Old vs new scopes

[Ray B]

I find myself anticipating sundown. To address some of the constructive criticisms this evenings review will be limited to Leupold scopes. All will be either 4x or variables set at 4x. they range from 70 years old to 5 years old and interestingly, as I noted their ages there was a pattern of separation: 5-15-5-15-5-15-5 years. I'm aware that all eyes are different but I will seeing all of the images with just my eyes, so there is little variable. Others may see differently, but I'd expect that they would get the same pattern with a different relative position. So as the president says: We'll see.

 

[Art Lambart II]

Ray B, this is great news. I've been a proponent of the old Weaver K4 scopes for a long time. For me they are the cat's meow. There are others in my family that think they are "junk" by comparison to the newer scopes of today. I've often said that I may loose a couple of minutes at daylight and dark but that was it. You've just made my case. THANKS.

I don't think the K-4 Weaver is junk, in its day it was a top of the line scope, but that day has long pasted. For the money you spent on that used K-4 and the needed repairs or recital replacement you could buy a
new 3 x 9 Leupold that comes with a lifetime warranty. The K-4 is a good hunting scope and its a lot better than iron sites but other than nostalgia there is no good reason to use one today.

 

[Standard Velocity]

I am as old school as anyone, but I have several drawers full of pre-war and early post-war German and American scopes. I have played around with them a lot and have them mounted on several period rifles just because. The brightest (and I love the old steel K4) are the Lyman All American series. The pre-war German optics generally have relatively narrow fields of view and regardless of clarity (very unimpressive in my view) it makes them difficult to use. Adjusting them for sight-in is art rather than science, and they fog at the merest hint of humidity. Modern, first quality optics, are light years ahead of such artifacts.

All that said, I agree whole heartedly that 50+ mm objectives are generally an abomination. Their negative impact on ”shootability” outweighs whatever theoretical advantage is gained in light transmission.

One of the advantages of a quality modern scope is the ability to actually use higher magnification in low light. Often shot placement is the real challenge early and late. A modern quality scope allows us to increase power to 8 or 9X in those twilight minutes to insure the crosshairs are precisely where they need to be; a capability that is well beyond any of the older scopes that I own.

+1

All of these observations I have found to be true. I’ve done a lot of comparison of scopes from the 80’s through current production. Modern lense coatings allow greater light transmission and better color rendition. The two combined make for more usable light at higher magnification later into the evening. Anti reflective coatings have improved even in the last ten years.

I have no love for old scopes for anything other than daytime only rifles.

That being said, 4x being the most useful x, moderate magnification should be useful even in older scopes. I do respect anyone who plows ahead with self-imposed handicaps; muzzleloaders, bow and arrow, vintage scopes, etc.

 

[Ray B]

Test 3. Eight Leupold scopes Sunset @ latitude 8:06
Pioneer 4x 7/8" tube 1950 FOV rank tied for most; noted dimmer @ 8:12 Lost clarity @ 8:19
Mountaineer 4x 1" tube 1955 FOV tied for most; Lost Clarity @ 8:20
M7 4x 1" tube 1970 FOV 3rd; Lost Clarity @ 8:15
Vari-X II 2-7x (@4) 1975; FOV 5th place; Lost Clarity @ 8:22
Alaskan 4x 7/8" tube 1990, FOV 7th place; Noted dimmer at 8:10; Lost Clarity @ 8:16
Vari-X IIc 3-9x (@4) 1" tube 1995; FOV 4th; Lost Clarity @ 8:20
VX-II 4-12x(@4x) 1" tube 2010; FOV last place (by significant amount); Lost Clarity 8:21
VX6 4-24x (@4x) 34mm tube 2015; FOV 6th place; noticeably brighter through entire test, Lost Clarity @ 8:26
At 8:26 the hillside to unaided eye was dark with objects undiscernible.

Conclusion: the light getting through 7/8" tubes was noticeably less than 1". Even though made several years apart, the twilight performance of most of the scopes was very similar. My opinion is that scope design and lens quality has more to do with performance than new coatings. The one big exception, and it was not at all a surprise was the VX6- it has a 34" tube and a huge objective lens, so had it not done well I would really be disappointed.

 

[Ray B]

Leupold scopes ranked in order that they lost Clarity:
M7 4x 8:15
Alaskan 4x 8:16
Pioneer 4x 8:19
Mountaineer 4x 8:20
Vari-X IIc 3-9 @4x 8:20
VX-II 4-12 @4x 8:21
Vari-X II 2-7 @4x 8:22
VX6 4-24 @4x 8:26

 

[CBH Australia]

Great work Ray.
It’s good that you have some variety to compare.
It’s interesting that there is not. Huge difference in the time that they lose clarity. 11 minute best to worst and Only 6minutes in either half top or bottom.
6 minutes may be valuable at times. I’ve shot stuff on dusk opportunistically or walking hunting pests.
Some don’t like big objectives but I differ as i shoot after dark. Spotlighting or just in the headlights driving lights if an opportunity presents. But this is Australia and I mostly shoot pests.

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

Hi Ray,

Good work! Agree about your opinión.

CF

 

[Ray B]

Next batch:
Sundown @ 8:15, loss of unaided eye clarity 8:25

Weaver M29-S (3/4") 2 1/2x 8:26
Weaver K 2.5 2 1/2x 8:28
Lyman Alaskan (7/8") 2.5x 8:28
Bausch & Lomb Balvar 2.5-4x @ 2.5x 8:29
Bausch & Lomb Balvar 8 @ 2.5x 8:31

There was high overcast so the contrast on the ground was flat.

 

[Ray B]

In conducting these comparisons and then reviewing the various results I see a few variables that need to be addressed. One is the changing of the sundown time and angle, thus affecting the rate that darkness falls. Secondly, variations in cloud cover affect not only the rate of darkness but the brightness/contrast of objects in the viewing area. A solution would be to accrue a scope or two from each group to act as benchmarks for that group, then perform a comparison of the benchmarks for each group on one evening to see how each grouping compares to the others.

Thoughts on ways to correct for the variations?

 

[Phil Giordano]

Recently I purchased a really like new Swarovski Habicth Nova 3-9x36, a scope made in the middle '90s. I've always liked similar Zeiss or Swar, because the 36 objective can be mounted pretty low.
I have Swar Z6s and Schmidt & Benders, and I can honestly say that the old 3-9 does a really good work, in light transmission and contrast.
My only question is : how long can last gas inside the scope? Should I send it to Swarovski for a check up?

 

[CBH Australia]

Recently I purchased a really like new Swarovski Habicth Nova 3-9x36, a scope made in the middle '90s. I've always liked similar Zeiss or Swar, because the 36 objective can be mounted pretty low.
I have Swar Z6s and Schmidt & Benders, and I can honestly say that the old 3-9 does a really good work, in light transmission and contrast.
My only question is : how long can last gas inside the scope? Should I send it to Swarovski for a check up?View attachment 505923

The gas likely lasts as long as the seal is intact. The O Rings. I don't think the gas will go off or break down in a sealed scope.

We have at least 2 people in Australia that service scopes. Optical restorers.
I think by service they dismantle, clean lenses inside and out, clean the mechanical components and lubricate them and they replace the seals before re-gassing.
Probably cost $150 here.
But you might have a Swarovski service centre in the US.

 

[Phil Giordano]

The gas likely lasts as long as the seal is intact. The O Rings. I don't think the gas will go off or break down in a sealed scope.

We have at least 2 people in Australia that service scopes. Optical restorers.
I think by service they dismantle, clean lenses inside and out, clean the mechanical components and lubricate them and they replace the seals before re-gassing.
Probably cost $150 here.
But you might have a Swarovski service centre in the US.

Thank you CBH, I'm Italian and it would be not too difficult to send it to Swarovski in Austria - I tink I probably will, the scope after that will be like brand new...

 

[Ray B]

As long as the seals are sealing, that is they are still soft and pliable as opposed to hard and cracked the gas in the scope should be find. the main problem if the seal loses integrity and the inert gas leaks & is replaced by water bearing atmosphere is that it may fog. A simple test can be done on a warm day- take the scope from room temperature and put it in the freezer. Keep it in the freezer for five minutes then take it out and look through it. The outside will start getting condensation on it because it is cold in warm air. Wipe the moisture off of the lenses and look through, it should be clear. As the scope returns to room temperature the condensation will evaporate, but the inside should remain clear. If so, your scope should be in good working order as far as the gas filling is concerned.

 

[Phil Giordano]

As long as the seals are sealing, that is they are still soft and pliable as opposed to hard and cracked the gas in the scope should be find. the main problem if the seal loses integrity and the inert gas leaks & is replaced by water bearing atmosphere is that it may fog. A simple test can be done on a warm day- take the scope from room temperature and put it in the freezer. Keep it in the freezer for five minutes then take it out and look through it. The outside will start getting condensation on it because it is cold in warm air. Wipe the moisture off of the lenses and look through, it should be clear. As the scope returns to room temperature the condensation will evaporate, but the inside should remain clear. If so, your scope should be in good working order as far as the gas filling is concerned.

Sounds good Ray, thank you for the advice, it's easy to do and the procedure will detect any problem with the o rings and the original inert gas inside

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

Hi Phil,

The scope seems to be unused, like new! Anyway, being you in Europe, I would write, or call, to Swarovski Service directly, asking for their recommendations.
Good luck!

CF

 

[BeeMaa]

One thing that can not be denied is the addition of electronics to modern scopes. I'm not sure what the first scope was to have an illuminated reticle, but nearly all modern manufactures have one of these offerings. Call it a sign of the times.

The difference a lit reticle makes when placing the crosshairs on a dark colored animal in a shaded area can not be denied. Advantage modern scope and I'm in that camp with 3 Swaro Z8i's on our hunting rifles.

Even more electronics can be added to scopes like range finders on crossbow scopes and ballistic calculators that bluetooth to a kestrel or phone. Electronics are here to stay, but having a backup plan is always a good thing too.

 

[Phil Giordano]

Hi Phil,

The scope seems to be unused, like new! Anyway, being you in Europe, I would write, or call, to Swarovski Service directly, asking for their recommendations.
Good luck!

CF

Ciao Clodo!
Yes the scope is in best conditions, maybe I will try the trick that Ray suggest, and very likely send it to Swarovski for a complete check up...

 

[Nhoro]

One thing you could try is to get a resolution chart like these used in photography- https://www.techradar.com/news/phot...a-testing-resolution-charts-explained-1027585

Very few people actually test their optics. They often say you can see the difference in expensive optics. But the truth is that the measurable differences are very small. I cannot see .5 % better light transmission The resolution charts also highlight some problem areas for lenses like chromatic aberration/ fringing/ edge to edge sharpness and may help to grade your optics.

Well done for actually testing and trying to build a credible experiment. People who know a thing or two about optics would not be surprised by your results. Improvements in high grade optics are incremental and not earth shattering. But improvements in cheaper optics have been more noticeable.

 

[Phil Giordano]

One thing you could try is to get a resolution chart like these used in photography- https://www.techradar.com/news/phot...a-testing-resolution-charts-explained-1027585

Very few people actually test their optics. They often say you can see the difference in expensive optics. But the truth is that the measurable differences are very small. I cannot see .5 % better light transmission The resolution charts also highlight some problem areas for lenses like chromatic aberration/ fringing/ edge to edge sharpness and may help to grade your optics.

Well done for actually testing and trying to build a credible experiment. People who know a thing or two about optics would not be surprised by your results. Improvements in high grade optics are incremental and not earth shattering. But improvements in cheaper optics have been more noticeable.

This is really a good advice, you bet I will.
Also I would say that resolution and trasmission are (to me), just alf of the equation, because when hunting I also need a really tough scope, not only a bright one. On this side, the old ones are as as good (or better) that the top ones of today, and an old scope like the Swar 3-9x36 is totally bombproof.

 

[Nhoro]

This is really a good advice, you bet I will.
Also I would say that resolution and trasmission are (to me), just alf of the equation, because when hunting I also need a really tough scope, not only a bright one. On this side, the old ones are as as good (or better) that the top ones of today, and an old scope like the Swar 3-9x36 is totally bombproof.

Yes, res and transmission are meaningless without adjustment. And i think budget scopes were really bad at this but it is probably the area where brands like vortex made the biggest gains. I set up a cheap vortex crossfire scope with one shot. Next 3 shots were right on target. Feel free to pm me, i studied physics and am in photography/ videography now so have a fair bit of understanding of the subject.