Rolex clones. The watches appear
to be excellent quality. Crystal clear glass cover, very solid feeling
audible ticks, hands that point at numbers, and the time adjustment
works
like a charm. Previous models I purchased kept ticking as long as I
didn't
go swimming and even those that did are right twice a day. And if I
willing
to twist the stem, I can set the dial to any time I want it to be.
Being able to
set the date so's I can remember the wedding anniversary is
wonderful. And
my girl friend thinks it makes me look like a big spender and wearing
it
really makes me feel like a big shot. I understand the cheaper labor
costs
in China but I feel like Swiss manufactures owe the US consumer an
explanation why they charge $16,000.00 for a watch the Chinese
can copy and sell for about $12.00. I would really like to believe I'm
some how
wrong or missing something. Feel free to flame my patriotism. I do
per
watch for something that so far operates just as good.
Bob Holtzman
............snip...........
# I understand the cheaper labor
# costs
# in China but I feel like Swiss manufactures owe the US consumer an
# explanation why they charge $16,000.00 for a watch the Chinese
# can copy and sell for about $12.00. I would really like to believe I'm
# some how
# wrong or missing something.
What you're missing is that The Swiss manufacturers aren't selling
watches. They're selling status. There are a lot of people who will pay
a lot of money for that and the Swiss are happy to accommodate them.