Rifle Scopes Tired of 1-6, or 1-8xtiny objective.

[Tx_Flyboy]

Just like the title says, this garbage needs to stop.

When will the likes of Nightforce, Schmidt&Bender, USO, etc figurebit out?

LPVOs need bigger objectives above 4x...IMO, anything less than 5mm exit pupil makes the magnification useless for dynamic shooting.

Thoughts?

 

[lennyo3034]

The larger the objective, the more difficult it is to achieve 1x. Going up in objective size will significantly increase distortion at 1x, if it’s even achievable at all.

 

[wade2big]

Isn’t the point to be small and relatively light weight. I believe it is for carbine use.

 

[diverdon]

I have never owned the Nightforce, Schmidt&Bender, USO, in the range you mention. I have the Vortex HD Razor Gen II 1-6x24 and properly mounted it is very easy to get my eye in the right place. I'm amazed how easy and fast it is.

 

[hypno02]

Strongly disagree. I have a mk6, g2r, nx8 and have owned a vudoo, 1.5-5mk4, nxs1-4, and a cqbss among several others. The only one that was tough to get behind was some shitty uso 1-8 that I was not a fan of at all.

If you’re expecting rds flexibility out of a logo you’re going to be waiting around for awhile.

 

[DaleGribble82]

What I don’t understand is how anyone can use an LPVO that is FFP. Are any of you using something like that. I have to get mine in SFP, one because it makes sense, I’m not milling targets and two, on 1x ya can’t see anything. Any thoughts guys?

 

[hypno02]

As long as the reticle is properly designed FFP is not an issue. It needs to feature one if not both of the following:

1. An aimpoint bright dot
2. A bold enough black reticle to make speedy hits at close range (mk6 with its heavy stadia bars or the vudoo with its circle of death ret design)

And no I get that no one mil-ranges with a lpvo under max power but I sure as shit hold over targets on 4x (what I set my lpvo’s to when I’m in a rural setting) with my mk6 and nx8.

 

[DaleGribble82]

As long as the reticle is properly designed FFP is not an issue. It needs to feature one if not both of the following:

1. An aimpoint bright dot
2. A bold enough black reticle to make speedy hits at close range (mk6 with its heavy stadia bars or the vudoo with its circle of death ret design)

And no I get that no one mil-ranges with a lpvo under max power but I sure as shit hold over targets on 4x (what I set my lpvo’s to when I’m in a rural setting) with my mk6 and nx8.

So I’m assuming others have caught onto my complaints and addressed them. My only experience with this was with a NF NXS 1-4 and it just didn’t cut the mustard. Didn’t seem bright enough, and the reticle was hard to pick up.

 

[ClangClang]

What I don’t understand is how anyone can use an LPVO that is FFP. Are any of you using something like that. I have to get mine in SFP, one because it makes sense, I’m not milling targets and two, on 1x ya can’t see anything. Any thoughts guys?

Sounds like you just need to get behind a better FFP 1-6, like the Leupold MK6. The reticle is perfect at 1x (just a nuclear bright 1 MOA center dot) and at 6x (open center dot and illuminated horseshoe surrounding it, with full milling stadia in case you want them).

1x:

6x:

 

[hypno02]

The NXS is SFP and it’s bdc reticle worked fine for me on 1x for quick stuff within 50yds. Though it was nothing near a mk6/nx8/g2r

 

[DaleGribble82]

Must be the case. That looks good from here. Must just be that particular model I dealt with.

 

[DaleGribble82]

The NXS is SFP and it’s bdc reticle worked fine for me on 1x for quick stuff within 50yds. Though it was nothing near a mk6/nx8/g2r

You are absolutely correct. Not sure why I thought it was a FFP. I’m glad to hear it worked well for you. Must have gotten the NSX and NX8 mixed up.

 

[hk dave]

I wonder if the tight eye box has something to do with FFP vs SFP.

Like someone else said, my Razor 1-6 is very easy to get behind. Without caps, the image looks like it’s floating in the air. It’s awesome.

 

[Soulezoo]

Sounds like you just need to get behind a better FFP 1-6, like the Leupold MK6. The reticle is perfect at 1x (just a nuclear bright 1 MOA center dot) and at 6x (open center dot and illuminated horseshoe surrounding it, with full milling stadia in case you want them).

1x:
View attachment 7038384

6x:
View attachment 7038385

Imho, that horseshoe needs to be there at 1x. It's of little use at 6x.

 

[koshkin]

Just like the title says, this garbage needs to stop.

When will the likes of Nightforce, Schmidt&Bender, USO, etc figurebit out?

LPVOs need bigger objectives above 4x...IMO, anything less than 5mm exit pupil makes the magnification useless for dynamic shooting.

Thoughts?

There are technical problems with that. It is not just a matter of makign an objective larger. It will effect the rest of the scope. You will either get a lot of aberrations and shallow depth of field or you will end up with a much longer and larger scope.

Zeiss already has a 1-8x30, but they had to use a 36mm tube for it.

A Chinese manufacturer is making a 1.1-10x30 FFP scope in a 35mm tube for GRSC which is decent for the price. I have shot the prototype out to 1k.

I will not be surprised if someone makes a 1-8x32 or 1-10x42 in a 40mm tube at some point, but it will start getting bulky.

ILya

 

[sobrbiker883]

There’s a reason I’ll never get rid of my dual focal plane 1.5-6 that US Optics made me years ago.
SFP illuminated:

FFP non illuminated:

 

[steve123]

Is it just me ??? I want a 1-8 with parallax adjust, more so for crisp image at whatever distance.

Burris 1-8 XTR2 FFP was struggling a little bit in the image department yesterday. I was comparing a $230 PA 4-14x44with it at 8x, which blew the Burris away.

It could be a few ounces lighter as well.

I do like the reticle in the Burris a lot. FFP or SFP, I've got no complaints with FFP so far. I actually prefer the circle being the size it is on 1x, as well the .1 mil dot at 6-8x.

I wouldn't mind a 35-40mm tube if they could keep the weight down and I imagine it could be made shorter.

 

[Radioactiv]

I use a Primary 1-8 sfp for hunting at night on my AR. It usually lives on 3-5x so ive had no complaints getting behind it.

 

[koshkin]

Is it just me ??? I want a 1-8 with parallax adjust, more so for crisp image at whatever distance.

Burris 1-8 XTR2 FFP was struggling a little bit in the image department yesterday. I was comparing a $230 PA 4-14x44with it at 8x, which blew the Burris away.

It could be a few ounces lighter as well.

I do like the reticle in the Burris a lot. FFP or SFP, I've got no complaints with FFP so far. I actually prefer the circle being the size it is on 1x, as well the .1 mil dot at 6-8x.

I wouldn't mind a 35-40mm tube if they could keep the weight down and I imagine it could be made shorter.

No, such a scope with a larger tube and larger objective would end up longer and heavier. If you try to make it too short, you will end with very shallow depth of field. Some of that can be remedied by a more complicated design, but there are limitations to that.

If you want a 1-8x with side focus, March makes one. They have a 1-8x24FFP and 1-10x24 SFP, both with side focus.

I have tested both in the past and like them a fair bit. I think they need some reticle help, but what they have is perfectly reasonable.

ILya

 

[steve123]

No, such a scope with a larger tube and larger objective would end up longer and heavier. If you try to make it too short, you will end with very shallow depth of field. Some of that can be remedied by a more complicated design, but there are limitations to that.

If you want a 1-8x with side focus, March makes one. They have a 1-8x24FFP and 1-10x24 SFP, both with side focus.

I have tested both in the past and like them a fair bit. I think they need some reticle help, but what they have is perfectly reasonable.

ILya

Ahh, we don't want that, do we? Not only thicker but longer, eek.

That March 1-8 looks great!

Thanks.

 

[Niles Coyote]

If you do not need true 1x there are a lot of dangerous game scopes that bottom out at 1.25x, 1.5x and 1.75x, nice large objective lenses with 6x top ends and excel at low light levels.

 

[koshkin]

I wonder if the tight eye box has something to do with FFP vs SFP.

Like someone else said, my Razor 1-6 is very easy to get behind. Without caps, the image looks like it’s floating in the air. It’s awesome.

It is a little easier to get a SFP scope to be more forgiving, but in principle, there should not be much difference if any.

ILya

 

[koshkin]

Ahh, we don't want that, do we? Not only thicker but longer, eek.

That March 1-8 looks great!

Thanks.

I tested a couple of versions of the March 1-8x when it first came out and liked it a lot. With the optional 6 position illumination, it is a very viable design.

Illumination is still not quite day bright, but the etched circle helps visibility without illumination. The 6 position illumination switch sorta combines the dynamic range of their Hi and Low illumination modules into one unit.

If you are looking for something to kill zombies, there are better low power variables out there. However, if you want a scope of this type as a general purpose design, of sorts, the side focus of the March makes all the difference in the world.

Off hand, the only other side focus low power variable I can think is the much less expensive chinese-made Styrka S7 1-6x24. Reticles with Styrka are just funny, but it does focus down to 10 meters for around $600.

ILya

 

[Snuby642]

I have a Leopold 1.5 x 4 illuminated dot . Works well.

 

[Tx_Flyboy]

ILya,

Please elaborate on the technical problems.

Start with depth of field and factors affecting it.

Yeah, the scope would need to be longer, but this is a geometry/form factor issue (that obviously impacts lens sizes).?

What would be preposterous about starting with say same tube as a NF 2.6-10, or USO 1.5-8 and turning these into 1-8FFP scopes?

Thanks again for your insight.

There are technical problems with that. It is not just a matter of makign an objective larger. It will effect the rest of the scope. You will either get a lot of aberrations and shallow depth of field or you will end up with a much longer and larger scope.

Zeiss already has a 1-8x30, but they had to use a 36mm tube for it.

A Chinese manufacturer is making a 1.1-10x30 FFP scope in a 35mm tube for GRSC which is decent for the price. I have shot the prototype out to 1k.

I will not be surprised if someone makes a 1-8x32 or 1-10x42 in a 40mm tube at some point, but it will start getting bulky.

ILya

 

[koshkin]

ILya,

Please elaborate on the technical problems.

Start with depth of field and factors affecting it.

Yeah, the scope would need to be longer, but this is a geometry/form factor issue (that obviously impacts lens sizes).?

What would be preposterous about starting with say same tube as a NF 2.6-10, or USO 1.5-8 and turning these into 1-8FFP scopes?

Thanks again for your insight.

Before I answer, do you have any background in optics or photography?

A Nightforce 2.5-10x24 turned into a low power variable is the existing 1-4x24 scope.

ILya

 

[jda2631]

Imho, that horseshoe needs to be there at 1x. It's of little use at 6x.

The horse shoe is there for the illumination at 1x, you can't make out the horse shoe at 1x, but since the horse shoe is illuminated it gives you a bigger "red dot". I have an NX8 and like it a lot, it has a 4 segmented circle around the center dot for the same reason, on 1x when illuminated it just looks like a 2-3MOA red dot.

 

[Soulezoo]

The horse shoe is there for the illumination at 1x, you can't make out the horse shoe at 1x, but since the horse shoe is illuminated it gives you a bigger "red dot". I have an NX8 and like it a lot, it has a 4 segmented circle around the center dot for the same reason, on 1x when illuminated it just looks like a 2-3MOA red dot.

I understand all of that. My criticism stands. If this works for you rock on. I am not judging anyone that's ok and/or prefers this. That's not my point. The large EoTech style reticle is objectively faster than plain dot at short to CQB distance. To lose that at 1x means it's quite pointless to incorporate it. At distance with magnification where you actually want just the dot, you have a horseshoe. This is inherently backwards of what is most effective. Again, if it works for you, rock on, I'm not judging.
The dual plain reticles starting to appear provide the best of both worlds. Until I find one I like, I am sticking with my Bushy 1-6.5 elite. That has a reticle I can use effectively within the intended scope of the weapon platform.

 

[Tx_Flyboy]

Before I answer, do you have any background in optics or photography?

A Nightforce 2.5-10x24 turned into a low power variable is the existing 1-4x24 scope.

ILya

No, I don’t have a background in photography.

The NXS 1-4 is physically different from the 2.5-10x42 scope...the length of the scope, the objective, lack of side focus, just to name a few physical differences.

Again, I appreciate any learnings you are willing to impart.

 

[koshkin]

No, I don’t have a background in photography.

The NXS 1-4 is physically different from the 2.5-10x42 scope...the length of the scope, the objective, lack of side focus, just to name a few physical differences.

Again, I appreciate any learnings you are willing to impart.

This is probably going to be easier to explain in a video with a whiteboard. I'll record something.

On the 2.5-10x24 vs 1-4x24: the key metric is the erector ratio.

2.5-10x42 is a very different design from 2.5-10x24.

ILya

 

[USMC_JA]

So I’m assuming others have caught onto my complaints and addressed them. My only experience with this was with a NF NXS 1-4 and it just didn’t cut the mustard. Didn’t seem bright enough, and the reticle was hard to pick up.

The Baby NXS was the cats meow 12+ years ago. It is old tech now and better designs (and glass) in LPVO are out there. I upgraded this year from it to a Gen II-E 1-6x Razor. Much, much better optic.

 

[DaleGribble82]

The Baby NXS was the cats meow 10+ years ago. It is old tech now and better designs (and glass) in LPVO are out there. I upgraded this year from it to a Gen II-E 1-6x Razor. Much, much better optic.

Thanks for the tip.

 

[DaleGribble82]

I’m in need of an optics overhaul. I’m still using three MK4s. Need to send them off to get M5 turrets soon.

 

[koshkin]

 

[Rasyad]

Nice job, thanks.

Rasyad

 

[sobrbiker883]

Thank you for taking the time to throw that together Ilya!
That woulda sucked to try to type ;-)

 

[snarkscarbine]

That was fascinating.

 

[Soulezoo]

Great explanation. Thank you

 

[koshkin]

Thank you for taking the time to throw that together Ilya!
That woulda sucked to try to type ;-)

Exactly.

That's why I started doing these videos.

Ilya

 

[Stevo3556]

DLO,

Thank you very much for taking the time to make a video. I learned a lot regarding how the size of the lens is related to the focal length and how it affects the size of the scope.
Do you have any more videos?

Steve

 

[koshkin]

DLO,

Thank you very much for taking the time to make a video. I learned a lot regarding how the size of the lens is related to the focal length and how it affects the size of the scope.
Do you have any more videos?

Steve

I've done a few and they are on my YouTube channel along with some scope reviews and such. I generally put these together based on questions I get here and on other forums, so subscriber to my Youtube channel and ask questions.

I like doing these.

ILya

 

[Stevo3556]

Thank you, I'll look for your channel.

Steve

 

[koshkin]

Dark Lord Of Optics

Most of what you will see here are some random (and not so random) thoughts on sporting optics of all sorts. I will also intersperse these with other gun rel...

www.youtube.com

Generally, if you search for Dark Lord Of Optics it will pop up..
ILya

 

[Stevo3556]

Got it, thank you very much.

 

[steve123]

Yes, thanks Ilya!

But now this brings up more questions, just what you wanted, right?!, lol.

Since we very rarely need the elevation travel, nor welcome the extra weight, and apparently the DOF is harder to attain, then why do manufacturers build LPVO's in 34mm vs 30mm or 1"?

By the same token, why not more 1" tubed 1-8's?

I suppose no matter which way you go you run into compromises.

For the learning I should put my 1-8 at 1.1-1.3x to try fast and close compared to 1x. I use 8x much more than 1x currently but I need to use my scope for occasional 3gun.

So say someone made a 1.2-10x FFP in a 1" tubed scope, what would be the compromises? Or maybe it's the engineering challenges/both.

 

[koshkin]

Generally, as I pointed out in the video, making a high erector ratio scope in a small tube is difficult and the higher the magnification goes, the more likely is someone to dial.

Still, I would prefer to see more of the smaller and lighter LPVOs. That is the exact feedback I gave to March after testing the Shorty.

If they used that know-how to make an even lighter 1-6x scope instead of an ultra short 1-8x with some compromises at high mag due to shallow DOF, I would jump on that.

You are right, there is no need for 50mrad of elevation travel in a low power scope. However, in a low magnification design, it really does not take much space to have good elevation range. Restricting it from 50 mrad to 20 mrad of travel will not make a huge difference.

As far as 1" tube scopes go, I have been lobbying manufacturers to make an ultralight and ultra short FFP 1-3x or 1-4x with bright illuminated reticle and 2 - 2.5 inches of eye relief for quite some time now, but no luck.

Everyone wants bigger, but for a carbine applications, 3x or 4x top end is totally fine. If I am already lugging around a 20+ ounce scope, I might as well go for something with a higher erector ratio.

However, if I can have a top notch 8 ounce scope with 3x on top end, it will be totally fine. If you keep eye relief short, you can get very nice FOV with a small eyepiece.

ILya

 

[Tx_Flyboy]

I've done a few and they are on my YouTube channel along with some scope reviews and such. I generally put these together based on questions I get here and on other forums, so subscriber to my Youtube channel and ask questions.

I like doing these.

ILya

ILya, thanks for posting that video. It was very educational and allowed me to see some of the trade offs.

However, my question was more in line with

1. Starting with an existing scope tube with 40-42mm objective, SF, etc (NF 2.5-10x42)

2. Changing lenses and internals to accommodate a 1-6 or 1-8.

Can something like that be done with a low power scope but keep weight under 20oz?

I think there are already 4x, 6x or higher magnification ratios...same challenge as a 1-6 no?

 

[koshkin]

ILya, thanks for posting that video. It was very educational and allowed me to see some of the trade offs.

However, my question was more in line with

1. Starting with an existing scope tube with 40-42mm objective, SF, etc (NF 2.5-10x42)

2. Changing lenses and internals to accommodate a 1-6 or 1-8.

Can something like that be done with a low power scope but keep weight under 20oz?

I think there are already 4x, 6x or higher magnification ratios...same challenge as a 1-6 no?

To accomodate a larger objecive diameter, you need longer focal length objective.

Longer focal length objective means larger image size in FFP. The wider the FOV of the objective, the larger is the image size in the FFP for the same focal length.

Larger image size in FFP means larger erector lenses, larger image size in SFP, larger eyepiece, larger tube, etc.

It is theoretically doable, but you will basically end up with double or triple weight.

What might be more viable is something like the Elcan TR design. If you do not need continuos zoom and if you can use external adjustments, there are more tricks you can play.

ILya