Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
I'm not an expert on optics, but something has stuck to my brain from couple of scope comparison tests from Finnish hunting magazines.
The writer of the Outdoor Life article knows what he is talking about. In particular, the explanation of coatings on multi-element lenses is dead on. And he points out the misleading nature of the notion of "light-gathering," pointing out that a lens cannot gather light, only transmit what falls upon it. He fails to mention, however, the problem of lens flare and the role of coatings in controlling it. Flare is the blast of light that you get when a scope, a camera, or a pair of binoculars is pointed toward a light source and the light overwhelms everything else Flare is a particular problem for nature and landscape photographers. The best modern coatings do a much better job of controlling flare than in the past, and anti-flare coatings are a point of difference between cheap optics and better ones, and between older optics and newer ones. Having done a lot of photography over the years, mostly with Nikon lenses, I've seen major progress in this area.An article that an individual writes can't change my opinion on what I think is best for me in a hunting situation. But it can make me think. This is not just a forum to celebrate, or beat our chests, about a particular brand of firearm. It's school. And I'm here to learn. I have learned a great deal from this thread. Thank you
True. Anti-flare coatings are probably the only genuine advancement in optics in the last 50 years. I have an original 1965 model Leupold 3-9 Vari-X on my very first Sako (a Finnbear with a born-on date of August 24, 1963). The scope performs as well as any of the later Leupolds on my rifles, but there is a significant difference if you point it within a few degrees of the sun.anti-flare coatings are a point of difference between cheap optics and better ones, and between older optics and newer ones.
.....The scope performs as well as any of the later Leupolds on my rifles, but there is a significant difference if you point it within a few degrees of the sun.
This has been an informative thread .
Thanks to all who contributed to it.
I can think of a few more. Let's look at the advances in design and glassmaking that have made it possible to shrink the physical size of scopes and to increase zoom ratios. These include the use of rare-earth elements in lenses and coatings and the invention of high-index glass, allowing for more magnification without adding weight and bulk. Remember when high-end variable scopes had a zoom ratio of 2.5:1? Then for a long time 3 to 1 was standard, as in 3-9x, 4-12x, etc. Now you can get scopes with ratios of 4:1, 6:1, even 8:1. Not everyone wants or needs that kind of flexibility, and it's expensive, but it's there if you want it. Aspheric lens elements have vastly reduced distortion, although this is of more interest to photographers than to shooters.Anti-flare coatings are probably the only genuine advancement in optics in the last 50 years.
These two Sakos were outfitted with scopes, bought from members on this site. Thank you northernlights and rangerAV! Left is a 3 lug 25-06 and a 222mag. I know, I know, the -06 scope is too high. But with vintage Sako "high" rings, it was touching the barrel. Which was weird to me, because I've mounted 50mm scopes with vintage high rings on earlier Sako rifles. I guess the heavier contour barrel of the Garcia era wouldn't allow it?