I think I know what you meant, but there are a few issues with what you are postulating here so it is quite misleading.
Generally, both FOV and low end magnification are important. For example, on the 3-24x52 March, I almost only use 3x when I am shooting offhand. For that, lower magnification is important because it looks steadier and helps me see and shoot better.
In your specific examples, there are a few errors. For example, ZCO is a 5-27x, not 4-27x, so in your example of how it is half the FOV of the PST Gen2 at "almost the same magnification". 3x and 5x are not close to the same magnification level (and neither are 3x and 4x for that matter). Magnification is multiplicative, so there difference between 3x and 5x is the same as between 6x and 10x or 12x and 20x, i.e, ~66.67%.
Then there is your example of a 3x scope with 21 ft at 100 yds FOV. That's just nonsense. I am not aware of any high quality scope with FOV that narrow. Maybe there is some very long eyerelief design that is like that, but I can't recall one offhand.
Same strawman argument with your example of a 6x scope with 35 ft at 100yard FOV. I am not aware of any conventional riflescope designs with FOV like that. To get that kind of FOV with typical eye relief of around 3.5", you would have to have an eyepiece of around 3 inches in diameter.
The concept you seem to be trying to convey is something called Apparent FOV, which is simply real FOV multiplied by magnification.
When people talk about eyepiece having certain FOV, like the March 5-42x mentioned earlier having 26 degree FOV, that is what they mean. 26 degree is pretty much the highest I have seen yet with conventional scopes and to go higher you will either end up having a larger eyepiece or short eye relief. There is no free lunch.
I posted a video on this subject a few days ago:
ILya
The point of the illustrations was only to show the difference at whatever magnification FOV plays ( you pick the number- I just used 3x to fit the native image and the expanded image in the graphic. It was not in any way tied to a particular scope- the illustrations are correct.
I fully understand there is not a "free lunch." So maybe, we do indeed give up something on our wish list, maybe it magnification, maybe it's the weight. But the emphasis on FOV is downplayed too much in the reviews when discussing lower power scopes.
Yes, I also understand that 3x is much less than 4x; yes, my 3x vs. 6x illustration could have been made more transparent, but I thought I was evident with the various qualifiers I included. Maybe I should have added some California disclaimer to the images emphasizing that I was not directly comparing any particular scopes and that no scopes were harmed in the creation of the illustrations. Shit, I thought I basically said all that a couple of times in my post.
To that point and your math: I could have used actual scopes and stepped out the PST from 41.2' to 5.25x where it is 35.09' and pain mistakenly drawn two relative magnification rings showing that a scope X at 3x has the same relative FOV as Z scope does at over 5x. But what is the point, the point solely is to show how magnification plays a separate role (albite tied together) than FOV to the shooter's needs. Think less engineer and more 5th grader as that is how simple I intended the illustrations to read. When the NRL22 boom first hit, I'd go to one or two a month and was horrified at some of the scope purchases people ended up making; in many cases, it was like looking through a straw. They didn't pay attention to the FOV, until they struggled a 25-40yards trying to find targets quickly.
Repeating, I was not saying that any scope is better than another; my point of using my ZCO was to show that 21' is NOT tremendous, nor is the weight great. Oh, 21' for a 5x scope (sorry for the typo) is not all that great, anyway, but I do like my scope for the purpose (PRS/NRL). My point for showing the lovely 5HD was to illustrate that it was very tight as a crossover scope. It is a great scope, and I'd use it on my Elk gun, but it didn't check the FOV box for a scope that I might hunt both pigs and Elk, along with the PST just to show that wide FOV in a cross over scope is affordable.
It doesn't sound like you hunt a lot; the widest FOV (lowest mag) is what I use if I have concerns that I might inadvertently jump something, especially with it on the move. 3x is not what I use off-hand at a match; it's more like 5-8 for me, and for PRS/NRL, I am 12-15. But the same thing holds true, a scope that is wide at 15, it is easier to use than a tight scope, or I need to creep down a bit in power. I use scopes a lot but am no way a "scope reviewer," that's not my interest, nor am I an optical engineer. But, my advice to reviewers and manufacturers in the lower power (not LPO) crossover space to pay more attention to FOV is a recommendation that has merit.
The funny part is, I have been considering the March for my ElK/Pig gun, I am ok with 35' but would be happier with less top magnification and a tiny bit bigger ocular and the few ounces it might bring if it tipped 40.'
Edited to add: koshkin Just watched and I like your video. This is precisely the kind of attention we need to put more front and center.
Last edited: