New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Gun-Tests Optics Review  Part II
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

Gun-Tests Optics Review Part II

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/15/2005 at 10:49
Rusty View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: April/12/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 147
Has anyone read the second part of this review?  If you have, could you summarise the findings from this review.  I do not get Gun-Tests, and am curious about the results. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/16/2005 at 08:31
SteveSF View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: May/17/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 37

Sorry that I don't have it with me at the moment.  They said that all the over-$1,000 binoculars that the looked at (only 3 were evaluated Zeiss Victory FL, Leica Ultravid, and Swarovski EL; all 10x) were excellent.  For ergonomic reasons and build quality (although I don't understand this), they liked the Zeiss best.  They said that the Leica was heavy compared to the others.  They were not very specific as to their reasons for their judgments.  Sorry that I can't remember more at this time.  The article was quite short, only a few pages and most containing specifications.

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/19/2005 at 12:52
gremlin View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: February/16/2004
Location: left of center
Status: Offline
Points: 115

Rusty--

Where'd you get a chance to read the first part?  Was it somewhere here in this forum?  Darn, go on vacation for a little while and you miss out on the good stuff!

 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/23/2005 at 14:27
Chris Farris View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Admin
TEAM SWFA - Admin
Avatar
swfa.com

Joined: October/01/2003
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 7765

We have a new Catagory and subforums.

  •  

    Part I and Part I are posted under the Gun-Tests Magazine forum.

    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/25/2005 at 01:28
    tbone1 View Drop Down
    Optics Apprentice
    Optics Apprentice
    Avatar

    Joined: May/31/2004
    Status: Offline
    Points: 195

    Thanks Chris for posting the Gun Tests review.  Somebody explain this to me.  They claimed that the Leica were optically excellent and the brightest of the three but they didn't pick them because they felt too heavy "tipping the scales at 37.3 oz making them the heaviest of the group".  That is pretty amazing since every other pair of Ultravid 10x42 weighs 27oz.  It appears that someone accidently misprinted the specs.  Probably an honest mistake, but what bothers me is that they typed up a review based on false information and claimed the Leica felt too heavy to carry and they prefered the Zeiss since they were lighter.  This is impossible since they weigh exactly the same as the Zeiss.   They are also more compact.  My point is that they obviously didn't feel too heavy and they must have based part of their review on specs rather than strictly on performance.

    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/25/2005 at 03:29
    xenophobe View Drop Down
    Optics Apprentice
    Optics Apprentice


    Joined: July/29/2005
    Location: United States
    Status: Offline
    Points: 26
    At least the Cornell binocular article has some merits, but is far from unbiased or even fair... This "review" isn't any more informative than a gun magazine's "What's New" section.



    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/25/2005 at 08:53
    SteveSF View Drop Down
    Optics GrassHopper
    Optics GrassHopper


    Joined: May/17/2005
    Location: United States
    Status: Offline
    Points: 37

    tbone1 and xenophobe are both right.

     

    The "Gun Tests" people know firerarms, but their binocular reviews don't explain their judgments well, or at all.  I was puzzled by their two reviews, too.  I'm sure that the over-$1,000 binoculars reviewed were all nearly flawless and indistinguishable in their views; for practically everybody, the choices between these are based on ergonomics.  As xenophobe said, other magazine reviews are similar.   

     

    Anyway, what are your impressions of the binoculars reviewed by Gun Tests?  I'm curious if you agree or disagree.

    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/06/2005 at 09:09
    SteveSF View Drop Down
    Optics GrassHopper
    Optics GrassHopper


    Joined: May/17/2005
    Location: United States
    Status: Offline
    Points: 37
    A correction:  the Swarovski that was reviewed was an SLC model, not EL.  My apologies.
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/06/2005 at 10:32
    Brady View Drop Down
    TEAM SWFA - Admin
    TEAM SWFA - Admin
    Avatar
    Casino Cruiser

    Joined: May/20/2004
    Location: United States
    Status: Offline
    Points: 1834
    Originally posted by tbone1 tbone1 wrote:

    Thanks Chris for posting the Gun Tests review.  Somebody explain this to me.  They claimed that the Leica were optically excellent and the brightest of the three but they didn't pick them because they felt too heavy "tipping the scales at 37.3 oz making them the heaviest of the group".  That is pretty amazing since every other pair of Ultravid 10x42 weighs 27oz.  It appears that someone accidentally misprinted the specs.  Probably an honest mistake, but what bothers me is that they typed up a review based on false information and claimed the Leica felt too heavy to carry and they preferred the Zeiss since they were lighter.  This is impossible since they weigh exactly the same as the Zeiss.   They are also more compact.  My point is that they obviously didn't feel too heavy and they must have based part of their review on specs rather than strictly on performance.

     

     

     

    I weighed both the Ultravid and the FL out of curiosity. I found the Ultravid actually weighs a little less then the FL.

     

    Ultravid - 26.24 oz

    FL - 26.88 oz

     

    Makes you think they based their whole review off specs and stats. Rather than actual hands on viewpoints. If I handled them constantly I sure wouldn't get the impression that the Ultravids are heavier. When they are in fact lighter. How can you do a write up on something, and base your main dispute from a spec that is this inaccurate?

    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/09/2005 at 03:28
    xenophobe View Drop Down
    Optics Apprentice
    Optics Apprentice


    Joined: July/29/2005
    Location: United States
    Status: Offline
    Points: 26
    I just weighed my Ultravid 10x42 BL without strap or rainguard.  They weigh 24.6 oz
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/12/2005 at 15:20
    Rusty View Drop Down
    Optics Apprentice
    Optics Apprentice
    Avatar

    Joined: April/12/2004
    Location: United States
    Status: Offline
    Points: 147

    Chris, SWFA Staff,

     

    Thanks for posting the reviews.  Every bit of information helps.

     

    Crusty Rusty

    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/29/2005 at 11:58
    Chris Farris View Drop Down
    TEAM SWFA - Admin
    TEAM SWFA - Admin
    Avatar
    swfa.com

    Joined: October/01/2003
    Location: Texas
    Status: Offline
    Points: 7765

    Gun Test editor sent me a revised review that I uploaded, so if anyone was reading this thread and reads the review it has now been corrected.......thanks to OT members.  He is also running a correction in the printed magazine.

     Post Reply Post Reply
      Share Topic   

    Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

    Similar Threads: "Gun-Tests Optics Review Part II"
    Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
    torture-test gun Rancid Coolaid Firearms 8
    Vortex Razor HD Gen II 1-6 Video Review: Tav TV-PressPass Tactical Scopes 2
    Gun Parts SVT_Tactical Firearms 5
    Vintage Optic Repair/Parts usnrigger Rifle Scopes 2
    Explore Optics SF 8-32X 50mm SF TTT Review Got_SIG Rifle Scopes 10
    optic thoughts review still applicable djp0623 Rifle Scopes 1
    AR Varmint part II lefteyeblue Varmint Scopes 3 11/13/2006 9:40:06 PM
    Chinese Optics Reviews-Out of necessity stangfish Rifle Scopes 18
    Review of the US Optics SN-3 3.2-17x44 ccoker Member's Tests and Reviews 12
    Vortex Diamondback 1.75-5x32 :OT Test Drive Review helo18 Member's Tests and Reviews 4


    This page was generated in 0.391 seconds.