New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - More Humor.......from Rich Coyle
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

More Humor.......from Rich Coyle

 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: January/22/2011 at 23:19
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

Today, 1/20/11, I played with the new scope.  First impression of the new Swarovski Z5 5-25X52 is it is very bright.  The eye brow clearance is a little shorter than the Bushnell 6500 4 ½-30X50, though.  After measuring it I found them to be very close.  Sue measured for me three times on each scope.  The Swaro seems to have 3”on all magnification while the Bushnell is 3 1/8” on all settings.  The Swarovski  has a slightly larger field of view when both are on their lowest settings.  The Swarovski appears to have ever so slightly more contrast than the Bushnell.  I think that’s at least partly why it is better in low light.

 

Saturday morning I woke to see fog.  An opportunity!  I quickly got dressed so I could see how the Swarovski and the Bushnell compared in this condition.  I could barely read the words on the pump house with the Swarovski on 25X.  If I changed the magnification setting down even 1X I could make out the “S” in “THIS” AND “SIDE” but could not read any words.  With the Bushnell I could only make out the “S’s” all the way from 24X up to 30X, but could not read any words.

 

After returning from Medford for the 24hourcampfire gathering I had a few minutes of sun light to compare the scopes.  Last time I started at 202 yards.  In order to discern the lines in November on the line chart with the Bushnell only 4 1/2X was necessary.  The way more expensive Swarovski needed 5 1/2X.  This time I drove down the road a ways and checked the distance: 208 yards.  The lighting was different this time so I am not surprised the magnifications were different.   But I was certainly disappointed with the Swarovski.  In order to clearly make out the lines with the scopes, the Bushnell needed about 5 7/8X and the Swarovski needed 6 3/4X.  There is about a grand’s difference in price here.  Since they were so close to the last comparison I didn’t go for more distances.

 

Let’s go to the low light performance:   By the time I got the scopes set out on the sand bags the sun had been down for a few minutes.  In order to read the words on the pump house the Bushnell needed to be set on 18X while the Swarovski needed only13X.  This coupled with its lighter weight is why I spent the exorbitant increase in price over the Bushnell.  I was going to put them away when someone asked me to give it fifteen more minutes and then try.  The Swarovski had to be on 25X in order to read the words.  Even with the Bushnell on 30X neither of us could only make words.

 

Could be the better contrast of this Swarovski allows us to make out more detail.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/22/2011 at 23:26
tman1965 View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

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

 

Could be the better contrast of this Swarovski allows us to make out more detail.

  .... Ya think??
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/23/2011 at 00:05
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
tman1965,
 
Maybe you could tell us all why both of the Z5 needed more magnification than the Bushnell to show me the lines clearly.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/23/2011 at 07:16
quarterbore View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar
Previously Banned Troll

Joined: March/13/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 44
You know that in your low light test, the Bushnell actually out performed the Swaro, as the former was capable of discerning the words at a higher magnification, meaning a smaller exit pupil than the latter.  If you consider that the magnification rings are accurate then the exit pupil for the Bushnell was 2.8 mm and for the Swaro 4 mm.  In low light, you actually want a scope to be able to discern images at higher magnifications, quite the opposite of simply magnifying an image during the day to discern what it is. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/23/2011 at 07:28
quarterbore View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar
Previously Banned Troll

Joined: March/13/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 44
I have to ask one question.  Was the Bushnell able to discern the words in the low light test at lesser magnifications than 18x?  If not, it would seem rather strange that at 17x as the scope actually transmits more light that you could not be able to discern the words, especially with the performance during daylight hours.  I think what is missing is some quantification of image quality, as it appears that you probably magnified with the Bushnell and Swaro to the points that you were able and your brain may have been able to put the words together, as opposed to seeing a sharp image.  If the latter was correct then with both scopes, the images should be seen at lower powers.  Speculating at how the test went, correct me if I am wrong.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/23/2011 at 10:10
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
quarterbore,
 
Your name is really cool.  Recently I was trying to come up with a name for my new wildcat.  I was trying to use something like your name it it.  Dave Mansen told me to call it .257 RLS for my email address which is richlovessue.  I turned the letters around and call it .257SLR for .257 Sue Loves Rich and doesn't hastle him about his wildcats.  But back to the scopes' low light performance or comparisons.
 
Try this at home.  If it is after sunset and you can see something, assuming you can't see in the dark like my son-in-law, then wait a couple minutes and you will notice you have to get closer to be able to still see it.  Wait another minute or so and you will have to get closer again to see it.  At a certain light/darkness level you will not be able to see the object.
 
I spent the extra grand on the Swarovski for the lighter weight and the low light performance.  Beyond a shadow of a doubt I am convinced if one wants to see more detail, whether it is in the middle of a bright sunny day or twenty-five minutes after sunset, one needs to be closer to the object.  Since humans are intelegent creatures, I lag in this area, they invent things to facilitate life.  Varible scopes are one of the beneifits of inventivness.  One doesn't need to be physically closer, just optically closer.
 
For the vast majority of hunters the 6500 scopes are a much better value than the Swarovskis.  Maybe the best performance for the moiney.  None of the Swarovsks at the shooting range I have compared the 6500 with were as sharp or as bright on the same setting.  But then that includes all brands.  The only scope to be better than my Bushnell was a Minox 62 spottingscope.  With both on 30X the Minox was a little sharper.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/23/2011 at 10:44
mike650 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: May/14/2006
Location: West of Rockies
Status: Offline
Points: 12712

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/23/2011 at 11:49
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Online
Points: 14321
Originally posted by Rich Coyle Rich Coyle wrote:

 
Try this at home.  If it is after sunset and you can see something, assuming you can't see in the dark like my son-in-law, then wait a couple minutes and you will notice you have to get closer to be able to still see it.  Wait another minute or so and you will have to get closer again to see it.  At a certain light/darkness level you will not be able to see the object.
 


Now try NOT walking closer to the object and simply shining a flashlight on it.  Even from a distance, you will see it better than if you walked closer to it minus the flashlight. 

Your analogy is too simplistic.  Turning up a scope's magnification is not equivalent to walking closer to an object, because the amount of light delivered to your eye is decreased more and more as you increase the magnification, all else being equal.  Yes, higher magnification lets you get "optically closer," but at some point as you continue to dial up more X's, the optic's exit pupil diameter starts decreasing below the dilated diameter of your iris, constricting the amount of light reaching your eye.  As the optics exit pupil gets smaller and smaller, at some point depending on how much your eye was dilated to begin with, your ability to see detail actually begins to decline as you further increase magnification. 

Ideally, having both higher magnification AND sufficiently large exit pupil produces the best of both worlds in discerning detail in low light IF the optic is up to the task.  The best low light performance comes when a scope is delivering a balance of sufficiently high magnification, sufficiently high image quality, and sufficiently large exit pupil.  But, to do all of that with really high magnification requires a scope with high end optics and a very large objective lens diameter, which means it will be expensive.  The exception is if you have poor eyesight and your eye doesn't dilate very large in low light such that you can't utilize the benefits of a larger exit pupil and better optical performance.  I suspect that describes you.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/23/2011 at 14:35
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
RifleDude,
 
In Oregon we cannot have any battery powered devise on our guns or bows or arrows; not even lighted crosshairs or lighted nocks on the arrows.  So a flashlight won't help when I'm hunting.  We can hunt until 1/2 hour after legal sunset.  That's why I purchsed the Swarovski.  I post the info for those who might enjoy optics info and maybe can afford the Bushnell but can not afford the Swarovski.  Might as well the the most for your money.
 
When I considered purchasing a scope for my .257SLR ultralight, I actually ordered a Ziess 3-12X56 Diviari or whatever the correct spelling is.  The guy called me back and told me he could not adjsut the paralax from 100 meters to 200 meters so the order was canceled.  I could not find anything in the wieght, magnification, and lowlight performace of the Z5 Swarovski for any amount of money.  Some things just come together and the Z5 is where that happens.
 
You mentioned as one raises the magnifcation setting he is also restricitng the exit pupil.  You are correct.  Never the less, it one wants to descern detail without a flash light or getting closer one must turn up the power ring.  At a certain point darkness will overtake most folks so a large exit pupil becomes mute.
 
You mention I have poor eyesight and that I can't utilize the benefits of a larger exit pupil and better optical performance.  This is correct and incorrect.  My vision is corrected to better than 20/20 with corrective lenses.  While that is true I do suffer from night blindness according to the eye doctor.  Often I point out deer others cannot see.  Maybe an ear here or part of an antler there.  One time all I saw was a tail.  It was attached to a nice buck upon closer inspection.  Recently my son-in-law told me when we are on the way to hunt he does not look out my side of the pick up because he knows if there is something on my side I will most likely see it.  The fact that I can repeat the test that shows the Nightforce to be better than either the Bushnell or the Swarovski in bright sun or in low light shows I can take advantage of better optical performace.  Why else would I buy the Swaro for the .257SLR?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/23/2011 at 15:11
quarterbore View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar
Previously Banned Troll

Joined: March/13/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 44
The 6500 is a great scope and so are the Swaros, but I have never been a big fan of the later.  When comparing head to head against many, I found others to be better.  The one area that I have not had a chance to do any side by side comparisons in is that of low light performance.  For me it is mute point, as I do not need a scope that provides that few extra minutes and the scopes that I do have do a perfect job in the light available that I do hunt.  I have never felt like I need more light to take a shot.  Not to change the topic, but to also do so, tell me more about your wildcat cartridge.  I love quarterbores.  What is it based off of and what kind of ballistics do you get?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/23/2011 at 15:43
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
quarterbore,
 
Last spring I purchased a Mark V .257 Weatherby Ultralight.  Wiith my Bushnell mounted it weighs 9 1/4 pounds all up:  You know ammo and sling.  It is for sale now.  The good part is it fired 100 grain Barnes TTSXes like a lazer.  Well sorta.  Its velocity averaged 3,700 feet per second.  I like that, but the idea was a light rifle.
 
Off to the funsmith I went.  He said he could build me an action like the two he built for himself.  I get serial number 001.  With the Z5 above a 26" barrel and ammo and sling it will be less than 7 1/2 pounds.  He can build a slightly lighter action because the case is based on a .270 Winchester which is a 1/16" smaller in diameter.  It is longer than a .30-06.  I decided after looking at the Ackley and Gibbs to go a little bit further.  The Gibbs pushed the shoulder of an -06 forward a little more than the A.I. but used a 35 degree shoulder.  The .257SLR has a 2/10" neck with a 40 degree shoulder like the A.I. but with an additional ten thousandths increase in diameter at the shoulder.   According to some 'net loaders they are getting forty feet per second more velocity than my Mark V gets.  I will be fine duplicating the Weatherby.
 
I ordered the reamer a couple weeks ago.  Someone told me he is using a .25-06 collet die from Lee for his A.I. so that's what I will start with.  The bullet seat die from the .257 Wea will work for starters also.  Once I get a few fired cases I will order a Hornady or Lee die set.
 
After I get it back from the funsmith it will be available for someone to use who wants to spend time playing with shooting instead of shooting.  I think this is about my twelth wildcat.  I'm getting old and don't remember like I used to.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/23/2011 at 17:33
helo18 View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar

Joined: December/02/2006
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 5431
Originally posted by Rich Coyle Rich Coyle wrote:

RifleDude,
 
In Oregon we cannot have any battery powered devise on our guns or bows or arrows; not even lighted crosshairs or lighted nocks on the arrows.  So a flashlight won't help when I'm hunting.  

Apparently Rich, you are a little slow.  I didn't see in his post where he said to use a flashlight while hunting.  He said to use it doing your tests that you seem to be so fond of performing and posting your info without telling people you are basically blind.  How long did you think before you posted that statement?  I don't know of any state that allows hunting big game animals with flashlights.

You are NIGHT blind by your own admission.  Therefore you "night tests" you perform will show completely different results than 90% (probably closer to 99.9%) of the people that view this forum.  You try to persuade people with your results even though they won't get the same results as you.

Originally posted by Rich Coyle Rich Coyle wrote:

 At a certain point darkness will overtake most folks so a large exit pupil becomes mute.

Not sure what you mean by that.  I have a pair of 8x56 binos that I have taken out at night and can still see through them even with no moon.  I would say exit pupil has a huge deal to do with that, and the fact that I AM NOT NIGHT BLIND.

Originally posted by Rich Coyle Rich Coyle wrote:

 After I get it back from the funsmith it will be available for someone to use who wants to spend time playing with shooting instead of shooting.

What the hell does that mean?  How are you going to play with shooting without shooting?  You just going to imagine it?  Last time I checked, to play with shooting, you needed to shoot.
< ="-" ="text/; =utf-8">< ="-" ="text/; =utf-8">
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/23/2011 at 18:29
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
helo18,
 
I didn't bring up the flashlight.  One of our .com friends did.  The facts about Oregon are pertinent to this conversation.  By the time someone is in the woods or fields most tests are over.  To use a flashlight in a low light optics test when wanting to compare which scope for real world use would be self negating for me.  I know John has a really neat low light test.  By reading about his test one can eliminate lots of scopes in his price range quickly.
 
There is no way to know what percentage of folks are nightblind here.  With the flack I get, I doubt any reasonalbe person would mention it here.  I don't know what you are talking about night tests.  I compared glass for low light performance; not night performance.  I have the one I want for now:  The Swarovski Z5 5-25X52 dispite it not being as good as a Bushnell during regular light.  I am not bashing it, I paid for both with my money.  I ran the test with my own scopes with my eyes with my time for me.  I will keep both, thank you.
 
Maybe you can see in the dark about like but not quite as well as my son-in-law.  He does not need an 8X56 binocular to see in the dark.  He does not need anything.  For lots of folks at a certain point exit pupil becomes irrelevant.  If it is too dark for them to see it is too dark for them to see.
 
Lots of my fun is forming cases and loading and fire forming.  The wildcat prior to the .257SLR requires five forming dies.  The last die is manufactured so I can cut off the excess brass to get the length close to correct length with a hack saw.  While it is still in the die I run an inside neck reamer to get a uniform neck thickness.  After this I can put the case in a Wilson length tool and trim to perfect length.  Then all the cases need to be anelled or they will rupture upon fire forming.  That's when the playing at shooting ends and the shooting begins.
 
Lots of my fun is after I go to the range.  I keep records of the rifles' and my Freedom Arms .454's  velocities and group sizes.  Long after I have been shooting I can read about shooting.  I am playing at shooting instead of shooting.  It is fun to check that a couple weeks ago I took the .454 to the range.  Just to see how it would do from the bench at 200 yards I fired a cylendar full.  It measured five inches for the five shots.  Sorry to confuse anyone.  I call it playing at shooting instead of shooting; which already happened.
 
I hope this helps clear up some of your confusion.
 
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/23/2011 at 19:18
mike650 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: May/14/2006
Location: West of Rockies
Status: Offline
Points: 12712
Originally posted by Rich Coyle Rich Coyle wrote:

helo18,
 
I didn't bring up the flashlight.  One of our .com friends did.  The facts about Oregon are pertinent to this conversation.  By the time someone is in the woods or fields most tests are over.  To use a flashlight in a low light optics test when wanting to compare which scope for real world use would be self negating for me.  I know John has a really neat low light test.  By reading about his test one can eliminate lots of scopes in his price range quickly.


My mom and many of my friends live in the Grants Pass area (Merlin, Hugo, Galice, Grants Pass, Gold Hill, Rouge Valley, etc., etc.) of Southern Oregon so I'm a little familiar with the area. Wink  It's much like the wooded areas and climate of Northern Kali compared to rest of Oregon so I'm not quite sure what your trying to say or how it would effect your testing.




Edited by mike650 - January/25/2011 at 17:52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/23/2011 at 22:42
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Online
Points: 14321
Originally posted by Rich Coyle Rich Coyle wrote:

RifleDude,
 
In Oregon we cannot have any battery powered devise on our guns or bows or arrows; not even lighted crosshairs or lighted nocks on the arrows.  So a flashlight won't help when I'm hunting. 


I was making an analogy to illustrate that magnification alone doesn't help you discern greater detail in really low light if the increased magnification reduces light transmission through the optic.  My analogy had nothing to do with advocating using a flashlight for hunting, or for that matter, using a flashlight for anything other than illustrating a point... a point you obviously didn't understand. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/23/2011 at 23:12
Trigger slap View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: February/25/2010
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 122
Get Your Popcorn Ready
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/24/2011 at 00:30
helo18 View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar

Joined: December/02/2006
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 5431
Originally posted by Rich Coyle Rich Coyle wrote:

helo18,
 
I didn't bring up the flashlight.  One of our .com friends did.  The facts about Oregon are pertinent to this conversation.  By the time someone is in the woods or fields most tests are over.  To use a flashlight in a low light optics test when wanting to compare which scope for real world use would be self negating for me.  I know John has a really neat low light test.  By reading about his test one can eliminate lots of scopes in his price range quickly.
 
There is no way to know what percentage of folks are nightblind here.  With the flack I get, I doubt any reasonalbe person would mention it here.  I don't know what you are talking about night tests.  I compared glass for low light performance; not night performance.  I have the one I want for now:  The Swarovski Z5 5-25X52 dispite it not being as good as a Bushnell during regular light.  I am not bashing it, I paid for both with my money.  I ran the test with my own scopes with my eyes with my time for me.  I will keep both, thank you.
 
Maybe you can see in the dark about like but not quite as well as my son-in-law.  He does not need an 8X56 binocular to see in the dark.  He does not need anything.  For lots of folks at a certain point exit pupil becomes irrelevant.  If it is too dark for them to see it is too dark for them to see.
 
Lots of my fun is forming cases and loading and fire forming.  The wildcat prior to the .257SLR requires five forming dies.  The last die is manufactured so I can cut off the excess brass to get the length close to correct length with a hack saw.  While it is still in the die I run an inside neck reamer to get a uniform neck thickness.  After this I can put the case in a Wilson length tool and trim to perfect length.  Then all the cases need to be anelled or they will rupture upon fire forming.  That's when the playing at shooting ends and the shooting begins.
 
Lots of my fun is after I go to the range.  I keep records of the rifles' and my Freedom Arms .454's  velocities and group sizes.  Long after I have been shooting I can read about shooting.  I am playing at shooting instead of shooting.  It is fun to check that a couple weeks ago I took the .454 to the range.  Just to see how it would do from the bench at 200 yards I fired a cylendar full.  It measured five inches for the five shots.  Sorry to confuse anyone.  I call it playing at shooting instead of shooting; which already happened.
 
I hope this helps clear up some of your confusion.
 
 

Mr Coyle,

I understand you didn't bring up the flashlight. I was simply pointing out that he did not tell anyone to use a flashlight to spot animals while hunting.  He said to use it on one of your tests, which I would assume you are not running during hunting season since it is over.  So the hunting regulations are a mute point at the moment and are not pertinent to what you wrote about.

I also understand that you are testing low light conditions and not night conditions.  If I have an optic that I can see at night with, then I will see fine in low light with it.   I worked with some night blind horses when I was guiding.  What was interesting is that if affected them in low light and night, not just night, so I would assume the same for you.

As for my ability to see at night, I assure you that I can see perfectly fine with out optics.  Due to the fact that I fly helicopters, I have had every test run on my eyes to make sure I can see.  I see 15/20 out of my left eye, and 20/20 out of my right eye.  I have passed more than two dozen color blind tests, night blind tests, and shade testing to make sure I can fly at night.  I spent eight hours in a Navy hospital in Pensacola FL having every imaginable test run to make sure I was fit to fly.  Trust me, I can see fine with no optics.  I am not going to debate whether I can see as well as your SIL, and I don't care really.

I can assure you that the results I get testing optics (Swaro Z6 to my Burris and Bushnell stuff) are completely opposite of your results.  And I am guessing the majority of people would agree with me.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/24/2011 at 06:54
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
helo18,
 
Your eyes are very impressive.  I have met a couple folks like that over the years.  I think mone of them sive my life a few years ago.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/24/2011 at 07:05
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
a 6500 is better than z5, thats as funny as the tasco thats better than a leupold.Loco
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/24/2011 at 07:08
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Online
Points: 14321
Originally posted by helo18 helo18 wrote:



Mr Coyle,

I understand you didn't bring up the flashlight. I was simply pointing out that he did not tell anyone to use a flashlight to spot animals while hunting.  He said to use it on one of your tests...


Correct.  Actually, I didn't even really say that.  I was expanding on his hypothetical "test" with another hypothetical.  I asked him to "use" the flashlight only in his mind as an analogy to try clarify a point Mr. Coyle doesn't seem to get... that continually getting a closer view of something is moot if you don't have adequate light to resolve details.  That obviously passed over his head and he thought I was being literal.  Sometimes you can see details better with more light further away from an object than you can with less light up close.  I then paralleled that simple concept to a scope, where continually increasing magnification at some point starts to become detrimental to seeing more details in low light because of ever decreasing exit pupil size.  Mr. Coyle seems to think that more is always better with magnification and that there are no negative tradeoffs with same.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/24/2011 at 07:16
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Online
Points: 14321
Originally posted by pyro6999 pyro6999 wrote:

a 6500 is better than z5, thats as funny as the tasco thats better than a leupold.Loco


He has implied that on more than one occasion.  He also said that his views on the topic were unanimously shared by the other observers who assisted him with his "tests."

Well... here's a quote from one of the other participants in this very test, taken verbatim from 24hr campfire:

"being the other guy mentioned in this post, i thought i would chime in.

shooting pump houses is indeed best done at long range. using the Swarovski is CLEARLY the better choice. i wouldnt use the Bushnell if i owned the Swarovski.

low light performance was MUCH better with the Swaro, and the Bushnell had some image clarity problems in the lower light.

in bright light, the Swaro, and the Bushnell are fairly close to my eyes. as for range of magnification, the Bushnell wins hands down, but the Swaro is, to me, the better scope."
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/24/2011 at 07:38
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 RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

Originally posted by pyro6999 pyro6999 wrote:

a 6500 is better than z5, thats as funny as the tasco thats better than a leupold.Loco


He has implied that on more than one occasion.  He also said that his views on the topic were unanimously shared by the other observers who assisted him with his "tests."

Well... here's a quote from one of the other participants in this very test, taken verbatim from 24hr campfire:

"being the other guy mentioned in this post, i thought i would chime in.

shooting pump houses is indeed best done at long range. using the Swarovski is CLEARLY the better choice. i wouldnt use the Bushnell if i owned the Swarovski.

low light performance was MUCH better with the Swaro, and the Bushnell had some image clarity problems in the lower light.

in bright light, the Swaro, and the Bushnell are fairly close to my eyes. as for range of magnification, the Bushnell wins hands down, but the Swaro is, to me, the better scope."

Shocked
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/24/2011 at 09:03
Rancid Coolaid View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7705
Nightforce is optically better than Swaro, when did that happen!

Rich, you either have a kick-ass Nightforce or a suck-ass Swaro.

Carry on.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/24/2011 at 10:05
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Online
Points: 14321
I own several Nightforces and several Swaros, and I 100% concur.  It ain't even close, in fact.
 
The only area where NF outshines Swaro is their W/E adjustments and some would argue reticle selection, but then NF are tactical scopes and Swaro are hunting scopes, so that's as it should be.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/24/2011 at 14:14
Rancid Coolaid View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7705
It is of paramount importance to note that optical resolution is not, by far, the most important aspect to a tactical scope.  Conversely, optical clarity is among the top 3 most important factors in a hunting scope - in my opinion.

To arbitrarily move from hunting scope comparisons to hunting vs. tactical to tactical scope comparisons is far too convoluted to be meaningful.

I own Swaro and Nightforce ,I know MANY more who own one or both, and NO ONE ELSE sees what Rich is seeing in terms of optical quality.

Rich, I appreciate that you see things a certain way, all I ask is that you understand that the vast majority of others do not see the world in the same way you do.  As such, your comparisons might be valid for someone with similar eyes, but are ass-out backwards (and potentially harmful and costly) to those with less experience and knowledge.  

One day, when I am 80 and night blind, your comparisons may be gospel truth, but today, they are the opposite of useful and factual.
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "More Humor.......from Rich Coyle"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
God’s got a sense of humor Steelbenz General Hunting 13 3/15/2007 7:32:49 AM


This page was generated in 0.297 seconds.