ZCO or ??????

[GBMaryland]

Ilya:

So my question is, how do you get around the crappy I release of higher magnification scopes?

Also, have you compared any of them?

I had a Schmidt 3-27x56 and looking through that scope was pretty difficult at full magnification because the eye relief is awful compared to a 5-25…

 

[koshkin]

Ilya:

So my question is, how do you get around the crappy I relief of higher magnification scopes?

Also, have you compared any of them?

I had a Schmidt 3-27x56 and looking through that scope was pretty difficult at full magnification because the eye relief is awful compared to a 5-25…

I do not know what crappy eye relief means. I assume you mean unforgiving eye relief, commonly referred to unforgiving eyebox. Eyebox is a terrible way of thinking about it, but we are likely stuck with it.

It is an inherent quality of the riflescope design and a part of the balancing act. Higher erector ratio scopes are harder to make with forgiving eyerelief. Wide FOV scopes are harder to make with forgiving eye relief. It is all a matter of compromise. New 7-35x TT seems to have more forgiving eyerelief than the 5-25x, but I will know for sure when I have them side-by-side.

If you want wide FOV and forgiving eyerelief right now, Razor Gen3 is probably the way to go. There is also a matter of how much is sufficient. I comparatively seldom use the highest magnification, so unless it is particularly bad, it is not a major concern for me. It is always more forgiving on lower magnifications simply because of the exit pupil size. I mostly use the highest magnification when I have a steady and comfortable shooting position, but I can work around the limitations of most scopes.

ILya

 

[Convex]

I know this probably won't stick, but I nominate "eye-exit pupil alignment (@correct eye relief)". Takes longer to say, but it eliminates the "box" out of "eyebox", bcuz there never was a box anybody was looking at/into.

A scope might be considered "the light at the end of the tunnel" but you're not even looking at that until you get to the correct eye relief, and when you get to the correct eye relief, there's no tunnel.


If there was some kind of finite structure like a box, then it wouldn't change size as it does when it goes from a small "white spot"/Ramsden disc/exit pupil in a "sea of black" transitioning (and getting larger) until the exit pupil is filling the eyepiece when you've got the scope lined up on axis to your eye.

What you're seeing is the changing dynamic/"out of whack"-mis-alignment of 2 optical systems until they're lined up on a common axis and the "dance" bet. the exit pupil and your eye taking place outside of the optic.


A long time ago, somebody looked through a scope before it was lined up right and thought of a box (it would have to be a box that changes size), and he must've been drinking Jack Daniels bcuz a box is square (or a rectangle) when we're talking scopes/a round tube.


Coming from photography over to the scope world, the difference seems to me to be that using scopes is harder/kind of "messy" since you can't fasten your eye to an eyecup behind the camera which helps to line up your eye to the image/exit pupil.

It's no "biggie", but it's there.