I mount quite a few scopes at work. One of the general rules has been that mid rings work for up to 40 mm objectives. Occulars seem to be increasing in diameter over the last couple years. I suspect this is to make scopes seem brighter at the gun counter. I now find that with several brands of scopes require high rings so the bolt handle can clear the occular while the objective hangs high in the air. This seems to defeat the value of using reasonable objectives. Anybody else seeing this, or have I been drinking too much coffee.
Bfly

Black Fly: There is a mostly younger set of shooters that belong to the "bigger is better" school. While they rarely understand much about the physics of optics, they are convinced that large objectives "gather more light" and are "brighter", regardless of the level of abient light or the shooting circumstances. They also reason that if the larger objective scopes cost more money, they must be better scopes. They usually also insist on using much more magnification that is optimal for most hunting situations, again under the "more is better" philosophy.

I think that the phenomenon of oversized occular bells goes along with the outsized objectives. This, along with oversized power adjustment rings, causes the scopes not only to have to be mounted extra high, but also greatly limits the fore-aft mounting latitude so that you often find that you have to have offset rings in order to obtain the proper eye relief.

It is almost comical to watch the owners of these rigs heads bob around in the air when attempting to locate the sight picture in their Triple X Megascopes. They don't understand anything about gun fit and acquisition of the sight picture, nor do they realize that the higher the scope is mounted off of the bore, the more aiming error is caused by (unavoidable) gun canting.

The fact that the Jack O'connors of yesteryear killed game as far away as they do today with a 3x20 or a 4x32 simply doesn't compute for some shooters.

There is a place for specialized optics for very low light shooting, but to use 50 and 56mm objective scopes on your deer rifle is sheerest folly.

All too true, but some bolt handles arn't designed as good as they could be. CZ Brno are notorious for this.

I can't add to Stonecreek's excellent commentary.
Spot on, my friend.

I too see more and more guys that for YEARS have used a Leupold Vari X II or III in a 3-9x magnification range slay many a deer here in what I call "The Briar Patches" of the Carolina's, that over night have changed over to some mondo objective lensed, high powered, whiz bang, side focused, sun shaded monster because they think it's going to give them some sort of edge....
The average deer gets shot around here typically between 30-75 yards.

Some of us less enlightened locals at times still use...gulp..IRON SITES!!!
(I had the audacity to actually mount a 1x Aimpoint M2 to my deer rifle one year.)

In short, I "think" some shooters feel the high powered, big objective wearing scopes are a short cut to achieving better MARKSMANSHIP.
There are no short cuts, nor substitutes, for marksmanship skills. They must be earned, not purchased.

That's right, if your scope has anything but a tiny objective or ocular, going after a deer with it is sheerest folly. Hunters just aren't smart enough to learn how to use such tools. Your choice in scopes ensures bambi will get away. You might as well stay home.

Holy crap. I've seen some old, stuck in their ways, closed minded individuals on the internet whose only joy in life seems to come from thumping their chests by insulting everybody who doesn't prefer to use the exact same equipment as they do....

But Stonecreek puts them all to shame. Get a hold of yourself, man. Open your mind a little bit. Open your eyes a little bit.

Do you really think everytime a thread on Conquests comes up all those people who say they love them so dearly (many prior diehard Leupold users) really don't? That they've been fooled? That they're "compensating for something?"

Swarovski owners? Do you really think the only reason these people like their scopes is because they have small penises?

Kahles owners? Just making stuff up about how well they can use these scopes so they can say their ocular is bigger than yours? Do you really think that?

We could go on and on....

In short, do you really believe everybody who doesn't use the tiny little Leupold you deem as the only useful scope type on the planet has a small penis? Or do you just say that in every thread on the subject for the fun of it? It makes you feel better? It couldn't possibly be that they actually like using these scopes better? That these scopes do, in fact, work exceedingly well for them?

Yes, I agree there is somebody "compensating" here. And there are many others simply use the scopes they like the best without feeling the need to insult the manhood of anybody who doesn't like the same thing.



I'm sorry, back to the original question. Larger ocular assemblies can offer some noticable optical advantages. Most obviously they can increase the FOV with longer eye relief than smaller oculars (both actual and apparent). You can see a bigger picture that shows you more for a given eye relief. The mechanics for the "fast focus" that those who have moved beyond Leupold enjoy so much takes up some space and will also increase the size of the assembly...etc. That's an oversimplification but hopefully it gives you an idea.

As mentioned above, some bolt handles aren't shaped the best way, many rifles these days no longer have 90 degree bolt lift (oh, sacrilege! I know, but a highly functional feature nontheless). If higher mounting is required for some combination, some stock designs will work better than others.

But the main factor is you. Practice. Muscle memory. If you can't learn to shoot a rifle with the scope mounted .2" higher than the lowest mounts in the world then it's not the rifle you should be blaming.

Hell, many in Stonecreek's camp who preach against big objectives, oculars, anything non-Leupold so they can get that "cheekweld..." also really like Tally Lightweight rings (because they're nice rings) and end up with the scopes mounted way up in the air anyway! I guess it's acceptable to mount your scope high so you can use the rings of your choice, but if your scope puts any of that height to use you're "compensating" for something.

Duly noted, Jon A.

My post wasn't an endorsement for "tiny objective Leupold's", but I was merely trying to point out that it seems silly to me that someone takes an optic that they have been largely successful with and changed over to latest in "whizbangitry" or "tacticool" hoping to get better results...All the while giving up cheekweld, balance, FOV, and an array of other things.

And also, I'm only speaking about the dudes in my AO and I'm largely considered a Leupold "basher" by those that know me....

I think the common thinking among new shooters is that a larger objective will allow more light to reach the eye, which is not necessarily true. My new Leupold VX-7 1.5-6x scope has a 24 mm objective, and I can see 25 caliber bullet holes at 100 yards with it set at 6x. Not too shabby for a 24 mm objective.

Don

as usual stonecreek speaks truth

quote:

Originally posted by cheaptrick:
Duly noted, Jon A.

My post wasn't....

Not to worry. I actually didn't see your post until after I had written my rant. I don't type as fast as I used to.

And for the most part, of course, I agree. But it can be taken to comic extremes...I really don't think everybody who likes a fast focus does so for viagra/penis related reasons nor are all as ignorant and incompetent as Stonecreek implies above.

Just curious. I was wondering if anyone has used any of the larger occulars in the field? I get a lot of feed back from customers on the big objectives and the thirty mm tubes, but have heard nothing about the big occulars. Of course, they may not even notice them, because of the big objectives at the other end.
Bigger occulars do make it a little harder to get things set up right, but not impossible. Like I tell customers, everything in optics is a compromise,light transmissio, weight, magnification, price, size, ease of use and on and on. You have to pick what is most important to you and let that guide you in selection.

quote:

Originally posted by Black Fly: Like I tell customers, everything in optics is a compromise,light transmissio, weight, magnification, price, size, ease of use and on and on. You have to pick what is most important to you and let that guide you in selection.

Well said, Blackie. Once a shooter understands the optical and physical trade-offs, they usually find smaller objectives/oculars advantageous for conventional hunting rifles.

Jon A.: I reviewed my post and neither the word "Leupold" nor "penis" appear in it. The word "prick" does not appear in your post . . . but I have apparently pricked a sensative spot with you. I won't speculate on either its size or location.

Insofar as appreciating outsized objectives and specialized limited use optics, to paraphrase Tom Sellick in Quigley Down Under, "I never said I didn't know how to use them, I just said I didn't have much use for them."

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Jon A.: I reviewed my post and neither the word "Leupold" nor "penis" appear in it.

Who says I was only talking about that one post? That's just your general M.O. In THIS THREAD (that one about tube size instead of ocular size ) when presented with a different point of view, one based upon technical facts and actual experience, your arguement:

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Now I know who those "You can enjoy a larger penis" ads are marketing to.

You want to talk about being a prick.... Great technical content to these responses as well.

Just a few days ago in the Zeiss or Leopold thread (there's your Leupold reference as well):

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
For most American shooters, it is the psycological association of the larger objective with a larger penis that attracts them to the unwieldy and expensive optical instruments.

Anybody else see a pattern here?

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
"I never said I didn't know how to use them, I just said I didn't have much use for them."

Really? In the thread above where I call you out on your experience doing things where "unwieldy and expensive optical instruments" really shine with said instruments, you ran away like a scared little girl. Yeah, I'm sure you've gained so much experience with these "unwieldy and expensive optical instruments" since then.

Steyr rifles is one of those.
the bbl can clear a 50mm in med rings and a 44mm obj in low rings. problem is the bolt handle wont clear the eyepiece.
I mounted a 2.5-8x36 in low rings on a 7mm-08 forester once that would clear on opening but drag the eyepiece and someyimes strike the bell when closing.
it drove me insane because i felt the stock really needed a low mounted scope. solution? metal file and a quart of parkerizing agent. now its smooth as glass and you would have a hard time telling it wasnt factory.

quote:

Originally posted by KSTEPHENS:
I mounted a 2.5-8x36 in low rings on a 7mm-08 forester once that would clear on opening but drag the eyepiece and someyimes strike the bell when closing.

K: I'm assuming that's a Sako Forester you're talking about. Some of the earliest L579 Foresters had an angle/curve to their bolt handles that would strike an ocular of typical diameter if mounted very low. Later Sakos used a less curved bolt handle that would clear most normal size oculars even when mounted very low. Yours may have been a later model which sounds like the play in the bolt when fully withdrawn was enough to catch the bottom of the ocular as you pushed the bolt home.

I have very early .308 and .244 Sakos with the tightly-curved bolt handles. I solved the bolt interference problem by going to a Leupold Compact 3-9, which has a slightly smaller ocular. Though using such small scopes shrank my penis slightly, I made up for it with a 6-18 AO on a varmint barreled .244 .

The original post didn't mention intended use I don't think, and a heck of a lot of target shooting is going on, especially handy for city based people and us older coots.

And the rifles used can often be hunting style, for silhouette type events, and others where it pays to be able to see your bullet holes.
Consequently, my poor ruger 77-22 got a flat spot cut on the barrel, and a dish cut in the bolt handle. On the other hand, the .458 has been de-scoped.

It seems a shame to take an unscoped gun and sight it in a comfortable fashion...then to take a scope and have to mount it so high that a feller is no longer comfortable. The gun isn't as steady because it doesn't fit the shooter anymore. Where did the advantage of the larger scope go? I like to hunker down on my gun and lock everything into place through body mechanics. Not possible with my head bobbing around on a high mounted scope.

the chef

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

Originally posted by KSTEPHENS:
I mounted a 2.5-8x36 in low rings on a 7mm-08 forester once that would clear on opening but drag the eyepiece and someyimes strike the bell when closing.

K: I'm assuming that's a Sako Forester you're talking about. Some of the earliest L579 Foresters had an angle/curve to their bolt handles that would strike an ocular of typical diameter if mounted very low. Later Sakos used a less curved bolt handle that would clear most normal size oculars even when mounted very low. Yours may have been a later model which sounds like the play in the bolt when fully withdrawn was enough to catch the bottom of the ocular as you pushed the bolt home.

I have very early .308 and .244 Sakos with the tightly-curved bolt handles. I solved the bolt interference problem by going to a Leupold Compact 3-9, which has a slightly smaller ocular. Though using such small scopes shrank my penis slightly, I made up for it with a 6-18 AO on a varmint barreled .244 .

nopw, steyr forester. its a prohunter with an american style walnut stock.