$12,000 for a scope?
Now, I'm certain that this is the best damned riflescope on the planet. I'm sure it's worth every penny and then some. I'm just saying that for what that costs, you can hire someone to get up real close to whatever you're aiming and and shoot it at point blank range for you...
For that kind of scratch, I'd better be able to ride the damn thing to work...
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
For that kind of scratch, I'd better be able to ride the damn thing to work...after it has made breakfast for you and cleaned up the dishes...
Here is basically the same thing only wayyyy cheaper and made in the US: http://www.impactguns.com/store/66000-7WS.html
Hell you could add the above BORS to the top of a Barret 50 cal (see link below) for about 12k total for the gun and scope system-all made in US: http://www.impactguns.com/store/BFM-M107.html
The Germans do think highly of their optics and charge you appropriately.
$12K for a riflescope? Hmmm.
[click click click]
Oh. It's a Zeiss.
You're not paying 12 large for the scope. You're paying 6 large for the scope and 6 large for the name and the quality that goes with it. Zeiss has been making optics for various purposes for over 150 years. They're one of only a handful who can charge four figures for a binocular and people will pay it. There might be two better optics manufacturers in the world. There certainly aren't three.
It only makes sense when you put it on your $20,000 rifle.
There comes a point where even quality is superfluous. A scope that's 100 times as accurate as you could ever be is effectively only as good as a scope that's only twice as accurate as you could ever be. A scope that can survive a 20 story fall without losing it's zero is effectively only as good to the average shooter (i.e., nonmilitary) as a scope that can survive a 2 story fall without losing it's zero. The ability to make out a flyspeck at 5 miles is useless if the rifle can't shoot that far - anything more than a couple hundred yards beyond the effective range of the rifle is wasted.
Paying for that excessive quality is just throwing away money.
For an $11,000 premium, it should at least do what the Burris Eliminator does: include a laser rangefinder and automatic aimpoint adjustment based on range.
Here's the technology I'd expect on a $12k scope: roof prism, to allow really big glass, on the order of 100-120mm while keeping the pupil height the same as standard sights; a laser system similar to the Burris, but good to 1,200 meters under any weather conditions or target reflectivity; project a mil-dot grid pattern to allow manual offset for windage; and, the elevation angle and pressure calculators in the Zeiss system.
What? I can dream, can't I?
Somewhat puzzled by optics, and why with modern manufacturing methods there should be such a premium. The Germans still seem to have an edge in optics -- why, I wonder?
German labor is still expensive, not to mention the exchange rate. The expected quality also comes at a cost in process time and scrap rate.
Still, for $12K, I'd want full day/night/thermal capability, eyesafe laser rangefinder, and laser eye protection for the user.
FYI, just 2 cents from an optical engineer.
Regards,
Somewhat puzzled by optics, and why with modern manufacturing methods there should be such a premium.
High-quality optics is still one of the few fields where "you get what you pay for" is literally true. For this level of optic, you need special high-quality glass, extremely precise lens-making equipment, special construction methods, a clean room for the nitrogen-purging process. Very few companies in the world have the required equipment and expertise.
But when you pay that $2000 for a Swarovski binocular or $4000 for a Leica spotting scope, you get something that will last you the rest of your life, in virtually any environment, under any kind of usage. Some people find that worth paying for.
Post a Comment