I am considering an S&B 5-25x56 and have read about tunneling in several posts. Can some explaining this with a bit more detail and post pics of it if possible.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Please describe S&B tunneling.
- Thread starter locolife
- Start date
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
From about 7x down to 5x the FOV doesn't get any smaller although the power does decrease. You just get a black outer area around the sight picture. Is it a problem? I don't think so as you still have a good FOV and I spend most of my time with the scope above 10x. When I do go below 7x I have never been able to not make a shot because of the "tunneling".
I don't have any good pics of it but here is a pic at 10x and then one at 5x at 400 yards. As you can see you still have a good amount of FOV.
From about 7x down to 5x the FOV doesn't get any smaller although the power does decrease. You just get a black outer area around the sight picture. Is it a problem? I don't think so as you still have a good FOV and I spend most of my time with the scope above 10x. When I do go below 7x I have never been able to not make a shot because of the "tunneling".
I don't have any good pics of it but here is a pic at 10x and then one at 5x at 400 yards. As you can see you still have a good amount of FOV.
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
So the black outline visible in the second photo is the "tunneling"?
So the black outline visible in the second photo is the "tunneling"?
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
Yes it kind of looks like that but not exactly. I don't take very good through the scope pics. It's not distracting or causes a problem in the use of the scope.
The 5-25x S&B is my favorite scope. I have 3 now and use it as my go to match scope. I think you will like the scope.
Yes it kind of looks like that but not exactly. I don't take very good through the scope pics. It's not distracting or causes a problem in the use of the scope.
The 5-25x S&B is my favorite scope. I have 3 now and use it as my go to match scope. I think you will like the scope.
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
I have the same scope. I normally shoot at 8 power, but when I need to go lower (not very often), I just very slightly adjust position of my head. The scope has a parallax setting, so I can't see a problem. Or am I wrong?
I have the same scope. I normally shoot at 8 power, but when I need to go lower (not very often), I just very slightly adjust position of my head. The scope has a parallax setting, so I can't see a problem. Or am I wrong?
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
I just made a deal on a S&B 5-25.....the tunneling certainly isn't enough to bother me. I very rarely have my scope below 10x anyway. I'm a magnification whore. The more the better when shooting distance (for me anyway).
I just made a deal on a S&B 5-25.....the tunneling certainly isn't enough to bother me. I very rarely have my scope below 10x anyway. I'm a magnification whore. The more the better when shooting distance (for me anyway).
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
That same topic has been covered before more than once, the thread that specifically fits your request would be this one Tunneling on 5-25 SB.
left: FOV without tunneling, right: FOV with tunneling
That same topic has been covered before more than once, the thread that specifically fits your request would be this one Tunneling on 5-25 SB.
left: FOV without tunneling, right: FOV with tunneling
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
I have a S&B 5x25 and I've never known what people meant by tunneling... granted like others have posted I'm rarely below 15-25x power anyways. I can say, that I just picked up at premier 5-25x and when I look at them side by side, it becomes very noticeable. You see how the S&B fov "circle" becomes smaller as you zoom out. But only when you are looking through it and messing with the zoom. Other than that, the optics on both scopes look great!
I have a S&B 5x25 and I've never known what people meant by tunneling... granted like others have posted I'm rarely below 15-25x power anyways. I can say, that I just picked up at premier 5-25x and when I look at them side by side, it becomes very noticeable. You see how the S&B fov "circle" becomes smaller as you zoom out. But only when you are looking through it and messing with the zoom. Other than that, the optics on both scopes look great!
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That same topic has been covered before more than once, the thread that specifically fits your request would be this one Tunneling on 5-25 SB.
left: FOV without tunneling, right: FOV with tunneling
</div></div>
While the concept may be accurate, David is not without an ax to grind here. Most of my rifles wear S&B 5-25's and NEVER has the tunneling caused an issue and it in no way, shape or form is as obvious when it occurs as the above pictures would have you believe. It is there, yes, but I have shot running deer while using that scope and did not feel it hurt me at all. If you want a S&B without tunneling I would say get one of the new 3-20's as they don't have any, and by my sourcing we should be seeing them start to trickle out soon.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That same topic has been covered before more than once, the thread that specifically fits your request would be this one Tunneling on 5-25 SB.
left: FOV without tunneling, right: FOV with tunneling
</div></div>
While the concept may be accurate, David is not without an ax to grind here. Most of my rifles wear S&B 5-25's and NEVER has the tunneling caused an issue and it in no way, shape or form is as obvious when it occurs as the above pictures would have you believe. It is there, yes, but I have shot running deer while using that scope and did not feel it hurt me at all. If you want a S&B without tunneling I would say get one of the new 3-20's as they don't have any, and by my sourcing we should be seeing them start to trickle out soon.
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lizzardking308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While the concept may be accurate, David is not without an ax to grind here.</div></div>
That is why I'm strictly sticking to published numbers here and not just giving opinions, and I don't want to be caught criticizing a scope without giving a technical reason for the criticism.
Apart from the tunneling, the S&B 5-25x is a great scope and optically the best in their lineup from what I have seen.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lizzardking308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While the concept may be accurate, David is not without an ax to grind here.</div></div>
That is why I'm strictly sticking to published numbers here and not just giving opinions, and I don't want to be caught criticizing a scope without giving a technical reason for the criticism.
Apart from the tunneling, the S&B 5-25x is a great scope and optically the best in their lineup from what I have seen.
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
I just picked up a S&B 5-25 PM II and the first thing I did was drop it to 5 and get a first hand account of the "tunneling". I didn't see a significant issue and likely would not have even given it a second thought if it had not been a topic of discussion here on the Hide.
After I mounted the scope I dropped down to five for another evaluation of the "tunneling". Reconfirmed, it's a non-issue for me. You may see it differently.
I may add, the pictures linked by David are not a good representation of what I'm seeing through my optic however that may be because I'm viewing through the scope at the proper eye relief.
HTH
I just picked up a S&B 5-25 PM II and the first thing I did was drop it to 5 and get a first hand account of the "tunneling". I didn't see a significant issue and likely would not have even given it a second thought if it had not been a topic of discussion here on the Hide.
After I mounted the scope I dropped down to five for another evaluation of the "tunneling". Reconfirmed, it's a non-issue for me. You may see it differently.
I may add, the pictures linked by David are not a good representation of what I'm seeing through my optic however that may be because I'm viewing through the scope at the proper eye relief.
HTH
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Locolife</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am considering an S&B 5-25x56 and have read about tunneling in several posts. Can some explaining this with a bit more detail and post pics of it if possible. </div></div>
I don't have any photos to post, and even if I did they would look like <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Rob01</span></span>'s. However, <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Rob01</span></span>'s description statement about the tunneling effect being gone at 7X is probably accurate for most - if not all, PMII 5-25Xs'. I have two PMII 5-25X[56mm]s' and the tunneling is completely gone at 7X. I rarely shoot below 10X so the tunneling doesn't bother me. Still, the tunneling exhibited by PMIIs' is highly over-rated. As someone who uses his PMIIs' a lot and who knows exactly how little the tunneling actually affects the FOV and shooting, I surmise that those who complain the loudest about the tunneling: (a) have never seen the tunneling themselves, (b) will never be able to buy a PMII so they play-up the tunneling because it makes them feel better, (c) own or sell competing scopes, (d) are somehow affiliated with a competitor.
For the record, the PMII 5-25X[56mm], the PMII 4-16X[42mm], and the PMII 4-16X[50mm] tunnel. I don't remember if the 3-12X[50mm]s' do, but I remember that the 3-20X[50mm] doesn't.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David S.</span></span> posted <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic"><span style="color: #FF0000">simulated FOV images</span></span></span> to illustrate the PMII's tunneling effect at low magnification. However, the tunneling effect in <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David S.</span></span>'s <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">simulated FOV</span></span> images are just that - <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">simulated</span></span>. If you look closely at the two images you'll notice that the size of everything within the FOV is consistent between the two images, and that only the FOV varies. While the reticle and the objects within the FOV are <span style="font-style: italic">proportionally correct</span> (as they always are in a FFP scope), <span style="text-decoration: underline">leaving the size of the reticle and the other objects in view the same size in both images <span style="font-style: italic">while manipulating the FOV</span> seems to exaggerate the tunneling effect.</span> As has been said here and in numerous other posts - <span style="font-style: italic">in-person</span>, the tunneling isn't nearly as dramatic as <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David S.</span></span>'s simulated FOVs' suggest.
All of the above said, the most accurate way to describe the tunneling effect in a PMII is to visualize or draw two (2) concentric circles, one slightly smaller than the other. The larger <span style="font-style: italic">(outside)</span> circle represents the FOV (Field of View) you get <span style="font-style: italic">without tunneling</span>, while the smaller <span style="font-style: italic">(inner)</span> circle represents the reduced FOV (Field of View) caused by the "tunneling".
Keith
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Locolife</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am considering an S&B 5-25x56 and have read about tunneling in several posts. Can some explaining this with a bit more detail and post pics of it if possible. </div></div>
I don't have any photos to post, and even if I did they would look like <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Rob01</span></span>'s. However, <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Rob01</span></span>'s description statement about the tunneling effect being gone at 7X is probably accurate for most - if not all, PMII 5-25Xs'. I have two PMII 5-25X[56mm]s' and the tunneling is completely gone at 7X. I rarely shoot below 10X so the tunneling doesn't bother me. Still, the tunneling exhibited by PMIIs' is highly over-rated. As someone who uses his PMIIs' a lot and who knows exactly how little the tunneling actually affects the FOV and shooting, I surmise that those who complain the loudest about the tunneling: (a) have never seen the tunneling themselves, (b) will never be able to buy a PMII so they play-up the tunneling because it makes them feel better, (c) own or sell competing scopes, (d) are somehow affiliated with a competitor.
For the record, the PMII 5-25X[56mm], the PMII 4-16X[42mm], and the PMII 4-16X[50mm] tunnel. I don't remember if the 3-12X[50mm]s' do, but I remember that the 3-20X[50mm] doesn't.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David S.</span></span> posted <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic"><span style="color: #FF0000">simulated FOV images</span></span></span> to illustrate the PMII's tunneling effect at low magnification. However, the tunneling effect in <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David S.</span></span>'s <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">simulated FOV</span></span> images are just that - <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">simulated</span></span>. If you look closely at the two images you'll notice that the size of everything within the FOV is consistent between the two images, and that only the FOV varies. While the reticle and the objects within the FOV are <span style="font-style: italic">proportionally correct</span> (as they always are in a FFP scope), <span style="text-decoration: underline">leaving the size of the reticle and the other objects in view the same size in both images <span style="font-style: italic">while manipulating the FOV</span> seems to exaggerate the tunneling effect.</span> As has been said here and in numerous other posts - <span style="font-style: italic">in-person</span>, the tunneling isn't nearly as dramatic as <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David S.</span></span>'s simulated FOVs' suggest.
All of the above said, the most accurate way to describe the tunneling effect in a PMII is to visualize or draw two (2) concentric circles, one slightly smaller than the other. The larger <span style="font-style: italic">(outside)</span> circle represents the FOV (Field of View) you get <span style="font-style: italic">without tunneling</span>, while the smaller <span style="font-style: italic">(inner)</span> circle represents the reduced FOV (Field of View) caused by the "tunneling".
Keith
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
I wasn't going to get into this any further because it will most likely result in hurt feelings like the last times, but I'm not going to have anyone suggest that I'm somehow manipulating things here to make someone look bad.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David S.</span></span> posted <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic"><span style="color: #FF0000">simulated FOV images</span></span></span> to illustrate the PMII's tunneling effect at low magnification. However, the tunneling effect in <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David S.</span></span>'s <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">simulated FOV</span></span> images are just that - <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">simulated</span></span>.</div></div>
Yes they are simulated as I pointed out in the other thread. I don't have access to both scopes, and if I did, people would doubt the photos. In fact, it is easier to do a fair comparison with simulations, because you can't skew anything with different camera positions. It would be nice if someone who owns the scope in question could shoot a through the scope vide while zooming from max. to min. magnification, <span style="font-weight: bold">while keeping the camera at a fixed position behind the ocular.</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you look closely at the two images you'll notice that the size of everything within the FOV is consistent between the two images, and that only the FOV varies.</div></div>
Yes, that is absolutely correct, simply because in both images, <span style="font-weight: bold">the magnification is the same</span>, so objects have the same size, and the FOV difference at the same magnification is what causes the tunneling effect.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While the reticle and the objects within the FOV are <span style="font-style: italic">proportionally correct</span> (as they always are in a FFP scope), <span style="text-decoration: underline">leaving the size of the reticle and the other objects in view the same size in both images <span style="font-style: italic">while manipulating the FOV</span> seems to exaggerate the tunneling effect.</span></div></div>
There are three variables here, magnification, FOV and reticle subtensions. Magnification is identical, so the target images are the same size. Reticle subtensions are also identical because I assumed both scopes to be FFP, so the only difference is in fact FOV, and that difference is taken straight from the spec sheets, <span style="text-decoration: underline">I'm not "manipulating" FOV. I'm strictly putting the numbers into a visualization</span>.
This does not "seem to exaggerate" anything, it just shows what is there, under the same settings so that it is directly comparable (while RobO1s images remove any clues of the tunneling effect, since an image that is cropped to the edges of the field of view contains no information at all whether it was taken at 5x or 7x when tunneling is present in that magnification range, as I have explained in detail here).
<span style="font-weight: bold">You are listing exactly the criteria that make these images comparable and make it sound like that was some kind of manipulation on my part. I cannot reject that allegation strongly enough.</span> That is like saying that the <span style="font-style: italic">"simulation"</span> of the comparative length of two scopes made it <span style="font-style: italic">"seem like one is longer than the other because they are both depicted at the same scale"</span>.
I've always held your posts here in high regard and you seem to be a person with a lot of technical understanding. Please reconsider what you have written, you are proving my point while claiming the opposite.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As has been said here and in numerous other posts - <span style="font-style: italic">in-person</span>, the tunneling isn't nearly as dramatic as <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David S.</span></span>'s simulated FOVs' suggest.</div></div>
It is hard to argue with personal impressions, that's why I stick to numbers. The only explanation for a dramatically different personal impression (that I don't share) is that the eye relief (or the width of the eye relief band) changes at low power so you can change the position of the eye, which could affect the width of the black ring around the target image. This may happen unconciously. However, this will <span style="font-weight: bold">not</span> change the observable FOV.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All of the above said, the most accurate way to describe the tunneling effect in a PMII is to visualize or draw two (2) concentric circles, one slightly smaller than the other. The larger <span style="font-style: italic">(outside)</span> circle represents the FOV (Field of View) you get <span style="font-style: italic">without tunneling</span>, while the smaller <span style="font-style: italic">(inner)</span> circle represents the reduced FOV (Field of View) caused by the "tunneling"</div></div>
What you are describing is exactly what my images show. I have just translated this into proportionally correct images.
I wasn't going to get into this any further because it will most likely result in hurt feelings like the last times, but I'm not going to have anyone suggest that I'm somehow manipulating things here to make someone look bad.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David S.</span></span> posted <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic"><span style="color: #FF0000">simulated FOV images</span></span></span> to illustrate the PMII's tunneling effect at low magnification. However, the tunneling effect in <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David S.</span></span>'s <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">simulated FOV</span></span> images are just that - <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">simulated</span></span>.</div></div>
Yes they are simulated as I pointed out in the other thread. I don't have access to both scopes, and if I did, people would doubt the photos. In fact, it is easier to do a fair comparison with simulations, because you can't skew anything with different camera positions. It would be nice if someone who owns the scope in question could shoot a through the scope vide while zooming from max. to min. magnification, <span style="font-weight: bold">while keeping the camera at a fixed position behind the ocular.</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you look closely at the two images you'll notice that the size of everything within the FOV is consistent between the two images, and that only the FOV varies.</div></div>
Yes, that is absolutely correct, simply because in both images, <span style="font-weight: bold">the magnification is the same</span>, so objects have the same size, and the FOV difference at the same magnification is what causes the tunneling effect.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While the reticle and the objects within the FOV are <span style="font-style: italic">proportionally correct</span> (as they always are in a FFP scope), <span style="text-decoration: underline">leaving the size of the reticle and the other objects in view the same size in both images <span style="font-style: italic">while manipulating the FOV</span> seems to exaggerate the tunneling effect.</span></div></div>
There are three variables here, magnification, FOV and reticle subtensions. Magnification is identical, so the target images are the same size. Reticle subtensions are also identical because I assumed both scopes to be FFP, so the only difference is in fact FOV, and that difference is taken straight from the spec sheets, <span style="text-decoration: underline">I'm not "manipulating" FOV. I'm strictly putting the numbers into a visualization</span>.
This does not "seem to exaggerate" anything, it just shows what is there, under the same settings so that it is directly comparable (while RobO1s images remove any clues of the tunneling effect, since an image that is cropped to the edges of the field of view contains no information at all whether it was taken at 5x or 7x when tunneling is present in that magnification range, as I have explained in detail here).
<span style="font-weight: bold">You are listing exactly the criteria that make these images comparable and make it sound like that was some kind of manipulation on my part. I cannot reject that allegation strongly enough.</span> That is like saying that the <span style="font-style: italic">"simulation"</span> of the comparative length of two scopes made it <span style="font-style: italic">"seem like one is longer than the other because they are both depicted at the same scale"</span>.
I've always held your posts here in high regard and you seem to be a person with a lot of technical understanding. Please reconsider what you have written, you are proving my point while claiming the opposite.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As has been said here and in numerous other posts - <span style="font-style: italic">in-person</span>, the tunneling isn't nearly as dramatic as <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David S.</span></span>'s simulated FOVs' suggest.</div></div>
It is hard to argue with personal impressions, that's why I stick to numbers. The only explanation for a dramatically different personal impression (that I don't share) is that the eye relief (or the width of the eye relief band) changes at low power so you can change the position of the eye, which could affect the width of the black ring around the target image. This may happen unconciously. However, this will <span style="font-weight: bold">not</span> change the observable FOV.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All of the above said, the most accurate way to describe the tunneling effect in a PMII is to visualize or draw two (2) concentric circles, one slightly smaller than the other. The larger <span style="font-style: italic">(outside)</span> circle represents the FOV (Field of View) you get <span style="font-style: italic">without tunneling</span>, while the smaller <span style="font-style: italic">(inner)</span> circle represents the reduced FOV (Field of View) caused by the "tunneling"</div></div>
What you are describing is exactly what my images show. I have just translated this into proportionally correct images.
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As someone who uses his PMIIs' a lot and who knows exactly how little the tunneling actually affects the FOV and shooting, I surmise that those who complain the loudest about the tunneling: (a) have never seen the tunneling themselves, (b) will never be able to buy a PMII so they play-up the tunneling because it makes them feel better, (c) own or sell competing scopes, (d) are somehow affiliated with a competitor.
Keith </div></div>
Keith, I don't think that's fair or indicative of what David has said either in this thread or before.
Also, and to be fair, the exact same thing can be said of people who vehemently oppose the notion that tunneling is bad - they too can have the exact same motives for denying it's impact or importance.
I hate tunneling. I find it very distracting and I spent time behind the S&B, Hensoldt and Premier to know that it affects me. I've had a Premier, could have a S&B if I want one and run a Hensoldt right now. I have nothing to bias me one way or another and in fact referred to the Premier as probably a better value for money scope in Ilya's High End Tac. II review despite not owning one.
Here's how I see it. If I want a 5-25 (which will go on my 6.5Creedmoor) then I can't see a reason why I shouldn't go with a Premier that has at least all the qualities of a S&B with none of the drawbacks of tunneling in the lower end (company financials notwithstanding).
I think David's suggestion of a video set up in the manner he suggested would be an excellent illustration once and for all. From there, personal preference can dictate which way the money is spent.
I have all the time and respect for you mate, but I can't agree with this contention of alterior motives being one-way.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As someone who uses his PMIIs' a lot and who knows exactly how little the tunneling actually affects the FOV and shooting, I surmise that those who complain the loudest about the tunneling: (a) have never seen the tunneling themselves, (b) will never be able to buy a PMII so they play-up the tunneling because it makes them feel better, (c) own or sell competing scopes, (d) are somehow affiliated with a competitor.
Keith </div></div>
Keith, I don't think that's fair or indicative of what David has said either in this thread or before.
Also, and to be fair, the exact same thing can be said of people who vehemently oppose the notion that tunneling is bad - they too can have the exact same motives for denying it's impact or importance.
I hate tunneling. I find it very distracting and I spent time behind the S&B, Hensoldt and Premier to know that it affects me. I've had a Premier, could have a S&B if I want one and run a Hensoldt right now. I have nothing to bias me one way or another and in fact referred to the Premier as probably a better value for money scope in Ilya's High End Tac. II review despite not owning one.
Here's how I see it. If I want a 5-25 (which will go on my 6.5Creedmoor) then I can't see a reason why I shouldn't go with a Premier that has at least all the qualities of a S&B with none of the drawbacks of tunneling in the lower end (company financials notwithstanding).
I think David's suggestion of a video set up in the manner he suggested would be an excellent illustration once and for all. From there, personal preference can dictate which way the money is spent.
I have all the time and respect for you mate, but I can't agree with this contention of alterior motives being one-way.
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wasn't going to get into this any further because it will most likely result in hurt feelings like the last times, but I'm not going to have anyone suggest that I'm somehow manipulating things here to make someone look bad.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David S.</span></span> posted <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic"><span style="color: #FF0000">simulated FOV images</span></span></span> to illustrate the PMII's tunneling effect at low magnification. However, the tunneling effect in <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David S.</span></span>'s <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">simulated FOV</span></span> images are just that - <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">simulated</span></span>.</div></div>
Yes they are simulated as I pointed out in the other thread. I don't have access to both scopes, and if I did, people would doubt the photos. In fact, it is easier to do a fair comparison with simulations, because you can't skew anything with different camera positions. It would be nice if someone who owns the scope in question could shoot a through the scope vide while zooming from max. to min. magnification, <span style="font-weight: bold">while keeping the camera at a fixed position behind the ocular.</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you look closely at the two images you'll notice that the size of everything within the FOV is consistent between the two images, and that only the FOV varies.</div></div>
Yes, that is absolutely correct, simply because in both images, <span style="font-weight: bold">the magnification is the same</span>, so objects have the same size, and the FOV difference at the same magnification is what causes the tunneling effect.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While the reticle and the objects within the FOV are <span style="font-style: italic">proportionally correct</span> (as they always are in a FFP scope), <span style="text-decoration: underline">leaving the size of the reticle and the other objects in view the same size in both images <span style="font-style: italic">while manipulating the FOV</span> seems to exaggerate the tunneling effect.</span></div></div>
There are three variables here, magnification, FOV and reticle subtensions. Magnification is identical, so the target images are the same size. Reticle subtensions are also identical because I assumed both scopes to be FFP, so the only difference is in fact FOV, and that difference is taken straight from the spec sheets, <span style="text-decoration: underline">I'm not "manipulating" FOV. I'm strictly putting the numbers into a visualization</span>.
This does not "seem to exaggerate" anything, it just shows what is there, under the same settings so that it is directly comparable (while RobO1s images remove any clues of the tunneling effect, since an image that is cropped to the edges of the field of view contains no information at all whether it was taken at 5x or 7x when tunneling is present in that magnification range, as I have explained in detail here).
<span style="font-weight: bold">You are listing exactly the criteria that make these images comparable and make it sound like that was some kind of manipulation on my part. I cannot reject that allegation strongly enough.</span> That is like saying that the <span style="font-style: italic">"simulation"</span> of the comparative length of two scopes made it <span style="font-style: italic">"seem like one is longer than the other because they are both depicted at the same scale"</span>.
I've always held your posts here in high regard and you seem to be a person with a lot of technical understanding. Please reconsider what you have written, you are proving my point while claiming the opposite.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As has been said here and in numerous other posts - <span style="font-style: italic">in-person</span>, the tunneling isn't nearly as dramatic as <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David S.</span></span>'s simulated FOVs' suggest.</div></div>
It is hard to argue with personal impressions, that's why I stick to numbers. The only explanation for a dramatically different personal impression (that I don't share) is that the eye relief (or the width of the eye relief band) changes at low power so you can change the position of the eye, which could affect the width of the black ring around the target image. This may happen unconciously. However, this will <span style="font-weight: bold">not</span> change the observable FOV.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All of the above said, the most accurate way to describe the tunneling effect in a PMII is to visualize or draw two (2) concentric circles, one slightly smaller than the other. The larger <span style="font-style: italic">(outside)</span> circle represents the FOV (Field of View) you get <span style="font-style: italic">without tunneling</span>, while the smaller <span style="font-style: italic">(inner)</span> circle represents the reduced FOV (Field of View) caused by the "tunneling"</div></div>
What you are describing is exactly what my images show. I have just translated this into proportionally correct images. </div></div>
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David</span></span> -
First off, I feel it's unfortunate that you felt compelled to post in this thread in order to "defend" something that you posted here previously. There are a lot of sensitive egos' here, and I've found that its' sometimes hard to get a point across without injuring someone's ego - even when what you're trying to put forth is proven fact. As you've probably read I own two (2) PMII 5-25X[556mm] scopes and while they "tunnel" between 5X-7X my feelings are not hurt in the least nor does the tunneling bother me.
I'd also like to make it clear that I did not mean to imply that you purposefully manipulated the images in order <span style="font-style: italic">to make someone look bad"</span> in my previous post (the one you quoted me in). That was not my intent, so if you inferred it that way I apologize. Based on my experience (I haven't correlated the numbers on paper), the actual <span style="font-style: italic">"in-person view"</span> and your simulated image views look very different, and I was simply trying to point-out that out. Nothing more, nothing less.
As far as not having access to both scopes, I can't help you there. I sold my Premier 5-25X[56mm] a couple of years ago. And in regard to people doubting the photos thats' their perogative and problem. I know that I've done plenty of shit in the past and can still do things that people say isn't possible. I and a few others are the only people who will ever know the truth. People believe what they choose to believe when they choose to believe it, period.
Now, and I'm embarassed to admit this (especially since I generally have a pretty good technical understanding of how things work), but in regard to the magnification being the same between the images I thought that the simulations were of a PMII 5-25X[56mm] at 7X (image on the left) and a PMII 5-25X[56mm] at 5X (image on the right). Now that I know that the images represent a non-tunneled 5X view (on the left) and a "tunneled" 5X view (on the right) I see why everything within the image views are proportionate. That makes sense. I sold my Premier 5-25X[56mm] and I don't have one handy to compare it to, but looking recalling from memory the two images are probably a pretty accurate representation. Again, my apologies for temporary dyslexia and faux pax'.
Keith
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wasn't going to get into this any further because it will most likely result in hurt feelings like the last times, but I'm not going to have anyone suggest that I'm somehow manipulating things here to make someone look bad.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David S.</span></span> posted <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic"><span style="color: #FF0000">simulated FOV images</span></span></span> to illustrate the PMII's tunneling effect at low magnification. However, the tunneling effect in <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David S.</span></span>'s <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">simulated FOV</span></span> images are just that - <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">simulated</span></span>.</div></div>
Yes they are simulated as I pointed out in the other thread. I don't have access to both scopes, and if I did, people would doubt the photos. In fact, it is easier to do a fair comparison with simulations, because you can't skew anything with different camera positions. It would be nice if someone who owns the scope in question could shoot a through the scope vide while zooming from max. to min. magnification, <span style="font-weight: bold">while keeping the camera at a fixed position behind the ocular.</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you look closely at the two images you'll notice that the size of everything within the FOV is consistent between the two images, and that only the FOV varies.</div></div>
Yes, that is absolutely correct, simply because in both images, <span style="font-weight: bold">the magnification is the same</span>, so objects have the same size, and the FOV difference at the same magnification is what causes the tunneling effect.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While the reticle and the objects within the FOV are <span style="font-style: italic">proportionally correct</span> (as they always are in a FFP scope), <span style="text-decoration: underline">leaving the size of the reticle and the other objects in view the same size in both images <span style="font-style: italic">while manipulating the FOV</span> seems to exaggerate the tunneling effect.</span></div></div>
There are three variables here, magnification, FOV and reticle subtensions. Magnification is identical, so the target images are the same size. Reticle subtensions are also identical because I assumed both scopes to be FFP, so the only difference is in fact FOV, and that difference is taken straight from the spec sheets, <span style="text-decoration: underline">I'm not "manipulating" FOV. I'm strictly putting the numbers into a visualization</span>.
This does not "seem to exaggerate" anything, it just shows what is there, under the same settings so that it is directly comparable (while RobO1s images remove any clues of the tunneling effect, since an image that is cropped to the edges of the field of view contains no information at all whether it was taken at 5x or 7x when tunneling is present in that magnification range, as I have explained in detail here).
<span style="font-weight: bold">You are listing exactly the criteria that make these images comparable and make it sound like that was some kind of manipulation on my part. I cannot reject that allegation strongly enough.</span> That is like saying that the <span style="font-style: italic">"simulation"</span> of the comparative length of two scopes made it <span style="font-style: italic">"seem like one is longer than the other because they are both depicted at the same scale"</span>.
I've always held your posts here in high regard and you seem to be a person with a lot of technical understanding. Please reconsider what you have written, you are proving my point while claiming the opposite.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As has been said here and in numerous other posts - <span style="font-style: italic">in-person</span>, the tunneling isn't nearly as dramatic as <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David S.</span></span>'s simulated FOVs' suggest.</div></div>
It is hard to argue with personal impressions, that's why I stick to numbers. The only explanation for a dramatically different personal impression (that I don't share) is that the eye relief (or the width of the eye relief band) changes at low power so you can change the position of the eye, which could affect the width of the black ring around the target image. This may happen unconciously. However, this will <span style="font-weight: bold">not</span> change the observable FOV.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All of the above said, the most accurate way to describe the tunneling effect in a PMII is to visualize or draw two (2) concentric circles, one slightly smaller than the other. The larger <span style="font-style: italic">(outside)</span> circle represents the FOV (Field of View) you get <span style="font-style: italic">without tunneling</span>, while the smaller <span style="font-style: italic">(inner)</span> circle represents the reduced FOV (Field of View) caused by the "tunneling"</div></div>
What you are describing is exactly what my images show. I have just translated this into proportionally correct images. </div></div>
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David</span></span> -
First off, I feel it's unfortunate that you felt compelled to post in this thread in order to "defend" something that you posted here previously. There are a lot of sensitive egos' here, and I've found that its' sometimes hard to get a point across without injuring someone's ego - even when what you're trying to put forth is proven fact. As you've probably read I own two (2) PMII 5-25X[556mm] scopes and while they "tunnel" between 5X-7X my feelings are not hurt in the least nor does the tunneling bother me.
I'd also like to make it clear that I did not mean to imply that you purposefully manipulated the images in order <span style="font-style: italic">to make someone look bad"</span> in my previous post (the one you quoted me in). That was not my intent, so if you inferred it that way I apologize. Based on my experience (I haven't correlated the numbers on paper), the actual <span style="font-style: italic">"in-person view"</span> and your simulated image views look very different, and I was simply trying to point-out that out. Nothing more, nothing less.
As far as not having access to both scopes, I can't help you there. I sold my Premier 5-25X[56mm] a couple of years ago. And in regard to people doubting the photos thats' their perogative and problem. I know that I've done plenty of shit in the past and can still do things that people say isn't possible. I and a few others are the only people who will ever know the truth. People believe what they choose to believe when they choose to believe it, period.
Now, and I'm embarassed to admit this (especially since I generally have a pretty good technical understanding of how things work), but in regard to the magnification being the same between the images I thought that the simulations were of a PMII 5-25X[56mm] at 7X (image on the left) and a PMII 5-25X[56mm] at 5X (image on the right). Now that I know that the images represent a non-tunneled 5X view (on the left) and a "tunneled" 5X view (on the right) I see why everything within the image views are proportionate. That makes sense. I sold my Premier 5-25X[56mm] and I don't have one handy to compare it to, but looking recalling from memory the two images are probably a pretty accurate representation. Again, my apologies for temporary dyslexia and faux pax'.
Keith
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
If anyone has the equipment and expertise to make and post a video please do so. I for one would truly appreciate it.
If anyone has the equipment and expertise to make and post a video please do so. I for one would truly appreciate it.
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 21Bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just picked up a S&B 5-25 PM II and the first thing I did was drop it to 5 and get a first hand account of the "tunneling". I didn't see a significant issue and likely would not have even given it a second thought if it had not been a topic of discussion here on the Hide.
After I mounted the scope I dropped down to five for another evaluation of the "tunneling". Reconfirmed, it's a non-issue for me. You may see it differently.
I may add, the pictures linked by David are not a good representation of what I'm seeing through my optic however that may be because I'm viewing through the scope at the proper eye relief.
HTH
</div></div>
This post sums up my experience perfectly. I too have a S&B 5-25x PMII; I probably never would have noticed the tunneling if I hadn't specifically looked for it. To me, it's a non-issue which has been overblown. I compared many premium scopes in this power range less than a year ago and I liked S&B the best.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 21Bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just picked up a S&B 5-25 PM II and the first thing I did was drop it to 5 and get a first hand account of the "tunneling". I didn't see a significant issue and likely would not have even given it a second thought if it had not been a topic of discussion here on the Hide.
After I mounted the scope I dropped down to five for another evaluation of the "tunneling". Reconfirmed, it's a non-issue for me. You may see it differently.
I may add, the pictures linked by David are not a good representation of what I'm seeing through my optic however that may be because I'm viewing through the scope at the proper eye relief.
HTH
</div></div>
This post sums up my experience perfectly. I too have a S&B 5-25x PMII; I probably never would have noticed the tunneling if I hadn't specifically looked for it. To me, it's a non-issue which has been overblown. I compared many premium scopes in this power range less than a year ago and I liked S&B the best.
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, and I'm embarassed to admit this... </div></div>
Now I understand! I should have labeled those images more clearly.
And don't worry, being able to set something straight like that is a far more respectable quality than always being right, at least in my book. Everyone makes mistakes, it's how people deal with them that sets them apart.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, and I'm embarassed to admit this... </div></div>
Now I understand! I should have labeled those images more clearly.
And don't worry, being able to set something straight like that is a far more respectable quality than always being right, at least in my book. Everyone makes mistakes, it's how people deal with them that sets them apart.
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As someone who uses his PMIIs' a lot and who knows exactly how little the tunneling actually affects the FOV and shooting, I surmise that those who complain the loudest about the tunneling: (a) have never seen the tunneling themselves, (b) will never be able to buy a PMII so they play-up the tunneling because it makes them feel better, (c) own or sell competing scopes, (d) are somehow affiliated with a competitor.
Keith </div></div>
Keith, I don't think that's fair or indicative of what David has said either in this thread or before.</div></div>
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Bijige</span></span> -
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic"><span style="text-decoration: underline">Maybe</span></span></span> that quote was a <span style="font-style: italic">bit</span> general. However, there is NO DOUBT that people who DKWTF they're talking about (i.e., they have zero personal experience with a piece of equipment) jump on the bandwagon to praise or bash products. The optics manufacturers' alone that are often mentioned here include, but are not limited to S & B, Premier, Nightforce, IOR, Leupold, USO, and Falcon.
Your opinion and my opinion on optics definitely differ - partially out of priorities but IMO also out of experience gained through usage of PMII 5-25[56m] and Heritage 5-25X[56mm] scopes side-by-side on rifles. <span style="font-style: italic">That is not meant to take anything away from you.</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, and to be fair, the exact same thing can be said of people who vehemently oppose the notion that tunneling is bad - they too can have the exact same motives for denying it's impact or importance.</div></div>
I'm sure thats' true. Everyone has their preferences, and for my use the PMII's tunneling has zero impact on my shooting. While having a wide magnification range is good, in my experience most people who buy variable-magnification scopes of mid-high magnification tend to use the mid-upper magnification range. Theres' no doubt that most PMIIs' tunnel to some degree. However, <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">(and not to dismiss PMII tunneling)</span></span> - keep in mind that scopes of lower magnification often have less FOV than scopes that have higher top magnifications.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I hate tunneling. I find it very distracting and I spent time behind the S&B, Hensoldt and Premier to know that it affects me. I've had a Premier, could have a S&B if I want one and run a Hensoldt right now. I have nothing to bias me one way or another and in fact referred to the Premier as probably a better value for money scope in Ilya's High End Tac. II review despite not owning one.</div></div>
Based on our offline discussions about what your intended uses will be your Hensoldt 3-12X[56mm] should work well for you for everything except <span style="font-style: italic">precision</span> shooting (the line width of Hensoldt's Mildot reticle is too thick for true precision) and to take advantage of the acuracy that your Tango 51 is capable of).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's how I see it. If I want a 5-25 (which will go on my 6.5Creedmoor) then I can't see a reason why I shouldn't go with a Premier that has at least all the qualities of a S&B with none of the drawbacks of tunneling in the lower end (company financials notwithstanding).</div></div>
IMO, the PMII 5-25X[56mm] and the Heritage 5-25X[56mm] both have their own strengths and weaknesses, <span style="font-style: italic">which depending upon user preference may or may not be considered to be a strength of weakness at all.</span> I enumerate the differences in <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">my reply to newyork in his "Nice optic" thread</span></span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have all the time and respect for you mate, but I can't agree with this contention of alterior motives being one-way. </div></div>
Bromance nothwithstanding, I respect your opinion as well. However, if you read back through my replies to <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David S.</span></span> you'll see that I never stated or implied that alterior motives were a one-way street. If you see more than that its' because you want to.
Keith
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As someone who uses his PMIIs' a lot and who knows exactly how little the tunneling actually affects the FOV and shooting, I surmise that those who complain the loudest about the tunneling: (a) have never seen the tunneling themselves, (b) will never be able to buy a PMII so they play-up the tunneling because it makes them feel better, (c) own or sell competing scopes, (d) are somehow affiliated with a competitor.
Keith </div></div>
Keith, I don't think that's fair or indicative of what David has said either in this thread or before.</div></div>
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Bijige</span></span> -
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic"><span style="text-decoration: underline">Maybe</span></span></span> that quote was a <span style="font-style: italic">bit</span> general. However, there is NO DOUBT that people who DKWTF they're talking about (i.e., they have zero personal experience with a piece of equipment) jump on the bandwagon to praise or bash products. The optics manufacturers' alone that are often mentioned here include, but are not limited to S & B, Premier, Nightforce, IOR, Leupold, USO, and Falcon.
Your opinion and my opinion on optics definitely differ - partially out of priorities but IMO also out of experience gained through usage of PMII 5-25[56m] and Heritage 5-25X[56mm] scopes side-by-side on rifles. <span style="font-style: italic">That is not meant to take anything away from you.</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, and to be fair, the exact same thing can be said of people who vehemently oppose the notion that tunneling is bad - they too can have the exact same motives for denying it's impact or importance.</div></div>
I'm sure thats' true. Everyone has their preferences, and for my use the PMII's tunneling has zero impact on my shooting. While having a wide magnification range is good, in my experience most people who buy variable-magnification scopes of mid-high magnification tend to use the mid-upper magnification range. Theres' no doubt that most PMIIs' tunnel to some degree. However, <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">(and not to dismiss PMII tunneling)</span></span> - keep in mind that scopes of lower magnification often have less FOV than scopes that have higher top magnifications.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I hate tunneling. I find it very distracting and I spent time behind the S&B, Hensoldt and Premier to know that it affects me. I've had a Premier, could have a S&B if I want one and run a Hensoldt right now. I have nothing to bias me one way or another and in fact referred to the Premier as probably a better value for money scope in Ilya's High End Tac. II review despite not owning one.</div></div>
Based on our offline discussions about what your intended uses will be your Hensoldt 3-12X[56mm] should work well for you for everything except <span style="font-style: italic">precision</span> shooting (the line width of Hensoldt's Mildot reticle is too thick for true precision) and to take advantage of the acuracy that your Tango 51 is capable of).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's how I see it. If I want a 5-25 (which will go on my 6.5Creedmoor) then I can't see a reason why I shouldn't go with a Premier that has at least all the qualities of a S&B with none of the drawbacks of tunneling in the lower end (company financials notwithstanding).</div></div>
IMO, the PMII 5-25X[56mm] and the Heritage 5-25X[56mm] both have their own strengths and weaknesses, <span style="font-style: italic">which depending upon user preference may or may not be considered to be a strength of weakness at all.</span> I enumerate the differences in <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">my reply to newyork in his "Nice optic" thread</span></span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have all the time and respect for you mate, but I can't agree with this contention of alterior motives being one-way. </div></div>
Bromance nothwithstanding, I respect your opinion as well. However, if you read back through my replies to <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">David S.</span></span> you'll see that I never stated or implied that alterior motives were a one-way street. If you see more than that its' because you want to.
Keith
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, and I'm embarassed to admit this... </div></div>
Now I understand! I should have labeled those images more clearly.</div></div>
My bad. If I would have thought about it more I may have realized what I was looking at, but I fell asleep at the wheel this time. That said, I've always enjoyed your explanations about scope mechanisms and lens coatings and have learned a lot by reading them.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And don't worry, being able to set something straight like that is a far more respectable quality than always being right, at least in my book. Everyone makes mistakes, it's how people deal with them that sets them apart.
</div></div>
Thanks David, I agree wholeheartedly. While no one likes to admit that they made a mistake, I'm not so stubborn nor is my ego so large that I can't admit that I made a mistake or misunderstood something.
Keith
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, and I'm embarassed to admit this... </div></div>
Now I understand! I should have labeled those images more clearly.</div></div>
My bad. If I would have thought about it more I may have realized what I was looking at, but I fell asleep at the wheel this time. That said, I've always enjoyed your explanations about scope mechanisms and lens coatings and have learned a lot by reading them.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And don't worry, being able to set something straight like that is a far more respectable quality than always being right, at least in my book. Everyone makes mistakes, it's how people deal with them that sets them apart.
</div></div>
Thanks David, I agree wholeheartedly. While no one likes to admit that they made a mistake, I'm not so stubborn nor is my ego so large that I can't admit that I made a mistake or misunderstood something.
Keith
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
you love the bromance, you know it. tried to PM you buy you're over your limit.
you love the bromance, you know it. tried to PM you buy you're over your limit.
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you love the bromance, you know it. tried to PM you buy you're over your limit. </div></div>
Don't be so cheap - call me. Phone call inbound.
Keith
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you love the bromance, you know it. tried to PM you buy you're over your limit. </div></div>
Don't be so cheap - call me. Phone call inbound.
Keith
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually 21Bravo it's because that's not an actual picture but a simulation. Like you found out the "tunneling" is a non issue in the actual use of the scope.</div></div>
Rob thanks for pointing the "simulation" part out to me. I did not see that. However, I vaguely recall that from the original posting of the pic.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually 21Bravo it's because that's not an actual picture but a simulation. Like you found out the "tunneling" is a non issue in the actual use of the scope.</div></div>
Rob thanks for pointing the "simulation" part out to me. I did not see that. However, I vaguely recall that from the original posting of the pic.
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Locolife</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If anyone has the equipment and expertise to make and post a video please do so. I for one would truly appreciate it.</div></div>
I have neither the expertise or video equipment but with a camera and my rifle I tried to make this for you. It's at a neighbor's car at 33 yards through a dirty window and screen so that's why the optical clarity isn't the best. I made a few videos as I wasn't sure how they came out as it was tough to get the camera behind the scope perfectly but here are the best 2. They go from 7x down to 5x. At 7x you can see the sharper edges in a few places and see how it moves down to 5x. If you click the little box with the arrow pointing through the upper right corner in the lower right corner the video goes full screen and is easier to see. Best I can do for you.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Locolife</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If anyone has the equipment and expertise to make and post a video please do so. I for one would truly appreciate it.</div></div>
I have neither the expertise or video equipment but with a camera and my rifle I tried to make this for you. It's at a neighbor's car at 33 yards through a dirty window and screen so that's why the optical clarity isn't the best. I made a few videos as I wasn't sure how they came out as it was tough to get the camera behind the scope perfectly but here are the best 2. They go from 7x down to 5x. At 7x you can see the sharper edges in a few places and see how it moves down to 5x. If you click the little box with the arrow pointing through the upper right corner in the lower right corner the video goes full screen and is easier to see. Best I can do for you.
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
I have to admit, from the vids, it really doesn't look like a big deal. I don't know if it's because at such a short range or the vid, but that's not how I remembered it.
Maybe I've over-exaggerated it... need to go and have a look at them side by side again.
I have to admit, from the vids, it really doesn't look like a big deal. I don't know if it's because at such a short range or the vid, but that's not how I remembered it.
Maybe I've over-exaggerated it... need to go and have a look at them side by side again.
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
Rob,
try positioning the camera so you get the full FOV into the picture at high power before you turn down the magnification. What's happening in your videos confirms my speculation above that eye relief (or eye relief band width) changes when turning down the magnification, so you can move the eye (or camera) closer to the ocular (getting a larger eye relief band width on low power is not a bad thing!). In the videos, the borders of the FOV are sharp only on low power, indication that the camera is not positioned correctly for higher power. Similar to your still images above, the FOV fills the whole image on low power and then gets even bigger when turning up the power, this is not what the eye sees while maintaining a constant cheekweld.
Yes, I know it's not easy fiddling with a camera behind the ocular, and what I described may not be possible to achieve if the focal length of the camera lens is too long.
Rob,
try positioning the camera so you get the full FOV into the picture at high power before you turn down the magnification. What's happening in your videos confirms my speculation above that eye relief (or eye relief band width) changes when turning down the magnification, so you can move the eye (or camera) closer to the ocular (getting a larger eye relief band width on low power is not a bad thing!). In the videos, the borders of the FOV are sharp only on low power, indication that the camera is not positioned correctly for higher power. Similar to your still images above, the FOV fills the whole image on low power and then gets even bigger when turning up the power, this is not what the eye sees while maintaining a constant cheekweld.
Yes, I know it's not easy fiddling with a camera behind the ocular, and what I described may not be possible to achieve if the focal length of the camera lens is too long.
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
You can see the sharp edges on 7x as well and that's the outer limit of the FOV. At one point I went above the 7x and that's where you lose the sharp edge for a second. Those videos are what you see when looking through the scope. You see the sharp edges and that's your max FOV. That is looking at good eye relief or it wouldn't be clear. If you look to the right of the videos you can see things on my table that I was filming it on so I wasn't zooming. Don't know any of the jargon you are using but I know what it looks like laying behind my scope as I am a shooter and that's what it looks like. They wanted video. They got video. I am not wasting anymore of my time on this issue. Can't show it any better than to have everyone fly here and look through the scope themselves.
Event you are right. It's not a big deal when <span style="font-weight: bold">actually looking through and using the scope</span> and that's what I have been trying to say all along. The range doesn't really matter as in close is where you would be most likely dialed down that low anyways. You have the picture above at 400 yards.
Most people don't buy a 5-25x optic to be using it all the time at 5-7x. I know I don't and that's why the "tunneling" is such a non issue to me. It's one of those things that people fixate on and take as a negative and harp on. People who actually use the scope, which there are a few in this thread, also don't see the big deal.
You can see the sharp edges on 7x as well and that's the outer limit of the FOV. At one point I went above the 7x and that's where you lose the sharp edge for a second. Those videos are what you see when looking through the scope. You see the sharp edges and that's your max FOV. That is looking at good eye relief or it wouldn't be clear. If you look to the right of the videos you can see things on my table that I was filming it on so I wasn't zooming. Don't know any of the jargon you are using but I know what it looks like laying behind my scope as I am a shooter and that's what it looks like. They wanted video. They got video. I am not wasting anymore of my time on this issue. Can't show it any better than to have everyone fly here and look through the scope themselves.
Event you are right. It's not a big deal when <span style="font-weight: bold">actually looking through and using the scope</span> and that's what I have been trying to say all along. The range doesn't really matter as in close is where you would be most likely dialed down that low anyways. You have the picture above at 400 yards.
Most people don't buy a 5-25x optic to be using it all the time at 5-7x. I know I don't and that's why the "tunneling" is such a non issue to me. It's one of those things that people fixate on and take as a negative and harp on. People who actually use the scope, which there are a few in this thread, also don't see the big deal.
Re: Please describe S&B tunneling.
I forgot to say thanks for the video! This has just opened up the field for my 6.5Creedmoor optic...!
I forgot to say thanks for the video! This has just opened up the field for my 6.5Creedmoor optic...!
Similar threads
