WHy are scope tubes getting shorter?

hunter5425

hunter5425

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
40   0   0
Location
Regina SK
I have been thinking about this and can't seem to come up with a logical answer. I have a couple of Leupold M8 4x scopes, the older one (1984) has a body tube considerably longer than the newer one. The older one fits nicely on a long action without special rings but newer one needs offset rings to get the eye relief correct and using some rings can't even be mounted. The 2 scopes weigh the same so the shorter tube gives no weight advantage. I have also noticed many newer scopes have objective and ocular bells that have a very gradual slope effectively shortening the scope body making mounting more problematic. Is there a technical reason for the short tube or is just esthetics?
 
I could see the reasoning being more compact/tactical and probably only needing 1 wide scope ring.. Not as useful in a general hunting context, but for people who want the most compact build possible, or hunters who walk through bush I could see some merrit.
 
I could see specialized scopes being shorter but "normal" scopes also seem to be getting short to the point where offset rings are becoming standard for long actions.
 
I would add that weight is likely a factor. Every year when new scopes come out weight is always something sales reps love to hammer on. Even if it doesn't actually matter it's braggin rights for a salesperson.
 
Good question Hunter, I have wondered the same thing myself.

Maybe it is just the trend, all marketing....long scopes "look" cumbersome and heavy, short scopes "look" advanced....short scopes sell, make more of them, sell more of them? Material savings?
 
Perhaps , it seems scope manufacturers are like audio manufacturers promoting numbers that the average person can't perceive. I know the light transmission numbers are carefully followed by purchasers but I don't know how many know that % is for only one wave length of light which that particular lens and coating combination transmits best.
 
"...all marketing..." For once marketing isn't the reason. The manufacturers are getting better at grinding lenses. Likely by using CNC type machines. Means the tubes can be different.
Huge magification variables and adding "milspec" to the description of sights is marketing.
 
I understand that lenses especially the coatings are getting better but I don't see why this would require shorter scope tubes that don't work well on long action rifles.
 
hunter5425 said:
I understand that lenses especially the coatings are getting better but I don't see why this would require shorter scope tubes that don't work well on long action rifles.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you mean by that?

I'll take the shortest, lightest and compact glass I can get my hands on as long as it meets the requirement of the rig it's going on.
 
hunter5425 said:
I understand that lenses especially the coatings are getting better but I don't see why this would require shorter scope tubes that don't work well on long action rifles.
Click to expand...

BenL said:
What exactly do you mean by that?

I'll take the shortest, lightest and compact glass I can get my hands on as long as it meets the requirement of the rig it's going on.
Click to expand...

The problem is short scopes require extension rings to fit on standard length rifles like the Mauser 98, and even then it's difficult to fit it far enough to the rear to get proper eye relief. The newer 4x M8 just barely fits between the rings and I have to crane my neck to use it. The older long tube M8 has lots of room for adjustment. I had a Leupold compact 2-7x on my .30-06 for a time, and it was even worse... required extension rings and no room to adjust for eye relief. That scope is now on a short-action Ruger where it fits and looks just fine.
 
^
Mauser 98 aren't exactly in my wheel house of expertise, but I'm thinking for something of that particular nature, you'd want glass that was made for it. Why comment applied to modern bolt action accurary / precision / tactical rifles, semi-autos, ARs :)
 
My original post was focused on scopes for long action bolt guns of which the 98 is an example though mine are Remington 700's. As 9.3 Mauser mentioned the older Leupold M8 4x worked on both long and short actions without needing extension rings which encroach on the loading port on the rifle and are less rigid. The newer M8 scopes weigh the same as the older longer tubed ones but are a pain to mount on long action rifles and still get it far enough back to have proper scope relief. I have also seen variables that are even worse because of the power ring that effectively lengthens the ocular bell of the scope. I appreciate that there is a place for very shotr scopes ala the Acog types but it would be nice if the main run of scopes would work on both long and short action rifles.
 
Rail also permits 20MOA elevation offset or shimming to facilitate long range shooting or permit full use of adjustment range for the optic.

My wild guess on length is that more advanced optical glass and designs permits shorter scope tubes.

Look at the really long tube designs from the 1950's and earlier.
 
I would always go for the shorter model, if everything else is equal. I just like the looks of a compact rifle, and a compact scope falls into that preference. I have encountered very few instances where I needed extension rings to get the scope mounted properly. Most folks who use them do so for the reason mentioned above, i.e. to get proper eye relief. They need the scope mounted closer to their eye, and end up using an extension ring on the front, cantilevered towards the rear. I have long arms and neck, and almost always mount the scope as far forward as it can go, finding this gives me good eye relief. A case in point is the Ruger#1...many owners use an extension ring to place the scope far enough back, whereas I find it very comfortable to place the eyepiece well forward, over the block.
 
I just got my reply back from Leupold though it really didn't answer my question directly Here it is:

Carl,

We have done our best to provide shorter, lighter, more powerful scopes.

Thanks,
Sean
---- Original Message ----


I have noticed that your scope tubes are getting shorter making
mounting scopes on long action rifles more problematic, specifically
your older M8 4x scopes fit well on long action rifles whereas the
newer ones require extension rings to get proper eye relief. Is there
a technical reason for this or is it a demand for more compact if not
lighter scopes? Thanks in advance for your reply
-------------------------
Submitted by:

Name: 
 
Savage Long Action is another good example of a modern rifle that most modern scopes won't fit on a 2 piece base without extension rings.
 
hunter5425 said:
I just got my reply back from Leupold though it really didn't answer my question directly Here it is:

Carl,

We have done our best to provide shorter, lighter, more powerful scopes.

Thanks,
Sean
---- Original Message ----


I have noticed that your scope tubes are getting shorter making
mounting scopes on long action rifles more problematic, specifically
your older M8 4x scopes fit well on long action rifles whereas the
newer ones require extension rings to get proper eye relief. Is there
a technical reason for this or is it a demand for more compact if not
lighter scopes? Thanks in advance for your reply
-------------------------
Submitted by:

Name:#
Click to expand...

looks to me like he didn't even read your question beyond the first sentence
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom