Does anyone has more insight on that? I loved Ross Seyfried in the publications now it seems that Barsness had to take its head?

I think Ross Seyfried is writing for one of the Hunting magazines, but not sure which one. Maybe someone will know.
But, John Barsness left Wolf Publishing and is now writing for Guns Magazine. I subscribed to Guns magazine before JB joined their staff and now with JB as one of their writers, it's even better. He also wrote an article recently for the American Rifleman, one of the magazines that the NRA publishes, and he may have written an article that was published in Varmint Hunter's magazine.
John Barsness never publicized the details of his leaving Wolf Publications, so there is only speculation about what happened. Good move on John's part for not draging out any dirty laundry to air in public.. He's a very high class guy.

Actually,

JB is quite low class. He has never said nor mentioned where Leupold are made as well as several other manufacter of riflescopes. He is just vague enough to take the sponser money while the reader's pay for subscription of advertisement.

Norseman,

Leupolds are made all over, a few in America and a few in the Phillipines, SE Asia and so on.

I don't know what your beef is with that. Only the really good quality products are made in America by Leupold and Burris. The scopes 3-9 Rifleman wouldn't cost $200 if it was made in America due to the hard cold facts of paying American workers more than minimum wage.

One of my Califoney buddies hangs around some board that barsness frequents. He tells me barsness believes a person can "Anneal Cases" using a candle. Does barsness really think that is true?

Barsness has FORGOTTEN more about shooting, hunting, optics, and reloading than most of his internet critics will ever know.........envy is a poor bedfellow.......

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
One of my Califoney buddies hangs around some board that barsness frequents. He tells me barsness believes a person can "Anneal Cases" using a candle. Does barsness really think that is true?

I've read much of John B. writings and based on my own experience in over 55 years of shooting, he knows his stuff. JMHO. I can truly atate that unlike most gunwriters, if you write him, he will answer as the hald dozen letters I have from him prove. He's always been polite and never talked down to me in any of the letters, even when we disagree.As far as the quality of leupold scopes, I've only had a problem with one scope. I sent it back and it as replace in just about a week. You damn well can't bitch about that.
I personally would consider it an honor to sit down with John, have a cup or two and share a meal with him. I think it not only would be fun, but enlightening.
Paul B.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul B:
I think it not only would be fun, but enlightening.
Paul B.

Indeed it would.

I've known John since he came out of college and was still wet behind the ears in the writing business. His mentor was a good friend of mine, the late Norm Strung -- a professor of English and one of the better writers in the outdoor field.

I see a lot of support for Barsness, surely one of you all knows what he thinks about Annealing. So how about it, does Barsness believe a person can Anneal Cases with a "Candle"?

Just read the other day he sees "absolutely no use"(or words to that effect) for a scope with an Objective lens bigger than 40mm. Do all you Barsness supporters go along with that?

And I've seen him write that CHE and PRE are both worthless(or words to that effect). And I've recently read that he ALWAYS read Ken Waters' articles and books. Is he unable to comprehend what Mr. Waters has ALWAYS said?

I don't know Barsness at all and from what I've read and heard, it seems like he has a whole lot to learn.

If he is such a great writer, why do you think the magazine axed him? It doesn't matter to me because I only receive the NRA American Hunter. I've read a few things from Barsness in it and they were routine Hunting articles.

Nothing I've written is intended to Trash or condem Barsness, I'm just missing what you all see. So if you think that is what is going on, you are wrong. So how about some answers?

Sorry, but I have no idea about John Barsness' recommended procedure for annealing brass cases.
One thing I do know unequivocally, and that is, John Barsness is a an honest, very well informed, and a very kind human being. He's personally helped me on several occasions, and his advice is always right on.
And, he has skills with the use of the English Language that I admire; he is one of the best writers on shooting, hunting, or fishing today. To support him for all that he's done for me, I have bought every book both he and Eileen have ever written. That's the least I can do for a very good man. He has Integrity......


Don

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Nothing I've written is intended to Trash or condem Barsness, I'm just missing what you all see. So if you think that is what is going on, you are wrong. So how about some answers?

Answers to all of your questions are just a couple clicks away. Just ask him yourself at 24Hr Campfire. The link is to a section named "Ask The Gun Writers."

The problem is that you can't question him on an open forum. Immediately his sycophants will jump in to tell you how great JB is.

BTDT

He is a decent writer, but he ain't god.

Sure you can. Asking questions doesn't have to translate to being obnoxious, as some here are prone to be.

In lieu of that, 24HR has a PM system which "sycophants" can't see just like this place has one.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

If he is such a great writer, why do you think the magazine axed him? It doesn't matter to me because I only receive the NRA American Hunter. I've read a few things from Barsness in it and they were routine Hunting articles.

I know John and asked him about the ending of his relationship with Wolf Pub. Why do you assume that JB did something to "get fired"? We have certainly been witness to a lot of gross mismanagement in all sorts of sectors of our economy lately, Why do you assume that the management and ownership of the publication didn't just make a huge mistake? Since you, by your own admission don't read the magazines in questions and so have never read any of JB's longer regular articles in those magazines, exactly how much do you actually know about those publications? Obviously, not much since they underwent an ownership change that then brought about a "change in direction" in the publications. (Specifically, Successful Hunter the publication were JB was writer/editor. (Personal note here: I USED to subscribe to all three of the Wolf products, not any more. The owner/manager's new indea seems to be that those publications should all look and read like Outdoor Life, lots of pictures with short articles written at a grade school level. The American Hunter isn't known for it's great, indepth articles. Yes, JB writes for them, he is, after all a professional writer and as such the idea is to sell articles to those that pay you and/or will do your career some good, American Hunter exposes JB to a wide audience. You sir show a great deal of ignorance about the the subject you so freely spout off about.

[/QUOTE]
Nothing I've written is intended to Trash or condem Barsness,[/QUOTE]

Humm, could have fooled me...

I believe all the gun writers do their best but there is too much control from the front office.
Advertisers always get the nod even if a product is not up to snuff.
But then when a gun writer gets freebys, who is to say?
I firmly believe nothing but the truth should be printed even though I get in big trouble on the sites for voicing my opinions.
What would happen if a writer went against an advertiser?

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

Just read the other day he sees "absolutely no use"(or words to that effect) for a scope with an Objective lens bigger than 40mm. Do all you Barsness supporters go along with that?

And I've seen him write that CHE and PRE are both worthless(or words to that effect). And I've recently read that he ALWAYS read Ken Waters' articles and books. Is he unable to comprehend what Mr. Waters has ALWAYS said?

I don't know Barsness at all and from what I've read and heard, it seems like he has a whole lot to learn.

If he is such a great writer, why do you think the magazine axed him? It doesn't matter to me because I only receive the NRA American Hunter. I've read a few things from Barsness in it and they were routine Hunting articles.

Nothing I've written is intended to Trash or condem Barsness, I'm just missing what you all see. So if you think that is what is going on, you are wrong. So how about some answers?

1. He stated a personal opinion about scopes. Your's may differ. I lost interest in large objective scopes as well, because my shooting and hunting style doesn't benefit from them anymore.

2. CHE was a worthless POS. Glad they shot him. No opinion on PRE. (Really, what is CHE and PRE?) I disagree with some opinions of folks I respect in the whole, maybe he is the same way with Waters.

3. HunterMontanna handled that one nicely. You may not have intended it but your writing style was aggressively doubtful toward Barsness' knowledge and patronizing to the forum. At least I mean it when I do it.

4. As to the candle issue, give us full access to the comment in context and I'll answer that one too.

Nothing I've written is intended belittle you, it just looks that way.

quote:

Just read the other day he sees "absolutely no use"(or words to that effect) for a scope with an Objective lens bigger than 40mm. Do all you Barsness supporters go along with that?

One man's opinion but considering the time he's spent in the field, I'd put some stock in what he says. For any of us over 40 years old, an exit pupil of greater than 5mm is basically useless so a bigger objective on scopes 8 power and under is basically useless....unless you are a teenager that is. Knowing John I'm sure he qualified the statement but it seems pretty well right on the money to me......with a few obvious exceptions.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
I see a lot of support for Barsness, surely one of you all knows what he thinks about Annealing. So how about it, does Barsness believe a person can Anneal Cases with a "Candle"?
_______________________________________________
(#1 answer) I don't know what JB thinks about annealing but, for about the last dozen years that is the way I anneal my brass. First read about it in Presion Shooting and it works.
_______________________________________________


Just read the other day he sees "absolutely no use"(or words to that effect) for a scope with an Objective lens bigger than 40mm. Do all you Barsness supporters go along with that?
______________________________________________
(#2 answer) Absolutely!! I have a couple with 40MM, the rest are 38MM and 20MM. Lighter weight, plenty of light transmission for legal shooting hours in my area (1/2 hour before sunrise to 1/2 hour after sunset).
_______________________________________________


And I've seen him write that CHE and PRE are both worthless(or words to that effect). And I've recently read that he ALWAYS read Ken Waters' articles and books. Is he unable to comprehend what Mr. Waters has ALWAYS said?
_______________________________________________
(#3 answer)He probably, like me, does comprehend what Ken wrote. But he probably comprehends also that whenever brass is worked it becomes harder, therefore CHE and PRE are totatly unreliable. I used this method for a while also.
________________________________________________

I don't know Barsness at all and from what I've read and heard, it seems like he has a whole lot to learn.
________________________________________________
#4 answer)I don't know him either and we all have a lot to learn!
________________________________________________

If he is such a great writer, why do you think the magazine axed him? It doesn't matter to me because I only receive the NRA American Hunter. I've read a few things from Barsness in it and they were routine Hunting articles.
________________________________________________
(#5 answer)Well, maybe he wasn't axed but, said take this job and shove it.
________________________________________________


Nothing I've written is intended to Trash or condem Barsness, I'm just missing what you all see. So if you think that is what is going on, you are wrong. So how about some answers?

________________________________________________
There, I answered it for you as best I could. Anymore questions?
________________________________________________

Message by JB straight from an old thread on 24 Hour:

"I anneal using a method developed by my friend Fred Barker, who writes for PRECISION SHOOTING. Fred is a retired metallurgist, and through experimentation found that the standard annealing methods many have recommended over the years make brass too soft. Many recommend heating the neck/shoulder area red-hot, then quenching, and according to Fred this is way too much.

His method uses a standard wax candle. Hold the case about halfway up the body with your fingertips, then turn the neck back and forth in the candle flame until the case is too hot to hold. Then wipe with a wet towel (paper or cloth), which cleans off the soot. I have had excellent results with this method.

JB"

A sincere - Thank You - for all the responses. Good to see folks stand-up and support someone they believe in.

Only problem is, there is a lot of wrong information in the responses - that is why I asked.

1. It is totally impossible to Anneal Cases with a Candle. The Flame Temp simply isn't high enough to achieve the Molecular Changes necessary for a proper Annealing. Even if the Case Head is held in a Heat Sink to draw away the Heat reaching the Case Head, it just won't work. And trying to hold the Case Head with fingers and get the Neck Annealed with a Candle is so far from reality that I really thought it was an old April Fool's joke.

For those of you who think you are Annealing with a Candle, if you ever try doing it correctly, you will realize how wrong it is to think a Candle has any possible chance of actually Annealing.

2. There is no better way of determining when Pressure is changing inside a Case than with CHE and PRE. Both Methods have small Tricks in order to using them properly. The best part is they give you direct Pressure Information from the weakest link in the Firing Sequence. No guessing if a Primer is too Flat or if a Bolt Lift is too hard, just factual, measurable, repeatable, first-hand information.

Anyone who has been through High School can pick-up the Tricks quickly. I say that because most of the folks I taught how to use Micrometers in Quality Assurance and Manufacturing positions had only HS Diplomas. It takes less than 20min to develop the feel for the proper Method.

CHE and PRE are what both Ken Waters and Bob Hagel used when developing Loads. They have both documented it extremely well in their articles and all of their books. Arguing that those guys didn't know what they were doing says volumes about a persons pressure detection knowledge and ballistic education.

3. I have no problem with anyone using any size Objective Lens they desire. However, for a person who "by your all's definition" has "FORGOTTEN more about shooting, hunting, optics, and reloading than most of his internet critics will ever know", appears to have a HUGE gap in his actual Hunting knowledge. Perhaps it is because he "forgot it".

Claiming there is no need for Large Objectives simply states a level of ignorance concerning Hunting in places you all and Barsness have never been. Repeating that same bunch of bologna, does a dis-service to the Beginners who intend to Hunt where I have. There a Large Objective is a great assett. I have both Large and Small Objective Lens scopes and I see appropriate uses for all of them.

I have no argument with anyone who says "Small Objectives are all I need for where and how I Hunt". Good for you and I totally support that kind of information.

4. I told you all I did not intend my posts as slams on Barsness - still do not intend it that way. For those of you who think my intent was to Trash Barsness, you are incorrect. My intent was to determine the "Barsness answers" to the questions I asked. And due to your excellent input, I am now positive Barsness does have a whole lot to learn.

Whether you all like it or not, the nice thing about "my posts" is you all can try them for yourself and see who is correct. No need to get mad or all upset because your Hero doesn't know everything. I know I don't.

5. I've left jobs and got axed from jobs. I've never had a problem telling folks what caused the departure or why I left a place. I sure don't know why Barsness is no longer with Wolf Publishing. At the same time, it would seem like all the Gun Rags would be beating a path to his door when I see your alls support. Perhaps he already has a new Rag job - I don't know.

Regardless of whether I agree with his "WRONG" information or not, I do hope he gets another Rag job so you all can enjoy his articles.

When Rag Hacks write things that are misleading and flat out wrong, eventually most of his supporters figure it out. Then those same folks will feel about those Rag Hacks the same way I do about some Rag Hacks of my youth - pitiful!
-----

Best of luck to all of you and Barsness as well - believe it or not.

Here is something useful and I think definitive on annealing. The money quote:

"The critical time and temperature at which the grain structure reforms into something suitable for case necks is 662 degrees (F) for some 15 minutes. A higher temperature, say from 750 to 800 degrees, will do the same job in a few seconds. If brass is allowed to reach temperatures higher than this (regardless of the time), it will be made irretrievably and irrevocably too soft."

The outer layers of candle flame reach 1400 degrees centigrade (2600 F), total BTU dependent on wick size and volume of wax being consumed. So annealing with a candle; myth confirmed or myth busted?

Confirmed!

The Art and Science of Annealing

quote:

3. I have no problem with anyone using any size Objective Lens they desire. However, for a person who "by your all's definition" has "FORGOTTEN more about shooting, hunting, optics, and reloading than most of his internet critics will ever know", appears to have a HUGE gap in his actual Hunting knowledge. Perhaps it is because he "forgot it".

Claiming there is no need for Large Objectives simply states a level of ignorance concerning Hunting in places you all and Barsness have never been. Repeating that same bunch of bologna, does a dis-service to the Beginners who intend to Hunt where I have. There a Large Objective is a great assett. I have both Large and Small Objective Lens scopes and I see appropriate uses for all of them.

I have no argument with anyone who says "Small Objectives are all I need for where and how I Hunt". Good for you and I totally support that kind of information.

I'd like to know if the quote you kind of remember was in some sort of context. It's easy to pull a quote from context and put it out of context to make a point. If the big objective is offering an exit pupil greater than 5mm and you are over 40 years old, then there is no point of a large objective.....you gain nothing.

On a high-power long range rig then yes, there is something to be gained but as I say, most quotes are said in context and I find internet folks love to use them out of context.

I'm a big fan of Ross Seyfried. The last article that I remember reading of his in Handloader magazine was about shotgun slugs and he closed the piece by and I'm paraphrasing here " for deer think about using an old fasion round lead ball and forget all the modern plastic junk ". Talk about making the advertisers happy! I couldn't make it as a writer even if I had the skill judging by all the high mounted scopes and other ill fitting crap that they have to use and report on.

I was a great fan of Bob Hagel's and also respect Ken Waters. However, JB has FAR more worldwide hunting experience than Bob EVER did while KW had very little real hunting experience.

I experimented with Bob's "heroic" loads and a shooting buddy of mine, a Phd. holding full "prof" talked to KW on the phone quite often and HE, that is, KW, very flatly stated that BH's loads were "too hot".

I have used a LOT of JB's loading suggestions in over 50 different firearms and have been VERY pleased by the results. Soooo, I kinda tend toward considering JB a genuine "expert" and RESPECT his reticence on the Wolfe Pub. issue.

JB is a good man and a good writer as well as being an ordinary guy who doesn't treat others as though he is a "little tin god"........

Let me just note that Fred Barker is one extremely intelligent guy, and I would accept his advice without question. Fred graduated from MIT, and flat knows his stuff.

Don

quote:

Originally posted by DMB:
Let me just note that Fred Barker is one extremely intelligent guy, and I would accept his advice without question. Fred graduated from MIT, and flat knows his stuff.

Don

Which is a helluva lot more than can be said for one of the armchair internet critics in here who've never published a postcard, nor does the moron even have an original source to quote, give me a frigging break.......

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Which is a helluva lot more than can be said for one of the armchair internet critics in here who've never published a postcard, nor does the moron even have an original source to quote, give me a frigging break.......

"500° F. Embrittlement In Steels
by: Fred Barker P.H.D., M.E.

Editor’s note: Mr. Fred Barker is a graduate of M.I.T. and Cal Tech. His minor grad work was in Metallurgy. He is retired from the U.S. Geological Survey and is currently a staff writer for Precision Shooting Magazine."

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Which is a helluva lot more than can be said for one of the armchair internet critics in here who've never published a postcard, nor does the moron even have an original source to quote, give me a frigging break.......

"500° F. Embrittlement In Steels
by: Fred Barker P.H.D., M.E.

Editor’s note: Mr. Fred Barker is a graduate of M.I.T. and Cal Tech. His minor grad work was in Metallurgy. He is retired from the U.S. Geological Survey and is currently a staff writer for Precision Shooting Magazine."

So what?! Hot Core has over 7,000 posts here on AR.

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Which is a helluva lot more than can be said for one of the armchair internet critics in here who've never published a postcard, nor does the moron even have an original source to quote, give me a frigging break.......

"500° F. Embrittlement In Steels
by: Fred Barker P.H.D., M.E.

Editor’s note: Mr. Fred Barker is a graduate of M.I.T. and Cal Tech. His minor grad work was in Metallurgy. He is retired from the U.S. Geological Survey and is currently a staff writer for Precision Shooting Magazine."

I had thought that Fred Barker held a PhD, but wsn't certain.
Thanks for posting that!

Don

DMB,

In addition to the PHD, I believe the M.E. is a Master of Engineering. Basically the same as an MS without the thesis work. It does normally require one to already have a BS in engineeering, though.

So Barker probably even knows how to read a micrometer.

Well, I am man enough to admit I've been WRONG about something for a very long time.

I really thought a PHD in metallurgy from MIT would make a man smart enough to know "you can't Anneal a Case with a Candle". Do they only teach Kissing-Up to kennedys at MIT?

Nice to see some things are consistent... like HotCore being a complete dipchit.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Well, I am man enough to admit I've been WRONG about something for a very long time.

I really thought a PHD in metallurgy from MIT would make a man smart enough to know "you can't Anneal a Case with a Candle". Do they only teach Kissing-Up to kennedys at MIT?

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Well, I am man enough to admit I've been WRONG about something for a very long time.

I really thought a PHD in metallurgy from MIT would make a man smart enough to know "you can't Anneal a Case with a Candle". Do they only teach Kissing-Up to kennedys at MIT?

So maybe explain your "need" for big objective lenses then.

quote:

Originally posted by sheephunterab:
...So maybe explain your "need" for big objective lenses then.

Hey Rab, Glad to help you out. There are places you can legally begin Hunting 1-hour prior to official Sunrise and continue to Hunt until 1-hour after official Sunset. The additional 15-18 minutes of Hunting time on each end of the day is the very best of Prime Time. Any extra illumination of the Game is most definitely helpful in making a clean 1-shot Kill.

Same for Heavy Overcast days when it has been raining or is ready to begin raining at both Twilight periods of the day. Even when the legal time is 30min before Sunrise and 30min after Sunset you may be delayed 20minutes from what is the normal, minimum light conditions.

Same with Hunting in Swamps and Woods where the Overstory is so dense that it is creating a leaf canopy to hinder/block the faint sun rays of dawn and sunset.

Same with 24/7 Depredation Permits where a person is Killing all the Deer they see and you can use Moon Light.

Same with night time Preditor Hunters who prefer 56mm or Larger.

I still like the smaller Objectives for some Hunting, but they really limit your Hunting ability in the above situations.

If all a person does is roam around in the open during daylight hours until they finally trip onto some Game, the smaller Objectives do offer a few less ounces to tote.
-----

Simple Ignorance is correctable if a person has the capability to learn, but bradley style stupid is forever.

So what power scope are you using to get this extra "illumination"? Seems to me like all situations where you wouldn't be using high power optics and wouldn't benefit from the a larger objective lens. You do realize that anything bigger than a 5mm exit pupil is useless to the human eye......at least the human eye over 40 years old....right?

The benefits of big objective lens exist more in advertising and myth than actual fact.

btw...illumination requires some sort of power source and specialized electronic optics and cannot be achieved with with regular optics.

quote:

Originally posted by McCray:
The problem is that you can't question him on an open forum. Immediately his sycophants will jump in to tell you how great JB is.

BTDT

He is a decent writer, but he ain't god.

John will answer any question you ask.He does not pimp any certain brands of anything.He is a big boy and can stick up for him self.

quote:

Originally posted by sheephunterab:
So what power scope are you using to get this extra "illumination"?

Currently some up to 24x, but most of my older scopes max out at 10x.

quote:

Seems to me like all situations where you wouldn't be using high power optics and wouldn't benefit from the a larger objective lens. You do realize that anything bigger than a 5mm exit pupil is useless to the human eye......at least the human eye over 40 years old....right?

My eyes are indeed over 40 years old, but no, you have been mislead about the Exit Pupil size being "useful" or not. Another case of the Rag Hacks writing about things where they have "ZERO experience" and are simply repeating the incorrect bologna they have heard or read.

I'd suspect there are two additional reasons for your incorrect assumptions.
1. It sounds as if you have never owned a Large Objective scope, which limits your first-hand experience.
2. You are probably thinking of how "you" use your smaller Objective scopes which has blinded you to other ways to use a scope. I'll guess you are thinking a person typically uses a completely steady rest, across a pack, rock, limb, bi-pod, etc., and is not in a "relatively" huge hurry to take a shot.

Think about a situation where you can only see 5-25yds at the most and it is under the tree canopy on an overcast day. You can see portions of a Deer slowly easing along, casually munching acorns or Blood-Hounding a Doe behind the thick Understory which has small portals in it. Your time for getting a shot off is very short and you know where the Larger Openings are, because you cut them. You bring the rifle quickly to your shoulder and as soon as you notice the Reticle in place you send the Killing shot.

However, the main part you are missing is that by having a larger Exit Pupil "numerical figure", the quicker you can get the shot off, because you do not need to be perfectly aligned, as with the smaller Exit Pupil.

Then the argument is the Point-Of-Impact is off from a properly centered hold. That is true, but at 5-25yds, even if it is off 2"-3" from your dead-on POI, since you are trying to hit the shoulder, it doesn't matter - IT DOES NOT MATTER - if the scope is perfectly centered.

quote:

The benefits of big objective lens exist more in advertising and myth than actual fact.

I've got both types of scopes and your impression is simply wrong. You have been PT Barnumed into believing a bunch of bologna from people who have never used a Large Objective scope in conditions where they make the small scopes useless. Then it is repeated and eventually believed to be the truth, but it simply isn't.

I've tried to use the old Iron Sights in similar conditions and there are times when you just can't see the sights, but it is during legal Hunting hours. Even a small scope helps then, but not as much as a Large Objective scope.

quote:

btw...illumination requires some sort of power source and specialized electronic optics and cannot be achieved with with regular optics.

You are correct, I should have used Brightness, Twilight Factor, or "an increased amount of available light" for the eye.

I've been Testing Illuminated Scopes over the past couple of years and I did use the wrong term. Thanks for the correction.

Apparently you should read a few more JB articles. I'm not even going to start with all the rediculous statements that you made in the post above. And btw, a few of my long-range rigs are fitted with large objective lenses but as JB said, there is no use for them on the other rifles. Some people want to learn and others just shout louder when they don't know something. I'll let you figure out where you fit in.

I seem to remember that after some testing that the Europeans, especially the Germans, that on average do a lot more night hunting than we do in the USA, determined that a fixed scope of 8 power, with a 56mm objective, gave the best overall combination of magnification and light gathering for low light use.

A variable scope has more lenses, and its brightness is some what reduced, all other quality factors being equal.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
I seem to remember that after some testing that the Europeans, especially the Germans, that on average do a lot more night hunting than we do in the USA, determined that a fixed scope of 8 power, with a 56mm objective, gave the best overall combination of magnification and light gathering for low light use.

A variable scope has more lenses, and its brightness is some what reduced, all other quality factors being equal.

That would be true for young eyes most definitely as younger eyes can utilize 7-8mm exit pupil and an 8x56 would have a 7mm exit pupil....indeed making it ideal. As most soldiers are likely sub 40, the larger objective would make the scope appear brighter.