The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Optics Kahles Helia 5Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Kahles Helia 5 | Login/Join |
| one of us |
What is the opinion on Kahles helia 5 2,5x56 scope? How does it perform in lpw light in comparison to Zeiss and Swarovski scopes? Is it worth the money? Regards Pawel | ||
|
One of Us |
It´s a Top scope. Kahles under new leadership and separated ( slightly? or totally? ) from Swarovski is on it´s way up, Performance wise. The 1 - 5 x is awesome ( but pricey ) Hermann formerly, before software update, known as "aHunter", lost 1000 posts in a minute | |||
|
One of Us |
Have they fixed the lack of eye-relief flexibility in the Helia C? The old reticle-movement Helia Super 27 has a good long "eye box", but not the recent 1.1-4 I bought. The eye relief was longer but pulling back from the perfect distance, suddenly you are just looking at an exit-pupil-sized bead of light. | |||
|
| one of us |
I have bought the Helia 5 scope and on the first evening I have shot a boar with it. The shot was not particulary difficut as the light was quite good. What is amasing is that whie, I have been waiting for a second one, as long as I could see the it in my Leica 10x42 Geovid, I could see it in my scope. All other features are top quality. The red dot is smooth in adjustment and you can set it so that you can barely see it. I highly recomend it! Regards Pawel | |||
|
| one of us |
The problem with European scopes IMO is they look like patato masher handgranades, and eye relief is less than desirable and price is ridiculas..Over engineered and too much money. However I do think the high cost is impart import fees to the US..also I think they are designed with night shooting in mind. They do have clarity, and are well made, but to shoot a whitetail or Mule deer with a scope that cost twice as much as the local hunters gun is not all that practical. A fool and his money are soon parted.. Ray Atkinson Atkinson Hunting Adventures 10 Ward Lane, Filer, Idaho, 83328 208-731-4120 rayatkinsonhunting@gmail.com | |||
|
| one of us |
Ray, why don't you go ahead and tell us what you really think?  Actually, the only part I'll disagree with you on is the reason for the price. I've been shocked to see that European scopes are just as pricey, or even more so, in Europe. Check out some of the European sporting goods or auction sites and you'll see what I mean. European optics have always been very good because of access to good (meaning properly ground and polished) glass, as well as the manufacturer's years of experience in building good telescopes. But remember, European shooters (hunters) were very late adapters when it comes to optical gunsights. While virtually everyone in the U.S. was using scopes by the 1960's, European hunters were about a decade or more behind Americans in adopting the use of scopes, and even today a far greater percentage of Europeans hunt with irons than do Americans. As a result, European optics manufacturers, for whom rifle scopes have always been a very minor part of their business, have been slow to configure their fine telescopes properly as optical gunsights. That's the reason that European scopes tend to be bulky, heavy, oddly shaped, have non-constantly centered reticles, have critical eye relief, and any number of other features which make them a bit awkward to use as a gunsight. They have great optics -- they're just not well-adapted as gunsights, especially for use as hunting gunsights. But back to price: I've been in Europe twice in the last year and everything is more expensive there. I'd rather just drink water than pay $10 for a beer, but THEY DON'T HAVE ANY WATER! An $80 hotel room is 200 Euros. And if you want to buy a car you'd better set aside more than just one year's salary. But if I had essentially free health care and education for my family, I could afford European prices for beers and cars. Further, I think; no, I know, that the primary driver of most sales of European scopes in the U.S. is their high price, and not despite it. Low-experience buyers tend to equate price with quality. Let a guy with an invitation to go elk hunting for the first time who has $1,500 in room on his credit card loose in Cabelas and he'll come out with a European scope that has a 56mm objective and is roughly the size and shape of a Little League baseball bat. He'll be the proudest pr*ck in the whole camp and will be able to look down his nose at the guy with the 4x Lyman Permacenter on his rifle (and the dead 6x6 hanging from the meat pole). | |||
|
| One of Us |
You may be right about the rate at which Americans and Europeans adopted scopes, Stonecreek, but I don't think it follows the development of the scopes themselves. Karl Kahles apparently sold the first modern hunting scope about 1900. By modern, I mean short, focusing the reticle and picture at the same time and having internal adjustments. From reading Nick Stroebel's book I glean that German scopes held the high ground by the 1930s and that many American makers came out of that background. European scopes with non-centred reticles are pretty much gone now, because American marketing finally beat them in marketing - analogous perhaps with the way the clunking VHS tapes beat Beta. Though Leupold et al have civilised it into a damned-good product, the Euros stood back from image-movement for 30 years because they knew it is at heart, a con. As you say, modern Euro sights do tend to be whoppers, but it was not always so. Most early Zeiss, Hensoldt and Kahles scopes were quite small, if mounted too high. The apparent price of goods in Europe will have a lot to do with the prevailing exchange rates. I was in Europe last year (when our dollar was high) and was surprised how cheap meals and drinks were there. Anyway, since nearly everyone uses constantly centred reticles now, and scopes are sights and not optics meant to locate game, I agree that American brands offer better value. | |||
|
| one of us |
I might argue that Europe is yet to produce a "modern hunting scope", or at least has ceased to produce them.  It is true that most (maybe all) current European-made scopes now have constantly centered reticles -- but they were a long time in coming. Many European scopes do have the reticle in the first focal plane, meaning that as you increase power on a variable the size of the reticle increases proportionally, causing it to cover much of the small target you were increasing the magnification in order to see. Europeans tend to perceive optical sights as useful primarily for shots at standing game at longer distances (or standing game at shorter distances by moonlight.) The design of their scopes reflects this perception. They mount their scopes high off of the receiver, which works well enough from a rest, but makes it impossible (or at least impractical and greatly awkward) to hold a scoped rifle as one would a shotgun to take offhand shots or shots at close or moving game. American hunters, on the other hand, regard a scope as a universal sighting instrument, which can be as well adapted to close, quick shots as to long range "sniping". Crank your low-mounted Leupold down to 2X or 3X and you'll be faster on target than a person with open or even aperture sights. Crank it up to 8X or 10X and you can select the exact crease in the ungulate's thorax where you want the projectile to enter. I think there is some truth to your observation that earlier European scopes tended to be more compact and practical, though they were usually steel-bodied and rather heavy compared to an aluminum scope. I acquired a "Guild" Mauser a while back mounted with a Hensolt-Wetzler 6X in claw mounts. It was a bit high of the comb, as expected, but if you dismissed that, the scope offered an exceedingly clear and crisp picture. Its internal adjustment was in the vertical plane only, with the horizontal adjustment done in the rear mount base. I never shot the rifle while I owned it, knowing that I simply wouldn't be comfortable hunting with such a rig and that someone else would think it quite a prize, which they did and compensated me well for my time as its owner. Similarly, I just acquired a beautiful light-weight custom rifle which is mounted (low, in this rare instance) with a Pecar 4X. The scope is a fine instrument, but I simply won't be comfortable looking at crosshairs which are not in the center of the FOV, so the Pecar will eventually go to a better home than mine. Ultimately, as with most sporting equipment, it boils down to a matter of taste, which is to say, prejudice. Decades of experience in the field have prejudiced me toward low-mounted scopes with forgiving eye placement. Price point shopping seems to prejudice some buyers toward something else. Please don't misinterpret my opinion of European scopes to apply to Europeans themselves. I find them to be on the whole quite forward-looking and pleasant people with which to associate (and hunt with!) I might say that the same goes for Australians. By the way, in regard to European prices, it is certainly a matter of perception. The Australian Dollar has appreciated nearly 50% against the Euro, and even more against the USD, in the last several years. Prices everywhere tend to look reasonable to Australians these days -- everywhere but home, I'm sure.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
BS! Scopes were used VERY much more at hunting in Europe, compared to Americans with open sighted thutty - thutties and peep sighted bolt guns! And European scopes started with 4 x form 1900 on, that the iron sights were retained, was just traditionalism, the possibility of the early scopes failing, too small FOV for driven hunts and pride of craftmanship. In the 60´s NOBODY was hunting without scope in Middle Europe! And NOBODY hunts with iron sights in middle Europe now, except driven hunts in the very thick ... and these are drying out, Red Dots also now on the decline ... the special "driven hunt" ( in US parlance: ~ "real 1 x" ) scopes ( also as second scopes )are booming. Hermann formerly, before software update, known as "aHunter", lost 1000 posts in a minute | |||
|
| One of Us |
Stonecreek, have you thought of remounting that Pecar, using some shims to get the reticle in the middle. Pecar used to be highly regarded here 40 years ago and I notice old ones seem to command much more than the Zeiss, Hensoldt and Nickel scopes I like so much. The used Pecar 3-7 I had suffered from parallax I was unable to get fixed here or under the 25-year warranty, but worked fine once I added a high leather cheekpiece. The most impressive aspect I remember was the toughness and the most positive 'clicks' I've ever come across. The high mounting of Euro scopes was often because they used see-through mounts or rails. I just put an old Nickel 1.5-6 with a rail on my Sako 338. It was a bit hard to find the bits and I had to heat the clamp till it turned blue before it would fit on the rail - and the set-up finished half an inch higher than the Kahles in Redfield mounts I'd used previously. I love the Nickel, though; clear as a desert morning and you can hardly tell where the scope finishes and the world outside starts. | |||
|
| One of Us |
That´s correct! That, and most hunting there is done from high seat, where you seat very upright, and don´t "crawl" into the scope. I´m the exception ... I love low mounted scopes and well forward, too. Hermann formerly, before software update, known as "aHunter", lost 1000 posts in a minute | |||
|
| one of us |
| |||
|
| one of us |
Arminus: I suspect that we are both correct on our assertions about scope usage in Europe as compared to the U.S. -- it is just that we are talking in terms of different time periods. I'm sure it is true that during the period prior to about WW-II that scope usage for hunting was more common in Europe (though still somewhat rare) than in the U.S. On the other hand, during the 1950's and 1960's Americans moved almost exclusively to scope use. I don't know of any source of firm statistics, but probably well over 90% of the hunting rifles in the U.S. today are equipped with scopes. By comparison, scope usage in Europe tended to remain for many years limited to stand hunters, and only the rather wealthier ones at that. Even today, judging by the rifles I see offered on the European internet sales sites, it appears that iron sight usage for hunting continues to be much more common in Europe than in the U.S. I would hazard a wild guess and say that fewer than half of the hunting rifles in use in Europe are equipped with scopes. Would you disagree? And I think you will agree that it is true that Europeans tend to regard a scope sighted rifle as useful for standing game, much preferring iron sights for driven game or jump shooting. Conversely, Americans regard scope sights as universal, using low magnification for situations such as driven game and higher magnification for stand or long range shooting. None of this, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate it may be, settles the question of whether American or European scopes are "better"; but if I am largely correct about scope usage on each side of the Pond then that does explain something of why American scopes are better adapted to a wider variety of hunting situations than are European scopes. Demand drives what manufacturers produce, and Americans have historically tended to demand lighter, more compact, simpler, and lower-mounted scopes than have Europeans. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I suspect the Zeiss you're talking about is the Duralyt. It is a shocker, and makes the Leupold VX-1 look elegant in comparison. That term you were looking for is probably tunnel vision. Though they are constantly centred, too, the thin rubber eyepiece makes their Victory Diavari 1.5x6 about as good as it gets these days in terms of field blending. Your insight on Europeans' limited use of scopes surprises my a little, except perhaps in regard to those battue rifles they use for driven game, which have the high high quarter-ribs with fibre-optic patridge set-ups. Nickel made a lot of very small scopes that inclined me to think someone in Europe or Africa must like that sort of thing for walking up critters. My own 'umble collection of old Supras includes a 1x12, a 1.5x12 a 2.5x22 and a 1-4 variable - every one a joy to look through | |||
|
| one of us |
"Field blending" is the term I was looking for. Thank you! Bushnell sells quite a few scopes in the American market these days. All I have looked through, particularly the "popularly priced" models, exhibit very poor "field blending". The Zeiss Conquest, though not purely a European scope, is very bad in this regard. Looked through a Swarovski a few weeks back, though I can't remember which model, and was impressed by its excellent field blending, which is not the norm for most European scopes. Seems like the European variables are much worse on field blending than the older fixed scopes, which seemed pretty good. I'm not sure, but this may have something to do with stretching the magnification range beyond that which the laws of physics begin to restrict; or possibly the effort to create a constant (if very restricted) eye distance. Eye distance is another peeve with me. A good hunting scope needs to have a generous range of eye placement (both laterally and fore-aft) since shooting positions can be highly variable. With some scopes which advertise a fairly generous and constant eye relief the eye placement is very critical. If you eye is not exactly at, say, four inches, well, the sight picture just goes black. Very disconcerting. Many people fail to realize that greater eye relief necessarily means narrower field of view. While it is nice to have plenty of eye relief on a hard-kicker, if your 1.5-25X variable has plenty of eye relief then you may not be able to fit that charging stegasaurus into the field of view even when cranked down to 1.5X. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Though I have seen some old (and late) reticle-movement scopes with poor field blending, generally they were much better because they lacked the modern erector tube, which intentionally restricts the view available from the objective in order to make the reticle look constantly centred. That may be an oversimplification of the process. Possibly, modern scopes transmit most of the light coming in but bend the rays to make the system work. However, in order to give that nice sharp-edged picture with the reticle staying in the middle, a field stop is imposed (usually in the 'second focal plane') and this definitely contributes to the black ring we now expect. In the early days I think this often cut the field of view but good, modern scopes may have extra field lenses added to restore it somehow. In the end it pretty much comes down to what can be seen at a particular power within the width of the ocular lens and this, as Stonecreek points out, diminishes if the eye relief is made longer. As we have moved from standard calibres to magnums, hoping to reach increasingly wary game, makers have had to increase eye relief to save us from scope cuts. In the light of that, many have also increased the ocular diameter to maintain the FoV. This, plus the fat rubber eyepieces, which prevent cuts but add to the 'black ring', explain the immense size of many European scopes now (along with fat tubes and massive objectives sought by night shooters). Some of the old reticle-movement variables had nearly five-inch eye reliefs at their lowest powers but by the time they were wound up half a magnification they had shrunk to about three. Mounting the scope at the shorter distance meant you were too close at the lowest setting, giving a big black ring around your picture then, too. I am happy to say this is one place some modern scopes have improved markedly. | |||
|
one of us |
Stonecreek: Talking generally about Europe is like mixing together Canada, USA, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Panama etc. Yes, that is all "America". In my country, good beer in the pub is for 1.5 USD ;-) When talking about optics: We like to have things well made and well finished too. American stuff is generally well made, but the finishing is horrible (rifle stocks, surface finishing, machining marks - the very good finished american guns I handled was Freedom Arms 83 premier grade, Ed Brown 1911, not many more). What I think we like to have better quality stuff for more years, not to buy cheap and change it every year. Now, I am heading to optics - I have Zeiss Victory 3-12x56 with red dot and ballistic turret. It is (was) 2k+ USD price class. In that time one of the best and far away from any "USA brand" I have handled (include Leupold Mark 4 etc.). The same class as Schmidt und Bender. Swarovski Z6i was more expensive, 6x zoom, but not as light. I was never thinking about lower class of Zeiss or Swarovski etc. When searched what the f**k "duralit" is, I found it is cheap version for american market. It is just low to middle class scope with "Zeiss" name. So if you are talking about european scopes, you have to handle Schmidt und Bender, Zeiss Victory, Swarovski Z6i, Leica Magnus etc. And if you want to handle middle class, still far away from "american mainstream", handle Meopta Meostar. It is considered cheap rifle scope here by many. I have Bushnell 10X42 Fusion 1600 range finder. Of course not made in USA. Just to have cheap one rangefinder. It works great, but overall quality is not good. Image quality is acceptable until you have it next to Swarovski EL Swarovision. Projection of range information is readable, but not good made. Focusing of projection and left eye is always set off when taking from backpack. Does it work? Yes, definitely. Is it as good as Zeiss Victory Rangefinder? Hell now, it is like comparing hell to heaven. Jiri BTW Why there are Schmidt und Benders or Hendsoldt scopes on high end sniper rifles around the world? And yes, my newest toy is based on STI and other american parts (Dawson, Nowlin...), but put together and finished by German | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have a few of the Kahles Helia C scopes in 1.1-4x24 and 1.5-6x42, First Focal 7A reticles. I like these scopes very much and would have more IF they would have imported them again. Kahles disappeared from the USA market place for a time; then a Las Vegas (I believe) outfit took over the importation for a short time, then of all things Gamo took over, now the folks in Idaho have it. It seemed tactical type scopes were in and hunting type were out. I read, this may have been due to Swarovski not wanting competition for their hunting line. Prior to the importation issues, I had a 1.5-6x42 Victory with a (#4 reticle) which the Kahles compared Very favorably with (but several hundred dollars less than the Victory). This pretty much pushed me to the Zeiss Victory scopes. Of course, now it appears the 1st focal reticles of the Zeiss line in the 1.5-6 are being phased out for the HT 2nd focal line. I do have a couple of the 1.1-4x24 HT #54 reticles with the illuminated dot, which may become my favorite low powered scope. Though, I recently acquired a 1-6x24 MeoStar R2 with 4C illuminated reticle and this scope seems to be a high quality scope at a lower price point than the Zeiss. I am interested in the 1.7-10x42 R2 that is suppose to be marketed this year. From what I have recently seen, the price point difference between Kahles and Zeiss seems to have disappeared; with Kahles now being more in line with Schmidt & Bender prices. I do think Kahles produces excellent quality scopes. Apparently the market place discovered this also!
| |||
|
| One of Us |
Presumably S&B scopes are better now, somehow, than they used to be. Of the old reticle-movement ones I have, the paint job seems to be their greatest claim to fame. One has a jammed elevation knob and yellowy, distorted lenses. The other seems OK except its good, long, eye relief is matched with an excessively sloping bezel wheel on the eyepiece, which was obviously intended for a very short eye distance. The outcome is unnecessary interruption of the otherwise-good field blending by a surface inclined to reflect overhead sunshine into the shooter's eye. Thank God they do not have erector tubes | |||
|
| One of Us |
Dear Sambarman, would you pls finally come to 2014? I HATE reading that Sh!t about moving reticles ... The Kahles and Swaro scopes of today are NOT what you write ... they are MUCH better! When did you buy your last ( expensive, top notch ) scope? I do not say, that you do not know, what you talk about. But the ONLY scope to compare to European scopes today may be the Leupi VX 6 ... and they do not cover all the market with their options, and Swaro and Kahles are tough to beat in the FOV department. Go buy some really top notch scopes, put the Money down, else SHUT UP! H formerly, before software update, known as "aHunter", lost 1000 posts in a minute | |||
|
| One of Us |
Dear H, Sorry if I've upset you; are you in the trade? I have looked at a number of modern European scopes and am not that impressed. The only ones my sons and I own are a Kahles Helia C 1.1-4x24 and a US-assembled Conquest 1.8-5.5. Though the Kahles has a better eye relief than my old Helia Super 27 and it does not shorten as you turn the power up, it is less flexible and blanks out to an exit-pupil-size bead the moment you back off from the optimum distance. The merits of modern coatings, illumination etc are compromised in my eyes since the makers caved in to image-movement. They know it is rubbish - why else did they withstand the decadence for 30 years before throwing in the towel? The main reason for modern FFP versions, I suspect, is less about rangefinding with the reticle than a salute to the old design integrity and possibly even a hope that some old-timers would not realise what they'd done. I'm not averse to spending money on good new stuff. I nearly bought a Swarovski Z6 1-6 five years ago to put on a double rifle. I had not been that impressed by the Swaro's field blending but it was the dudes' choice and I now realise the four helical springs behind the erector tube probably make the best solution to its wild gyrations on a S/S double. I asked Heym if they could put the mounts on at the factory. Certainly, they said, but it would cost $2400 - $400 more than the scope itself - at which point I spat the dummy. Mounting is largely where the Europeans lost the reticle battle, I believe, with the whole arcane business of tight rails and soldered-on bases holding claw mounts so overpowered scopes could be reefed off for the coup de grace. Such arrangements demanded expensive gunsmithing where centring the reticle was part of the service. Had they developed user-friendly ring mounts with some provision for elevation as well as windage, they might not have been trumped by the American populist outlook. The marketing brilliance of image-movement, conversely, cut the gordian knot and offered scopes that made things look good even when they were not. The other modern Euro scope I do have grudging respect for is the Zeiss Victory Diavari 1.5-6. I love its ocular-sponsored field blending. This is largely to do with the thin rubber on the eyepiece, which not only cuts the dirty black ring you see on the Swaros, S&Bs, Kahles and Zeiss Duralyt, but gives a crumple zone analogous with the front end of a modern car, distinct to the boxing-glove treatment the other scopes offer. Let me illustrate this latter concept. I took my son to the range to try out his Remington 35 Whelen pump. He was having a great time shucking out the practice subloads I had for him but eventually they ran out and he loaded some 250-grain full-house stuff. They don't kick that much but I'd failed to warn him and, despite the Conquest's four-inch eye relief, it came back and the fat rubber hit him in the nose. I've been cut by scopes and annoyed at the blood but there was something a bit Floyd Patterson in the look on his face. So, Arminius, you're right. Not having as much money to throw around as you obviously do, my education in modern European scopes is a bit patchy. But since they have given away the high ground and are, like the American scopes, all 'up the duff', I can no longer see much point in going past Leupolds in the unlikely event of needing another new model. Meanwhile, wherever possible I'm removing image-movement scopes and replacing them with old German ones. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Dear Sambarman! No, I am not in the business, I am an enthusiastic amateur. My family has hunted since ... I don´t know. I still have my grandfather´s Ferlacher. With fixed Kahles 6 x 42, WITHOUT lateral adjustment, it´s adjusted by a "Support", meaning bending the scope mechanically with a base lenght of some 12 cm´s ... scope mounted ridiculously high and WAYY back, of course ... with a tiny hole in the rings, to use the iron sights ... which are, of course, carefully adjusted. IMO there were first fixed power scopes. Where it doesn´t matter, where the reticle is. The reticle was of course first NOT centered, leaving it to gunsmith´s, to find a solution. I still have a STEEL 8 x 56 Kahles, which I did let refurbish just before the 30 years warranty ran out. It´s a Beauty, ist HEAVVYYY, and the reticle is not centered. As much as a gunsmith tries, you´ll SEE, that the reticle is never (?) fully centered. Not good. I have it on my CZ 550 Stutzen in 9.3 x 62, as second scope to a dedicated driven hunts scope ( DDOptics 1 - 6 x 24 w illu ). For woods, and especially hunting in the dark it´s quite well, but the reticle is NEVER as good as an illuminated one, but more to that later ) When variable magnifications came, European´s ( American´s, too? Wasn´t Ubertl and perhaps even Leupold an European? ) placed the reticle in the front focal plane. That had two advantages: 1) as the reticle was always the same size, as the game ( target ) you could use the reticle for distance estimations. Works, if you know your game. I was raised such as a Hunter. 2) you didn´t need to make the mechanics of the magnification adjustment as exact, because it doesn´t matter: game and reticle are in the same optical plane, so they are scaled up and down TOGETHER! To be continued ... formerly, before software update, known as "aHunter", lost 1000 posts in a minute | |||
|
| One of Us |
now, when the Europeans stuck to their FFP reticles, Americans "invented", anyway, "used first" the second focal plane for the reticle. Advantage: if the magnification is raised, the reticle´s size ( and THICKNESS! ) stay the same, the game is more magnified, so you can put your retice more exact, or it´s easier, to make the correct, fit´s all, size. Disadvantage: as the reticle is in the second focal plane, and the game´s picture in the first, you MUST eliminate any and all play in the magnification mechanism ... it HAS to move absolutely concentric, else reticle place on game will shift ... THAT was the reason, the Europeans avoided SFP scopes ... until the market urged them to make them! So, pls do away with your "Image movement"! There is NO fixed Image inside the tube! IF you are from the business, you should know, that the image inside the tube is INVERTED in the middle of the scope ... and that inverted, "projected" image is "seen" ( or "looked at" ) from or through the back lens system ... there is NOTHING fixed! The image is always a picture free floating in the middle of the scope! Pls use the correct description: is the reticle FFP or SFP? Is the reticle centered or not ( I assume, that´s what you are talking about ) to be continued ... formerly, before software update, known as "aHunter", lost 1000 posts in a minute | |||
|
| One of Us |
So now to the advantages and disadvantages: APART from the necessary exactness, and MAYBE ( but manufacturers have learnt a LOT in the last 90 years, if we take 1930, after the World economic crises ( "Black Friday ") as the starting point of more scope usage in Europe ) more "robustness", the SECOND focal plane scope have all the advantages! Except distance estimation and that´s moot in the time of laser range finders for cheap money! You can use a FINE reticle, it will relatively be thicker in low magnification, and you´ll be able to shoot well on great distance. NOT possible w FFP! And there come´s the illumination into the play: with the illumination you can still better your choices! Use the finest possible reticle, and use a VERY low illu in the dark, and you´ll be spot on. Use that same VERY thin reticle on a driven hunt, in glaring snow, at pigs at full speed at 20 m ... and have the dot bright enough to concentrate just at the dot and the game ... and be happy! What you, Sambarman recommend, is just outdated Technology, "The adorment of the ashes, not the keeping up of the fire" ... ( sorry, phrase is originally in German ) I should write another post about FOV, but I feel somewhat "empty" right now ... P.S.: somewhere in the last months somebody told me: "you do not need more than 5 x for Big Game" ... pls read aroud at recent postings, where 9 x / 10 x is really recommended ... which is just, what I wrote: 6 x with a "thicker" reticle, of the "Europaen kind", for being able to see it at dawn, is JUST AT THE LIMIT at 326 m at Chamois in the clouds ... BTDT! MORE than 10 x is for Target shooting and Varmints ... formerly, before software update, known as "aHunter", lost 1000 posts in a minute | |||
|
| One of Us |
Special post, regarding the useage of old scopes: Glass is a LIQUID! With time it will slightly deform ... that´s not helping a clear picture! Nowadays coatings are 1000% better than earlier. At the least. ALL elder scopes are used, the coatings more or less rubbed off. Is there really ANYBODY, who thinks that wire reticles are more reliable, more durable, that modern etched Glass ones????? I´ve personally seen them torn apart, "blossowing" from corrosion ... ) I rest my case regarding old scopes ... I´ll write about FOV of European Scopes vs all else, except the Leupi VX 6, perhaps, but IIRC I did that at those nice Froum pages already ... recently Hermann formerly, before software update, known as "aHunter", lost 1000 posts in a minute | |||
|
| One of Us |
Well Hermann, I'm afraid language seems to prevent me from grasping exactly what you're on to in some places, but I accept you have a long experience of both kinds of scope. Getting reticles centred in the old type is always relative but I can live with it as long the problem is not noticeable. And if some long-range sniper had to wind the knob instead of holding over, at least with the reticle out of centre he would remember to take it back. With modern scopes fitted at home, a lot of guys have scopes so badly mounted that misses because of an alternative parallax are an established possibility. I do understand the difference between FFP and SFP. All the old reticle-movement German scopes I know of were FFP, as were the American ones and B&L Custom scopes. However, it seems Unertl target scopes without internal adjustments had theirs in the SFP. Not sure what you mean by: So, pls do away with your "Image movement"! There is NO fixed Image inside the tube! 'Image movement' was the common term for 'constantly centred reticles' because it is achieved by moving the picture of the target behind the reticle, instead of the reticle across the target. The thing you do not mention is how the modern system is achieved, which is my main bugbear, after loss of field blending. It is done by turning the erector set into an articulated baby scope within the scope, which is subject to serious inertia under heavy recoil, especially in high-multiple variables. You are quite right about the damage recoil can do to metal reticles - but it is nothing compared with what inertia can do to an erector tube that weighs at least 10 times as much. I see no reason why any scope type could not have etched-glass reticles and think they are a good idea, despite adding another two glass-air surfaces to cut light transmission. Prosit - Paul | |||
|
| One of Us |
Sambarman, pls try to get a section view of that "inner scope" vs the old ones. And I am not sure: todays scopes are LIGHTER ( no doubt partially because of using Alu instead of Steel, and cost cutting by "Finite Element Analysis" (?) ) than those of yesterday. Anyway: Whoever does NOT stick to one kind of ammo, same brand, same weight and type of bullet, will NOT be happy, with not centered reticles. And maybe there´s ( centered reticles ) the reason for more 30 mm tube scopes, with which I personally am totally happy. Hermann formerly, before software update, known as "aHunter", lost 1000 posts in a minute | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have looked at plenty of drawings of old and new scopes, Arminius, including those from the early image-movement patents. The old reticle-movement ones had erector sets fixed to the outer tubes, the modern IM ones in a smaller tube that is moved by the zero-adjustment screws. The overall weight may not increase but the mass of the assembly subject to being shunted around under recoil definitely has. The diameter of German scopes was increasing even before they changed to image-movement and this may have been to add strength when dural tubes were used. Strengthening the tube was also an advantage of putting rails underneath. Some old Nickel, Zeiss/Hensoldt and Swaro alloy tubes were about 27mm and S&B took it to 28/9mm. When mounting with a rail, the specific diameter hardly mattered. Since mild steel is about three times as dense as aluminium, there was some sense in increasing diameter to resist bending and denting. However, 30 and 34mm tubes, I believe, probably are to make more room for the erector tube, esp. where extreme adjustment ranges are wanted. Though rifles vary in the effect on impact of different bullet weights, I have never noticed any annoying problem, even at the highest powers. I realise that shooters with Tourette Syndrome would probably notice what I don't, and let go a few expletives The 30mm tube on my son's Kahles 1.1-4 does have the advantage of giving a 24mm objective without need of a bell but, generally, I think they are the thin edge of the wedge. When setting up my Tikka 270WSM I looked at a 30mm Meopta 3-12x56. People in the shop thought it would be a great joke to have a scope with a rifle attached. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia