---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition” ― Rudyard Kipling
Posts: 1231 | Location: London, UK | Registered: 02 April 2010
Despite my dislike of large power multiples, that concept does impress me. In fact, in my new book on scopes (printed but not officially published yet) I proposed the concept of variables beginning at less that 1x, in order to eliminate hidden-field dead ground, of concern in hunting buffalo and other social but dangerous game.
The 0.75x makes even more sense with constantly centred reticles and the fat, rubber eyepieces currently the go, than with the old technology I favor, as those modern abominations can hide a lot of country.
My suggestion did not include illumination, of course, let alone a system where the battery housing sits on top of the ocular, blocking out even more vision.
Posts: 5277 | Location: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: 31 March 2009
Originally posted by Biebs: Not negative, just <1.
Thanks for the correction Biebs, you're absolutely correct
I wonder how far this trend will go; maybe only of relevance to driven / DG hunters?
Apparently it required an impressive feat of engineering; and the first to market of such a low-level magnification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition” ― Rudyard Kipling
Posts: 1231 | Location: London, UK | Registered: 02 April 2010
I must admit, PD999, wondering whether wide-angle lenses within the context of a riflescope were in fact possible.
I am still a power-multiple Luddite and suggested the best ranges would be 0.75 to 2.25x or 0.9 to 2.7x. These would require only a 3x multiple but still get to the magnifications Townsend Whelen thought enough for big game out to 350 yards.
Posts: 5277 | Location: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: 31 March 2009
So I'm confused on how that whole concept works, especially when shooting both eyes open. Is the theory that it makes the tube/ocular edge not visible?
Posts: 1465 | Location: New England | Registered: 22 February 2010
No Brandon, unless Swaro have also abandoned the fat rubber eyepiece, it won't improve the field blending. What It would do is show you some at least of the country usually obscured beneath the eyepiece donut.
Yes, hunters used to shooting with both eyes open at 1x might have to rethink their expectations. As with all magnifying scopes, it will present its own issues.
Posts: 5277 | Location: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: 31 March 2009
My understanding is this scope will be "special order" for US customers. Not something you're likely to see on dealer shelves. Same goes for the DS scope. Europe only; US in 2019 - maybe. BTW, DS take 44mm rings IIRC.
Posts: 486 | Location: Moving | Registered: 23 September 2010
"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid" -- Ronald Reagan
"Ignorance of The People gives strength to totalitarians."
Want to make just about anything work better? Keep the government as far away from it as possible, then step back and behold the wonderment and goodness.
Yes, like the side mirror on your car, you'll need to keep that in mind. On the other hand, the critters will have strange big teeth just before they deploy them
It might also calm nerves slightly, though, just as shake doesn't psych us out so much with low-powered scopes.
Posts: 5277 | Location: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: 31 March 2009
Can someone explain the reasoning for a 20mm objective on a 30mm tube scope. Is this not a backward step?
As for lost fields etc, look at an Aimpoint H2 or a myriad of other red dots - if you close your other eye then your view is obscured by battery housings, rubber eye rings etc ad nausea, trick is not closing the other eye.
Formerly Gun Barrel Ecologist
Posts: 324 | Location: Australia | Registered: 04 May 2013
Good point, GBE, a matter of some importance above 3x. Most 30mm tubes have 24mm objectives and the glimpse we see in those Swarovski ads does not suggest an external reduction in that lens diameter.
It may be stopped down internally because of geometry problems brought by the wide-angle innovation. The only other possibility I can see is that too big an objective might cause parallax or eye damage from too much light at low magnifications. Some of the old German low-magnification fixed powers have objectives reduced to about 12 mm and their variables somehow stopped down the exit pupil to that diameter at low powers, even though the objectives indicated 20mm or more was possible. The latter situation still exists in many modern scopes, but seemingly not Nikons, for some reason.
Posts: 5277 | Location: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: 31 March 2009
game.
