AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why Not Short Eye Relief Optics? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 6/30/2017 2:07:10 AM EDT
| Anyone liking short eye relief scopes? I like having the weight farther back on the receiver. I also like having my eye closer to the scope. I'm wondering if anyone else shares these preferences and why we don't have more optics like the TA31. |
|
Most prefer longer eye relief. There's also the added benefit that longer eye relief scopes can be used on rifles chambered for cartridges with significantly more recoil than a 5.56 AR.
Myself? I prefer having shorter eye relief, because I like shooting NTCH and having to cantilever a heavy magnified optic so far forward on the rifle fucks with the balance. |
|
Quoted:
Most prefer longer eye relief. There's also the added benefit that longer eye relief scopes can be used on rifles chambered for cartridges with significantly more recoil than a 5.56 AR. Myself? I prefer having shorter eye relief, because I like shooting NTCH and having to cantilever a heavy magnified optic so far forward on the rifle fucks with the balance. For 5.56 AR carbine I don't see any reason for long eye relief and lots of reasons for short. I suspect that the long range world (where rifle scopes got their start) is STILL driving the thinking for so many. And this is detrimental to the best practices for the m4-ish world. I mean, WHY have those long, goose necked mounts and WHY push a pound of aluminum and glass further forward where the leverage works against you??? I can understand long eye relief for higher mag optics that will more likely find their homes on higher powered rigs. But why long eye relief on all of the LPVs that were clearly designed with the AR-15 in mind? The AR-10's perhaps? With the runaway popularity of the AR-15, I think it's time that we got more optics like the TA31 that push the weight back and give us better views of the reticles and the images through the scopes. |
|
Quoted:
Depends. Run and gun is different from long range from a braced position. There's no one single best optic. All I know is that if I could push my 1x6 scope back 2 1/2 inches it would really improve the balance on my carbine, make mounting much easier, and give me a better view to boot. |
|
Short eye relief makes non standard shooting positions more difficult to use. Short eye relief can yield more FOV, but more dead space between the scopes view and your non magnified view, reducing situational awareness.
While I'm not a fan of shotgun/pistol length eye relief scopes, I don't think most 1-4× or 1-6x scopes have too much eye relief. |
|
One thing you shouldn't overlook is your shooting stance. For NTCH shooters, the ACOG TA31 series works well for them since their shooting stance is more hunched over with knees bent and stock collapsed.
For those who shoot more upright with the stock extended, they'll tend to want an optic with longer eye relief (3-4"). |
|
Quoted:
I freaking love the TA-31. Makes long shots easy, and it's got a great field of view. I'm a "nose to charging handle" kinda guy anyway. Except for precision work and/or higher powered stuff, I don't see the need to place a scope far forward on an AR. Maybe someone can set me straight. I know that the TA-31 has a very generous FOV. I'm not sure how much the eye relief part figures into that. I wonder: Does short eye relief make wider FOV easier to engineer? |
|
Quoted:
I used to like the TA31/01 AGOGs, but the more I evolved as a shooter, the less utility I found with them. NTCH is a way to shoot. I can be a more effective shooter with more flexibility in magnification and head position on the rifle. For me it's about two things: 1. NTCH gives me an easy reference point to know my head is *right there.*. Throwing a rifle up to the shoulder in the dark, it can be slow to find that spot without a tactile reference. Even in daylight it seems to help me find the spot faster. This is especially true if I'm working with a more fussy optic. I know. Training. 2. NTCH helps me shoot with the stock more collapsed, allowing me to have less cantilevered weight working against me. Easier to shoot offhand and faster to swing the weapon. I want every advantage I can get. For prone or supported shooting, esp precision/long range, shifting the head back some seems more comfortable sometimes. |
|
Quoted:
One thing you shouldn't overlook is your shooting stance. For NTCH shooters, the ACOG TA31 series works well for them since their shooting stance is more hunched over with knees bent and stock collapsed. For those who shoot more upright with the stock extended, they'll tend to want an optic with longer eye relief (3-4"). |
|
Quoted:
Short eye relief makes non standard shooting positions more difficult to use. Short eye relief can yield more FOV, but more dead space between the scopes view and your non magnified view, reducing situational awareness. . When engaging close targets, I go to my MRDS mounted a bit high in order to give me a full , both eyes open view of the panorama. Faster for me, and better situational awareness than using my LPV dialed down to a 1x dot. I prefer to optimize my LPV for midrange and use the MRDS for everything else. If one of them goes down, I still have the other, and will always have some CQB capability. |
|
Can't find the thread, but I read one very intriguing post from a fellow supporting short eye relief optics. Don't know if it's true or not but he posited that short eye relief optics would be superior in many cases because they would supply the brain with more data that is relevant.
He compared the eye to the CCD sensor of a digital camera. A short eye relief scope would cause the eye to receive more input from the scope and less input from elsewhere. He therefore theorized that this would excite more neurons in the eye relative to the reticle, the target, and the target area (like more pixels coming from a sensor) and result in more efficient processsing of the imagery coming through the scope. That wasn't well stated, but hopefully you get the idea. Anyway, it SEEMS sensible to me. I wonder if it is true? |
|
Quoted:
Anyone liking short eye relief scopes? I like having the weight farther back on the receiver. I also like having my eye closer to the scope. I'm wondering if anyone else shares these preferences and why we don't have more optics like the TA31. Longer eye relief gives you a wider range of usability, it increases your situational awareness and virtually eliminates the possibility of whacking your eyebrow when shooting larger caliber rifles. Short eye relief is a problem that must be accommodated by altering your stock length, especially when going from standing to sitting or prone. It makes the problem worse. My fixed stock carbines all have red dot sights simply to eliminate the eye relief issues associated with stocks that can't be adjusted for length of pull. It's your rifle, set it up the way you want it. After 36 years of shooting AR15's I have formed some pretty stubborn opinions. |
|
Quoted:
Can't find the thread, but I read one very intriguing post from a fellow supporting short eye relief optics. Don't know if it's true or not but he posited that short eye relief optics would be superior in many cases because they would supply the brain with more data that is relevant. He compared the eye to the CCD sensor of a digital camera. A short eye relief scope would cause the eye to receive more input from the scope and less input from elsewhere. He therefore theorized that this would excite more neurons in the eye relative to the reticle, the target, and the target area (like more pixels coming from a sensor) and result in more efficient processsing of the imagery coming through the scope. That wasn't well stated, but hopefully you get the idea. Anyway, it SEEMS sensible to me. I wonder if it is true? |
|
Quoted:
To each their own. For me it's about two things: 1. NTCH gives me an easy reference point to know my head is *right there.*. Throwing a rifle up to the shoulder in the dark, it can be slow to find that spot without a tactile reference. Even in daylight it seems to help me find the spot faster. This is especially true if I'm working with a more fussy optic. I know. Training. 2. NTCH helps me shoot with the stock more collapsed, allowing me to have less cantilevered weight working against me. Easier to shoot offhand and faster to swing the weapon. I want every advantage I can get. For prone or supported shooting, esp precision/long range, shifting the head back some seems more comfortable sometimes. NTCH shooting style is the by-product of sighting devices with limited eye relief. The necessity to shoot NTCH to utilize the optic doesn't allow you to do anything, it limits you to it. Working around corners and under vehicles is a lot easier when you don't have stick your eyeball in the scope. |
|
Quoted:
Longer eye relief gives you a wider range of usability, it increases your situational awareness and virtually eliminates the possibility of whacking your eyebrow when shooting larger caliber rifles. Short eye relief is a problem that must be accommodated by altering your stock length, especially when going from standing to sitting or prone. It makes the problem worse. My fixed stock carbines all have red dot sights simply to eliminate the eye relief issues associated with stocks that can't be adjusted for length of pull. It's your rifle, set it up the way you want it. After 36 years of shooting AR15's I have formed some pretty stubborn opinions. Your preference is by far the norm. I just question whether it is really the BEST solution for the AR 15, or just...the norm. |
|
Quoted:
Well, it is true that something like a ACOG TA01/31 series has about 33% more FOV at 100 yards, due to its larger objective lens, than something like a Steiner P4xi. Does that make a difference at a practical level? I guess it could if you are scanning for targets through the magnified view vs coming out of the scope and scanning with your eyeball. My real point is this: It seems to me that one could see the view THROUGH the scope better when the view THROUGH the scope comprises more of one's total vision. It's that simple. Maybe it's my older eyes but I find it somewhat difficult to work with all of the fine details in my otherwise excellent CMR-W scope when all those fine lines in that LITTLE window are THREE INCHES AWAY FROM MY EYE. Sorry to shout. I mean, hold an engineering diagram right in front of your face and you can process all of the details pretty well. NOW, hold the same diagram way out at arms' length and it starts to look like a bunch of meaningless squiggles. The example is exaggerated for effect but, THAT is what I'm talking about. For SEEING, close is better, esp when we're talking about reticles that have more info in them. Let's pls not have anyone chime in to tell its how they hate BDC rets. Heard it all that before countless times. The fact is, for FAST mid-range fighting purposes, they work very well. Even better when you can see them better, I say. Give me short eye relief on a carbine optic. Trij got it right on that part in the TA-31. I see no GOOD reason to push the optic further away from the eye that needs to see through it. Not on a low-powered rifle. |
|
Quoted:
Nothing wrong with an ACOG or NTCH, I shoot NTCH quite a bit, but... NTCH shooting style is the by-product of sighting devices with limited eye relief. The necessity to shoot NTCH to utilize the optic doesn't allow you to do anything, it limits you to it. Working around corners and under vehicles is a lot easier when you don't have stick your eyeball in the scope. Either way, you must somehow get your eye behind the optic while the weapon is pointed around the obstruction. |
|
Quoted:
More forgiveness in the range of relief is my first priority. Then the decision is about how much magnification you have. If you are using a 14x giving up 1 inch of eye relief will benefit you with very little FOV increase. Also, there a misunderstanding here about FOV. I'm proposing short eye relief NOT to gain field of view THROUGH the scope, but rather to obtain a better view through the scope with whatever field of view it is optically engineered to provide. Think of the image presented to your eye at the ocular lense as being like an LCD TV screen. Consider looking at two such LCD screens showing the same scene at the same time --- one screen is sitting just across the room, and the other screen is placed at the far end of the house. Which one will provide your brain with better information about the scene that you're looking at? The answer is obvious -- the screen that is closer will provide the viewer with better visual data. That is why I believe short eye relief optics would be better, esp with reticles that require the shooter to resolve and interpret fine details, but also with others. All other things being equal, you can usually see stuff BETTER when it's closer to you. Now, there is such a thing as too close. But I personally don't believe that is the case with two inch eye relief vs four inch eye relief. I suspect the trend for longer eye relief is driven by tradition and the desire of optics companies to create fewer models. So that one size will fit all, even if it fits poorly. I believe that low powered variables for AR15 carbines would work much better in almost all cases if they were short eye relief. If anyone can tell me WHY this might be wrong, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, let's push for better, M4 specific LPVs. Good shooting, buddy. |
|
Quoted:
Think of the image presented to your eye at the ocular lense as being like an LCD TV screen. Consider looking at two such LCD screens showing the same scene at the same time --- one screen is sitting just across the room, and the other screen is placed at the far end of the house. Which one will provide your brain with better information about the scene that you're looking at? |
|
Quoted:
The one with a larger exit pupil. I don't think your analogy is a good one for ER, more like magnification. I should have titled the thread "Why no Short Eye Relief *LPV* Optics". I'm talking about what Zak Smith calls Type II optics, close to mid range. For these optics, higher magnification is not so practical for a number of reasons. But let's talk apples to apples. Assuming two scopes with the same magnification, same exit pupil, same brightness. One is short eye relief and puts the image closer to the eye and the other further from the eye. Do you deny that the one that puts the image closer to the eye would provide a better view? I'm willing to be wrong. In what way does my analogy fail? |
|
Quoted:
If ER is extended range and higher magnification, you may be correct. IDK I should have titled the thread "Why no Short Eye Relief *LPV* Optics". I'm talking about what Zak Smith calls Type II optics, close to mid range. For these optics, higher magnification is not so practical for a number of reasons. But let's talk apples to apples. Assuming two scopes with the same magnification, same exit pupil, same brightness. One is short eye relief and puts the image closer to the eye and the other further from the eye. Do you deny that the one that puts the image closer to the eye would provide a better view? I'm willing to be wrong. In what way does my analogy fail? Reading the thread it seems you are making an argument on two fronts. Ergonomics and optics. IMO the optics advantages are minimal so if someone prefers the ergonomics of longer eye relief (and the industry seems to be moving that way for certain optics) they should get one. If you prefer the ergonomics of having less ER then you get a bonus optical advantage. My personal preference is a bigger eye box to give a great tolerance of shooting position. |
|
Quoted:
The analogy fails because it greatly exaggerates the optical advantage of your eye being closer to the scope. Magnification will not be increased and the light transmission of being an inch closer is no where near as much as being three times as far away from a TV. Reading the thread it seems you are making an argument on two fronts. Ergonomics and optics. IMO the opitcs advantages are minimal so if someone prefers the ergonomics of longer eye relief (and the industry seems to be moving that way for certain optics) they should get one. If you prefer the ergonomics of having less ER then you get a bonus optical advantage. First, I am NOT arguing against anyone's preferences. It's a free country (sort of). If someone wants a rifle scope that requires them to look through it from the top and they are willing to pay for it, fine. Stupid, but fine. You and most others prefer long eye relief. I get that and that's fine. But is that always the most effective solution? That's a different matter. Overly exaggerated? I don't know. You keep speaking of magnification. To which I would ask, Why do we need magnification in the first place? Answer: To make things that are far away appear as if they were closer so that we can see them more clearly. But if the magnified IMAGE is further from the eye than it needs to be, then we've partially defeated the reason for the magnification, which is to see stuff. And if the reticle is more than a simple duplex (which I suspect might be your preference) the more clearly we can see it, the better. You say that the difference is small. Perhaps. I think it might be small but meaningful. Small things can sometimes make a real difference. Does it in this case? I suspect so. I would love to hear from a good optical engineer or somome with a good technical grasp of all this. Thanks again. |
|
Quoted:
You keep speaking of magnification. To which I would ask, Why do we need magnification in the first place? Answer: To make things that are far away appear as if they were closer so that we can see them more clearly. But if the magnified IMAGE is further from the eye than it needs to be, then we've partially defeated the reason for the magnification, which is to see stuff. But that isn't how a focused exit pupil works. A better way to think about it is not a spot light vs shop light. The spot light puts the light further away and there is some efficiency lost in the optic (or reflector) but not as much as just trying to look at something 100 yards away with a shop light. The main advantage is field of view, which with an optic like a TA31 is a big deal. |
|
Quoted:
I think the ta31 is the perfect optic. I have yet to see better glass and a better field a view. Such a great versatile scope If my current 1x6 disappoints, I just might come back to the TA31 and be done with it. I'm getting tired of vetting optics. Getting to where I just want to shoot. What a concept. |
|
Quoted:
Your argument here would work if a scope image was like the electronic viewfinder you see on new digital cameras. The further away, the smaller the image and brightness. But that isn't how a focused exit pupil works. A better way to think about it is not a spot light vs shop light. The spot light puts the light further away and there is some efficiency lost in the optic (or reflector) but not as much as just trying to look at something 100 yards away with a shop light. The main advantage is field of view, which with an optic like a TA31 is a big deal. I'm very familiar with exit pupil, and I know that bigger is better, and I know why. I don't even know why you're bringing it up. It's like I'm saying that 16 inch rims work better than 14 inch rims and you're like saying, No way! A V8 is better than a V6. Apples and oranges. Yes, good exit pupil is important but that is a different discussion. In any case, I believe my viewfinder analogy fits quite well IF we're talking about the IMAGE presented to the eye at the ocular lense. See you're talking about what goes on inside the scope. I'm not. For simplicity's sake let's just focus (pun intended) on the IMAGE presented to the eye at the ocular lense. Whatever magic goes on inside the optic, when all is said and done, all rifle scopes spit an IMAGE out at the tail end. Apples to apples, same magnification, same quality glass, same exit pupil, etc, etc, the further that image is from the user's eye, the less he will be able to process it. I don't see what could be mysterious or wrong about that. Give a person with good vision a newspaper. Hold it a foot away from his face and he can read it just fine. Hold the same paper four from his face and he will struggle. Simple. Decrease the focal length and put the ocular lense closer where the user can see the image better. I don't see why that doesn't make sense for you. |
|
Quoted:
Your argument here would work if a scope image was like the electronic viewfinder you see on new digital cameras. The further away, the smaller the image and brightness. But that isn't how a focused exit pupil works. A better way to think about it is not a spot light vs shop light. The spot light puts the light further away and there is some efficiency lost in the optic (or reflector) but not as much as just trying to look at something 100 yards away with a shop light. The main advantage is field of view, which with an optic like a TA31 is a big deal. |
|
Quoted:
Nothing wrong with an ACOG or NTCH, I shoot NTCH quite a bit, but... NTCH shooting style is the by-product of sighting devices with limited eye relief. The necessity to shoot NTCH to utilize the optic doesn't allow you to do anything, it limits you to it. Working around corners and under vehicles is a lot easier when you don't have stick your eyeball in the scope. |
|
Quoted:
Anyone liking short eye relief scopes? I like having the weight farther back on the receiver. I also like having my eye closer to the scope. I'm wondering if anyone else shares these preferences and why we don't have more optics like the TA31. No. I like a larger eyebox. |
|
Had trouble understanding Mortimer's explanations, but he might have busted one of my arguments for short relief optics. If the image is PROJECTED out of the ocular into the user's eye, like a cone of light, rather than being presented as on a flat screen, then he might be correct.
IDK. It still feels like I can see the reticle and the scene better when the focal length of the optic is shorter and allows me to have my eye closer to the ocular. But perhaps it's my imagination. Anybody out there reading who really understand how this works? If so, please do school us. |
| This conversation has become mildly pointless and is now just and argument over individual preferences. It's like the Ar vs Ak conversations. A quality optic should offer a good range of eye relief to better suit all shooters. There will never be a "one size fit all" in optics and no individual preference in eye relief will ever be proven better than the other. |
|
Quoted:
This conversation has become mildly pointless and is now just and argument over individual preferences. It's like the Ar vs Ak conversations. A quality optic should offer a good range of eye relief to better suit all shooters. There will never be a "one size fit all" in optics and no individual preference in eye relief will ever be proven better than the other. |
|
Quoted:
Perhaps you could show me where it says that a short eye relief design necessitates a smaller exit pupil. |
|
You're overthinking this a lot.
Longer eye relief means more flexibility for body types, shooting position, shooting style, equipment, etc., etc. With full body armor, not everyone can get an NTCH shooting position--even with a CAR stock collapsed all the way. The practical reality--no need to get into optical science--is that longer eye relief = more forgiving for the user, "eye box." There is a larger useful area where you can pick up a sight picture. Fighting rarely occurs on a flat plane, and in fact, you won't even find very many VTAC barriers hanging out in the real world. You can find yourself tucked into all sorts of awkward positions with equipment that simply makes NTCH impossible, you just don't have enough "wiggle room." In other cases, adjusting yourself into a position where you can shoot NTCH can mean exposing yourself more, or taking more time to get the shot off, both of which are liabilities. From there, things only start getting more complicated. NVG mounts and helmets don't always like to play nice with things mounted closer to the rear of a receiver. With 4x32 ACOGs, there's almost always some contact between the brim of my helmet and the optic. Eye protection? With some glasses/goggles, the eye relief of the optic essentially means that the lens is in contact with the ACOG's ocular. Start playing with gas masks or oxygen masks, to say nothing of visors, mandibles, etc. Short eye relief optics are less forgiving in essentially every way. I have and have used 4x32 ACOGs for a long time. I don't dislike them, you can learn to deal with their limitations, and you can be quite effective with them, and the generous FOV is a great asset. But 4x32 ACOGs have not been my primary optic choice for quite some time. A short eye relief optic essentially limits you to a narrow range of weapons/configurations, with 4x32 ACOGs you have people complaining about insufficient eye relief. Mounts to cantilever ACOGs, to move them further back on the receivers, etc., exist for a reason--and they're usually not driven by civilian demands. Even so, almost weekly, someone is in here complaining about not being able to get their BUIS behind an ACOG and still get a comfortable shooting position. ~Augee |
|
Quoted:
By larger eyebox, I meant a longer one. Or one placed further back. I want my stock extended further to give my face more leverage on the gun for controlling recoil, for one thing. For another, it allows me simply more weapon to hold onto and leverage. I can manhandle a 4 foot stick better than a 3 foot stick, so to speak. It also gives more flexibility for awkward shooting positions. I DO get the part about awkward shooting positions though. Maybe. I'd like to get more time behind a short eye relief optic to confirm that part. FYI, "eyebox" is a technical term relating to the optical design. It is directly related to "exit pupil" and, as far as I know, is not related to eye relief. They may be linked somehow, but I'm not sure as I'm not that up on optical engineering. Anyway, as I said, whatever works for ya. There's so many styles and purposes. I'd just like to see more offerings on the short eye relief side of things as there are currently almost none. Good shooting, brother. |
|
Quoted:
You're overthinking this a lot. Longer eye relief means more flexibility for body types, shooting position, shooting style, equipment, etc., etc. With full body armor, not everyone can get an NTCH shooting position--even with a CAR stock collapsed all the way. The practical reality--no need to get into optical science--is that longer eye relief = more forgiving for the user, "eye box." There is a larger useful area where you can pick up a sight picture. Fighting rarely occurs on a flat plane, and in fact, you won't even find very many VTAC barriers hanging out in the real world. You can find yourself tucked into all sorts of awkward positions with equipment that simply makes NTCH impossible, you just don't have enough "wiggle room." In other cases, adjusting yourself into a position where you can shoot NTCH can mean exposing yourself more, or taking more time to get the shot off, both of which are liabilities. From there, things only start getting more complicated. NVG mounts and helmets don't always like to play nice with things mounted closer to the rear of a receiver. With 4x32 ACOGs, there's almost always some contact between the brim of my helmet and the optic. Eye protection? With some glasses/goggles, the eye relief of the optic essentially means that the lens is in contact with the ACOG's ocular. Start playing with gas masks or oxygen masks, to say nothing of visors, mandibles, etc. Short eye relief optics are less forgiving in essentially every way. I have and have used 4x32 ACOGs for a long time. I don't dislike them, you can learn to deal with their limitations, and you can be quite effective with them, and the generous FOV is a great asset. But 4x32 ACOGs have not been my primary optic choice for quite some time. A short eye relief optic essentially limits you to a narrow range of weapons/configurations, with 4x32 ACOGs you have people complaining about insufficient eye relief. Mounts to cantilever ACOGs, to move them further back on the receivers, etc., exist for a reason--and they're usually not driven by civilian demands. Even so, almost weekly, someone is in here complaining about not being able to get their BUIS behind an ACOG and still get a comfortable shooting position. ~Augee Please school me on this if you would. I thought eye relief was the the DISTANCE from the ocular to the eye where good sight picture occurred. In the specs it is called out as a single distance, or in the case of optics where it shifts slightly from one magnification to the next, it is given with a high and a low. But most LPVs don't shift eye relief and it is called out as a single distance, like, 3.7 inches. You speak of it more as a range thing, like short eye relief means a narrow range and long eye relief provides a wide range of distances where good sight picture occurs. That has not been my experience. The RANGE of distances -- that is, the amount of forgiveness that an optic provides for good sight picture -- THAT, I thought, was a function of exit pupil, not eye relief. So, if I am correct, a short eye relief scope, with a good exit pupil design, would allow the SAME flexibility for head position as a long eye relief scope with the same exit pupil. Each scope would provide the same forgiveness, but at a different starting point. Apples to apples. Am I missing something? |
|
I'm not an optical engineer, so I'm not going to be able to give you any kind of "scientific" answers.
But you're thinking about this from the wrong end. The longer eye relief distance makes it easier to get in the right position on the user's end--not on the optic end. If "eye box" has a specific optical definition beyond colloquial use in this application that I am not familiar with, then I apologize--I only understand it in the context of being able to see through an optic. The closer a thing is to you, the more sensitive it's going to be to small corrections/changes/inconsistencies when you're trying to "maneuver" into place behind it. Think about something like iron sights: People often like longer sight radii on their iron sights, because they believe it makes them more accurate. However, mechanically, a longer sight radius is no more accurate than a shorter sight radius (I'm not talking about the coarseness of adjustments)--it's just that shorter sight radii amplify minor alignment imperfections. Going another direction with this--do many people have to shoot in a supine position frequently? No, not really. But if you did, would you find it easier to position an optic 4" from your eye? Or 1-1.5" from your eye? ~Augee |
|
Quoted:
I'm not an optical engineer, so I'm not going to be able to give you any kind of "scientific" answers. But you're thinking about this from the wrong end. The longer eye relief distance makes it easier to get in the right position on the user's end--not on the optic end. If "eye box" has a specific optical definition beyond colloquial use in this application that I am not familiar with, then I apologize--I only understand it in the context of being able to see through an optic. The closer a thing is to you, the more sensitive it's going to be to small corrections/changes/inconsistencies when you're trying to "maneuver" into place behind it. Think about something like iron sights: People often like longer sight radii on their iron sights, because they believe it makes them more accurate. However, mechanically, a longer sight radius is no more accurate than a shorter sight radius (I'm not talking about the coarseness of adjustments)--it's just that shorter sight radii amplify minor alignment imperfections. Going another direction with this--do many people have to shoot in a supine position frequently? No, not really. But if you did, would you find it easier to position an optic 4" from your eye? Or 1-1.5" from your eye? ~Augee But thanks. I may never know whether my ideas here are useful. Too few short eye relief scopes to test them out on. Oh, well. |
|
Quoted:
Certainly sight radi does not translate. You're still aligning "points," and the same deviations/corrections differ in magnitude depending on the distance between the points being aligned. You seem pretty dead set in your belief/opinion about short eye relief scopes, and seem to be trying to "science" your way into a solution that will justify your position. The real answer, however, is that these optics have not been developed in a vacuum, nor has their application been purely theoretical over the last decade and a half plus. The 4x32 ACOG was developed in the 1980s, it's not a new concept. Individual weapon optics are not a new concept. If professional end users wanted optics with 4x32 ACOG-like eye relief, then there would be more optics with 4x32 ACOG-like eye relief. It's all well and good to avoid groupthink and to thoughtfully interrogate accepted paradigms, but if your opinion is going counter to what seems like the trajectory of the professional community, it might be worthwhile to consider the thought that it is perhaps you that are the outlier, rather than having discovered something that everyone else missed. And ultimately, there's nothing wrong with being the outlier, "you do you," as they say--if it's stupid and it works, then it's not stupid, but don't expect everyone to be in a hurry to jump on the bandwagon, either. ~Augee |
|
Quoted:
Simple geometry still applies. You're still aligning "points," and the same deviations/corrections differ in magnitude depending on the distance between the points being aligned. You seem pretty dead set in your belief/opinion about short eye relief scopes, and seem to be trying to "science" your way into a solution that will justify your position. The real answer, however, is that these optics have not been developed in a vacuum, nor has their application been purely theoretical over the last decade and a half plus. The 4x32 ACOG was developed in the 1980s, it's not a new concept. Individual weapon optics are not a new concept. If professional end users wanted optics with 4x32 ACOG-like eye relief, then there would be more optics with 4x32 ACOG-like eye relief. It's all well and good to avoid groupthink and to thoughtfully interrogate accepted paradigms, but if your opinion is going counter to what seems like the trajectory of the professional community, it might be worthwhile to consider the thought that it is perhaps you that are the outlier, rather than having discovered something that everyone else missed. And ultimately, there's nothing wrong with being the outlier, "you do you," as they say--if it's stupid and it works, then it's not stupid, but don't expect everyone to be in a hurry to jump on the bandwagon, either. ~Augee You're quite correct in pointing out that the burden of proof is on the outlier and that I have failed to meet it. In light of what I said above, it is still not a fail for me. I learned. I hope others did as well. Finally, in regards to geometry, irons, and optics, the differences are striking. With irons one must align three things (four if you count the eye) the front post, the rear aperture, and the target, all three in different focal planes. With optics one must only align two: the aiming element in the reticle, and the target, both in one focal plane. Magic. When I mounted my first Aimpoint shortly after the Army Type classified them, the difference immediately amazed and delighted me. There no such thing as sight radius with an optic as far as I can tell. Not for any practical purposes. Parallax adjustment perhaps. Short eye relief may agrevate parallax. So there is that. All said, I basically concede and, I more or less said so several posts ago. There probably are good reasons that long eye relief scopes abound. We good? |
|
Quoted:
Okay. If it works for you. Me? I find recoil (and we're really talking about muzzle rise here) much more manageable with the weapon tucked up closer to my body. Ditto for handling in general. I can't imagine how having a gun hanging out FARTHER from the body could be help me control it. The extra leverage of the forward weight cantilevering against my forearm is something I'd want to eliminate altogether if I could. You must work out...a LOT. I DO get the part about awkward shooting positions though. Maybe. I'd like to get more time behind a short eye relief optic to confirm that part. FYI, "eyebox" is a technical term relating to the optical design. It is directly related to "exit pupil" and, as far as I know, is not related to eye relief. They may be linked somehow, but I'm not sure as I'm not that up on optical engineering. Anyway, as I said, whatever works for ya. There's so many styles and purposes. I'd just like to see more offerings on the short eye relief side of things as there are currently almost none. Good shooting, brother. Yes, I am a strong guy. My lifts place me comfortably in the 1000 pound club. No, that has NOTHING to do with how I hold my rifle. When shooting right-sided, for me, -I place my left hand forward on the rail. Not over-exaggerated "I saw a Travis Haley YouTube vid", but comfortably out there closer to the muzzle. That hand wraps around the rail, and PUSHES TOWARD the muzzle, and when firing, down. -My right hand is on the PG, of course, and it is PULLING toward me. It is as though I am trying to draw a bow. -My face is planted solidly on the stock, which is extended as far as it can go and still allow me to properly see through the optic. My face is exerting pressure on the stock, and the further it is extended, the better the leverage. I can burn shit down with a .308 like this. A 5.56 carbine you can hold any old way and do okay with. When you step into heavier calibers, recoil control "is a thing". Then when you take that, and apply it to a 5.56 gun...so much the faster. Want to test it? Hold the gun how you do, and get a buddy to grab the muzzle (standing to the side...4 rules!) and "nod" it up and down and push it back at you while you try to hold it flat. Now try it "my" way. Do what you want afterwards, but try it first. Please...please...clear the weapon and insert a chamber-flag first. I shouldn't feel like I need to say this, but this is the internet, and search-engines are a thing. |
|
Quoted:
There was no question in my mind that I was the outlier when I took up this topic. I expected to be flamed pretty badly. Perhaps I am too prone to questioning the conventional. IDK Someone has to think outside the box. And, I really don't much mind being proven wrong. I learn from the experience and hope that the process might bring more understanding to others. That is, I hope that my contrarian-ness isn't the destructive kind of a troll but a constructive variety. You're quite correct in pointing out that the burden of proof is on the outlier and that I have failed to meet it. In light of what I said above, it is still not a fail for me. I learned. I hope others did as well. Finally, in regards to geometry, irons, and optics, the differences are striking. With irons one must align three things (four if you count the eye) the front post, the rear aperture, and the target, all three in different focal planes. With optics one must only align two: the aiming element in the reticle, and the target, both in one focal plane. Magic. When I mounted my first Aimpoint shortly after the Army Type classified them, the difference immediately amazed and delighted me. There no such thing as sight radius with an optic as far as I can tell. Not for any practical purposes. Parallax adjustment perhaps. Short eye relief may agrevate parallax. So there is that. All said I basically concede and more or less said so several posts ago. There probably are good reasons that long eye relief scopes abound. We good? |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why Not Short Eye Relief Optics? (Page 1 of 2)
AR Sponsor