Re: Scope Question
- From: "penultimate" <drwilly@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:30:50 +0000 (UTC)
Jerry,
We do not necessarily disagree and, if we do, it is more a matter of
inches than feet. Some greater precision in language may bridge the
gap. If not, it may usefully aid some beginner better understand what
the old farts think.
Regarding "cheap scopes", I do not consider any that I have referred to
as "adequate" as in the "cheap category." "Better" scopes are
available. But for ordinary use, "better" probably does not mean
reliably more functional and "better" comes at a distinctly higher
price. The primary distinguishing factor for a "cheap scope" (as
opposed to an adequate scope) in my mind is not so much price as the
fact that a "cheap scope" is not reliably functional or performs in a
way that compromises accurate shooting under field conditions.
In this category of "adequate scopes", I characterized the Leupold
Rifleman as OPTICALLY on a par with the Grand Slam. By this I mean no
more or less than the quality and clarity of the image formed is
comparable to my eyes. On the OPTICAL level I added that this level of
visible image quality was discernably less than more expensive Leupold
models. This is what one might expect. But when your eyes reach the
expected conclusions in side-by-side comparisons (note that my
"Rifleman" viewing has been only under store conditions), this is
comforting. So, in my very limited comparison sample, what I have seen
through a Weaver Grand Slam is not as good as what I seen through a
(more expensive) VXIII and is about the same as I see through a Leupold
Rifleman (less expensive), Nikon Buckmaster (a tad less expensive), and
a Sightron (less expensive). To this I add that optically, these
scopes deliver a measureable eye-relief conforming to specifications,
hold zero with power adjustments, and are free of parallax error.
Maybe my Grand Slam is optically poorer than is the norm. But mine
definitely is NOT in the same optical league as a contemporary VXII or
VXIII or Nikon Monarch/UCC. To my eye, it is in about the same league
as a first generation VX from years ago.
I also said the Rifleman and Grand Slam are, to me, of "comparable
quality." Note that to me "comparable quality" means similar standards
of materials, precision, workmanship, fit, and finish, not an
equivalence of doodads, useful or otherwise. In other words I have no
problem at all seeing a plain-Jane sedan with hardly any options as
comparable or even superior in quality to a luxury car. This is my
impression. No more, no less.
You say "All you are getting really with the Rifleman is a good
guarantee with lesser quality and the Grand Slam is a far better scope
quality wise to the Rifleman." If this means that you are getting a
more advanced and outstanding click adjustment mechanism with the Grand
Slam that you do not get with the Rifleman (a more advanced feature),
then I agree. The click adjustments on the Grand Slam are outstanding.
The Rifleman uses a much older, less complex, less expensive, but very
reliable, friction adjustment design. Unless your shooting makes use
of clicks for shot-to-shot windage and distance compensation (and most
people's shooting does not), however, the only advantage offered by the
Grand Slam's superior click adjustment system is possibly saving a
bullet or two when sighting in. And, you pay more money for the Grand
Slam as a consequence. All the scopes I consider "adequate" or
"better" have a good record in standing up to at least mid-range
recoil.
You quote Gale McMillan ----"....The only difference between a Leupold,
B&L Simmons or any of the rest of the scopes that use Japans lens is
the amount of quality control The importer is willing to pay for...."
--- and he is on the money. But, I doubt that all readers will
correctly understand the meaning of what he says because they do NOT
understand the implications of quality control - particularly as
practiced by in the oriental optics industry. And, although my
first-hand experience is in a specialty area of electro-optics, my
experience is first hand as well.
In the manufacture of consumer optics, the first thing to realize is
that, within reason, the process is like the utilization of a pig by
Armour --- ultimately almost everything is packaged and used but the
oink. This includes most of the quality control FAILURES!
It is true that ".....The glass types are dictated by the computer
designed lens system and the flint and crown glass all come from the
same areas ......" It is also the case that some of the raw glass
slugs, in whole or in part, meet the quality standards for use in the
production of the highest quality lenses and some do not. As little of
the less than perfect raw glass is scrapped as possible. It simply
appears as lower quality standard lenses.
In lense grinding and polishing, " .....Lens are polished to a standard
which is the number and size of digs and dings that are not polished
out ....." and those standards are higher for premium quality lenses.
But lenses that fail to meet that standard are seldom thrown away.
They simply appear in a "lower grade" offering. While it is true that
"....The better lens are coated with a 4 layer coating and all use the
same formula....", it is also true that these "multicoated" lenses are
inspected and graded for quality of coating result. QC rejects from
the multicoating process DO NOT appear in a top-of-the-line product.
They are likely, however, to be routed to the production of a
down-market product, which, of course claims "fully multicoated optics"
in its specfications.
The thing about this "quality control"/"culling process, is that it
means in many instances the cheap products are assembled from
components proven to be defective by or outside the specification
boundaries established for better products. Imagine a car built
entirely or substantially of parts that were QC rejects from another
manufacturer. When I say this, the Yugo comes to mind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Win a Henry Lever Action .44 and protect your 2nd Amendment Rights too!
Support MPFO! See details at http://www.myguns.net
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
- References:
- Scope Question
- From: sunrider
- Re: Scope Question
- From: Jerry
- Scope Question
- Prev by Date: Re: What's a good state to move to (Re: Moving to CA - what do I
- Next by Date: Re: South East Michigan
- Previous by thread: Re: Scope Question
- Next by thread: Re: Scope Question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
