Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Scope manufacturing answers |
Post Reply |
Author | |
jsethmor
Optics Apprentice Joined: September/29/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 55 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: December/06/2005 at 18:57 |
Here's a interesting article about why, when and where and who makes riflescopes for whom and so on....... http://www.chuckhawks.com/scoping_out.htm Some of the info might be out of date but there is alot of useful info as well. I don't agree with some of this writers opinions but there's some info about Zeiss thats relevant.
Edited by jsethmor |
|
ranburr
Optics Master Joined: May/16/2004 Status: Offline Points: 1082 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Some good, some bad, some absolute B.S. Remember that anything Chuck Hawks puts on his website, he gets paid for. He will give a glowing review to anyone who pays him. I realize that this was written by someone else, but you ought to be able to tell what companies paid for the write up. Only in Hawks cyber world is a Millett superior to a Burris.
ranburr |
|
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I am not sure who Randy Wakeman is, but I am not a big fan of Chuck
Hawks (I used to be subscribed to his website). He is generally
fairly uninformed, with regards to optics and Eastern bloc
guns/cartridges.
I happen to agree with the article on SIghtron and Elite 4200 (although it appears that SIghtron wrote Hawks a nice check). However, he is absolutely full of it with regards to Millet. I am not a big fan of Leupold scopes, but they are not as bad as he paints them. Elite 3200 is very nice mechanically, but glass is not up to par with the competition. Burris scopes are very good, especially for the money. As for where the scopes are made, I do not care about that a whole lot although I generally avoid German products (for personal reasons). You can make an absolutely superb scope in China as long as you spend enough money on quality control. As it is, most scopes that I consider to be the best for the money are either made in Japan or have have glass produced in Japan, but assembly done in US: Bushnell Elite 4200/3200 Sightron Burris/Pentax Nikon Monarch Weaver Grand Slam None of these are cheap scopes like Millet, and there is a reason for it: it is very difficult to make a decent scope consistently for Millett prices. There are some low priced options that are quite decent, but they always save money on something in the manufacturing process. A lot of people here like Zeiss Conquest and 3-9x40 does appear to be a very good deal. However, higher magnification Conquest models are in the price range where they compete against IOR, Meopta and Kahles American which is some stiff comeptition. Anyhow, just my 2 cents. By the way, I just got a Elite 4200 6-24x42MD and I am very impressed with it. Ilya |
|
Roy Finn
MODERATOR Steiner Junkie Joined: April/05/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4856 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Here is some info written by Gale McMillan on scope manufacturing. |
|
Dale Clifford
Optics Jedi Knight Joined: July/04/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5087 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
A lot of BS, some obvious stuff, Low exit pupil scopes do not necesarily require exact alignment or loose the sight picture, vignetting occurs with cheap class and can occur at any power, so called "brightness" and "clarity" are a function of the LTF or linear transfer function of the glasses not just glass, and can be adjusted to the reception level of the shooter's eye, (why some people think some scopes are "brighter" than others), (McMillian's opinion also) Variable scopes only have 3 power ranges within their stated "numbers" low, med, high. and do not "graduate" linearly. (Wakeman). Scope glass is just like mirror glass, pay $5 more get $5 better glass (Wakeman). Chuck Hawks is full of kaka (Ranburr). Millett mounts are investment castings and are too porous, and their scopes are made from old toilet paper rolls.
|
|
ranburr
Optics Master Joined: May/16/2004 Status: Offline Points: 1082 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The Gale McMillian archives has a couple of contradictions and out and out untruths in it. In statement he points out how no company polishes their lenses. Further down he talks about Burris grinding their own lenses. Other than the new FFIIs, the glass in all other Burris scopes comes from Schott in PA. This was verified by Schott. Also, Nikon has a factory in Thailand that was made specifically for Monarch scope manufacturing.
ranburr |
|
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
What ranburr said.
As a side note, the notion that all Japanese scopes use lenses with the same 4 layer coatings is certified BS. The number of layers is quite different between different lenses as are the thicknesses of layers. Generally speaking, a larger number of layers has an advantage of being able to tilt or spectral characteristics more carefully while being harder to do consistently.
The "scratch and dig" test that is mentioned evaluates the area and depth of the largest pockmark on the glass and, usually, how many of these non-uniformities are in a unit area.
Another test that is often done on better lenses is a wavefront transmission test which makes quite a bit of a difference for the resolution of high end optics.
Also, a notion that the same computer software means identical optical design is equally ludicrous. First of all you need to be pretty good designer to use the software efficiently. The most common ray tracing programs are Zemax, OSLO and CODE V. I've used Zemax, although not very extensively, as well as a lesser know software called Synopsis. These programs will let you predict the performance of a particular optical system, but you still have to come up with that system. You have to program in the characteristics of the optics that you plan to use and their locations. Once you are done with the basic ray-tracing model you have to do some illumination and stray light analysis which often requires either different software or a more advanced add-on onto your ray tracing software.
Anyhow, it is not nearly as straightforward as Gale makes out to be.
Ilya |
|
KB0WZL
Optics Apprentice Joined: July/31/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 84 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I would like to clear up a popular misconception by many self proclamed experts on the site. Millett steel rings are NOT investment case. They are made with the same process that is used to produce hi tec aero space parts, Metal injection molding. MIM They are solid heat treated steal. They are some of the strongest mounts and rings around.
Good Shooting
Steve
Millett sight |
|
Steve
|
|
Trinidad
Optics Master Joined: May/04/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1555 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Hello Steve I would like to start off by saying I am no pro, and I have never claimed I was in any way here at Optics Talk. What I am is a certified gunsmith and a man who is obssesed with guns along with other pleasures in life. I do have enough expierience with Millett to give a pretty good assesment of the majority of products that are offered by your company from a lover of fine weapons point of view. Here in the bay area there are many misinformed shooters that buy budget scopes and equipment due to a lack of knowledge, this is due to great gunshop owners that have been forced out of state and a lack of expierienced shooters that have left the state due to political reasons. California is a prime market for Millet. I do not want to make this post to long so I will leave it with these last words. Bushnell is not a name accociated with quality but with Elite 4200 they are turning things around in a positive way, if you do not believe me spend a little more time reading alot of the great info here at Optics Talk. As far as Millet scopes go well do your homework and learn, do not jump on here and talk, prove it and you just might be the next Bushnell. |
|
ceylonc
Optics Journeyman Joined: September/13/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 514 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Hi Steve and welcome to this website! It is great to have you here, being that you are in the industry. It shows that you're interested in what consumers think about your products, not an activity many reps from other companies have pursued. I do, however, have a beef with your scope rings. I beg to differ that they are "some of the strongest rings around." I bought a set of your Weaver style "Matte X-High 1" Rings" for AR-15 Flat Top (p/n AL00722) to mount a scope on my flat top Bushmaster .223. Well, I broke TWO SETS during mounting! These rings never even saw the line at the range, much less experienced a round through the rifle. Both "breaks" occured during tightening of the claws at the base of the ring(s). I did not overtighten the allen screw but, during the tightening-down on the flat top, the claw broke just under the allen screw. I kept the second set and would be happy to provide pics of the claw that broke while tightening. I basically decided to to with Warne rings (actually cost LESS than the Millet rings from this local gun store) after the second mounting failure and they worked great. This is not meant to badger you in any way but to inform that there may be some QC issues in the manufacture of these rings. My impression is that their quality is/was sub-par and I would not trust them on any rifle where durability is of prime importance. I hope my experience is a rarity.
|
|
shootr
Optics GrassHopper Joined: October/27/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 21 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Steve,
Hate to gang up on you, but I'm guessing you may be in some marketing-related capacity and interested in honest feedback. I've been shooting/hunting for most of my adult life and I am quite familiar with your products.
Purely as a user, I've used many sets of your rimfire rings and for the rifles I've mounted them on - rimfire Marlins/Savages, etc. - they're okay. When I mount a good scope on one of my own rifles, I use what I consider to be a better quality mount - based on years of field use. Mostly, I don't care for the claw system, however I've never had a failure in the applications where I've used them. Brands I like include: Leupold, Burris, steel Redfield - and I liked some new steel Weavers I recently saw. I've also used Warne and Leupold detachable mounts.
Sights -- I've used your sights on one rifle and several different pistols over the years, from a couple rimfires to match .45s and assorted carry autos. Some may disagree - but I consider your pistol sights to be as good as anyone's for what I need. They work, they adjust reliably and they're tough. I recently bought another one, mounted it up and all is good.
Scopes... another story. I typically use the web for research. Go and see/compare myself. Then, make up my own mind. I failed to see the quality I look for. FWIW. |
|
Shootr
|
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |