Rifle Scopes Most forgiving eyebox for PRS

[Nemesis Lead]

If one takes this "What the Pros Use" list of rifle scopes on the Precision Rifle Blog as their starting point.....

https://precisionrifleblog.com/2018/12/21/best-scope/

Which scope has the most forgiving eye box? For those who have multiple scopes and can compare them.... perhaps do a comparison of the scopes you do have at 12X magnification?

I am just curious what people have to say. I have spent lots of time on my Razor, but have not looked through many other scopes. I do value a scope that is "easy to get behind" for the very awkward shooting position or support hand stage.

 

[021411]

Having shot my 5-25 ATACR today back to back with the 4.5-27 Razor HD Gen 2 I found out that the Razor has a much more forgiving eye box.

 

[Rugster]

Razor Gen 2

 

[Muffo]

I don't see a forgiving eyebox as an issue. All the top tier scopes have pretty good eye box. Given the fact there usually isnt time in prs stages to dial out paralax it makes it more important to keep your head online behind the scope. If you're taking shots that require a more forgiving eye box you're probably introducing some pretty bad paralax errors. I would be way more concerned with which has the largest field of view

 

[frost1235]

If you read the older entries, never forget: don't chase the new shiny.

Practice on what you have and you'll go far.

 

[carbonbased]

Everything I’ve read points to Hensoldt and it’s defunct civilian version, Zeiss Diavari. I have never seen or looked through those. Eyebox is super important to me as well, maybe due to my awesome -10.5 vision (groan).

 

[Dthomas3523]

I think this is something that is overplayed. Similar to “trigger reset” on a handgun.

It’s something that gets out in reviews, but doesn’t matter too much in grand scheme.

I’ve used most every optic available that is above $1k. I haven’t found one yet where I couldn’t get behind it properly on a stage and get good edge to edge sight picture.

If you find yourself having issues, it’s likely because you are doing something wrong fundamentally and not because it has bad eyebox.

 

[carbonbased]

I’ve used most every optic available that is above $1k. I haven’t found one yet where I couldn’t get behind it properly on a stage and get good edge to edge sight picture.

If you find yourself having issues, it’s likely because you are doing something wrong fundamentally and not because it has bad eyebox.

I’m curious as how perfect vision (no glasses 20/20, 20/15, 20/10, your spirit animal is an eagle, you are an eagle, etc) affects a person’s perception of a scope’s eyebox.

How good is your vision, Dthomas3523?

 

[Dthomas3523]

I’m curious as how perfect vision (no glasses 20/20, 20/15, 20/10, your spirit animal is an eagle, you are an eagle, etc) affects a person’s perception of a scope’s eyebox.

How good is your vision, Dthomas3523?

Not sure how good it is. I don’t require corrective lenses for driving. I have a light prescription, but don’t require them.

So, probably in the 20-30/40 area. Nothing special but nothing terrible either.

I do have issues with making our letters at distance. I have to get closer to street signs or license plates if I’m not wearing lenses.

So, that could also play a factor. Near sighted vs far sighted.

@koshkin might know more about this. But I don’t think eye sight will greatly affect perceived eyebox unless your eyes are extremely bad.

Definitely worth exploring though.

 

[carbonbased]

@koshkin might know more about this. But I don’t think eye sight will greatly affect perceived eyebox unless your eyes are extremely bad.

Definitely worth exploring though.

Thanks for the reply.

I’ve never heard from an optical engineer or even a optometrist on this issue.

Here’s my, probably crap, theory:

Assumptions:
Exit pupil is the diameter of a circle of light some X distance from the eyepiece.

That circle is a slice of a cone of light which gets bigger the further the light is from the eyepiece.

Then:
Generous eyebox is when the angle of that cone of light is steep when it exits from the eyepiece. A steep angled cone (or a cone with a wide “base”) allows for greater eye movement within the cone of light than a shallow cone does.

That is why two scopes with the same exit pupil can have vastly different eyeboxes.

Not sure how eye relief factors in.

I should draw this out.

 

[Nemesis Lead]

I think this is something that is overplayed. Similar to “trigger reset” on a handgun.

It’s something that gets out in reviews, but doesn’t matter too much in grand scheme.

I’ve used most every optic available that is above $1k. I haven’t found one yet where I couldn’t get behind it properly on a stage and get good edge to edge sight picture.

If you find yourself having issues, it’s likely because you are doing something wrong fundamentally and not because it has bad eyebox.

I hear you, to a point.

First, as a Master Class USPSA Shooter, I can tell you that trigger reset DOES matter. If you don't believe me, shoot a Bill Drill with a Sig DAO pistol and a 1911 and come back and tell me what you were faster and more accurate with. When I shot Production, I noticed that trigger slappers often ran Tanfos (longer reset) and trigger riders often shot CZs (shorter reset). The reset mattered to the latter group because of their shooting style.

Similarly, in the PRS stage that puts you in a RIDICULOUSLY awkward position, a forgiving eyebox is helpful so that you can QUICKLY SEE that you are not in a good position. If I see scope shadow on one side, I can efficiently make the appropriate movement to get a full, clear scope picture without losing target focus. If I see nothing but a black scope, I lack that feedback. The adjustment is slower.

One of the clubs that I shoot at is known for crazy shooting positions (e.g., support side, body at a 90 degree angle to the gun, on a rickety/slippery prop). A good eye box helps in these situations. We probably have one or two stages like this per match.

Yes I get it. Training is the best remedy for any shooting deficiency. The shooter with the fixed 10 power scope and a lot of training is going to be much better than the guy with a $5000 scope who does not practice. But if you reduce it to that level, why even have technical discussions at all?

 

[Dthomas3523]

I hear you, to a point.

First, as a Master Class USPSA Shooter, I can tell you that trigger reset DOES matter. If you don't believe me, shoot a Bill Drill with a Sig DAO pistol and a 1911 and come back and tell me what you were faster and more accurate with. When I shot Production, I noticed that trigger slappers often ran Tanfos (longer reset) and trigger riders often shot CZs (shorter reset). The reset mattered to the latter group because of their shooting style.

Similarly, in the PRS stage that puts you in a RIDICULOUSLY awkward position, a forgiving eyebox is helpful so that you can QUICKLY SEE that you are not in a good position. If I see scope shadow on one side, I can efficiently make the appropriate movement to get a full, clear scope picture without losing target focus. If I see nothing but a black scope, I lack that feedback. The adjustment is slower.

One of the clubs that I shoot at is known for crazy shooting positions (e.g., support side, body at a 90 degree angle to the gun, on a rickety/slippery prop). A good eye box helps in these situations. We probably have one or two stages like this per match.

Yes I get it. Training is the best remedy for any shooting deficiency. The shooter with the fixed 10 power scope and a lot of training is going to be much better than the guy with a $5000 scope who does not practice. But if you reduce it to that level, why even have technical discussions at all?

Rob Leatham disagrees with you. ?‍

That’s two different trigger systems you are comparing.

Compare the two with someone who is focused on feeling the reset and someone who isn’t.

 

[Nemesis Lead]

Yes--he is a HUGE trigger slapper. But he is not going to run a DAO trigger.

The late Jeff Cooper would agree with me.

 

[Dthomas3523]

There are literally zero optics over 1k that will give you nothing but black even in the most awkward stages.

Also, on those extremely awkward stages, you should be focused on dialing your parallax out, not edge to edge sight picture.

Shoot the extremely awkward stages, get best you can (some shadowing will be there), and dial parallax out.

When we shoot in extremely awkward positions, we have to sacrifice something.

In this case, it’s scope shadow. Dial out parallax, send it, and keep getting it.

 

[koshkin]

Thanks for the reply.

I’ve never heard from an optical engineer or even a optometrist on this issue.

Here’s my, probably crap, theory:

Assumptions:
Exit pupil is the diameter of a circle of light some X distance from the eyepiece.

That circle is a slice of a cone of light which gets bigger the further the light is from the eyepiece.

Then:
Generous eyebox is when the angle of that cone of light is steep when it exits from the eyepiece. A steep angled cone (or a cone with a wide “base”) allows for greater eye movement within the cone of light than a shallow cone does.

That is why two scopes with the same exit pupil can have vastly different eyeboxes.

Not sure how eye relief factors in.

I should draw this out.

If I understand where you are going with this, that's not how this works. Do draw it out though. I could be missing what you mean.

To answer an earlier question:
Simple vision aberrations like basic farsightedness and nearsightedness do not contribute to how forgiving eye relief is as long as there is enough adjustment in the eyepiece to compensate for them.
There are otehr eyehealth issues that do, however.

In terms of perception, forgiving eye relief is not entirely deconvolved from the quality of the image and depth of field. With most modern scopes, eye relief is sufficiently flexible for most things you are going to do. There are few that are truly tricky to get behind and they make a difference, but differentiating between something that is forgiving vs very forgiving, is tricky and makes little practical difference,

ILya