I have always assumed bigger was better reguardless but was just looking at USOs sight drooling while everyone else was asleep and noticed something. Under their FAQ.
"The larger the tube diameter the more room you have to move the internal erector tube. In return you are able to obtain more total MOA travel out of the scope. This is important in some cases where the power of the scope is 22 or 25X and more elevation travel is needed."
Any off you egghead types explain this. I thought more travel was always good reguardless of magnification. Does this mean there is no reason to have a 34mm tube on a 3-17? BTW is there anymore travel in an EREK on a 30mm tube than a 34mm my 30 mm goes to 18 mils just like the 34mms I've seen.
AHA
Rad
"The larger the tube diameter the more room you have to move the internal erector tube. In return you are able to obtain more total MOA travel out of the scope. This is important in some cases where the power of the scope is 22 or 25X and more elevation travel is needed."
Any off you egghead types explain this. I thought more travel was always good reguardless of magnification. Does this mean there is no reason to have a 34mm tube on a 3-17? BTW is there anymore travel in an EREK on a 30mm tube than a 34mm my 30 mm goes to 18 mils just like the 34mms I've seen.
AHA
Rad