dan newberry
New member
The following is a response by John Barsness (writer for Rifle and Handloader magazine, as well as several other publications; author of Optics for the Hunter...)
He was asked whether the European scopes are truly better than scopes made elsewhere in the world. He makes some extremely cogent points, and I thought you guys might like reading what he had to say. His words follow in bold type:
There is an enormous amount of "pro-Euro" prejudice among many scope buyers, but the difference (if it still exists) isn't there anymore, at least in my experience.
At one time, say up until 20 years ago, some of the European makers did use more advanced lens coatings and systems than most other scope companies, so European scopes were "brighter."
In this case, "bright" means transmitting around 90% of the available light through the scope to the eye, as measured on scientific instruments. Mostly this was done by multicoating the lenses, and matting or baffling the inside of the scope to reduce interior-reflected light, which cuts down on apparent brightness.
Since then that advantage has almost totally disappeared. Zeiss does make very bright scopes, but independent scientific testing has shown a number of other makes also produce scopes that transmit 90%+ of available light. The same testing has shown that some Euro-scopes don't quite make 90%. So the line has blurred.
The other side of the question involves mechanics. The main job of a scope is NOT to transmit light, but to stay pointed in the same direction as the barrel. If this doesn't happen, all the fancy optics in the world don't help us hit what we're aiming at. Though any general statement is indeed general, I would say that 15 years ago the majority of Euro-scopes weren't all that tough, mostly because they didn't have to be. Most were sold in Europe, where hardly anybody uses a cartridge bigger than the .30-06.
Eye relief tended to be short for the same reason. Most rifles didn't kick all that hard, so long eye relief wasn't necessary. Short eye relief also tends to add to "apparent" brightness. If our eye is closer to the ocular (rear) lens, stray light from outside the scope's view is reduced, and the view appears brighter, even if light transmitted through the scope is the same. So there was some advantage to shorter eye relief in Europe, where hunters often shoot at night.
Many European scopes also weren't truly waterproof. Most only qualified if the turret caps were on, but could suck in moisture quickly if the caps were off. American-style scopes had long been totally waterproof. In fact we pioneered this feature.
When the optics market (indeed, the world economy) turned more world-wide in the late 1980's and early 90's, both European and American-"style" makers had to do some adjusting.
If the Europeans wanted to sell scopes in America, where we shoot bigger rifles, they had to start making waterproof, tougher scopes with longer eye relief. If Americans wanted to sell scopes in Europe, they had to start multicoating glass for more light transmission. Both have happened.
As for European scopes being super-fine, and everything else inferior, let me tell a story. When I visited the Zeiss factories in 1993, the rifle scope manufacturer they regarded as their chief competition was Leupold. In fact, the only other scope company they would even acknowledge existed was Leupold. This was a few years after Leupold brought out their MultiCoat 4 lens coatings. For an old-time German company to even admit such a thing was pretty astonishing.
This turned out to be a mistake, due to Swarovski's very aggressive and successful marketing campaign. Zeiss was so sure of their place as the premier European optics company that they practically ignored marketing in America--and Swarovski took over the "expensive Euro-optics" niche.
Swarovski's marketing campaign has indeed been successful, so much so that many shooters implicitly believe Swarovski makes the finest optics in the world, which of course to the same shooters means Europe.
Swarovski makes some very fine optics, believe me, but most are no better than a great many other products from all over the world. There are no deep Germanic optical secrets in the global marketplace. There are incredible optical engineers in every country that produces optics, especially Japan. They can take apart any scope, camera or binocular and see what makes it tick within a few days. To claim that Germany has a monopoly on such engineering is extremely naive.
This has been proven over and over again in all sorts of objective ways. But a lot of people like to believe they are more perceptive consumers than the great mass of average folks. I have used a lot of optics from all over the world. Some are really fine, some are not. Some are very fine optically but not mechanically--and vice versa.
But the country of origin doesn't have much to do with it anymore. Engineering and manufacturing does. This has been acknowledged in just about every other field EXCEPT sporting optics. By every measurable criteria, Japan builds the most reliable motor vehicles, Europe the least, and Japan leads the way in professional camera sales.
Yet some folks still like to believe that German elves are still making the world's best lenses, just as they did in 1965, due to some age-old secrets unknown to the rest of the world. If this were the case General Motors would still be making tons of money and Rolleiflex would be a leading professional camera. Obviously times have changed.
I hope Mr. Barsness doesn't mind me reprising his comments here...
Dan
He was asked whether the European scopes are truly better than scopes made elsewhere in the world. He makes some extremely cogent points, and I thought you guys might like reading what he had to say. His words follow in bold type:
There is an enormous amount of "pro-Euro" prejudice among many scope buyers, but the difference (if it still exists) isn't there anymore, at least in my experience.
At one time, say up until 20 years ago, some of the European makers did use more advanced lens coatings and systems than most other scope companies, so European scopes were "brighter."
In this case, "bright" means transmitting around 90% of the available light through the scope to the eye, as measured on scientific instruments. Mostly this was done by multicoating the lenses, and matting or baffling the inside of the scope to reduce interior-reflected light, which cuts down on apparent brightness.
Since then that advantage has almost totally disappeared. Zeiss does make very bright scopes, but independent scientific testing has shown a number of other makes also produce scopes that transmit 90%+ of available light. The same testing has shown that some Euro-scopes don't quite make 90%. So the line has blurred.
The other side of the question involves mechanics. The main job of a scope is NOT to transmit light, but to stay pointed in the same direction as the barrel. If this doesn't happen, all the fancy optics in the world don't help us hit what we're aiming at. Though any general statement is indeed general, I would say that 15 years ago the majority of Euro-scopes weren't all that tough, mostly because they didn't have to be. Most were sold in Europe, where hardly anybody uses a cartridge bigger than the .30-06.
Eye relief tended to be short for the same reason. Most rifles didn't kick all that hard, so long eye relief wasn't necessary. Short eye relief also tends to add to "apparent" brightness. If our eye is closer to the ocular (rear) lens, stray light from outside the scope's view is reduced, and the view appears brighter, even if light transmitted through the scope is the same. So there was some advantage to shorter eye relief in Europe, where hunters often shoot at night.
Many European scopes also weren't truly waterproof. Most only qualified if the turret caps were on, but could suck in moisture quickly if the caps were off. American-style scopes had long been totally waterproof. In fact we pioneered this feature.
When the optics market (indeed, the world economy) turned more world-wide in the late 1980's and early 90's, both European and American-"style" makers had to do some adjusting.
If the Europeans wanted to sell scopes in America, where we shoot bigger rifles, they had to start making waterproof, tougher scopes with longer eye relief. If Americans wanted to sell scopes in Europe, they had to start multicoating glass for more light transmission. Both have happened.
As for European scopes being super-fine, and everything else inferior, let me tell a story. When I visited the Zeiss factories in 1993, the rifle scope manufacturer they regarded as their chief competition was Leupold. In fact, the only other scope company they would even acknowledge existed was Leupold. This was a few years after Leupold brought out their MultiCoat 4 lens coatings. For an old-time German company to even admit such a thing was pretty astonishing.
This turned out to be a mistake, due to Swarovski's very aggressive and successful marketing campaign. Zeiss was so sure of their place as the premier European optics company that they practically ignored marketing in America--and Swarovski took over the "expensive Euro-optics" niche.
Swarovski's marketing campaign has indeed been successful, so much so that many shooters implicitly believe Swarovski makes the finest optics in the world, which of course to the same shooters means Europe.
Swarovski makes some very fine optics, believe me, but most are no better than a great many other products from all over the world. There are no deep Germanic optical secrets in the global marketplace. There are incredible optical engineers in every country that produces optics, especially Japan. They can take apart any scope, camera or binocular and see what makes it tick within a few days. To claim that Germany has a monopoly on such engineering is extremely naive.
This has been proven over and over again in all sorts of objective ways. But a lot of people like to believe they are more perceptive consumers than the great mass of average folks. I have used a lot of optics from all over the world. Some are really fine, some are not. Some are very fine optically but not mechanically--and vice versa.
But the country of origin doesn't have much to do with it anymore. Engineering and manufacturing does. This has been acknowledged in just about every other field EXCEPT sporting optics. By every measurable criteria, Japan builds the most reliable motor vehicles, Europe the least, and Japan leads the way in professional camera sales.
Yet some folks still like to believe that German elves are still making the world's best lenses, just as they did in 1965, due to some age-old secrets unknown to the rest of the world. If this were the case General Motors would still be making tons of money and Rolleiflex would be a leading professional camera. Obviously times have changed.
I hope Mr. Barsness doesn't mind me reprising his comments here...
Dan
