Rifle Scopes Question, scope design: Main tube

[Lexington]

For reference, consider a Nightforce NXS and a USO SN-3 TPAL with illumination. The Nightforce incorporates parallax, windage, and illumination in a small section of the central main tube (the saddle), and the USO uses a large part of the central main tube to accomplish the same thing with extra knobs. What are the internal mechanical designs of each of these scopes that account for the different physical implementations?

 

[Lexington]

Re: Question, scope design: Main tube

Scope gurus?

 

[Lexington]

Re: Question, scope design: Main tube

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lexington</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Scope gurus? </div></div>

 

[Michael]

Re: Question, scope design: Main tube

And this patented, proprietary information is to be diseminated of a whim for why exactly?

 

[buffybuster]

Re: Question, scope design: Main tube

Buy one of each and section it.

Only way to be sure. Be sure to post pictures.

 

[Lexington]

Re: Question, scope design: Main tube

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Michael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And this patented, proprietary information is to be diseminated of a whim for why exactly? </div></div>

It's a question of design trade-offs. I'm curious to know why a company would choose the (in my opinion) clunkier fat saddle. Obviously more room makes it easier to pack it with the mechanical adjustments, but I also wonder if it is the less elegant lower tech choice.

Modern scope design paramters can be found in any technical optical textbook. The basics of magnifying an image are hundreds of years old. I guess what I am finding out is that for as many guys who like to talk about scopes here, no one knows the answer to this question. But hey, the scope probably has "great glass".

 

[TOP PREDATOR]

Re: Question, scope design: Main tube

i could only speculate - i don't build scopes - that the reason is to be different than the competition.

i'm sure there is some sort of reason why each one's design is better than the other guys, but in reality both are are probably just as good as the other with these "top shelf" contenders.

if you took the time to check out us optics, you can actually more or less build your own scope. put the knobs just about where ever you want.

because of that "modularity" and ability to be custom built to add on or subtract certain features, it looks as if the body's center section is elongated to accomodate the user's specific requirements / requests. take a look at them again, you can see where there is more or less a "plug or cover" on the side where the additional controls would go to customer specification.

http://www.usoptics.com/optics-configuration.html

 

[Captain Kirk]

Re: Question, scope design: Main tube

USO, S&B, Leupold and others use seperate illumination knobs/housings either on the side of the adjustment housing or near the rear of the main tube near the eye piece. Nightforce and Premier (to name two) use the paralax knob with illumination built into it. I dont know if there is a reason one is better than the other, just a design preference I imagine. If one company had the patent on the paralax/illumination than you wouldnt see multiple companies using the design.


Kirk R