What advantages/disadvantages are there between 30mm and 1" tubes for someone who doesn't adjust the elevation knob after sighting in?

None. The 30mm tube exists to allow more room for windage and elevation adjustment.

I think ingwe is correct in that being the biggest advantage of the 30mm tube. I think at one time 30mm was used for ease of internal access while building the scope, but I don't think that's a factor anymore.

I was thinking on this just yesterday and I haven't researched....someone else answer it for me:

If a 1" tube and a 30mm tube have the same wall thickness, which will be the stronger of the two?

It seems like I remember from long ago that a smaller tube with the same wall thickness will be stronger...but it's an old memory that is suspect.... Direction of force applied may need to be factored in.

The weight of a 30 mm tube would be a disadvantage.

Personally, it is easier for me to quickly find the target in the larger tube. It's more forgiving.

Also, comparing the same magnification scopes, the larger tubes seems to be brighter than the one-inch tube. Maybe it is because there is more light coming through.

IMO, the only advantage on the smaller tube is the lighter weight.

Um.....no....

Um.....yes.....

The 30mm tubes offer no advantage in terms of light transmission. That's simple science. But it is likely that some people are under that impression because they've compared 30mm-tubed scopes that are higher quality items and produce an image that "looks" better/brighter than a lesser 1-inch offering.

LOL!!!

I love my 1" Swaro's and can not even imagine paying more for a heavier scope without a major increase in magnification. Don't tell anyone but.... I shoot low to standard power variable powered scopes i.e. 2-7, 3-9 etc. It is a bad habit I know.

Exactly!

Larger outer diameter is stronger.

In general, the additional weight of tube & larger rings.

Its easy to market and sell "bigger is better" to Americans...

Not sure if this is already been addressed, however I've wondered if the reason that European makers commonly use the 30 mm tube diameter simply because it is a standard for them? Not for any other perceived virtues? That is, not because it is necessarily better than a 1 inch diameter tube

And illumination. Can't say that I've seen a 1" scope with an illuminated reticle.


Okie John

LOL to you too.

I always laugh at those that disagree with other member opinion but have no valid point to provide. Basically, all they provide is a worthless comment that has no value to anyone.

At least I voiced my personal opinion and why 30mm works for me.

You, on the other hand, cant even verbalize a full sentence. Assuming that you are a Millennial living out of your momma's basement so that may be a valid excuse for your worthless comments.

Those are both good points. They answer the question posed in my other post on this thread.

No..no..now wait a minute. A "LOL" will get one's post count up just the same as lengthy response.

Its been discussed on here many times before. Some should read more and post less

PS I moved out of the basement at 17 almost 40 years ago

--

They aren't real common, but the Kahles KX-i and Meopta MeoPro 3.5-10x44/4C are a couple of one-inch illuminated offerings that come to mind.

Advantage:
Stronger tube, more robust.
Adjustment range is typically larger than in 1" tubes, although not always. (This can be relavent even if one does not plan to dial firing solutions.)
Until relatively recently, 30mm tubed scopes were of an overall higher quality optical system...Zeiss, Swaro, Leica, S&B, etc.

Disadvantages:
Prices are typically higher
Weight can be if one is trying to keep overall weight at an anorexic level.

The Campfire always continues to amaze:

There are plenty of 1" illuminated-reticle scopes, and have been for years.

There have been plenty of 30mm scopes in all price ranges for quite a while, so no 30mm scopes aren't brighter because the optics are higher quality. (As a side-point, 30mm scopes got the reputation of being brighter became an advertising agency decided to sell the myth that they "transmit" more light through the larger tube back in the early 1990's. Back then this had a kernel of truth, because the scopes the advertising was promoting wre made by a high-quality Euro-company.)

Ease of "getting behind" a scope depends on the exit pupil and eye relief, which combine to create the "eye box." These have nothing to do with the size of the tube.

Many Euro-scopes used 30mm tubes because that's the standard size they settled on. In America we settled on 1".

I think a 30 looks better on a rifle.
Like a little meat on the bone if ya know what I mean.....

Maybe I wasn't clear enough: for those who think a 30mm tube is brighter/transmits more light, take two SIMILAR optics and compare them. Take a Summit and a Klassik in similar configurations and compare them. You'll "see" similar performance from both in terms of "brightness." The 30mm does not have an advantage.

So, no, 30mm tubes don't transmit more light. And John, yea, cheap 30mm scopes are out there and have been for years -- certainly not in great quantities but out there nonetheless. When most folks think of 30mm scopes, Zeiss, Swaro, S&B, Kahles and Meopta likely come to mind. Barska is likely not the first thing they thought of LOL...

I never said ALL 30mm scopes have superior optics in comparison to 1" offerings (yep, the 'fire amazes me, too ). My statement, in fact, was due to numerous folks making apples-to-oranges comparisons. It stands to reason if they claim to have actually seen a marked difference that they have compared scopes of varying optical qualities, another reason for my comment. Think about it for a moment: Had they compared a 1" Simmons 8-point to some $29 clamshell scope with a 30mm tube, they likely wouldn't be making the erroneous claim.

Recently, on another forum, someone made the "30mm scopes transmit more light" argument because he had used nothing but Vari-X IIs for years and suddenly looked through a VX-6. Similar comparisons have been made here -- and in error, I might add.

No one has mentioned the first plane reticle common in the Euro 30 mm scopes. The reticle size stays the same size in relation to the target which they tell me is some advantage in helping judge distance. Frankly that very large appearing cross-hair irks me a little in my 2.5-10x42 Swarovski in the higher power settings. Those European hunters get to hunt way longer into the evening than we typically can here and I wanted a very good light gathering scope, which it is, but due more to the coating on the lenses than the 30 mm tube size. My little 1" tube Leupold 1.5-5x20 Vari-X lll with the heavy Duplex comes in a very close second as a low light scope which surprised me. Not being able to see the standard cross-hair against an early morning deer with a Leupold 2.5-8x36 had me looking for something better.

I apologize for not being specific in my response earlier.

Mule Deer explained it. There is not more light coming through for scopes with the same objective size and power in regard to the exit pupil. Differences in glass quality and coatings (and number of lenses) may allow a higher percentage of light to pass through but the exit pupil size is the same (same power and objective size). It's not a water hose where a bigger tube allows more water through than a smaller tube. As Mule Deer mentioned, the eye relief (especially coupled with a generous exit pupil) make some scopes easier to get behind...but again, it's not the tube size.

Thanks. I'm not sure but I think I'd heard some argument for a smaller action diameter (bolt action) with the same wall thickness being stronger than a larger one with the same thickness. Even then, I'd guess the strength would be measured to standing up to internal pressure, not external like a scope....but I could be mis-remembering....again... grin Thanks again.

It depends.

There is a ratio of wall thickness to tube diameter that determines the strength of the tube. Aircraft manufacturers and such have it figured out, including space the tube occupies and it's weight.

Given the same wall thickness, I would think the difference between 1" vs 30mm would be negligible in a practical way for scopes.

I had no idea. Checking them out now.


Okie John

With all due respect to your knowledge and experience, I have to slightly disagree.

As I said, considering the same glass quality, same magnification, eye relief etc: (let's say two 2-10x50 scopes), comparing one-inch tube and 30mm tube, it will always be easier to get behind the larger scope simply has more viewing.

1 inch (25.4mm) = A≈20.27
30mm = A≈28.27

as you can see, the 30mm scope has almost 40% more see-through space over one-inch tube so clearly, it will always be easier to get behind the bigger scope.

Same for the light coming through the scope, considering everything else is the same, there will be a more light coming through the larger tube whether your eye can notice it or not. This is not my opinion, this is just pure physics.

Obviously, not all optics are built equal and you can find high-quality one-inch scopes and junk quality 30mm scopes but as I stated in my first post, for my personal use, high quality 30mm scope would provide some benefit over the same quality one-inch scope.

So for those not seeing any benefit by going with anything larger than a one-inch tube, that's fine with me.

30-30 rifles with iron sights killed more game than all the 30mm scopes combined so if that is what works for you keep using 30-30, or one-inch scopes ... or iron sights.

A stream of light doesn't pass through a rifle scope like a water hose. Read and study a bit.

Simple image below, but pay attention to the size of the stream of light coming out of the scope. It has nothing to do with tube size. Think objective size and power/magnification.

I have done enough reading and studying in my life and made living based on math/physics/programming so if you personally don't have a basic knowledge of physics/science, please do not assume that everyone else is clueless about those things.

And while bigger may not always be better, there is a reason why those leading manufacturers are using bigger tubes even for lower magnification scopes that do not need much elevation adjustments.

Anyway, just call Nightforce and they will explain to you why they don't make any one-inch scope since based on your expertise there is no benefit to larger tubes.

Again, since you don't get it. Same objective size and magnification size scopes compared, a larger tube will provide more light and viewing space. I know it may be hard to understand for non-technical people but it is what it is.

Sorry, I can only bring a horse to a water ... but some won't still drink it.

It's been explained and simplified to pictures......believe as you will.

Do you have a PhD or Masters in Optics? If so what school did you go to?

So now I need a PhD or a Master in optics? Hahaha, you don't need a PhD in optics to understand the basics.

You are all arguing and insulting but none of you won't provide anything to prove me otherwise. Just stick to your iron sights, its fine with me.

No, it is not. Well, it is physics, but you've got it wrong. From what you've described, it doesn't sound like you even know what's inside a scope or how they work.

Larger objective lenses do transmit more light. Larger tube diameters do not.

I have both, both are great!!

So 51mm objective in one-inch tube will provide more light to my eye than 50mm objective in 30mm or 34mm tube?

Hahaha, just when you thought that dumb cant get any dumber ...

[quote=ShakyHands]
, this is just pure physics.

Yes indeed, and you must have slept through the section in physics 101 that covered the focusing of light

ShakyHands, please explain to us your understanding of how an exit pupil is calculated.

OMG, what part of the exit pupil not being related to light transmission you don't understand?

Look dumbo, when you look through a scope at night you will see nothing regardless of your exit pupil size because there is no light coming through.

If tube diameter mattered to light transmission, why aren't all scopes straight tubes???

Just another know-it-all to put on Ignore. It’s not worth the effort to convince this type.

I have no idea why this is suddenly an argument, except argument has become a campfire
tradition and trademark...

I'm 65 now....and I've had a Cataract lens done on one eye...

Having used 1 inch tubes pretty much all of my life, I find myself having to squint
to see them, where in the past I hadn't....

So I've ended up with some 30 mm tubed scopes...

I don't have to squint to see thru those, especially at distance or on higher powers
like I have to do on the 1 inch scope tubes.. which include Leupold 3 x 9s.

and no, my eyes don't have a PhD in Optics, however they seem to have a preference
in what works for them now, vs in the past...

and as far as them being heavier, and popular in Europe... isn't most hunting in Europe
done at dusk and twilight, or under the full moon.. where hunters are stationary instead
of being pretty mobile like here stateside?

And that's a question, not a statement...

ShakyHands,

The problem with your "calculations" is the only occasions when the light passing through a 1" scope is at all constricted by the main tube is when the magnification's so low (below about 6x in a typical scope with a 40mm objective lens) the exit pupil is far larger than the human eye can use anyway.

I've proven this many times by actually measuring the exit pupil at various magnifications on many scopes. Above 6x, a typical 40mm-objective scope follows the same basic optical rule, regardless of whether it has a 30mm or 1" tube: Dividing the objective lens diameter by the magnification results in the exit pupil diameter. This means the light path is NOT restricted by the tube diameter, but by the internal optics.

Below 6x the exit pupil of the same scope may be constricted by the tube diameter, but is still far larger than the expanded pupil of the human eye.

--

This might be THE dumbest thing I have read in a while. But you know, I am aware of a few dozen hogs that only wish you were right. But you are NOT.

Here's a recent fly in your ointment, so to speak...taken around 9:30 p.m. with maybe 50 percent moon:

ohhh, boy............

If the QUALITY is identical, then ABSOLUTELY, a 30 mm tube will allow more light to transmit. For any of you keyboard cowboys that think otherwise, please study more, or ask your local Swarovski representative...

If your Swaro rep is telling you that, he needs to find another line of work. Absolutely false info.

The 30MM tube is a more robust handle......

You are right, exit pupil and light transmission are different things. But neither have anything to do with tube size. If you divide the front objective size by the scopes magnification the number you get is the diameter of the beam of light that exits the rear of the scope. A 40mm scope set on 4X = a 10mm beam of light regardless of whether or not the tube is 1" or 30mm. A beam of light 10mm in diameter is less than 1/2" and will easily fit through a 1" tube .

Each person is different, but most of us can only use 5-6 mm of light, any more is wasted. A 40mm scope set on 7x or 8X allows about 5 or 6mm of light to come through. If you want more magnification in low light you need a bigger front objective. But even going up to a 50mm objective will only benefit the user when the scope is set on 9X. At 10X it lets exactly the same amount of light through as a 40mm scope on 8X.. On magnifications less than 8x it does let more light through, but more than the human eye can use. If you are using a scope, or binoculars, with an exit pupil of 4 or less it can be much more difficult to position the eye to see through the scope. But once again, the tube size is irrelevant.

But none of this predicts how BRIGHT the light beam is. That is determined by the QUALITY of the scope lenses, not the size of the tube. The size of the beam of light and how bright it appears are 2 different things. Light transmission is much more difficult to measure and you see conflicting numbers. But as a general rule budget scopes let around 80-85% of the light that enters the scope exit the rear. Decent mid range scopes are in the low to mid 90% range and high end stuff in the 95%+ range. But once again the tube size is completely irrelevant.

It appears that ShakyHands is going to give Cummins Cowboy a run for his money in terms of optics knowledge. Just sayin....

Just when you thought that you have heard it, a guy will show up and will post a picture of a dead hog harvested under the moonlight to prove you that somehow an exit pupil size is related to the light transmission.

Maybe you can design a spotting scope with 95mm objective built on top of a one-inch tube that can be used in full darkness. It will be very light and very bright and you will have a best seller for sure.

Maybe they should redesign the Hubble Telescope because a one-inch tube provides as much light as big fat telescope ... LOL

I made NO mention of transmission or exit pupil. I simply responded to your ridiculous comment that you can't see ANYTHING through a scope at night. And by the way, I've used a 1" 3-9x40 Conquest with a #4 reticle to accomplish the very same feat. I also did so wiith 2 different Kahles. With an Elite 3200...with a Burris 3.5-10x50...should I go on???

I don't care what scope you have used because clearly, you just don't get it, when I wrote that "when you look through a scope at night you will see nothing regardless of your exit pupil size", clearly it was meant a complete darkness, not under the moonlight.

So yeah, for the stupid, there are some nights where there is some light available and there are nights when you don't see schit.

But regardless, an exit pupil is unrelated to the light transmission and that was my point so please stop twisting my words ... unless you want to prove something even more stupid than posting a picture of your dead hog.

it's a damn wonder anyone asks a question in the Optic forum. lol

http://www.nightforceoptics.com/news/see-light-light-transmission

shakeyhands hope you stick around for the comic relief.

Good article but nothing really new there.

Obviously, having a quality scope is important and understanding that high-quality glass (coatings etc) is not easy to manufacture was one of the main reasons I was always skeptical and bashing Tract Optics for spamming this forum with their junks products.

Clearly, two guys running a business out of their garage won't be able to source the best glass just to assemble it for cheap by the Chinaman. Why would any of the best manufactures ever sell their so hard to make high-quality products to someone just to undersell them right? Can you even imagine Zeiss, Swarovski or even MeOpta selling their best glass to some smartass at some huge discount?

Anyway, to wrap this up, and again, just for me personally, there is a benefit of using 30mm tube (or even larger) over a one-inch tube.

If that's not the case for you, and for those still in denial, stick to your one-inch tubes (or your iron sights) and I'm sure that your exit pupil will let you hunt in complete darkness with your one-inch tube LOL.

Given equal wall thickness, larger outer diameter adds strength. Of course weight and space are considerations in many applications, but the simple rule of wall thickness and outerdiameter holds true based on the elastic modulus.

You have your OPINION. Many of us here have cold, hard facts, and the FACT is that -- all else being equal -- a scope with a 30mm tube is NOT going to transmit more light than one with a 1" tube. .

It really isn't debatable, either. It's solid, demonstrable science.

The 30mm tube has some advantages, none of which are more light transmission; first, the 30mm tube of equal thickness is more rigid than a 1" tube. Second, they allow you to use lower rings with larger objective lenses again making a more rigid total package. The biggest advantage of them is the larger tube allows MORE elevation and windage adjustment. This is also why the really high-end tactical scopes are 34, 35 and 40mm tubes. I think US Optics even has 50mm tubes.

Disadvantages are more expensive, heavier and, in some cases, less pleasing to the eye.

The European scopes have had 30mm tubes mostly because 30 is a nice round number in metric. 1" is a nice round number in our system. 30mm sounds better than 1 3/16".

Since switching to a 30mm tube on my 30-40 Krag, I can see the bullet flying through the air!

Try that schit with a 1" tube fellas...

So if 30mm lets in more light, given identical objective lens, where does the extra light go that doesn't make it to the ocular lens in the 1" tube?

I currently have 4 30mm tubes and 1 34 mm tube, just traded one of my 30's off one of the cheap SWFA 1-4's so I have both 1" and larger tubes. Keep this in mind there shaky, the only reaction the light has with the sides of the tube is in the form of extraneous refractions that arise due to imperfections in the optics. Thus some light that enters the rifle scope is not focused as it is intended to be into the designed optical path. This extraneous or non focused light is simply not usable or detrimental and the tube is deliberately coated or baffles are inserted to absorb this optical noise.

At low illumination (before dawn and after dusk) there is an optimum scope magnification that produces an exit pupil size equal to the eye pupil. This optimum magnification increases with the objective diameter. A magnification below this value reduces the target size. A higher magnification reduces the pupil size, reducing image brightness and contrast. The size of the scope tube has nothing to do with image brightness.

http://www.highpoweroptics.com/optics-tutorial-i-55.html

but please don't be offended and keep up the good work as this place would not be the same without you and a few others like you. At times I am reminded of that movie "the burbs" here on the fire. On the other hand if your at all interested in a reasonable course of action then asking questions instead of asserting positions that you "feel" are right sometimes is wiser, but again you might be a democrat, so either way we cannot lose, comic relief or knowledgeable discussion both are worthwhile!

or have extraneous refractions of the brain.....

Sasha and Abby,

Is your local Swarovski rep still comparing a 30mm tube to a larger-diameter water hose?

I knew the advertising guy who came up with the "30mm tubes allow more light" quite well. He started the campaign in the early 1990's, convincing a generation of shooters that light was some sort of liquid that flowed like water through a hose. But it isn't. Instead light rays are bent by lenses, the reason the objective lens focuses the light entering the scope at a point in front of the erector lenses, well inside the interior dimensions of a 30mm tube.

The light rays then have to pass through the erector lenses, which are inside an even smaller tube inside the scope. In some (but not all) 30mm scopes, the erector tube is just as small as in a 1" scope--which is how 30mm scopes end up with more adjustment range.

The ad guy was FOS in a bunch of ways. He once bragged to me about how his custom .338-06 was the greatest plains-game cartridge ever, because he took it to Africa and killed four animals with one shot each. I replied that my wife had done the same thing with a .30-06. He blinked a little, then went on to tell me how his special handloading techniques boosted his .338-06's velocities to match the .3338 Winchester Magnum. I asked him about those special techniques, and he said he used special charges of a special powder. A few minutes later, however, he asked why the spent primers of his handloads sometimes fell out after firing a round.

His advertising claim of light acting like water through a hose was discredited (easily) within a couple of years, and Swarovski dropped the ad campaign. But apparently it still lives on among the minds of some shooters.

well!!!!

I had no idea that this would cause such an argument. I think MD explained it best.

I believe that for me I will be sticking to the 1" tubes. I appreciate the knowledgeable responses and the comic relief.

Again, a good article but nothing new in that and once again, does not prove that exit pupil size is somehow related to the light transmission.

We can argue here all year long but clearly, there are benefits to larger tubes otherwise companies like Zeiss would not use 36mm tubes (almost twice the size of a one-inch tube) for even close range 1-8 scopes as nobody needs a hundred inches of elevation in those scopes so clearly, working with bigger tubes (and more light inside the tube) has some benefits otherwise I'm sure Zeiss would make this scope with a much smaller tube to save weight and 50% of their expensive glass material becasue even one-inch tube can be made very durable.

So again, stick to your one-inch scopes because there are no benefits to anything bigger than that and you will be a fool to carry the extra weight around.

ShakyHands,

Your posts continue to become more entertaining.

Zeiss's own website specifically mentions, several times, the wide adjustment range of the 36mm tube.

It also mentioned 92% light transmission, as if that were exceptional. It is at the high end, but not unique to 36mm or even 30mm scope tubes. In the optics business, light transmission is measured with an integrating sphere, and a number of scopes have tested at 90% plus light transmission, including many with 1" tubes.

Keep 'em coming. We're rolling in the aisles.

There's only one way to be sure why Zeiss uses 36 mm tubes. And you're not.

Again, a good article but nothing new in that and once again, does not prove that exit pupil size is somehow related to the light transmission.

you have to be someone's sock puppet here just for entertainment purposes. Thank you for the laugh.

ShakyHands? More like ShakyLogic.

You seem to be stuck on the idea of there's "more light inside the tube" because the tube is bigger per se, and that simply isn't it.

Mule Deer, yes there is a wide adjustment range of the 36mm tube across the Victory line but based on your own interpretation, there is no benefit to that inside a 1-8 close range scope and I'm sure that Zeiss would choose a much smaller tube size for this scope specifically if there was no benefit to 36mm tube over one-inch tube other than the elevation adjustment benefits.

Additionally, again with all due respect, you were the one trying to convince me and others that it is not easier to "get behind" larger tube in comparable size scopes so I would suggest to stop adding wood to this campfire because your own credibility is being diminished.

No, you're not sure, you're guessing. Any manufacturer makes products for one reason--consumer demand.

But keep guessing, it's good entertainment for a Monday morning. Thanks!!

ShakyHands,

Good to know about my credibility!

From now on, whenever I write about optics I'll consult you. Thanks for the tip.

Again you believe it's the larger tube per se, and that's not it.

One of the easiest (if not the easiest) to "get behind" scopes around is the 6x42 Leupold, 1" tube and all.

I'm 30mm hole is a new handle for one of the previous idiots on the campfire, just not sure which one.

If tube outside diameter made a difference then it would be demonstrable. I compared a 34mm VX-6, a 30mm 6500, and a 1" z5 for low light performance. All three went down at the same time. Outside diameter doesn't make any difference.

I want to thank Mr Shaky. For those of us who want to learn, he is providing some incredible teaching moments.

Let's summarize the vast forum knowledge and provide an answer for the original poster.

Assuming that we are comparing the same size 1" and 30mm scopes made by the same manufacturer using the same quality optics, same magnification, same eye relief, same objective size etc.

Glass Clarity
By using identical optics, there is no benefit to larger diameter scopes

Light Transmission
Light transmission is always identical as long you maintain the same exit pupil and 30mm, 34mm, 36mm or any larger tube will not transmit more light through the scope.

Weight
Obviously, the smaller diameter one-inch scope should provide weight savings and you would be foolish to carry anything heavier around.

Target Acquisition / Getting Behind Scope
While I disagree, the forum agrees that one-inch scope will be as fast and easy to get behind as any larger tube. MuleDeer can explain and we all agree that one-inch Loopy 6x fixed scope is the easiest scope to get behind ever produced.

Exit Pupil Size
This one is the kicker. As long you maintain the proper pupil size, you will be able to shoot wild hogs under very limited moonlight or even in complete darkness and there is no benefit to larger tube scopes and it is all about exit pupil size.

Elevation/Windage Adjustments
Larger diameter tubes may (not always) provide more elevation/windage adjuments and we all agree that this is the only reason why one should consider larger scopes. That being said, even a one-inch scope can get you very far and you should only consider anything larger than one-inch scope if you are planning on shooting way past 1000 yards. It has been done with one-inch scopes and even with iron sights, so don't waste your time/money on bigger scopes.

Durability
Some members were arguing that larger diameter tube may provide an increased durability but we all know that even one-inch scopes can be made very durable so I would say there is no benefit to larger tubes.

Summary
Other than the extreme elevation/windage adjustments for long range shooting, the only reason why manufacturers make larger diameter scopes is because that is what consumer demands(@smokepole) and any benefits to larger glass is a myth and marketing scam produced by an advertising agency back int he 90's (@Mule Deer).

Clearly, only long-range shooters should consider a scope with a tube larger than one-inch and anyone else owning anything bigger is a fool that fell for a marketing scam.

Your summary is BS. You've twisted the meaning of what others have said, and you still cling to the belief that it's the tube size by itself that governs.

Summary: Either you know better and you're being a douchebag, or you don't know better but keep on anyway and you're an idiot.

Naw, he's just another Internet troll.

That's funny. I'm an internet troll huh?

I have at least provided a response to the original poster that has been challenged by you and some others. While you have challenged my opinion/response, you have not even responded to the OP and provided zero value to this topic other than your "advertising agency myth" quote and the BS that light transmission is based on the exit pupil size non-sense.

So who is an internet troll here huh?

you really have done nothing other than convince everyone that your either a moron or a troll.

Most of us here on the forums had this figured out in second grade and we didn't even know it. No matter what diameter magnifying glass we used we were able to adjust the distance from the ant to focus the suns rays into a concentrated beam to cook 'm. You could put that same beam of light through a cardboard tube 1", 2" or if you were burning German ants, 30mm diameter. It didn't matter, you could still get all that light focused on those little boogers and not burn the tube, or your hands if you were careful. Amazing.

Say again where that lost light goes in a 1" tube?

or maybe the sockpuppet of someone else here that knows better.

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the post about calculated vs measured exit pupil size showing whether or not the light passing through the scope is being affected by the tube size.

Calling the exit pupil scientific FACT "non-sense" (hint: one word (nonsense) STUPID), clearly puts you in clearly the IDIOT or TROLL category...

I have a hunch we are going to see some doubling down shortly.

Another internet classic.

When you run out of valid facts/arguments, always switch to name calling insults or call in the Grammar Nazi police.

Now go buy more of those small penis enlargement pills that you have been using unsuccessfully for so long because clearly, you are still suffering from the small-dicka syndrome you were born with.

Shaky, you really need to quit while our behind.....way behind.

We'll have to add reading comprehension to the rest of your resume. Exit pupil as it refers to light transmission IS a FACT....STUPID...

Hey, I was done with this thread until personal insults start coming my way.

We can argue and disagree about stuff, but I'm never the first one calling names or insulting others. You should talk to those losers that are doing that.

That being said, if you want to call me names or insult me in any way I have the right to respond to those insults.

So here you have it @JGRaider.

Another small dick syndrome loser calling names for no reason. Hey, it is not my fault that there is so many guys with tiny dicks on this forum. Maybe there is a pattern?

LOL, prescient!!

When they lose an argument liberals seem to always want to drop trou and compare genitalia.


...Insecure little buggers they are.

I was wrong. It looks like tripling down to me.

January 7, 2012 exit pupil MYTH!

For my fun and entertainment I laid out some binoculars and two scopes on some sand bags for a low light comparison. After focusing the bins on the deer antlers 131 yards away I decided to see what was the lowest setting I could make out the forks with the scopes. My criteria was would I shoot at the deer which carried them? The exit pupils have been included to show how irrelevant they generally are.

Tasco World Class 4-16X40 @ 7X = 5.71 exit pupil
Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50mil dot @ 5 1/2X = 9.09 " "

After this I turned them up to 8X to match the Bushnell Ultra HD 8X42 and waited.

Binoculars Exit pupil

Minox 15X58 - 3.87 mm
REI 10X32 - 3.2 mm
Bushnell. 8X42 - 5.25 mm

At 5:10 the 8X42 binocs and the scopes set on 8X were out.
Tasco on 8X = 5.00 exit pupil
6500 on 8X = 6.25 “ “

At 5:15 the REI 10X32 were out.

The Minox 15X lasted until 5:20.

Well, l read this whole thing. And with out mentioning names. All I can say is there is no sense in being stupid if ya can't show it!!! I will let the members figure out who fits the definition of stupid.





Take care, Willie

The obvious (I thought) problem with your evaluations is that you tested two or more completely different makes of scopes against each other. You have no idea as to how the internal baffling, lens coating, quality of glass, etc differs from each other. The logical thing to do is compare to scopes of the same make and quality to have any validity at all, which is why your method of optics testing is a waste of time to read.

You obviously don't know any Naval Aviators. There's a reason we wear big watches....

I have a very easy solution for you. Don't waist your time reading them. That way you won't waist your time responding to something that is a waist of time to read.

what about the firefly by Bushnell? ...

The problem is, you can't know that it's a waste of time until after you've read it.

Well, at least for most posters here.

By comparing my stuff I discovered the Bushnell in the above comparison is not as good as the other two 6500's I have. And yet it lasted two minutes longer than the Minox 13X56 binoculars I traded for the above Minox 15X58. That is two 56 mm lenses didn't last as long as a single 50mm lens when both were set on 13X. Again showing exit pupil is not a valid term to judge low light performance.

Occasionally I receive private messages thanking me for this info. Apparently some are able to use some of it.

Yeah, using faulty info is always a great idea.

I come to the Optics Forum for the entertainment value.

I don't like the 30mm scopes because they have a higher bore axis.

All excellent points, JG.

But Ringman has also admitted in past posts to being a senior citizen. One of the realities of getting older is the pupils of our eyes don't expand as widely in dim light, so can't take advantage of all the light coming through wider exit pupils. So in a way, he's right--in those circumstances. But a larger exit pupil definitely can make a difference in younger eyes. My own pupils don't expand as widely as they used to, but recently tested them and they still make it to 6mm.

Ok, good, valid points I hadn't thought about.

Ringman.....sorry about that.

What, did you give them a de-coder ring?

Does that explain why a single 50mm objective (Bushnell scope) lasts longer than two 56mm objectives (Minox binoc) when both were on 13X?

You'll need the de-coder ring to figure that one out.

That was the point I was making. Maybe the glass and coatings, internals, etc are that much better in the Bushy than the Miinox.

Thanks for your apology. The Minox 15X58, when new, cost about $50 LESS than the 13X56 and yet the 15X smokes all my scopes. Next year when I get my eyes tested I will have the tech measure my low light pupil, Lord willing. That will be very interesting.

I really miss ShakyHands. I learned so much from him in his short time with us.

Thanks for dragging up an old tired thread

Don't we all wax nostalgic from time to time?

My Leica 10X42 Ultraviolet has 4.2 exit pupil and my Tract Toric 12.5X50 has 4 exit pupilyet the Tract is better in low light