NateVA said:

Do you happen to know the Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 AFOV off the top of your head? I'm definitely curious now.

Click to expand...

supercorndogs said:

Great post. Thank you. Answers my question 100% and much more. I kind of came to the same conclusions about the weight compromises. I wonder about the 2.5-10 mk4hd. I always thought the tmr was good reticle for that kind of scope.

My main no like is that the 3-15 isn't offered in FFP. I evennhave some of their 2-10lh with moa reticles. This thread wouldn't even exists if they would have put a freaking mild in that little 15oz gem.

Click to expand...

Kiba said:

You don't need to know it, but knowing AFOV is a useful metric IMO and I wish more manufacturers would list it. If you really want to know it, you can back into it with a little math from the regular m/100m or ft/100y FOV specs. It is a spec that nearly all purchasers would be unfamiliar with which

Knowing AFOV at the min and max magnification makes it very easy to determine which scopes have tunneling, which ones have narrow vs wide angle eyepieces, and it makes it easier to compare the angular field of view across multiple scopes with different magnification ranges. The wider the AFOV, the wider the field of view and the more you'll see in your eye at a given magnification.

If you're comparing say a 5-25 and a 6-36 scope and the 5-25 has a 22 degree AFOV and the 6-36 has a 26 degree AFOV, the 6-36 will have a wider field of view than the 5-25 when both scopes are at the same magnification, even if the typically listed FOV specs (listed in m/100m or ft/100yd) show narrower for the 6-36 at maximum magnification. That's where I find knowing AFOV useful.

As far as trying to wrap your head around it... this might help.

18-19 degree AFOV would be considered a narrow field of view, sort of the "looking down a drinking straw" effect. You can see your target, but not too much around it. You may have to dial the mag down to see your misses or find the target after recoil, especially if the target is obscured or harder to find.

21-22 degree AFOV is sort of a middle of the road number at the moment (partly because Swarovski has a patent on a certain set of scope characteristics, including a >22 degree AFOV)-- this is why many high end scopes like the ZCO 527, TT 7-35, US market S&B 6-36, are all limited to just under 22 degrees AFOV... it's for US patent compliance.

Quite a few of the higher end LOW manufactured scopes offered right now (like the Razor G3 6-36) have a 24ish degree AFOV. Fairly wide angle, but not huge.

Some of the latest scopes have very large AFOV numbers... March has offered a 26 degree wide angle eyepiece for a while now, the S&B 6-36 Non-US version that isn't limited by the US patent compliance is 26.1 degrees, and the new Kahles k540 has 29.8 degrees-- it's the current AFOV king in the US market thanks to Kahles being owned by Swarovski and therefore they own the patent. Every person that's been behind a K540 is pretty shocked at how much you see and how large the field of view is at a given magnification because of that extra wide 29.8 degree AFOV.

I have a hunch if/when the Swarovski >22 degree AFOV patent expires in the middle of 2026 we're going to see more manufacturers touting viewing angles offered by their new "wide angle" scopes. Right now March and S&B are some of the only manufacturers I'm aware of that lists the angular FOV specs of their scopes, and they list it both at min and max mag. (However, one of my gripes is I wish manufacturers would list the FOV specs (both distance and angular) down to 2 digits past the decimal place, but the average purchaser probably dosen't care about rounding error affecting their pre-purchase comparisons, lol)

Back to the OP's question, the LHT's have a somewhat narrow AFOV at around 19.7 degrees for the 4.5-22 and 20 degrees for the 3-15 (this is off the Vortex spec sheets, and the slight difference could easily be rounding error from the single decimal place FOV numbers provided since Ilya said both LHT's share the same angular FOV)-- this is apparent when looking through them. Vortex did sacrifice some things in the design of the LHT to keep weight at a minimum; AFOV, turrets and turret feel, and illumination control being the 3 you immediately notice. I have 3 of the 4.5-22s on light builds and while the LHTs do have quite a few compromises for the light weight, I wanted them for the weight savings first and realized I'd have to live with a few compromises for that light weight at that price point. Still happy with the purchases but I accepted those compromises going in.

Click to expand...

Mike Casselton said:

I firmly believe the average taco truck kills most chain restaurants...

Click to expand...

Longshot231 said:

Let's bring back this restaurant and watch the woke crowd's head explode! If anyone here has ever ate in a Sambo's then we can be friends.

Click to expand...

Edsel said:

Flex | Advanced Manufacturing with End-to-End Solutions

Flex is the manufacturing partner of choice for streamlined product lifecycles. From design to end of life, our end-to-end services optimize efficiency.

flex.com

Interesting…

This made me curious enough to look.

Their website is bland and nondescript.

No stand - out company mission statement, goals, collaborations, etc.

Kind of like…

View attachment 8752711

…if you can remember and name the movie View attachment 8752712

Click to expand...

918v said:

Ann Coulter is a stupid bitch with TDS

Click to expand...

TACC said:

It's actually

Improvise, Adapt and Overcome

But close enough for government work

Click to expand...

Big Phish said:

Nothing! But it used to be a much better choice than going to burgerturd or McCrappy or kfc.

Click to expand...