I've just been to the Melbourne SHOT Show and was amazed at how big most of the riflescopes were.

Some makes did not even show a model without an enormous objective bell.

The obvious reason would be the old car-marketer's ploy of making this year's model bigger than last year's - but I suspect there is something more going on.

My friend the scope developer in California has done extensive experiments showing that lens displacement of even a few microns can cause focus problems in high-multiple variables. Moreover, he has discovered that knowledge of these critical tolerances is not new, citing the 1984 work of a Dr S. G. SHIUE, a professor at Chung Shan Institute of Science and Technology, Taiwan, and Schmidt & Bender's US Patent 10,606,063 issued on March 31, 2020 (from which I requote here, "for review").

“It is critical in this case that the lenses be disposed very accurately at the intended positions, so that a sharp image can be produced for the marksman. Positional deviations of even 10−5 are detrimental to the image quality and result in parallax errors. In other words, the target mark and the actual projectile impact point deviate from each other. For this reason, all movable parts must be designed with very narrow tolerances, and they must have virtually no clearance in relation to each other. Frequently, it is even the case that an over-size is selected in order to preclude clearance. This results in the reversing system being difficult to adjust. The contact regions between the guide pins and cam slots are especially critical.”

So, what is my own take on all this stuff? Well, it is that my friend's calculations are probably correct but that many scope makers know of the problem and can't fix it but DO NOT want to talk about it.

Instead, they push scopes of large magnifications where parallax knobs are par for the course. Then, they can wash their hands of target focus changes, reasoning that it becomes the shooter's responsibility and that the fix is at hand.

That S&B quote above references mainly changing bullet impacts when magnification is changed. However, the "deviations of even 10-5" presumably refers to microns (about 0.01-0.005mm?), which my source's research reveals can move focus by several millimetres at the SFP and therefore the target picture and parallax situation. Once again, I think most scope makers know of this and the increasing possibility of it as a scope wears. For this reason even American brands now give credence to the value of scopes with magnifying reticles in the first focal plane - they help with range estimation, don't you know?

Having come across that S&B quote on a different device, I see now that the 10-5 reference was supposed to be 10 to the power of -5, which as it happens also represents something like five or 10 microns, anyway.

Thinking about what S&B was saying there, it appears they think impact shifts in variables come not just from slop in the lens movement but from parallax that may be introduced at different magnifications.

If this is so, it poses the question of whether misses from this parallax could occur in FFP scopes, too, even though the reticle is the other side of the problematic erector-set/power scroll.

Anyone, anyone ...

I'll skip the technicalities of optics and go straight to the point of larger scopes/objectives.

It is market driven: Younger and less experienced shooters who are the largest buyers of new shooting accessories simply regard bigger as better. They want triple the magnification and double the "light gathering" (sic) capability. If the scope isn't at least 2/3 the size of the rifle then they feel they are "underscoped". (And if the rifle has a stock made of wood then they won't have it at all.)

Hence, the manufacturers produce what the market demands: Grossly oversized scopes, preferably with tall and wide adjustment turrets and multiple power, focus, and parallax adjustments -- and a reticle cluttered with a checkerboard various elevation and windage reference lines. After all, much game is taken at a distance of as much as 50 meters or more, so all of this is absolutely necessary.

Bottom line: I don't think the monster scopes have anything to do optical technology, just with fads.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
After all, much game is taken at a distance of as much as 50 meters or more, so all of this is absolutely necessary.

I dont know, but I think it may have to do with manufacturing processes as well. When the auto makers dropped the old school manufacturing of bolted on fenders and rear wheel drive in favor of plastic snap on crap and essentially Japanese engineering they had to re-tool a lot of their equipment. I suspect something similar applies with optics manufacturing. As long as it keeps selling with a profitable system, why should they retool or go back to a more laborious process?

There's a lot in what you guys say but the young shooters' desires didn't all come from their own heads - marketing planted the crazy ideas.

I see the technical cynicism as having an antecedent. Not only was image-movement popular with a similar cohort in our own time but must have been a boon to the scope makers; no longer did they have to install the reticle and erector set separately and solidly way down inside,
as the new guts could be easily inserted from the back end and located there with a screw or two.

I wonder whether their getting away with it had to do with smaller-bore rifles becoming popular, short US vacations and the throw-away society.

quote:

I wonder whether their getting away with it had to do with smaller-bore rifles becoming popular, short US vacations and the throw-away society.

The progression to smaller bores goes WAY back, and has some logic to it. Military bores went from .69 (18th Century musket) to .45 and 11 mm (19th Century single shots) to .30 (early 20th Century bolts and autos) to .22 (late 20th Century full auto capable). Hunting rifles somewhat followed suit as powders became available that would produce higher velocities (and flatter trajectories) in a smaller bore with similar downrange energy.

On the other hand, shorter U.S. vacations go hand-in-hand with a throw-away society: People have to work more in order to consume faster, and consuming faster requires that people work more. It is no accident that you can purchase a gigantic and impressive looking Chinese-made scope for only a few hours wages, and not any further accident that within a year or so there will be a bigger, even more impressive looking scope for you to replace that one with since the original scope didn't actually work so well.

True.

I don’t like it at all.

And it is true driven by ignorance.

Here is an example.

Someone brings an air rifle saying he cannot get it to shoot well.

The scope is so big, and has 12-48x magnification!

He says he asked the shop to put the best magnification scope on it!!??

Big bulky scopes have caused me to go back to looking for vintage scopes in good condition. Im really not a fan of big, gobby optics, never did see the appeal. Even Leupold has gone the way of the mombo euro eyebell. Sad.
One of my favorites is an old Denver redfield golden 5 star 2.5-7X. The old Redfields seem to hold up better than the old Weavers.
There are a couple companies online that are able to fully restore the old standbys.

Yes, Stonecreek, I recall the .250-3000 and 22 Savage high power went way back and that people had actually thought the latter enough for deer. However, I've got the feeling that the .30-06 and 270W became more popular over time - but by the 1950s we had the 6mms and 222 Rem pulling the other way. I'm amazed that Elmer Keith did not notice the fragility of the new fare but realise he was kind of inside the Weaver tent.

And yes, Wstrnhuntr, that is my outlook, too, though I take it further. I find searching and waiting for great old reticle-movement scopes gives the same thrill as hunting. I've got heaps, mostly bought for research; but when I get a small one in good, usable condition, I'm inclined to put it on a rifle. Redfield did seem to have the better reputation but I've never owned a real one. I love my 1947 Weaver K2.5, though, if only for its great eye box and field blending better than Nickel's.

I would hazard that the two most popular shooting sports involving rifles at the moment are IPSC-style events and the so-called "precision Rifle" events.

The first requires very fast shooting at a variety of targets at differing but usually relatively short distances, usually in combination with handguns and often shotguns as well. These are dominated by AR and AK-style rifles and the so-called "LPVO" scopes or red dots (and often both on the same rifle). These LPVO scopes, apart from being ugly would probably make very good hunting scopes for the majority of posters in this thread, but not the subject of this post.

The various "precision rifle" events and other long-range disciplines are the largest driver of the development of the large modern scopes as complained about above.
in these events, multiple targets at known but widely differing ranges have to be targeted rapidly, some at distances that were almost unheard of just a couple of decades ago.

I beseech you guys who don't understand why these scopes look like they do, just take your most accurate rifle and go and participate in two of these matches. I guarantee a number of outcomes. Firstly, you will understand exactly why all the features complained about above (and a bunch more such as exposed turrets, zero-stops and busy reticles) are commonplace. Secondly, if you think you are a good field position shooter who knows how to use natural features effectively for support, you will most likely be somewhat humbled.

It is a pity that the old, elegant small hunting telescope seems for now to be a thing of the past, but the features being put on the modern scopes are extremely useful for the uses they are designed to fulfill.

From my point of view, hunting:

Big scopes, like 56 mm objective lens or even bigger, was popular here because of low light condition hunting. Electronic devices such night visions, thermals etc was not available, super expensive and forbidden for hunting. I have those on .375 H&H (Zeiss Victory 3-12x56). When hunting from tree stand, it is good for about 300-350 m range. I have ballistic turret for elevation there. Easy to use. Markings already in meters for ammo I use. Great in combination with laser rangefinder.

Today, a lot of hunters use thermals for night hunting. So you have different day scope and night scope/device in a quick mount system.


Long range shooting:

Is there any reason why not to have the best possible scope mounted on for example .338 Lapua Magnum longe range rig with 32" tube? Rifle intended for shooting well over 1000 m? Yes, scope with extended ballistic turrets, parallax adjustment, illuminated reticle (also including levels for night vision use), zero stop, FFP with all that Christmas tree reticle. And it is ultimate goodness for its purpose.

Air rifles:

Today air rifles (PCP) are capable of incredible accuracy and range. When used for hunting, there are mostly used for pest control - really small targets. So why don't to have scope with enough magnification and parallax adjustment? I use PCP in combination with laser range finder and Kestrel ballistic computer, as I do for long range shooting. So far my longest shot was feral pigeon at 137 m. With .177". I can't image trying it with some 2x or 4x scope with some clunky fat reticle.

Here is PCP and 338. 338 has now 32" 1:9 barrel. (old 26" on picture)


Anything inappropriate?

Like Stonecreek so aptly noted, it's all about the market and what is both popular and selling at the moment.

I am not a fan of the tall target knobs and ultra magnification ranges simply because that's not my cup of tea, so to speak. But the scopes I use are indeed large -- and for good reason. My shot opportunities are limited, and those that do present themselves are usually for hogs or coyotes under the cover of darkness. Without ample transmission, high resolution and illumination that goes exceedingly dim, those moonlight shots for me are not possible.

My favorite line of scopes for this sort of thing: Docter (and the very early Noblex). Four out of my five Contender rifles currently wear Docter optics, and the fifth is topped with a Zeiss Diatal Classic 7x50.

Two Docters are of the 3-12x56 variety; one is a 2.5-10x50, and the other is an 8x56. In moonlight/twilight, I generally use 8 to 10x with the variables.

Yes, these are large scopes, but with limited mobility, I am not lugging them through miles of terrain, and their slight extra weight is meaningless in my short jaunts to the shooting rests I have here in the yard.

The scopes on the rifles above are totally useless for proper hunting.

Where one has to carry the rifle all day.

I have stocks of Leupold 2.5-8, 2-7, 3-9, and I use them on my own rifles.

European manufacturers all seem to try to outdo each other of how silly their scopes are.

I don’t like them at all for hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
The scopes on the rifles above are totally useless for proper hunting.

Where one has to carry the rifle all day.

I have stocks of Leupold 2.5-8, 2-7, 3-9, and I use them on my own rifles.

I don't disagree with you, Saeed. But as I noted, I have limited mobility and don't carry these around for miles. If I want to shoot something out here, a typical hunting scope isn't going to cut the mustard, so to speak, because these animals are largely nocturnal. (If I still had mobility and could get out and stalk in daylight, I'd use a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 or similar and forever be happy. In fact, I did just that for many years. But that's not my situation anymore.)

As to your Leupolds, yes, they obviously work for you and for many thousands of others who typically hunt in good lighting. But not a single one of the 2-7x, 2.5-8x or 3-9s you mention would allow you to consistently take the game that I take out here under moonlight conditions. Of the last 20+ hogs and coyotes I have taken, only one or possibly two could have been killed using a Leupold 3-9x40 or 2.5-8x36.

I have a thermal and have used it with success, but I still prefer the precision of good glass in a traditional scope.

But back to Leupolds: I've used them quite a bit over the years. I don't anymore. Here's a hog I took using a VX-2 3-9x40 with a German #4 reticle.





Here, I used a 2.5-8x:





Here are a few more. I'm no stranger to Leupolds. But if I want to capitalize on my infrequent opportunities out here, they're not a topflight choice for my own usage.

For many years, a simple 3-9x40 or similar was all I ever needed.

Times change.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Connan:
I would hazard that the two most popular shooting sports involving rifles at the moment are IPSC-style events and the so-called "precision Rifle" events.

The first requires very fast shooting at a variety of targets at differing but usually relatively short distances, usually in combination with handguns and often shotguns as well. These are dominated by AR and AK-style rifles and the so-called "LPVO" scopes or red dots (and often both on the same rifle). These LPVO scopes, apart from being ugly would probably make very good hunting scopes for the majority of posters in this thread, but not the subject of this post.

The various "precision rifle" events and other long-range disciplines are the largest driver of the development of the large modern scopes as complained about above.
in these events, multiple targets at known but widely differing ranges have to be targeted rapidly, some at distances that were almost unheard of just a couple of decades ago.

I beseech you guys who don't understand why these scopes look like they do, just take your most accurate rifle and go and participate in two of these matches. I guarantee a number of outcomes. Firstly, you will understand exactly why all the features complained about above (and a bunch more such as exposed turrets, zero-stops and busy reticles) are commonplace. Secondly, if you think you are a good field position shooter who knows how to use natural features effectively for support, you will most likely be somewhat humbled.

It is a pity that the old, elegant small hunting telescope seems for now to be a thing of the past, but the features being put on the modern scopes are extremely useful for the uses they are designed to fulfill.

I don't find LPVO scopes ugly, Peter, and if I had to buy something modern that's probably where I'd go.

However, I fear that that category might suffer most from the focus problem my friend in California claims to have discovered in models with high power multiples. If they don't have the annoying parallax knob to constantly consider, that is where the focus problem is mostly likely to be noticed.

This matter is probably not new; I recall that my old Pecar 3-7x and Kahles Super 2.3-7x scopes did not give quite the sharpness of image at 7x they did at 4x, but had just assumed that came from magnifications greater than 6x, not the mechanical slop needed to wind up to it in a variable. Those scopes only have 3x multiples, though, and my mate claims to have proved that the problem becomes much worse with the larger multiples.

Has anyone here got a 1-10x LPVO, by any chance?

I shoot the 3X and 4X Leupolds mostly, but the Lyman Alaskan remains as does the 2.5X Leupold Alaskan on my 250 Savage 99..My varmint scopes are 2x7x28 (discontinued) and a couple of 3x9s on a swift and a Ruger #1..Its a trade off anyway I cut it, but rest assure that Sabarman is correct on the scope Technology, I sometimes chose the trade off however as I like that centered cross hair..

I have no use for big scopes on a big game hunting rifle and never felt the need for power scopes..Im ok with a 3X up to 400 yards on my 35 Whelan and 338. My 270 and 06 wear 4x Leupold's.