Rifle Scopes How much better could scopes be?

[akh223]

It seems that for the past 10 years; a combo of marketing departments, and consumer demand has driven scopes to higher and higher magnification multipliers. In the past a 3 or 4x multiplier was the norm. Now we have 5, 6, and 8x multipliers.

If my understanding of optics are correct; it requires a much more complicated lens system to get a higher multiplier to work. I assume that you also give up some optical clarity, resolution, CA control, etc in these higher multiplier setups?

So, the question I keep thinking about is how much better could the optics be if we went back to a 3x multiplier?

 

[Clearlight]

I want 3x zoom as much as I want to run black powder in my precision rifle.... If you want simplicity then no zoom,
single power scope is the go. For me high zoom ratios are like horsepower in a car; dont have to use it all the time
but very helpful when you do need it. S & B and March seem to be the only manufacturers capable (so far) of
designing and building 9x and 10x zoom ratio FFP scopes. 20 years ago the idea of an everyday production car
with 500 bhp was uncommon, now there are quite a few.

Glass development isnt going to get much better than it is now, electrooptical innovations in use in high end applications
are going to get cheaper and more prevalent aka Sig etc.

 

[akh223]

I would be happy with a variable 16x-24x scope that has great optics and tracks true.

What I do not find helpful is the 4x-20+ that have mediocre image quality.

 

[brianf]

second what is said above.

glass is getting maxed out (really, how much better is TT than a nightforce NXS in reality)

next frontier is crazy zoom ranges 1x - 40x type stuff.

huge elevation and windage adjustments (march genesis)

maybe weight but materials are materials

sooner or later costs will drop

this is leaving out the obvious of integrated electronics

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

I don't need more than 10x to 1600 yds for what I do so,
SFP, 2x10x36 w/ side focus 30 mm tube with built in LRF (on the O/S if need be, the cross hair in top 1/4 of the scope, tree ret like the impact 32 but all the way to the bottom, clarity edge on 10X. 1moa up an 1/2 wind knobs with 60 moa up in one rev, w/a zero stop. Tool required for zero change, windage as well. Obj threaded for ARD an laser deflector. Weight to come in less than 24oz total.

 

[Lowlight]

Springs and tracking is what needs to change.

We need to adapt the erector system and turrets to be better.

Maybe a shift to coil springs like Swarovski did with their PH line a few years ago, but I would put the effort into the turret system.

We can build things better and smaller now, so a true turret system that is not just a spring tension system is what I would change.

Glass is glass, and today it's all really close.

 

[Long Range 338]

I would be happy with a variable 16x-24x scope that has great optics and tracks true.

What I do not find helpful is the 4x-20+ that have mediocre image quality.

This is where the market seems to be right now. There is a large share of the market in the 4-20 mag range with mid level glass but the internals are good and repeatable, even if they are not perfect (Burris, Nikon, etc.).

The premium is still in the glass for sure. However if you look at at the glass in scopes from 20 years ago vs now the coatings are getting better at a cheaper price so over time I would expect that trend to continue.

The electro optics seem to be leaping forward and it is exciting to see the different technologies as the Revic, Sig BDX, and Steiner have their own take on how to accomplish this. Of course the BDX is much cheaper and in 2FP. The Revic looks really exciting and once the integration with other devices takes place the average Joe could really be pushing their own limits further and faster than before.

I hadn't considered the turret internals to be a place for major improvement but that is an interesting point. Several makers have been pushing for more internal adjustment so it should have been more obvious that it is coming.

 

[Clearlight]

Right on about turret design, especially in cold weather. Time and time again I see problems in clients
optics dialling up releasing spring tension. If there’s enough travel at a given target, I often suggest guys
dial up,past the the target elevation and then back down, to ensure the adjuster is in sync with the
erector cell. Some sort of electro optic mech would cure the mechanical challenges of what is essentially
a micrometer mounted in a hostile environment.

 

[Dustysa4]

I remember talking with my buddy in Y2K about how we were fast approaching the speed limits of computer hardware. Yet the CPU I have in my current computer is SIGNIFICANTLY faster than what we thought was the limit at that time. However, glass is different because the human eye also has limits. At a certain point, improving the glass anymore would no longer register any benefit to the user. Though, if I were to ponder, I think the future of sport optics could involve EVF's (electronic viewfinders) like those currently found in mirrorless cameras. I feel like it's just a matter of time until technology gets to a point where image processing can be integrated in to sport optics to portray glass improvements in a meaningful way that the human eye otherwise couldn't detect. Or in the case of large ratio magnified optics, the image could be sharpened and color corrected through processing. Digital cameras have been doing this for years, and it's actually a very good way to improve the end result from using poor glass. Your phone's camera is a good example of this. And high end digital cameras are even better because they're starting with better data, gathered through good glass. Sorry, I know you didn't ask for my sci-fi future predictions.

 

[Long Range 338]

Well ATN currently has their 4K scope that is similar to your description. We need one that combines a lens with the sensor

 

[bschneiderheinze]

I don't need more than 10x to 1600 yds for what I do so,
SFP, 2x10x36 w/ side focus 30 mm tube with built in LRF (on the O/S if need be, the cross hair in top 1/4 of the scope, tree ret like the impact 32 but all the way to the bottom, clarity edge on 10X. 1moa up an 1/2 wind knobs with 60 moa up in one rev, w/a zero stop. Tool required for zero change, windage as well. Obj threaded for ARD an laser deflector. Weight to come in less than 24oz total.

Damn I guess you don’t need to see impacts. I shoot by myself to much I’ll stick with my 27 power

 

[RTH1800]

You may not use the horsepower all the time but you pay for it in mileage all the time. In scopes you pay for it in light transmission, clarity, CA etc.

 

[acudaowner]

you could save your self a lot of time and money and go for a shot cam at 300 + dollars . You could see your shot when you shoot it @1000 + yards some even more . sorry I swear I just posted this on another post I think I did deja vu .

 

[bschneiderheinze]

you could save your self a lot of time and money and go for a shot cam at 300 + dollars . You could see your shot when you shoot it @1000 + yards some even more . sorry I swear I just posted this on another post I think I did deja vu .

I’ll stick with my Nightforce or Razor Gen II you go ahead with the shot cam and Swfa 10x

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

Damn I guess you don’t need to see impacts. I shoot by myself to much I’ll stick with my 27 power

I see impacts just fine with 10x. Used 6X then 9X for years upon years w/o issue in what is now called junk scopes an never had issue to 1K even with 3rd rate glass, back then. People, Eyes an Experience an targets are all different,.... In the S/E mother-nature gets the last word on power most of the time.

 

[MarinePMI]

I remember talking with my buddy in Y2K about how we were fast approaching the speed limits of computer hardware. Yet the CPU I have in my current computer is SIGNIFICANTLY faster than what we thought was the limit at that time. However, glass is different because the human eye also has limits. At a certain point, improving the glass anymore would no longer register any benefit to the user. Though, if I were to ponder, I think the future of sport optics could involve EVF's (electronic viewfinders) like those currently found in mirrorless cameras. I feel like it's just a matter of time until technology gets to a point where image processing can be integrated in to sport optics to portray glass improvements in a meaningful way that the human eye otherwise couldn't detect. Or in the case of large ratio magnified optics, the image could be sharpened and color corrected through processing. Digital cameras have been doing this for years, and it's actually a very good way to improve the end result from using poor glass. Your phone's camera is a good example of this. And high end digital cameras are even better because they're starting with better data, gathered through good glass. Sorry, I know you didn't ask for my sci-fi future predictions.

The challenge with a lens-less scope that operates like a digital camera is that, if/when the batteries die, your multi-thousand dollar rifle system has then become a very expensive club.

 

[Sticks]

Anything man made will fail eventually.

A dead battery is pretty much a non issue unless you choose not to carry a spare. 95% of electronics out there give you a nice warning that is hard to miss that says "Hey, fuel's running low here....Just an FYI"

Hell, the same can be said for the springs in an Erector. Springs only have so many comrpession and release cycles before they go out. I can't imagine the abuse that ELR scopes go through when zeroed at even 300, then dialed to max for that long shot.

 

[MarinePMI]

Springs last years. Batteries last hours.

Call me old fashioned, or maybe "two is one, one is none" has been pounded in my head too many times, but to me, shit needs to work, and there needs to be a back up for when it doesn't. Mr. Murphy has demonstrated to me too many times, that fortune does indeed favor the prepared. Oh, and I seriously doubt these scopes are in any way shielded, so that's just another way the "low battery" light could fail.

A dead battery (or fried electronics) is definitely NOT a non-issue in my mind. But hey, to each their own...

 

[pmclaine]

I remember talking with my buddy in Y2K about how we were fast approaching the speed limits of computer hardware. Yet the CPU I have in my current computer is SIGNIFICANTLY faster than what we thought was the limit at that time. However, glass is different because the human eye also has limits. At a certain point, improving the glass anymore would no longer register any benefit to the user. Though, if I were to ponder, I think the future of sport optics could involve EVF's (electronic viewfinders) like those currently found in mirrorless cameras. I feel like it's just a matter of time until technology gets to a point where image processing can be integrated in to sport optics to portray glass improvements in a meaningful way that the human eye otherwise couldn't detect. Or in the case of large ratio magnified optics, the image could be sharpened and color corrected through processing. Digital cameras have been doing this for years, and it's actually a very good way to improve the end result from using poor glass. Your phone's camera is a good example of this. And high end digital cameras are even better because they're starting with better data, gathered through good glass. Sorry, I know you didn't ask for my sci-fi future predictions.

Agree

The scope is going to lose the objective and be replaced by a view screen.

These devices will offer range, environment and ballistics data. It will likely communicate to the ammunition to determine holds.

The device will also be able to flip from NV/Thermal/IR modes.

Optical quality will be enhanced by on board electronics. What cant be seen will be inferred and show in the viewer.

and yes it will be all packaged in a footprint similar to what we now have.

Agree with concerns regarding power but that also will be overcome.

Actually the way we are going these type systems wont be wielded by humans, bots with more capacity for fuel storage will have the weapon and device integrated.

Look at the M3 Carbine and consider where we are today.

 

[MarinePMI]

Agree

The scope is going to lose the objective and be replaced by a view screen.

These devices will offer range, environment and ballistics data. It will likely communicate to the ammunition to determine holds.

The device will also be able to flip from NV/Thermal/IR modes.

Optical quality will be enhanced by on board electronics. What cant be seen will be inferred and show in the viewer.

and yes it will be all packaged in a footprint similar to what we now have.

Agree with concerns regarding power but that also will be overcome.

Actually the way we are going these type systems wont be wielded by humans, bots with more capacity for fuel storage will have the weapon and device integrated.

Look at the M3 Carbine and consider where we are today.

"Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 AM, Eastern time, August 29th. "

 

[pmclaine]

"Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 AM, Eastern time, August 29th. "

I get that concern and I dont think we will go totally there but I think our evil (and other countries) politicians are looking for a way to take humanity out of the equation.

All these eaters are really an impediment to the beautiful people.

This ultra rich fucks of the Bilderberg class would loved a reduced population world of the elites serviced by a small population of support class to serve them.

All this road traffic, violence, and demands for service that we create really do get in the way of their enjoyment of the planet.

Thats an off topic subject but as these people drive technology and weapons sighting is pretty high tech Im sure they will be driven to improve it and perfect it perhaps to start creating that "better" earth for themselves.

A population of say 1-2 billion would be perfect as opposed to the 7 billion current.

United under one govt, no need for competing militaries, enough people to build/maintain new roads to enjoy pristine areas, less traffic on existing roads, air travel will be simplified. Crime will still exist but it will be easier to control in the slimmed down homogeneous slave class. The only other class of person will be the security class that stands as a buffer between elite and service making sure the two never mix.

You know Zuckerburg, Bezos, Musk, etc want this.

Got my Orwell on today....

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

The higher the tech the easier the defeat. There is a reason the AK47 still preferred, an not just because of cost. The days of men up for a knife fight are mostly over, thinking stand off high tech is the be all. That is not the case in many circles,...

 

[riverside jeep]

I would think that one of the scope manufacturers would have put a internal level system in by now. Just a simple bubble at the top quadrant.

 

[spife7980]

I would think that one of the scope manufacturers would have put a internal level system in by now. Just a simple bubble at the top quadrant.

There are a few that have already, sig and revic from off the top of my head

 

[riverside jeep]

I should look before opening mouth, the revic is quite a scope!

 

[brianf]

Agree

The scope is going to lose the objective and be replaced by a view screen.

These devices will offer range, environment and ballistics data. It will likely communicate to the ammunition to determine holds.

The device will also be able to flip from NV/Thermal/IR modes.

Optical quality will be enhanced by on board electronics. What cant be seen will be inferred and show in the viewer.

and yes it will be all packaged in a footprint similar to what we now have.

Agree with concerns regarding power but that also will be overcome.

Actually the way we are going these type systems wont be wielded by humans, bots with more capacity for fuel storage will have the weapon and device integrated.

Look at the M3 Carbine and consider where we are today.

my fear with heavy reliance on electronics is the day when "non-near peer" military begin to acquire and build their own EMP devices.

USA, Russia and China all admit they have a working one, and if they dont they will soon.

with the miniaturization of electronics the complexity has not been reduced.

where in the old days a small electronic device was a few wires and diodes that would stand a chance

today they are just as complicated and just as vulnerable as the larger units of 20 years ago were.

put a non nuke emp in a rubber raft and detonate off the coast.

no one dies, but it shuts down NYC, how do we go "invade" or drag bin laden out of his hole if no one is killed because of direct action. hard sell to the nation and govt

never mind the aspect of a EMP attack which takes away the US's domination at night on the ground.

i have not read anything about personal night vision being hardened against EMP's, although i might be wrong.

 

[Dustysa4]

I would think that one of the scope manufacturers would have put a internal level system in by now. Just a simple bubble at the top quadrant.

Also, I think the Leupold VX-6 has a reticle that blinks or something when it's not level. It's a slick idea, and I wonder how well it works in the field.

 

[pmclaine]

my fear with heavy reliance on electronics is the day when "non-near peer" military begin to acquire and build their own EMP devices.

USA, Russia and China all admit they have a working one, and if they dont they will soon.

with the miniaturization of electronics the complexity has not been reduced.

where in the old days a small electronic device was a few wires and diodes that would stand a chance

today they are just as complicated and just as vulnerable as the larger units of 20 years ago were.

put a non nuke emp in a rubber raft and detonate off the coast.

no one dies, but it shuts down NYC, how do we go "invade" or drag bin laden out of his hole if no one is killed because of direct action. hard sell to the nation and govt

never mind the aspect of a EMP attack which takes away the US's domination at night on the ground.

i have not read anything about personal night vision being hardened against EMP's, although i might be wrong.

If EMP is as effective as its touted to be than we will look on it as a beneficial thing because technology is creating a level of lethality that almost makes you lose hope.

 

[pmclaine]

Edit/add - millions would die from a direct EMP attack either through starvation caused by distribution shut down or inability to utilize life saving devices/produce meds.

 

[brianf]

Edit/add - millions would die from a direct EMP attack either through starvation caused by distribution shut down or inability to utilize life saving devices/produce meds.

im with ya, but not sure how the optic would be when we move 2 carrier groups and actually put boots on the ground

back to the scopes...sorry for hijacking thread

 

[pmclaine]

I would think that one of the scope manufacturers would have put a internal level system in by now. Just a simple bubble at the top quadrant.

USO used to.

Your eye probably does a better job.

 

[Lowlight]

Sig scopes have electronic levels inside an Arrow on the sides that flashes, very accurate.

Bubbles are BS their accuracy and use leave a lot to be desired.

 

[pmclaine]

Sig scopes have electronic levels inside an Arrow on the sides that flashes, very accurate.

Bubbles are BS their accuracy and use leave a lot to be desired.

But it wont let me make my rifle and scope level........

 

[BigJimFish]

It seems that for the past 10 years; a combo of marketing departments, and consumer demand has driven scopes to higher and higher magnification multipliers. In the past a 3 or 4x multiplier was the norm. Now we have 5, 6, and 8x multipliers.

If my understanding of optics are correct; it requires a much more complicated lens system to get a higher multiplier to work. I assume that you also give up some optical clarity, resolution, CA control, etc in these higher multiplier setups?

So, the question I keep thinking about is how much better could the optics be if we went back to a 3x multiplier?

Funny that you mention this. Blaser recently did something along these lines. They have a shorter 2.8-20x50mm and a longer 4-20x58mm. I ask them about the reason for these choices in a scope line that totaled only 3 models. The reasoning for the longer 4-20 that also has less erector ratio is that it provides higher quality image vs. the shorter and also higher erector ratio 2.8-20. By doing this they are actually giving the shooter a choice of image quality or the higher erector ratio and smaller package that most other makers now favor. I will be interested to ask them how the relative models fare in terms of sales in a few years.

 

[koshkin]

Funny that you mention this. Blaser recently did something along these lines. They have a shorter 2.8-20x50mm and a longer 4-20x58mm. I ask them about the reason for these choices in a scope line that totaled only 3 models. The reasoning for the longer 4-20 that also has less erector ratio is that it provides higher quality image vs. the shorter and also higher erector ratio 2.8-20. By doing this they are actually giving the shooter a choice of image quality or the higher erector ratio and smaller package that most other makers now favor. I will be interested to ask them how the relative models fare in terms of sales in a few years.

In the case of the two Blaser scopes, the biggest driver of the image quality difference is not the erector per se, but rather what having a smaller erector assembly allows them to do with the objective lens system. I just wrapped up with a review of Blaser 1-7x28 and it is probably the best LPVO I have seen to date in terms of optomechanical quality.

I will try to get my hands on the larger of the Blaser scopes later in the year.

Thanks
ILya

 

[koshkin]

Sig scopes have electronic levels inside an Arrow on the sides that flashes, very accurate.

Bubbles are BS their accuracy and use leave a lot to be desired.

I spent some time with the Sig electronic level and Leupold's electronic level. Despite the fact that it eats into the FOV a little, I much prefer Sig's execution. Leupold has the center of the reticle flash when it is not level which I found annoying.

Bubble levels are definitely harder to use and, ultimately, I really prefer for the level to be inside the scope.

ILya

 

[koshkin]

Agree

The scope is going to lose the objective and be replaced by a view screen.

These devices will offer range, environment and ballistics data. It will likely communicate to the ammunition to determine holds.

The device will also be able to flip from NV/Thermal/IR modes.

Optical quality will be enhanced by on board electronics. What cant be seen will be inferred and show in the viewer.

and yes it will be all packaged in a footprint similar to what we now have.

Agree with concerns regarding power but that also will be overcome.

Actually the way we are going these type systems wont be wielded by humans, bots with more capacity for fuel storage will have the weapon and device integrated.

Look at the M3 Carbine and consider where we are today.

The view screen does not replace the objective. It effectively replaces the SFP reticle cell. To be used effectively, you still need an eyepiece to proejct the image from the screen.

The objective is not going anywhere any time soon, except in fully digital scopes the image sensor replaces whatever is in the FFP. The switch to digital scopes does away with the erector system, but the objective and eyepiece are still there. They may be sized differently, but they are still there.

Flat diffractive optics or adaptive lenses might make objectives much smaller eventually, but we are not quite there yet.

Not sure what you mean by NV/Thermal/IR. Thermal is IR. Typically mid-wave and long-wave IR bands are defined as thermal. Did you mean near IR?

At the moment, we do not have any sort of a way to have common refractive optical systems that can be used for both Thermal IR and Near IR, so fusign them together requires two objectives. Vis, NIR and SWIR can potentially use the same objective, but that is a little tricky. I have a couple of patent application written on that, just biding my time for now.

The most interesting recent development on this is the impending implementation of augmented reality screen onto goggles that will include whatever your riflescope is seeing, but I do not think we have to worry about that in the consumer world for quite a while.

Aside from that electro-optic integration is moving along quite nicely with different companies doing some interesting things. One one side there is Revic, Steiner's IFS, etc. On the other side, there is close range thermal integration like Steiner CQT and a few others.

ILya

ILya

 

[koshkin]

I want 3x zoom as much as I want to run black powder in my precision rifle.... If you want simplicity then no zoom,
single power scope is the go. For me high zoom ratios are like horsepower in a car; dont have to use it all the time
but very helpful when you do need it. S & B and March seem to be the only manufacturers capable (so far) of
designing and building 9x and 10x zoom ratio FFP scopes. 20 years ago the idea of an everyday production car
with 500 bhp was uncommon, now there are quite a few.

Glass development isnt going to get much better than it is now, electrooptical innovations in use in high end applications
are going to get cheaper and more prevalent aka Sig etc.

S&B and March are not the only ones who can do it. That's just hogwash. They are the only ones willing to do it for now. It is not a matter of capability. Most higher end makers can. It is a matter of having a good reason to accept the compromises that come with it. Given how entrenched S&B is with various military units, I strongly suspect that the development of 9x erector scopes was very specifically done because they had a very specific request.

Personally, I would like to see further development of both high erector ratio and low erector ratio scopes because they can be configured to address different applications. For example, I would really like to see some world class image quality on scopes that are short, light and compact. That is extremely difficult and expensive to do with high erector ratio scopes.

ILya

 

[JWG]

It seems that for the past 10 years; a combo of marketing departments, and consumer demand has driven scopes to higher and higher magnification multipliers. In the past a 3 or 4x multiplier was the norm. Now we have 5, 6, and 8x multipliers.

If my understanding of optics are correct; it requires a much more complicated lens system to get a higher multiplier to work. I assume that you also give up some optical clarity, resolution, CA control, etc in these higher multiplier setups?

So, the question I keep thinking about is how much better could the optics be if we went back to a 3x multiplier?

Well, my experience with this, directly, is owning a Nightforce NXS (several) in 1-4 flavor, as well as owning an NX8.

The NX8 has much better clarity and resolution. The FOV on the NX8 is larger on 1x. The chromatic abberation is much more controlled on the NX8. The illumination is far better on the NX8. The NX8 is FFP. Image flatness of the NX8 is better. "Unity" on 1x is far superior on the NX8.

I am unaware of NF improving their coatings in the last few years, the last time being, I think, sometime in 2013? I am sure rolling changes may well have occurred, but I am unaware of anyone buying a NXS 1-4 and exclaiming "holy crap they improved the shit out of it!"

Does this mean they could not improve the NXS 1-4 by using...better materials? I am honestly unsure if the materials in the NX8 are superior in any way.

I think more intelligent design is to credit for the enhanced optical properties and ability to have larger multiplication factors. One begats the other. If the NXS 1-4 were re-designed, it may well be better, but it would also be 1-8x, because...it can be!


*I am not an optics engineer and won't defend the above opinion, because it's all emotional and gut and whatnot, not from a place of "knowing". I would love to hear from someone who can speak from that place.

 

[koshkin]

Well, my experience with this, directly, is owning a Nightforce NXS (several) in 1-4 flavor, as well as owning an NX8.

The NX8 has much better clarity and resolution. The FOV on the NX8 is larger on 1x. The chromatic abberation is much more controlled on the NX8. The illumination is far better on the NX8. The NX8 is FFP. Image flatness of the NX8 is better. "Unity" on 1x is far superior on the NX8.

I am unaware of NF improving their coatings in the last few years, the last time being, I think, sometime in 2013? I am sure rolling changes may well have occurred, but I am unaware of anyone buying a NXS 1-4 and exclaiming "holy crap they improved the shit out of it!"

Does this mean they could not improve the NXS 1-4 by using...better materials? I am honestly unsure if the materials in the NX8 are superior in any way.

I think more intelligent design is to credit for the enhanced optical properties and ability to have larger multiplication factors. One begats the other. If the NXS 1-4 were re-designed, it may well be better, but it would also be 1-8x, because...it can be!


*I am not an optics engineer and won't defend the above opinion, because it's all emotional and gut and whatnot, not from a place of "knowing". I would love to hear from someone who can speak from that place.

If they were to truly modernize the 1-4x scope, to the same standard as 1-8x, it would be lighter, shorter, wider FOV and more forgiving eye relief. Would that be worth the decrease in top magnification? For some applications yes, for some no.

I would not mind having the option though.

ILya

 

[pmclaine]

The view screen does not replace the objective. It effectively replaces the SFP reticle cell. To be used effectively, you still need an eyepiece to proejct the image from the screen.

The objective is not going anywhere any time soon, except in fully digital scopes the image sensor replaces whatever is in the FFP. The switch to digital scopes does away with the erector system, but the objective and eyepiece are still there. They may be sized differently, but they are still there.

Flat diffractive optics or adaptive lenses might make objectives much smaller eventually, but we are not quite there yet.

Not sure what you mean by NV/Thermal/IR. Thermal is IR. Typically mid-wave and long-wave IR bands are defined as thermal. Did you mean near IR?

At the moment, we do not have any sort of a way to have common refractive optical systems that can be used for both Thermal IR and Near IR, so fusign them together requires two objectives. Vis, NIR and SWIR can potentially use the same objective, but that is a little tricky. I have a couple of patent application written on that, just biding my time for now.

The most interesting recent development on this is the impending implementation of augmented reality screen onto goggles that will include whatever your riflescope is seeing, but I do not think we have to worry about that in the consumer world for quite a while.

Aside from that electro-optic integration is moving along quite nicely with different companies doing some interesting things. One one side there is Revic, Steiner's IFS, etc. On the other side, there is close range thermal integration like Steiner CQT and a few others.

ILya

ILya

Your knowledge is based on reality where I was channeling my best HG Wells.

Im thinking something like these binos mounted on a rifle.

Looks like Darpa is on board but they want to include the ability to brain scan people to judge if they are a threat......

Star Wars Binoculars A Cognitive Technology Threat Warning: Science Fiction in the News

Star Wars Binoculars A Cognitive Technology Threat Warning re: George Lucas on 4/13/2007: Science Fiction in the News

www.technovelgy.com

 

[koshkin]

Your knowledge is based on reality where I was channeling my best HG Wells.

Im thinking something like these binos mounted on a rifle.

View attachment 7090020

Looks like Darpa is on board but they want to include the ability to brain scan people to judge if they are a threat......

Star Wars Binoculars A Cognitive Technology Threat Warning: Science Fiction in the News

Star Wars Binoculars A Cognitive Technology Threat Warning re: George Lucas on 4/13/2007: Science Fiction in the News

www.technovelgy.com

I work with these things for a living. There is all sorts of fun stuff happening, but none outlawed the laws of physics yet.

ILya

 

[pmclaine]

The Spartans replied "If" and channeling them now I say "Yet".

 

[Clearlight]

S&B and March are not the only ones who can do it. That's just hogwash. They are the only ones willing to do it for now. It is not a matter of capability. Most higher end makers can. It is a matter of having a good reason to accept the compromises that come with it. Given how entrenched S&B is with various military units, I strongly suspect that the development of 9x erector scopes was very specifically done because they had a very specific request.

Personally, I would like to see further development of both high erector ratio and low erector ratio scopes because they can be configured to address different applications. For example, I would really like to see some world class image quality on scopes that are short, light and compact. That is extremely difficult and expensive to do with high erector ratio scopes.

ILya

If it was easy everyone would be doing it, but they're not ; ) . Maybe you can convince your friends at Meopta to have a crack at it.

 

[MarinePMI]

If it was easy everyone would be doing it, but they're not ; ) . Maybe you can convince your friends at Meopta to have a crack at it.

Funny, this is what I tell my young engineers when they complain that something is hard. And I smile and respond "Well if it was easy, we wouldn't have a job, now would we? Let's figure it out."

Or as in the movie "The Martian"...."Let's science the shit out this."

 

[koshkin]

If it was easy everyone would be doing it, but they're not ; ) . Maybe you can convince your friends at Meopta to have a crack at it.

I didn't say it was easy. I said that other companies can do it and some have all sorts of high erector ratio designs in their backpocket just in case.

You are assuming that other than the complexity of making it, there is no downside to high erector ratio scopes. That is incorrect.

ILya

 

[akh223]

I didn't say it was easy. I said that other companies can do it and some have all sorts of high erector ratio designs in their backpocket just in case.

You are assuming that other than the complexity of making it, there is no downside to high erector ratio scopes. That is incorrect.

ILya

Ilya,

Can you tell us what the largest downside is when making a high erector ratio scope? Is there one particular thing it affects, or does it make everything more difficult to do correctly?

Thanks,
A.

 

[koshkin]

Ilya,

Can you tell us what the largest downside is when making a high erector ratio scope? Is there one particular thing it affects, or does it make everything more difficult to do correctly?

Thanks,
A.

Generally, they are usually heavier and harder to make durable since there is a lot of stuff moving inside.

Optically, there are ramifications for depth of field and parallax sensitivity. They can be mitigated somewhat by good design and larger size, but that is not very simple.

Getting well corrected and wide FOV is also harder.

ILya

 

[akh223]

Generally, they are usually heavier and harder to make durable since there is a lot of stuff moving inside.

Optically, there are ramifications for depth of field and parallax sensitivity. They can be mitigated somewhat by good design and larger size, but that is not very simple.

Getting well corrected and wide FOV is also harder.

ILya

Thanks!

Maybe a follow up to my original question would be: how much more does it cost to get equal optical performance from a higher erector ratio scope?

 

[JWG]

If they were to truly modernize the 1-4x scope, to the same standard as 1-8x, it would be lighter, shorter, wider FOV and more forgiving eye relief. Would that be worth the decrease in top magnification? For some applications yes, for some no.

I would not mind having the option though.

ILya

If they could retain the (or expand on) eyebox of the NXS 1-4, while giving it the unity and optical clarity, etc. of the NX8, while lopping it to 6" and 12oz, it would be a damn hard scope to not buy.