Why are manufacturers making scopes with such short tubes and long tapered objectives barely even giving room for mounts in one spot with no room for ER adjustment at all? Even Leupold's new designs are leaning in this direction. I noticed it the other day on the new VX5HD and VX6HD scopes.

I blame it, and most everything else, on the 6.5 CM.

Yup,have noticed that. Don't like it either.

It's why I like the older scopes,plenty of room for moving for proper eye relief. Like this old Weaver 4x.

It's just another 'advantage' for S A rifles.

S A stands for short action rifles....

among a few other things.

Jerry

I now days do not even consider a scope w/o at least 5.8in tube length and 3.75 eye relief. I know this limits me a great deal and usually Leupold is the only choice but w/a 14in LOP it is what it is. powdr

Scopes that actually fit some rifles would be nice. I don't know what the dumb sons of bitches at the scope companies are smoking but they need to stop it.

I suspect it's partly due to the trend toward using rails for mounting scopes, rather than bases where each ring only fits in one place.

I am going to scope a Pre64 Model 70 in 257 Roberts, that I just picked up. Hard as HeXX to even find mounts. Thankfully I have setup I bought from JB awhile ago. Most do not even list actions and years any more. (Maybe I'm not looking in the right places..) The only scope I know that will fit and allow the rear iron sight to be left alone is a Zeiss Conquest 3X9X40. Gave that one to my son.. So can't ask for it back. A "short" scope will not work, the Zeiss is actually rather long. A pica-tinny rail on Pre64 would just be wrong..

Once again I'm going to state my suggestion that redfield offer a revolution version of the older long tube m8 scope. A decent 4x at $200 or just a little less would probably sell imho. The down side for redfield/leupold would be some erosion of the FX sales. A Burris fullfield II 4x32 would also be a good possibility if it was of comparable quality of the existing ffii products and built with a longer profile . I have an older Burris 4x that's a good scope. I figure if I mention it enough maybe someone will notice.

That was my guess but I was trying to figure if manufacturers were saving money in any way or even possibly making it so you would have to put the rings in the best place not to interfere with the internal operation. Either way I think it sucks. I see no reason to have an objective that tapers more than half the tube length.

Tube length and ER was the main reason I went with a Z5 recently rather than a couple other scopes that I actually liked better.

They get to sell more scopes if each one is less versatile.

No problems mounting most any short tube on an AR. Or on a Picatinny as Mule Deer said. That's where the industry is at these days.

I own two Burris Mini's, 3-9X short tube scopes. Really like them.

Why?

I've got an older M8-4X long tube that I'm very fond of. It'll actually fit a M70 without causing a headache. That said, I've got it mounted on a Marlin 336SC. It works, and I'm keeping it until I die.

Yes actually there are several of the old scopes that were scaled to fit most any rifle. I have the older Burris fulfield I mentioned as well as a bushnell scopechief iv from the 80s/90s time period that also is a nicely sized scope and of course the old steel k 4 weavers seemed to easily fit on anything w/o looking out of proportion. Finally the m8s with the long tubes also fit most anything. I let my M8 get away in a trade and have regretted that so I am hopefully planting a seed that someone in the industry will pickup on. I like the current fx leupolds except they are a bit short and frankly as silly as you his sounds it sort of bugs me they cost as much or more than a variable. It shouldn't but it does.

The glass from that era, 1970's, was far ahead of its years. It's clear, bright, has quality coatings ,lightweight, compact & optically refined scope for its time. It compliments compact rifle packages well.

I'm not all that familiar with those short tube scopes. My complaint is with new scopes like the VX6HD that gives 2" or less tube length in front of the adjustment turret housing and a long tapered objective taking up the rest of the length. Yes,it will work with a picatinny rail but that's about it. The great op[tics you speak of can just as easily be housed ain a slightly longer tube which will be much more versatile in mounting.

I agree on the vx-6HD stupid design. Leupold needs to consult with Leica when it comes to scope tube length.

Yes,the ER series and ERi series were great. The new Leica Magnus seems however to be much like the VX6HD in tube length.

Yes,the ER series and ERi series were great. The new Leica Magnus seems however to be much like the VX6HD in tube length.[/quote]



I am mainly interested in the ERi , after reading Bobby Tomeks reviews on them even more interested since they have a sensible mounting tube length. I was speaking to the owner of Near precision and mentioned the VX-6 with the 50mm objective and he said they had almost too short front mounting tube.

I did have to get creative in using a modified Picattiny but it worked out for me. The scopes I have are generous enough in tube length w/o being too long. Burris' new version of the same scope is called the Short Mag. It is mounted on a Ruger 77 in 7 WSM. Had no problem with eye relief either. The scope has held up well.

The 50 mm scopes have less room for mounts than a 40mm. The 50mm scopes are hard to mount on a long action.

Trying to find new, gloss-finished scopes that are long enough is equally difficult. Leupold is about the only alternative, but just in variables. Their fixed power scopes have been too short since the late 80's.

You might have answered your own question there. Imagine being a gunsmith with lengths of P. rails. You need only cut to length and drill some holes through it. There are more attaching points for the rings and makes the mounting process faster/easier. P. rails are more popular these daze because of their flexibility.

Yes but ultralight rifles are more popular too and a rail and rings are much heavier than a set of Talley lightweights. Not everything has a rail to fit it either.

I realize that, but like everything else in the world, nothing is consistent but change.

I wonder if the 2 or 3 oz. difference is worth the sweat.

I think it would be more than that and I guess it depends on what you are paying for that light weight rifle. Just like a custom titanium action instead of a stainless one,or a carbon wrapped barrel. You pay big bucks for a few ounces and it is very frustrating to have to use those ounces just because a scope manufacturer thinks a long tapered objective looks better than a shorter taper.

I think what you are seeing is shorter tube scopes...because eye relief is longer. Back in the day, scopes had to be long so one could pull them back toward the eye to deal with 3" of eye relief.

My complaint isn't just tube length. My complaint is with an objective that tapers nearly all the way to the turret. Take a look at the nex Leupold VX6HD and VX5HD and you will see exactly what I mean.

My thing about p rails is they are butt ugly. It's a to each their own but it wouldn't hurt leupold to add say 3/4" after all we are not talking about 3-4 inches.

Not only are the scopes shorter and all matte finished, they're weight is getting ridiculous. Have seen several articles over the past couple years touting a light weight rifle and testing with a beautiful scope that weighs 20-24 oz. with a 50mm objective, as opposed to a 32-36mm objective on a 10-12 oz. scope that's long enough to adjust eye relief on any length action. Thank goodness I still have a few of them left.

BUSHNELL Elite 3-9x40mm Gloss (1 inch Tube) (Multi-X Reticle) (Rain Guard)

I am constantly amazed at the things b1tched and moaned about on this site...

Yep. Me too.

You mean like you're doing now.

I know you weren't axing me! But I DONT like the TREND.
Yes. matte is preferred and needed by 'some' for particular applications.
BUT the short mounting space in/on the tube does NOT work or work well on all rifles.

Yes we can get extended bases to use forward or reverse. I for one HATE an extended base protruding over the action port.

Also the last scope I bought before Christmas - all I could find were 'matte'. I had to survey my rifles to see which one I could swap a gloss for matte.
I have some gloss stocks w/gloss bluing! Matte DONT match up well w/that.

We understand new trends in marketing BUT new trends don't cover the needs of all and the rifles we ALREADY own which are not trendy.
$$$$$ - talks. / makes decisions, / not always the BEST ones.

Jerry

Like any fashion trend, the market will eventually come back to gloss blue

Maybe we've reached a point in the evolution of rifle scopes where we need to consider single point mounting systems. We have the materials and precisely repeatable manufacturing methods. Probably no reason it can't be done other than the market resistance it would encounter.

50 mm Leupold has a good bit less room to mount than a 40mm. I just mounted a 4.5x14x 50 Leupold on a Rem 700 with Talley two piece mounts. It barely fit. The 40mm would have had plenty of room. Manufacturers make scopes as small as possible, because people are so concerned about weight now. Is everyone weak all of a sudden?