Rifle Scopes How much better could scopes be?

[koshkin]

Thanks!

Maybe a follow up to my original question would be: how much more does it cost to get equal optical performance from a higher erector ratio scope?

There is no simple answer to that, It depends on a ton of things.

ILya

 

[koshkin]

If they could retain the (or expand on) eyebox of the NXS 1-4, while giving it the unity and optical clarity, etc. of the NX8, while lopping it to 6" and 12oz, it would be a damn hard scope to not buy.

I agree. I would be all over a scope like that. I gave that same advice to March after I reviewed their 1-8x24 Shorty scope. It is a nice scope, but cramming 8x into that small of a package is not very important for me. If they could build a 1-4x or 1-5x system into the same size envelope that is lighter and better optimized for depth of field, I would rather take that.

ILya

 

[McMillan]

To me they can still get heaps better . Whether it's possible is another thing. For me the single most important feature and probably the most overlooked is field of view. The main reason we dial back on power is because our field of view is too small. Imagine if we could be on 30 power and see 100 foot wide at 100 yards

 

[koshkin]

To me they can still get heaps better . Whether it's possible is another thing. For me the single most important feature and probably the most overlooked is field of view. The main reason we dial back on power is because our field of view is too small. Imagine if we could be on 30 power and see 100 foot wide at 100 yards

I can't imagine it since it is physically impossible. By a factor of 15.

For a FOV of 100 feet at 100 yards the maximum theoretically possible magnification for a healthy and statically average human eye is right around 7
x. That assumes that your eye's FOV is around 130 degrees.

For such a configuration, assuming 3 inch eyerelief, you would need an eyepiece of roughly
12 inches in diameter.

In practical terms, 130 deg FOV of your eye is not really correct since you do not use all of that to collect information, but since we are playing a theoretical exercise I used that.

If we come back to earth and stay with reasonable eyepiece diameters, you could theoretically make a scope with that FOV on 2x, but distortion control would be really tricky.

ILya

 

[Long Range 338]

We are in a blessed time. Not only are scopes of good quality but prices are coming down somewhat. The newest and greatest will always be the most expensive but manufacturers are going to recoup their costs and take advantage of market position. The future should only get better.
I don't believe the current technologies are going to make scopes "heaps better". Until there is a better way to make glass or coatings make another jump, optical improvements are going to be incremental. The electronics are what seem to really be on the move at the moment.
Refinements in the adjustment systems and will make scopes more precise as well. Again I think this will be incremental as well, as Ilya states so eloquently there are certain limitations trying to cram so many features into a smaller size. A completely new design/product that solves the issues could magically appear and turn the whole thing upside down...

 

[McMillan]

I can't imagine it since it is physically impossible. By a factor of 15.

For a FOV of 100 feet at 100 yards the maximum theoretically possible magnification for a healthy and statically average human eye is right around 7
x. That assumes that your eye's FOV is around 130 degrees.

For such a configuration, assuming 3 inch eyerelief, you would need an eyepiece of roughly
12 inches in diameter.

In practical terms, 130 deg FOV of your eye is not really correct since you do not use all of that to collect information, but since we are playing a theoretical exercise I used that.

If we come back to earth and stay with reasonable eyepiece diameters, you could theoretically make a scope with that FOV on 2x, but distortion control would be really tricky.

ILya

No it's not possible in rifle scopes in their current configuration but things may change. Like night vision goggles once apon a time only had one field of depth. Now with multiple lenses you can focus on multiple distances. In the last 10 years we have gained an extra third in fov

 

[koshkin]

No it's not possible in rifle scopes in their current configuration but things may change. Like night vision goggles once apon a time only had one field of depth. Now with multiple lenses you can focus on multiple distances. In the last 10 years we have gained an extra third in fov

It is not possible by definition regardless of the configuration. Magnification had a certain definition and human eye has a certain field of view. The combination of the two precludes a 30x device with that field of view regardless of how it is built.

ILya

 

[RobbinsHGray]

Spot on and it will be even better. Think not bots but drones. Think not drones but satellite strikes. Keep expanding the imagination that is the future.

 

[jaywhite97]

I love the fact the market had somewhat come down in price. I also like competition as it keeps companies pursuing at front no one is really a monopoly or leading another. Can’t wait to see what the future holds

 

[seansmd]

I would say look at the military and what BAE and DRS are delivering in NGV and the ability to disconnect the shooter from having to be directly behind the rifle. Its only a matter of time for this to stretch out in distance, increased detail, and simplification of shouting solutions. Providing safety and innovation to to soldiers and volume will eventually create a path of cost effective solutions moving into commercial markets.

 

[CBDR]

If EMP is as effective as its touted to be than we will look on it as a beneficial thing because technology is creating a level of lethality that almost makes you lose hope.

When we have to contend with EMP our troubles are only starting. This threat has been ignored for longer than we care to admit.

 

[DangerRanger]

What I really want to see is 4-5ish to 20-25ish ffp scopes in the low 20ounce range. March is the only one that really does it and they seem to have some optical negatives, I assume from the monster zoom ranges, that make me hesitant.

So for me it’s lack of weight that waiting for

 

[koshkin]

What I really want to see is 4-5ish to 20-25ish ffp scopes in the low 20ounce range. March is the only one that really does it and they seem to have some optical negatives, I assume from the monster zoom ranges, that make me hesitant.

So for me it’s lack of weight that waiting for

It's coming.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

I agree with the multipliers. 4x is good for me and if you look at what NF was able to do with them and non hd glass (ie 12-42), Im honestly more impressed than what I see with the much newer ED or HD glass in 6-10x multiplied scopes for the most part. But holding a solid poa is where Id like to see progress in scopes...

 

[Munchchop]

I'd love a scope that could see through walls, or the interior organs of an Animal while hunting.

 

[DangerRanger]

It's coming.

Oh really

 

[RidiculousMetacarpus]

I'd love a scope that could see through walls, or the interior organs of an Animal while hunting.

 

[LeftyJason]

I can't imagine it since it is physically impossible. By a factor of 15.

For a FOV of 100 feet at 100 yards the maximum theoretically possible magnification for a healthy and statically average human eye is right around 7
x. That assumes that your eye's FOV is around 130 degrees.

For such a configuration, assuming 3 inch eyerelief, you would need an eyepiece of roughly
12 inches in diameter.

In practical terms, 130 deg FOV of your eye is not really correct since you do not use all of that to collect information, but since we are playing a theoretical exercise I used that.

If we come back to earth and stay with reasonable eyepiece diameters, you could theoretically make a scope with that FOV on 2x, but distortion control would be really tricky.

ILya

Ilya your response reminded me of a really cool picture that accompanies a great explanation.

"Which of the following would be brighter, in terms of the amount of energy delivered to your retina:

1. A supernova, seen from as far away as the Sun is from the Earth, or
2. The detonation of a hydrogen bomb pressed against your eyeball?

Applying the physicist rule of thumb suggests that the supernova is brighter. And indeed, it is ... by nine orders of magnitude." - https://what-if.xkcd.com/73/

... And now back to to the great explanations.

 

[Sticks]

When we have to contend with EMP our troubles are only starting. This threat has been ignored for longer than we care to admit.

More specifically, that PRS, BR, ELR, Other shooting match one is shooting when it happens suddenly became not all that important.

 

[Vodoun daVinci]

Eventually digital will replace analog. In the meantime we will see hybrid technology using lenses that fall on sensors and the resulting digital image will be enhanced before being viewed on a precision display thru a lens. The goodies will get gooder and the prices and features will make analog scopes virtually obsolete.

VooDoo