Rifle Scopes motorized zoom adjustment

[Puck]

I searched using "motorized zoom adjustment" and came up with nothing. So here's the question. Why isn't this a feature on some scopes for fast ranging and target acquisition with just a scope reticle. Seems like at least they could make something like a spring loaded zero stop for magnification changes between two set points.

Also note to admins. Many people seem to be getting upset by repeated "noob" questions. On many of the math and physics forums I've seen They require you to show how you attempted a problem before asking for help on something from the community. Seems like a lot of this could be solved by requiring something like what I did: state what you searched under before presenting a question.

Thanks,
Puck

 

[LoneWolfUSMC]

Re: motorized zoom adjustment

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: puck</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why isn't this a feature on some scopes for fast ranging and target acquisition with just a scope reticle.</div></div>

Because it's not needed for ranging or target acquisition.

Motorized zoom would be one more thing to fail. Rifles experience quite a bit more stress than cameras do in their working life.

I am sure somewhere in some optics skunkworks someone is working on a digital rifle scope with all kinds of cool programming. The catch is making it cheap enough that the commercial world will embrace it.

 

[Lindy]

Re: motorized zoom adjustment

Most ranging is done at the highest scope power for maximum accuracy. Indeed, with reticles placed in the second focal-plane, range can only be done at one power.

In addition, a power zoom feature adds weight and complexity.

Target acquisition is actually best done using binoculars.

So, I don't see much of an advantage for power zoom features on rifle scopes.

 

[Tomcat088]

Re: motorized zoom adjustment

I am not a "sniper", but I shoot Long Range and hunt quite a bit in adverse conditions. I believe the answer is, what help would a "motorized zoom" really be in the field? For one thing is just something that can mess up, eventually all motors wear out or need replacing. There are many people that have quality scopes that their children will inherit; so obviously the motor is NOT going to hold up that long. It's something that needs batteries, and there's a reason that many of us carry mil-dot masters in case the batteries fail or no read on the target. I'm into cameras and although I don't any VERY HIGH end glass, even those motors for focusing are too noisy sometimes. Most of the people on this forum also shoot FFP reticles, so it doesn't really matter what magnification they're on as long as they can comfortably hold on target. It's really not that hard to dial down to the magnification that we want to be on . For the kinds of shots that people are taking at long range, they have enough time to dial the shot, or at least figure out the hold; so I don't see how a "motorized zoom" would be necessary. Even if people did use a motorized zoom there would have to be a way to control which way you were doing to zoom, this would either require a special type of mount on the firearm. Lots of people wouldn't want to mess with it, and if it was placed on the scope then the shooter would have to break position to adjust the zoom. If you have to break position to touch something on the scope to change the magnification, you might as well use something that isn't as likely to fail and that's what we use right now. Either way, just not really something that's necessary, cost effective, or something that most people would embrace, use or find advantages in.

 

[Rafael]

Re: motorized zoom adjustment

While I am not encouraging more electronics, and the possible failure of them....

A better bet might be an electronic reticle that would remove the need for the adjustment hardware altogether.
There are a lot of "if's" in this though.
While it would reduce a scopes hardware complexity by negating the need for erector adjustment, it would be another point of failure and I am not sure that LCD's would make a good reticle anyway. This would remove all moving parts in a variable scope, but for the zoom, focus, and objective. A fixed 10x with fixed objective would have nothing but an occular focus. That would be one robust scope, and compact as hell considering it would just be a tube with a few rubberized buttons under one small cap.

I like glass etched or deposited reticles, so I would not be eager to switch. Interesting thought, though.