Rifle Scopes macular degen and scopes?

[rick3]

I've got macular degeneration that is gradually taking my vision away, but I love shooting. I don't know how much longer I'll be able to shoot, but I want to stretch it out as much as possible, so I've been putting scopes on every gun I own (including pistols).

I've got some "junk" scopes on my rifles, but I need to get at least one scope that's good quality and that's as powerful as possible. This will be for informal/enjoyment target shooting (NOT competition) in the 100-300yd range. Now, I know from my reading of this site, that for most of you this is "spitting distance" and a scope that's 3x-9x would probably be overkill. But I need a scope in the 12x-16x range (or more!)...and I still need to be able to pay for ammo, food, mortgage, etc (notice the items listed in priority order).

After using both "regular" mil-dot and BDC reticles, since I use the scope for ranging, I've found that I need something like a mil-dot with ticks (instead of dots), and with at least some numbers to index those lines (Without numbers, my vision doesn't allow me to "count" the dots/lines). Otherwise, the fixed mag SWFA SS 16x42 would be perfect.

So, I know that this question will make those of you with scopes costing $500-$5000 cringe, but...is there a scope in that magnification range, with that kind of reticle, for around $200, that isn't junk?

 

[Rustybroadhead]

Unfortunately, this disease is in both sides of my family so I may well be in the same position you are in at some point down the road. In order to get the most "bang" for you buck, I would try to shop used as much as possible. SWFA.com has a good sized used and demo section you can check out. Two specific scopes you can check into are the Vortex Viper series or Bushnell makes a 5-15x44 with target knobs you should be able to see. A lot of dealers have been closing out some of their Vortex models so check around, you can likely find a good deal on one. If you can look at the vortex in person first, I would recommend it. It has capped turrets and the numbers are a little smaller than the Bushnell. Both of these scopes are in the $450 range but if you can find one used, it hopefully will fall into your budget.
Good luck

 

[Greg Langelius *]

I have a friend with whom I shoot who has advanced macular degeneration, due in part to shrapnel, and also in part to botched laser surgery. We shoot a pair of Mosin Nagants weekly for fun.

I have scoped our rifles with inexpensive Scout scopes, and by comparing our experiences, we are getting some insights into dealing with Macular Degeneration.

As it advances, higher magnifications become frustrating. The key particular turns out to be image clarity, and lower magnifications seem to deliver this better. We use 2-7 magnification with a 40mm objective, and I would estimate that the better choice would be a 3-9 power hunting scope with a larger (50MM) objective. Higher mags than that would probably require a lot of precision manufacturing to manage useable image quality.

An optical measurement called 'exit pupil' becomes more critical with MD. One divides the objective diameter by the magnification number, to derive the Exit Pupil measurement in mm. Dividing 50mm by 9x comes up with a value somewhere above 5mm, which is about as big as or bigger than your eye's normal pupil size. As long as the exit pupil is bigger than your actual eye's pupil size, a lot of annoying issues can be avoided.

I'm thinking something along the lines of this would be a satisfactory low end proposal.

Greg

 

[rick3]

I have a friend with whom I shoot who has advanced macular degeneration, due in part to shrapnel, and also in part to botched laser surgery. We shoot a pair of Mosin Nagants weekly for fun.

I have scoped our rifles with inexpensive Scout scopes, and by comparing our experiences, we are getting some insights into dealing with Macular Degeneration.

As it advances, higher magnifications become frustrating. The key particular turns out to be image clarity, and lower magnifications seem to deliver this better. We use 2-7 magnification with a 40mm objective, and I would estimate that the better choice would be a 3-9 power hunting scope with a larger (50MM) objective. Higher mags than that would probably require a lot of precision manufacturing to manage useable image quality.

An optical measurement called 'exit pupil' becomes more critical with MD. One divides the objective diameter by the magnification number, to derive the Exit Pupil measurement in mm. Dividing 50mm by 9x comes up with a value somewhere above 5mm, which is about as big as or bigger than your eye's normal pupil size. As long as the exit pupil is bigger than your actual eye's pupil size, a lot of annoying issues can be avoided.

I'm thinking something along the lines of this would be a satisfactory low end proposal.

Greg

Greg,

Thanks for the info. I'm familiar with the "exit pupil" measurement that's given in scope specs, but I didn't know it would have a relationship to MD. That relationsip between image quality and exit pupil is good to know.

(Funny aside: as I was reading your response, my eyes totally missed the color change of the text indicating a link, and I was thinking, "I wonder if he forgot to put an image or something in there"...HA!)

 

[rick3]

Greg,

Sorry...I replied yesterday, but the forum system must have "misplaced" my reply.

Basically, I was saying "thanks" for the info. I had known about exit pupil, but had not known how it related to MD.

From your post, I got curious about what my "junk scopes" have for exit pupil, then also got curious if I could make a chart for other objective/magnification combos, so that I could see at a glance what might/might not work. Others might also find it useful, so here is that chart:



The colors/ratings are based on my own experience with the acceptability of my "junk" scopes, anyone else's experience may vary...

 

[Greg Langelius *]

You are very welcome. My comments should be taken as anecdotal evidence and not as clinical findings. I believe that an undersized exit pupil adds the complication of edge shadowing to the image, and that this can bring unacceptable issues to the already difficult task of sight picture resolution by causing cheekweld to become overly critical. I think your chart brings needed clarification to a significant issue.

Greg

 

[kc0yef]

As an Amateur Astronomer exit pupil size is a long and arduous discussion.

Since the Riflescope is basically a refractor here are some points I like to make.
Myth: Exit pupils larger than 5 mm waste light and resolution. I call BULL SH%$
larger Exit pupils do waste some aperture, but the magnification in a riflescope is low enough that any wasted aperture is of little concern because you will get both image brightness and better resolution. With your eyes degenrating I would also look into a tinted lens cover consult your ophthalmologist and ask. I believe you need to remove all the blue you can e.g. "blue blockers" with an Amber to yellow tint. Another consideration is that for better depth of field the diameter of your eyeball's pupil being open fully or pinhole will make a difference get your pupil size measured for best fit In rare circumstances mine pupil get to 10mm at night that is way above average so I can use a lot more "exit pupil" than someone who only has a 3.5mm pupil... fit is easily achieved one size does not fit all in a riflescope, telescope binoculars etc.

reading this just caused me to realize I have an telescope eyepiece that cost's more than my scope yikes!