Help, my terminology may be a bit off, but here goes,
I have read some where that some 30mm are simply a 30mm tube and end lenses, with 1 inch "innards".
A) Is this true?
B) Who are the manufacturers who do this?
C) When the scope is a true 30mm, does this improve light transmission?
D) Who makes a true 30mm and/or how can you find out?

Thanks for your help.

I have read that Leupold put their regular 1" inside components inside a 30mm tube to compete with the European scope manufacturers. The European 30mm scopes made by Zeiss, Swarovski, Schmidt and Bender, Kahles and others were originally engineered and built for a 30mm tube and the interior components would not fit in a 1" tube.

Lately some of the above mentioned scope manufacturers have started building 1" tubes for the American market.

Supposedly light transmission is not increased in a 30 mm tube. The superior light transmission exhibited by the European scopes was because of the superior glass used. Now there are 1" tubes that have superior glass also and the light gatghering is similar to a 30mm tube. The 30mm tubes can have superior tube strength and a larger adjustment range. Perhaps if you read the specs and the scope had a large adjustment range you could have an indication that they are engineered as a true 30mm scope.

You would be safe getting true 30mm engineering from names like Zeiss, Swarovski, S & B, and Kahles but I am not sure about the Japanese 30mm scopes. It will hard to separate truth from marketing hype.

Ken Oehler wrote an article about this. The ONLY advantage to a 30mm is more adjustment. Oehler says you can't cram more light through the objective bell by making the tube bigger in the middle.

I was told by the folks at Hill Country Rifle that Leupold has far more internal adjustment than any of the European scopes. I took that to mean 1" vs. 30MM. They even mocked the Germans by saying "if your American guns were built right, you would not need so much adjustment in your scopes", in a German accent. Subject came up when my Zeiss Conquest was adjusted so far to the left by them that it was bordering the windage edge and the windage screws on the rear bases were coming loose because they were screwed all the way to one side. And all of this was because my brand new, late S/N # Win. M-70 had the front screws drilled off center. The funny thing about it is they (HCR) acted like they didn't know anything about Burris Signature rings, Millet Angle-Loc, Weaver Windage adjustable rings.

Thank you all for the info. I was and remain inclined to stick with 1" Leupolds. I have Swarovski and Zeiss binoculars and they are great. But I don't like 30mm as, all else equal, you must mount it higher above the bore, and for me, even a tiny bit higher seems to seriously impact fit (tried a friends identical rifle with 30mm vs 1"). So far as I can tell, Swaro doesn't make a 1", true?

The objective is what gathers the light. The erector takes that light and turns it right side up and left/right correct. The erector has nothing to do with "allowing more or less light through". A very good example would be a 20 inch telescope objective gathering massive amounts of light and then sending that through a 2 inch erector prism to the eyepiece. The observer still sees everything that the 20 inch objective has to offer.

A poorly designed scope with an erector that is WAY to small allowing the light from the objective to be focused "larger" then the erector diameter would be a problem.

Objective size, glass and coating quality are what will make a difference on how much light reaches the ocular. Yes, there is more involved in optical design as to the quality of the image you see. This simplified example demonstrates the "smaller" erector size affects light transmittion thinking is out of line with reality.

Ken....

quote:

Originally posted by JPenn:
Thank you all for the info. I was and remain inclined to stick with 1" Leupolds.

That's too bad, you are missing out on superior scopes for less price.

quote:

I don't like 30mm as, all else equal, you must mount it higher above the bore

Not true. The size of the objective is what determines how high the scope will be mounted above the bore. A 50mm objective 1" scope tube will be mounted with the centerline (line of sight) at the same height as a 50mm objective 30mm scope. The distance from the base to the bottom of the ring opening will be smaller on a 30mm tube.

quote:

Swaro doesn't make a 1", true

Yes Swarovski does make a 1" tube as does Zeiss. Either of those will be head and shoulders above a Leupold and probably cheaper.

Woods,

Here is the situation in more detail:

1) I would be putting a new scope on a 375H&H, so eye relief is important, especially under less than ideal situations. Maybe the Habicht model Swarovski is a 1" tube, I can't tell from their website, but the eye relief is unacceptable to me.

2) I have no interest in the higher powered scopes with the larger objective lens, thus the larger diameter of a 30mm (approx 1.2 inch diameter) tube means that in the same height rings, the center of the scope, where your eye naturally focuses, will be about 1/10 inch higher, so as a practical matter, you are correct, not much higher. I already mount the scope as low as possible, the bolt handle barely clears on the 1.5 x 5 Leupold, so unless I am missing something else, I can't lower the height of the rings just because I change to a 30mm.

3) Based on the Swarovski website, the only currently manufactured model with as much eye relief as I would like is the Z6 1x6, which is a 30mm scope.

So I will have to satisfy myself that the fraction of an inch higher from the 30mm tube does not change a rifle that fits extremely well.

I prefer Swarovski to the other high quality scopes, so that is the website I checked, I will look into Zeiss, S&B etc. I agree that Swarovski's are clearly optically superior.

Thanks again for taking the time to share information, oh, and if you can show me where to buy Swarovski cheaper than Leupold, that would really be appreciated.

buy a nightforce 2.5-10X32?

quote:

Originally posted by JPenn:
Woods,

Here is the situation in more detail:

1) I would be putting a new scope on a 375H&H, so eye relief is important, especially under less than ideal situations. Maybe the Habicht model Swarovski is a 1" tube, I can't tell from their website, but the eye relief is unacceptable to me.

2) I have no interest in the higher powered scopes with the larger objective lens, thus the larger diameter of a 30mm (approx 1.2 inch diameter) tube means that in the same height rings, the center of the scope, where your eye naturally focuses, will be about 1/10 inch higher, so as a practical matter, you are correct, not much higher. I already mount the scope as low as possible, the bolt handle barely clears on the 1.5 x 5 Leupold, so unless I am missing something else, I can't lower the height of the rings just because I change to a 30mm.

3) Based on the Swarovski website, the only currently manufactured model with as much eye relief as I would like is the Z6 1x6, which is a 30mm scope.

So I will have to satisfy myself that the fraction of an inch higher from the 30mm tube does not change a rifle that fits extremely well.

I prefer Swarovski to the other high quality scopes, so that is the website I checked, I will look into Zeiss, S&B etc. I agree that Swarovski's are clearly optically superior.

Thanks again for taking the time to share information, oh, and if you can show me where to buy Swarovski cheaper than Leupold, that would really be appreciated.

well, you can´t go wrong with the Swaro!

Their modells (also the older style PV-N & PV-I) are 30mm tubes, only the AV line is 1"...

If You want maximum eye relief, there is an Z6i 1-6x24 EE (extended eye relief with up to 4 inch eye relief...

Any more questions on Swaros: have a look on my website or drop me an email...

Klaus

Hey JPenn, I read your latest post. I just bought a Leupold European 30 2x7 and mounted it on a 375H&H in a CZ550. I also bought Leupold medium mounts for the CZ. Yes I'm afraid it did raise the scope up a bit more than I like it, however if it didn't, I would be catching the Express sights in my scope view. Even now I still get part of the front sight hood in the bottom of the scope view. Have not done anything else with it since I mounted it. If you are interested, I will keep you posted on how it looks especially in the peak dusk/dawn times.

JPenn,

If you are looking at straight tube scopes THE 30MM STRAIGHT TUBE SCOPES (those built to be 30mm's, ie not Leupold) WILL HAVE LARGER OBJECTIVE LENSES!

Take a look at the Leupold numbers, their 1.5x5x20mm 1" tube scope - 20mm objective lens, and their 1.5x5x20mm 30mm tube - also a 20mm objective lenns.

Now look at Swarovski or Schmidt & Bendr, other Euro 30mm straight tube scopes. S&B for example 1.1x4x24 mm - 24mm objective lens! Same with other true 30mm built straight tube Euros.

There is a trmendous difference in light gathering with the larger objective lens (plus better glass and coatings.) I have a couple of the 1.5x5x20mm's and they are a fine scope for a 375, but I use an S&B 1.1x4x24mm and it is a world of difference in low light conditions.

On the other hand, the 1.5x5x20mm Leupold will do very well for 98% of all hunting, bears, leopard, lion over bait would be examples of where the S&B or Swaro would be heads and shoulders above the Leupold. No effective difference for, say, a buff at noon.

FWIW, 24mm vs. 20mm = 20% wider but a huge amount more area for light transmission. Area = Pi x (R squared), iirc my high school math.

Leupold, 3.14 x 10mm squared = 3.14 x 100sqmm = 314sqmm

Euro, here S&B, 3.14 x 12mm squared = 3.14 x 144sqmm = 452sqmm

Euro 24mm objective lenses have 44% more area than 20mm Leupold scopes!

Huge difference to the eye. How much is lens area? How much is lens, coating quality? I'm not sure, but the Euros, at least Swaro and S&B, I have both, blow away the Leupold in low light conditions!

And yes the 30mm end up a bit higher than the 1" scopes, at least with Talley's.

JPK

Another consideration, is the functional light transmitted to the eye. To determine this, one divides the objective diameter by the magnification power being used. This gives the exit pupil, and is the actual diameter of light coming through the scope. About the maximum dilitaion a "younger" eye can achieve is 7mm. By the time you hit 45, this drops to 5mm. Therefore, anything above these diameters is light not transmitted through your eye, and does no good as far as brightness is concerned. You can confirm the exit pupil by holding the rear of the scope away from the eye and looking at the light path, the cicle of light on the ocular lens. Another way of looking at this is on 8 power, a scope with a 40mm objective, will transmit as much light as a 50mm objective at 10x.

quote:

Another way of looking at this is on 8 power, a scope with a 40mm objective, will transmit as much light as a 50mm objective at 10x.

Interesting observation.

Warrior

We need to bring the scope’s exit pupil in line with the capability of the 'average' human eye.

Theoretically they aught to be the same as a minimum requirement, but as can be seen from the following table, the matter is not quite so simple as our eyes deteriorate with age - this is Swarovski’s table:

Age of Person: ----- By 20yrs --- By 40yrs -- By 60yrs
Day Time exit pupil ---- 4.7 mm ------ 3.9 mm ----- 3.1 mm
Night Time --------------- 8.0 mm ------ 6.0 mm ----- 4.1 mm

From the above we can see that during daytime, when there is mostly sufficient light, one can manage with scopes with smaller exit pupils, meaning we do not need overly big objective lenses. In low-magnification scopes (4 times), we can thus get away comfortably during day-time with small objective lenses such as 20 mm, as the exit pupil is still adequate at 5 mm.

High-magnification scopes, such as a 3 – 12 x 42 mm scope still has an exit pupil of 3.5 mm (42 divide by 12) at its highest power setting, which is more than adequate for a 60 year old person during day light, but not ideal at night time. However it would be limiting for the younger person, who would need to turn the power setting down to get a clearer picture.

Both the 6 x 42 mm and 8 x 56 mm fixed-power scopes provide exit pupils of 7 mm - the most the eye of a 30-year old man can handle effectively in twilight conditions, hence their suitability for dark forests and low light conditions. A 20-year old still has a capability of receiving light at 8 mm at night time, whereas a 60-year old is down to 4.1 mm and that is a vast difference.

But there is another benefit of a scope with a larger exit pupil; it does make eye alignment less critical to get a full field of view and thus target acquisition is that much faster.

The ideal is that the exit pupil of the scope should never be smaller than the exit pupil of the person, otherwise the picture will appear to be darker and target acquisition will be much slower, as there is no leeway for some lateral movement of the eye.

Warrior

quote:

However it would be limiting for the younger person, who would need to turn the power setting down to get a clearer picture.

Exit pupil vs. pupil dialation has no effect of clarity.

JPK

I have Swarovskis in both 30mm and 1 inch and they are all head and shoulders better then leuplods.

I also own 1" Zeiss Conquests which are also much better then Leupolds IMO.

As for mounting it is really the diameter of the bell that effects mounting height. I don't like high scopes either but my 30mm Swaros are perfect in talley mounts.

If you want great glass and low mounting try the Swarovski 3-9x36 AV with a 1" tube. They are also very light weight.

As for eye relief I have no problems with my 300 wby and 375 H&H with Swarovski scopes. Also note that Swarovskis have rubber ends on their tubes to protect your eye and PH models have a spring operated system to move the eye piece in. That sharp metal end on the Leupold eye pieces is dangerous!

quote:

Originally posted by GeoffM24:
I have Swarovskis in both 30mm and 1 inch and they are all head and shoulders better then leuplods.

I also own 1" Zeiss Conquests which are also much better then Leupolds IMO.

As for mounting it is really the diameter of the bell that effects mounting height. I don't like high scopes either but my 30mm Swaros are perfect in talley mounts.

If you want great glass and low mounting try the Swarovski 3-9x36 AV with a 1" tube. They are also very light weight.

As for eye relief I have no problems with my 300 wby and 375 H&H with Swarovski scopes. Also note that Swarovskis have rubber ends on their tubes to protect your eye and PH models have a spring operated system to move the eye piece in. That sharp metal end on the Leupold eye pieces is dangerous!

Hey Geoff,

I'm not arguing, since I'm a 30mm fan. for straight scopes but I can't resist:

1. Wondering why Swarovski puts spring operated, rubber cushioned eye pieces on their top of the line scopes! It ain't because of an abundance of eye relief!

2. At least Talley mounts and rings require a 30mm scope to be mounted a bit higher than a 1". Their lowest rings for the 30mm's are higher than their lowest rings for the 1". Teir lowest, btw, is medium, last I looked.

3. If you manage to whack your eye with a Leupold straight tube scope you've got bigger problems than scope choice!

All that said, the Swaro, I own the 1.25x4x24mm, and the S&B, 1.1x4x24, are truly head and shoulders above the Leupold - but only for low light shooting. Given US regs, 1/2 hour before and after sunrise/set, and onlt shooting over bait in the woods would push the Leupold 1.5x5x2mm capabilities.

JPK

It just feels so good looking through a Schmidt and Bender 4x36....
(It has a 1" tube)

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by GeoffM24:
I have Swarovskis in both 30mm and 1 inch and they are all head and shoulders better then leuplods.

I also own 1" Zeiss Conquests which are also much better then Leupolds IMO.

As for mounting it is really the diameter of the bell that effects mounting height. I don't like high scopes either but my 30mm Swaros are perfect in talley mounts.

If you want great glass and low mounting try the Swarovski 3-9x36 AV with a 1" tube. They are also very light weight.

As for eye relief I have no problems with my 300 wby and 375 H&H with Swarovski scopes. Also note that Swarovskis have rubber ends on their tubes to protect your eye and PH models have a spring operated system to move the eye piece in. That sharp metal end on the Leupold eye pieces is dangerous!

Hey Geoff,

I'm not arguing, since I'm a 30mm fan. for straight scopes but I can't resist:

1. Wondering why Swarovski puts spring operated, rubber cushioned eye pieces on their top of the line scopes! It ain't because of an abundance of eye relief!

2. At least Talley mounts and rings require a 30mm scope to be mounted a bit higher than a 1". Their lowest rings for the 30mm's are higher than their lowest rings for the 1". Teir lowest, btw, is medium, last I looked.

3. If you manage to whack your eye with a Leupold straight tube scope you've got bigger problems than scope choice!

All that said, the Swaro, I own the 1.25x4x24mm, and the S&B, 1.1x4x24, are truly head and shoulders above the Leupold - but only for low light shooting. Given US regs, 1/2 hour before and after sunrise/set, and onlt shooting over bait in the woods would push the Leupold 1.5x5x2mm capabilities.

JPK

Fair enough. Low is only an issue if you can't get low enough and I haven't found that to be an issue with 30mm tubes.

I worried a lot about eye relief until I got my first Swarovski and had no issues. I then worried about it on the 375 and again had no issues. On a 416 Rigby plus I'd look at the EE models I think.

More eye relief is needed on heavy recoiling rifles such as magnums or the big bores. An eye relief of 75 to 80 mm is good enough for standard calibers up to 30-06 Spr level. Recoil starts to become a factor to reckon with from about 33 ft-lbs of recoil energy, like with the 300 Win Mag for which 80 to 85 mm is advisable. In Medium bores, in the class of .375 H&H with 44 ft-lbs of recoil energy, one is better off with 85 - 90 mm eye relief.

Pay attention to stock design - a stock design with a fair amount of drop at the comb and heel, bucks upward and are notorious for cutting eyes open when scoped. Big bores from the 416 Rigby and up, require at least 95 mm of eye relief combined with straight stocks. The recoil of a 416 Rigby is brutal at 65 ft-lbs; double the kick of a 300 Win Mag! Also make sure the stock is not too short, and that the scope is fitted in such a way that it provides naturally the right amount of clearance when the rifle is shouldered.

Schmidt und Bender offers one of the best scopes for hunting of dangerous game as they are rugged and offer 95 mm eye relief. Swarovski's dangerous game scope, definitely fall short with a mere 80 mm eye relief. The Leopold VX-111 scope 1.5 - 5 x 20 mm offers variable eye relief of 112 mm (1.5x) to 93 mm (5x). Quite a bit more than European scopes, providing a bigger safety margin.

Warrior

quote:

Schmidt und Bender offers one of the best scopes for hunting of dangerous game as they are rugged and offer 95 mm eye relief. Swarovski's dangerous game scope, definitely fall short with a mere 80 mm eye relief. The Leopold VX-111 scope 1.5 - 5 x 20 mm offers variable eye relief of 112 mm to 93 mm (1.5x). Quite a bit more than European scopes, providing a bigger safety margin.

Warrior

The Extented Eye relief models from Swarovski offer 120 mm of eye relief.

http://www.opticsplanet.net/sw...ee-4-cd-reticle.html

Thanks for all the information, I got sidetracked on this, had some time to read and search about today. What do you all think of the Nightforce scopes, I saw one of you reccomended them, I would be interested in their 1-4 x 24mm.

Rae59, yes I would be interested in how it goes, I have had that occur on other rifles, never had an adverse impact on use, for me.

JPK, scubapro, GeofM24, warrior, woods, et al;
thanks for the input and info, to be honest I'll probably fiddle around with this and default to trying the Swaro Z6, 1-6x as I have always been pleased with their optics.

quote:

Originally posted by GeoffM24:
Fair enough. Low is only an issue if you can't get low enough and I haven't found that to be an issue with 30mm tubes.

I worried a lot about eye relief until I got my first Swarovski and had no issues. I then worried about it on the 375 and again had no issues. On a 416 Rigby plus I'd look at the EE models I think.

Geoff,

I agree, with you, the 30mm scopes are low enough with Talley rings and mounts. Also, I have no problems with the eye relief Sawaros typically offer, none with their 1.25x4x30mm. When I fidle with the sprung eyepiece I get a hoot though.

BTW, in contrast to Warrior, I believe that light rifles can to be stocked straighter and higher since your aren't going to be relying on using them with express sights or ghost rings, but a 375 or better ought to be stocked so you can use either the scope or the express sights. Scope off is still the way to go for really thick bush, cape buff follow ups and elephants in any cercumstances! Too straight or two high a stock and that won't work, as I'm sure you know. And that is why QD's are right for the medium bores too. Apparently lost on Warrior.

JPenn,

If I were buying a scope today for a 375 or 416, it would have to be the Swaro Z1 1x6x30mm. I think its a great choice.

Please report on how it works for you and what you think of the 375/Z1 1x6/Talley combo.

Which reticle are you choosing?

JPK

whats wrong with a straight 4x leupold, if you want something a bit better optically go for the zeiss conquest or the s&b......the 4x will cover 95 %of your hunting needs and more, its light, small /compact , does not unbalance your rifle...what more do you need
Daneil

I sure am glad we cleared this one up.

quote:

Originally posted by M 98:
whats wrong with a straight 4x leupold, if you want something a bit better optically go for the zeiss conquest or the s&b......the 4x will cover 95 %of your hunting needs and more, its light, small /compact , does not unbalance your rifle...what more do you need
Daneil

Yes, fine for most opportunities, for sure.

Too much magnification and too little field of view for close range shooting in my experience, whether that is whitetail deer or cape buffalo. There are plenty of those close range opportunities, and they ought to be sought at that.

Fine as the top magnification for a variable though.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by JPenn:
Woods,

Here is the situation in more detail:

1) I would be putting a new scope on a 375H&H, so eye relief is important, especially under less than ideal situations. Maybe the Habicht model Swarovski is a 1" tube, I can't tell from their website, but the eye relief is unacceptable to me.

2) I have no interest in the higher powered scopes with the larger objective lens, thus the larger diameter of a 30mm (approx 1.2 inch diameter) tube means that in the same height rings, the center of the scope, where your eye naturally focuses, will be about 1/10 inch higher, so as a practical matter, you are correct, not much higher. I already mount the scope as low as possible, the bolt handle barely clears on the 1.5 x 5 Leupold, so unless I am missing something else, I can't lower the height of the rings just because I change to a 30mm.

3) Based on the Swarovski website, the only currently manufactured model with as much eye relief as I would like is the Z6 1x6, which is a 30mm scope.

So I will have to satisfy myself that the fraction of an inch higher from the 30mm tube does not change a rifle that fits extremely well.

I prefer Swarovski to the other high quality scopes, so that is the website I checked, I will look into Zeiss, S&B etc. I agree that Swarovski's are clearly optically superior.

Thanks again for taking the time to share information, oh, and if you can show me where to buy Swarovski cheaper than Leupold, that would really be appreciated.

JPenn,

Hope this IS settled - I'm think the above replies have settled on two things:

As long as your plans are to scope the 375 with
1) a scope having an objective lens less than or equal to 40 mm and
2) a power less than or equal to 6X

>>> a 30mm tube has NO advantge over a 1" tube! Therefore just get a good quality scope with 1" tube.


PS: Do I read this correctly or have I missed something???

quote:

Originally posted by RaySendero:
>>> a 30mm tube has NO advantge over a 1" tube! Therefore just get a good quality scope with 1" tube.

PS: Do I read this correctly or have I missed something???

No you missed something!

1" straght tube scope have only 20mm objective lenses. 30mm straight tube scopes have 24mm objective lenses. So, the 30mm straight tube has a 40% advantage in light gathering surface area.

Even if you believe Warrior's post that a 40yr old cannot use any more exit pupil than 6mm, and at age 47 I do not find that true personaly, than the 24mm objective lens available in 30mm straight tube scopes allows greater magnification.

For examples:
Leupold 1.5x5x20mm gives a 6mm exit pupil at 3.3x

An S&B or Swaro with a 24mm objective lens gives a 6mm exit pupil at 4x.

But in any event, no matter how anyone slices it and dices it, the S&B and Swaro, Kahles, etc, 30mm scopes are the brightest scopes in the world.

JPK

I like the straight tubes on the 375's that will be used in Africa, or anywhere without a sling, because I find they carry easier over the shoulder. I find a sling a pita in the thick stuff.

On the size and weight, not much there.

Swaro Z1 1x6x24 30mm: 3.75" eye relief, 14.8oz, 11.54".

S&B 1.1x4x24 30mm: 3.5" eye relief, 160z (but with an illuminated reticle), 11.2"

Both by far more versatile for a 375H&H, especially better because of the reduced magnification option at close range and in the thick stuff.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

1" straght tube scope have only 20mm objective lenses. 30mm straight tube scopes have 24mm objective lenses. So, the 30mm straight tube has a 40% advantage in light gathering surface area.

True, if you must have a straight tube. But a 1" scope with a 32mm tube will gather more light and weigh less than a 30mm straight tube scope.

There is also an aspect of optics construction that people overlook regarding exit pupil size. In the real world, the closer the light passes to the center of nearly all lenses, the less distortion. That is, distortion and aberration increase as you move away from the center of the lens. So, an exit pupil just a little larger than can enter your eye isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I agree with DMB. If you're looking for fine optics for a .375 I'd suggest something like the Schmidt & Bender 4x36mm with the 1" tube. It only weighs 14 ounces, is only 11.4" long, and 3.3" of eye relief is adequate.

I wouldn't want a fixed 4 power on my 375, I want lower in the thick stuff and more in the open. You are giving to much up with this scope just to have a 1" tube.

Well, if you have a need to shoot both close up and out to 200 yds, and you do not want to pay the high prices of the European scopes, and you can live with 1" tube where sunshine is the rule and not the exception, unlike the dark forests of Europe, then there is nothing wrong with a Leupold VX-III 1.75-6x 32mm Heavy Duplex Reticle. It is definately more versatile than a 1-4x or a fixed 4x. Eye relief varies from 4.8 to 3.7 inches. A light scope at 10.9 oz that handles recoil very well. Not in the class of German made scopes, but fit for purpose. You will not even notice that it would put you at a disadvantage, other things/variables will affect you more.

You can get the scope for $399.

Warrior

I agree that the 1-6x or 1-4x are far more versatile and I also prefer the straight tubes. Definitely want the 1x option on a medium or larger bore, African rifle. M98 and others, I am a fan of plain old 4X for most rifles, fail to understand the need for a 4-16x (or whatever) variable on any hunting rifle other than a varmiter.

JPK, I'll most likely stay with the #4 reticle, although I am interested in looking at one with the CD? reticle. My rush to do this has slowed as eye doc STILL wants me to hold off shooting anything larger than a 22 'til after next check up in late March (lens replacement surgery).

I believe I have the equivelent of the 4A on my S&B and the illuminated dot on my Swaro. The 4A is by far the more useful, with or without illumination. I don't think you could go wrong with the 4, 4A or CD.

When you get the rifle and scope set up, pleae post a report on how the combo does, its gotta be just perfect!

JPK