Optics quality

[angryasian]

Any thoughts on high end optics from say 15 years ago or so. Are modern ones as good or has quality gone by the wayside in the name of cost and technology?

 

[Gawernator]

If anything aren't they better now? Trijicon seems to have been killing it with the new RMR's. I have had one Holosun 507k x2 break from recoil/electronic failure and it got replaced under warranty

 

[angryasian]

I was thinking more along the lines of say the old military mark 4s compared to the new HD and such. They feel less durable alttthey say the glass is better

 

[CZSoCal]

I have a lot of thoughts on 'high end red dot optics' both past and present, however there are some cold hard facts that separate 2010 red dot optics from present day:

• Battery life, clarity, size: All are better now, with one caveat: The Aimpoint CompM4 from 2008 can run for 80,000 hours on a single AA battery
• Several features simply didn't exist 10-15 years ago
  • Enclosed Emitters for Pistols
  • Solar back up/failsafe
  • Motion Activation (Shake Awake)
  • Glass and coating technology improvements
• Pricing of high end optics hasn't dropped, and in some cases has increased
  • For half the price of a Trijicon RMR, you have about 20 solid modern options and another 40 questionable options exist at even lower price points

From my own personal experience, Holosun provides the best intersection of quality and value. I run 508T's and a 407Comp on all my CZ's and have zero complaints. My rationale is "Why would I spend $600 for an SRO when my $290 407Comp offers the same features plus comes in green?"

 

[Trapper]

There has been considerable technological leap frogging where new mid level scopes are better than higher level scopes from a few years ago. Better optical quality, better turrets, and better durability.

 

[Gawernator]

I have a lot of thoughts on 'high end red dot optics' both past and present, however there are some cold hard facts that separate 2010 red dot optics from present day:

• Battery life, clarity, size: All are better now, with one caveat: The Aimpoint CompM4 from 2008 can run for 80,000 hours on a single AA battery
• Several features simply didn't exist 10-15 years ago
  • Enclosed Emitters for Pistols
  • Solar back up/failsafe
  • Motion Activation (Shake Awake)
  • Glass and coating technology improvements
• Pricing of high end optics hasn't dropped, and in some cases has increased
  • For half the price of a Trijicon RMR, you have about 20 solid modern options and another 40 questionable options exist at even lower price points

From my own personal experience, Holosun provides the best intersection of quality and value. I run 508T's and a 407Comp on all my CZ's and have zero complaints. My rational is "Why would I spend $600 for an SRO when my $290 407Comp offers the same features plus comes in green?"

Why buy a Nightforce or EOTech Scope when a Monstrum has the same zoom?

 

[CZSoCal]

Why buy a Nightforce or EOTech Scope when a Monstrum has the same zoom?

Rifle Optic comparison is something completely outside of my current shooting experience, so I can't offer any sound advice on rifle scopes. I will say if all you're comparing is magnification and cost, then today's budget option is probably winning that argument!

 

[joefrank64k]

You don’t have to spend a lot of money for good glass anymore. So many solid choices out there.

I have a surplus MK4 on a MK12 clone. Nice glass but, if I wasn’t trying to be clone-correct, I’d take the recent version over surplus all day long.

 

[Gawernator]

Rifle Optic comparison is something completely outside of my current shooting experience, so I can't offer any sound advice on rifle scopes. I will say if all you're comparing is magnification and cost, then today's budget option is probably winning that argument!

That’s the trap though: “same magnification” doesn’t mean same optic.

A Monstrum and a Nightforce may both say 1-6x, 3-15x, etc., but the expensive scope is usually buying you better tracking, repeatability, zero retention, turret consistency, edge clarity, light transmission, reticle design, illumination, eyebox, mechanical durability, and QC. The cheap scope might look fine on a flat range, but the difference shows up when you dial a lot, shoot in bad light, take impacts, deal with recoil, or need the thing to return to zero every time.

I do think modern mid-tier optics have gotten way better. A newer $600-$1,000 scope can often embarrass older “high end” glass from 15-20 years ago, especially for features. But that doesn’t mean budget glass equals premium glass just because the magnification range is the same.

Same thing with pistol dots. A Holosun can be a very good value. But “same window size / same dot / same features” doesn’t automatically make it the same as an RMR HD, RCR, ACRO, Aimpoint, etc. The higher-end stuff is usually paying for durability, consistency, sealing, electronics robustness, and institutional track record.

 

[Trapper]

Trijicon, Maven, and SWAFA all offer great glass, durability, and repeatability at a decent price point. If you want to save a few dollars, watch for demo optics, and sales.
What is your intended use, range, competition, hunting? What distances do you plan to shoot?

 

[miles888]

I’m into film photography and there are cult followings for certain production dates for older lenses. I’m sure there’s something similar with optics but I’m not aware of it

 

[Darqhelmet]

cheap vortex -mid to poop, expensive vortex makes angels sing when you look through them.

go to the high road or start looking at PRS content for glass info.

 

[Funjeff]

Older mk4 scopes are still great, but you would be lucky to ever find one under $1k. Clone market has blown up. Better off with a new one on sale.

 

[captainmoon]

I'd argue the glass alone on anything modern, is better than something from the 80s or far back.

 

[angryasian]

I appreciate all of the responses. The reason I posted is because I have an opportunity to get the correct leupold mk4 for my mk 12mod0. The scope is pretty much brand new in the box. My mk12 is pretty clone correct because I’ve had the stuff since it was cheap. Or I can get a new leupold mk4hd 2.5-10 for $400 less with my military discount.

 

[joefrank64k]

I appreciate all of the responses. The reason I posted is because I have an opportunity to get the correct leupold mk4 for my mk 12mod0. The scope is pretty much brand new in the box. My mk12 is pretty clone correct because I’ve had the stuff since it was cheap. Or I can get a new leupold mk4hd 2.5-10 for $400 less with my military discount.

FWIW, I went with a clone correct MK4 for my MK12, along with the ARMS #22 rings and TRC. It just seemed weird to put on a modern scope with all the cool MK12 bits, haha!!

If I didn’t have the ARMS #22, I’d lean more towards a MK4 HD and use the $400 saved to buy some MK 262 ammo, haha!!

 

[Gawernator]

I appreciate all of the responses. The reason I posted is because I have an opportunity to get the correct leupold mk4 for my mk 12mod0. The scope is pretty much brand new in the box. My mk12 is pretty clone correct because I’ve had the stuff since it was cheap. Or I can get a new leupold mk4hd 2.5-10 for $400 less with my military discount.

I always use my military discount when possible for gun stuff lol. $400 less is a no brainer

 

[angryasian]

FWIW, I went with a clone correct MK4 for my MK12, along with the ARMS #22 rings and TRC. It just seemed weird to put on a modern scope with all the cool MK12 bits, haha!!

If I didn’t have the ARMS #22, I’d lean more towards a MK4 HD and use the $400 saved to buy some MK 262 ammo, haha!!

That’s my exact dilemma as well. And as much as I hate to say it I think a lot a has to do with the fact that the arms rings we both have are nostalgic, but hardly compare to modern options.