New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Line test with Swarovski, Bushnell, NightForce
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

Line test with Swarovski, Bushnell, NightForce

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  1 2>
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/13/2010 at 18:52
Rich Coyle View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar
Blind as a bat

Joined: October/22/2010
Location: Grants Pass, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 231
Sergeant Joe Friday used to say, “Nothing but the facts, ma’am.” Well, here are more facts. The sky was totally overcast with an occasional sprinkle. That takes care of the weather. Now the glass.

The test compared a Swarovski Z5 5-25X52, Bushnell 6500 4 ½-30X50 and a NightForce NP-R2 12-42X56. It took about two hours to complete the test. I made a testing chart with five lines on an 8 1/2X11 copy sheet, laminated it to keep it dry and taped it to a cardboard box. The lines are 5/16” wide with 5/16” spaces between the lines. With the trusty Leica 1200 in tow I stepped back from said test sheet till I could no longer distinguish lines. In other words it looked like a grey rectangle on the page. The Leica read 40 yards. The lines were crystal clear in the 7X21 monocular (To my surprise the Leica made the lines with ease out to 236 yards.). Therefore I drove down the road a ways.

The test idea was to see at what range I could no longer see lines, but a grey rectangle.

Here are the yardages and magnification results:

202 - Swarovski: 5, but barely. Bushnell: 4 ½ with ease
236 – Swaro: 6X Bush: 5 ½
309 – Swaro: 8 ¼ Bush: 7 ½
393 – Swaro: 10 Bush: 10 ½
470 – Swaro: 14 Bush: 15
521 – Swaro: 16 ½ Bush: 15 ½ NighForce: 12
572 – Swaro: 17 ½ Bush: 17 Night: 12 ¼
690 – Swaro: 24 Bush: 24 Night: 18
706 – Swaro: 24 Bush 24 Night: 18
724 – Swaro: 25 Bush: 27 Night: 20

The day was quickly closing so I think the ability of the Swarovski’s low light superiority over the Bushnell started to come into play. I am sorta impressed with the Leica 1200 reading the bush next to the box above 572 yards. But the biggest surprise came at 202 yards. If I didn’t know they were lines, I almost couldn’t make them out with the Swarovski on 5X and yet the Bushnell showed them with ease. Who would have guessed it?

I wanted to include some of my lesser glass, but knew there was not enough time. Maybe next time.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/13/2010 at 20:18
jonoMT View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: November/13/2008
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 4613
So Rich, if I understand your test correctly, you might state the results this way: "At 706 yards, the NF only needed to be on 18X, while the Bushnell and Swaro both needed to be on 24X." Please correct me if I'm wrong because if I'm not, then the results seem somewhat surprising. I would expect the Swaro glass to be the best and all three of these scopes are close enough in objective size for that not to greatly effect resolution or light transmission.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/13/2010 at 21:17
Rich Coyle View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar
Blind as a bat

Joined: October/22/2010
Location: Grants Pass, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 231
jonoMT,
 
Your understanding is correct.
 
The NightForce is definately better than either of the others for resolving detail.  It is also better in low light.
 
The Sworovski is better than the Bushnell in low light.  Value goes to the Bushnell for dollars spent.  I think they go for about $750.  The Swarovski about $1650 and the NightForce is about $1450.
 
The Bushnell is twenty-one ounce.  The Swarovski is seventeen and a half.  It's been a long time since I weighed the NightForce but  it is over thirty.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/13/2010 at 23:52
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10961
Apparently we need another thread on this.

To re-iterate for those who did not see the earlier thread on the subject.

Rich Coyle suffers from night blindedness, hence his eye pupils do not dilate very much.  On top of that, it is very likely the the concentration of rods in his retina (I am guessing here, but it is an educated guess) is comparatively low, making his eyes less sensitive to certain wavelengths (blu-green spectrum, largely) that are prominent in low light conditions.

The results of his (any way flawed due to very different scope configurations) tests are only relevant for him.

For 99.9% per cent of the people out there, they are misleading, which is worse than useless.

Now, I am done with this argument.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/14/2010 at 00:01
Rich Coyle View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar
Blind as a bat

Joined: October/22/2010
Location: Grants Pass, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 231
koshkin,
 
Are the results of the following flawed?  If so, please let me know so I can learn from this discussion.
 
 
202 - Swarovski: 5, but barely. Bushnell: 4 ½ with ease
236 – Swaro: 6X Bush: 5 ½
309 – Swaro: 8 ¼ Bush: 7 ½
393 – Swaro: 10 Bush: 10 ½
470 – Swaro: 14 Bush: 15
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/14/2010 at 00:08
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10961
Originally posted by Rich Coyle Rich Coyle wrote:

koshkin,
 
Are the results of the following flawed?  If so, please let me know so I can learn from this discussion.
 
 
202 - Swarovski: 5, but barely. Bushnell: 4 ½ with ease
236 – Swaro: 6X Bush: 5 ½
309 – Swaro: 8 ¼ Bush: 7 ½
393 – Swaro: 10 Bush: 10 ½
470 – Swaro: 14 Bush: 15

Here are a few things to consider:  
-did you check the actual magnifications of the scopes?  
-did you try to dig into the light transmission profiles of the two optics? considering that you likely have decreased blue light sensitivity in your eyes and that Swarovski coatings somewhat overemphasize blue (for better low light performance), that is very relevant.
-were there any specific image degrading artefacts present? flare, for example? was the test done with sunshades or without them?
-did you readjust side-focus for every distance? how many passes did it take?
-did you always look through the scopes in the same sequence?  were you looking through one scope longer than the other? did you go back and forth between them or did you just browse through them sequentially?
-did your eyes have a chance to rest through this procedure?

and so on and so forth.

Aside from that all, for good or bad, your eyes are very unusual.  If you post test results, you have to make that disclaimer, otherwise it is confusing for those who read them.

ILya

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/14/2010 at 00:26
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
Get Your Popcorn Ready
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/14/2010 at 09:50
Rich Coyle View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar
Blind as a bat

Joined: October/22/2010
Location: Grants Pass, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 231
Quote Here are a few things to consider:  
-did you check the actual magnifications of the scopes?  
-did you try to dig into the light transmission profiles of the two optics? considering that you likely have decreased blue light sensitivity in your eyes and that Swarovski coatings somewhat overemphasize blue (for better low light performance), that is very relevant.
-were there any specific image degrading artefacts present? flare, for example? was the test done with sunshades or without them?
-did you readjust side-focus for every distance? how many passes did it take?
-did you always look through the scopes in the same sequence?  were you looking through one scope longer than the other? did you go back and forth between them or did you just browse through them sequentially?
-did your eyes have a chance to rest through this procedure?

and so on and so forth.

Aside from that all, for good or bad, your eyes are very unusual.  If you post test results, you have to make that disclaimer, otherwise it is confusing for those who read them.

ILya
 
Thanks, koshkin.  With me saying it you alresady knew I am not a professional optics checker outer.  I didn't realize until yesterday that I am different from most folks.  I do remember being called "Weird richard" by my inlaws.   My name was not included on the Christmas card for the first twenty years.
 
There was no noticable flare; and no sunshades on the Bushnell or Swrovski.  The NightForce has a 4" shade that was on it when I purchased it.
 
I readjusted the scopes at every range; a lot.  I didn't keep track of how many passes it took.  The A.O. on the NightForce was usually instantly good.  The others, both side focus, require more attention up and down the scale for me.   Therefore, like I stated, they definately were adjusted a lot.
 
I looked through them randomly.  Some times I looked through a scope longer than the others because I tried to give them all a fair shake at each distance.  The second I could absolutely see the lines, I called it good.
 
My eyes had a chance to rest only in the concept that I checked one scope and put it in a "safe" place so I would not knock it down.  Then I drove up the road a little ways.
 
What is signifiant to me is that I am the only one of me.Smile  Therefore I test things for my use and pleasure.  The things I post are fun for me thinking they are fun for others.  Maybe it isn't.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/14/2010 at 10:27
grimreaper21 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: October/25/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 182
im sure its fun for others to read, but perhaps the confusion is some are taking it as purported evidence when really there are too many factors for any validity.  maybe a "these results mean absolutely nothing" disclaimer would help the hostilities.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/14/2010 at 11:39
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
I think the confusion started when the OP made it sound that his findings were factual for anyone trying this and left out that fact that he suffers from a night vision impairment.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/14/2010 at 11:47
mike650 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: May/14/2006
Location: West of Rockies
Status: Offline
Points: 12709
Originally posted by Rich Coyle Rich Coyle wrote:

Sergeant Joe Friday used to say, “Nothing but the facts, ma’am.”



Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/14/2010 at 13:20
Rich Coyle View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar
Blind as a bat

Joined: October/22/2010
Location: Grants Pass, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 231
Roy Finn,
 
If you run a test with your eyes, ears or whatever can you say the results are not the facts?  Just curious.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/14/2010 at 13:59
mike650 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: May/14/2006
Location: West of Rockies
Status: Offline
Points: 12709
Originally posted by Rich Coyle Rich Coyle wrote:

Roy Finn,
 
If you run a test with your eyes, ears or whatever can you say the results are not the facts?  Just curious.


Rich, no disrespect but you created two threads full of tests involving three scopes (with different size objectives) and did not include all the facts. When people questioned you, all the facts still did not come out. It was only after ILya pointed out that you maybe suffering from night blindness that you did. Most on this site that are looking for assistance and answers probably don't suffer from this, some may have been steered in the wrong direction from your comments which only leads to confusion and frustration. It's also not fair to some of the optic manufactures you've listed as well. Roy and the rest are only trying to help.

(edited for grammar)


Edited by mike650 - November/15/2010 at 09:30
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/14/2010 at 14:01
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
Originally posted by Rich Coyle Rich Coyle wrote:

Roy Finn,
 
If you run a test with your eyes, ears or whatever can you say the results are not the facts?  Just curious.
 
I believe what you have posted are personal findings, not universally accepted facts. If I repeated your test, I would not have experienced what you did as I have normal healthy vision for my age.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/14/2010 at 14:05
Rich Coyle View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar
Blind as a bat

Joined: October/22/2010
Location: Grants Pass, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 231
Originally posted by mike650 mike650 wrote:

Originally posted by Rich Coyle Rich Coyle wrote:

Roy Finn,
 
If you run a test with your eyes, ears or whatever can you say the results are not the facts?  Just curious.


Rich, no disrespect but you created two threads full of tests involving three scope (with different size objectives) and did not include all the facts. When people questioned you, all the facts still did not come out. It was only after ILya pointed out that you maybe suffering from night blindness that you did. Most on this site that are looking for assistance and answers probably don't suffer from this, some may even have been steered in the wrong direction from your comments which only leads to confusion and frustration. It's also not fair to some of the optic manufactures you've listed as well. Roy and the rest are only trying to help.
 
What facts are there that you want?  I don't think about night blindness unless it is brought up.  All the facts that are pertinate to me at the time were brought out.  As others had qustions, I tried to answer them.  No matter if somene does or does not suffer from something they have some valid comparisons of three nice scopes.  There is no way to get around the opinion by the gunsmith that when the sun was out the Bushnell is brighter.  When the sun is behind a cloud the Swaroski is brighter.  The Gunsmith is about thirty-two or three years of age.  The other gunsmith, who didn't see any difference, is aproaching fifty.  Neither have an axe to grind here.  I do business with both.  I let them check out the things I buy.
 
My son-in-law compared the Swaroski and the Bushnell from the same porch and discovered the same thing I did about the Swarovski having better low light perfomance than the Bushnell.  He also noticed that when he turned up the magnification he saw more detail as the darkness encroched.  He also says there is no comparison between the Swaro, Bush and NightForce.  For him the NighForce is above the other two in brightness and resolution. 
 
He has the oposite of night blindness.  He takes the dog out at night without a flashlight; something I could never do.
 
By the way the doctor recomended heavy dose of vitamin A.  My vison is clear up to 24 on the scale.  With 36 being blind and 0 seeing the same in the night or day I am still in terible shape if the lights go out.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/14/2010 at 18:10
mike650 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: May/14/2006
Location: West of Rockies
Status: Offline
Points: 12709
I don't think I need any more facts. What your seeing is just what Roy pointed out, your personal experience through your eyes. Now that we know about your "night blindness" we can better understand your findings and why your seeing some of these anomalies.  
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/14/2010 at 18:32
Rich Coyle View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar
Blind as a bat

Joined: October/22/2010
Location: Grants Pass, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 231
Originally posted by mike650 mike650 wrote:

I don't think I need any more facts. What your seeing is just what Roy pointed out, your personal experience through your eyes. Now that we know about your "night blindness" we can better understand your findings and why your seeing some of these anomalies.  
So, mike650, do you think the night blindness during the day light influenced me to observe the Swaroski and the Bushnell are really close to the same?
 
If you answered my question about you conducting a test is it someone elses experience that you would report on? 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/14/2010 at 18:44
Phoenix356 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: October/19/2010
Location: Southwest
Status: Offline
Points: 9

You might want to try taking the protective lens caps off the Swarovski for the test.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/14/2010 at 20:19
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
Originally posted by Phoenix356 Phoenix356 wrote:

You might want to try taking the protective lens caps off the Swarovski for the test.

Laugh
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/14/2010 at 22:18
tman1965 View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: July/20/2010
Location: South Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 1456
Originally posted by Phoenix356 Phoenix356 wrote:

You might want to try taking the protective lens caps off the Swarovski for the test.

Roll on Floor Laughing
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/15/2010 at 09:39
Phoenix356 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: October/19/2010
Location: Southwest
Status: Offline
Points: 9
After reading you post I decided to spend some time behind my Swaro Z5 5x25 figuring out what you issue might be.
 
I believe you are having an issue of not refocusing the Swarovski when you change the power settings. 
 
 By this I mean not the ocular focus of the reticule , but as in the parallax focus. 
 
When focusing the parallax you should pay no mind to the yardage settings on the parallax wheel. instead look to focus the object you are viewing.
 
When doing this I was observing bees at 25x with great detail at 150 yards on a tree this morning.
 
BTW, when comparing rifle scopes and switching you eyes between them, it is best to give you eyes a few seconds to adjust before looking through the next one and then refocus the scope.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/15/2010 at 09:51
Rancid Coolaid View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7694
Additionally, you need to verify the magnification of each scope.  Most manufacturers set the top min and max power, then put the rest on in a semi- "at will" manner.  So, on that 5-20, I doubt the 10X is a true 10X, this needs to be tested and verified.

There are a few additional points that could be made, but i don't see that it would help.

Carry on, Rich.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/15/2010 at 16:32
Rich Coyle View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar
Blind as a bat

Joined: October/22/2010
Location: Grants Pass, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 231
Originally posted by Phoenix356 Phoenix356 wrote:

After reading you post I decided to spend some time behind my Swaro Z5 5x25 figuring out what you issue might be.
 
I believe you are having an issue of not refocusing the Swarovski when you change the power settings. 
 
 By this I mean not the ocular focus of the reticule , but as in the parallax focus. 
 
When focusing the parallax you should pay no mind to the yardage settings on the parallax wheel. instead look to focus the object you are viewing.
 
When doing this I was observing bees at 25x with great detail at 150 yards on a tree this morning.
 
BTW, when comparing rifle scopes and switching you eyes between them, it is best to give you eyes a few seconds to adjust before looking through the next one and then refocus the scope.
 
Thanks for trying to help.  I did what you are suggesting throughout the  test.  I didn't look at teh numbers, I only looked through the scopes.  After I had each as clear as it would go, I then recorded the indicated yardage.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/15/2010 at 16:36
Rich Coyle View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar
Blind as a bat

Joined: October/22/2010
Location: Grants Pass, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 231
Originally posted by Rancid Coolaid Rancid Coolaid wrote:

Additionally, you need to verify the magnification of each scope.  Most manufacturers set the top min and max power, then put the rest on in a semi- "at will" manner.  So, on that 5-20, I doubt the 10X is a true 10X, this needs to be tested and verified.

There are a few additional points that could be made, but i don't see that it would help.

Carry on, Rich.
 
Folks who walk into a store have no way of verifying anything except what looks good to them.  The manufactorers generally have only one shot at impressing the customer.  They set the magnification to what it is labeled and calll it good.  When I pay $1659 for a Swarovski I expect it to be labeled correctly.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/15/2010 at 17:01
Rancid Coolaid View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7694
So, if I am understanding you right, marketing must be trusted, to the exclusion of all common sense?


Nobody to "Epic" in 70 posts, that is a new record, gotta be!

Is there a chance many of your optics were purchased from someone's trunk, perhaps not in the original boxes, and maybe with "Swarovski" misspelled?

At this point, I must recuse myself on the grounds that I know too much about optics to be an asset in this conversation.  (Which is startling, since i really don't know much at all.)

Rich, if you believe it, it must be true. There is no difference between "your" truth, and "the" truth, carry on, and may you live 1,000 years and evaluate optics till the bitter end.

Over and out.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Line test with Swarovski, Bushnell, NightForce"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Line dance with Swarovski, Bushnell, NightForce jonoMT Rifle Scopes 5
The shoe-box for testing center line 8shots Rifle Scopes 14
Request Opinions: Conquest vs Swarovski A-Line Mojo Rifle Scopes 51
Swarovski A Line brodeur272 Rifle Scopes 19
Swarovski A Line vs PH Bart Simpson Rifle Scopes 6 9/8/2004 10:59:09 PM
Swarovski A-line: Right for me? MoKirk Rifle Scopes 8 9/29/2004 1:59:57 PM
New VX-III vs. Swarovski A-line Stud Duck Rifle Scopes 3 5/31/2005 12:29:37 PM
NIGHTFORCE VS LEUPOLD VS SWAROVSKI VS BURRIS EMIN007 Rifle Scopes 3
Swarovski vs Nightforce Al in SC Rifle Scopes 9
Swarovski Z3 line Marine24 Rifle Scopes 12


This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.