WTF means this?

jbailey

Gunny Sergeant
Jul 27, 2010
1,504
57
48
44
Arlington VA
#7
Could he mean that a 5-25x56 will outperform a 3-15x50 at the same 15x on both scopes because of the bigger objective lens on the 5-25x? If so, I have certainly observed this in the field - the bigger objective lens drives a brighter image and that brighter image = outperformance...
 
Feb 7, 2013
1,827
345
83
The West
#14
Saw this on Enos: https://forums.brianenos.com/topic/262359-precision-rifle-for-2000/?do=findComment&comment=2923796
Can't even argue or agree on account of not knowing what the hell it's supposed to mean.

Screenshot added for lazy people like myself who rarely click links.
Man, you are not very nice... I didn't mean to say it that way...

I meant to say, I use a NF 52x bench scope with a EOTech G33.STS 3x Magnifier in front of it, on my NRL22 rifle. Because I can never have enough magnification at 25 yards.
 
Feb 14, 2017
553
155
43
#15
Man, you are not very nice... I didn't mean to say it that way...

I meant to say, I use a NF 52x bench scope with a EOTech G33.STS 3x Magnifier in front of it, on my NRL22 rifle. Because I can never have enough magnification at 25 yards.
I've never been accused of being nice. Thats not relevant to this thread though...
 
Oct 4, 2017
19
6
3
#16
I think he's arguing that scopes perform best in the middle of the power range. Not sure that is entirely accurate, since an erector design is often used across a couple of variable mag ranged scopes. Methinks he's talking out his ass, in generalities.
I think you are onto something. I think this guy has visited too many forums but hasn't really understood what he was reading. My guess is that he picked up that scopes are generally more clear when closer to their optical center for elevation/windage and somehow translated that into thinking that it meant a scope is more clear in the middle of its magnification adjustment. He wants to appear knowledgeable but hasn't a clue that he just made himself look ignorant.
 

wjm308

Send it!
Nov 30, 2012
1,547
471
83
Black Forest, CO
#20
It's all too easy to state assumption as fact on the internet. If something sounds right then it must be true - is a fallacy that politicians usually find themselves committing; however, the sporting community is not free from misinformation (heck, I've made some blunders at times and have had to correct myself). His claim revolves around "optimal performance" and according to the author that is the "middle" of the zoom range of a scope, but he doesn't clarify which scope and instead generalizes to make it sound like all scopes fall into this behavior. God forbid he ever uses a 3-18x scope at 3x or 18x, he might not ever be able to see what he's shooting - I'm being facetious of course but I would never recommend a scope based on the middle of the magnification range. Also, not all scopes are made alike, so brand X's 3-18 may perform differently from brand Y's 3-18 throughout the magnification range. While some scopes may exhibit their best performance around the middle, this is certainly not true for all scopes, same with camera lenses, buy a cheaper lens and you may see IQ fall off at the extremes, but buy an expensive lens and you'll see excellent performance throughout the zoom range. I didn't read the whole thread so I'm not certain what the context is with which this advice was given, maybe the original post was looking at $200 scopes and this idea might have some validity there; however, for those within this community who are paying $800 and higher for a decent scope I do not think you need to worry about poor performance at the extreme of the magnification range, might there be slight falloff in light, resolution, edge to edge, etc. yes, but will it be enough to cause a problem with you not being able to hit your target - doubtful, and if it does, then let the community know as it could be you setup the diopter wrong or maybe did something else that would cause this behavior or you have a faulty scope that needs to be RMA'd or you bought a scope that is known to have these issues and maybe it's time to look for something better.
 
Feb 14, 2017
553
155
43
#22
For context, the OP in the thread had just asked if the Razor G2 3-18x would be sufficient or if the 4.5-27x was needed for occasional 1000 yard shots.
 
Top Bottom