It's an epidemic. It started out with the Nikon line some years back and has since infected almost every single scope mfg. out there.

I'm a function first guy, but man...there are some ugly, ugly scopes out there.

Pretty is as pretty does.

DF

I heartily endorse both of these views!

I held my nose about the former, when I tried my first 3-9x40 Conquest. The view, tracking, and robustness were worth it, and then some.

Stil, I remain a big fan of the 2-7 Vipers, 'cause they gave an awful lot of performance, while still keeping the ocular at a manageable size. I really like their magnification adjustment lever, too. Naturally, they discontinued it.

FC

Big oculars on 1" tubes do look goofy. Don't look too bad on a 30mm man scope

I read big oculars increase field of view. Can someone confirm or correct this?

The fuggin dumbasses like to make oculars so big they interfere with bolt travel unless you mount them so high you need a neck like a giraffe to see through the scope. The same dumbasses make the scope tubes so short you can't mount them on much of anything without using some cockamamy offset rings or butt ugly picatinny rail.

I concur with the bolt clearance and scope mounting issues.

Most of the scopes I see these days look like the second coming of the Hubble telescope, it’s hard to beat the classic lines of a Leupold....

Field of view is mainly determined by the magnification.
Lens diameters don't have a lot of effect.

Sitting here looking at a popular (from what I read here, anyway) 6X42. The occular is so big you could mount it backwards and it'd look the same. Weird.....:( -Al

Snyper,

Ocular lens diameter has a LOT to do with FOV, because it's essentially the screen where we view the world. Magnification and eye relief are also involved, but aren't the entire equation.

i have a Tract Tekoa to put on a Remington 700 long action. Had a Meopta Meopro 3.5-10x44 in Talley LW lows, worked perfectly. Had to go to an extended front talley to get the tube far enough rearward so that ocular would clear the base of the rear ring.

I agree...and it is bloody irritating.

Leupold didn't think so!

The newer Weaver Grand Slams are so ugly it must be seen to be believed. Worst thing is I'm not sure if they improved or degraded the aesthetics...

Sweet mother of heaven, that is ugly!! I wonder what focus group picked that design??

Gotta' agree with all that.......

Part of the reason for larger ocular bells (and lenses) is the overall trend to higher magnification, especially at the top end of variable magnification--especially in competition shooting.

The larger oculars result in a wider field of view, which can be important when whacking away at longer ranges, whether to spot your own shots or find the target quicker.

The other factor is that optics companies aren't designing scopes for geezers who think the scopes they grew up with were the epitome of esthetic perfection. Some of those geezers don't think scopes made BEFORE their era were very beautiful either, but because they tend to forget some really ugly scopes made back then, tend to idealize the best of what they liked in their youth, whether rifles, scopes, cars or music.

Not long ago I went on a big game hunt with several other gun writers, one a 30-year-old who was assigned a dull-green "chassis" rifle with a huge scope mounted at least 2 inches above the action, plus a suppressor the size of a thick salami on the muzzle. He took one look at it and said, "Man, that's a good-looking rifle!"

One of the interesting things about all this is many of the "California" style walnut stocks, with high "rollover" combs, hooked pistol grips, and skip-line checkering are considered impractical (and ugly) by most such 30-year-olds. Yet the basic stock dimension are very similar to many chassis-stocked rifles today.

All of this, of course, relates to the constant human opinion that younger humans are incredibly FOS. This has been going on throughout our history (and not doubt prehistory) and is evident in the changes in art and technology across several millennia--and by millennia I dont mean the humans now called millennials, but the measure of time defined by 1000 years.

Geezers???Just because I used to fish with christ when he was a wee lad doesn't necessarily make me a geezer, does it? But arguing with success is often difficult, and often age brings success along with it.

Age definitely gives one a perspective, but sometimes older isn't better...

DF

I noticed that with women. :-)

But there are an increasing number of lower magnification scopes--and least lower than what is thought of as long range scopes--that have large oculars too.

The dumbest trend is 1x4 or 1x5 scopes with huge oculars that weigh about 20 ounces. What are they good for?

Careful there...

You could get in some deep stuff if the wrong person reads that...

DF

This Kimber 280AI I got in 2018 I scoped with a Leupold VX freedom rimfire 2x7x33.
The eyepiece is 1.555" in diameter, so I could mount the scope low.



A many decades ago mass produced sporterized 1941 Arisaka type 99 that I rebarreled to 257 Roberts in 2017.
Leupold 120617 vx2 rimfire EFR CDS 3x9x33, with small eyepiece to fit bolt weld curve.
The eyepiece is 1.4"
It did not matter HOW HIGH a scope was mounted over that bent bolt, the eyepiece was going to be less than 1.555" diameter.

Looks like it was molded in the Doc Johnson factory.

That is one ugly sumbitch!

+1

Got whupped with an ugly stick...

DF

I'm not so sure 30 year olds find those stocks to be impractical because of the shape. They may not like the attributes of wood, but the shape isn't so much an issue as the gaudy inlays of contrasting wood and general 1950s chic. Plus, at least for me, the general derision for such designs comes from what they represent. Those stocks often are attached to Weatherby rifles, which makes me think of inflated egos and gut shot game.

A quick (and very inconclusive) look on the interweb looks like it has more to do with eye relief than ocular diameter.

-SMALL ocular
Leupold 6x42 FX-3 Riflescope Specifications
Field of View @ 100 yards (ft): 17.3
Eye Relief (in): 4.43

Schmidt & Bender 6x42 Klassik
eye relief (in): 3.1
Field of View @ 100 yds (ft) 22

-LARGE ocular
SWFA SS 6x42
Field of View @ 100 yds (ft) 20.1
eye relief 3.5

Meopta 6x42 MeoPro
Field of View @ 100 yds (ft) 20
eye relief 3.5.

It's a simple equation for the manufacturers. Add eye relief at the expense of field of view or add field of view at the expense of eye relief assuming the ocular stays the same size. When you increase the ocular size you increase the field of view, which some manufacturers are willing to give up to add eye relief. To demonstrate this go look through a handgun or scout scope.

I might be a geezer, & ugly on a scope is another thing, but when the rings have to go upward one or two heights, several things go down hill. The rifle starts getting more top heavy, out of balance & poorer handling to me. The giraffe neck thing comes in, & check weld or any notion of it is lost.
All this for a smidgen of field of view or light?

I've considered starting a thread about this, glad to know others don't like the bulbous looking things either.

MULE DEER. The scope on your .358 Norma is as good looking as it gets.

The times they are a changing. Got to go with the flow.