quote:

Originally posted by Reloader:
Is that a halo around the edges and blurry grass on the horizon?...

Yup. That's the lousy little 30mm tube scope, what did you expect? No, I'm just not the best photographer. Here's the 18X, the house is 1553 yds away:

Jon A, What a sweet scope. I think it looks good on your rifle and I can think of a few of mine it would work on also!
What's the difference I'm seeing in the turrets. The one's that I've seen were all like the smaller ones in the lower picture but I like the way the larger ones look. Are they set up for a specific round or what?..........................DJ

TO "Jon A":

I sincerely apologize, Mr. Stallone. I meant no disrespect and am a great fan of yours. Can you let us in on when your next Rambo movie will hit the theaters? By the way, my reference to fantasizing about attractive female celebrities was in no way intended to offend you or Ms. Talia Shire. Please express my apologies to Mrs. Stallone and assure her that I would NEVER want to do any inappropriate thing with her as you might infer from my previous comments.

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
Jon A, What a sweet scope. I think it looks good on your rifle and I can think of a few of mine it would work on also!

Thanks! I'm quite pleased with its aesthetics as well. It's actually quite compact for what it is and compared with the competition. My 4-14X is a monster in comparison. Just a 42mm objective, a smaller ocular group than most and it's only 13.25" long! There's a lot of scope packed into that package.

quote:

What's the difference I'm seeing in the turrets. The one's that I've seen were all like the smaller ones in the lower picture but I like the way the larger ones look. Are they set up for a specific round or what?

They are a huge improvement, no doubt. We wanted a large diameter elevation similar to the EREK and that's what they gave us. 100 clicks per turn (EREK is 90) with enough space between clicks you can tell where you are accurately (what you get for the large diameter).

This allows a ton of adjustment (I can get out to around 1400 yds, depending upon the load) on your first turn without stupidly coarse adjustment intervals (1 MOA or even 1/2 MOA clicks). While, yes, you can keep track of where you are if you try hard enough when you're on the 2nd, 3rd or 4th turn of a smaller dial, basically always being on the same turn for normal use is a welcome relief. Here's a pic of another's to compare it to the EREK:



The knobs are so much easier to zero as well as being easily removable/replacable. They're a big step up for the IOR's.

They aren't set up for a particular caliber (though since these are easily replacable I'd guess Kenton will be making BDC's for anybody who wants them shortly). They are .1 Mils per click, 10 Mils per turn elevation. This obviously works perfectly with the reticle--5 clicks = .5 Mils = one small hash on the reticle, 10 clicks = 1 Mil = 1 Mil.... the two can be used with the same dope however it may suit your fancy. Oh, how this will simplify life!

And of course the reticle is FFP, so it is useful at all magnifications. This is a feature I've wanted for so long, just as years ago when I sent my trusty Leupold to Premier for the installation of the Gen II.

This also makes it a much, much, better low light reticle because it stays so black and bold against the target in light conditions where other scopes have the reticles turning gold and becoming hard to see. This makes it better than you'd think given its dimensions but of course it also helps the dimensions we gave it seem perfect to me so far. Many thought a FFP just couldn't work well over a 6X zoom, but I believe we've pulled it off very well.

So yes, to say I'm happy with the way this scope turned out would be an understatement. Yes, I could have laid down $3000 on a S&B or USO and gotten most of the features I wanted along with incredible quality and reputation beyond reproach. But it's nice not to have to. And there are some things about this one that suit me even better than the others would. Getting such a scope for a mere fraction of what those cost does have me giddy as a schoolgirl, I'll admit it.

Can you get it with the illuminated reticle also? And where did you buy yours. I noted that SWFA carried the IOR's and included 35mm rings but I didn't see any with the bigger turrets and I don't remember if there's were 1 Mil or not.
How much movement at 100yds does 1 mil give you? I'm so used to thinking in MOA I'd have to learn Mils.......................DJ

I never get on with those silly reticules that have a bit missing in the middle.
Your eye only has a round a 4.5mm hole in it to admit light, that's one of the most important thing to remember.
I got to go now, you all will have to get Stone creek to explain the implications of that in regards to rifle scope design.

quote:

Originally posted by The Specialist:
Your eye only has a round a 4.5mm hole in it to admit light, that's one of the most important thing to remember.

Specialist: The limitation on how much the human eye can dialate applies only to mortals, not to guys like Rambo (particulary if he is supplementing his superhuman powers with a little Cannibis.)

Or a drop of Belladonna ... who needs Night Vision.

quote:

Originally posted by The Specialist:
.
Your eye only has a round a 4.5mm hole in it to admit light, that's one of the most important thing to remember.
.

Before eye surgury I had my pupils measured. In a dimly lit room without dialating solution my pupils measured 7.2mm. I'm well aware of how to compute the exit pupil size of different optics I'm sure Jon A is also.
Perhaps some of us can put the larger objectives to better use than others.

StoneCreek your Penis and Rambo comments are nothing more than someone that can't intellectually discuss a point and has resorted to pointless ridicule. From reading some of your other posts I'd expected more from you............................DJ

The question was "is there an optical advantage to a larger tube?"
Assuming all other things being equal, the answer is no, there is no difference.
As to "More adjustment in a 30mm" that point is moot, you should be mechanically zeroing your scope when fitting it, if the turrets are more than 1/3 off center when zeroed your into the edge glass, and may as well be looking through an old Coke bottle.

quote:

Originally posted by The Specialist:
The question was "is there an optical advantage to a larger tube?"
Assuming all other things being equal, the answer is no, there is no difference.
As to "More adjustment in a 30mm" that point is moot, you should be mechanically zeroing your scope when fitting it, if the turrets are more than 1/3 off center when zeroed your into the edge glass, and may as well be looking through an old Coke bottle.

Exactly. There is no optical difference between tube sizes, all else equal.
I'm currently having problems understanding why scope manufacturers like Leupold are pushing 30 mm tubes. I bought a VX-7, 1.5-6x scope, with a 30 mm tube. I bought it because of the glass, not for the 30 mm tube, which, for me is a detriment, not an advantage. To me, maybe not you, 1" tubes look better on a rifle. My tastes alone. YMMV. But, the 30 mm tube adds nothing optically to the scope. Functionally, I may get some unneeded adjustment travel. Big deal!! I guarantee you that if Leupold offered that same glass/coatings on a 1" tube scope, I would not even consider for one second buying the 30 mm tube model.
I know the answer, and don't like the answer. It's all marketing driven, the trend towards 30 mm tubes. It's the illusion, in the minds of the consumers, that 30 mm tube scopes are better.

Don

quote:

Originally posted by The Specialist:
The question was "is there an optical advantage to a larger tube?"
Assuming all other things being equal, the answer is no, there is no difference.

You guy's still don't get it. First, All other things aren't equal, manufacturers don't put the same glass in all of their scopes. Second, 30mm Tubes are stronger, Third it's easier to manufacturer larger lenses to high resolution than smaller ones i.e. Larger lenses typically are higher resolution.

There ARE small optical advantages to 30mm tubes over 1" tubes. Whether or not the small advantages are worth the large extra cost is the question.

There are good reasons to choose both types of scopes but you have to accept the facts if you want to make a properly informed decision...........................DJ

quote:

it's easier to manufacturer larger lenses to high resolution than smaller ones i.e. Larger lenses typically are higher resolution.

Who told you that?
Having hand ground a fair number of lenses and mirrors, I can assure you that is not the case. I spent 14 & 1/2 years working for a well known Astronomer, and was myself a member of The Royal Society, so I know of what I speak.

Specialist The info came from a couple different scope manufacturers. I would suggest to you that there is a large difference in the manufacture of hand ground lenses for astronomical telescopes (had a tiny bit of experience with that myself), and the commercial manufacture of small lenses used in riflescopes.
As far as experience that would matter in this discussion have you compared in low light 1" and 30mm tubes scopes from the same manufacturer? I have done so and invariably it was easier to resolve small details such as small branches, lines in targets etc. with the 30mm scopes. If you have a chance go out near dusk with 1" and 30mm tube scopes from say Swarovski and see for yourself, an experienced observer such as yourself will see the difference in a few seconds.
I won't argue that your superior knowledge of Astronomical instuments but I have owned and/or used close to 100 different riflescopes over the last several years and do feel that I've a good amount of experience with riflescopes...........................DJ

I belong to a club and see loads of scopes, the bigger more expensive scopes are usually great.
Guys show up with some bazaar combinations, like Leupold varmint scopes on .22s then wonder why they only see a blur where the rabbit should be.

You got to remember only 25% of what you pay is for the glass inside. So you need to spend a fair bit to get any quality at all.
But really the most important thing by far is the quality of the coating, it's not how much light you can "gather" it's how much you will loose through the scope.

And above all if it works for you then it's the right thing, I like my old Tasco Predator it just feels right when I look through it. But you have to be careful not to knock it or you'll be rezeroing.

quote:

StoneCreek your Penis and Rambo comments are nothing more than someone that can't intellectually discuss a point and has resorted to pointless ridicule. From reading some of your other posts I'd expected more from you............................DJ

DJ,
I apologize. I was drunk and didn't know what I was saying (and lost in a deep fantasy involving Teri Hatcher).

Now that I've sobered up, I would respectfully point out that you continue to argue that 30mm scopes are superior because manufacturers make them that way. Maybe that's true, but simply because some manufacturer may choose to make a better scope when they are building it on a 30mm tube, it does not follow that building a scope on a 30mm tube allows it to be better. I would also like to point out, once again, that the strength question of a 30mm tube vs. a 1-inch tube is essentially moot. IF you make a 30mm as light as a 1-inch tube, then the walls will have to be thinner and it will be weaker, not stronger, in terms of dent and crush resistance. Bullet holes like the one pictured earlier will pierce either, and being 4.6mm larger or smaller will have nothing to do with remaining intact after a bullet strike. Besides, I doubt that "bullet resistance" is a factor that many of us consider when purchasing a scope.

Hey Specialist,

Thanks for the eye diagram you posted. In it, the pupil itself is shown as 7.2mm, however the corneal opening is only 5.7mm. Which is the limiting dimension?

The inside Radius of the cornea is 5.7mm outside 7.7 so 2mm thick. That eye has been dilated, in day light your pupil is round 4.5mm, 7.2mm is abought as big as they get in low light.

That is a new Laser scanner for diagnosing a type of Glaucoma, where the iris sticks to the lens, or the gaps at the side get plugged, and fluid gets trapped behind the iris and pressure builds up. Then they have to Laser a hole through the iris to let the pressure equalize.

That is the front of my right eye, here's the back.

A mate of mine is an eye Doc, I'm his Ginni pig.

quote:

Originally posted by The Specialist:
As to "More adjustment in a 30mm" that point is moot, you should be mechanically zeroing your scope when fitting it, if the turrets are more than 1/3 off center when zeroed your into the edge glass, and may as well be looking through an old Coke bottle.

What kind of garbage scopes do you use? Yes, there are some crappy scopes that will look that bad when far away from their optical zeros, but I sure wouldn't use one--especially for long range where you use a sloped base so you can use more of the available adjustment--as it would be quite worthless. What's moot is the above; any of my IORs with the knobs cranked to the max will still optically blow away my leupolds with theirs centered.

quote:

Third it's easier to manufacturer larger lenses to high resolution than smaller ones i.e. Larger lenses typically are higher resolution.

It costs much more to grind a larger lense then a smaller one. The work to get either of them to the same "resolution" is the same but the larger one takes longer...

Normally the figure used to denote the quality of the grind is measured in "wave" or the wavelength of visible light... Quality grinds start at 1/4 wave over the entire surface of the lense... Lesser, read that cheaper, grinds might claim 1/4 wave but that is peak to valley of any irregularity and not the entire surface of the lense...

When measuring the variation over the entire lense surface then it is more complex to grind a larger lense then a smaller one....

Not trying to nitpick here or anything but I am just trying to add some detail to the grinding process... Coating variations also can make a difference essentially for the same reason, variations in the thickness of the coating material....

Now 30mm tubes may offer some visible advantage somewhere along the lines but my eyes are too old to really notice the difference... It is obvious that whether it's a 1 inch tube or a 30mm tube of the scopes I've looked through from the big Euro makers, they tend to use very high quality glass and grinds... Hard to fault any company that might appear "proud" of their product but actually use the highest quality components to produce them...

Ken....

This is good thread. Allow me to hijack it a little.

Eyes have been center stage for me since 1993 when I tore a retina in my left eye. Cause: Shooting big boomers. So, it's all small boomers for me, from now on. Don't know if any here have torn a retina, but if not, I recommend against it.. Highly.
The fix involves 300 laser shots, in three concentric circles of 100 shots each which tack weld the tear in place so it can heal naturally. The tack welding takes about a hour and a half IIRC. The patient, me, sits in a dental chair with the "V" shaped head cushions in back of the head. There is a reason for this. That reason is to make sure you don't jerk tour head backwards at each laser shot. The reason for that is, each laser shot hurts like hell. At the end of the hour and a half I was a basket case.
So, I've had those same photos of my eye taken several times since 1993.
Symptoms of a retina tear are flashing lights going off in the eye, plus blood from the tear partially fills the eye, so it's like looking through a cirrus cloud. The school solution is to see a Retina Specialist, an MD, within 24 hours. If longer, the probability of having the retina detach completely is high; then you lose total sight in that eye.
When this happened, I was straightening knife blades in the shop. I hadn't a clue what was going on, as I had never heard of the symptoms of a torn retina before. That was on a Saturday afternoon, so I didn't worry about what happened, and I should have. On Sunday, I called a friend who is an Ophthalmologist and told him what happened. He didn't divulge any details, but said I want to see you tomorrow morning at 7;30 AM, before my practice opens. I was there bright and early. His office is in a wing of the local hospital. He looked into me eye with one of his lenses, and said, I want you to see a Retina specialist now. As good luck would have it, probably the best Retina specialist in Michigan was just across the street. His nurse called and the Retina guy was there; more good luck. I still didn't know that I had a torn retina. I walked across the street and the Retina guy looked into my eye, and said I had a torn retina, and that we would have to go back to the hospital for the fix. As we walked back to the hospital, he explained the fix. After the tack welding, I could not see out of the eye, and had to drive myself home, about 7 miles, which was a nightmare itself in Detroit, where I lived at the time. Traffic is treacherous there, beyond bad. I was driving about 25 miles per hour with my right wheels jammed up against the curb to keep the car straight, with cars flying by, honking their horns...
So, the next time you take your big boomer to the range, think about what may happen to you...
I found out since then that there are a lot of shooters who have had torn retina's.

Don

Some good advice there DMB, no "Big tube" is going to help when you're blind.
Things have moved on with 360 degree lasering, it should not actually hurt now, better equipment I guess.
My Doc friend says the retina is like damp wallpaper, and won't shoot anything bigger than .308 for that reason.

DMB,
Thanks for sharing your personal experience about eyes. Such an interesting part of the body. I have for some time felt the 7x57 with a 140 monometal is all the powerformance I really need most of the time at very reasonable recoil.
BUt its still most likely gettin a 30mmTubeNFCompact2.5-10x24nxsTacTicalScOpe! cheers!

DMB, Painful story. Anyone who shoots boomers a lot should own a Lead Sled. Just because your shoulder can take the abuse doesn't mean your eyes can!
I still shoot boomers but limit my shooting off the bench to final site ins and a little practice. Load Developement etc. gets done off the Lead Sled.............................DJ

Amen to the recoil abosorbing benchrest. I built one myself before the commercial ones came out -- from channel iron and oilfield pipe. It's heavy enough it doesn't need any lead. I've found that, while unnecessary, it works equally well with a .223 as with a .375 H&H. Working up loads for a very light .340 WBY was my inspiration for building it. The WBY didn't detach any retinas, but did a number on my shoulder that had my rotator cuff half-frozen for nearly a year.

I'm assuming that shooting hard kickers from the bench is harder on the retina than shooting from a more limber offhand position. Does anyone know of any definitive studies on the subject?

Just to show that this thread is not entirely hijacked, I suppose the big 30mm's tubes do help dampen recoil due to their weight.

quote:

Originally posted by Heat:
It is obvious that whether it's a 1 inch tube or a 30mm tube of the scopes I've looked through from the big Euro makers, they tend to use very high quality glass and grinds...

Yeah, and in the end, that's all that matters. The scopes DJ and I are talking about have completely different optical designs than the smaller tube versions. And no, they simply don't look exactly the same.

What would be an impossible coincidence to me would be the two different systems designed under different physical constraints just happened to give the exact same results. That every single measure of optical performance ended up completely identical between the two. That with the buckets of different optical parameters all being compromised upon/between for the most desirable end result in two different sized designs would just happen to make them all turn out identical...That would be a fantastic coincidence to me.

The notion that they for some reason would have to, that they always will be identical in every way is pure sillyness.

Even keeping the most similar and simplistic view of the differences, simply using a more central portion of a larger lense offers some real advantages over using a smaller lens all the way to the edges. And that's not even scratching the surface yet.

This is one of those cases where efforts to "debunk a myth" (and yes, there has been plenty of mythical stuff out there that needed it) has gone to the other extreme--to where it has become as false in the opposite direction as the original myth was. The debunking of the myth has become the "new myth."

As with most things, the truth lies somewhere in between. Things really aren't as simple as jumping on the latest "myth-busting bandwagon." If you care about being correct, that is.

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
Can you get it with the illuminated reticle also?

No. We had to pick from FFP, Illumination, and Side Focus (any two) to meet the price/time we wanted. Illumination is possible in the future, but it's a long way off.

You can get an illuminated 3-18, but it's quite different from this scope. It's SFP with a thinner reticle (that actually becomes an MOA reticle at 18X), the old style knobs in .25 MOA clicks. Now there's nothing wrong with that scope, some prefer that feature set (more Nightforce style) but it's pretty different than the FFP version. Optically they should be pretty equal except for the reticle differences.

quote:

And where did you buy yours. I noted that SWFA carried the IOR's and included 35mm rings but I didn't see any with the bigger turrets and I don't remember if there's were 1 Mil or not.

From:

Scott Berish
Liberty Optics LLC
"See Better, Shoot Better" www.libertyoptics.com
352-572-1469
352-401-9296 1800-2100 hours EST
Scott@LibertyOptics.com

Without him, this would have never happened. SWFA will eventually sell this scope, they just don't have the right pictures yet. Scott has dibbs on the first ones for quite a while though.

quote:

How much movement at 100yds does 1 mil give you? I'm so used to thinking in MOA I'd have to learn Mils.

Each click is .36" @ 100 yds. A Mil is 3.6". Mils are quite easy once you think about them for a bit.

They're simply 1/1000 of the distance. 1 Mil = 1 Meter at 1000 Meters. 1 Mil = 1 Yard at 1000 yards. 1 Mil = 1 inch at 1000 inches. And so on....

So, at 1000 yds a Mil is 1 yard (36"). At 100 yds it's 0.1 yard (3.6"). A 0.1 Mil click at 100 yds is .01 yard (.36"). That puts the clicks at a nice compromise between .25 MOA and .5 MOA clicks; finer and more precise than the later but faster than the former.

Anyway, Mils are pretty easy once you get the hang of them. Actually I find they greatly simplify dropcharts and such because you're basically always just dealing with two digits--instead of say, 13.25 MOA or 13 1/4 or 13 MOA + 1 click or any of the other variations people use, it's simply 3.9 Mils. Spin the dial to 3.9 and shoot. Or raise the 4 Mil mark on the reticle just below center and shoot.

quote:

Originally posted by Jon A:

quote:

How much movement at 100yds does 1 mil give you? I'm so used to thinking in MOA I'd have to learn Mils.

Each click is .36" @ 100 yds. A Mil is 3.6". Mils are quite easy once you think about them for a bit.

They're simply 1/1000 of the distance. 1 Mil = 1 Meter at 1000 Meters. 1 Mil = 1 Yard at 1000 yards. 1 Mil = 1 inch at 1000 inches. And so on....

So, at 1000 yds a Mil is 1 yard (36"). At 100 yds it's 0.1 yard (3.6"). A 0.1 Mil click at 100 yds is .01 yard (.36"). That puts the clicks at a nice compromise between .25 MOA and .5 MOA clicks; finer and more precise than the later but faster than the former.

Anyway, Mils are pretty easy once you get the hang of them. Actually I find they greatly simplify dropcharts and such because you're basically always just dealing with two digits--instead of say, 13.25 MOA or 13 1/4 or 13 MOA + 1 click or any of the other variations people use, it's simply 3.9 Mils. Spin the dial to 3.9 and shoot. Or raise the 4 Mil mark on the reticle just below center and shoot.

Excellent explanation! Thanks..................DJ

Mil Dot 101 ....

http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/MilDot_MOA.asp

http://www.mil-dot.com/Mil_Dot_User_Guide.htm