Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Internal Scope Mechanics

For the writers, are there articles that discuss the internal mechanics of optics and describe the pros and cons of different systems? I've not seen an article like this. I would like to see such an article.

Right now Im' trying to figure out what differences (if any) between a Leupold VX2 and the VX3. I want this scope for shooting at distance so elevation and windage adjustments need to be reliable and repeatable. So how do I spend my money wisely? I've not needed a scope like this before so is a VX2 good enough? If I knew the mechanics of the internals of these scopes I could make an informed decision. Where can I find this type info? I've read that Sightron has reliable and repeatable elevation/windage adjustments......what is the mechanics that work well on those scopes?

Anyone know of a website where you can find this type info? If not, could we get an article?.....or series of articles on this subject?

An excellent inquiry that I will follow. Thanks for bringing it up.

I'd be studying that closely, too. It would be very interesting and highly educational. Don't recall ever seeing very much along those lines.

I believe JB has a book on this that will be available in the near future.

Hope we get lots of information on this. So many makes, so many models, such a spread in prices. I've had pretty good luck with Leopold. Vari-xIII, vx2 and vx3. Have also had to send three, if I remember right, of them in for service when they quit tracking right. They were promptly repaired and returned.

Ah, yes, the elephant in the living room - mechanical reliability.

While everybody seems to be talking about which scope is best suited to seeing individual hairs on an animal's ass at 600 yards, I want the danged reticle to stay put, and move only when and where it's supposed to.

Paul

Great comment....The heart of the matter....frequently ignored.

Factories use somewhat different variations on the same basic mechanical theme for their adjustments. In my experience the big difference isn't in the exact system used, but how much effort it takes to turn the dials, and how firm and even audible the clicks are.

Easy-turning dials with wimpy-feeling clicks indicate weak springs and small click detents, both of which are likely to make scope adjustment imprecise, partly because the springs don't exert enough pressure to push the erector tube firmly--or hold it in place.

John isn't there newer, better, technology for the internal construction of variable powered scopes?

Seems we have been working with the same basic designs for a long time now.No better way to do it?

I recall a newer system a few years back with a gimble or something in Simmons scopes (?) that seems to have faded from the scene.

The present systems use a gimbal at one end of the erector tube, with springs opposite the turrets, and in fixed-power scopes as well as variables.

The Simmons system used a heavy-duty spring at one end of erector tube, set up so the tube could flex in any direction. Both the gimbal and the individual springs opposite the turret were eliminated.

I got to test a prototype and it worked very well, despite the fact that in the prototype they reversed the elevation marks on the turret. But apparently it didn't sell, perhaps because combining the words "Simmons" and "revolutionary" didn't cause most people to whip out their credit cards.

JB-
A couple of weeks ago while I was looking for an article in a 2005 Rifle magazine, I came across your review of the Simmons scope (Rifle #222, p.14, Nov 2005). The Simmons website still shows the new features that you described as being available on some of their current scope products. They call it TrueZero�: [color:#0000ff]Simmons scope features[/color]

Is there any information about whether the current Simmons scopes are as mechanically reliable as your test sample from eight years ago?

I think that Bushnell owns Simmons. Has there been (will there be?) any transfer of the technology to some of Bushnell's higher-end scopes?

Thanks.
--Bob

This? I bought it several years ago, and never mounted it. Didn't MD say that the prototypes were pretty good, but the production not so much. I don't remember clearly if it was he I heard it from.

Paul

I never tested one of the production ProHunter scopes, but it does look like the TruZero system is same as used in the ProHunter.

Here is an article describing some of the types of erector tube
springs:

http://www.opticstalk.com/what-makes-swarovski-better_topic19469.html

My thought was/is that we read and learn about every detail of hunting rifles and how they function inside and out......so why not scopes where we can make informed purchase decisions.

I am first and foremost a hunter but am secondly an accuracy nut and I have spent literally YEARS trying to wring accuracy out of lightweight hunting rifles and have learned a few hard bought lessons and literally wasted years learning about the lack of reliability regarding erector systems in scopes.

Very, very few of them work reliably enough to maintain sub 1/2" groups on lightweight rifles shooting stiff loads pushing bullets in the 120gr to 165gr weight class.

I've seen a LOT of erector systems quit functioning over the past 40 years and a whole boat load of them have simply been sold or traded off when they wouldn't adjust precisely at the range.

Is it too much to ask for a scope to weigh less than 16 ounces, survive hunting on a lightweight rifle for a few long seasons, and still move the bullet 1/4" in the selected direction when one click is effected on the adjustment knobs?

What does a man need to spend to get that to happen with reasonable reliability in a scope that is small and light enough to be a big game hunting scope?

I have owned a whole boatload of scopes that seemed to have great optics, great weight for power and field of view, great ergonomics,only to fail miserably when I started turning dials.

I won't say that cost is NOT an object when I buy a scope but I've been largely ignoring cost as I climbed the ladder of scopes and it seems that as I reach into the tactical lines of the higher end Leupold scopes, the irregularities of reticle adjustments start disappearing and I have a Nightforce here that seems to be absolutely ROCK SOLID, albeit a bit heavy and clunky. But it looks really cool and all tactically neato.... LOL

I look forward to John's book. I have lived a very frustating life for the last 15 years and have gone through an easy 50 scopes and they all seem to disappoint. I guess I would have been better off buying nothing but ultra high end scopes right from the get go but "conventional wisdom" didn't point me in that direction.

I've owned Swarovski, Zeiss, Leupold, Bushnell, Nightforce, Simmons, Tasco, Nikon, Burris, Redfield, and a boatload of other brands and have almost NEVER been satisfied with what I used other than a couple of sho 'nuff serious benchrest scopes that I sold and later was sorry I did even if they made lousy big game hunting scopes.

Bob

Hola John!

Interestingly enough, I have a Leica 3.5-14x with a BT that moves around so easily that you can't even feel or hear the clicks. And I have never had a scope before that tracks so well!

I use two rubber bands to put some tension on the dial still allowing to move it but ensuring that it stays put. Not very classy looks for a Leica, but it works.

To my surprise, I have to admit, but no other Swaro, Leupold or Zeiss that I have or have had can compare to the precision of adjustment of this Leica. I am about to receive one of the new ER-i which comes with a locking device to the BT.

Alvaro

Dragging out an old one here , but it shows others are interested in the info .
I cannot find a proper report on the various makes of scopes in regard to how they are constructed internally .
There is more than one manufacturer that has used a two-spring system in the past , what is the current production using ?
Anyone ?

Yes. A Consumer's Report for shooters would be something that I'd buy.

If John or some other reputable testers did it, maybe.

The "real" Consumer Reports is a suckass farce.....