Is there any optical advantage of the larger 30mm scope tube over a scope with a 1 in tube? Is the 30mm tube just a European thing?

The stuff I have read says that you can get more light going through a 30mm tube than a 1" tube. But if that 30mm tube has a 40mm objective than you will only see what light the objective lets in, so a 50mm objective on a 30mm tube will let in more light. If you put a 50mm objective on a 1" tube, that tube can only transfer so much light. A 40MM objectives allow you to mount the scope lower on the gun than a 50mm. I probably said that wrong but I hope you get the idea.

The tube size has no bearing on lens quality. I have looked at a pile of scope and you can tell a big difference between the low, middle and high end glass. I have a Leupold 4.5x14x50 with a 30mm tube on my 308 f class gun. I need the extra elivation of the 30mm to shoot 1k yds. A friend of mine just got a USO for his rifle, it is better glass than mt Leupold but it also cost another $1500.00.

My 300 win mag hunting rifle has a Bushnell 4200 2.5x10x40 and it is just as clear and bright as my Leupold and at half the cost. I have no idea how well it tracks because once it was sighted in it has not been touched. The Leupold has 1/4 moa clicks and they are very accurate, but that is why I spent the money on it.

With glass, I think you really do get what you pay for.

its a highly debatable subject.

but i just go along with the theory that they look brighter because its easier to 'iron out faults' with a bigger lense, so the light doesnt get so distorted as it goes through the scope.

thats a fairly basic explanation.

There is no optical advantage with a 30mm tube vs a 1" tube. Typically most 30mm tubes have 1" internal lenses any ways. The only true advantage is the 30mm tube allows for the more windage and elevation.

I'm not so sure that "Most" 30mm tube scopes use 1" internals. I know that a few of the Leupolds do but I seriously doubt that the higher end Swaro/S&B/Nightforce/Zeiss scopes do.
There is a slight technical advantage in the larger lenses in that it's easier to make a larger lens produce a given resolution level than it is a smaller lens.
But I think that the biggest difference between 1" and 30mm tubes is that the 30mm tubes are generally the higher end of most scopes lines and will have the best quality glass and coatings a given manufacturer offers - Leupold doesn't make the "Rifleman" series in 30mm tubes for example.
I can notice a difference between the 1" and 30mm scopes in a couple different lines in which I've had both, I'm pretty sure it's just because they use their best glass in the 30mm's.
The biggest question for an individual to answer is whether or not the relatively small increase in optical quality you can find in 30mm scopes is worth the relatively large increase in price.........................DJ

Even if there is no optical advantage between the two, there is still the advantage that the 30mm tube is much stronger than the 1" tube. This may be important if the rifle is going to see some rough treatment or the scope is long and is out past the forward ring mount a fair piece. This is a fact few people weigh when they are comparing scopes for durability/toughness. Perhaps that is why the 30mm tube versions are labeled the PH series???

quote:

Originally posted by Jon Jackoviak:
There is no optical advantage with a 30mm tube vs a 1" tube. Typically most 30mm tubes have 1" internal lenses any ways. The only true advantage is the 30mm tube allows for the more windage and elevation.

THANK YOU, JON! This myth is harder to kill than the "bloody hook in the car door handle" urban legend. Poor Craig Boddington even fell victim to repeating it in the latest issue of Guns and Ammo. You'd think his editor would be savvy enough to catch and delete that one, but the editor must be a victim of the urban legend himself. Hmmm... magazine needs a new editor.

Woodrow S makes another good point, 30mm tubes are stronger. Another small but Non-Mythical advantage to 30mm tubes.

A Myth about 30mm tube scopes that does need to be repelled is that they are all heavy, some are indeed but other 30mm scopes aren't. A Swaro 2.5-10x42 PH is actually LIGHTER than several different models of 1" 2.5-10x40 scopes such as Bushnell 4200's and some of the Burris's...............................DJ

I guess as long as we are dispelling myths we might as well dispell the myth that 30mm tube scopes always have more adjustment range.

http://www.swarovskioptik.com/index.php?c=produkte&l=en...0b8548.35919267&css=

http://www.zeiss.com/c1256bcf0020be5f/Contents-Frame/ec...6f1e852571d700377d7e

http://www.zeiss.com/C1256BCF0020BE5F/Contents-Frame/BE...9A0485256D130076A364

If you will check on these links direct from the manufactures you'll see that a 1" Swaro 3-10x42 has 4.2ft of ajustment range at 100yds wheres the 2.5-10x42 30mm scope has only 3.2ft, the 1" 3-9x36 Swaro has even more.
The 1" Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 has 64" of adjustment range compared to the 30mm 2.5-10x42 T* has only 3.7ft.
This discrepancy is probably due to the fact that Swaro and Zeiss use 30mm internal optics in their 30mm scopes...............................DJ

Given equal alloys and wall thicknesses, a 30mm tube has to be stronger, at least in terms of bend resistance, than a 1" (25.4mm) tube. However, if a 30mm tube is made as light as a 1" tube then the walls must be thinner, meaning more suceptible to dents and crushing. Dents and crushing being the more prevalent type of tube damage, I'm not sure that there's any real "strength" advantage to the larger diameter tube. However, I will hasten to add that tube damage is a relatively rare thing in a scope and when it happens it is usually a result of trauma that would be "fatal" to any diameter tube. Most any tube, whether 7/8", 25.4mm (1"), 26mm, 30mm, or 34mm, is sufficient, both optically and physically, as the tube diameter of an optical gun sight. If weight and compactness are desirable, then the smaller diameters are preferable. If not, then the larger ones offer no disadvantage.

Jon and Stonecreek have made valid points and brought to light some of the misconceptions regarding the endless 1" vs. 30mm debate.

One thing, trivial as it may be, is that the 1" tubes have the advantage of a much broader assortment of rings/mounting systems -- at least here in the USA.


So, no discernible optical advantage and not necessarily a more generous adjustment range -- mythical "features" proponents seem to hark most -- with the 30mm tubes makes it a simple choice for me: a standard 1" tube.

And make mine a Nikon Monarch, please...

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
So, no discernible optical advantage and not necessarily a more generous adjustment range -- mythical "features" proponents seem to hark most -- with the 30mm tubes makes it a simple choice for me: a standard 1" tube.

And make mine a Nikon Monarch, please...

Actually there is an easily discernable optical advantage to the 30mm tubes scopes over their 1" brethren within the same line. Take a look though both in low light side by side and you'll see the difference. Don't say that there's not a difference until you've actually looked though both and carefully compared them, there is a difference if you'll just take the time to look...............................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
How about a Nightforce scope with an AK-47 bullet hole completely through the tube and it still functioned perfectly.The holes were taped over and the soldier used the scope for 3 more days.... I looked through this scope at the 06 shot show in Vegas...........

Ok, did this scope survive cause of its 30mmtube and/or its extra tube wall thickness? (typical of NF scope construction)
Id say a bit of both.

djpaintles wrote: "Don't say that there's not a difference until you've actually looked though both and carefully compared them, there is a difference if you'll just take the time to look"


Yes, there is, and most seem to be able to distinguish it under good lighting conditions -- at the cash register.

Sorry...I just had to inject a bit of humor in this oft-debated topic.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:

Yes, there is, and most seem to abe able to distinguish it under good lighting conditions -- at the cash register.

I liked it....

That's really the biggest question of all. There is a small difference in performance between the two but there's BIG difference in price. You have to pay a lot more to get a little better, for some it's worth it - others not.
I think it's a good arguement whether it's worth the comparatively large extra cost or not. I don't think it's a good arguement that there's not a difference in performance...............DJ

quote:

Poor Craig Boddington even fell victim to repeating it in the latest issue of Guns and Ammo. You'd think his editor would be savvy enough to catch and delete that one, but the editor must be a victim of the urban legend himself.

In that same article, Boddington claims scopes "gather" light. Makes you wonder just how much the guy really knows. Even Leupold, master of marketing hyperbole and bunk, in some recent advertising tried to debunk that myth.

LWD

IMO (we've all got one and they all stink) the 30mm scopes have been better at clarity and brightness because the scope manufacturers who use the best glass mostly made 30mm tubes (Zeiss, Swaro, S & B, Kahles). Now those manufacturers are using their good glass in 1" tubes and the differences are disappearing.

For instance I have a Kahles Multi Zero with a 1" tube that is as good as my Zeiss 30mm VM/V T* but that Kahles costs about as much.

Buy the good glass, 1" or 30mm is not as important.

I have both and have compared them side by side.

Most of the advantages or disadvantages you hear are all bunk. Neither is any better than the other.

The myths that seem to be the most popular:

"That 30mm sucks in more light."

"This 30mm tube is much stronger than that little 1" tube"

"My big 30mm tube has more adjustment than a little ole' 1 inch tube."

I know guys that believe this nonsense and buy the "bigger and better" 30mm scopes.

Reloader

I was at the range today with both. It was relatively easy to notice the difference, at least in Swarovski's. Maybe in Leupy's or other brands it isn't............................DJ

Brightness has more to do with the quality of glass, to what level it is polished, and the coating process that is followed. I would think that the major advance in the last decade or so was in the field of coatings to improve our vision and the Europeans are still the leaders, as they have to make scopes for their market that requires clearer vision in dim light. I underdstand that the coating part of scope manufaturing is also the most expensive and that is why the cheaper scopes making savings in this regard to service the bottom end of the market. I am very impressed with my 1-inch Kahles scope (3-9x42 mm)- cheaper than the Swaro's for essentially the same quality.


Warrior

Sounds like everyone is coming into general agreement on this topic. While some manufacturers may put better glass/workmanship/design into their 30mm tube scopes, there is nothing about the size of the tube that makes the scope optically superior. A larger tube certainly doesn't "gather" more light, nor is it capable of "transmitting" more light as if you were talking about water through pipe. It is not stronger in any way that is particularly useful, nor is it always used to advantage to increase internal adjustment. What it is is 4.6mm larger in diameter than a 1" scope tube, which keeps it still in the range of a practical size for use as an optical gun sight, particularly if size and weight are not critical factors.

As for me, I'd love to see a manufacturer offer a line of high quality super lightweights on 7/8 inch tubes, much like the late, great Lyman Alaskans (and their Leupold made reproductions.) The only problem with them was they had steel tubes, which largely negated the weight advantage of their smaller frames. I think such scopes would be the cat's meow for very light sporters, walking varminters, and high quality rimfires.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Sounds like everyone is coming into general agreement on this topic.............

Well, not quite.

It's easier to manufacturer larger lenses to a given resolution - inherant advantage to 30mm.

30mm tubes are stronger in a meaningful way - See scope that still worked with bullet hole in it.

Some 30mm tube scopes are actually LIGHTER than 1" scopes of the same magnification. - not always a 1" advantage.

I do agree that a lot depends on the particulars of each scope and who made it........................DJ

Yeah, the only "myth" I see being perpetuated here is that you can change the diameter of a bunch of lenses in the middle of an optical system and it will make absolutely no difference. Zilch. Nada. None at all. It's so simple. The size of those lenses is selected at random anyway. I'm glad there's a "consensus," too bad it has no Optical Engineers among it.

Quality of the glass and coatings is but one aspect of the overall design. My 35mm IOR is optically superior in virtually every way over the 30mm versions. That's not some opinion I read on the internet, that's what I plainly see with my own eyes. The simple fact is the guts of that scope would not fit in a 30mm tube, much less a 1" tube. If Stonecreek Optics Inc, can really design a high powered scope with a large zoom ratio in a 7/8" tube that'll look better than looking through my kid's fishbowl, I want to buy stock now!

As for tube strength not being "meaningful," it sure would have meant something back when I bent the tube on my trusty Bushnell, moving the POI off the paper at 100 yds. It sure would have meant something for the others I've seen fail less spectacularly, usually after long horseback hunts. Pressure on the bell from the scabbard the likely culprit. That's not even getting into recoil yet.

This is obviously less important for short, low powered, small objective, small ocular scopes. But "get one of those" does not negate the importance of tube strength for larger scopes. Increasing the amount of flex in the tube, letting it bend this way and that more will not have its seals or optical alignment thanking you. If one skinny little leaf spring, about all you'll fit in a 1" tube, was the be all end all for adjustment repeatability the BR and Tactical world (where this is really put to the test) would look quite different.

So when a scope goes foggy on you, goes blurry on you, has the reticle not go where it's supposed to go, etc, be happy to know it can in no way be related to the tube that holds all that stuff together. Just like the diameter of a bunch of lenses can in no way influence the picture through them.

It is very simple that the objective is the ONLY light gathering lense in the system... If you use the same quality of glass and coatings with the same number of lense surfaces there will be no difference between a 1 inch or 30mm system based on the same size of objective lense....

Ken....

quote:

Originally posted by Heat:
It is very simple

No, really, it is not simple. There's nothing simple about it. You guys really ought to glance through some optical design text some time. It's just a bit more complicated than "good glass, coatings=you're golden!"

quote:

Originally posted by Jon A: My 35mm IOR is optically superior in virtually every way over the 30mm versions.

Now I know who those "You can enjoy a larger penis" ads are marketing to.

Heh, the marketing got me. That’s hilarious! Coming from a Leupold guy, no less!

Yup, you’re right. The marketing got me. I just couldn’t hold out anymore. All these years of every gun magazine on the shelves being packed full with IOR ads. All those shiny pictures of IOR scopes. All those articles written about them. All those free hunts the gunwriters go on, using the graciously supplied IOR scopes. I just wanted to be just like them. Yup, that’s what happened alright.

No, IOR doesn’t even list this scope on their own website yet, much less have they actively marketed it. Nor will it ever need to. No, I and the many others with similar tastes have come to desire the features we want from a scope through actual experience. Actually using scopes that don’t have them and wishing they did.

Your point wouldn’t be completely moot if you could point me to a 1†scope that could do everything this one could. You can’t. No such scope exists. No “myth†about that. Pretty tough even finding a 30mm—USO could build a SN3 on a 30mm tube that would be pretty close, that’s about as close as you could get. Other than that you’d need to go to S&B and the tube size would jump to 34mm. The fact both of those would be twice as expensive or more is why this scope needs no “marketing†at all.

Anyway, enjoy your 1†tubes. There’s nothing wrong with them, even I still own one. There are some very nice 1†scopes out there. But that doesn’t mean they’re the be-all end-all in every way as you make them out ot be. There are some very good reasons some scopes don’t use them.

Stonecreek,

As Larry would say, "That right there is funny, I don't care who you are."

quote:

Originally posted by Jon A:

quote:

Originally posted by Heat:
It is very simple

No, really, it is not simple. There's nothing simple about it. You guys really ought to glance through some optical design text some time. It's just a bit more complicated than "good glass, coatings=you're golden!"

Perhaps you didn't notice the point of the post... The objective lense is the only lense that GATHERS light... The other lenses in the scope transmit the light to the next surface...

One of my hobbies is astronomy... I do understand the concepts of optics.... I was simply making the point that only one lense gathers the light... It certainly depends on how many other lenses are in the system as to how much light you might be losing per surface... From there the clarity depends on the purity of the glass and the quality of the grind... The amount of light transmitted per lense surface will have to do with all of the above plus the coatings...

No, the whole thing is not simple but the fact that only one lense gathers light is...

Ken....

Heat,

You're arguing with a stump. It's clear that Jon A is eaten up with the "bigger is better" school of thought (or lack thereof).

His 35mm-tubed scope is probably sitting on his .50 BMG coyote rifle. And nothing less that a 1-ton Dually pickup will suffice to haul a sack of groceries and a six-pack home from the 7-eleven.

quote:

And nothing less that a 1-ton Dually pickup will suffice to haul a sack of groceries and a six-pack home from the 7-eleven.

I hear ya, I only use a 3/4 ton for the groceries and beer

Ken....

quote:

Originally posted by Heat:
Perhaps you didn't notice the point of the post... The objective lense is the only lense that GATHERS light...

Perhaps you didn't notice that light TRANSMISSION is not the only important measure of optical performance. I didn't say it was any brighter.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
You're arguing with a stump. It's clear that Jon A is eaten up with the "bigger is better" school of thought (or lack thereof).

And it's clear you're speaking about things with which you have zero experience.

Tell me, how much actual experience do you have with any of the scopes I've mentioned? Yeah, I thought so.

Tell me, how much actual experience do you have shooting beyond 500 yds? Yeah, I thought so.

Tell me, how much actual experience do you have shooting beyond 1000 yds? Yeah, I thought so.

Silly me, what was I thinking believing all my real hands on experience? I guess I need to stop going out and actually DOING these things. Apparently I can learn more from behind a keyboard, like you have.

Stonecreek, Tell me if I'm wrong but I think that you are the one stuck in a rut by only considering 1" scopes.

I feel that you should match the scope to the rifle and it's purpose. I think a Leupy 2.5-8 would look just as out of place on my TRG-42 in 338 Lapua as a Nightforce 8-32x56 would look out of place on a Kimber 84M.

I like to try to balance the scope to the rifle. To do this you need to accept the truth about scopes without preconceptions. Most of the optically best scopes available for hunting rifles are currently 30mm. 1" scopes are usually have the best price/performance ratio and are usually lighter than the equivelant 30mm tube scope but not always.

Where you guys are going wrong is in trying to ridicule people who are using the best tool for a certain job because it doesn't fit into your personal preferences. A 1 ton dually might not be the best vehicle to go to the store for a sack of groceries but it is what you want to pull your 30ft trailer. An econobox car may be "better" to go to the store with but it won't pull the trailer will it. The big truck will do both.

I don't own a 1 ton dually but I do own several each of both 1" and 30mm tube scopes. Try both and maybe you'll have a more accurate and realistic appraisel of the advantages and disadvantages both offer.

For examples:








All of these rifles are Sako M-75's. The ones are top are a 300 Ultra and a 338 Win Mag that I would use in LR hunting situations or perhaps when I wasn't going to be walking as much. The optical superiority of the 30mm tubes is worth the extra bulk and weight in such cases (I've shot Elk with both of these rifles).

The bottom 2 rifles are Finnlites that are much lighter weight. I use these in situations where I would be walking more or maybe on a stand where the short barrel of the 270 Winchester would make it handier(I've shot hogs and deer with these 2 rifles). On these I went with the lighter handier 1" scopes. They still are good optically but just not quite as good as the larger 30mm scopes even though they are the same brand.................................DJ

Its funny, everyone has their reasons for scope A is better than scope B. Those that say one is better than other usually has one of two excuses. 1) I have owned A and B and only shoot with A and 2) I looked through both at the store. Few studies have actually been done to quantify the differences. Not having those studies handy, I would be a hypocrite to compare scope A vs B, but most have shown a marked difference between 1" scopes and 30 mm scopes in the areas of resolution, contrast, and low light performance.

John

quote:

Most of the optically best scopes available for hunting rifles are currently 30mm.

That is mere opinion. Even though there are several great 30mm scopes out, there are also great scopes available in 1" as well.

My opinion:

I deal with all types of scopes while doing custom loading for folks that don't care how much the scope cost, they want the best. In higher quality scopes, there's no difference to my eyes in the quality between 30mm vs 1" They are equally good quality optics and you simply can not tell a difference when comparing them side by side. If you do, your letting preconcieved notions govern your observation IMO. You can however tell small differences between brands such as a Swarovski is better than a Leupold LPS by a very itty bitty teenie tiny amount. All of the other German scopes I compare are too close to call wheter they be 30mm or 1".

I only have 20/20 vision so some of you may not value my opinion or experience with different scopes. That said, I like to test them by checking for bullet holes at 200+ yards in white or red paper. I also like to glass brush tops off in the distance, good glass will allow you to see the twigs and leaves and not just a pile of brush. Looking at birds on the range at a distance will also show the clarity or crispness if you will of the glass.

Marketing has a good many folks fooled.

If it makes any of you feel better thinking your 30mm scopes are superior to all 1" scopes, go right ahead and think it. That's all part of the fun, just like many feel they're going to kill game better with a 300 Winnie than others will with a 300 WSM. It's all splitting hairs.

Good Luck

Reloader

quote:

I feel that you should match the scope to the rifle and it's purpose. I think a Leupy 2.5-8 would look just as out of place on my TRG-42 in 338 Lapua as a Nightforce 8-32x56 would look out of place on a Kimber 84M.

DJ,

I certainly agree. I guess where we may differ is in the need for the larger scopes on a hunting (game) rifle. Shooting at game beyond some (or another) yardage gets into the realm of trick rather than sport. There is essentially no advantage to a scope which is only incrementally better than a 3-9x 1" variable of reasonable quality when shooting at game that is closer than the "trick" distance. If you want 4% more light transmission and a 1.4% brighter picture, combined with 2% greater resolution (all at the expense of some greater weight and bulk, mounting higher off of the bore -- and, more importantly, the stock comb --, and much greater financial cost, then it is your choice to use such a scope. To me, portability, compactness, simplicity, and reliability are qualities that outweigh any incremental optical advantages of a larger scope. Clearly, others feel differently.

By the way, what's the "electrical tape" just short of the muzzles for?

quote:

Tell me, how much actual experience do you have shooting beyond 500 yds? Yeah, I thought so.

Tell me, how much actual experience do you have shooting beyond 1000 yds? Yeah, I thought so.

Well, Jon, some, but never at a big game animal. I have some farms in West Texas where we have, on occasion, set up an appliance box at a measured 1000 yards just out of curiosity as to how conventional rifles can perform at that distance. Nobody in my group has ever had an trouble seeing a 10" bull pasted on an appliance box at 1000 yards through a 1" tube, but maybe we all have exceptional eyes.

I have no problem with your fantasies of knocking "commies", "gooks", or "ragheads" from their perches at 1500 meters with your .50 BMG sniper rifle (my fantasies largely involve attractive female celebrities and are just as far fetched as yours). However, your fantasies simply aren't applicable to sport hunting, and I interpret it that it is sporting usage that the original question was posed about. And in regard to sport hunting applications, there are no optical or physical advantages (within reasonable limits) to one of the commonly used tube sizes as opposed to another. Could a 1" tube be effectively used for an astronomical telescope at the Mount Palomar observatory? No, just as a Mount Palomar telescope would be equally useless as an optical gun sight.

I certainly should have noted in my earlier posts that I don't prefer one over the other... I agree with fitting the scope to the intended purpose of the rifle in question...

If the scope I was looking at for a particular rifle happened to be a 30mm then so be it... If it were a 1 inch then so be it... On the other hand if it came in both a 1 inch and a 30mm then I would have more thinking to do...

Generally I like a smaller objective (40 - 44 mm) anyway so chances are one with a 30mm tube it would also be heavier then the 1 inch version so for a big boomer I would prefer the extra weight...

Ken....

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
I have no problem with your fantasies of knocking "commies", "gooks", or "ragheads" from their perches at 1500 meters with your .50 BMG sniper rifle....

I see, when you're losing an arguement because your lack of experience has been made clear, you make something up about the other person. You make up something silly so you can knock it down. There's a word for that.

It's not a .50 BMG either, just a fairly light 300 RUM:



The only things I fantasize about killing with it have bigger horns:



But no, filling one or two tags a year is not enough shooting for me. Some people like to shoot groups that are as tiny as possible at 100 yds, as if that sort of accuracty is needed for hunting either. Do you make fun of those people too?

Yes, I greatly enjoy practicing, especially at long ranges. At 1500 yds:



even the beautiful glass of the 14X IOR isn't enough to reliably spot all my hits. The new scope adds to that capability as well as many others. Just because YOU wouldn't use it does not mean it doesn't exist.

I suppose it's also a "myth" that the newest Corvette is faster than your pickup truck because YOU only drive 55 MPH max. Great logic.

quote:

And in regard to sport hunting applications, there are no optical....

That's not what the question was. That's not what you said. You said they are exactly the same. You said any difference was a "myth."

It either is or it isn't; what you're looking at is immaterial. Re-phrasing the question to be one of opinion that one doesn't need any better optics for hunting does not support your claim that there is no optical difference and anybody who thinks so has fallen victim to a "myth."

The above is a better 3X scope than any 3-9 or 3.5-10 I've ever had. And at 18X it kicks the crap out of any 4-14 I've ever seen on the big end. No myth about it.

Arguing these capabilities do not exist because you might not use them or don't care for them or think they're needed, etc, is a very closed-minded "my way is the only way" attitude. And it's wrong.

Is that a halo around the edges and blurry grass on the horizon?...

Couldn't resist.



Ya'll have a good one,

Reloader