Nightforce uses a titanium leaf spring. You guys are forgetting price point here. A lightweight dialing hunting scope that would sell like crap. I would buy it. You would buy it but who else
Nightforce uses a titanium leaf spring. You guys are forgetting price point here. A lightweight dialing hunting scope that would sell like crap. I would buy it. You would buy it but who else
It would be junk, I wouldn't buy it. I want my scopes to be bullet proof.
Last edited by jwp475; 12/13/19.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
So, just to address a couple of the questions that have been asked with relevant information, rather than speculation.
"Why do they need 34mm tubes (or even bigger)". The reason that tube diameters are bigger is because a larger tube is stronger. The market asked for a scope that could withstand the rigors of combat and extreme hunting while still being ultra-reliable. Take a fall with a 1" scope and the same fall with a 34mm scope and I can guarantee that the 34mm scope will withstand the impact better. Of course everything has a limit, so please don't wax eloquent about how you fell down the side of a mountain and your Nightforce was trashed so I obviously don't know what I am talking about. Physics is physics. Something that is bigger in diameter can withstand bending and crushing stresses better than something that is smaller in diameter. Add extra thickness to it and it is even better. So, now that we have established why they make them bigger in diameter and thicker (therefore adding weight), you now also need to add extra glass diameter and bigger internals, also adding weight. And those internals have to be able to withstand the extra abuse that may be placed on them now that the tube is more robust. All-in-all it isn't hard to see how an extra 10-15 oz can get added between a "standard" scope and a "premium" scope.
It's the difference of a half pound that makes me curious. The glass lenses are probably the heaviest part of the sub-assemblies in a scope, the tube being the second heaviest. Even doubling the thickness of a scope tube would "only" add a few more ounces. The erector assembly is obviously made of very small parts, changing them from synthetic to metal doesn't seem to account for the significant increase in weight.
Maybe they quadruple the thickness of the tube.
I wonder what a scope would cost if the metal parts were made of titanium......
You certainly have a good point, and I think the obvious answer is that nobody posting here actually knows for sure.
Even if the tube thickness was quadrupled, that'd only mean an ounce or two. Aluminum isn't that heavy; when I'm machining something to remove weight, I have to remove a LOT of aluminum to make much difference.
More/thicker glass maybe? That's got to be the heaviest part of the scope.
Is Mule Deer suggesting lighter scopes have plastic internals?
One comment on SWFA scopes using brass internals - brass is cheap to machine, so parts can be turned out pretty fast and don't have to be sent for anodizing. Downside is that it's heavy. Material choice does make a difference in both performance and cost, and the cost includes machining time as well as basic material cost. The SWFA scopes could definitely be made lighter and just as good or better, but would cost more.
Scope manufacturers are able to take the easy way out and just make it heavier everywhere because the customers don't care. They will eat up everything which is spoon fed to them. It is entirely possible a manufacturer could make a relatively lightweight, durable scope with super-reliable adjustments but there is no compelling need for them to do so when they can just make a very heavy scope, put a lot of dots in it, price it high, and they'll sell a bunch. GD
This question has had a longer life than I would have thought, lots of interesting responses but no real answer yet.
I should have been a bit more specific in scope specifications - I was thinking of a Hunting Scope, 1 inch tube, in a common magnification range such as 3-9x40, like a Leupold VX-2 or Bushnell 3200, Burris FF, etc, not asking it to be a dialing scope but simply a scope that tracks and responds to adjustments properly. So using that is a basis for the question I still am not seeing an answer.
'I understand that a thicker aluminum tube may be more resistant to bending or bumping damage but dialing and tracking are a function of the mechanics of the scope. If the internals are machined properly and have erector springs heavy enough to assure enough pressure on the erector tube to place and keep it in position how much could this possibly add to the weight of the scope? Even if the adjustment assembly were made slightly larger and the springs slightly larger how much weight could that add? Not more than another ounce or two I would think."
drover
223 Rem, my favorite cartridge - you can't argue with truckloads of dead PD's and gophers.
24hourcampfire.com - The site where there is a problem for every solution.
So, just to address a couple of the questions that have been asked with relevant information, rather than speculation.
"Why do they need 34mm tubes (or even bigger)". The reason that tube diameters are bigger is because a larger tube is stronger. The market asked for a scope that could withstand the rigors of combat and extreme hunting while still being ultra-reliable. Take a fall with a 1" scope and the same fall with a 34mm scope and I can guarantee that the 34mm scope will withstand the impact better. Of course everything has a limit, so please don't wax eloquent about how you fell down the side of a mountain and your Nightforce was trashed so I obviously don't know what I am talking about. Physics is physics. Something that is bigger in diameter can withstand bending and crushing stresses better than something that is smaller in diameter. Add extra thickness to it and it is even better. So, now that we have established why they make them bigger in diameter and thicker (therefore adding weight), you now also need to add extra glass diameter and bigger internals, also adding weight. And those internals have to be able to withstand the extra abuse that may be placed on them now that the tube is more robust. All-in-all it isn't hard to see how an extra 10-15 oz can get added between a "standard" scope and a "premium" scope.
I don't buy the 34mm tube being heavier duty, and if it is its not enough to matter. These guys are pounding nails, throwing the scopes around, shooting them. taking bullet holes in them. 34mm tubes are for lifted trucks and 22" dub wheels.
...not asking it to be a dialing scope but simply a scope that tracks and responds to adjustments properly.
I’m not sure what a “dialing” scope is, but a scope is either designed to work correctly or it is not.
For the life of me I don't understand why folks don't realize this. I also don't understand why folks will settle for spending their hard earned money on scopes that wont reliably work like a scope is suppose to
In the case of the March scopes with 56mm objective, the reason the main tubes are 34mm in diameter is simply that the thickness of the tube wall goes from 2mm to 4mm. This makes these high magnification scopes very solid. It works well for me as my March-X 5-50X56 sitting on top of my F-TR rifle has aimed around 20,000 rounds of match ammo over the last 5.5 years, without flinching. And it's still lighter than my NF NXS 12-42X56.
In the case of the March scopes with 56mm objective, the reason the main tubes are 34mm in diameter is simply that the thickness of the tube wall goes from 2mm to 4mm. This makes these high magnification scopes very solid. It works well for me as my March-X 5-50X56 sitting on top of my F-TR rifle has aimed around 20,000 rounds of match ammo over the last 5.5 years, without flinching. And it's still lighter than my NF NXS 12-42X56.
You have just given a bonofied reason for a scope of that design. If there is a real reason a scope needs to be a certain way to accomplish something specific. Plenty fine by me. I am sure you would agree a lot of other optics aren’t selected like that
You have just given a bonofied reason for a scope of that design. If there is a real reason a scope needs to be a certain way to accomplish something specific. Plenty fine by me. I am sure you would agree a lot of other optics aren’t selected like that
You may be right, and I certainly do not pretend to know every other scope that exists. When you look at the specs of a scope from a fairly reputable maker, you can figure out why they chose 34 instead of 30 or even 1inch. The NF ATACR specifies an elevation range of 100MOA, in their 34mm tube, which leads me to believe that it has a 2mm thich tube wall an thus uses the additional 4mm of ID in the tube for the additional range.
I have seen 40mm tubes, I just have not looked at the specs for them. And yes, there are scopes that are really porky. Just looking at the specs of the NF ATACR 7-35X56, it's a half pound, 8 ounces, heavier than my March-X 5-50X56 and has a thinner tube wall. They both sport ED glass, so why the huge difference in weight?
How many dialing scopes have you used extensively, say for years of up and down?
Also, did not know "pig iron" was used inside 21st-century scopes.
John, you're being kind of literal......
I don't "extensively" use any my dialing scopes, and not sure what you mean by up and down. I change loads and adjust for wind left and right often enough, too
You may not be aware but most of the various steels start out with pig iron. Can you tell us what materials are used in 20 oz + dialing rifle scopes to make them that heavy?
I've made my living with steel for 48 years and have no idea what "pig iron" is. I suspect it is a slang term.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/zEF1Lif.jpg)
