Humor Me. Wouldnt a 10-30x or 8-24x offer benefits?

[saddlerocker]

Wouldn't a higher low end make scopes shorter and lighter?
Have a more useable reticle size throughout its range.
Possibly a better eyebox and or FOV?

Most people aren't using the lower powers on FFP scopes right?

Anyone with more knowledge than me care to share or speculate what a 10-30x, 8-24x, or even 10-20x might offer over the current standards?

 

[b6graham]

3x then 4x then 5x then 6x and 7x and 8x. always chasing higher

for a purely competition scope, a 10-30 would be all i'd really want. even like a 12.5-25 would be fine

 

[BCP]

The 2-20x etc scopes you see are manufacturers chasing a top spec/customers wanting the latest/greatest. Also to maintain market share and profit companies need to innovate and show off their top tech stuff.

 

[saddlerocker]

Question is, would narrowing the magnification range offer any benefits in length, weight FOV, eyebox etc?

 

[Ronws]

Question is, would narrowing the magnification range offer any benefits in length, weight FOV, eyebox etc?

I would ask the question if you are talking about FFP scopes or SFP scopes. Or, does it matter?

What brings in light is the objective size. However, lower magnifications generally offer greater field of view. Which can be perfect for hunting. And, you are not trying to hit a 2 inch tall X at 1,000 yards. You are hitting an 8 inch target at 400 yards. So, you need to see well enough the back of the shoulder of a deer and slightly below, for example.

Depends on the target and use. For snipers such as Ryan Cleckner, his mission was to hit an IPSC target out to about 600 yards max. Most engagements were less than 500 and quite a few less than 300. That being said, still practice for 1 MOA precision, in that job.

But I have also watched a guy callled West Desert Shooter and he shoots to 1,000 yards going no higher than 16X.

If going with SFP, obviously weight goes down.

 

[supercorndogs]

Why woukd weight go down by choosing SFP?

 

[beetroot]

Most manufacturers have worked out how to do 6x and 5x scopes now that there isn’t really a reason to go with 2x and 3x designs, in theory it’s easier to optimise the optical design in a lower magnification range, but I’m not sure that really translates to better overall.

Perhaps it’s cheaper to design and build an optimised 3x design, but I imagine the market for such a scope is so small that the market will be so small there wouldn’t be enough sales to make it worthwhile doing.
Not to mention the alpha scope companies that people pay big money for are all using 5 or 6x designs, so the companies must think it’s worth spending a bit extra on the design and construction, and that it doesn’t hold them back from producing an excellent product.

I think the biggest problem really is the lack of a market for such scopes, and OEM isn’t going to spend time designing a product for such a niche market, and a company isn’t going to front up the tens of thousands of dollars to get one designed if they won’t get a return on investment.
I don’t have any idea what they cost are, but I imagine a simplified design might not even be that much cheaper to produce, and now that 5x designs are pretty well sorted out, not much cheaper/easier to design either.

It’s a similar thing with fixed power scopes. Some people are very vocal about wanting a better fixed 10x scope and wonder why no one will do it, when the reality is the market is so small, or only wants one that costs $400 and not willing to pay the $1000-$2000 it would take to actually design one.
Or better yet pay for the USO one that already exists.

Both ZCO and TT have gone out of there way to produce the best performing optic they possibly can, with a bunch of customers that are happy to pay whatever it takes. I’d imagine if they thought it necessary to go with a 3x mag range they would’ve.

I think Leupold is more on the right track with the Mark 4hd, 4x erector scopes that aren’t trying to be ultra-compact, offering excellent performance for the cost, but not going after a tiny market segment is probably a more realistic direction to take.

 

[Ronws]

SFP scopes can weigh less depending on size and magnification. Plenty of them have a BDC reticle.

 

[Cody S]

I think 4x and 5x erectors are basically ideal for reticle being usable. I currently have the tt525p which uses a 5x but I care much more about top end and not at all about the bottom end. for shooting I don't go below 15x. the old SB 5-25 that tunneled under 7x would have been fine for my purposes.
the scope that really interests me is the new march 5-42 high master with wide eye piece
again, not because it goes down to 5 power.

 

[308pirate]

Why woukd weight go down by choosing SFP?

It won't. BS runs deep.

 

[308pirate]

SFP scopes can weigh less depending on size and magnification. Plenty of them have a BDC reticle.

Where the reticle is located doesn't affect weight in any measurable way.

 

[supercorndogs]

When ILYA was talking about the 3-15 razor lht. He said something to the effect, there are some ffp 3-15 designs they could use to add a ffp option, but they weigh a few more ounces.

 

[Ronws]

Where the reticle is located doesn't affect weight in any measurable way.

No, I think what adds weight in FFP scopes is different construction materials and more elevation, etcetera.

With a number of SFP hunting scopes, you zero and set and forget and just use the hold over marks. Or zero for for MPBR or 200 yards, like for a .308 and then aim with a hold for wind.

True, it is not being SFP that makes the scope lighter.

And a larger SFP could weigh more than something small, like the Vortex Crossfire II 3-9X40 Dead Hold.

 

[Ledzep]

I've wanted a fixed 14x steel tube rock of an optic for years but they'd sell like 30 of them and it's not worth anyone's time. Emphasis on durability, longevity, and optical clarity. Most of my variables end up left on 12-15x and never moved...

The masses drive sales and most people don't know how any of it works so bigger numbers and more capable sounds good and sells more even if they don't ever use it.

 

[308pirate]

No, I think what adds weight in FFP scopes is different construction materials and more elevation, etcetera.

With a number of SFP hunting scopes, you zero and set and forget and just use the hold over marks. Or zero for for MPBR or 200 yards, like for a .308 and then aim with a hold for wind.

True, it is not being SFP that makes the scope lighter.

And a larger SFP could weigh more than something small, like the Vortex Crossfire II 3-9X40 Dead Hold.

If I made a SFP Razor Gen 3 it would weigh just as much as the same scope in FFP.

 

[Cody S]

I don't see a touch more weight in my scope as a bad thing personally.
if I had too much money I'd buy that new sweet march.

 

[saddlerocker]

Soooooo.... there would be not better eyebox or FOV with a 10-20x or 10-30x?
There are manufacturers like ZCO and TT which cater to competition who would make such a scope if it made sense.
I have a smooth brain, so I don't know the technicals about it, but it makes sense in my little head.