Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/8/2003 4:31:50 PM EDT
Got your attention didn't I? I know there are plenty of high quality optics for battle rifles, but they all seem to have some basic deficiencies-- namely, poor eye relief. Why anybody thinks having a metal ring 2 inches from your eye is beyond me. It might work for a .223, but certainly not a .308. Besides the obvious issue of bashing your face, there is also the problem of limiting your field of view.

Here is my dream optic:

- 2 to 4 power magnification, preferably 3X
- Light weight, under 7 oz.
- Rugged construction like the ACOG or Aimpoint
- Minimum 4 inch eye relief with 5 being preferred.
- Small, less than 6 inches long
- Illuminated reticle

If somebody would make this scope, I'd buy it yesterday! If Trijicon decided to reengineer the 3x compact ACOG with some eye relief, I'd soil myself in a rush to order it.

Is there anything on the horizon that meets these requirements?
Link Posted: 11/8/2003 4:46:22 PM EDT
Well there is the Aimpoint 2x.....
Link Posted: 11/8/2003 4:48:13 PM EDT
I've considered that one, but I keep reading it is like looking through a soda straw. The knock seems to be field of view. I'd like to see one for myself though. Know of anybody here in NOVA that has one?
Link Posted: 11/8/2003 4:53:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/8/2003 4:54:08 PM EDT by SHIVAN]
Originally Posted By cliffy109: Know of anybody here in NOVA that has one?
View Quote
[:(]
Link Posted: 11/8/2003 5:40:31 PM EDT
TA11?
Link Posted: 11/8/2003 5:46:39 PM EDT
We'll assign you to the artilery section [:)]
Link Posted: 11/8/2003 6:15:57 PM EDT
Leupold 1.5-5 with illuminated circle-dot reticle.
Link Posted: 11/8/2003 7:19:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cliffy109: Got your attention didn't I? I know there are plenty of high quality optics for battle rifles, but they all seem to have some basic deficiencies-- namely, poor eye relief. Why anybody thinks having a metal ring 2 inches from your eye is beyond me. It [i]might[/i] work for a .223, but certainly not a .308. Besides the obvious issue of bashing your face, there is also the problem of limiting your field of view. Here is my dream optic: - 2 to 4 power magnification, preferably 3X - Light weight, under 7 oz. - Rugged construction like the ACOG or Aimpoint - Minimum 4 inch eye relief with 5 being preferred. - Small, less than 6 inches long - Illuminated reticle
View Quote
THAT is exactly what i'm looking for! glad you made the post and saved me the trouble! Dagger
Link Posted: 11/8/2003 7:24:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/8/2003 10:45:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By innocent_bystander: Leupold 1.5-5 with illuminated circle-dot reticle.
View Quote
I tried that, it sucked. The illumination is only for low ambient light (as in the DARK) as it washes out in any kind of daylight. I'll tell you what, unless it is dim or dark out, or indoors, it is very easy to loose that tiny little black dot even though it has the large circle around it, and against a dark target, you are left with only the circle which isn't very accurate. I need to get rid of the one I got, I am very dissappointed with it.
Link Posted: 11/8/2003 10:45:55 PM EDT
TA11 has 4 in of eye relief?
Link Posted: 11/9/2003 1:48:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/9/2003 1:52:10 AM EDT by JTR8541]
-Leupold CQ/T- Didn’t seem as tough as I'd like, did seem like a good little scope though. 1x-3x, illuminated reticle, don't recall how the eve relief was, relatively light weight and small. -J
Link Posted: 11/9/2003 2:03:05 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/9/2003 5:44:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cliffy109: Here is my dream optic: - 2 to 4 power magnification, preferably 3X - Light weight, under 7 oz. - Rugged construction like the ACOG or Aimpoint - Minimum 4 inch eye relief with 5 being preferred. [red]- Small, less than 6 inches long[/red] - Illuminated reticle
View Quote
The reason the ACOG's have shitty eye relief is the physics of optics construction. They are short for the magnification you recieve thus the intersection of the exit pupil comes very close to the eyepiece.
Link Posted: 11/9/2003 6:44:41 AM EDT
Contact US Optics. They can probably modify an SN-4 or SN-12 to fit your needs.
Link Posted: 11/9/2003 6:46:47 AM EDT
TA11...eye relief is plenty
Link Posted: 11/9/2003 11:17:35 AM EDT
Is the TA11 6" or less? I think cliffy is looking for something in the size realm of the Aimpoint and the COMPACT ACOG. I could be wrong, but from looking and CONSIDERING the spec list he's got that's what it would appear he's after.
Link Posted: 11/9/2003 5:16:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/9/2003 5:17:54 PM EDT by JTinIN]
With out going to electronics (reference US Land Warrior program) one starts to bump into optical trade offs where as you increase the eye relief tend to loose field of view. Additionally due to the limits in glass (i.e. index of refraction) can only bend light so fast with current technology and thus have to trade off something for smaller size. Note the TA11 has an increased eyerelief at the expense of less field of view, lower power and larger size (some of this might also be age of design). Regards John Disclaimer - majority of my professional experence is with optical, laser and electron optics used in microcopes.
Link Posted: 11/9/2003 6:22:02 PM EDT
The TA-11 is a great optic but it misses on three of the qualifications asked for. First it has 2.4" of eye relief (seems like allot more after you look into a TA-31). Second is the TA-11 is to long. Third is it's like 14.4 ounces which is double the weight he was asking for. If the TA-31 had more eye relief and a wider exit pupil it would be an awesome optic.
Link Posted: 11/9/2003 7:53:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/9/2003 7:55:23 PM EDT by Paul]
Physics is a bitch. Glass is heavy. 4" of eye relief is going to require a lot of glass. x3 or x4 is going to require glass. A large objective requires glass. ... wonder how I'm able to hit 8" paper plates at 150-400 yards without a "good" combat scope [rolleyes] - why 5 inches of eye relief where one or two will do? - why 7 ounces when most .308 weapons weigh 8 pounds or more ... and people here routinely take a 6 pound AR and hang five pounds of carp off of it? - why small when most .308's feature 20-24" barrels and full size stocks? - I do agree on rugged and x4 power - have a look at the $325 IOR Vadada M2 if you wear glass and the cheaper M1 if you don't. Unfortunately it doesn't cost $800 so it doesn't impress but it does work well. They are too big at 12" and too heavy at 12 ounces and just have 3" of eye relief for you. They do look tiny on an .308 FAL though. [img]http://www.valdada.com/vn/ior/03/tac2.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 11/10/2003 10:22:39 AM EDT
Thanks for the responses. I'm not a soldier, so I'm not fully up on what a soldier needs. I am a hunter and I've gone through a number of optics in my life. On a .308, I have absolutely no desire to be 2.4 inches away from the eye piece. Further, I have no desire to get lost in my scope, which is far too easy when the ocular is right in front of you. Running game can be tracked with both eyes open and when it stops, the dominant eye takes over and looks through the optic just for a split second. I would assume the same principlas apply to combat arms. As to the weight, my FAL is currently at 8 pounds, which is about as much as I like. I've gone to great lengths to keep the weight low. Its a bit of an obsession. Physics... After doing more research after posting this, I took a look at Leupold's offereings. They have a 2.5x fixed power that weighs in at 6.5 oz and is 8" overall. Eye relief is 4.9". So it is possible to do. It may even be the answer to my quest. If they just put a tritium chevron instead of the plex cross hair, I'd be done.
Link Posted: 11/11/2003 7:50:40 AM EDT
I have settled on the Burris Compacts for now. Got a 4x on my AR and a 2-7x on my FAL. A 2.5x or 3x fixed power Compact with a 26mm objective and 3 to 4 inches of eye relief would be ideal. The ACOG and ELCAN optics are priced out of my reach......
Top Top