Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Internal Scope Construction Toric, Zeiss, SWFA, NF, Leupold etc.

Your posts remind me of an engineer I used to work with. He could hardly ever make a decision because he was all caught up in the extreme minutia things. You are ignoring years of successful and precise use of SFP scopes.

Simmons did as well.

Hi Ringman,
Please see my comments in response to jimmy's question below. (and thanks for the complement!! )




Hi Jimmy,

No, the design flaws (or maybe we should call them weaknesses) I mentioned in my post above are not related to the position of the reticle. In FFP scopes the reticle is mounted in the front end of the erector tube, in SFP scopes it is mounted in the rear end. Both types are susceptible to zero shift due to flaws I mentioned above. In SFP scopes, there is an additional cause for zero shift due to erector lenses moving during zoom (they could get de-centered during movement).

Of course premium scope manufacturers minimize the possibility of zero shift by utilizing better mechanical design and higher quality material. But they are still using this "tilting inner tube" concept to provide elevation and windage adjustment. It is the traditional method but it is not the best method. I myself have invented a totally different mechanism. In my design, all the lenses and the reticle are fixed and perfectly centered. The point of aim of the scope is adjusted by optical refraction not by mechanically moving the reticle.

In the picture below you can see a proof-of-concept prototype scope I have made to demonstrate my invention. In this model, the optical element covered by the round black ring inside the scope moves forward and backward and that gives you your elevation adjustment. There is no lateral movement of any element. I am also working on a new variation where there is no movement at all

Have a nice Friday both,
-Omid

Got any manufacturers interested?

I'd be interested in seeing a writer do an article with a complete breakdown of some quality scopes. Testing them for all the regular stuff (especially dialing, return to 0 from dialing, and recoil) across a standard for all of them, then dismantling them to take a look at how they differ in components. It would be a bit costly. I wonder how many company's would donate a scope if they knew it was going to be broken down and compared to others?

I'd say you have a better chance of beating Usain Bolt in the next Olympics than that test ever happening.

I know this has been done years ago, But it seems to me with modern CNC machining and advanced mechanics makers could incorporate all the moving parts integral with the mounts and just make the scope fixed.

lol.... It'd be an even race until the starting pistol.

Good luck with that! Firstly, very few writers are really qualified and/or equipped to make an accurate assesment. Secondly, no magazine is going to risk offending major advertisers with negative reviews.

Somewhere I read the standard practice for honest publications is that when they review something that doesn't measure up, they give the maker a mulligan in hopes that the failure was a fluke. If the second try goes badly, or the maker doesn't respond, their products get ignored henceforth. That is why, I think, that negative reviews seldom, if ever, get published, and why some products seemingly never get reviewed.

I pay attention to the stuff that writers use themselves outside of reviews, figuring that if they use something on their own time and dime, it's probably at least okay.

Anilizing scope design could be somewhat misleading considering the fact that no design is proven until tested by the consumer. Even then there are problems with quality control which means you might read up on a great design that someone completely fumbled in assembly. I think in the end what the consumers say and proven track records speak far more than simply learning about internal components of a scope IMO.

Trystan

The thing about the engineer I worked with had a very hard time getting past theory. When we worked on something and it didn't come out exactly as the theory suggested he was frustrated and tried to use more theory.

I sincerely hope your ideas work. I am ready for a very high quality glass in a very light weight scope. And of course great reliability.

engineers can build most anything...for a price.

Actually that should read some engineers. After working in manufacturing for 20 + years I never saw an engineer actually build anything. They conceptualized and designed but never built. I'm sure there are many that are but none of the engineers I worked with were especially good with tools or their hands that I can recall.

If most engineers had to build what they engineered there designs would change and improve in a hurry


Trystan

If someone made me such a scope I could sight it in a hurry with Burris sig rings if I had extra inserts at close intervals. Such a scope IMO could be made to be lighter and stronger than anything out there and at a price point that would sale. The problem would be finding customers that could negotiate the ring setup. Hell, your average hunter can't even turn the dial the correct direction to adjust a scope.


Trystan

You think zeroing a scope using the rings is the way to go?

I did that to entertain myself one time. One needs to not be locked into the idea the spits need to be horizontal. I had one at a 45 degree.

Sounds ideal. Almost as good as a scope with reliable adjustments.

Curious as to how much better the optics could be if the makers deleted all the springs, gears, clickers and erector tubes.

Scopes are aiming devices, not observation devices.