Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
30 mm vs. 1" scopes
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="NikatKimber" data-source="post: 1604932" data-attributes="member: 423"><p>I'm with Dustin. Optics, like everything else in life, are a compromise. </p><p></p><p>If you want large FOV, high magnification, and high clarity... well, hello Hubble (and $$$$$$$$$$$$ price tag)</p><p></p><p>You want small size, large FOV; wave good bye to high magnification.</p><p></p><p>The length and diameter (at all parts along the length) of a scope play a part of the equation of FOV and magnification.</p><p></p><p>Large quality optics are expensive, and it's not a linear relationship. This is why you see high magnification scopes on .22s that are very long with small lenses (objective, ocular, and body diameters small), because they can maintain an acceptable quality on the smaller lenses. The sacrifice is in FOV at magnification.. and quality of construction.</p><p></p><p>Another point to consider, is that the scope has to mount somewhere. This means there has to be some "body" length to the scope. And since in many applications, the mounting system is limited to zero adjustment, this has to be more than a mounting *point*; in order for the individual user to get the focal point right for them.</p><p></p><p>I've got more, but it's time for church. Be back later.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NikatKimber, post: 1604932, member: 423"] I'm with Dustin. Optics, like everything else in life, are a compromise. If you want large FOV, high magnification, and high clarity... well, hello Hubble (and $$$$$$$$$$$$ price tag) You want small size, large FOV; wave good bye to high magnification. The length and diameter (at all parts along the length) of a scope play a part of the equation of FOV and magnification. Large quality optics are expensive, and it's not a linear relationship. This is why you see high magnification scopes on .22s that are very long with small lenses (objective, ocular, and body diameters small), because they can maintain an acceptable quality on the smaller lenses. The sacrifice is in FOV at magnification.. and quality of construction. Another point to consider, is that the scope has to mount somewhere. This means there has to be some "body" length to the scope. And since in many applications, the mounting system is limited to zero adjustment, this has to be more than a mounting *point*; in order for the individual user to get the focal point right for them. I've got more, but it's time for church. Be back later. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
30 mm vs. 1" scopes
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom