AR Sponsor
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:06:31 AM EDT
|
I would of thought that a 30mm tube diameter would be would be more desirable than a 1" tube.
But, I have been researching a lot of scopes, longer distance variable scopes in particular and I am seeing quite a few of them are 1" tubes. Any particular reason? I would think bigger is better when it comes to light. But then again I know next to nothing about scopes. 
|
| Only a few high end scopes have larger lens assemblies for their 30mm tube scopes. What you usually get is more elevation and windage adjustment range in the erector lens assembly. Many, but not all manufacturers do upgrade the glass quality in their 30mm line, but that is usually not the case with dedicated target scopes, where even the high end ones frequently have one inch main tubes, especially those used for benchrest, where extreme elevation changes are not needed. What 30mm tubes offer in most cases is thicker, more rugged tube construction. A larger main tube does not make a scope "brighter", all other variables constant. |
|
Quoted:
Only a few high end scopes have larger lens assemblies for their 30mm tube scopes. What you usually get is more elevation and windage adjustment range in the erector lens assembly. Many, but not all manufacturers do upgrade the glass quality in their 30mm line, but that is usually not the case with dedicated target scopes, where even the high end ones frequently have one inch main tubes, especially those used for benchrest, where extreme elevation changes are not needed. What 30mm tubes offer in most cases is thicker, more rugged tube construction. A larger main tube does not make a scope "brighter", all other variables constant. Ok...still a bit confused. Why is it exactly that higher end scopes use 1" tube and not 30mm.? |
|
Quoted: Ok...still a bit confused. Why is it exactly that higher end scopes use 1" tube and not 30mm.? Quoted: Quoted: Only a few high end scopes have larger lens assemblies for their 30mm tube scopes. What you usually get is more elevation and windage adjustment range in the erector lens assembly. Many, but not all manufacturers do upgrade the glass quality in their 30mm line, but that is usually not the case with dedicated target scopes, where even the high end ones frequently have one inch main tubes, especially those used for benchrest, where extreme elevation changes are not needed. What 30mm tubes offer in most cases is thicker, more rugged tube construction. A larger main tube does not make a scope "brighter", all other variables constant. Ok...still a bit confused. Why is it exactly that higher end scopes use 1" tube and not 30mm.? Some F-Class and Benchrest guns have to stay within a weight limit, so a smaller, lighter scope can save a few ounces that can be put into a more rigid action, barrel, etc. |
|
Quoted:
Ok...still a bit confused. Why is it exactly that higher end scopes use 1" tube and not 30mm.? Quoted:
Quoted:
Only a few high end scopes have larger lens assemblies for their 30mm tube scopes. What you usually get is more elevation and windage adjustment range in the erector lens assembly. Many, but not all manufacturers do upgrade the glass quality in their 30mm line, but that is usually not the case with dedicated target scopes, where even the high end ones frequently have one inch main tubes, especially those used for benchrest, where extreme elevation changes are not needed. What 30mm tubes offer in most cases is thicker, more rugged tube construction. A larger main tube does not make a scope "brighter", all other variables constant. Ok...still a bit confused. Why is it exactly that higher end scopes use 1" tube and not 30mm.? I think your identification of "high end" is off. |
|
Quoted: Ok...still a bit confused. Why is it exactly that higher end scopes use 1" tube and not 30mm.? Quoted: Quoted: Only a few high end scopes have larger lens assemblies for their 30mm tube scopes. What you usually get is more elevation and windage adjustment range in the erector lens assembly. Many, but not all manufacturers do upgrade the glass quality in their 30mm line, but that is usually not the case with dedicated target scopes, where even the high end ones frequently have one inch main tubes, especially those used for benchrest, where extreme elevation changes are not needed. What 30mm tubes offer in most cases is thicker, more rugged tube construction. A larger main tube does not make a scope "brighter", all other variables constant. Ok...still a bit confused. Why is it exactly that higher end scopes use 1" tube and not 30mm.? In optics these days high end is >$1500 by the way. |
|
Quoted:
name a single "high end" scope that uses a 1" tube? In optics these days high end is >$1500 by the way. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Only a few high end scopes have larger lens assemblies for their 30mm tube scopes. What you usually get is more elevation and windage adjustment range in the erector lens assembly. Many, but not all manufacturers do upgrade the glass quality in their 30mm line, but that is usually not the case with dedicated target scopes, where even the high end ones frequently have one inch main tubes, especially those used for benchrest, where extreme elevation changes are not needed. What 30mm tubes offer in most cases is thicker, more rugged tube construction. A larger main tube does not make a scope "brighter", all other variables constant. Ok...still a bit confused. Why is it exactly that higher end scopes use 1" tube and not 30mm.? In optics these days high end is >$1500 by the way. High end to me is over 500.00.
|
|
Quoted: name a single "high end" scope that uses a 1" tube? In optics these days high end is >$1500 by the way. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Only a few high end scopes have larger lens assemblies for their 30mm tube scopes. What you usually get is more elevation and windage adjustment range in the erector lens assembly. Many, but not all manufacturers do upgrade the glass quality in their 30mm line, but that is usually not the case with dedicated target scopes, where even the high end ones frequently have one inch main tubes, especially those used for benchrest, where extreme elevation changes are not needed. What 30mm tubes offer in most cases is thicker, more rugged tube construction. A larger main tube does not make a scope "brighter", all other variables constant. Ok...still a bit confused. Why is it exactly that higher end scopes use 1" tube and not 30mm.? In optics these days high end is >$1500 by the way. Swarovski Z3. Swarovski Z5. S&B Summit. |
|
Quoted:
Swarovski Z3. Swarovski Z5. S&B Summit. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Only a few high end scopes have larger lens assemblies for their 30mm tube scopes. What you usually get is more elevation and windage adjustment range in the erector lens assembly. Many, but not all manufacturers do upgrade the glass quality in their 30mm line, but that is usually not the case with dedicated target scopes, where even the high end ones frequently have one inch main tubes, especially those used for benchrest, where extreme elevation changes are not needed. What 30mm tubes offer in most cases is thicker, more rugged tube construction. A larger main tube does not make a scope "brighter", all other variables constant. Ok...still a bit confused. Why is it exactly that higher end scopes use 1" tube and not 30mm.? In optics these days high end is >$1500 by the way. Swarovski Z3. Swarovski Z5. S&B Summit. Double tap. |
|
Quoted:
Swarovski Z3. Swarovski Z5. S&B Summit. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Only a few high end scopes have larger lens assemblies for their 30mm tube scopes. What you usually get is more elevation and windage adjustment range in the erector lens assembly. Many, but not all manufacturers do upgrade the glass quality in their 30mm line, but that is usually not the case with dedicated target scopes, where even the high end ones frequently have one inch main tubes, especially those used for benchrest, where extreme elevation changes are not needed. What 30mm tubes offer in most cases is thicker, more rugged tube construction. A larger main tube does not make a scope "brighter", all other variables constant. Ok...still a bit confused. Why is it exactly that higher end scopes use 1" tube and not 30mm.? In optics these days high end is >$1500 by the way. Swarovski Z3. Swarovski Z5. S&B Summit. And Kahles KXi, among yet others. All these scopes have incredible glass. |
|
Quoted:
And Kahles KXi, among yet others. All these scopes have incredible glass. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Only a few high end scopes have larger lens assemblies for their 30mm tube scopes. What you usually get is more elevation and windage adjustment range in the erector lens assembly. Many, but not all manufacturers do upgrade the glass quality in their 30mm line, but that is usually not the case with dedicated target scopes, where even the high end ones frequently have one inch main tubes, especially those used for benchrest, where extreme elevation changes are not needed. What 30mm tubes offer in most cases is thicker, more rugged tube construction. A larger main tube does not make a scope "brighter", all other variables constant. Ok...still a bit confused. Why is it exactly that higher end scopes use 1" tube and not 30mm.? In optics these days high end is >$1500 by the way. Swarovski Z3. Swarovski Z5. S&B Summit. And Kahles KXi, among yet others. All these scopes have incredible glass. Yeah...I looked at a few of the "real" high end scope listed above. Would love to have one but cant really justify the expense. Now if my eye sight gets any worse I may have to venture north of my price point to get something with a FFP and side focus. Do I assume correctly that with those two added features on a scope it would make it a bit easier on the eyes for long distance? Which AR mfg. would justify slapping a 2300.00 scope on it? Certainly not my 575.00 upper. 
|
|
Quoted:
Yeah...I looked at a few of the "real" high end scope listed above. Would love to have one but cant really justify the expense. Now if my eye sight gets any worse I may have to venture north of my price point to get something with a FFP and side focus. Do I assume correctly that with those two added features on a scope it would make it a bit easier on the eyes for long distance? Which AR mfg. would justify slapping a 2300.00 scope on it? Certainly not my 575.00 upper. The purpose defines this, not the manufacturer nor the component or system cost. |
|
Quoted:
The purpose defines this, not the manufacturer nor the component or system cost. Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah...I looked at a few of the "real" high end scope listed above. Would love to have one but cant really justify the expense. Now if my eye sight gets any worse I may have to venture north of my price point to get something with a FFP and side focus. Do I assume correctly that with those two added features on a scope it would make it a bit easier on the eyes for long distance? Which AR mfg. would justify slapping a 2300.00 scope on it? Certainly not my 575.00 upper. The purpose defines this, not the manufacturer nor the component or system cost. Exactly. Front Focal is a hill I will die on for my serious scopes. Everything else is negotiable to a point, but do make them easier or quicker to use. |
|
Quoted:
Exactly. Front Focal is a hill I will die on for my serious scopes. Everything else is negotiable to a point, but do make them easier or quicker to use. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah...I looked at a few of the "real" high end scope listed above. Would love to have one but cant really justify the expense. Now if my eye sight gets any worse I may have to venture north of my price point to get something with a FFP and side focus. Do I assume correctly that with those two added features on a scope it would make it a bit easier on the eyes for long distance? Which AR mfg. would justify slapping a 2300.00 scope on it? Certainly not my 575.00 upper. The purpose defines this, not the manufacturer nor the component or system cost. Exactly. Front Focal is a hill I will die on for my serious scopes. Everything else is negotiable to a point, but do make them easier or quicker to use. Ok..so for someone like myself that has long distance vision problems, a scope with a FFP and side focus would benefit me? |
|
Quoted:
Ok..so for someone like myself that has long distance vision problems, a scope with a FFP and side focus would benefit me? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah...I looked at a few of the "real" high end scope listed above. Would love to have one but cant really justify the expense. Now if my eye sight gets any worse I may have to venture north of my price point to get something with a FFP and side focus. Do I assume correctly that with those two added features on a scope it would make it a bit easier on the eyes for long distance? Which AR mfg. would justify slapping a 2300.00 scope on it? Certainly not my 575.00 upper. The purpose defines this, not the manufacturer nor the component or system cost. Exactly. Front Focal is a hill I will die on for my serious scopes. Everything else is negotiable to a point, but do make them easier or quicker to use. Ok..so for someone like myself that has long distance vision problems, a scope with a FFP and side focus would benefit me? No more than SFP, IMO. FFP reticles can be fairly thin at low magnification. Side focus is always a nice option. |
|
Quoted:
No more than SFP, IMO. FFP reticles can be fairly thin at low magnification. Side focus is always a nice option. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah...I looked at a few of the "real" high end scope listed above. Would love to have one but cant really justify the expense. Now if my eye sight gets any worse I may have to venture north of my price point to get something with a FFP and side focus. Do I assume correctly that with those two added features on a scope it would make it a bit easier on the eyes for long distance? Which AR mfg. would justify slapping a 2300.00 scope on it? Certainly not my 575.00 upper. The purpose defines this, not the manufacturer nor the component or system cost. Exactly. Front Focal is a hill I will die on for my serious scopes. Everything else is negotiable to a point, but do make them easier or quicker to use. Ok..so for someone like myself that has long distance vision problems, a scope with a FFP and side focus would benefit me? No more than SFP, IMO. FFP reticles can be fairly thin at low magnification. Side focus is always a nice option. What are we talking for low magnifications and I'm of course not sure what you mean when you say the reticles can be thin? Do you mean the reticle will tend to evaporate at lets say under 10x? Apologies for my ignorance. 
|
|
With a FFP scope, the reticle visually scales with magnification (it changes size just like the target when magnification changes).. In reality ifs a fixed size just like the background. That way the has marks are always a consistent angular measurement regardless of magnification and can be used to measure holds, impacts, or target sizes at any power. The one downsize is that since the reticle is magnified too, the stadia lines will be thickish at high magnification and thin at low magnifications.
Good manufacturers will design a reticle with this in mind and pick a line width that works for both extremes, but if you like an extra thin reticle line at high magnifications or a thick bold reticle at the lowest magnification the FFP scopes usually won't do that. Personally I don't mind a slightly thicker reticle at high power if the glass is clear, and I can still see the lines ok at low power. The rest of the advantages of front focal plane reticles (FFP) are incredibly valuable for practical shooting with a high power optic, especially when you need to dial down that extreme magnification to manage mirage, get a wider FOV, track moving targets, seeing hits while managing recoil, etc. For fixed distances (benchrest) those things are less important and a thin precise reticle at very high power might be preferred. |
|
Quoted:
With a FFP scope, the reticle visually scales with magnification (it changes size just like the target when magnification changes).. In reality ifs a fixed size just like the background. That way the has marks are always a consistent angular measurement regardless of magnification and can be used to measure holds, impacts, or target sizes at any power. The one downsize is that since the reticle is magnified too, the stadia lines will be thickish at high magnification and thin at low magnifications. Good manufacturers will design a reticle with this in mind and pick a line width that works for both extremes, but if you like an extra thin reticle line at high magnifications or a thick bold reticle at the lowest magnification the FFP scopes usually won't do that. Personally I don't mind a slightly thicker reticle at high power if the glass is clear, and I can still see the lines ok at low power. The rest of the advantages of front focal plane reticles (FFP) are incredibly valuable for practical shooting with a high power optic, especially when you need to dial down that extreme magnification to manage mirage, get a wider FOV, track moving targets, seeing hits while managing recoil, etc. For fixed distances (benchrest) those things are less important and a thin precise reticle at very high power might be preferred. Thanx...great explanation. I currently have a Primary Arms 1-6x X 24 and really like it but now I am magnification hungry.
Would like to get into something around a 4 or 6 - 16 or 24 with FFP and side focus. Of course without dropping 800.00 or more. Ideally no more than 500.00 bucks. Yeah I know, good luck right? |
AR Sponsor