When did scopes get so large?

M

Marlin989

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Location
Ottawa
Hi,
For a few years I've been plinking away with 22lr, using either a cheap Simmons 4x rimfire scope, or a nice compact Leupold 4x rimfire scope. The Simmons always seemed large in comparison.

Recently I was scope shopping for a centrefire rifle, and settled on a Leupold VX Freedom 2-7. To me, that's a normal sized and weight scope, but looking at the display case, it seemed like almost every other scope is larger (some MUCH larger) than the Leupold, and checking the specs, most scopes are at least 16oz, if not a good deal more. I also was surprised at how large some of othe objective lenses are!

I hadn't looked seriously at scopes in a while, and I was really surprised how large they tend to be now. I guess it's mostly for target shooters? But I'm wondering if anyone is using a large scope (let's say over 13", and over 16oz) for hunting, or any shooting drills/competitions that involve lots of movement from place to place.

Have scopes always been as large and heavy as they seem to be today? Or is it just my limited experience talking?

Cheers,
Marlin989
 
I use big scopes on my rimfire and centrefire set-ups for PRS competitions. Though they go up to 25 and 30 power, I usually compete at 12-16 power. The higher magnification is most helpful when I am at the range being able to see group sizes at distance when testing ammo or working up a load.

My rimfire hunting rifle is iron sites and my centrefire hunting rifle is 1-4 power as I like to hunt in the bush.
 
The trend towards long-range hunting seems to have fueled the idea that scopes aren't worth having if they aren't capable of reading a newspaper left on the moon. It's especially funny when you read about the long-range mountain hunting guys who pay a fortune for rifles that incorporate every weight-saving measure imaginable...carbon-fibre this, titanium that, swiss-cheesed metal, you name it...and then they buy a 6-25x56mm scope with a 34mm tube, weighing 2.5 pounds. They mount their ultralight rifles to the bottom of the scope and go hunting!
 
A lot is perception. The 4X Rimfire and 2-7 were and still are tiny scopes but if thats what you’re used to looking at its your normal. Everything is going to look big compared to those. My normal is something like a 3-9 or 3.5-10 to a 4.5-14 X 40 and is as likely to have a 30mm tube as not. There’s nothing new about those, they’ve been around for a long time. They look small compared to my big ones.
 
jjohnwm said:
The trend towards long-range hunting seems to have fueled the idea that scopes aren't worth having if they aren't capable of reading a newspaper left on the moon. It's especially funny when you read about the long-range mountain hunting guys who pay a fortune for rifles that incorporate every weight-saving measure imaginable...carbon-fibre this, titanium that, swiss-cheesed metal, you name it...and then they buy a 6-25x56mm scope with a 34mm tube, weighing 2.5 pounds. They mount their ultralight rifles to the bottom of the scope and go hunting!
Click to expand...
So maybe they want all the benefits of a bigger scope (Light transmission, clarity, zoom, etc), but still want to keep weight down. The scope weighs what it weighs, so they put light parts on the rifle to keep the overall weight down, while still factoring in the weight of the scope.

But hey, they must be wrong, because you said so, right?
 
Scotty454 said:
So maybe they want all the benefits of a bigger scope (Light transmission, clarity, zoom, etc), but still want to keep weight down. The scope weighs what it weighs, so they put light parts on the rifle to keep the overall weight down, while still factoring in the weight of the scope.

But hey, they must be wrong, because you said so, right?
Click to expand...
WTF?

It's called an opinion, which is what this and most other threads are for. Don't agree? No problem, you have your opinion as I have mine. Don't like it? Move on. :)
 
Dogleg said:
A lot is perception. The 4X Rimfire and 2-7 were and still are tiny scopes but if thats what you’re used to looking at its your normal. Everything is going to look big compared to those. My normal is something like a 3-9 or 3.5-10 to a 4.5-14 X 40 and is as likely to have a 30mm tube as not. There’s nothing new about those, they’ve been around for a long time. They look small compared to my big ones.
Click to expand...
The Leupold 4x rimfire is definitely a small scope, coming in at around 9 inches long. The 2-7 is about 11 inches though... it doesn't seem tiny to me.

You are confirming though, what I was wondering: they seem small to me, in comparison to what seems to be a more standard sized scope these days. I'll also mention though, that one of the cheap Simmons 3-9x40 also seem like a normal sized scope to me - it's around the same length and weight as the Leupold 2-7.

I've noticed some folks at the range who have what seem to be absolutely huge scopes for the rifle - like a 50mm objective, and the scope extends way out over the barrel. Now, I'm not knocking it - people get what they prefer and what's useful to them.

Cheers,
Marlin989
 
Last edited:
The latest trend in some scope markets/application seems to be a larger power range put into a smaller format..... and of course micro red dots and small prisms.

This compact 1-8 for example, it's not going to be as lightweight as a basic leupold, (Twice the weight at close to 17 oz) that's hard to do with the beefier build, larger tube and illumination, ... but the size is definitely similar at just 9 1/4"

iu


The bigger scopes and their uses are not going away, but the latest trend seems to be compact scopes which is good news for the OP though I somehow doubt he will be buying in to the latest trend..... :)

Still nothing wrong with a lightweight leupold 2-7 rimfire or an older Weaver V3, I think those types of scopes will dominate the under 9 Oz category for a while.
 
Marlin989 said:
The Leupold 4x rimfire is definitely a small scope, coming in at around 9 inches long. The 2-7 is about 11 inches though... it doesn't seem tiny to me.

You are confirming though, what I was wondering: they seem small to me, in comparison to what seems to be a more standard sized scope these days. I'll also mention though, that one of the cheap Simmons 3-9x40 also seem like a normal sized scope to me - it's around the same length and weight as the Leipold 2-7.

I've noticed some folks at the range who have what seem to be absolutely huge scopes for the rifle - like a 50mm objective, and the scope extends way out over the barrel. Now, I'm not knocking it - people get what they prefer and what's useful to them.

Cheers,
Marlin989
Click to expand...
Next time you see someone rocking a "Hubble space telescope", specially if it's on a nice target .22lr maybe ask them if you can take a look through it..... which will likely lead to an offer to take a couple shots.

We live in a golden age of options that's for sure, even the inexpensive optics are way better then they were 20 years ago.
 
Can-down said:
The bigger scopes and their uses are not going away, but the latest trend seems to be compact scopes which is good news for the OP though I somehow doubt he will be buying in to the latest trend..... :)

Still nothing wrong with a lightweight leupold 2-7 rimfire or an older Weaver V3, I think those types of scopes will dominate the under 9 Oz category for a while.
Click to expand...
You got that right - I definitely am not on trend for just about anything. :cool:

The Leupold is a bit heavier than 9oz, but it sure isn't a heavy scope.
 
Suther said:
I would say it's less about long range hunting and more about range use - PRS and other games, as well as the infatuation with itty bitty groups.

In the hunting world the 3-9x is still king.
Click to expand...
Good points, It sure looks like 2-12 or similar is the new 3-9 though for most mid level and up optics companies today.
 
My understanding is that the long range shooting and hunting trend over the past 15 years or was driven by advances in optics where better scopes can be made at lower cost, and at the same time the image of snipers became really cool. I'm not saying all long range shooters are sniper LARPers, but I think it's fair to say that the marketing trend built on the cool sniper image. Then the industry trend got momentum, with more and more people wanting high powered scopes which were getting better at lower costs.

I don't own anything above a 10 power but I don't usually have access to a place where I shoot much past 100 yards. I have nothing against bigger, higher powered scopes but they're overkill for the kind of shooting and hunting I do.

Also on the trend towards scopes getting bigger, the increasing popularity of 30 mm tubes is probably part of that. I think there were more 1" tubes on display at Cabelas 10 years ago.
 
Can-down said:
Good points, It sure looks like 2-12 or similar is the new 3-9 though for most mid level and up optics companies today.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But at least from what I've seen the majority of hunters don't use mid level and up optics. $400 is a LOT of money for a scope to a lot of people - and that won't even get you a new Leupold these days.

CGN can give you a really skewed view on things like this IMO, because we're mostly people who DO concern ourselves with things like optic quality, but from what I've seen in the real world that's not nearly as common among hunters as a whole.

Hell I've got one friend who uses a bushnell I bought off the EE for $45 SHIPPED. lol
 
Lots of good info here so far, little to add. As a beginner I had to get over the 'bigger is better" thing, but I made a few mistakes along the way. Agreed, I think the same thing looking at the scopes in my LG stores. Even for centerfire rifle, some of these seem crazy-big. My thinking today vs. when I started?

1.need a very good reason to have a 30mm tube on anything, only my longest-range CF rifle wears a 30mm
2.30mm on a rimfire action or even a small centerfire like a CZ 527=looks way too big
3.be honest with the amount of magnification you REALLY need and buy the best you can afford in that mag range

A good 3-9X will serve us better than a shi**y 6-24X. You'll just see more with better glass.

So, my scopes tend to be 1" tubes, OBJ no bigger than 44mm so I can keep everything low-ish. I don't compete, don't need good low-light performance or amazing light-gathering. Clear enough glass for mostly fairweather shooting in my case.
 
Suther said:
Perhaps. But at least from what I've seen the majority of hunters don't use mid level and up optics. $400 is a LOT of money for a scope to a lot of people - and that won't even get you a new Leupold these days.

CGN can give you a really skewed view on things like this IMO, because we're mostly people who DO concern ourselves with things like optic quality, but from what I've seen in the real world that's not nearly as common among hunters as a whole.

Hell I've got one friend who uses a bushnell I bought off the EE for $45 SHIPPED. lol
Click to expand...
For sure the one box a year shooters are not out replacing the scope that came with their dad's or grandpa's scope.... but moving foward the hand me downs will eventually change.

I would not be shocked if even the cheapest manufacturers phase out the 3-9 as 3X power ranges give way to 4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom