blargon said:I read recently in an american gun mag that the 36mm objective is the optimum size, and the author said anything larger is a waste. hmmm
Maybe, but a wiseman once said that more than a handful is a waste and he was full of crap
Help me scope my 7/08
- Thread starter Wrong Way
- Start date
Maybe, but a wiseman once said that more than a handful is a waste and he was full of crap
- Location
- north vancouver
blargon said:I read recently in an american gun mag that the 36mm objective is the optimum size, and the author said anything larger is a waste. hmmm
IF it were available in a 40mm, all things being equal, would it not allow in more light than 36mm If so, how come it would be 'a waste' ? (not taking into account the expense)
Wrong Way
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
From what i can gather, the high quality (99% trans) lenses will allow just that...99% of light. When dealing with lenses of the caliber of the VXIIIs, there apparently is only so muc "light gathering" that is effective.
Look at it this way....stick a light meter in front of a pin-hole, then stick it in front of a two foot window. Obviously, you will get more light from the two foot window, but then move it in front of a four foot window....I'll bet it stays the same.
In the case of the 36vs40 mm OB....we're really talking about a VERY minor size difference, 2 mm each way shouldn't make or break a scope.
But then again, what the hell do I know? I cant even figure out what magnification to buy!
Look at it this way....stick a light meter in front of a pin-hole, then stick it in front of a two foot window. Obviously, you will get more light from the two foot window, but then move it in front of a four foot window....I'll bet it stays the same.
In the case of the 36vs40 mm OB....we're really talking about a VERY minor size difference, 2 mm each way shouldn't make or break a scope.
But then again, what the hell do I know? I cant even figure out what magnification to buy!
blargon said:I read recently in an american gun mag that the 36mm objective is the optimum size, and the author said anything larger is a waste. hmmm
he's probably right.....the pupil of the human eye can only dilate to about 7mm's....therefore it can only absorb so much light....no matter how big your objective lense is, the fact remains that the amount of light that your eye can absorb is finite. You could have a 200mm objective lense and if every other lense in the scope is the same...I don't think you'll see a brighter view.
I've always maintained that 50mm scopes are just marketing hype...I'd never own another one...
Middle age and the telescope
Middle age and the telescope: One unfortunate consequence of aging is a reduction in our eyes’ ability to dilate in the dark. By the time middle age arrives, our pupils may dilate to as little as 5mm, instead of the 7mm of our youth. Nearly one-half the light of the 7mm exit pupil of a long focal length eyepiece will fall on a middle-aged observer’s iris, rather than entering the 5mm pupil of his or her eye, and consequently will be wasted.
If you’re middle-aged, then, buy very low power eyepieces primarily for their wider fields of view. Don’t buy them for brighter images if your eyes can’t dilate to match their exit pupil. Images are brightest when the eyepiece exit pupil matches your eye’s pupil.
http://www.astronomics.com/main/cat...tegory_name/F62B3NNDJ02A9J0APQ16DK6SV3/Page/1
Middle age and the telescope: One unfortunate consequence of aging is a reduction in our eyes’ ability to dilate in the dark. By the time middle age arrives, our pupils may dilate to as little as 5mm, instead of the 7mm of our youth. Nearly one-half the light of the 7mm exit pupil of a long focal length eyepiece will fall on a middle-aged observer’s iris, rather than entering the 5mm pupil of his or her eye, and consequently will be wasted.
If you’re middle-aged, then, buy very low power eyepieces primarily for their wider fields of view. Don’t buy them for brighter images if your eyes can’t dilate to match their exit pupil. Images are brightest when the eyepiece exit pupil matches your eye’s pupil.
http://www.astronomics.com/main/cat...tegory_name/F62B3NNDJ02A9J0APQ16DK6SV3/Page/1
haggisbasher said:
If so, how come it would be 'a waste' ? (not taking into account the expense)
Why is more than 36mm a waste? Because shooting in the dark is called poaching!
36mm gives you enough light for dawn and dusk in most cases, larger objectives mean more weight it is a tradeoff that can be especially important on a mountain rifle such as this.
I agree with the others on the 2.5 to 8. If you need more than 8X magnification you either shouldn't take the shot on an animal as you are shooting at some rediculously long range or you should be investing that extra money in Lasik eye surgery instead because you can't see.
Have a good one
Maybe it's poaching where you live!wetcoaster said:Why is more than 36mm a waste? Because shooting in the dark is called poaching!
36mm gives you enough light for dawn and dusk in most cases, larger objectives mean more weight it is a tradeoff that can be especially important on a mountain rifle such as this.
Nope, if it's a mountain rifle then I'd be getting the 3.5-10x as I'd gather you're buying it for mountain hunting.
On that premise you'd want as much magnification as you can get based on fact many shots have to be long ones.
And the weight difference between them is negligible.
I'm sure the 2.5-8x power will be fine but my preference is still for more power.
Wrong Way said:
Now you mention it it's pretty funny I didn't even notice,
I was all over the place with searches on scoping rifles as I am pretty close to getting a new to me 7mm rem mag that I will need to scope. Saw something I had an opinion about (which is pretty rare in itself
) replied and didn't even think to look how old it was. It's been that kind of week, I caught that frickin Norwalk virus and can't seem to get over it. It's been five days of hell and its a good thing CGN is here to keep me sane while I am at home.
Surely not!wetcoaster said:Saw something I had an opinion about (which is pretty rare in itself
Don't worry, no one here has opinions......especially Tod Bartell.
I sympathise with your illness though.
I don't know what the Norwalk virus is but I had tonsilitis earlier in the year.
Never had it before.
Now I understand why a good mate spent considerable time off school every year as kid.
It was hell.
Hope you're feeling better soon.
Last edited:
2.5x8x36...I had one on my first Mountain rifle, it looked great. My only beef is with Leupold's standard duplex, I find it to thin and the subtension to short for my liking. The wide duplex is better, even better than that is the Zeiss Zplex reticle, to my eye, it's just about perfect for hunting.
It is completely beyond my imagination why anyone would get a nice, light mountain rifle, then put a variable scope on it as big around as the business end of a baseball bat! The late Jack O'connor, maybe the most experienced hunter ever, who hunted all over the world, including hunting sheep in 8 or ten different countries, used a fixed power, either 2½ or 4 power.
