Best "overall" hunting scope?

sheephunter said:
Why a 30mm tube? In specialized scopes they make sense but you need to be able to justify the additional weight and bulk.
Click to expand...

In higher end scopes there is a difference in internals and lens sizes, so they can actually make a difference optically, no just for added adjustability. The latter generally holds true for many lower end 30mm tube scopes that use internals and lenses from their 1" scopes to gain windage and elevation. Some high end target scopes use 34mm tubes for this reason.

I've found that the Zeiss Diavari 2.5-10x50 with illuminated reticle is just about the perfect hunting scope for my uses. The weight and length isn't extreme. Mountain hunters may choose something less bulky since low light performance isn't generally a factor,but considering the OP is in Ontario and his rifle is a M70 Coyote light, I doubt that extensive mountainous trips are on the menu.
 
I understand what the 30mm tube is for...I just didn't see it's need for the what the OP described. There is no difference optically but for increasing MOA adjustment and things like zoom range, they do serve a purpose. The 30mm tube has no effect on brightness either. The need for a 50mm objective can be debated but with high quality glass and coatings, light transmission is such that smaller objective lenses pretty well have you covered for legal shooting hours. For night hunting and such, the big objective lenses do make sense and part of the reason they are so popular in parts of Europe and Africa.
 
Last edited:
I also am quite fond of the Leupold 3.5-10 X 40 B&C Scope on a hunting rifle.

I have 4 rifles so equipped, plus one VX3-L 3.5-10 X 50 B&C, and one 4.5-14 X 40 B&C.

That being said, many of my pure "hunting" rifles wear that excellent Leupold 6x42.

Very bright, tough as anything out there, and enough magnification for me out past 500M,
plus not a handicap at 40 yards.
AAMOF, the longest shot I have ever taken was with that optic on a 270 Winchester.

I have tried a number of makes over the years, but always end up back with Leupold.

Cheers, Dave.
 
sheephunter said:
I understand what the 30mm tube is for...I just didn't see it's need for the what the OP described. There is no difference optically but for increasing MOA adjustment and things like zoom range, they do serve a purpose. The 30mm tube has no effect on brightness either. The need for a 50mm objective can be debated but with high quality glass and coatings, light transmission is such that smaller objective lenses pretty well have you covered for legal shooting hours. For night hunting and such, the big objective lenses do make sense and part of the reason they are so popular in parts of Europe and Africa.
Click to expand...

There are different opinions on the subject of 1" vs 30mm and light transmission, we're each entitled to ours I suppose.
 
I've talked to several of the top optics engineers from the top optics companies on this exact subject so I'm not sure how Google will help me but if you do uncover something pertinent, please share as I'd honestly be interested in reading it.
 
This article while written by a lowly outdoor writer does appear on the Swarovski page so I suspect they endorse his thoughts on brightness and 30mm vs 1" tubes. It pretty well agrees what one of their engineers told me as well. Perhaps Ron spoke with the same one....I can't honestly say. I'm certain you'll read with interest.......

http://uk.swarovskioptik.com/hunting/blog/RS_tube_size_matters_but_not_much
 
sheephunter said:
This article while written by a lowly outdoor writer does appear on the Swarovski page so I suspect they endorse his thoughts on brightness and 30mm vs 1" tubes. It pretty well agrees what one of their engineers told me as well. Perhaps Ron spoke with the same one....I can't honestly say. I'm certain you'll read with interest.......

http://uk.swarovskioptik.com/hunting/blog/RS_tube_size_matters_but_not_much
Click to expand...

Thanks, now I don't have to search. The last paragraph pretty much proves my point.


"So what, then, are the advantages of a 30mm scope tube? The walls can be made thicker for added strength and durability or the internal lenses can be made slightly larger, which increases optical performance simply because larger lenses always perform better than smaller ones, all else being equal. Alternatively, manufacturers can keep internal lenses the same size as those in their 1-inch scopes and use the extra internal room for long range reticle adjustments."
 
Thanks for the read....so if the manufacture chooses to use the same size internal len there is no advantage in optical quality, however of they use larger internal lens as the extra tube diameter allows there will be a optical advantage.
 
hawk-i said:
Thanks for the read....so if the manufacture chooses to use the same size internal len there is no advantage in optical quality, however of they use larger internal lens as the extra tube diameter allows there will be a optical advantage.
Click to expand...

Glad you caught that caveat.......it is the crux of the discussion but regardless, light transfer is not improved.
 
hawk-i said:
Thanks for the read....so if the manufacture chooses to use the same size internal len there is no advantage in optical quality, however of they use larger internal lens as the extra tube diameter allows there will be a optical advantage.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Some North American manufacturers used 30mm scope tubes strictly for marketing purposes. Since European optics were always renowned for their quality, they used 30mm tubes but used 1" internals and lenses, Leupold for instance. Of course they gained no optical advantage like the European manufacturers who made lenses and internals specifically to fit 30mm tubes, in other words larger. They also had superior glass and coatings.
 
Actually most North American manufacturers use the increased space inside a 30mm tube to increase MOA adjustment or increase the zoom range....not for marketing purposes. 30mm is hardly desirable to most North Americans but rather a necessary evil. That's why we are seeing a trend to longer tubes with some....it allows the increased space in the tube to allow for a greater zoom range without bumping up to a 30mm tube. The Swaro Z5 and Zeiss HD5 are two examples of this.
 
sheephunter said:
Actually most North American manufacturers use the increased space inside a 30mm tube to increase MOA adjustment or increase the zoom range....not for marketing purposes. 30mm is hardly desirable to most North Americans but rather a necessary evil. That's why we are seeing a trend to longer tubes with some....it allows the increased space in the tube to allow for a greater zoom range without bumping up to a 30mm tube. The Swaro Z5 and Zeiss HD5 are two examples of this.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what they say is the reason after bring confronted on using 1" internals in a 30mm.
Remember the Leupold Euro line? Strangely enough they changed it to the LR designation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom