|
Post by SW on Jan 12, 2009 22:23:55 GMT -5
I got a Weaver Elite 2.5X10 50 MM in the mail today. I decided to compare it with my other scopes in low light conditions. I set up my card table/rifle rests and set a black and white gridded 5 tgt target(from Wal-mart of course) @ 60 yds(later will do 200yds). I used a relative number scale to rate brightness/clarity. I had all the rifles/scopes immediately available and could look thru all in just over a minute. I used my 4.5X14 50 mm Var-X3 as my standard and gave it a score of 10 and rated the others in relation to the Var-X3(higher is better numerically). The results: Bushnell 3200 2X7(32mm) - score 8. Crisp until very low light. Bushnell 3200 3X9(40mm) - score 7. Not quite as bright as 2X7. Bushnell 4200 2.5X10(40) - score 11. Very good, easy to use. Sightron 2 3X12 (42mm) score - 8-9. Still pretty good. Short eye-relief. Leu Var-X3 6.5-20(40mm) score 9. Set on 6.5 AO not sensitive. Leu Var-X3 4.5X14(50mm) score 10. AO not sens at 4.5-10. Weaver Elite 2.5X10(50) score 12. AO very sens. The brightest/crispest. 10 pwr at darkest viewing was still as usable as the rest of the power range.
Comments: lowest power not necessairly the brightest - varied power to get clearest view. All AOs were optimized while light was still good. The AO scale of the Weaver was very accurate at 60 - 200 yds - the farthest checked. Often AO scales are way off. This is much closer than my Leupolds. The AO adj on the Var-X3s changed the image very little at pwr setting of 10 and under but the AO on the Weaver seemed like a very sensitive focus, even at 2.5; but it did get a more refined/crisper image. The eye-relief of the Weaver seemed very good to me. It remained at appx 4" thru-out the power range. I kept trying the scopes until I could no longer make out the five bullseyes. The Weaver was the last tried and could still see the 5 Bulleyes after the other scopes couldn't reveal the "5". The lighted reticle didn't block out the sight picture of the 5 bullseyes. The lighted reticle is variable and is excellent. It is easy to get on tgt. If the 4200 had a lighted reticle or if the reticle could be seen easier, it would be more desirable. The "Firefly" reticle isn't the answer IMO. Lighted reticles have a reputation of being delicate, but the Nightforce scopes don't seem to have a problem with this. The only thing I dis-liked about the Weaver is just how critical the AO adjustment is to a good, clear picture. I do like the extreme low-light capability in comparison to my other scopes. That said, I wish I could have compared it to a 3X9 Conquest, 3.5X10 VX3, top of the line Burris, and a 32 MM Nightforce 2.5X10. I like the Weaver and am trying to resist ordering another.
|
|
|
Post by DW on Jan 12, 2009 23:10:21 GMT -5
Very interesting, thanks for the breakdown.
|
|
|
Post by youp50 on Jan 13, 2009 5:55:43 GMT -5
I like the Weaver and am trying to resist ordering another.
Give in. You deserve it. Do not introduce me to your CFO.
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Jan 13, 2009 7:01:52 GMT -5
I like the Weaver and am trying to resist ordering another. Thanks Steve for the report.......that is very good news to me. Go ahead and purchase the 1.5-4.5x24 version with illuminated reticle so that you might give the board a report on that also. Tell your wife you are doing it for purely altruistic reasons. ;D Doug
|
|
rexxer
Eight Pointer
Posts: 184
|
Post by rexxer on Jan 13, 2009 7:03:38 GMT -5
If a scope company gives us a number for light transmission of say 90 and another company says theirs is 95, this doesnt really mean anything?
Maybe the side by side test is the only true test. Thanks for write up SW.
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Jan 13, 2009 7:09:23 GMT -5
If a scope company gives us a number for light transmission of say 90 and another company says theirs is 95, this doesnt really mean anything? Maybe the side by side test is the only true test. Thanks for write up SW. The problem with the light transmission is two-fold. First not all optical companies use the same method to measure the light coming through the lenses. Two.....brightness in and of itself is meaningless without crispness, focus and resolution. Comparing rifle scopes based on their own light transmission methods is unreliable IMO> Doug
|
|
|
Post by SW on Jan 13, 2009 7:57:42 GMT -5
I think I've noticed that scope companies can either state the transmission of the individual lenses or the entire scope as a whole, a much more meaningful number. Something notable to me is that the 4200 40 mm 2.5X10 was slightly brighter than even the 50mm Var-X3. I could best make out the tgt in nearly dark conditions at the lower powers of the 4200 but the Weaver seemed to have the same brightness thruout the entire range: at 10X I could see it when I could not make out the 5 black bull eyes with any other scope regardless of magnification. I'm aware of pupil exit principle of 5. My brightest scope has lighted reticle(great!),AO(good or bad), 2.5X10(ideal for 10-ML2 for me), looks good, life time warranty, and cost $269(very good).
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Jan 13, 2009 8:23:38 GMT -5
Steve, I wonder how a high end scope like Swarovski, would fair. I know some folks base their like and dislikes base on one failure, but other have brand loyalty In 07, on the second day of the hunt, my guide discovered moisture in thr eye piece of his Swarovski scope, his reaction, was to get out his satellite phone and have them overnite the eye piece to the bush pliots house., these folks don't get rich, guideing, but he insist on what he calls the best equipment, we used my Leupold spotter, and yes there was a difference While I am happy with my Leupold bino's and rifle scope, I can see the difference in preformance. And can understand, how someone who makes his living using them would choose the best.
|
|
|
Post by KerryB on Jan 13, 2009 8:38:52 GMT -5
Hey buddy! That Weaver sounds awsome! Where did you get it? Price? Thanks much, KerryB
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Jan 13, 2009 10:12:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Jan 13, 2009 13:53:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Harley on Jan 13, 2009 22:53:05 GMT -5
I'm glad the Weaver met all your expectations, Steve.
Harley
P.S.: A few years ago I compared, at dusk, the then new VX-III Leupold 30mm B&C 4.5-14x40 with the top of the line Schmidt & Bender. The Leupold was lighter, brighter, had a wider field of view and cost 1/3. Today, the Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44 is brighter than that Leupold. I don't know the moral of this story.
|
|
|
Post by SW on Jan 14, 2009 7:54:00 GMT -5
Harley/others. I am sorry that I didn't have scopes that are more representative of the better/more common scopes to compare with the Weaver. A Major disadvantage of the Weaver is the very sensitive AO feature. While, when properly adjusted, the image is extremely crisp/bright, the need to adjust the AO, even at lower power settings, to get good resolution is a major disadvantage is a scope that may often be used at shorter ranges. I still think a 4200 2.5X10 50mm,lighted reticle could well be a good choice. Ranging reticles would help. I would like the 4200 mentioned with mil-dots(not available on this scope and not often available on variables with 10 as the max pwr). The ONLY way to really differentiate between brightness of scopes is to do low light(read that "virtually dark") testing.
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Jan 14, 2009 10:56:44 GMT -5
Steve.......I would like to know about the clarity of the Weaver scope when parallax is set at 100 yds on the lower powers....ex. 2.5,3,4 and looking out to 300 yards. Does the sight picture require adjustment? I wouldn't mind adjusting the side focus when I adjust the magnification but I usually hunt on low mag.
Doug
|
|
|
Post by SW on Jan 14, 2009 14:51:13 GMT -5
Steve.......I would like to know about the clarity of the Weaver scope when parallax is set at 100 yds on the lower powers....ex. 2.5,3,4 and looking out to 300 yards. Does the sight picture require adjustment? I wouldn't mind adjusting the side focus when I adjust the magnification but I usually hunt on low mag. Doug Doug, Strange you would ask this - today. This morning just before dawn, I went out with the Weaver to see just how sens the AO is at various ranges/power settings. The ONLY time I really notice sensitivity is at high power(8-10) and 75 yds or less. Even at 10X there is not that much difference ay 100-300 yds: at 5X it isn't even detectable. Just now, during my lunch hour, I went out to confirm my answers before posting. Nice to live in the country. I overstated the situation in my initial post.
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Jan 14, 2009 19:01:51 GMT -5
Steve.......I would like to know about the clarity of the Weaver scope when parallax is set at 100 yds on the lower powers....ex. 2.5,3,4 and looking out to 300 yards. Does the sight picture require adjustment? I wouldn't mind adjusting the side focus when I adjust the magnification but I usually hunt on low mag. Doug Doug, Strange you would ask this - today. This morning just before dawn, I went out with the Weaver to see just how sens the AO is at various ranges/power settings. The ONLY time I really notice sensitivity is at high power(8-10) and 75 yds or less. Even at 10X there is not that much difference ay 100-300 yds: at 5X it isn't even detectable. Just now, during my lunch hour, I went out to confirm my answers before posting. Nice to live in the country. I overstated the situation in my initial post. That is very good to know. It would definitely be a deal breaker if I would have to adjust to focus anywhere out to 300 yards on low power. I have a Kahles CL 3-9x42 with side focus (why any 3-9 scope would have a parallax adjustment I don't know) but if I just leave the parallax setting on 150 yards I only have to adjust the higher powers which I rarely touch. I called Natchez yesterday to make sure that they had received my defective Weaver Classic Elite scope and they said that they had that day received over 50 returned scopes of different makes. I should be receiving my replacement by early next week hopefully. At first glance it greatly resembled my Bushnell 6500 especially the turret knobs. It was also rather heavy but looked well built. I will report on the scope as soon as I get the chance to mount it and shoot to test the tracking. Doug
|
|
|
Post by rangeball on Jan 15, 2009 9:51:06 GMT -5
The weaver sounds like everything I like in a scope, but I have a few questions if you don't mind. Do you know of anywhere that shows a pic of what the reticle looks like? It's the german #4 with an illuminated dot in the center, right? I'd be putting it on my SMI converted H&R. Do you think this gun, with the scope mount base directly attached to the barrel, would be easier on the AO than the savage seems to be, especially with two bases instead of one? Coming very close to ordering one of these, and this info will put the nail in the coffin for sure. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by crusader on Jan 15, 2009 11:07:43 GMT -5
Doug,
Why did you return your Classic Elite scope--what was wrong with it? The reason I ask, is that I got mine from Natchez yesterday, and appearance, or condition-wise, I am not totally satisfied with it. It has a few small scratches in the finish on the body, and there were some sort of oily spots/areas around the objective. It almost looks like it is a second or refurb, but I understood these scopes from Natchez to be new. Anyway, I am still going to take it out at dusk and compare it to my Elite 4200, to see how it looks, probably tomorrow evening. If it does not appear to be better, then I will return it for sure. If it is better, I may return it for an exchange of one that hopefully will not have the cosmetic issues mine has.
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Jan 15, 2009 13:16:20 GMT -5
The weaver sounds like everything I like in a scope, but I have a few questions if you don't mind. Do you know of anywhere that shows a pic of what the reticle looks like? It's the german #4 with an illuminated dot in the center, right? I'd be putting it on my SMI converted H&R. Do you think this gun, with the scope mount base directly attached to the barrel, would be easier on the AO than the savage seems to be, especially with two bases instead of one? Coming very close to ordering one of these, and this info will put the nail in the coffin for sure. Thanks Here is a link to reticle choices for the Zeiss Conquest. When the page comes up click on "reticles". Among them is the German #4 with illuminated dot. Yes the dot is in the center. I am also not convinced that AO is absolutely positively a weak link in the rifle scopes mechanical integrity. We seem to have trouble with it here based on some of the experiences of some of the members but when I go into other optical and shooting forums there is no evidence of AO being mechanically apt to fail according to the feedback that I got. www.zeiss.com/C1256BCF0020BE5F/Contents-Frame/E34E4125AA548D6685256BCF0061320D Doug
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Jan 15, 2009 13:20:09 GMT -5
Doug, Why did you return your Classic Elite scope--what was wrong with it? The reason I ask, is that I got mine from Natchez yesterday, and appearance, or condition-wise, I am not totally satisfied with it. It has a few small scratches in the finish on the body, and there were some sort of oily spots/areas around the objective. It almost looks like it is a second or refurb, but I understood these scopes from Natchez to be new. Anyway, I am still going to take it out at dusk and compare it to my Elite 4200, to see how it looks, probably tomorrow evening. If it does not appear to be better, then I will return it for sure. If it is better, I may return it for an exchange of one that hopefully will not have the cosmetic issues mine has. The whole exterior of the scope that was sent to me was in great shape. However it had a splintered reticle which looks like a small eyebrow hair splintering off from the reticle. When the guy from Natchez said that they had received 50 scope returns that day it made me wonder how many of them were Weavers. I also would be suprised if the Weaver glass will be brighter and clearer than the 4200. They are pretty hard to beat. Keep us posted. Doug
|
|
|
Post by rangeball on Jan 15, 2009 14:06:31 GMT -5
Thanks Doug. Of course now more confusion has set in. I just went to the natchez link, and noticed they are offering two reticles, one lighted and the other the german #4 lighted.
My understanding is-
Lighted reticle is traditional duplex and when illuminated the entire crosshairs light up.
The German #4 reticle only has the illuminated center dot when lit up.
Correct?
I don't plan on shooting nearly the heavy/fast loads that some do, and won't be shooting 1000s of shots each year, so the AO doesn't worry me as much, especially if the scope has a lifetime warranty. Does it? Is it still being honored? Natchez says these scopes were new in 2007, and not sure when the weaver "re-merger" took place and if the new ownership assumed previous warranty responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by rangeball on Jan 15, 2009 14:50:11 GMT -5
Nevermind... I couldn't take it anymore and called Natchez. Both reticles have a center dot for illumination. A standard duplex illuminated dot classic extreme is on it's way to me as I type Thanks
|
|
|
Post by SW on Jan 17, 2009 11:07:29 GMT -5
I am very happy with my Weaver and feel it outdoes the excellent 4200(I have 2 - 2.5X10 and 6X24 40 mm). The sale on the normally $249 4X shotgun scope for @79.95 is significant also. I ordered one for our 12ga H&R slug gun, which we keep for guests we occasionally take hunting. It killed the TC 1.5X4.5 scope.
|
|
|
Post by crusader on Jan 17, 2009 14:36:47 GMT -5
Well, I have an update on my Weaver scope situation. First off, I just returned from the Fedex store where I sent the scope back to Natchez. More on that later. Anyway, last night I did a comparison of the 2.5-10x50 Classic Extreme (with the plex reticle, not German #4) and my Elite 4200 3-9x40. I was at a friend's house, with an upstairs bedroom window open, looking at a doctor's office sign 131 laser-ranged yards away. We had the scopes side-by-side, and looked at them repeatedly over a 20-30 minute period, from dusk to after dark. We had them set at the same power initially, then at maximum power for both. I have to say that to both of us, the clarity and brightness seemed the same, both excellent, with neither seeming to have an advantage. Obviously, when both were at maximum power, the letters on the sign were a bit larger with the Weaver because it was at 10x compared to 9x for the Bushnell. But, here was a problem, and the primary reason I returned the Weaver to Natchez--the illuminated reticle did not work. I had never had a scope equipped with this function before, and looked forward to experiencing it. I had the battery properly installed and then turned the switch on, but there was no change seen in the reticle. Additionally, my scope had several marks on it, which I may have looked past had there been a clear advantage to the Weaver (and if the illuminated reticle worked), but there was not, so back it went to Natchez. I do have a question, though for you guys, relating to something I had not experienced before, having not had an illuminated reticle scope. The index mark showing what power the scope was set on was on the left side of the scope barrel, 90 degrees from the top (basically, at a 9 o'clock position); I guess that is because the illuminated reticle switch is on top at 12 o'clock, where the index mark would be for normal scopes. So, is that how all illuminated reticle scopes are? To me, that is very annoying, not being able to look right down on top of the scope to see what power it is set on, and having to turn my head and look at the side of the scope. Please inform me on your experiences with this. Sorry to drone on so long, but that's my story, and I'm sticking to it!
|
|
|
Post by SW on Jan 17, 2009 20:58:12 GMT -5
My scope appeared to have never been opened. Both yours and Doug's were different stories. Kerry Brasswell has 3 and seems overly satisfied. Maybe Kerry and I are lucky. I am ordering a regular duplex 56 mm if there are any left.
|
|