Help me to choose best rifle in .223

Bolt action rifles, lever action, pump action, self loading rifles and other miscellaneous longarms.

Re: Help me to choose best rifle in .223

Post by Stix » 12 Jan 2019, 3:35 pm

bigfellascott wrote:
Islander7 wrote:Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.

I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.

Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because it wouldn't make any difference for my eyes most probably.

P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all :)


It doesn't surprise me at all! I've done plenty of testing of euro and cheaper offerings and there really was SFA diff in brightness in between any of them at last light. I was expecting to be able to use the euros without any added light source but it wasn't the case at all. :unknown:


When it comes to scopes & low light, the difference in seeing things for longer in fading light is a furphy i believe.

In low light like the last throws of daylight, with good or bad optics of similar construction, there is only "X" amount of light period...so a better scope cant make more light & allow you to see for 15 minutes longer.

Where you will notice the better optics perform is in the saturation levels of colours, lower or no chromatic aberration, & naturally sharper fine details and a greater tonal range in across a greater variety of lighting conditions
.
I always like to test a scope on a bright sunny day...look into the shadows & see how much detail you can see...then look at the highlights--for example--if you could/can, look at a white lace curtain or a wedding dress out in the sun then in dark shadow--you will find with poor quality optics the curtain will appear blanket white, as opposed to a Z5 for example, you will see the intricate detail of the lace (let your eye/brain adjust to the light level of course).

The sucker for testing scopes is on an overcast day--the cheap ones make things look bright, have way more contrast & therefor appear sharper, where as immediately against the quality optics, initially appear dull & lifeless--but again, thats where you look into shadows for the real test...so its easy to be fooled into thinking a Z5 is not worth the coin when compared to a cheaper Bushnell of a mere fraction of the price

Cheaper optics have coatings that make the poor glass "appear" brighter & sharper by way of increasing the contrast...when in actual fact what you want is a low contrast image with good saturation.
This can even make a difference at night--say for example, a fox in a stubble field under halogen light at 200-250 yds (fox not looking at the light so you cant see its eye reflection)...with a cheap high contrast optic, the fox's fur blends in to the stubble & you rely more on movement to see it...however with a low contrast high definition quality optic you will see detail enough to make out the fur.

Its all a matter of training our eye to see what we actually see, rather than what our brain percieves us to see... :thumbsup:

So relating that to dusk situation & the very last throws of daylight, you wont "get longer use" out of a better quality optic, rather you will just see things clearer & be able to make out better detail in a wider variety of lighting conditions.. :thumbsup: :)

:drinks:
The man who knows everything, doesnt really know everything...he's just stopped learning...
Stix
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 2184
South Australia

Re: Help me to choose best rifle in .223

Post by Gaznazdiak » 12 Jan 2019, 4:09 pm

Stix wrote:
bigfellascott wrote:
Islander7 wrote:Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.

I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.

Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because it wouldn't make any difference for my eyes most probably.

P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all :)


It doesn't surprise me at all! I've done plenty of testing of euro and cheaper offerings and there really was SFA diff in brightness in between any of them at last light. I was expecting to be able to use the euros without any added light source but it wasn't the case at all. :unknown:


When it comes to scopes & low light, the difference in seeing things for longer in fading light is a furphy i believe.

In low light like the last throws of daylight, with good or bad optics of similar construction, there is only "X" amount of light period...so a better scope cant make more light & allow you to see for 15 minutes longer.

Where you will notice the better optics perform is in the saturation levels of colours, lower or no chromatic aberration, & naturally sharper fine details and a greater tonal range in across a greater variety of lighting conditions
.
I always like to test a scope on a bright sunny day...look into the shadows & see how much detail you can see...then look at the highlights--for example--if you could/can, look at a white lace curtain or a wedding dress out in the sun then in dark shadow--you will find with poor quality optics the curtain will appear blanket white, as opposed to a Z5 for example, you will see the intricate detail of the lace (let your eye/brain adjust to the light level of course).

The sucker for testing scopes is on an overcast day--the cheap ones make things look bright, have way more contrast & therefor appear sharper, where as immediately against the quality optics, initially appear dull & lifeless--but again, thats where you look into shadows for the real test...so its easy to be fooled into thinking a Z5 is not worth the coin when compared to a cheaper Bushnell of a mere fraction of the price

Cheaper optics have coatings that make the poor glass "appear" brighter & sharper by way of increasing the contrast...when in actual fact what you want is a low contrast image with good saturation.
This can even make a difference at night--say for example, a fox in a stubble field under halogen light at 200-250 yds (fox not looking at the light so you cant see its eye reflection)...with a cheap high contrast optic, the fox's fur blends in to the stubble & you rely more on movement to see it...however with a low contrast high definition quality optic you will see detail enough to make out the fur.

Its all a matter of training our eye to see what we actually see, rather than what our brain percieves us to see... :thumbsup:

So relating that to dusk situation & the very last throws of daylight, you wont "get longer use" out of a better quality optic, rather you will just see things clearer & be able to make out better detail in a wider variety of lighting conditions.. :thumbsup: :)

:drinks:


Light gathering ability is determined in the main by objective lens size.
I learned this when buying an astronomical telescope, the bigger the objective, the more light that can be collected, and the fainter the objects you can observe.

My Hawke 10-50x60 is far brighter on 10x at dusk till dark than the view through my 10x50 binos, even though there are two lenses collecting instead of one.
fideles usque ad mortem
User avatar
Gaznazdiak
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 1973
New South Wales

Re: Help me to choose best rifle in .223

Post by bigfellascott » 12 Jan 2019, 5:01 pm

Stix wrote:
bigfellascott wrote:
Islander7 wrote:Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.

I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.

Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because it wouldn't make any difference for my eyes most probably.

P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all :)


It doesn't surprise me at all! I've done plenty of testing of euro and cheaper offerings and there really was SFA diff in brightness in between any of them at last light. I was expecting to be able to use the euros without any added light source but it wasn't the case at all. :unknown:


When it comes to scopes & low light, the difference in seeing things for longer in fading light is a furphy i believe.

In low light like the last throws of daylight, with good or bad optics of similar construction, there is only "X" amount of light period...so a better scope cant make more light & allow you to see for 15 minutes longer.

Where you will notice the better optics perform is in the saturation levels of colours, lower or no chromatic aberration, & naturally sharper fine details and a greater tonal range in across a greater variety of lighting conditions
.
I always like to test a scope on a bright sunny day...look into the shadows & see how much detail you can see...then look at the highlights--for example--if you could/can, look at a white lace curtain or a wedding dress out in the sun then in dark shadow--you will find with poor quality optics the curtain will appear blanket white, as opposed to a Z5 for example, you will see the intricate detail of the lace (let your eye/brain adjust to the light level of course).

The sucker for testing scopes is on an overcast day--the cheap ones make things look bright, have way more contrast & therefor appear sharper, where as immediately against the quality optics, initially appear dull & lifeless--but again, thats where you look into shadows for the real test...so its easy to be fooled into thinking a Z5 is not worth the coin when compared to a cheaper Bushnell of a mere fraction of the price

Cheaper optics have coatings that make the poor glass "appear" brighter & sharper by way of increasing the contrast...when in actual fact what you want is a low contrast image with good saturation.
This can even make a difference at night--say for example, a fox in a stubble field under halogen light at 200-250 yds (fox not looking at the light so you cant see its eye reflection)...with a cheap high contrast optic, the fox's fur blends in to the stubble & you rely more on movement to see it...however with a low contrast high definition quality optic you will see detail enough to make out the fur.

Its all a matter of training our eye to see what we actually see, rather than what our brain percieves us to see... :thumbsup:

So relating that to dusk situation & the very last throws of daylight, you wont "get longer use" out of a better quality optic, rather you will just see things clearer & be able to make out better detail in a wider variety of lighting conditions.. :thumbsup: :)

:drinks:


Yeah done all those types of tests in the bush and honestly still haven’t seen any real reason why I should spend $1000’s more to do the same thing - I certainly haven’t noticed any real difference in my success rate using the more expensive stuff over my Nikon, leupold or zeiss.
User avatar
bigfellascott
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 5665
-

Re: Help me to choose best rifle in .223

Post by Flyer » 12 Jan 2019, 5:24 pm

Islander7 wrote:Bladeracer, yes I spent whole night outside yesterday without looking at bright computer/phone screen etc, so my eyes were very well adapted to the natural twilight setting. Astronomy is my another hobby, so I know the importance of eye adaptation to the darkness before looking through scope.

Grandad, I've decided to keep it for now at least. I'll try to get and test better optics (Swarovski etc) in the future. If I get blown away, I'll happily upgrade. My own conclusion now is everyone's eyes are different, and apparantly my eyes aren't that great after all, which is a bit disappointing :) I didn't believe this fact at first, but then I remembered that I've got a $20k hi-fi stereo system and I'm the only one (within my circle of friends and family) who are able to clearly hear difference/advantage in comparison to, say, $3k system.. so yes, we are all different.

Flyer, illuminated reticle was off, simply because it came to me with dead battery (ex-display unit). Yes it's got fixed parallax at 100m, however it has a focus ring, so you can get everything in focus at most distances.

Bigfella, I still will try to do a proper test with more expensive optics in the future, just to see for myself :)

Hi mate, the focal ring is simply to adjust the eye piece so you can tailor it to your own eye (if you are short sighted, long-sighted etc). Parallax obviously adjusts parallax, but it also adjusts the focal point of the object the scope is aimed at so you can see it sharper at a given range.
Flyer
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 361
-

Re: Help me to choose best rifle in .223

Post by Gaznazdiak » 12 Jan 2019, 5:34 pm

Flyer wrote:
Islander7 wrote:Bladeracer, yes I spent whole night outside yesterday without looking at bright computer/phone screen etc, so my eyes were very well adapted to the natural twilight setting. Astronomy is my another hobby, so I know the importance of eye adaptation to the darkness before looking through scope.

Grandad, I've decided to keep it for now at least. I'll try to get and test better optics (Swarovski etc) in the future. If I get blown away, I'll happily upgrade. My own conclusion now is everyone's eyes are different, and apparantly my eyes aren't that great after all, which is a bit disappointing :) I didn't believe this fact at first, but then I remembered that I've got a $20k hi-fi stereo system and I'm the only one (within my circle of friends and family) who are able to clearly hear difference/advantage in comparison to, say, $3k system.. so yes, we are all different.

Flyer, illuminated reticle was off, simply because it came to me with dead battery (ex-display unit). Yes it's got fixed parallax at 100m, however it has a focus ring, so you can get everything in focus at most distances.

Bigfella, I still will try to do a proper test with more expensive optics in the future, just to see for myself :)

Hi mate, the focal ring is simply to adjust the eye piece so you can tailor it to your own eye (if you are short sighted, long-sighted etc). Parallax obviously adjusts parallax, but it also adjusts the focal point of the object the scope is aimed at so you can see it sharper at a given range.


Yes indeedy.
Wouldn't go back to scopes without now I have "seen the light".
Far superior.
fideles usque ad mortem
User avatar
Gaznazdiak
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 1973
New South Wales

Re: Help me to choose best rifle in .223

Post by Flyer » 12 Jan 2019, 5:37 pm

allan wrote:
Flyer wrote:I'll have to check my box again, because I don't remember seeing any Weaver mounts in mine. My Sako A7 came with them, but not my Weihrauch, as far as I know. I do have the mounting holes with tap screws and thought of mentioning this, but I haven't used them so can recommend anything.


If the bases aren't there, you're not missing anything - Mine are rubbish. The HW66JM even came with a Leapers UTG 3-9X40 scope in the box - Have it advertised on a couple of sites - Can't give it away!

I have both my scopes mounted using J&P delrin 11MM adaptors & Burris Signature zees.

Hey allan, I just looked again, and no Weaver mounts :(

But you just reminded me about that Leapers scope that came with it - it's gathering dust on a shelf next to the Swaro and Weaver scope boxes, lol.

On a related note, I disassembled the bolt and polished up the inner bolt handle and rest of the bolt and have got it working pretty slick now. They have a heavy firing pin spring in them and are only a 54-degree bolt throw or something, so can be a bit stiff when you first get the rifle. I did find there was a bit of a taper on the bolt handle and the bolt itself wasn't perfectly smooth, so it was binding up a little when I cocked the handle. That's gone now.

Next mod I'm think of doing is lightening the firing pin a little and replacing the spring with something with a little less tension. Again, the Weihrauch HW66 has got a big ol' firing pin in it which needs a strong spring. It's a bit of overkill, but part of what makes these rifles so accurate, I believe, is the heavy-duty action for small calibre. I've just finished bedding mine front and back as there was no need to bed the entire action. Whether it needed to be bedded or not is open to conjecture, but I felt better about doing it. I can't leave things alone. :lol:
Flyer
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 361
-

Re: Help me to choose best rifle in .223

Post by allan » 12 Jan 2019, 6:50 pm

Flyer wrote:On a related note, I disassembled the bolt and polished up the inner bolt handle and rest of the bolt and have got it working pretty slick now. They have a heavy firing pin spring in them and are only a 54-degree bolt throw or something, so can be a bit stiff when you first get the rifle. I did find there was a bit of a taper on the bolt handle and the bolt itself wasn't perfectly smooth, so it was binding up a little when I cocked the handle. That's gone now.

Next mod I'm think of doing is lightening the firing pin a little and replacing the spring with something with a little less tension. Again, the Weihrauch HW66 has got a big ol' firing pin in it which needs a strong spring. It's a bit of overkill, but part of what makes these rifles so accurate, I believe, is the heavy-duty action for small calibre. I've just finished bedding mine front and back as there was no need to bed the entire action. Whether it needed to be bedded or not is open to conjecture, but I felt better about doing it. I can't leave things alone. :lol:


Totally agree - I'd be surprised to ever see a FTF from one of these! I too found the cocking effort a little heavy on these rifles but I think I've seen smaller valve springs than the WH firing pin spring! A little polishing of the bolt internals and a dab of grease improves the overall smoothness considerably.

Image
allan
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 91
Other

Re: Help me to choose best rifle in .223

Post by Flyer » 12 Jan 2019, 7:03 pm

Yes, I used your photo for reference before I pulled everything apart - thanks! I see in your photo it looks like you've also polished the inner bolt handle. It made quite a bit of difference to the feel of mine.
Flyer
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 361
-

Re: Help me to choose best rifle in .223

Post by Stix » 13 Jan 2019, 12:51 am

bigfellascott wrote:
Stix wrote:
bigfellascott wrote:
Islander7 wrote:Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.

I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.

Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because it wouldn't make any difference for my eyes most probably.

P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all :)


It doesn't surprise me at all! I've done plenty of testing of euro and cheaper offerings and there really was SFA diff in brightness in between any of them at last light. I was expecting to be able to use the euros without any added light source but it wasn't the case at all. :unknown:


When it comes to scopes & low light, the difference in seeing things for longer in fading light is a furphy i believe.

In low light like the last throws of daylight, with good or bad optics of similar construction, there is only "X" amount of light period...so a better scope cant make more light & allow you to see for 15 minutes longer.

Where you will notice the better optics perform is in the saturation levels of colours, lower or no chromatic aberration, & naturally sharper fine details and a greater tonal range in across a greater variety of lighting conditions
.
I always like to test a scope on a bright sunny day...look into the shadows & see how much detail you can see...then look at the highlights--for example--if you could/can, look at a white lace curtain or a wedding dress out in the sun then in dark shadow--you will find with poor quality optics the curtain will appear blanket white, as opposed to a Z5 for example, you will see the intricate detail of the lace (let your eye/brain adjust to the light level of course).

The sucker for testing scopes is on an overcast day--the cheap ones make things look bright, have way more contrast & therefor appear sharper, where as immediately against the quality optics, initially appear dull & lifeless--but again, thats where you look into shadows for the real test...so its easy to be fooled into thinking a Z5 is not worth the coin when compared to a cheaper Bushnell of a mere fraction of the price

Cheaper optics have coatings that make the poor glass "appear" brighter & sharper by way of increasing the contrast...when in actual fact what you want is a low contrast image with good saturation.
This can even make a difference at night--say for example, a fox in a stubble field under halogen light at 200-250 yds (fox not looking at the light so you cant see its eye reflection)...with a cheap high contrast optic, the fox's fur blends in to the stubble & you rely more on movement to see it...however with a low contrast high definition quality optic you will see detail enough to make out the fur.

Its all a matter of training our eye to see what we actually see, rather than what our brain percieves us to see... :thumbsup:

So relating that to dusk situation & the very last throws of daylight, you wont "get longer use" out of a better quality optic, rather you will just see things clearer & be able to make out better detail in a wider variety of lighting conditions.. :thumbsup: :)

:drinks:


Yeah done all those types of tests in the bush and honestly still haven’t seen any real reason why I should spend $1000’s more to do the same thing - I certainly haven’t noticed any real difference in my success rate using the more expensive stuff over my Nikon, leupold or zeiss.


Hey BigFella...i certainly wasnt trying to tell you how to suck eggs mate. :drinks: ..and to be honest im envious of you having that experience... :mrgreen:
Unfortunately i spent 14 plus years in the photographic industry servicing some of the best & most anal commercial photographers with everything from camera & lens hardware to film, photographic paper, colour seperation & reciprocity failure issues, right through to the initial transition into digital...not to mention having photographed my share of portraits & weddings (where skin tones & detail in wedding dress on a sunny day...well on any day, are critical), and all this history forces one to actually see subtle differences as big black dogs balls right in the middle of your vision... :thumbsdown:

I have a Ziess conquest HD5 that cost me good coin yet has real bad chromatic aberration, is not in focus when parralex is set correctly & is only sharp in the middle of the image, all the outside is real blurry...i find it bloody annoying & not worth the coin as compared to my bushnell elite's for the money they cost...yet for everyone whos looked through the scope, im the only one that notices it... :unknown:
Im somewhat lucky in that ive lost most of my 'eye' having been out of the game for a long time now, but some of it still remains.

And ive had the pleasure of comparing my scopes to a Swarovski Z6 3-18x50, & let me tell you...my eyes were experiencing multiple squirters... :lol:
If i had the coin, id have one of those on every bolt action centrefire i own with no hesitation... :thumbsup:

Having said all that...most of what i do is bunnies & foxes, & all of those shots are within 300yds, most between 80-200, so i agree with you whole heartedly that almost any glass does the job...
:drinks:
The man who knows everything, doesnt really know everything...he's just stopped learning...
Stix
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 2184
South Australia

Re: Help me to choose best rifle in .223

Post by bigfellascott » 13 Jan 2019, 6:57 am

Stix wrote:
bigfellascott wrote:
Stix wrote:
bigfellascott wrote:
Islander7 wrote:Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.

I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.

Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because it wouldn't make any difference for my eyes most probably.

P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all :)


It doesn't surprise me at all! I've done plenty of testing of euro and cheaper offerings and there really was SFA diff in brightness in between any of them at last light. I was expecting to be able to use the euros without any added light source but it wasn't the case at all. :unknown:


When it comes to scopes & low light, the difference in seeing things for longer in fading light is a furphy i believe.

In low light like the last throws of daylight, with good or bad optics of similar construction, there is only "X" amount of light period...so a better scope cant make more light & allow you to see for 15 minutes longer.

Where you will notice the better optics perform is in the saturation levels of colours, lower or no chromatic aberration, & naturally sharper fine details and a greater tonal range in across a greater variety of lighting conditions
.
I always like to test a scope on a bright sunny day...look into the shadows & see how much detail you can see...then look at the highlights--for example--if you could/can, look at a white lace curtain or a wedding dress out in the sun then in dark shadow--you will find with poor quality optics the curtain will appear blanket white, as opposed to a Z5 for example, you will see the intricate detail of the lace (let your eye/brain adjust to the light level of course).

The sucker for testing scopes is on an overcast day--the cheap ones make things look bright, have way more contrast & therefor appear sharper, where as immediately against the quality optics, initially appear dull & lifeless--but again, thats where you look into shadows for the real test...so its easy to be fooled into thinking a Z5 is not worth the coin when compared to a cheaper Bushnell of a mere fraction of the price

Cheaper optics have coatings that make the poor glass "appear" brighter & sharper by way of increasing the contrast...when in actual fact what you want is a low contrast image with good saturation.
This can even make a difference at night--say for example, a fox in a stubble field under halogen light at 200-250 yds (fox not looking at the light so you cant see its eye reflection)...with a cheap high contrast optic, the fox's fur blends in to the stubble & you rely more on movement to see it...however with a low contrast high definition quality optic you will see detail enough to make out the fur.

Its all a matter of training our eye to see what we actually see, rather than what our brain percieves us to see... :thumbsup:

So relating that to dusk situation & the very last throws of daylight, you wont "get longer use" out of a better quality optic, rather you will just see things clearer & be able to make out better detail in a wider variety of lighting conditions.. :thumbsup: :)

:drinks:


Yeah done all those types of tests in the bush and honestly still haven’t seen any real reason why I should spend $1000’s more to do the same thing - I certainly haven’t noticed any real difference in my success rate using the more expensive stuff over my Nikon, leupold or zeiss.


Hey BigFella...i certainly wasnt trying to tell you how to suck eggs mate. :drinks: ..and to be honest im envious of you having that experience... :mrgreen:
Unfortunately i spent 14 plus years in the photographic industry servicing some of the best & most anal commercial photographers with everything from camera & lens hardware to film, photographic paper, colour seperation & reciprocity failure issues, right through to the initial transition into digital...not to mention having photographed my share of portraits & weddings (where skin tones & detail in wedding dress on a sunny day...well on any day, are critical), and all this history forces one to actually see subtle differences as big black dogs balls right in the middle of your vision... :thumbsdown:

I have a Ziess conquest HD5 that cost me good coin yet has real bad chromatic aberration, is not in focus when parralex is set correctly & is only sharp in the middle of the image, all the outside is real blurry...i find it bloody annoying & not worth the coin as compared to my bushnell elite's for the money they cost...yet for everyone whos looked through the scope, im the only one that notices it... :unknown:
Im somewhat lucky in that ive lost most of my 'eye' having been out of the game for a long time now, but some of it still remains.

And ive had the pleasure of comparing my scopes to a Swarovski Z6 3-18x50, & let me tell you...my eyes were experiencing multiple squirters... :lol:
If i had the coin, id have one of those on every bolt action centrefire i own with no hesitation... :thumbsup:

Having said all that...most of what i do is bunnies & foxes, & all of those shots are within 300yds, most between 80-200, so i agree with you whole heartedly that almost any glass does the job...
:drinks:


Hey Stix I didn't take what you said as some sort of shot at me mate (I never worry much about that sort of thing to be honest) my take on it all is if I can't see any really BIG difference between all these high end and mid level scopes why would I pay a heap of extra $$$ for no real world benefits.

I do get that spending more on good quality glass etc would be important for long range shooting (1km+ type thing) but in most of the average hunting situations that 99% of us are doing (50m to say 300m) as an average I can't honestly see any need for myself needing to spend $2k+ to shoot a bunny especially when I've been getting the job done with ease using a cheapish scope and exploding the heads at over 300m when one couldn't even see them with the naked eye as the light was that bad (late evening behind a mountain where the sun had well and truly disappeared over many hills but I could still make out the bunnies head just fine for a shot on it (it was around 8.30pm in Summer so daylight savings) and it was right on the last bit of usable light (we actually had to put the spotties on whilst driving over to it it was that dark in the end) I'm really not sure how much better I would have done with a high-end Euro job, to be honest.

I was using a mates S&B a while back (high Mag type magnification) and I didn't really like the image I was seeing through it - it looked a bit dull/flat for want of a better description, which was a bit puzzling to me, but he loves it so that's all that really matters at the end of the day, I even compared 2 rangefinders side by side whilst I had the opportunity (a Vortex 1000 and a Leica of some sort) and again there wasn't any amazing difference to my eyes whilst looking at the same object, what it did was range things a little easier and quicker but not by much (I think it had an ability to range things further out compared to the Vortex, other than that it was much a muchness to my eyes. The one rangefinder I did find that was ordinary compared to the Vortex was a Leupold of some sort, (not sure of the model) but it was dull and the contrast was ordinary compared to the brightness and clarity of the Vortex :unknown: the differences in that particular comparison were very obvious. :unknown:

cheers mate :drinks:
User avatar
bigfellascott
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 5665
-

Re: Help me to choose best rifle in .223

Post by Bristles1 » 13 Jan 2019, 1:45 pm

Old Sako L461 can't beat em and you will be able to give it to your grand kids. I am a fan so I am biased. Had my current one for 40 years, still shoots the lights out.
Bristles1
Private
Private
 
Posts: 9
Queensland

Re: Help me to choose best rifle in .223

Post by bigfellascott » 13 Jan 2019, 2:55 pm

Bristles1 wrote:Old Sako L461 can't beat em and you will be able to give it to your grand kids. I am a fan so I am biased. Had my current one for 40 years, still shoots the lights out.


I couldn’t get rid of mine quick enough lol worlds worst trigger and wouldn’t shoot for s**t - was 2nd hand so who knows how well it was looked after but that trigger was on par with the ruger trigger and just could not get it to come good no matter what we tried including a fella who does triggers for a living!

Never again I’ll stick with my howas from now on I think.
User avatar
bigfellascott
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 5665
-

Re: Help me to choose best rifle in .223

Post by SCJ429 » 13 Jan 2019, 3:13 pm

Isn't the Howa 1500 architecture a copy of the Sako L61 design? The triggers may have been redesigned but neither triggers are good out of the box and need a little work.
SCJ429
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 1048
New South Wales

Re: Help me to choose best rifle in .223

Post by bigfellascott » 13 Jan 2019, 3:21 pm

SCJ429 wrote:Isn't the Howa 1500 architecture a copy of the Sako L61 design? The triggers may have been redesigned but neither triggers are good out of the box and need a little work.


Problem was even when it had work done to it it was crap still unlike my Howa trigger which respond very well to a spring change and hone. :thumbsup:

And yes the Howa and L46Ai are very similar in some ways - got a photo somewhere with em side by side. (Howa were actually making parts for Sako at one time) and decided to make a copy of the L61 which they called the golden Bear if memory serves me correctly - it wasn't too long after that the Sako factory took them to court and their partnership ended apparently. :unknown:

It was a shame it was a pile of s**t as it felt great in the hands and pointed beautifully, if it would only shoot well it would still be in my safe but it didn't and I just couldn't be f***ed wasting more money to make it shoot, easier to flog it off and buy something better, sadly the Tikka isn't much of a shooter either but I'm hoping that it's something simple like projectile choice or swapping the timber stock over for a lam one or if need be one of the Wheelie bin stocks if I have too.

I'm sure it will shoot once I sort it out but out of the box it's been a bit ordinary with premium factory ammo (so far it's failed the MOA Gtee) I'll see what happens when I get around to reloading for it, hopefully that will see it improve! or it will be out the door too!! :drinks:
User avatar
bigfellascott
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 5665
-

Re: Help me to choose best rifle in .223

Post by Flyer » 13 Jan 2019, 4:46 pm

A number of guys at our club shoot L461 actions in 222 and they are some of the most accurate guns on the line. There are after-market triggers available for them.
Flyer
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 361
-

Re: Help me to choose best rifle in .223

Post by Bristles1 » 13 Jan 2019, 4:58 pm

Funny I guess I have a 222 and a 222Mag, a 257Roberts and a HB 22-250 all great shooters. I guess there are lemons every where. Triggers can be 'average' but a bit of a tune up seems to sort them out. I had a mate who was using silicon to lube his Rem 700. What a stupid mistake, gummed up and about 10 lbs pull.
Bristles1
Private
Private
 
Posts: 9
Queensland

Re: Help me to choose best rifle in .223

Post by Bill » 13 Jan 2019, 5:27 pm

Islander7 wrote:Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.

I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.

Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because it wouldn't make any difference for my eyes most probably.

P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all :)


please post up a pic of how you mounted the binoculars on the rifle....

Thanks for the belly laugh, the idea that you can compare a set of binoculars which has only a few lenses to a variable rifle scope with many more lenses is hilarious. Apples should be compared to apples. carry on.
User avatar
Bill
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 178
New South Wales

Re: Help me to choose best rifle in .223

Post by Gaznazdiak » 13 Jan 2019, 5:34 pm

Islander is obviously new to the sport Bill, taking the piss out of him is not conducive to his learning experience. It might bolster your ego, but it achieves little else.

Perhaps constructive advice rather than scorn would be more constructive to the conversation.
fideles usque ad mortem
User avatar
Gaznazdiak
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 1973
New South Wales

PreviousNext

Back to top
 
Return to Centerfire rifles