Got a chance at the Reno show to examine and look through one of those ridiculous looking new Leupold scopes with the half-moon cut out on the bottom of the objective bell.

I was right about my earlier assertion on here that they had to add a corrective lens to remove aberrations caused by the non-circular objective lens.

According to the two Leupold guys I talked to they were meeting the demands from a bunch of customers that wanted a 56mm objective that they could mount low on their rifles. They both felt pretty much as most of us here did about the whole idea...but they also said they are selling really well.

"Selling well" is not uncommon with new product introductions. For one thing, a lot of retailers will stock a new product from a supplier like Leupold, which makes initial orders look pretty good. The reason for this is that there are always a number of people who just have to have the latest (and presumably best) of any product and will blithely pay whatever is asked without much regard to its utility or performance. Sales levels eighteen months or so after introduction will tell the ultimte tale. Just ask the marketers of the old Redfield TV lenses (if they were still around to ask.)

As I understand it, Rick, the additional correcting lens, which has to absorb some amount of light, should just about make up the difference in the extra light from the (sort of) 6mm of additional lens diameter, so you end up in about the same place as you would ("lightwise") with a 50mm (or smaller) lens. In other words, the bizarre divot in the bottom of your objective bell does a big net of essentially zero for you at the cost of $XXX in money and infinate loss of aesthetics.

Legal hunting in Texas is limited to 30 minutes before/after sunrise/set. Unless and until the law changes, a 32mm lens on 4x scope will do all I need in the way of "light gathering".

Stonecreek,

You got it my friend!

People on here probably get really tied of me saying this all the time but when it comes to optics there is NO such thing as a free-lunch. You get something...You give something back, PERIOD END OF STORY!

Optical manufacturers may be able to do allot of things but none of them has yet figured out how to repeal the laws of physics that govern the transmission of light waves traveling through their products to our eyes.

Just because you deem them goofy does of mean the rest of us think like that. Lowering the scope as close to the barrel is a very good idea. That is always the most important thing when mounting a scope in my opinion. I personally like the concept. My next scope purchase will be one of there goofy scopes.

I think the point was that if you don't have a useless great front bell you don't need the weird shape. If you want to shoot in the dark use a spotlight.

Someone tell me again why a slight lowering of the scope does much anyway. Gets in the way of loading the mag, one may have to remove the rear sight, may get in the way of the bolt handle etc.
I'm past thinking this early but I had a vague notion that a highish scope could work in with the bullets trajectory?

quote:

Originally posted by JAL:
I think the point was that if you don't have a useless great front bell you don't need the weird shape. If you want to shoot in the dark use a spotlight.

Someone tell me again why a slight lowering of the scope does much anyway. Gets in the way of loading the mag, one may have to remove the rear sight, may get in the way of the bolt handle etc.
I'm past thinking this early but I had a vague notion that a highish scope could work in with the bullets trajectory?

I too am a believer in mounting scopes as low as possible within the limits of the equipment and the users natural head position when shooting. Low mounted scopes make for a far better balanced rifle than do high mounted scopes, and the adjustment range built into a scope is not designed for a scope mounted ultra high over the bore.

The “theory†behind the new Leupold scopes is that you get the supposed “best†of both worlds...extra large objective, low mounting capabilities.

I put those quotes around the word theory, because it is just that...a theory that those scopes are going to provide the shooter with a noticeable difference in light transmission over a 36mm or 40mm objective lens. The 50mm VX-L will mount at the height of a 36mm scope, and the 56mm VX-L will mount as low as a 40mm.

Since the human eye/pupil can only take advantage of so much light allot of the very impressive stated light transmissions are really nothing more than marketing hype, and you are paying for light your eyes are incapable of using in most cases.

It’s like paying for 32 ounces of beer and having the bartender try to pour it into a 16 ounce glass all at once. Sounds great, but unless you want to lick the bar or suck it out of your Levis you ain’t getting the other 16 ounces you paid for.

Well, I am not questioning the technology till I look through one, but I must say I would have a difficult time finding a rifle that would make that scope look badass on. I watched the flash deal, and the first thing I saw was a rifle with a real nice walnut stock, and I said that sure doesnt look nice on a wood stocked rifle, maybe a synthetic stainless or something like that might look better. Well, not really. the very end of the commercial shows a SS synthetic rifle with that scope, still did not look quite "right". Guess it really doesnt matter, cause I cant afford the high end Leupolds anyways. Maybe its a fad like the WSM's!

The funniest comment I heard at the show about those scopes actually came from one of the Leupold guys.

It seems that in order to allow low mounting on the largest number of rifles Leupold had to make the radius sized to work with the largest possible barrel diameter. They have already had people contacting them complaining that the large radius will leave too much gap on their skinny barrels, so can they make the scopes with different sized radius cut outs to fit all the different barrel sizes!

There is no way to please everyone I guess!

You can always turn it upside down and have a smiley face, atleast that might not scare everything in the woods away, he he.

quote:

Originally posted by 31 bertram:
You can always turn it upside down and have a smiley face, atleast that might not scare everything in the woods away, he he.

I guess this is one where science doesn't win out. Light transmission is not a function of diameter, but a function of area. Being poor at calculus, I can't figure out the area of the new eclipse scopes, but my gut feeling is that it may be less than a standard 50mm scope and may be close to that of the 40mm.

John

quote:

Originally posted by Big Bore Boar Hunter:
I guess this is one where science doesn't win out. Light transmission is not a function of diameter, but a function of area. Being poor at calculus, I can't figure out the area of the new eclipse scopes, but my gut feeling is that it may be less than a standard 50mm scope and may be close to that of the 40mm.

John

I looked through the 56mm model and then looked through a 40mm regular Leupold scope and I have to confess that there certainly wasn’t any difference that jumped out at me. Admittedly, being inside a building with artificial lighting isn’t the best of test conditions but those conditions would have the same effect on all the scopes.

The corrective lens, or lenses, needed to correct the aberations caused by the shape of the objective lens will eat up some of the supposed increase in light, and they will also add weight to the system. Leupold claims that the 56mm delivers 96 percent more “total light throughput†(whatever that phrase means) than a 40mm scope of the same magnification.

Unless I am mistaken, most of these types of stats given by scope manufacturers are arrived at through physics formulas rather than by actual light readings taken through the scope with a light meter.

Since optical labs have the technology to use light meter readings that tends to make me believe that the reason they don’t use the results of those tests in their advertizing is because the light meters don’t show the huge gains and differences between scopes that the math formulas do. The math formulas give you the theoretical...the light meter gives you the actual.

The largest, and to me the most important variable in any optical instrument is the one that the manufacturer has no control over...that being the customers eyes. Everyone sees light differently and everyone perceives slight changes in the intensity of light differently.

Much of the marketing hype in scopes is the result of stuff that the vast majority of human beings can never take advantage of (or even notice) due to the physical limits of our eyes.

Quoting from American Hunter this month, page 68

"Leupold accomplished it, and the result is a scope that can be mounted as low as a 36 and 40mm scopes, but that has 83.4 and 48.6 percent more light-gathering surface area than a 36 and 40mm scope, respectively, according to company engineers. Logically, the VX-L has 4.5 percent less surface area than a traditional 50mm scope."

"In terms hunters, including myself, can understand, think of the VX-L as having the light-gathering capability of a 47.775mm scope, but one that mounts to your gun as low as a 36 or 40mm scope (depending on the rifle's barrel contour)."

Hope this helps

quote:

Originally posted by woods:
Quoting from American Hunter this month, page 68

"Leupold accomplished it, and the result is a scope that can be mounted as low as a 36 and 40mm scopes, but that has 83.4 and 48.6 percent more light-gathering surface area than a 36 and 40mm scope, respectively, according to company engineers. Logically, the VX-L has 4.5 percent less surface area than a traditional 50mm scope."

Hope this helps

Quoting from the new Leupold catalog the guys at the show gave me......

The 50mm Vx-L delivers 48.6% more “total light throughput†(there’s that weird phrase again!) than a 36mm scope.

And the 56mm Vx-L delivers 96% more of that wacky phrase than does a 40mm scope.

But no matter what, it still looks like someone took a 56mm scope into a prairie dog town, got overzealous and then had the scope melt onto the barrel.

I just can't stomach the looks of it.........

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
But no matter what, it still looks like someone took a 56mm scope into a prairie dog town, got overzealous and then had the scope melt onto the barrel.

I just can't stomach the looks of it.........

I’m with you on that!

Rick 0311, I read your post over and over. I just can't figure out what makes you such an authority on scopes. I have all kinds of Leupold scopes from 32 mm to 50 mm and I indeed see the difference in the brightness between them. Where the bigger bell plays in is, in lower light conditions. I am not talking about illegal night hunting, I am talking about in the deep woods and low light conditions, not as JAL was referring to shooting in the dark.

JAL, the reason to mount a scope as close to the barrel is so you are not having to look over the stock to see your scope. It will not affect the parallax mounting the scope low. Also you can run out of adjustment in a scope mounting it so high. I think those guys with see through mounts are out there, they have to lift there heads off the stock to see through there scope which affect the parallax. Look through your scope and then move your head up and down, you will see how your cross hairs appear to move around. "Parallax (Greek: παÏαλλαγή (parallagé) = alteration) is the change of angular position of two stationary points relative to each other as seen by an observer, due to the motion of an observer. Simply put; it is the apparent shift of an object against a background due to a change in observer position."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

Redhawk,

You must not have read as carefully as you think or you would have found that I NEVER said there was no perceptible difference between a 36mm and a 40mm, 50mm, or 56mm.

What I was referring to was that “I†saw no perceptible difference in brightness between a 56mm VX-L and the “normal†Leupold scope.

As for my experience with optics, I’m sorry if you feel as though I am proclaiming myself as an “expert†(which I have not) but I base my opinions on optics on 40 years of using rifle scopes, spotting scopes, 35mm SLR camera lenses...and 30 plus years working in the motion picture business where I have had the opportunity to use the best lenses on the planet, and have long and informative discussions with men who make their living by understanding how lenses work.

I love Leupold scopes, and I own several. The opinions I gave about this new model were also partly based on three days of sitting there talking to two gentlemen who work for Leupold and share the opinions I have expressed on here.

So...now that I’ve shown you mine, what is your background and experience in optics that makes you so much more educated in optical theory and the laws governing light waves?

hey rick - remember the old widefield gimmick. these'll go the same way.

quote:

Originally posted by Big Bore Boar Hunter:
I guess this is one where science doesn't win out. Light transmission is not a function of diameter, but a function of area. Being poor at calculus, I can't figure out the area of the new eclipse scopes, but my gut feeling is that it may be less than a standard 50mm scope and may be close to that of the 40mm.

John

Actually, it is light gathering that is a function of objective lens area, not transmission, which is a function of the quality and coatings of the lenses, but nontheless . . .

Good point, and one to which I alluded when I said " 'sort of' additional lens diameter". The 50 and 56mm Eclipses obviously have some (difficult to calculate) lesser objective area that a round lens of the same diameter. That, coupled with the fact that they have to have extra, light-absorbing lenses to correct the abberated light through the unusual objective lens, must necessarily mean that their net light capture/transmission is notably lower than a convential scope of a somewhat smaller objective diameter.

In other words, their "total light throughput" (don't ya love Madison Avenue!), whatever that is, is irrelavent, because YOU CAN'T SEE AS WELL THOUGH AN ECLIPSE AS YOU COULD A SCOPE OF COMPARABLE QUALITY WITH A SOMEWHAT SMALLER LENS.

And yes, low mounting is very important, (1) because most stocks require it in order to allow your cheek to rest appropriately on the comb, and (2) because any canting of the gun will cause greater horizontal displacement of the shot the higher the scope is mounted. But slicing a notch out of the bottom of your scope is an extremely inefficient, expensive, and UGLY way to accomplish low scope mounting.

quote:

Originally posted by butchloc:
hey rick - remember the old widefield gimmick. these'll go the same way.

Yes I do...and that was another example of an attempt by some engineer/marketing type to re-invent the wheel, solve an non-existent problem, or attract new customers.

The only true advances in optics in 50 years have been in the quality of the glass used in the lenses, the coatings applied to those lenses, the cements used to hold them in place, and the gases and sealing systems.

There have also been mechanical advances in the inner mechanisms when it comes to adjustments and “zooming†features found on variable models.

All of these advances are available to all manufacturers and about the only things they can do to compete in the market place is to offer bells and whistles that some people find appealing for one reason or another.

Do these bells and whistles make one scope superior to another? I guess that’s up to each person to decide for themselves based on what they “believe†they are getting for their money.

"Corrective Lens" So we're talking about a scope that needs glasses right? And I just thought it looked funny.

Just to be nice, I hope everybody that buy's one enjoy's it

Terry

You have to remember, Leupold is going to say they are selling well because every distributor that carries Leupold products are adding them to their inventory thus the added sales for Leupold.

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
"Corrective Lens" So we're talking about a scope that needs glasses right? And I just thought it looked funny.

Just to be nice, I hope everybody that buy's one enjoy's it

Terry

Terry,

Never thought of it that way...but that is pretty funny!

As I’m sure you know, all lens systems “need glasses“ since the different colored light waves bend differently depending on their wave length as they pass through each lens. Trying to get all those waves to converge (focus) at the same point is quite a trick...especially when some idiot engineer decides to toss a different shaped objective lens into the game.

Rick 0311, I never said you proclaimed yourself as an “expert†but an authority. Maybe my question should of been were did you get the knowledge or your background.

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:
Rick 0311, I never said you proclaimed yourself as an “expert†but an authority. Maybe my question should of been were did you get the knowledge or your background.

I don’t believe I ever proclaimed myself to be anything and that would include being an “authority“. I was stating my opinions, and I believe that I clearly stated what those opinions were based upon.

The natural laws governing light and the design of optics are what they are...I didn’t create them.

Anyone who pursues a hobby or a career involving the use of optics had better take the time to learn as much as they can about the natural laws governing light. I have been involved in 35mm photography both as a hobbyist and in my profession in the motion picture business for over three decades and during those years I have had the opportunity to be around some of the most famous photographers and cinematographers in the world. These men are true artists and film is there canvas, lenses are their brushes, and light is their paint.

In addition to that, I have studied everything I could get my hands on concerning optics for as long as I can remember. While most of the guys at the Reno show were visiting the gun tables I spent most of my time at the Leupold and Swaro tables picking the brains of the guys that work for those companies and examining their products and asking questions.

I also have allot of professional quality 35mm camera gear and that includes several high quality light meters and resolution test targets.

In addition to all of that I have taken the time to have my eye doctor do tests on my particular eyes to see how my eyes perceive very slight light changes.

When I got really interested in rifle scopes (about 30 years ago) I bought a bunch of the cheaper versions and proceeded to take them apart to see how everything inside them worked.

That’s my optical background...what’s yours, and on what do you base your opinions concerning scopes?

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

Actually, it is light gathering that is a function of objective lens area, not transmission, which is a function of the quality and coatings of the lenses, but nontheless . . .

Good point, and one to which I alluded when I said " 'sort of' additional lens diameter". The 50 and 56mm Eclipses obviously have some (difficult to calculate) lesser objective area that a round lens of the same diameter. That, coupled with the fact that they have to have extra, light-absorbing lenses to correct the abberated light through the unusual objective lens, must necessarily mean that their net light capture/transmission is notably lower than a convential scope of a somewhat smaller objective diameter.

In other words, their "total light throughput" (don't ya love Madison Avenue!), whatever that is, is irrelavent, because YOU CAN'T SEE AS WELL THOUGH AN ECLIPSE AS YOU COULD A SCOPE OF COMPARABLE QUALITY WITH A SOMEWHAT SMALLER LENS.

Right you are on the physics... I think this is one where Leupold is trying to capitalize on a misunderstanding of a general rule, "mount them scopes low" Modern American stocks seem to be setup for a 50mm objective mounted 1/8" above the barrel, but 56 does create some problems. When the local gun store gets some in, I will have to play with them and see what, if any, optical anomolies are present.

John

Scopes don’t “gather†light...light just passes through them.

Other than that minor misnomer I totally agree with Stonecreek’s analysis of these silly scopes...and so did the two guys from Leupold who attended the Reno show. They were both very clear in their opinion that this was nothing more than a marketing ploy that really had no practical purpose since a scope of equal actual brightness could be mounted just as low as this ridiculous looking thing.

The apparent “bigger†objective bell, I guess, makes some people think that the scope must be better at allowing more light to pass through. As PT Barnum said: You will seldom go broke in underestimating the intelligence of your fellow man.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:
Rick 0311, I never said you proclaimed yourself as an “expert†but an authority. Maybe my question should of been were did you get the knowledge or your background.

I don’t believe I ever proclaimed myself to be anything and that would include being an “authority“. I was stating my opinions, and I believe that I clearly stated what those opinions were based upon.

The natural laws governing light and the design of optics are what they are...I didn’t create them.

Anyone who pursues a hobby or a career involving the use of optics had better take the time to learn as much as they can about the natural laws governing light. I have been involved in 35mm photography both as a hobbyist and in my profession in the motion picture business for over three decades and during those years I have had the opportunity to be around some of the most famous photographers and cinematographers in the world. These men are true artists and film is there canvas, lenses are their brushes, and light is their paint.

In addition to that, I have studied everything I could get my hands on concerning optics for as long as I can remember. While most of the guys at the Reno show were visiting the gun tables I spent most of my time at the Leupold and Swaro tables picking the brains of the guys that work for those companies and examining their products and asking questions.

I also have allot of professional quality 35mm camera gear and that includes several high quality light meters and resolution test targets.

In addition to all of that I have taken the time to have my eye doctor do tests on my particular eyes to see how my eyes perceive very slight light changes.

When I got really interested in rifle scopes (about 30 years ago) I bought a bunch of the cheaper versions and proceeded to take them apart to see how everything inside them worked.

That’s my optical background...what’s yours, and on what do you base your opinions concerning scopes?

I only have 35 years of experience hunting with optics. I am also a avid shooter. I spend a great amount of time at the range and I am always looking through spotting scopes and Bino's and scopes. My background is no where near the experience you have. But I am wise enough to know what works for me. But if I can learn anything from your experiences, it will help me in the long run.

Redhawk1,

If you read any of my posts about optics you will normally see something about optics being very dependent upon the last set of lenses that the light goes through...your own eyes!

A guy should always use what works best for him, and what works for you may not work for me, and visa-versa.

Placebo’s are proven to work on some people just because those people “believe†that they are getting medicine instead of a sugar pill...so if Leupold’s new placebo scopes make some people believe they are getting a brighter sight picture then perhaps they will serve some purpose.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
Redhawk1,

If you read any of my posts about optics you will normally see something about optics being very dependent upon the last set of lenses that the light goes through...your own eyes!

A guy should always use what works best for him, and what works for you may not work for me, and visa-versa.

Placebo’s are proven to work on some people just because those people “believe†that they are getting medicine instead of a sugar pill...so if Leupold’s new placebo scopes make some people believe they are getting a brighter sight picture then perhaps they will serve some purpose.

Your post reminds me of the "high end" stereo business. Replace the word placebo with synergy and you could be a salesman/enthusiast. When I would go into a highend stereo shop, it would amaze me how the salesman could keep a straight face and tell a customer that a $500-$600 digital stereo cable was going to make his CD player sound better. Funny stuff.

Terry

Terry,

I agree. It seems like all industries practice this...and why not, it sure seems to work for them most of the time!

Stick the word “digital†on anything and the interest and the price rises proportionally.

Kind of like that old saying: We buy junk and sell antiques!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Redhawk1:
JAL, the reason to mount a scope as close to the barrel is so you are not having to look over the stock to see your scope. It will not affect the parallax mounting the scope low.
[Quote]


BLOODY INTERNET. Everyone tends to read into a statement their own bias.
So everyone wants their scope as low as possible? The new shape will suit you. Maybe they'll do the same with 44/40/32 size bells so you all can get'em real low.
Jeepers, I never suggested extra high mounts just for the fun of it, but I thought we were talking of a few mm here. ie. HALF of the diameter increase.

It's wonderful to know the Lads got the scope height just right for you all.
Heck it's a wonder you don't see all mounts made in Low, lower and jam it down onto the action. Actually I have more trouble with stocks being TOO HIGH thanks, esp if you go back to iron sights.
The only trouble I've had with mounts is TOO LOW
a higher Ruger mount here is about $A170.00 and no tradeins. Usually have to take off sights, grind into barrels and bolt handles etc. just to get a couple of mm clearance because of a front focus ring, and mounts just too damn low for popular size scopes.

[Quote]
Also you can run out of adjustment in a scope mounting it so high. [Quote]


Never said anything about VERY high mounts, commented about you all panic-ing about a few mm higher than absolute rock bloody bottom. Only time i've run out of adjustment is at 900y.

[Quote]
I think those guys with see through mounts are out there, they have to lift there heads off the stock to see through there scope which affect the parallax. Look through your scope and then move your head up and down, you will see how your cross hairs appear to move around. of due to the motion of an observer. [Quote]


Sorry, can't figure what your on about re parallax. As far as I know it has nothing at all to do with scope height. If you havent got it you can move your head around all you like and the cross hairs won't move. AND if you center your eye to the scope image, regardless of the scope height, up or down, and regardless of any parallax error, well you won't see it and you won't shoot off anyway.

Whenever I check for parallax I havent got it and the headmovements required are quite obvious with the scope image.

As for high scopes, some friends had scopes on FN-30's (FAL's) with the low low barrel and gas system above like the AK-47. Now they were way above the bore, and with the hand way down on a pistol grip they were way way top heavy, but a scope is such a good thing no one bothered to whinge about it.
Sorry about the rant, but this is what happens when the morning paper doesn't arrive on time.

Leupolds Eclipse scope is an ugly solution to an unnessary problem. It looks like it was designed in France by the Berthier developement team.................DJ

JAL,

If you will notice “I†said that in my opinion scopes should be mounted as low as the equipment and the shooters natural head position allows. If that’s four feet above the barrel, then so be it.

Just so you know, and if you happen to use one, BDC features on scopes are designed for a certain height above the bore...and anything other than that height will throw off the BDC feature to a certain degree.

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
Leupolds Eclipse scope is an ugly solution to an unnessary problem. It looks like it was designed in France by the Berthier developement team.................DJ

Among all of the nasty comments about the French recently, comparing their designs to the ugliness of the Eclipse has to be the most insulting!

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
JAL,

If you will notice “I†said that in my opinion scopes should be mounted as low as the equipment and the shooters natural head position allows. If that’s four feet above the barrel, then so be it. [Quote]


Yeah, looks like a lawyer wrote it.

[Quote]
Just so you know, and if you happen to use one, BDC features on scopes are designed for a certain height above the bore...and anything other than that height will throw off the BDC feature to a certain degree.

Never even seen a BDC down here. We don't tend to shoot long range, I'd guess 90% would be under 75yards. Closest for me was a rabbit at about 3feet.)
I missed.

I guess time will tell if these new scope will catch one or are just another passing fad.
I use a Leupold Euro 30 with a 50mm objective and it fits neatly into Blaser low mounts.
I also have a 4x fixed Leupold with the 33 (or is it 32?)mm obj lens, in low mounts on my Ruger 77. That clears the BBL easily, but the bolt handle is almost touching the occular bell when operated.
Sorry, this just looks like another sales gimmick to me.
JMHO. Have fun with it if you get one!

Cheers, Dave.

I'd rather have to raise my head up a quarter of an inch than have one of those ugly son of bitches!

The Kimber rifles have higher combs than other factory rifles and therefore will allow larger objectives and oculars as well. The comparison I did with the Remington site showed it to be about +3/4"

A good part of the discussion about the Elipse scope is that it looks wrong and looks are important to me. A takeback on the higher comb is that irons are not possible. On the other hand the higher line of sight shows a flatter trajectory over game ranges.

Here is a good walking varminter with a 40mm AO and a scope cover with still room to spare. The cheek weld is excellent with these high mounts. A high comb has lots of advantages.