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?
There is no simple answer to that, It depends on a ton of things.
ILya
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
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.
To me they can still get heaps better . Whether it's possible is another thing. For me the single most important feature and probably the most overlooked is field of view. The main reason we dial back on power is because our field of view is too small. Imagine if we could be on 30 power and see 100 foot wide at 100 yards
No it's not possible in rifle scopes in their current configuration but things may change. Like night vision goggles once apon a time only had one field of depth. Now with multiple lenses you can focus on multiple distances. In the last 10 years we have gained an extra third in fovI can't imagine it since it is physically impossible. By a factor of 15.
For a FOV of 100 feet at 100 yards the maximum theoretically possible magnification for a healthy and statically average human eye is right around 7
x. That assumes that your eye's FOV is around 130 degrees.
For such a configuration, assuming 3 inch eyerelief, you would need an eyepiece of roughly
12 inches in diameter.
In practical terms, 130 deg FOV of your eye is not really correct since you do not use all of that to collect information, but since we are playing a theoretical exercise I used that.
If we come back to earth and stay with reasonable eyepiece diameters, you could theoretically make a scope with that FOV on 2x, but distortion control would be really tricky.
ILya
No it's not possible in rifle scopes in their current configuration but things may change. Like night vision goggles once apon a time only had one field of depth. Now with multiple lenses you can focus on multiple distances. In the last 10 years we have gained an extra third in fov
When we have to contend with EMP our troubles are only starting. This threat has been ignored for longer than we care to admit.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.
What I really want to see is 4-5ish to 20-25ish ffp scopes in the low 20ounce range. March is the only one that really does it and they seem to have some optical negatives, I assume from the monster zoom ranges, that make me hesitant.
So for me it’s lack of weight that waiting for
I'd love a scope that could see through walls, or the interior organs of an Animal while hunting.
Ilya your response reminded me of a really cool picture that accompanies a great explanation.I can't imagine it since it is physically impossible. By a factor of 15.
For a FOV of 100 feet at 100 yards the maximum theoretically possible magnification for a healthy and statically average human eye is right around 7
x. That assumes that your eye's FOV is around 130 degrees.
For such a configuration, assuming 3 inch eyerelief, you would need an eyepiece of roughly
12 inches in diameter.
In practical terms, 130 deg FOV of your eye is not really correct since you do not use all of that to collect information, but since we are playing a theoretical exercise I used that.
If we come back to earth and stay with reasonable eyepiece diameters, you could theoretically make a scope with that FOV on 2x, but distortion control would be really tricky.
ILya
More specifically, that PRS, BR, ELR, Other shooting match one is shooting when it happens suddenly became not all that important.When we have to contend with EMP our troubles are only starting. This threat has been ignored for longer than we care to admit.