Rifle Scopes article I wrote about choosing a rifle scope
- Thread starter Opticsspecialist
- Start date
Re: article I wrote about choosing a rifle scope
Jay,
I realise that you wrote this article for non-techies that want a basic understanding of what a scope does, so it has to be written in simple terms and cannot be exact in every detail.
Nevertheless, there are a couple things that made me flinch while reading and that I think should be corrected before presenting this to a crowd seeking advice on scopes.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Opticsspecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Parallax error applies to variable power scopes. Parallax is determined by the distance to the objective, the exit pupil size and relation of the eye to the tube of the scope. The reticle is on one of the lens inside your scope.</div></div>
Parallax has nothing to do with variable or fixed magnification. The maximum amount of parallax error is determined by the ratio between the object distance and the parallax free distance, and the optical system itself (not limited to magnification and exit pupil size).
The reticle is usually not placed on a <span style="font-style: italic">lens</span> that is part of the image-forming optics, but rather on an additional flat glass if it’s not a wire reticle.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Opticsspecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Objective size is also important. Your objective must be large enough to accommodate a good field of view and give you good low light performance if that’s what you need, allow you to mount your scope to your rifle reasonably; most people like to mount the scope as low as possible.</div></div>
Objective size is not directly related to FOV, this is a common misunderstanding. If anything, a smaller objective size would lend itself to designing a scope with larger FOV, because it is easier to get an image that is well corrected to the edges with a big focal length/objective size ratio (f-number). If scopes with different objective sizes from the same series provide different FOV, this is an indirect effect.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Opticsspecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Resolution is the measure of how much light comes into the objective lens and exits the ocular lens. The better the scope the more light gets let through, resulting in sharper images and better picture in low light.</div></div>
This is probably just a mixup while composing the text and you accidently swapped <span style="font-style: italic">resolution</span> for <span style="font-style: italic">transmission</span>.
Jay,
I realise that you wrote this article for non-techies that want a basic understanding of what a scope does, so it has to be written in simple terms and cannot be exact in every detail.
Nevertheless, there are a couple things that made me flinch while reading and that I think should be corrected before presenting this to a crowd seeking advice on scopes.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Opticsspecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Parallax error applies to variable power scopes. Parallax is determined by the distance to the objective, the exit pupil size and relation of the eye to the tube of the scope. The reticle is on one of the lens inside your scope.</div></div>
Parallax has nothing to do with variable or fixed magnification. The maximum amount of parallax error is determined by the ratio between the object distance and the parallax free distance, and the optical system itself (not limited to magnification and exit pupil size).
The reticle is usually not placed on a <span style="font-style: italic">lens</span> that is part of the image-forming optics, but rather on an additional flat glass if it’s not a wire reticle.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Opticsspecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Objective size is also important. Your objective must be large enough to accommodate a good field of view and give you good low light performance if that’s what you need, allow you to mount your scope to your rifle reasonably; most people like to mount the scope as low as possible.</div></div>
Objective size is not directly related to FOV, this is a common misunderstanding. If anything, a smaller objective size would lend itself to designing a scope with larger FOV, because it is easier to get an image that is well corrected to the edges with a big focal length/objective size ratio (f-number). If scopes with different objective sizes from the same series provide different FOV, this is an indirect effect.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Opticsspecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Resolution is the measure of how much light comes into the objective lens and exits the ocular lens. The better the scope the more light gets let through, resulting in sharper images and better picture in low light.</div></div>
This is probably just a mixup while composing the text and you accidently swapped <span style="font-style: italic">resolution</span> for <span style="font-style: italic">transmission</span>.
Re: article I wrote about choosing a rifle scope
thanks for letting me know, i'm going to have to do some editing tomorrow. I tried to keep it simply, my aim is for the guy who has no experence with rifle scopes. what do you think overall?
thanks for letting me know, i'm going to have to do some editing tomorrow. I tried to keep it simply, my aim is for the guy who has no experence with rifle scopes. what do you think overall?
Re: article I wrote about choosing a rifle scope
Patience young grasshopper. Almost all of the guys here no what a reticle is. I understand what you are trying to do and can appreciate it. Here are a few books that I think would be very beneficial to you and your future in optic sales.
http://swfa.com/Books-C1017.aspx
John Williams sent me a very good book too on optics ten years ago, it would be worth your time to holler at JB3 and see if you can get a current copy if they are still maintaining one. It is everything you ever wanted to know and then some.
Patience young grasshopper. Almost all of the guys here no what a reticle is. I understand what you are trying to do and can appreciate it. Here are a few books that I think would be very beneficial to you and your future in optic sales.
http://swfa.com/Books-C1017.aspx
John Williams sent me a very good book too on optics ten years ago, it would be worth your time to holler at JB3 and see if you can get a current copy if they are still maintaining one. It is everything you ever wanted to know and then some.
Re: article I wrote about choosing a rifle scope
When instructing it is important to not only state facts and definitions, you must explain their significance so that the reader is equipped to draw his or her own conclusions.
For instance, you state:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Tube diameter is important; most we scopes have a 1 inch tube, while European scopes have 30mm tubes.</div></div>
I, as a novice reader, am left thinking "So... why is it important, which is better, and how should I determine what I need?"
When instructing it is important to not only state facts and definitions, you must explain their significance so that the reader is equipped to draw his or her own conclusions.
For instance, you state:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Tube diameter is important; most we scopes have a 1 inch tube, while European scopes have 30mm tubes.</div></div>
I, as a novice reader, am left thinking "So... why is it important, which is better, and how should I determine what I need?"
Re: article I wrote about choosing a rifle scope
i'll have to write one addressing tube diameter, i wanted to keep it short. I like a 30mm tube because they tend to be better for low light conditions. 1 inch tube are cheaper and easier to find mounting solutions for.
i'll have to write one addressing tube diameter, i wanted to keep it short. I like a 30mm tube because they tend to be better for low light conditions. 1 inch tube are cheaper and easier to find mounting solutions for.
Re: article I wrote about choosing a rifle scope
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Opticsspecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i'll have to write one addressing tube diameter, i wanted to keep it short. I like a 30mm tube because they tend to be better for low light conditions. 1 inch tube are cheaper and easier to find mounting solutions for.</div></div>
Ok, 1) that's just wrong
and 2) that was an example. The whole article is that way, random facts are thrown out but no foundation of knowledge or understanding is developed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Objective size is also important. Your objective must be large enough to accommodate a good field of view and give you good low light performance if that’s what you need, allow you to mount your scope to your rifle reasonably; most people like to mount the scope as low as possible. For hunting whitetail deer and other animals in low light, a large objective is ideal. For hunting in bright conditions, it isn’t as paramount to have a large objective, unless you have a scope with a large magnification range.
</div></div>
What is a good field of view? What is good low-light performance? How can I determine either? What is a significant deviation from one to another? What is considered large? Do I need/want the absolute biggest I can get or is there some point of diminishing returns? Why wouldn't I just get the biggest one I could find?
You see? These sorts of questions could be asked of most of your statements in the article.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Opticsspecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i'll have to write one addressing tube diameter, i wanted to keep it short. I like a 30mm tube because they tend to be better for low light conditions. 1 inch tube are cheaper and easier to find mounting solutions for.</div></div>
Ok, 1) that's just wrong
and 2) that was an example. The whole article is that way, random facts are thrown out but no foundation of knowledge or understanding is developed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Objective size is also important. Your objective must be large enough to accommodate a good field of view and give you good low light performance if that’s what you need, allow you to mount your scope to your rifle reasonably; most people like to mount the scope as low as possible. For hunting whitetail deer and other animals in low light, a large objective is ideal. For hunting in bright conditions, it isn’t as paramount to have a large objective, unless you have a scope with a large magnification range.
</div></div>
What is a good field of view? What is good low-light performance? How can I determine either? What is a significant deviation from one to another? What is considered large? Do I need/want the absolute biggest I can get or is there some point of diminishing returns? Why wouldn't I just get the biggest one I could find?
You see? These sorts of questions could be asked of most of your statements in the article.
Re: article I wrote about choosing a rifle scope
If you're serious about this, I would probably recommend doing a series of articles. In one explain parallax, what it is, how it is experienced, why it causes problems and when, what to look for in a scope and why. In another cover reticles, what's a ranging reticle, how is it different than a MOA or Mil based reticle, what to look for in an illuminated retilce, what uses are there for each type and when might you need them? In another explain Objective size, exit pupil, light transmission, etc. And so on.
If you're serious about this, I would probably recommend doing a series of articles. In one explain parallax, what it is, how it is experienced, why it causes problems and when, what to look for in a scope and why. In another cover reticles, what's a ranging reticle, how is it different than a MOA or Mil based reticle, what to look for in an illuminated retilce, what uses are there for each type and when might you need them? In another explain Objective size, exit pupil, light transmission, etc. And so on.
Re: article I wrote about choosing a rifle scope
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Opticsspecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like a 30mm tube because they tend to be better for low light conditions.</div></div>
That's another point that is inaccurate at best. In this thread I tried to shed some light (sic) on this. It is basically not possible for the user to determine whether the manufacturer has made good use of the space inside the tube or not just by looking at the tube diameter.
In specific cases it <span style="font-style: italic">could</span> be possible that tube size restricts exit pupil size to a point where it translates to lower image brightness, but the simple rule "bigger tube=more light" is as wrong as "big car=fast car". The fact that scopes that are good for low-light conditions often have a bigger tube is more coincidence ("European" scopes tend to have 30mm tubes, and also at least a 4x zoom factor rather than 3x, which has more to do with tube size than low light capabilities). As long as the exit pupil is not restricted by the erector system to a value below the user's eye pupil diameter, there will be <span style="font-style: italic">no</span> impact on image brightness due to mechanical constraints.
In very much the same way high light transmission does not necessarily translate to "sharper image" (more resolution) etc pp. It is always desirable to explain complex technical stuff in as simple a way as possible, but once you start making it even more simple, things get ugly.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Opticsspecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like a 30mm tube because they tend to be better for low light conditions.</div></div>
That's another point that is inaccurate at best. In this thread I tried to shed some light (sic) on this. It is basically not possible for the user to determine whether the manufacturer has made good use of the space inside the tube or not just by looking at the tube diameter.
In specific cases it <span style="font-style: italic">could</span> be possible that tube size restricts exit pupil size to a point where it translates to lower image brightness, but the simple rule "bigger tube=more light" is as wrong as "big car=fast car". The fact that scopes that are good for low-light conditions often have a bigger tube is more coincidence ("European" scopes tend to have 30mm tubes, and also at least a 4x zoom factor rather than 3x, which has more to do with tube size than low light capabilities). As long as the exit pupil is not restricted by the erector system to a value below the user's eye pupil diameter, there will be <span style="font-style: italic">no</span> impact on image brightness due to mechanical constraints.
In very much the same way high light transmission does not necessarily translate to "sharper image" (more resolution) etc pp. It is always desirable to explain complex technical stuff in as simple a way as possible, but once you start making it even more simple, things get ugly.
Re: article I wrote about choosing a rifle scope
i understand what your saying, but i wanted to write something, as palletable as possible, as short as possible. just something simple someone just getting into hunting/shooting buying there first scope can use to get started. most folks arn't going to dish out 1000$ on the first scope they buy, which is what you will pay to get into something other than a 1 inch tube scope.
I'm going to go ahead and pull it and see if i can put together something better.
i understand what your saying, but i wanted to write something, as palletable as possible, as short as possible. just something simple someone just getting into hunting/shooting buying there first scope can use to get started. most folks arn't going to dish out 1000$ on the first scope they buy, which is what you will pay to get into something other than a 1 inch tube scope.
I'm going to go ahead and pull it and see if i can put together something better.
Re: article I wrote about choosing a rifle scope
i hear what your saying, but correct me if i'm wrong, the best low light scopes tend to have 30mm tubes.
i hear what your saying, but correct me if i'm wrong, the best low light scopes tend to have 30mm tubes.
Re: article I wrote about choosing a rifle scope
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Opticsspecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i understand what your saying, but i wanted to write something, as palletable as possible, as short as possible. just something simple someone just getting into hunting/shooting buying there first scope can use to get started. most folks arn't going to dish out 1000$ on the first scope they buy, which is what you will pay to get into something other than a 1 inch tube scope.
I'm going to go ahead and pull it and see if i can put together something better. </div></div>
thing with it is, is this:
Nothing of the orginal post is palletable or understandable. Its full of opinions with no supporting facts. Also there are numerous scopes with 30 mm tubes, Mil/Mil, FFP that are under 1K by alot. The days of the 1 inch tube is gone, but again i saw a hunting comment. This isnt a hunting site though.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Opticsspecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i understand what your saying, but i wanted to write something, as palletable as possible, as short as possible. just something simple someone just getting into hunting/shooting buying there first scope can use to get started. most folks arn't going to dish out 1000$ on the first scope they buy, which is what you will pay to get into something other than a 1 inch tube scope.
I'm going to go ahead and pull it and see if i can put together something better. </div></div>
thing with it is, is this:
Nothing of the orginal post is palletable or understandable. Its full of opinions with no supporting facts. Also there are numerous scopes with 30 mm tubes, Mil/Mil, FFP that are under 1K by alot. The days of the 1 inch tube is gone, but again i saw a hunting comment. This isnt a hunting site though.
Re: article I wrote about choosing a rifle scope
a true 30mm tube rifle scope under 1000$? i'm aware of some that have a 30mm external tube and a 1 inch internal tube. anyway, i'll just pull the post.
a true 30mm tube rifle scope under 1000$? i'm aware of some that have a 30mm external tube and a 1 inch internal tube. anyway, i'll just pull the post.
Re: article I wrote about choosing a rifle scope
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Opticsspecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i hear what your saying, but correct me if i'm wrong, the best low light scopes tend to have 30mm tubes. </div></div>
The very best even have 34mm tubes, but I guess that is not what your target audience wants to hear, and these scopes don't have those big tubes just to help low-light capability either.
As others have pointed out, if it's not possible to simplify the technical facts enough for the target audience, just stick with something like "many good scopes are produced with 30mm tubes nowadays" or something like that. Otherwise, sites like this one will just be flooded by more misinformed people that need to get rid of wrong concepts before being able to learn what's really happening.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Opticsspecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i hear what your saying, but correct me if i'm wrong, the best low light scopes tend to have 30mm tubes. </div></div>
The very best even have 34mm tubes, but I guess that is not what your target audience wants to hear, and these scopes don't have those big tubes just to help low-light capability either.
As others have pointed out, if it's not possible to simplify the technical facts enough for the target audience, just stick with something like "many good scopes are produced with 30mm tubes nowadays" or something like that. Otherwise, sites like this one will just be flooded by more misinformed people that need to get rid of wrong concepts before being able to learn what's really happening.
Re: article I wrote about choosing a rifle scope
i don't really have a target audience, i just wanted to try to help new shooters. i'm aware of the 34mm tube scopes, i just sold a Hensoldt yesterday with a 34mm tube and a 72mm objective, from what i've seen in the field, the scopes with 30mm tubes tend to have better low light performance than 1 inch tube rifle scopes, but they do tend to be expensive. I really appreciate you guys, when i get a chance to write another article, i'll share it.
i don't really have a target audience, i just wanted to try to help new shooters. i'm aware of the 34mm tube scopes, i just sold a Hensoldt yesterday with a 34mm tube and a 72mm objective, from what i've seen in the field, the scopes with 30mm tubes tend to have better low light performance than 1 inch tube rifle scopes, but they do tend to be expensive. I really appreciate you guys, when i get a chance to write another article, i'll share it.
Re: article I wrote about choosing a rifle scope
I removed my reply as the message have been reicived, and I don't want to give a rude impression.
Håkan
I removed my reply as the message have been reicived, and I don't want to give a rude impression.
Håkan
Re: article I wrote about choosing a rifle scope
sorry guys, it wasn't up to par, it will be better next time, i've asked the thread be removed. Thanks again.
sorry guys, it wasn't up to par, it will be better next time, i've asked the thread be removed. Thanks again.
