When did scopes get so large?

[nowarningshot]

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

To me, there were always some big scopes.

Becoming truly large, complex, precision dialing, and Christmas tree reticles. That was after handheld range finders and long range shooting sports.

 

[Mik123]

Europeans have just about always had large scopes, starting around WWII . There are several reasons for this. Most important is that a big part of hunting was/is at dusk/dawn or at moon lit nights. Another point is that most hunting is from high seats and rifles did not need to be carried far. Third point is that hunters average at around age 60 and need a bit of optical help. The 8x56 scope was and still is quite popular, often accompanied by 8x56 binoculars.
I live and hunt in Ireland, our climate is very wet with low visibility in moist air. Shot distance varies and includes quite long shots on small deer in high grass or gorse etc. You will hardly see anyone using a scope under 50mm objective. We mostly stalk or shoot in ambush positions less high seats.
The most important point for me is that rifles with "heavy" scopes shoot better, are easier to shoot because the rifles Centre of gravity is closer to the recoil line which in turn leads to less launch angle change while the bullet travels down the bore. I therefore choose a scope that weighs similar to the stock weight. My rifles just about all wear heavy S&B PMII scopes with the favourites being 4-16x50 and 3-20x50 Ultra short. Next month we will get to test the new Schmidt & Bender FFP Meta scope 3-18x42. Very good optics and mechanics in a smaller package.

edi

The ffp meta looks awesome, very pricey though. Let us know how you like it.

 

[EJG]

The ffp meta looks awesome, very pricey though. Let us know how you like it.

I fondled it at the Brit shooting show recently as Schmidt had their booth close to ours. They use different turrets on the ffp, more in line with the lower PMII ones. We had tested the SFP Meta a while back and were quite happy with it but I just prefer ffp.

edi

 

[Tokay444]

When optical engineers started to win some internal battles with the marketing teams.

 

[Dogleg]

Affordable rangefinders that were worth owning really changed things. After that, scopes with repeatable adjustments, higher powers, and bigger objectives and parallax adjustments to go with the higher magnification and designer reticles started making a lot of sense to a lot of people. I remember vividly the first time I tried longer range shooting with a buddy. We were shooting rocks at 800 to 900 yards with his rifle and I caught on real quick that without the right toys I wasn’t even in the game.
I’ll get even if its the last thing I do.

 

[Marlin989]

Thanks everyone, for replying and discussing.

From what I gather, "mainstream" scopes developed into the present day formats due to advances in optics, reduction in costs, and the community's focus on long range shooting. Maybe also from mfgs marketing as well, to sell more longer distance specialized scopes to shooters who may or may not really need them.

As someone who doesn't shoot long range, it's no wonder I didn't understand why they developed and why people used them. Thanks again for the collected info.

 

[wallz]

Affordable rangefinders that were worth owning really changed things. After that, scopes with repeatable adjustments, higher powers, and bigger objectives and parallax adjustments to go with the higher magnification and designer reticles started making a lot of sense to a lot of people. I remember vividly the first time I tried longer range shooting with a buddy. We were shooting rocks at 800 to 900 yards with his rifle and I caught on real quick that without the right toys I wasn’t even in the game.
I’ll get even if its the last thing I do.

Sometimes it takes that to realize what you need to consistently shoot out to distance. I mean anything past 500m.

Range finder and ballistics calculator are a must, not an extra "if maybe". In real life scenario's there is no way you can gauge distance reliably past even 100m, much less put bullets on game past 500m with out range and dial parameters. "Kentucky Hold" just doesn't work with some calibers even past 100 m.
Take my 450BM and at 200m its 11" drop. That would be a clean miss at that distance on deer once you consider real life situation and not having any of the info handy, or live at the time you need it.

 

[tacfoley]

Three of my .22cal target rifles - top - BSA International Mk2 with x18x40 Tasco #707 scope from the early '70s. Bottom, another Mk2, but a true leftie, with a x18 Unertl 2" Varmint with calibrated head - late '60's.



This is an older Anschutz Model 1409, with the x16x40 Tasco #707. The device on the muzzle is a harmonic damper.



This is my go-to .308Win - a Krico 650S with a Nightforce 8-32x56 NSX



By way of contrast, this is my old 1937-made Mauser ES350B with its 1950 Ajack 2.5x70. Note that the 70 is not the size of the len - it is the Daemmeringsfaktor - the measure of illumination through the len.



...and lastly, my dad's Walther Model 2 with its unknown x2.5 scope bought in Cork City in 1930....



I also collect older Weaver scopes - made in the El Paso factory. And WW1 sharpshooter scopes. And anything else that interests me.

 

[mikeyb]

I use all kinds of scopes. I've got a fixed 4x36mm from the late 80's that gets mounted on a shotgun occasionally, a 5-25x56mmi bought new last year that rings steel targets way out there, and everything in between.

As technology has advanced, both optics (glass packs and coatings) and the sighting system (turrets, eyepieces, erector systems, etc) have come along for the ride. As they started to improve, things started to get a lot more specialized. A big part of this was being able to simulate optical systems on a computer, which is when we really saw things like 6x, 7x, and 8x erector assemblies take off. Once we had those tools, shooters gravitated towards specific feature sets.

But just because they exist doesn't mean older designs aren't relevant, a lot of companies still offer 3x and 4x systems with 1" tubes and 40mm objectives. And a lot of those scopes are incorporating other manufacturing improvements to make them more reliable and consistent.

If you want something smaller but with modern features, I like the Burris Fullfield IV, especially the 2.5-10x42 model. A little more money and a touch more heft gets you into the Athlon Argos HMR 2-12x42mm. Beyond that price range, I typically look to Trijicon - the Accupoint 3-9 is tough as nails and the illuminated chevron is my favorite reticle for black bears in low light.

Its not that scopes are just bigger all around (in some cases yes as people like knurled turret caps and things like illumination or parallax adjustment needs extra bits) but more that we're absolutely spoiled for choice and a lot of the innovation is being put into the designs which can accommodate those features/updates. New thing to sell, and all that.