If you were buying a new top tier scope, which would you choose 30/34mm? Scope will be between $2500-$3000, light and travel are the same between the two. Would also like to know why you would rather have that option. Thanks
Rifle Scopes What size tube would you prefer on your new scope? 30/34mm
- Thread starter lazy21
- Start date
I agree..should have read entire post before voting
According to S&B, 34mm isn't just about travel, it has to do with resolution and contrast... ultimately if two scopes were built to the same specs... one with 30mm and one 34mm... the 34mm would be better in all optical qualities.
Having said that, I see no reason why i would really need a 30mm over a 34mm unless it was under 10x.
Having said that, I see no reason why i would really need a 30mm over a 34mm unless it was under 10x.
Assuming same weight and travel, I'd rather have a 30mm because there are more mounting options available.
Hadn't heard S&B's take on image quality before, that would certainly weigh in. I voted 30mm, but if all else were same and 34mm transmitted more light and gave a better image I would vote for that. What are they cooking up? Ha!
Hadn't heard S&B's take on image quality before, that would certainly weigh in. I voted 30mm, but if all else were same and 34mm transmitted more light and gave a better image I would vote for that. What are they cooking up? Ha!
Really? I go through hell trying to find 30mm rings.
I don't see a need for going to 30mm unless for weight and size on a low variable, but that's just me.
Much like the Premier Light Tactical I would prefer 30mm to keep the weight down. If travel is the same I see no need to go with a bigger tube. There are plenty of heavy tactical scopes around but not nearly enough light tactical options.
If optical performance and travel are equal then 30mm. Though 34mm seems to be becoming the de rigeuer of "top tier" glass.
I don't think I would really care, if the performance of the scopes are the same.
If its a range rifle that's benched 96% of its life I would go with the 34mm because any advantage is worth it but if its my go to rifle and carry it where its used and every ounce counts IMO there's not enough pros for the 34 to beat the cons of the 30mm - I voted 30
Given a large enough objective I thought there is a difference in the amount of light it can get down a 30mm tube vs a 34mm tube. Am I wrong and is a 56mm objective not able to take advantage of the extra real estate in a 34mm tube?
L
L
Resolution and contrast have more to do with coatings than tube diameter. A bigger tube, without more, doesn't do anything for resolution or contrast.
34mm tubes don't 'gather more light'. That's an old canard from Plaster's book, and it's wrong in the book.
Again, it's about coatings, but If a 34mm tube was 'better' for light gathering it would be the other way around: A smaller objective, not a bigger one, would theoretically give equal performance with a bigger tube.
Example: Can anyone tell the difference between the SB 4-16x42 and the 4-16x50? Because I can't.
34mm tubes don't 'gather more light'. That's an old canard from Plaster's book, and it's wrong in the book.
Again, it's about coatings, but If a 34mm tube was 'better' for light gathering it would be the other way around: A smaller objective, not a bigger one, would theoretically give equal performance with a bigger tube.
Example: Can anyone tell the difference between the SB 4-16x42 and the 4-16x50? Because I can't.
Last edited:
M
milo 2.0
Guest
Lazy.
I voted before I read your post, no preference, I don't even own a scope that cost $2300.00. Have a handful of NF"s though, and just ordered a new 5-22x50 Thursday, with MOAR, the gun is a 6.5x47, so it'll be over scoped right from the start. I thought about the ATACR, but I surely don't need 25 power, or the up travel, so I just settled for the old standby.
A 34mm tube will be in my future, but after shooting with guys that use them, I've yet to see what significant difference they bring to the table. I'll wait till I build a dedicated mile+ gun, again.
I voted before I read your post, no preference, I don't even own a scope that cost $2300.00. Have a handful of NF"s though, and just ordered a new 5-22x50 Thursday, with MOAR, the gun is a 6.5x47, so it'll be over scoped right from the start. I thought about the ATACR, but I surely don't need 25 power, or the up travel, so I just settled for the old standby.
A 34mm tube will be in my future, but after shooting with guys that use them, I've yet to see what significant difference they bring to the table. I'll wait till I build a dedicated mile+ gun, again.
When at USO for mounting, I asked about tube diameters, pros and cons, since mine happens to be 35mm, and I wondered if I had made a mistake. The man said they decided to go with the trend to 34mm, basically a popularity contest, but at the time, they were just turning down 35mm tubes to 34mm, same internals.
I also have a 1.8X10 and they all come with the 30mm tube. They recommended a 20 degree rail, even though the application wasn't intended for long range. But they assured me that with all the internal adjustment available in that scope, I could easily range it out to 1000M. But, 500 seems far enough, for my purposes.
So, I have the impression, except for very specific missions, that 30=34=35, but all of them beat a one inch tube for all the reasons mentioned. It seems the clear consensus that a 30mm tube transmits more light than is possible in a one inch scope. BB
I also have a 1.8X10 and they all come with the 30mm tube. They recommended a 20 degree rail, even though the application wasn't intended for long range. But they assured me that with all the internal adjustment available in that scope, I could easily range it out to 1000M. But, 500 seems far enough, for my purposes.
So, I have the impression, except for very specific missions, that 30=34=35, but all of them beat a one inch tube for all the reasons mentioned. It seems the clear consensus that a 30mm tube transmits more light than is possible in a one inch scope. BB
Thanks Graham.
L
L
btt...........
I went with the 30mm for the fact that the rifles I own are heavy set-ups before having the scopes mounted, and my eyes aren't going to see a huge difference in light transmission and brightness and clarity for anything in the mentioned price point, however my back and shoulders will feel the differences in weight pretty quick. It's the same reason I prefer a 50mm objective bell over any other size. For me these are the perfect balancing points between size/weight to performance ratios. Generally I carry more than just a gun, so more shit that I have to factor in. These were just my thoughts and why voted the way I did.
if all things were equal, why would one want a fatter tube? I voted could care less
I don't understand. You say light and travel are the same, which means performance is the same. But generally, 34mm costs more than 30mm. So why would you pay more for a 34mm, when you get nothing for the extra cost?
In your scenario, the only reason to get the 34mm is cuz you like wasting money.
Voted 30mm.
In your scenario, the only reason to get the 34mm is cuz you like wasting money.
Voted 30mm.
I own scopes in both sizes (as well as a couple scopes with 1" tubes), and don't really care either way - thus I voted accordingly (although the pedantic side of me would like to point out that option #3 should read "couldn't care less").
I voted 34mm but for no real reason other than 34mm is bad ass
I recently sold off a 30mm Vortex Razor 1-6x HD for a Leupold Mark6 3-18x because I wanted to reach out a little further. To me it really didnt matter as I am sure the engineers did their job well and thats really what matters to me.
I recently sold off a 30mm Vortex Razor 1-6x HD for a Leupold Mark6 3-18x because I wanted to reach out a little further. To me it really didnt matter as I am sure the engineers did their job well and thats really what matters to me.You select the scope that suits your needs and budget, the diameter of the main tube comes along and you live with it...
The size of the tube doesn't matter to me. I want the scope to be reliable, durable, and functional, and finally have good optical qualities.
If the glass is the same and the travel is the same, that tells me the 34mm better be stronger, otherwise, its a waste of material. I don't pick my scope based on the tube diameter. I pick the scope based on the above the criteria, be it a 30mm or 34mm, I have no preference.
If the glass is the same and the travel is the same, that tells me the 34mm better be stronger, otherwise, its a waste of material. I don't pick my scope based on the tube diameter. I pick the scope based on the above the criteria, be it a 30mm or 34mm, I have no preference.
My last 4 scopes have been 34mm and 35mm, only because those scopes had options I wanted (2 S & B, 1 Henny, and 1 USO).
All are good scopes, of course the USO (35mm) is built like Thor's Hammer, (and thank God it's an ERGO, too bad they've been discontinued).
All are good scopes, of course the USO (35mm) is built like Thor's Hammer, (and thank God it's an ERGO, too bad they've been discontinued).
Similar to my thoughts. I use mine for hunting and would like to see some more options for the crossover crowd. Like a 30mm 3-12 Kahles that weighs 21ozs. Nightforce F1 w/40mm obj @ 24ozs. 1 1/2 pound USOs with EREK. 4-20 Premier LT that weighs the same as the 3-15 but has 20 mils of elevation. Zeiss 3-12x56 Diavari with a Premier or USO inspired elevation turret and a modern reticle. IPHY options, if MOA died completely all the reticles and turrets would be the same. So if anyone in opticsland is listening there is my short list.
I just recently sold a Vortex 1-6x HD and bought a Leupold MK6 3-18x. I do believe they weight around the same. The 1-6x was heavy at around 21-22oz and the Leupold is light around 22-23oz. The 1-6x was a 30mm tube and the Leupold is a 34mm tube.
Yeah the Leupold sounds really good.
To me, it seems like 34mm is the new Standard option. I also think it's a lot easier to find 34mm rings vs 30. On most tactical rifles, those 34's look f**king sexy too
btt...............
30 mm on hunting rifle and 34 mm on long range rifle for shooting steel.
34mm
1" tubes look tiny these days.
30mm is the minimum...34mm is preferred
just cos
30mm is the minimum...34mm is preferred
just cos
No one mentioned it, but assuming similar wall thickness, the 34mm tube would be stiffer than the 30mm....
Really! you never heard of TPS or Griffin, just got a pair of TPS from SWFA last week....call them...
After testing scopes such as March 3-24x42 and 2.5-25x42 and now, with the new 3-24x52 coming I see no reason at all to go up to 34mm or 35mm when I get more elevation travel in a March with 30mm than I get in most scopes with 34mm. I like a lot of scopes with 34mm, such as Hensoldt and USO but the March is as big as a Leupold VX-2 3-9x40 but will deliver on a higher level than most scopes I know. Why should I need more?
I think trends are going to 34mm for most optics geared toward my shooting style and disciplines. Most of the optics I find myself interested in currently have 34mm body tubes.
True but that has only to do to with the fact that more scope are going tacticool and therefore a need for increased elevation travel. However, as long as you can get the same travel out of a 30mm why going for more?
I do however agree with you that a lot of interesting scopes come with 34mm tube especially if you need bigger objectives. Even the mighty March 5-40x56 has got a 34mm tube.
Hell, why not go for a 36mm Hensoldt 3.5-26x56 or a 40mm IOR while you're still at it?
I do however agree with you that a lot of interesting scopes come with 34mm tube especially if you need bigger objectives. Even the mighty March 5-40x56 has got a 34mm tube.
Hell, why not go for a 36mm Hensoldt 3.5-26x56 or a 40mm IOR while you're still at it?
Light is a function of lenses, tube diameter allows more travel. If there is sufficient travel for my application I always go with the smaller tube for weight, and in this case more ring choices. My hunting rifles wear 1" tubes.
All other things being equal ... 30mm
I'm primarily a dialer. Ever my Horus reticles, I use a combination between turret adjustment and reticle hold over. If I'm shooting long range and need adjustment, I want as large tube. I rarely consider the weight of the optic because I'm superman! LOL
Stiffer, yes, but more dent prone. If only we could forsee what kind of mishap might befall our beloved optic.
Why not mount a 2" piece of pipe on top of the rifle?
50mm tube
50mm objective
50mm exit pupil
TRUE 1x magnification
Prefect color
Perfect contrast
Light transmission - unparallell 100%
Fully adjustable eye relief
Industry first - 1000ft@100yard field of view.
Industry first - auto-paralax
Built-in sunshade.
Unique design guarantees no lens flare.
Available in light duty 16 gauge and "tactical operator" schedule 80.
Compact is available for minimal fee.
P.S. Some people just worry about the strangest things - tube size? really? You are better off worrying if the scope rolled off the assembly line on Tuesday or Thursday ....
50mm tube
50mm objective
50mm exit pupil
TRUE 1x magnification
Prefect color
Perfect contrast
Light transmission - unparallell 100%
Fully adjustable eye relief
Industry first - 1000ft@100yard field of view.
Industry first - auto-paralax
Built-in sunshade.
Unique design guarantees no lens flare.
Available in light duty 16 gauge and "tactical operator" schedule 80.
Compact is available for minimal fee.
P.S. Some people just worry about the strangest things - tube size? really? You are better off worrying if the scope rolled off the assembly line on Tuesday or Thursday ....
