What is your preference for a scope finish? I'm not asking what you have so much as which you prefer.
I ask because while most scopes are black, few have that classic gloss finish anymore. I think part of the reason is that hunters prefer to have glare-free surfaces on their guns and partly because a matte finish is cheaper to make than a polished gloss.
If you prefer different finishes for different situations, vote or explain which you prefer most of the time.
For myself, for most applications, I prefer the classic gloss black. This is despite the fact that the three mounted scopes I have and the one I'll be getting tomorrow are all matte finish.
My stainless Savage m.12 has a mat black finish Millet 44mm with matte black rings despite the fact that the barrel and receiver are silvery stainless because that is what the dealer who sold it to me had in stock. Naturally, it ought to be silver rings and scope.
My CZ 542 has a 40mm Burris scope. Burris only makes black scopes in mat and, again, the dealer only had that and matte CZ rings in stock. Gloss would have looked better.
My Marlin 1894c has a Burris 2-7x35mm in matte black. I ordered it on line and did not really think about the color. Burris is a good name, less expensive than Leupold, and they only come in mat black. I would prefer gloss, but I suspect many here feel it is an abomination to put any scope on a lever-gun.
Finally, I bought a 1.5-5x20mm Leupold for my AR15 carbine. That was available in gloss, but somehow such a shiney scope did not seem appropriate for AR15. Besides, the mounting rings and base are glare-free matte.
That which can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
Last edited by Deep13; 02-22-2010 at 04:10 PM.
I just find a scope at a show that meets my needs. I don't put aluminum color tubes on black/blue guns and vice versa, and would like the general finish of the scope to be close to that of barrel and action, but that's it. Any modern scope is aluminum and gun barrels tend to be steel. Black anodized aluminum doesn't match polished and blued steel, so why try?
With an older gun, such as the BRNO ZKW I almost bought this weekend, the steel tubed Weavers, Redfields, or other older scope is the only way to go. The age of the scope on a collectible must be in line with the age of the gun. That particular gun had a period Weaver on it. A modern scope would have detracted from the value.
It's pretty much mandatory for me that the rings and scope have similar finish. If one is matter, so is the other.
ALL who work for a living must vote to outvote those who vote for a living.
It all depends on the rifle finish. I match the scope finish to the rifle finish the best I can.
If I have a high luster blued rifle sporting a high gloss walnut stock, I ain't puttin' a Matte finish scope on it! But, then again, I ain't huntin' with it either!
When surrounded by your enemies, sometimes the best thing to do is to Shut Up!
If you don't care about the scope possibly giving you away, whether it be while hunting or anything else, then go ahead and get gloss or silver even.
If you prefer the scope to not give you away by giving off glare, then get matte finish.
If you like two-tone, and have a blued or black gun and want two-tone, and don't care about glare, get a silver scope.
Sure, a gloss scope can look real good on certain rifles. But glare can give you away. Again, if that doesn't worry or bother youm get whatever you want.
It's part of the reason they came out with camo patterned guns and scopes. For better concealment. If you don't care about any of that, then get whatever you want. If you want your scope to "look" good on your rifle, then get whatever looks good on your rifle.
And yes in the same turn a gloss blued barrel could and can also give off glare to I suppose. It's just with scopes there are more angles and bends for light to reflect off off. And people tend to worry about it with a scope more so then the gun.
__________________ "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms" - Thomas Jefferson
Last edited by GlockMeister; 03-01-2010 at 02:24 PM.