Anyone compared a Vortex Viper HS30 2.5-10x44 against the Nikon Monarch 2.5-10x42. The Viper has a 30mm tube and the Nikon has a 1" tube. All other specs are nearly the same. Cost about the same, same weight, same length, same 4"eye relief and the Viper has just a little more FOV at 2.5 power (47'vs 40). The Viper does has an etched reticle. Both have excellent warranties. It seems like tossup. Buy the one that is on sale?

I love Vortex. I own 3 or 4 of them. Terrific optics, terrific warranty.

Vortex is superior, IMO.

Buy the one with the best field blending. The Nikon Monarch 4-16 reminds me of looking through a black toilet roll. If the eye reliefs are both the same yet one has almost 20% more field of view, I'd definitely lean towards that one if other things are equal.

since the Vortex is a 30mm scope, you will also have more windage and elevation adjustment, as well as probably a brighter image.

I suspect 30mm scopes are mostly to do with better accommodating that modern decadence, the moving erector tube; and that any brighter image is more likely to come from bigger objective diameter and superior coatings.

Yes, the bigger tube could give more windage and elevation but, unless this enlarges the sweet spot, it's probably best not to want it as going to edge brings the danger of optical distortion leading to possible misses because of head position.

Can two identically sized scopes with the same magnification and eye relief really have a 20% difference in field of view? That sounds too much like a free lunch to me.

yes when one is a 30mm scope and one is a 1" scope and the other measurements are the same.

What I've noticed with the new Kahles is that the fatter tube allows them to add a fatter ocular housing without it looking odd, and this is where the bigger field of view becomes possible, even when the field stop of the erector tube pulls it back. Field of view and eye relief also compete: a short eye relief allows a larger field of view, but is not much use on a hard-kicking rifle.

I guess I'm gonna have to try a 30mm scope someday. Never had one before.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
yes when one is a 30mm scope and one is a 1" scope and the other measurements are the same.

It has nothing to do with tube diameter. Field of view is somewhat subjective. There are trade offs. Generally, the longer the "in focus" length the less the fov. That said, many things can be manipulated that will change the fov. Each manufacturer decides which tradeoff makes the most sense for their lense configuration. Example, I have two essentially identical occular lenses for my telescope. Both have the same magnification but one has a 25 percent larger fov. The reason is the number of lenses in the system but it is harder to get a good focus.

Ken....

If you mean focus of the reticle or even the target, Ken, maybe you've hit on the real reason for the fast, 'Euro-style' focus adjustment seen increasingly. Traditionally, once you went through the tedium of focussing, scopes up to 6x were thought to need no further adjustment.

If, on the other hand, you mean flexibility in eye relief and head position, you could be on to something, too. My old Kahles Helia Super has a large field of view but short eye relief. However, mount it forward to avoid a whack in the face and you still get good usability but a reduced fov. A new Kahles we have has nominally longer fov but can be used closer if you don't mind tunnel vision around the full field. Move back beyond the nominal eye relief, though, and all you get is a bead of vision that floats around as you move your head (one manifestation of the exit pupil).

The cheap and cheerful Leupold VX-1 has good, flexible eye relief, though, and on paper many of the old American brands were usable between three and five inches. This is a matter of importance when you need to shoot fast; a lack of critical head positioning was said to be what made the old Nickel Supras so good for DG rifles, though field of view was nothing special compared with other reticle-movement scopes.