Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 5/27/2003 2:32:04 PM EDT
One would think that binoculars of a given aperture would be twice as good as a scope of the same aperture. But I suspect this is not true. Anybody know the scoop on this?
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 2:42:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 3:30:24 PM EDT
I guess it boils down to practical application. Which is better for detecting holes in paper at 200 yards? Since part of the equation is 1 eye versus 2 eyes, it's not all the optics hardware, but which is the better system?
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 4:28:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/27/2003 4:30:35 PM EDT by Derek45]
A friend of mine took his brother in law deer hunting. brother in law comments: "I could see you all the way accros the field in your treestand." "How could you see me that far away?" "Uh, . . I was lookin' at you through the scope" ! ! ! ! He didn't get invited after that.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 8:54:52 PM EDT
To oversimplify things a bit, binoculars are two scopes attached to each other!! Binoculars are much more comfortable to use, especially for extended periods of time, since both eyes are being used. I don’t believe there’s any substantial benefit to them beyond that. My understanding is that resolution increases as aperature increases. Thus a 60mm scope and a 60mm pair of binoculars should be the same. IMHO, for looking at bullet holes at 200 yards (especially if you’ve got a black bullseye and/or you’re looking at .223 holes) a spotting scope is the only way to go. I suspect one of those humongous tripod-mounted large-aperature binoculars like the military uses would also work, but they’re very bulky and horrendously expensive.
Top Top