Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Scope brands vs old eyes

The side focus models are very nice for us older people.

As people age, there are a physiognomic changes that occur with the eyes. For reference, 65 is in my rearview mirror. As my screen name on here says, I compete in F-class competition and so I spend a great deal of time looking through my riflescope at a very specific target. I got one of the best high-magnification riflescopes on the planet 7 years ago and with it I specified a very thin reticle. That worked really well for me for several years but about 3 years ago, I started having problems seeing the reticle, especially the tiny dot in the middle. I arranged for the manufacturer to swap the reticle with one that has double the thickness. That made a world of difference. Earlier this year, I acquired what is arguably the very best high-magnification SFP scope and made sure it has the thicker reticle. It is pure joy to look through it. Crisp, clear and the IQ is magnificent.

Now, let's talk adjustments. All riflescopes of any worth have some type of adjustment for the ocular lens, which is usually referred to as a diopter adjustment. One has to understand that the ocular lens is an afocal optics which essentially means that the image is focused on your retina by your eye. So it is important to focus the image produced at the back of the erector tube (second focal plane) to your eye. This is accomplished using the diopter adjustment. All riflescopes seem to have a diopter range of about +2 to -2 or -3, or some such. Some have "fast focus" adjustment, others are much more precise. Either way, the range is essentially the same. Most riflescope makers will ship a new scope with the diopter set at -0.5. That's appropriate for normal vision, people who do not usually need corrective lenses. I have to adjust the diopter of the riflescope to match my prescription for reading. It's built into my bifocal glasses, but I know that mine is currently +1.5 in my right eye, but I'm not using that when I shoot. What most people seem to forget is that when you look through tour scope with your bifocals, you are not looking through the area in your glasses which are set for reading (the bottom of your glasses), you're actually looking through the top of your glasses and if you are and older geezer like me, you need some type of cheaters or bifocals to read. You're not using that portion of your glasses when looking through a riflescope. You have to adjust the diopter.

For the vast majority of people, their prescription changes very slowly over time. So what you do is adjust the diopter of the ocular to your eye once and you leave it alone for a long time, until your prescription changes a few years down the road. If you are fiddling with the ocular as a matter of course, you should remove the riflescope from your rifle and sell it because you do not know how to use it and you are just embarrassing yourself.

I am not a fan of fast-focus ocular because that only invites people to mess with it, but it can be handy if you lend your rifle to other people.

Now, once you have the ocular set so that you have a crisp clear picture of the reticle, the rest of the image is adjusted with either an adjustable objective at the front of the riflescope or the side focus knob. The principle of operation in these two mechanism is different but the goal remains the same, focus the objective image properly on the focal plane of the reticle.

An AO is less complicated, cheaper and usually more precise, but a side focus is easier to use. I have both types among my scopes and my match rifle has a side focus. It's important to learn how to use it, but let me say this, if you are messing with both the ocular and the side focus, you have issues and need to fix that.

Now for the comment about looking for "HD" in the lenses. That comment should be ignored and the one who perpetrated it should be chastised bitterly.

HD is simply not a thing, it is what is commonly referred to as "marketing fluff."

There is one type of glass that has made its way into the riflescope world starting about 13 years when March scopes introduced ED (Extra low Dispersion) glass in its riflescopes. Other manufacturers copied the move over time, but it's important to know what ED glass does for you and how to even recognize it. It makes the IQ much better, but it does not make it easier for older geezers, it does nothing for focusing on the reticle.

and just what kind of bitter chastization do you recommend?

never understood how a half blind man can see better with an expensive scope. I am nearsighted put on my glasses and have 20/20 vision. $100 dollar chinese scopes crystal clear some even without my glasses I am 68. I think these old guys that say they see better with expensive scopes woulda bought them when they were 18 if they had the money

I don't know if old eyes have anything to do with it, but I recently bit the bullet and bought a Tract Toric UHD 2-10x42. When comparing it to my Leupold VX-2 and 3 I could see the target much better with the Tract.

Don't know if I qualify as an old geezer or not but I am pushing 81 and have self qualified and self identified as an old curmudgeon. Gotta say the Leupold scopes I have on my rifles sure do work well and with my glasses on. They need adjusting every couple of years but I like to adjust them each spring. I do usually remove the glasses when I am watching deer through the binoculars.
Jim

you old coot lol. God bless you. there are a lot of ways to die before 81

that is an excellent scope. even a young guy would see some more detail

Sure are,, I've experienced several and it's His blessings that have sustained me!.

An excellent question to which I gave a lot of thought. For the completely misleading and useful-content-free post, StrayDog should be subjected to reading similar posts only. So I suggest that for the next 2 weeks, StrayDog can only read posts from Big Stick.

I know, I know, it's very cruel and somewhat unusual but one has to work with what's at hand.

I guess youre not reading the content here ds.......When I was 18 and using Leupolds I wasnt turning the eye piece focus all the way out and still needing more focus, now I am. Has nothing to do with expense and expense has nothing to do with focus.

As I explained earlier, the vast majority of riflescopes have an adjustment range of about +2 to -2 or -3 or similar diopter. Can I ask what your prescription is? What kind of cheaters are you using to read?

ETA: I went back to the OP and saw that you mention +2.5 readers. That may be beyond the range of adjustment for most riflescopes. Have you tried using the cheaters while looking through the riflescope?

FTR Thanks for the useful input..... Yep I'm using 2.5x cheaters and my distance vision is great...Does diopter relate to what cheater glasses you need for close up reading?

I have tried using my cheaters with my scope and that does allow me to focus the crosshairs just fine but then the target becomes blurry.

I guess I could try the cheap $100 Chinese scopes like SPQR70AD suggests but then the first night out in the cold truck and in or wet weather I wouldnt be able to see through it due to fogging. But if my only shooting was on sunny days at the range I guess Chinese scopes would be just fine.

Yes. The cheaters that you buy at the store are rated by diopter settings, not magnification. So your 2.5X is actually a +2.5 diopter. When you can't see far, the prescription will be in negative territory. For instance my distance prescription is -1.5 but i need a +1.5 to read, hence the bifocals; negative on top, positive at the bottom.

I believe, the numbers are cumulative, so when you wear cheaters and look through them into the riflescope, you should get the extra diopters and be able to focus. Of course you can't see crap outside the scope. You mentioned that you were able to focus one scope. It probably has a wider diopter adjustment range in its ocular.

You might consider getting very weak cheaters to see if you can reach the proper focus turned at max, and still not be too blurry fir distance, or knock out the left lens.

You might research getting an add-on lens at the ocular to increase the diopter correction.

I'll check a few places to see if there's a solution for you.

I have the exact opposite issue. I just flat out don’t see well through Swarovski and see great through Leupold. And I’m not denigrating Swarovski, I know they make excellent product.

Bingo! You hit that on the head. I've got several Leupolds and Several Nikons. Three of the Nikons have Side Parallax adjustments and one Leupold has side adjustment and another Leupold has an adjustable Objective. I think they both do the same thing. But those 5 scopes make it easy to keep them in focus. I've got 4 Leupold VX-3is without parallax adjustment and I have to play with my occular lens some to stay in focus. I'm 72 and it's not as easy to compensate for my old eyes without it. Any new scopes I buy, especially variables, I will require some sort of Parallax adjustment, whether it be side adjustment knob or AO, I don't really care.

As for different brands, as far as I can tell I see about the same through all of my scopes regardless of brand. I sometimes have focus issues with any scope regardless of brand. That's called age.

This thread should really be the avatar for the saying "all eyes are different."
It's one of the things the riflescope makers have to contend with, trying to make their products usable by everyone, or at least a large section of the market. But like all such things, different people will have different experiences using them.

I believe the OP's problem with his Leupold is that his close up vision needs +2.5 diopters of correction and the Leupold probably has a maximum of +2 diopters of adjustments in the ocular lens. So stretching it to the limit gets the OP close to focus, but not there, not and thus not crisp. On the other hand, the OP says that he can get a crisp reticle image with the Swarovski, which would lead one to believe the Swaro has a wider range of adjustment than the Leupold.

Now we get more empirical data from you saying that you have observed the exact opposite. Would you be so kind as to let us know which exact models of riflescopes you are talking about and what your near vision prescription adjustment is. From that, we can try to see what's what, so to speak.

FTR

Good information. When adjusting a scope I focus or correct for paralax first and then adjust the ocular or diopter lense. Am I doing this backwards? It is the opposite order from what you described.

My solution especially for low light is to go to a bolder recticle like the German #4 or heavy duplex.

You are doing it in the reverse order. Let me explain. The scopes function is to present to the eye an image where the target and the reticle are merged into the same focal plane. The one thing that doesn't change, or just rarely as your eye changes is the focus setting for the reticle. As I explained earlier, that portion of the riflescope is afocal, which essentially means the image coming from the ocular lens is not focused but rather the light rays are parallel and the eye itself will focus the image on the retina. So adjusting the diopter setting for the ocular is something that you do once to allow for the correction needed by your eye to see objects up close remembering that the merged image of the target and the reticle is just a few inches in front of you.

So you should ALWAYS adjust the ocular diopter setting to get the best, crispest image of the reticle and then leave it there. Don't touch it again unless your close vision prescription changes.

Now, once that is set, you use the parallax adjustment, which is really just a fancy term for "focus" so that you get the best, clearest image of the target. As we all know, the distance to the target can vary a lot and for that, we have either and AO, a side focus, or the manufacturer has chosen to set the focus at a distance that will fall nicely into the depth of field of the scope and thus present an pretty clear image at all distances.

Once the ocular is set, you should only ever play with the side focus. If you actually believe that you can only get the best image by combining adjustments between the ocular and the side focus (or AO), you should immediately return the scope to the manufacturer as it is defective.

AZmark, I'm in my mid-60's and need glasses but get by with 2.75 readers. My problem is, the cross hairs on most scopes today are too fine for old eyes like mine. Hard to pick up deer's vitals, in dim light, against wooded background. Okay in bright daylight in a field. I messed around with half a dozen scopes until I happened upon the Weaver Classics, V7 and V10. The reticle has your normal bold outer hairs, but it has a smaller, bolder crosshair than anything I've seen, other than muzzleloader or shotgun scopes. It has really made a difference for me in the deep dark woods. Unfortunately, Weaver has been bought out by the company that makes Bushnells and Simmons (scopes I do not care for). They're all bought up now, but you can find one here and there on E-bay.