Does anyone besides me think that S&B's almost exclusive use of 34mm main tubes on its current scopes is a bad idea?

I love the features, but hate the 34mm tube. I don't need the Hubble telescope on my rifle.

I can live with 30mm tubes, and have a lot of them. And even more one inch tubes. But 34mm makes for a clunker of a huge and heavy scope, IMHO.

This is on a tiny Contender frame. I don't have a problem with the 34mm tube. To each his own, I suppose...

The scope is very purpose-specific for me: I wanted the best low-light/moonlight scope for hogs, and after testing just about everything out there, the Polar is the best of the best. It's far from perfect, but it does what I need it to -- and does so better than the competition. Plus, it fits neatly in medium rings (none of my 54 or 56mm scopes use high rings).

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
Does anyone besides me think that S&B's almost exclusive use of 34mm main tubes on its current scopes is a bad idea?

Also, S&B still offers LOTS of 30mm scopes and a few 1" models as well. Their use of 34mm tubes is anything but exclusive.

Anything with the top end features is 34mm.

And on that Contender, the scope dwarfs the rifle, IMHO. I'm glad you like it, but it looks wildly disproportionate to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
And on that Contender, the scope dwarfs the rifle, IMHO. I'm glad you like it, but it looks wildly disproportionate to me.

Looks don't matter to me as much as performance. I could put a 1.75-6x Leupy on it and go for a streamlined effect, but then I'd have to forego 95 percent of my already-rare shot opportunities.

There's not a smaller scope made that can equal the performance of the Polar. Been there. Done that. And sold most of the others here on the classifieds.

I’m looking at March scopes as a 30mm alternative to S&B.

I love S&B scopes, BTW, and own several. But NOT this new generation of subway tunnels.

March and Nightforce scopes still offer their top end scopes in 30mm. US Optics has gone the same route as S&B, i.e., the 34mm route.

Nightforce glass does not seem to make the grade. At least not by most measures I have seen.

March scopes seem to me to be as good as S&B, plus they are much smaller in all dimensions and lighter, and to boot they are comparable or even lower in cost.

I’d buy an S&B if they matched March in those respects. But they don’t. Hence my sense that S&B have missed the boat.

At least for right thinking people like me.

Lots of manufacturers have been guilty of missing the boat. For years, Zeiss was the front-runner in low-light optics and had a wonderful -- almost perfectly-proportioned -- #4 reticle to complement that excellent glass. But then they discontinued the #4 and elected to push thinner and illuminated reticles.

Why not keep the #4 for the traditionalists or add a small center dot to it for the dyed-in-the-wool night hunters? What happens if the electronics fail? A #4 would likely still allow you to make the shot...a #60 not so much. Even Zeiss staff members were floored by the decision, and one of the techs told me the #4 sold quite well.

Meopta is another example. Their R1 56mm scopes were a hit among low-light hunters, though the illuminated dot in the 4c was a little too bright at its lowest setting when the moonlight was diffused. It was enough to adversely affect your vision and result in the target being harder to see -- almost obscured by a ring of darkness, if you will. So when they announced that the R2 series would feature even better glass and would have an extra illumination setting, I was thrilled -- until, that is, I found out they added an extra BRIGHTER setting for daylight usage. Who needs a 56mm scope for high-noon? It's counter-productive in my opinion. And yet they advertise it as a low-light specialist...

I'm no longer mobile, so the added wight or the added bulk of these 34mm scopes does not bother me at all. My rifles seldom get 40 yards beyond the house anyway. More streamlined would be nice, and I can certainly see how some would prefer it. But for me, it's all about performance and the ability to make a shot on that midnight coyote or hog. Only a handful of scopes meet my criteria, and none of them are small. None are perfect, either.

You're starting to speak my language, Bobby. They can't come and take any 34mm scopes from my place.

Has any maker ever explained exactly why such fat tubes are needed? I know that even in the Golden Age Zeiss, Nickel and others used 30mm tubes on variable alloy scopes - but at least the ocular and objective housings were kept within reason.

I remember looking for a biggish variable to put on my Tikka 270 WSM years ago and nearly fell over when the dude showed me a Meopta, which might only have been 3-12x. I'd hate to have seen the big ones.

I think 30mm scopes are too big!

Though I have two Diavaris for my Mauser M03 and they sure are nice and not out of balance with the rifle.

The S&B PMll 4X16X42 is an excellent scope for trim top performers. Yes it is a 34mm tube

The 34mm scope tube diameter and even some 36mm has been introduced by manufacturers because of the the demand by long range shooters for increased adjustment in the elevation turret, the larger the tube the more adjustment can be incorporated.

quote:

Originally posted by mackey:
The 34mm scope tube diameter and even some 36mm has been introduced by manufacturers because of the the demand by long range shooters for increased adjustment in the elevation turret, the larger the tube the more adjustment can be incorporated.

Correct. I believe the Bushnell tactical Elite scopes are 34mm tubes. I have no problem with 34mm tube scopes.

quote:

Originally posted by mackey:
The 34mm scope tube diameter and even some 36mm has been introduced by manufacturers because of the the demand by long range shooters for increased adjustment in the elevation turret, the larger the tube the more adjustment can be incorporated.

I've heard that but but think using so much adjustment is a seductive error - funny things happen at the edge of the clicks, esp. when the erector tube has to scrape around the windage screw under recoil.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by mackey:
The 34mm scope tube diameter and even some 36mm has been introduced by manufacturers because of the the demand by long range shooters for increased adjustment in the elevation turret, the larger the tube the more adjustment can be incorporated.

Correct. I believe the Bushnell tactic ke Elite scopes are 34mm tubes. I have no problem with 34mm tube scopes.

March scopes with 30mm main tubes provide 100 MOA of elevation and windage both.

100 MOA. I don't need more.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:


...March scopes with 30mm main tubes provide 100 MOA of elevation and windage both.

100 MOA. I don't need more.

Wow, that would take you into June, if not July

Good for a mile or so, in any case.

The only scopes I think are huge are the 40mm IOR scopes.

But honestly it is probably the best long range optic on the planet.

Sightron has a new line of 34mm scopes with 60mm objectives. Those are kind of big as well.

But I don't put scopes like that on something like a Remington M7 or a Kimber 84.

I"m fortunate in that I get to hunt and shoot a lot....a whole lot. Varmints at night, hogs, some aoudad culling, and other big game in season. I've found I have no use for anything above 30mm tubes or 50mm objectives. I do find an illuminated reticle of great help at night if, as Bobby T says, the red dot is not too bright.

Whatever works for a person and gives them confidence is what they should use...no doubt about that. For me, especially on a night like tonight when there's about a half-moon, that significantly limits the choices considering my ranges for a potential shot are generally 155-175 yards.

For that, the S&B Polars -- 34mm tubes and all -- are tops. As good as the Zeiss Victory HT is, the Polar is better for pure low-light performance. I recently found a steal of a deal on a 2nd Polar and parted with the 3-12x56 HT -- a scope I liked a LOT -- to finance it. I don't regret the decision.