Rifle Scopes AR scope that I Think is missing

[Spuhr]

There have never been as many availible scopes as there is today and one would really belive that all that could be done is done.
I am however missing one scope and i belive fashion amongst manufacturers in combination with lack of experience amongst manufacturers is the reason.
Or possible is this already existing and I have missed it.

For an AR scope for 3gun, combat or as a general huntingscope that also works good on close range the scope to choose have generally been some kind of 1-4x25 or similar, for hunting in europe have 1,5-6x42 been very popular.

Now many users wants higher magnification than 4x and a number of good makes now makes 1-6 and even a few makes 1-8.
The whole annoying problem is that all makes them with tiny rediculous 24-25mm frontlenses because that is the fashion....
The issue with small objective lenses is very poor and small eyebox at higher magnification. So that scope is really only fast and easy to use on 1-4x....
For hunting and combat would a bigger frontlens give more light and make it to a better allround solution.

In my opinon for a 6 and maybe 8x allroundscope should the frontlens be minimum 42 mm.
That would give a decent eyebox and a comfortable scope to use above 4x
Dead magnification range at low magnification is only annoying and it's far better to call a scope 2-6x than 1,5-6x when the first 1,5-2x really just is annoying tubeeffect.

So here is My list of what I am looking for and that I belive would be a Great allround scope

Magnification range from 1-1,5x up to 6-8x
frontlens minimum 42mm
First focal plane
Mil based Reticle
0,1 mil clicks
Illumination: at least at the brightness of a S&B shortdot
Diameter of scope is not relevant to me: 30,34,35 or 36 or whatever is fine.
If turrets have no caps, locking turrets are highly preffered.


Some scopes are made with 1,5-6x42 But having either to much tubeeffect or not sufficient illumination or wrong Reticle etc....

So what is your opinions?

Regards Håkan

PS. I am currently using S&B shortdot 1,5-6x25
It have strong tubeeffect , Great illumination, annoying Moa clicks, and very poor eyebox at 6x

 

[pinktalon]

Re: AR scope that I Think is missing

Hi Håkan!
Kathy from FB. I couldn't believe that I hadn't registered here - I think I'm on all the 'practical' precision LR sites around since it's one of my big interests. I just saw a good review from a very credible guy - let me find it and I'll probably post it back to you on FB

 

[Pinco Palla]

Re: AR scope that I Think is missing

Hey Hakan ,

already replyed on Fb mate , Agree 100% with you , but beside the front lens dimension are not those the specs of the new S&B 1-8x perhaps ?

PP out

 

[dcjs]

Re: AR scope that I Think is missing

Unless somebody manages to cheat the laws of physics in a major way, you will not see a 1-x power scope with more than a ~30mm objective, and that's stretching it. Lots of people would like to have one, and lots of manufacturers would like to sell one. It's just not technically feasible.

1.5-6x42 with good FOV and no tunneling shouldn't be too much of a challenge technically, the specs are just not sexy enough for today's market.

 

[Spuhr]

Re: AR scope that I Think is missing

David, the first two variable scopes that hit the market was Zeiss Zielmulti 1-4x25 and Zeiss Zielmultar 1-6x42. They came out in 1922 and both of them have true 1X magnification and fixed eyerelief.
The 1-4 is a 30mm tube and the 1-6X is a 35mm tube.
( I have both.....)
So as far as I understand it should certainly be possible technically to make it.


Here is the 1-4X

Pinco Palla
As far as I am aware of the 1-8X is a 1-8X24.....
So even if the eyebox is really good, it would have been far better if it was 1-8x42.

It's by the way kinda FUNNY to compare the S&B short dot 1,5-6x20 with the S&B zenith 1,5-6x42.
There is almost no weight differance at all.....

Håkan

 

[Opticsspecialist]

Re: AR scope that I Think is missing

I'ed like to see that with true 1x, the problem is it would take education, the market has to demand it

 

[Spuhr]

Re: AR scope that I Think is missing

That is true Jay, but I belives that 90% of the customers in your shop would go for 42mm frontlens on a 1-6X if you had both scopes so they could handle and play with them.
I have never meet anyone who likes small eyebox.....

In my opinion plays the small frontlens on 6-8X scopes in the same league as the Monte Carlo stock.....
The fasion and design league, where things looks that way but noone really understand why and without considering and feeling what people need, they often cheats themself by not looking closely on the alternatives....

Håkan

 

[gose]

Re: AR scope that I Think is missing

Even on the S&B 1-4, the dot gets annoyingly big on 4x and a dot that's useful on 1x will most likely get way too big on 8x.
It somewhat depends on the reticle, I guess, or if the dot could be SFP and the reticle FFP.

For 3-gunning, its hard to find anything better than the Z6i. How about adding a bigger frontlens and mil-based turrets to it? That would be pretty close to perfection for 3-gun IMHO.

 

[Spuhr]

Re: AR scope that I Think is missing

Dual focalplane is absolutely an option.
but it adds loads to the price.
I have both 1,1-4X and 1,5-6 shortdots and don't find the illumination to be to big.

But i do agree the Z6 would be a far nicer scope with 42mm frontlens and milclics.

Håkan

 

[dcjs]

Re: AR scope that I Think is missing

Håkan,

I've never seen one of those 6x Zielmutars and I won't pretend to understand more than the basics of optics, but I'm pretty sure that there are some compromises involved with that scope that the market would not accept today.

Let me just say that I know for a fact that manufacturers are aware of the market potential of scopes like you are describing, and I also know for a fact that it's not being done because very experienced optics designers say that it's not feasible. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Spuhr]

Re: AR scope that I Think is missing

Optics are the art of compromises!
But there is to much that leads me belive this abouth fashion and not abouth optical issues.

Håkan

 

[JL]

Re: AR scope that I Think is missing

Very interesting thread, thank you to Håkan.

Looking forward to some optics designers to step in, and elaborate on subject that David S kindly mentioned.


P.S.
Håkan, you DO have a 1-6x42 scope already- why dont you put old lady back in service!

You could also measure exit pupil sizes from it in min/max magnification- never done it but with flashlight and little bit of imagination it should be possible with reasonable accuracy. Just to compare it to modern scopes.

 

[koshkin]

Re: AR scope that I Think is missing

Everything in life is a compromise.

Current crop of 1-6x24 scopes are really designed around lower magnification performance. High magnification is for those occasions when you have time to settle down for a precise shots.

When you are have to shoot fast, you are not likely to be at high magnification anyway.

In practical terms, combining a large objective lens with a high erector ratio relay system will result in a notably larger scope. The various 1-6x and 1-8x scopes are already fairly hefty and strapping a 42mm objective lens system might make them prohibitively large.

On top of that, if you really want a system that takes you from 1x to 10x with a reasonably large objective size, why not strap a small red dot onto the tube of your 2.5-10x42 scope of choice?

Obviously, everything is a compromise and if there enough demand, someone will make a 1-8x42 scope at some point. However, it will either be very long and heavy, or have very shallow depth of field and/or significant aberrations.

The way Zeiss/Hensoldt has been pushing for ever shorter optics, I would not be surprised if they were working on something along these lines, but time will tell.

Personally, I am not convinced I am very interested, but that of course, depends on the specific implementation.

ILya

ILya

 

[tylerw02]

Re: AR scope that I Think is missing

It doesn't seen most of the current scopes are lacking in the size of the exit pupil or the overall brightness. I'm not sure there is much to gain, is there?

 

[DesertDenizen]

Re: AR scope that I Think is missing

IOR Valdada makes a 1-10 power scope; can't recall if it is FFP or not but holy jeebus is it expensive

 

[koshkin]

Re: AR scope that I Think is missing

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DesertDenizen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IOR Valdada makes a 1-10 power scope; can't recall if it is FFP or not but holy jeebus is it expensive </div></div>

They have two models: dual reticle and SFP.

I reviewed the SFP version and while a nice scope it has a little tunneling at low magnification. For practical purposes it is 1.25-10x26

I found it to be quick enough at low magnifications and very precise when I dialed it up. 2.6mm exit pupil at 10x is a little small, but workable in good light.

ILya

 

[George63]

Re: AR scope that I Think is missing

what I would like to see is: 1.5 -10 x 32 or 2-12 x 32 with AO - something that is still light, compact and able to be mounted low- still nice eyebox - without the sacrifice of precision of fixed parallax

 

[Spuhr]

Re: AR scope that I Think is missing

It's absolutely possible that I am wrong and that such a scope not can be made.
But more often than neccesary are development not halted by technical limitations as of fashions and ideas.

But as optics are the art of compromize and you all the time in any optical construction is giving and gaining it's possible that 42 mm frontlens would require a longer scope, or a poorer sharpness on the edges or more distortion.
I don't know.

But as I am using a S&B shortdot 1,5-6X20 on my AR and it's obviusly not in the close to the S&B 1,5-6x42 in optical quality.
The user friendlyness are considerably less than on the 42mm modell.
When S&B makes a product that is clearly less good than it could be and it likely would be cheaper easyer for them to make the same scope in 42mm as that one is already since many years in production.
That decision gives a hint that S&B accepted a poorer optical solution because the market demanded it.

That is why I belive if it's possible to make a 42mm solution, then the customer would choose it if they knew and understood the differance.

Here is the exit pupil of the Zeiss 1-6x42
approx from 7mm up to 20-25 mm somewhere.....
The Zeiss 1-6x42 is a historical piece and there is to many optical downsides that prevent it to be used on anything else than a classical gun.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTRUYBn5dU0&list=HL1347313133&feature=mh_lolz

Regards Håkan

 

[koshkin]

Re: AR scope that I Think is missing

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuhr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's absolutely possible that I am wrong and that such a scope not can be made.
But more often than neccesary are development not halted by technical limitations as of fashions and ideas.

But as optics are the art of compromize and you all the time in any optical construction is giving and gaining it's possible that 42 mm frontlens would require a longer scope, or a poorer sharpness on the edges or more distortion.
I don't know.

But as I am using a S&B shortdot 1,5-6X20 on my AR and it's obviusly not in the close to the S&B 1,5-6x42 in optical quality.
The user friendlyness are considerably less than on the 42mm modell.
When S&B makes a product that is clearly less good than it could be and it likely would be cheaper easyer for them to make the same scope in 42mm as that one is already since many years in production.
That decision gives a hint that S&B accepted a poorer optical solution because the market demanded it.

That is why I belive if it's possible to make a 42mm solution, then the customer would choose it if they knew and understood the differance.

Here is the exit pupil of the Zeiss 1-6x42
approx from 7mm up to 20-25 mm somewhere.....
The Zeiss 1-6x42 is a historical piece and there is to many optical downsides that prevent it to be used on anything else than a classical gun.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTRUYBn5dU0&list=HL1347313133&feature=mh_lolz

Regards Håkan

</div></div>

Between the two S&B scopes, I obviously do not know why they made the decisions they did and I have never played with their 1.5-6x20.

Generally, the scope you are suggesting is not so much impossible to make, but is rather difficult to make while adhering to size/weight/cost constraints.

In the US, the primary driver for the 1-8x and similar designs, I think, has been the surging subsegment of AR-15/10 market that provides comparatively light, compact and accurate rifles, where a larger scope would not make a nice fit.

Perhaps, once they get these models worked out, they will focus on larger ones.

ILya

 

[tylerw02]

Re: AR scope that I Think is missing

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: George63</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what I would like to see is: 1.5 -10 x 32 or 2-12 x 32 with AO - something that is still light, compact and able to be mounted low- still nice eyebox - without the sacrifice of precision of fixed parallax </div></div>

I've been saying that one for a while. I'd love to have something similar to the 2.5-10x32 NXS with SF.

 

[JL]

Re: AR scope that I Think is missing

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ILya</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
They have two models: dual reticle and SFP.

I reviewed the SFP version and while a nice scope it has a little tunneling at low magnification.
ILya </div></div>
I understand reasons for your diplomatic comments- but for 1-10 I saw "little" is not best word to describe how it looked..it was more like "extreme" or "very strong" IMO.

 

[George63]

Re: AR scope that I Think is missing

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: George63</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what I would like to see is: 1.5 -10 x 32 or 2-12 x 32 with AO - something that is still light, compact and able to be mounted low- still nice eyebox - without the sacrifice of precision of fixed parallax </div></div>

I've been saying that one for a while. I'd love to have something similar to the 2.5-10x32 NXS with SF. </div></div>

I use bush 6500 elite 2.5-16x50 with AO and find it a good all around mix - price, features, quality for position shooting with basic bolt guns (or large body AR's) - be nice to get a smaller, lighter version with slightly less magnification, while retaining the AO and price point (500-800) for standard AR use