II. We DON'T Want the Brightest Scope

We might think we do, we might say we do, but we really don't want the brightest scopes. The rules of optic do not change just because we call a telescope a riflescope. To get the brightest, clearest scope possible we need huge objective lenses, for it is the objective lens that ultimately controls resolution and potential light transmission. You might think there would be a market for 60mm or 70mm hunting scopes, but it appears that there isn't. Yet, doubling the size of an objective lens quadruples its light gathering ability.

Even a 50mm objective transmits 55% or so more light than a 40mm objective. Who but the most brainless of us could not want a technically superior objective like that? Most of us don't, and for good reasons.

You will get better strength, lower cost, less weight, less parallax, and greater depth of field with the 40mm objective. Human eyes are not the best on the planet; much technical light transmission cannot be detected, much less used, by the human eye. Most of us do not want our scopes mounted as far away from the barrel as possible. Necessarily, larger objectives prohibit close scope to bore mounting. Human eyes quickly lose the ability to distinguish color as the light fades; the human eye's deficiencies pretty much negate the theoretical advantages of large objective lenses.

Who can say that, under hunting conditions, they can hold a 12X scope steady enough in the off-hand position to be usable? How about with a 20 mph crosswind? I have not been able to. We may think we want the brightest scope in the barn, but human eyes do not have the ability to use much more than a 5mm exit pupil. Just like binoculars, which are a pair of telescopes mounted together, reasonably large objectives and low magnifications give us the best images. We rarely seek 60mm or 70mm objective binoculars, either, though recoil resistance and rifle mounting are no longer factors in our choice.

We do not want the brightest and clearest, really, because what mathematics can document our eyes simply cannot take advantage of. Brightest and clearest becomes meaningless because our eyes simply cannot take advantage of the theoretical advantage.

I'll finish on "bright and clear" by quoting Scott Powers, who has discussed sniper scopes in detail:

"Objective size. What is reasonable, usable, or just plain hoaky? I will offer my opinion; one I am sure will garnish some argument. I do not believe there is any use for anything larger than 40mm, or 42mm at the most. In a good quality scope, one in fact going to be used for sniping, competition, or collecting, a large objective bell is only a hindrance, no matter what the current hype."

"Consider first the major disadvantage to a 50mm or larger bell. These large objectives force the shooter's head up so high that, on an unmodified stock, he can get no reasonable or repeatable cheek weld. Think of firing an AR15A2 with a scope. You just about have to use your chin on top of the stock to see through the scope. Until you mount a high-rise cheek piece, you will never be consistent. This is not acceptable on a sniper rifle or, for that matter, any firearm used for hunting."

"Your best accuracy is going to be found by mounting the scope as low as possible to the axis of the bore. Why start off on the wrong foot by building in an inherent disability into your weapon system? For more clarity, you say? HA! This is where the industry really loses me. Many companies offer very large objectives claiming that they will transmit more light, be brighter, and cause less eyestrain. All of this may be true, but your eye can only accept so much light. About four to seven millimeters at the exit pupil. A good quality scope with a smaller objective is already capable of this, so why pay for something you cannot actually use? Also, consider that most of these 50mm (and larger) designs came about to assist European hunters who shoot at night. If you are not a poacher, why would you need whatever extra light gathering ability these behemoths might offer? If you are a police officer, chances are that the situation you are in is going to be well lighted by klieg lights, idiotic reporters, or ambient street light. You may even have night vision of one sort or another, depending upon your department's policy."

"If you are a civilian, and a hunter, there are many scopes on the market that offer excellent low-light clarity with less than 40mm lenses. This is another advantage to low power. The lower the power, the more light is transmitted. A small 1.5-5x 32mm will transmit more light than a 10x 50mm. So the question begs: Why spend all your money on objective size, when quality of glass is far more important?"

Recently I held my Swarovski offhand on 25X still enough to verify a deer was a doe and not a buck in the brush 155 yards away.



I want the brightest and clearest in a manageable size and weight. That's why my scope has a 52mm objective.



I have proven beyond a doubt that my 52mm Swaro is better than 40mm scopes in low light many times. This is not hype but fact for those who have looked though them from the porch.



Perhaps this writer has never used a Weatherby.



Apparently this writer has never heard of hunting pigs or varmint at night.



I'm thinking this guys does his testing with his computer keyboard. Just ask JJHack why he had one of his clients turn up his scope to maximum magnification setting when it was too dark to see the animals without good glass. I have shown folks who come by my house what happens when you have a high magnification scope set at a higher setting in low light. This is certainly a case when more is better.

The brightest hunter want the best compromise he can get. Sometimes that means a large objective high magnification scope on his rifle.

Not this again! I'm going to stay out of this one and just watch.

I don't believe I've ever read anything that Chuck Hawks wrote that I found interesting..........

Do people pay Chuck Hawks to write this stupid stuff?

I agree with alot of it however mounting the freaking scope on top of the barrel is not the be all end all and its not more accurate. for me I don't like a scope super low, maybe I have a fat face who knows. I normally prefer a medium ring height. it should come down more to rifle fit vs jambing the scope on top of the barrel. The other is will someone explain how you get more parralax error with a larger objective??

Does anyone make a 70mm objective? I think I need one; bigger is better, right?

That makes two of us.....

add me to the list

Not sure how he funds his operation.

I get the sense he's writing to write, regardless of the fact that he doesn't have that much to say, nor is he adding to the body of knowledge based on experience or expertise.

DF

Lots of BS in that article, I don't even know where to begin so I won't.

The guys arguments read like Dianne Feinstein's arguments against guns, he seems to think he's the arbitrator of what people need.

Zeiss/Hensoldt make 72mm for those with a lot of money.

Now its 3 of us!

Makes four of us. He partners with Randy Wakeman if that helps those who are familiar with the "knowledge base"...

Oh schaaattttttt............are you serious?

Nothing would make me consider a scope bigger than 44mm. Even that looks and works poorly. I guess I don't need to compensate.

Swampman700,



Why would you keep a scope that works poorly?



What does a scope compensate for?

Just my opinion but I believe a larger objective lense is better - if using the same quality glass. I'll take a 32mm Leupold, Ziess, Swaro, etc. over a 50mm Tasco, Simmons, etc.

timbo762



While watching have you learned anything?

It's hard for a "know it all" like me to learn anything, but I do find it very entertaining. Simple pleasures for simple minds I guess.

Chuck Hawks and Wrongman belong together. It's just natural..

Ringman, with all due respect, I know Timbo 762 very well and for many years. He has more knowledge about things optical in his little finger than 9 out of 10 of those who freely opine.

I have listened to him, learned, and have yet - thousands of dollars in optical equipment experience - to find him wrong or short of experience related knowledge in binoculars, cameras, spotting 'scopes, or riflescopes.

I count him a great optical resource and am personally much obliged to him.

BTW - that's now at least 5 of us that have no use for the Chuck Hawks version of Diane Feinstein.

RogerCox,



Timbo762 responded in the light hearted manner in which I intended my post. I have no idea who here is an expert or a novice. Or someone like me who just likes to play with optics and is getting sort of and education in what I want and like.

Take a look at my post comparing a 7X35 against an 8X40.

I think the 40mm objective is too big ...

I have several 40mm scopes, one 42mm, several 50mm, and one 52mm. I try to fit the scope to the gun. I think my swaro 52mm is the brightest and clearest with the Kahles and Zeiss close behind. I have good quality glass on all my main hunting rifles now so I dont pick a gun for the glass now, I pick a gun best suited for the situation. Good glass is the a must for me now!!!

Chuck Hawks is a certified goober. If he wrote it, it's not worth talking about....PERIOD.

Terry

my thoughts exactly. another "internet" expert with little experience. He ignores a lot of optical science in a simple discussion of how big the objective is. Goober may be too kind.

Ringman:

I have read many of your posts and truly understand that you like to play with optics and learn. Your posts are often interesting.

All optical devices are a set of compromises within the laws of physics. Some of those sets may fit your needs or desire to learn better than others and that is true with most inanimate objects.

I'd hope to be the last person to criticise your product ownership selections based on your experience with them or your efforts to test them for the uses you intend for them.

My response to you was "light hearted" - well, at least as light hearted as I perceived your response to Timbo to be.

My intent was to provide credential for the man that he is too polite to provide. He certainly knows the value of both objective and subjective opinions in specific cases.

And I believe I did provide that credential, without casting any stone at any particular person or poster.

Please tell me this was a tongue-in-cheek statement. No matter the level of your expertise you can always learn something new...especially with the optics world. It seems optics are beginning to mirror the path of computers and "smart" cell phones; by the time you get it home a "newer", "better" optic is either released or set to be released in the next 6 months.

Well he is a legend in his own mind. It snowed pretty heavy here in CT and its clear right now, Around Mid Night if its still clear and the Moon is out, I will be able to see well enough to shoot a white tail deer with a leupold 6 x 42mm. And there would be no doubts about it with one of the Zeiss's with any of the 42mm up to that big 70 mm job they make that costs about as much as some used cars. Never mind the weight. Its not the point, the thing with good glass is simple being able to see well enough to make a shot that you can with some of the lesser stuff on that once in a live time elk hunt. I been thinking about going to Illuminated reticule in a 1.7-10x42 mm Swarovski myself. My 58 year old eyes are not what they use to be. The reason they make this stuff is because it works and people buy it, and they would not buy it if it didn't work. Yea its hair splitting at the top end lots of money for little gain, but who is to say? Chuck Hawk being the last word on this, not likely.

Add me to that list as well. And that blisteringly stupid and obnoxiously smug jackass Wakeman that writes articles on his website is even worse than Hawks. And now I think you have to be a paying member to read their bull@@@t. I wonder sometimes who on earth is stupid enough to pay to read that drivel?

I really miss Wakeman.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! What happened to him?

Looks like he hasn't been online in about a year. Best part is that under occupation he listed "firearms expert" .

Of course that, like much of what I say, was tongue-in-cheek and I freely admit to like "cracking wise" when ever the opportunity presents itself. I do find much of what I read here entertaining, especially when the arguments get so heated over trivial things. I'm not an optical engineer, but I did spend 35 years selling a variety of optics and have looked through a lot of glass. If I don't know what I'm talking about, I don't say anything. I know the difference between opinions and facts, and while everyone has opinions, not all have facts. Any way, I am just here to have fun.

Who's this "WE" he is referring too? He got a turd in his pocket feeding him this line of bullshit?

A 3.5-10 x40 gathers less light on low power than a 3.5-10x50 on the same power... Definitely proven, on paper, varmints, and pigs after dark.

Maybe he likes sticking objectives up his ass and he can't yet fit the 50mm so it's useless to him... Try more lube chuck.

I am no expert, cannot shoot for chit, don't know nothing about nothing, but I do hunt, reload, and shoot.

there are several I better not mention by name and one still posts on the fire.... four flushers. I think its a mental thing, everybody has got to have something and some folks settle on wearing fake medals and talking about stuff they never did.

Not directed at you timbo, but I personally trust reports from people who use stuff in the field, actual hunting use, etc. Not so much from people who run lab tests or stare at glass in a store, or in broad daylight, etc.

JG, what a novel concept...!

I like it...

DF

You know JG, I was always amazed at how many people bought things on my recommendation alone. Most were happy with their purchase, but I was still amazed. A person should always buy what they want regardless of what others say if they really want to learn for themselves. I always bought a lot, but nobody sold me anything and I rarely make a purchase based on someone's recommendation alone. I'm one of those guys that has to "see for himself" and use it, so I bought a lot of stuff that didn't work out for me but at least I knew for sure. Also, when I was "in the business", I was fortunate to have access to products for "testing" and use without purchase. Back in the day, I did get out in the field for "real world" results. Even so, what's good for me might not be good for you regardless of quality, price or reputation. You'll only know for sure after you've used an item yourself. It's cost me a small fortune to learn what I've learned, but I wouldn't have it any other way.

I have no idea how much weight to give an answer to this question on this thread, but here goes.

1) Does a 50mm objective give a brighter image than a 40mm objective when the power of each results in the same size exit pupil?

2) Is it easier to make an exceptional 50mm objective lens as opposed to making an exceptional 40mm one?

I will sorta answer the above question. Although the answer will be two binoculars and not two scopes. But at leased you will get something to rebut or agree with.

Sunset is at 4:47 today. I went back out and laid them on the sandbags at 4:40. With the Nikons 7X35 I could barely make out the fork of the antlers on the fence 131 yards away. At 4:44, if I didn't know they were antlers, I could not at make them out. Back and forth every minute between them and the Bushnells 8X40 proved again what I have stated many times here: "Larger exit pupil helps in low light" is an internet optical myth. The Bushnell allowed me to see the fork until 4:54. That�s an extra fourteen minutes. Finally at 4:59 I could not tell the antlers were there. For those who don�t know exit pupil is the objective diameter divided by the magnification power. Both have an exit pupil of 5mm.

The size of the exit pupil determines the amount of light available to the ocular lens regardless of power. Back in the day, it was easier (cheaper) to make quality lenses that were smaller. However, with today's manufacturing methods high quality larger lenses are easy to make.

& raise you one

I'm confused about something written here. Somebody wrote that they used a higher power scope to identify a target was a doe not a buck.

Do people really point a scoped rifle at unknowns to identify a target? Would you use a hammer when you need a wrench? I'm stumped that this would still happen! How could anyone point a rifle loaded or not at an unknown target?

This is what field glasses are for. You identify your target before you point a high powered rifle at it. It's not just simple courtesy towards other people and property, but basic common sense and gun safety.

Some do. Where I used to work at the door plant I had a boss who told me that's what scopes are made for. He used his rifle scope to glass for game. I never hunted with him.



I bet at least half the folks who post on 24hour do it. When I was young I used to and bet most have.



Millwrights do the opposite all the time. If they could they would.



If you go back into your history you will see you posted that you told one of your clients to turn up his scope so he could see the animal in low light. I have used your experience as additional proof that turning up the magnification on your scope allows one to go longer into low light.

You are the same as the guy above who pointed a scoped rifle at a KNOWN target, a deer, to verify whether it was a buck or doe. The hunter found the deer with 8X binos; to use your term "field glasses". In the light available he could not tell if it was legal with his 3-9X scope. I had to turn up my scope all the way to 25X to verify whether the hunter was going to shoot or not. I do NOT apologize for pointing a loaded or unloaded rifle at a game animal I or someone with me might shoot if it is legal. The scope is the last chance to verify a legal kill.

I have to say I agree with Ringman. The target is identified, it's a deer, you're not compromising safety at all by putting it in the scope to decide if it's a shooter or not. If you're glassing or checking out movement with your scope then that's a different story, but there's nothing unsafe about looking at something you already know to be a deer through your scope for a final evaluation.

In the south where I hunt if you see a deer and can tell it's got a decent rack on it then you'd better be looking through your scope at it pretty quick or you won't get another chance. I've had good bucks get past me because I screwed up and tried to evaluate them through my binoculars instead of my scope. Our deer don't typically stand around in open fields in the daylight waiting for you to look them over and decide if you want to get your gun up.