We’ve all used scopes throughout our shooting and likely haven’t given much thought to its design. As I’ve gotten more heavily into shooting sports, the inner workings of the equipment I use have become much more interesting and important to my evolution as a shooter.
Jerimiah Alexander is the Director of Product Design at Riton Optics, with a background as an ELR (Extreme Long Range) enthusiast and competitive shooter. Being a shooter first, he’s put his experience to work designing a wide range of optics for Riton Optics over the past 8 years. This interview is a deep dive into the inner workings of scope design and design considerations of specific features that make a quality scope. We cover materials like lenses, turrets, and scope bodies as well as the relationship between the field of view and eye relief or the objective lens and light-gathering abilities. What makes a $2000 scope better than a $800 scope? By the time you finish this video, you will know.
The YouTube video below is separated into chapters so feel free to dive into the specific areas of interest.
Interview summary: what makes a useful scope?
The following takeaways reflect the interview published in January 2024. Alexander’s product and pricing comments describe his perspective at the time.
Alexander approaches scope design as a shooter who learned the optical side of the business. His recurring priority is repeatable performance: clear glass, dependable adjustments, useful controls, and a reticle that suits the person using it. He challenges the idea that a bigger tube, a familiar marketing label, or a longer feature list automatically makes a better scope.
Start with function and quality control
Asked how an ideal scope becomes a product at a realistic price, Alexander starts with glass and mechanical quality. He describes materials, craftsmanship, and inspection as linked parts of that process. His distinction between a lifetime warranty and a product that rarely needs one is especially useful: after-sales support matters, but it is not a substitute for reliability.
In the feature discussion that follows, he emphasizes whether an adjustment range works consistently, not simply how large the advertised range is. That turns a specification into a question about verified performance.
Durability goes beyond recoil ratings
Alexander distinguishes resistance to recoil from damage caused by drops, dirt, moisture, and changing conditions. He describes seals, tolerances, and the way components are supported as parts of durability. A rating for one kind of stress does not summarize every way a scope can be damaged.
First or second focal plane is a choice with tradeoffs
The conversation compares how the reticle appears as magnification changes. Alexander discusses the convenience of a first-focal-plane reticle’s consistent relationship to the target, while also explaining why he sometimes prefers the appearance of a second-focal-plane reticle. Visibility at low power and how much the reticle obscures at high power are part of his reasoning.
His conclusion is application-specific. Familiarity and the intended use matter more than assuming one focal-plane label is always the premium choice.
Objective size does not tell the whole optical story
Mike asks about objective size, light, field of view, and eye relief. Alexander discusses these as interacting aspects of the complete design. His practical warning is not to infer a wide field of view or a superior image from the objective diameter alone. Weight, comfort, and the optical system also belong in the comparison.
Glass, coatings, and the finished image
Watch glass from 19:48 · Watch coatings from 28:27
Alexander separates the selection of glass from the quality of its shaping and coatings. Two products using glass from the same supplier can still present different images. He is particularly skeptical of broad marketing terms that provide little basis for comparison.
He considers coatings an important area of optical development and encourages evaluating a scope in varied light rather than judging it only under store lighting. This is a discussion of his design priorities, not an independent laboratory comparison of brands.
Reticle complexity should serve the user
The reticle discussion distinguishes manufacturing precision from the usefulness of the pattern itself. Alexander describes incorporating feedback from shooters, but questions complexity that makes a reticle harder to understand. His preference is for enough information to serve the application without overwhelming the user.
The closing advice at 45:26 brings the interview back to clarity, repeatability, and personal fit. For another perspective on equipment priorities, read the Marcus Blanchard interview summary.
Mike Semanoff is the writer behind Shooter Opinions, sharing firsthand firearm and outdoor gear reviews, hunting experiences, range reports, and industry interviews. A U.S. Army veteran who served in the 82nd Airborne Division, Mike draws on military experience and time in the field to discuss performance, comfort, durability, and practical tradeoffs. His reviews combine personal observations with photos and videos of the gear in use. Some articles contain affiliate links; qualifying purchases may earn Shooter Opinions a commission.