New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - IOR Valdada
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

IOR Valdada

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  1 2>
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/20/2008 at 22:56
Sgt. D View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: February/20/2008
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 3642
I found this forum a couple days ago and I must say, I found more info in those few days than in the last couple of months of searching. I am in the process of building  a custom hunting rifle and expect it to be exceptionally accurate. Krieger is building the barrel to a Remington 700 action (if I don't change to a Stiller Predator in the next 3 weeks). That being said I will top it with the IOR 9-36-56 w/35mm tube. Which brings me to the questions.
My expected shot range will be from 100 out to 800 yds. and one of my concerns is,   That occasional shot inside 100yds. Will I have problems with focus with the low end 9X?
 
Odds are I will rarely max the power to 36X except for those 700+ shots. On the higher end X how is the light transmission? I our area whitetails get real skiddish early in the season and last light is the norm.
 
 As with any scope when the light is low, turning the power down gives us the target back, but it is usually no good at distances beyond 200 yds.  Am I correct in thinking that the 9X on this scope would put me back in the game with a clear picture and the power to identify those closer (-300 yds.) targets?
As the ads say this scope starts where the others stop!
 
I don't know how long this particular scope has been available, but I have seen some of you talk it up from experience. I would greatly appreciate your experience and info on buying one. I have found one lead for 1499.99 free shipping and rings, but until I pull out the M card I won't know if it is real. Or perhaps someone has better pricing than that?
I know you will want to know the cal. I didn't mention it earlier because I've noted that the majority of you are B/R shooters and would scoff at my 270. Scoff if you must, if it is anywhere near what I expect I'll shoot with any of you. Speaking from confidence not arrogance of course. We  know that a presision rifle is a machine that does the same thing every time.
If we do our part then some think of us as Expert!Sharp%20Shooter
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/20/2008 at 23:11
supertool73 View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar
Superstool

Joined: January/03/2008
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Points: 9531
That scope is really way over kill for what you want to do, that scope was designed to run on .50 cal and .338 lapuas at ranges over 1500 yards and up.  9x is enough to shoot out to 800 yards no problem.  I have an IOR 3-18x on a .308 and a IOR 6-24x on a .300 and very rarely turn them past 14x and I shoot out to 1000 yards and sometime beyond. 
The marines and army has only used 10x scopes for years until recently and the marines are now using a 12x max scope.  If you are using it as a hunting scope 9x will be way to much, your FOV inside 100 will be so small you will have a hard time tracking moving game in your scope.
If I were you and you want the IOR I would go with the 3-18x, it is a fantastic scope and has plenty of power for the ranges you want to shoot.  Once you get about 10x and it is really hot you will start seeing heat waves and mirage and it gets worse with the more power you use.  At 36x you would probably not even be able to make out the taget on really hot days.  Let alone be able to hold it steady enough to use it and get a good sight picture on game. 
That is my opinion.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/20/2008 at 23:26
Sgt. D View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: February/20/2008
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 3642

 I want a reasonable amount of over- kill. But I don't want a mistake. I appreciate your thoughts. I will look at the 3-18x and see if it will cover the low light concerns. Thanks!

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/20/2008 at 23:40
supertool73 View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar
Superstool

Joined: January/03/2008
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Points: 9531
Well at 3x the 3-18 will have 14mm of exit pupil at 7x you will have 6mm of exit pupil on the 3-18..  At 9x on the 9-36 it will just have 6.2mm of exit pupil.  In low light 9x might be to much to see a target good as well.  In low light you want to low power optic.  At night the pupil in your eye may get as big as 7mm so the lower the power of the scope the better.

Another thing to think about, realistically with a .270 you are not going to be able to shoot game much past 400 or 500 yards anyway.  Even shooting that far at game some would consider inhuman, to many variables involved and you may just wound the animal.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/21/2008 at 00:12
cyborg View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
God of Wind

Joined: August/24/2007
Location: North Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 12082
i'm with supertool here, I think however that i would go with the 4-16x power range that is more than enough to get you into the yardages that you mentioned. I won't bring into question the ethics of the longest shots you plan though. I think that you should consider the max effective range for that caliber as far as Game is concerned. I only say this because if I don't you'll hear it from someone else. Best of luck to you SGT. Welcome to OT 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/21/2008 at 00:24
supertool73 View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar
Superstool

Joined: January/03/2008
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Points: 9531
Another scope to check out would be one of the new Bushnell 6500 in 2.5-16x.  I think those are going to be great scopes and it will only cost you $700 plus rings.  The 4200s are awesome hunting scopes so these can only be better.  Or if you are fixed on the 30x+ high end they have the 4.5-30x as well.
http://www.swfa.com/c-2172-bushnell-elite-6500-rifle-scopes.aspx
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/21/2008 at 00:26
cyborg View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
God of Wind

Joined: August/24/2007
Location: North Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 12082
Good advise there super......... i would also consider that a good alternative, and the glass is supposed to be very close to the IOR as well.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/21/2008 at 01:38
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10977
Originally posted by cyborg cyborg wrote:

Good advise there super......... i would also consider that a good alternative, and the glass is supposed to be very close to the IOR as well.


I do not know about that.  Elite 6500 is a great scope in its own right, but in terms of glass it is not quite in IOR territory.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/21/2008 at 06:12
cyborg View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
God of Wind

Joined: August/24/2007
Location: North Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 12082
I am speaking from what I've read only, I have yet to look through and compare it to IOR first hand, Hence my comment "supposed" to be. Thanks for setting the record straight. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/21/2008 at 06:52
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8047
+1 on what Supertool says. I would not sacrifice FOV and brightness to have high magnification. The 3-18 has as much versatility as you can find for hunting.

Edited by tahqua - February/21/2008 at 06:53
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/21/2008 at 14:48
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10977
3-18x42 is a great allround magnification range.  I've got a 3-18x42 and I could not be happier with it.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/21/2008 at 20:51
Sgt. D View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: February/20/2008
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 3642
 Thank you all for your thoughts and experience. Spending this kind of money, I have to be as informed as possible. You did raise a concern that I had not considered. The ethical range of the 270. I had not considered it because all of the 450 to 500 yd. shots that I have made were 20 to 30 yds. and down. Which is typical with my current 270 at any range for a heart/lung shot. If this new rifle likes the Sierra 140 hpbt as good as this Browning does, then I will be hard pressed to pass on a good 700+ opportunity. Not that I am unreasonable about it. If these rounds just will not expand or perform beyond 600, then there is no need to push it. Or is anyone suggesting that a 270 round isn't stable beyond 5 or 600 yds? In all fairness I'm not talking about a "poke and hope" that I hit some vitals. If this rifle truly is as accurate as I expect it will be, Then a well placed shot has never let me down. So share with me what you know that causes you concern.

I realize that the 270 is not the most popular cartridge out there and for reasons I hope to learn some day it isn't used much for Varmint and B/R shooting. But It has proven its self to me. So I am biased and set on getting the most it has to offer. I am very confident in my ability. I say that to let you in on a little secret. 80% of the shots 300yds. or less are head/neck shots. I realize that I have probably just kicked a ethical hornets nest. But I have found it to be a all or none shot. And one that I have become very confident in.

So you do have me concerned about the effective range of my favorite cartridge. I will have to give that a second and more in-depth look. As far as the scope, what ever I buy will have atleast a 30mm tube and a 56mm o/b because I am convinced that anything less will not give me the light I require. If IOR has something in those dimensions, that is where I am headed.  I favored the 9-36X56 because of the 35mm tube and the low end is where most of my scopes stay 90% of the time. Thinking that with those dimensions low light would not be an issue. I look forward to your expertise and wisdom.

Thanks!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/21/2008 at 21:57
supertool73 View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar
Superstool

Joined: January/03/2008
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Points: 9531
I actually just leaned this my self on this site, but the size of the tube does not make any difference on how much light can go through the scope.  Whether it is a 1" tube or a 40mm tube, light pass through has to do with the quaility of the lens and the amount of exit pupil that comes through the scope.  Which can be found by dividing the objective size by the power.  A good quality 1" tube scope with good glass will be brighter than a 40mm tube scope with mediocre glass.  So with the 9-36x the most exit pupil you can get is 6.2mm which in reality sucks if you are worried about brightness and a low light scope.  Up at 36x your scope will only have 1.5mm of exit pupil, that will be like looking into a dark shadow all the time.  Now if you went with the IOR 4-14x-50, that would be a good bright scope.  The higher power you go with any scope the darker it will become.

Now as far as the max range of your caliber.  I just pulled some data of my ballistic software and a Federal vital shock with a 140 accubond still has 1107 ftlbs of energy at 700 yards, that is plenty for killing a deer at that range.  But the issue with that far is the wind.  A 10 mph side wind will blow that bullet nearly 3 feet off target at 700 yards.  That is not to much of a wind either.  The same shot at 300 yards will only blow the bullet 5 inches, so there is a huge huge difference in the external ballistics when you start dealing with wind at long range.  It could only be blowing 5 mph where you are standing and 15 to 20 somewhere between you and the target.  So that is what I was talking about when I stated shooting that far could be inhuman.  Also you would have to aim 110" high at 700 yards to make that hit.  So it would be really easy to blow the shot no matter how good your rifle or the shooter is if you don't take into affect the environmental variables.  Making first round hits beyond 400 yards with a light bullet like a .270 can become pretty challenging.  If the deer was walking 1mph that would be another 16 inches that you would need to lead him ontop of the 32 inches that you had to adjust for wind. 
So just some other things to think about before you start hunting serious long range.  I have always wanted to do it as well, but I have no where near the skills or know how at this time to dare take those kinds of shots.  300 yards is about as far as I would dare go with my current skill set. 
But what ever IOR scope you choose you will love, I have 3 or them and just love looking through them.  They are great durable scopes.
One last thought about the 9-36x, is it weighs over 2 lbs by it self.  LOL that is pretty heafty for a hunting scope. Big%20Smile
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/21/2008 at 23:11
Sgt. D View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: February/20/2008
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 3642
Yes sir 35 ozs. is really too much. That is one big reason I'll be spending on something else. I carried the M-249 SAW for several months and though I loved the weapon I don't miss the extra weight at all. With that scope on this rifle I'd be having some vivid flashbacks!
And thanks very much for the follow up on the 270 range issues. Wind is always the biggest issue with distance shooting. It sure has made me scratch my head a few times, when I thought I was on the money. What I am loading right now is giving me 3000 fps muzzle. And that isn't hot at all. You can rest assurred there will be lots of rounds down range at those distances before I would attempt anything bigger than a groung hog.
Oh! can you give the references on light transmission? In just applying my simple logic to tube size I was convinced that the larger tubes would channel more light provided that length didn't cancel its benifit. Thanks!
 
Though it may seem questionable, I do practice ethical hunting. I have strict criteria on long shots such as wind and especially target and beyond target identification. If you take a 500+ shot under poor conditions and miss, not only do you feel foolish but you earn a reputation for the same. I prefer to feel good about a shot "before and after".  
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/21/2008 at 23:32
Steelbenz View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
ROLL TIDE ROLL

Joined: January/03/2006
Location: Heart of Dixie
Status: Offline
Points: 4914
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/21/2008 at 23:34
supertool73 View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar
Superstool

Joined: January/03/2008
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Points: 9531
Here is all the links where it is talked about.  http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1696&KW=exit+pupil
I was in the same boat as you, I was sure the bigger tube would let more light through.

And don't get me wrong, I am not questioning your ethics.  I once saw two 30"+ bucks get wounded and never found because people were shooting beyond their capable range.  Ever since then it has been a big issue to me, and I just hate to see and hear things like that happening, thats all.  Post some pics when you get everything together as we would all love to see your setup.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/22/2008 at 03:17
8shots View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar
Lord Of The Flies

Joined: March/14/2007
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 5754
The bigger tube allows for more adjustment. Also the erector etc can be made larger, which helps with the repeatability ect of the entire construction.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/22/2008 at 09:13
supertool73 View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar
Superstool

Joined: January/03/2008
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Points: 9531
Originally posted by 8shots 8shots wrote:

The bigger tube allows for more adjustment. Also the erector etc can be made larger, which helps with the repeatability ect of the entire construction.


That is not necessarily true either about more adjustment.  IORs as an example, most of them even with the 35mm tube only have 60 to 70 MOA of travel.  Their 30 mm tube scope have more adjustment than their 35mm tubes.  But they do have a bigger lens assembly than most scopes, which from what I have been told will help to create a better/sharper image. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2008 at 00:36
Sgt. D View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: February/20/2008
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 3642
Surprise! Surprise!
 
It makes me want to go to work at a scope manufactor so I can fully understand all the aspects of their construction. It is really frustrating to think that any company would build a scope with a larger tube body, that in its self suggest that it would allow more light simply from being less restrictive. And then continue to use parts from smaller sets. I'm not saying they all do, but evidently some do based on your comments. But here I am being frustrated
(in truth) because of my own ignorance. As you stated the larger tube allows more range of adjustment which is certainly worth the difference provided that additional range is accomplished. If it isn't and it does not improve light transmission then it is simply decieit for profit on the publics ignorance. My mission has now turned to finding which of these scopes in my budget range 800.00 to 1500.00 has the quality, clarity, durability, power and most important, making low light a non-issue.
So, those of you who know the inner construction of these scopes and the ones that are accutally built to max their adjustment range and light transmission capabilities. Please jump on those key boards and share with the rest of the class. You might want to buy some extra shares first because that is were I'll be shopping.
Those of you who know this stuff are probably up on the latest innovations. Has anyone heard of any company looking a digitally powered scopes? If someone was to apply digital camera technology to their scopes we would probably see the next generation be born. I remember back when camcorders started to go digital I bought one that had 1Lux capability that I used mainly for filming deer in the evening. If any of you run with that idea and get rich, I want a job as your Ranch operator starting a 90K. But the concept is sound because they are able to transfer the readable illuminated objects to a enhanced display. And could probably cheat alittle with infared filters that would not necessarily qualify as a infared scope. So am I Loco or is there a chance I'll be getting some solid information, because after I was convinced that the IOR 9-36 wasn't an option I am now comparing the Leupold VX7 (expensive!!) and the IOR 6-24. HELP!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2008 at 01:42
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10977
The whole "digital camera for a riflescope" concept certainly has merit and Elcan made a scope called Digital Hunter that is the first reasonable application of this concept.  Now, this concept has both strengths and weaknesses, but it may be the way of the future (I work in the digital imaging industry and it has its problems).

There are a couple of things you said in a post above that are, to be blunt, flat out wrong.  Now, please do not get offended.  I am about to clarify what exactly I mean.  Everything I am going to talk about has been covered here in the past, and it may worth your while to do some searching and reading, starting with the FAQ:
http://opticstalk.com/forum_topics.asp?FID=25


Quote: "It is really frustrating to think that any company would build a scope with a larger tube body, that in its self suggest that it would allow more light simply from being less restrictive."

There is nothing restrictive about larger or smaller scope tube diameter.  Optics simply do not work that way.  Unless you go to absolutely humongous objective lens sizes (larger than 60mm or so) in fairly short scopes, the main tube does not, in any way shape or form, restrict the passage of light.

Quote: "As you stated the larger tube allows more range of adjustment which is certainly worth the difference provided that additional range is accomplished. If it isn't and it does not improve light transmission then it is simply decieit for profit on the publics ignorance."

As we talk about optical quality, light transmission is only one part of the equation, although everyone seems to focus on it.  In reality, contrast, resolution, and image fidelity are often far more important.

I was looking through some of my files, and find something I wrote in a response to a question about binoculars.  I think the general discussion of optics and images is relevant to scopes and binoculars in equal measure.  Some of the things I say there are very general simplifications and may not be strictly correct in every case, but are generally accurate.  I hope this is helpful:

"The quality of the image depends on several factors:

1) Amount of light incident on the eye pupil. This depends on the exit pupil of the binoculars and on the coatings. Eye pupil is not the same as the exit pupil of the binocular. If the binocular's exit pupil is the same size or smaller than your eye pupil, you are using all the light the binocular provides. If the binocular's exit pupil is greater than your eye pupil, you only utilize as much as is incident on your eye. To maximize the amount of light that gets to your eye for a particular exit pupil, you have to have very good coatings. Now, that does not mean that a 8x32 binocular with super duper coatings will always bring more light to the eye than a 8x42 binocular with lower quality coatings. If you look at the exit pupil difference between the two and assume that your eye can dilate far enough to utilize the whole exit pupil in this case, it is easy to calculate that a 8x42 binocular will bring in ~72.25% more light than a 8x32 binocular with comparable coatings. If the 8x42 has coatings of 85% light transmission and 8x32 has coatings of 95% transmission, the 8x42 will still bring in ~54% more light. Now the fact that there is lots of light incident on your eye does not mean that you can actually see anything. Amount of light is only part of the story.

2) Optical Resolution. There are really two parts to this. There is the “image” resolution and the “observed object” resolution. I am kind of coming up with some of this terminology on the fly, since this is not easy to verbalize. The eye has no clue of the magnification of the binocular or any other technical factor. All the eye sees is the picture presented by the ocular lens. The image presented by the ocular lens will be better resolved at lower magnifications and larger exit pupils. The reason for that lies in the geometry and surface quality of the glass. For example, consider a 8x42 and a 10x42 binoculars from the same line-up. They both have glass of identical quality. That means that the tiny scratch marks and aberrations that are always present will be magnified a little more with the higher magnification glass. Similarly, the same defects on the ocular lens will be more visible in the image of the 10x42 since the exit pupil is smaller. The lower the quality of the glass the more pronounced this difference is going to be. With the most top notch glass, the effect of these small aberrations is very hard to detect. If you are hell bent on getting higher magnification glass and want to maintain excellent image quality, plan on getting a higher end model with a larger objective lens. Now, “observed object” resolution adds another dimension to this. While the absolute resolution of an image is lower with a 10x42 compared to a 8x42, it also magnifies the object you are observing a little more. What comes into play here are the relative sizes of the details you are trying to see and the optical defects produced by the binocular. You will typically see a cleaner image with an 8x, but if the optical defects are sufficiently well suppressed, you will see more details with a higher magnification binocular. Once again, if you are on a strict budget, you are better served with a lower magnification binocular. If you want higher magnification, open up your wallet and get a bigger glass.

3) Image Fidelity. I’ll lump a bunch of stuff into this one. First of all, color fidelity depends on the types of glass used and on coatings. For roof prism binoculars phase coatings of the prisms makes for a huge difference. Your apparent resolution will depend heavily on whether all the wavelengths (colors) are focused onto the same spot. Coatings have a huge effect on that. Reflections can ruin an image real fast. There are a lot of optical surfaces inside a binocular. If they are not properly coated, you will get light bouncing back and forth between different surfaces and really messing with the image (and creating some ghost images in the process). It may be bright, but you will no see anything worthwhile if there are a bunch of reflections moving around. This has the most effect when there is not a lot of light available. If metal and plastic surfaces inside the binocular are not properly blackened, you can have all sort of off-axis stray light enter the binocular and ruin the picture. If there is insufficient baffling, you can see all sorts of stuff you do not want to see, such as reflective and diffractive effects off of the edges of the lenses and prisms, etc.

Coatings and surface quality play an absolutely huge role in producing a good image, especially in difficult conditions such as low light. The effect of good coatings goes far beyond simply light transmission. It allows us to minimize a lot of very undesirable reflections. I will take a dim but well resolved image over a bright blob any day (or night). Good surface finish and lens geometry significantly cut down on optical aberrations and diffractive effects due to microscopic surface scratches. "

As for your scope choices, I am not a big fan of VX-7.  If you want a large scope with nice glass t
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2008 at 12:35
Sgt. D View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: February/20/2008
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 3642

Koshkin You're the man!     Excellent

Thank you for helping me better understand the concepts of light transmission.

 

 At the risk of aggravating you a little I am going to push the issue alittle bit further.

This really is over simplified because (Lets face it, That’s were I am). We take a piece of one inch inside dia. pipe 8 ins. long and lay it on the table. Now in a average lit room if you observe, OH! the inside is blackened, looking in the tube you might notice faint shadows falling from the top outer edges toward the center and intersecting. But over all there is reasonable light throughout the tube. If you use longer tubes 10, 12, 14 ins. The shadows eventually do not intersect and cover the center area of the tube. Now if you jump to a 30mm tube in each length above and could measure the actual shadow lines except for the 8 in. tube you would gain just alittle more light to the center. But if you jump from the 1 in. to the 35mm (just under 1 7/8 inch) the light to the center of all tubes would be noticeably improved. especially in the longer ones. Now to complicate things about half way of the tube we place the inner workings of an adjustable reticle that to some extent will block some illumination at that point . But with equally larger reticle assemblies to match the tube you have also increased illumination. Now let me really get you going. On my receiving end I am going to place a recoil boot so the only light available will come from the objective end.                                                                 Whacko

Do you see now why I and so many other hunters flock to these larger tube scopes. In our common since simple lives, unless someone intervenes we spend money secretly so our wives don't poison us at dinner. To further shift the odds in our favor to spend even more money on trophies that they also don't want in the house. And what steams my shrimp is there is so much opinion and hype about scopes. When it should be clear and concise concerning lens quality and effective measurable illumination of any scopes abilities. Which validates my other comment about deceit. If the water stays muddy then most of the low end companies can stay open. Because they can build on a 30mm just like the big boys but with cheap glass and 1 in. parts.

 

I actually am very grateful for the list you provided. I will be searching each one later to sort out the one for me.

But please expand on the VX 7, I value your opinion, but I also need facts.

 

Thanks!!

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2008 at 13:23
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10977
Once again forgive the bluntness, but your tube analogy is completely and utterly irrelevant.  As I said earlier, focusing optics just do not work that way.

Inside the tube you have a lot of lenses.  What happens inside the tube depends on the lenses that are there and has absolutely nothing to do with the tube size itself.  The mechanics that hold the reticle or the lenses do not block anything out.

I have seen the analogy you used before.  It is often referred to as a "garden hose" analogy where people think that optics works like water flow where bigger garden hose means that there will be more water coming through.  That is just flat out wrong.  As I said optics just do not work that way.

As for the manufacturers providing specs on the inner working of the lenses, about 98 percent of the various specifications that are important to making a scope will tell little to nothing to a normal consumer without a background in optics.

ILya

Originally posted by Sgt. D Sgt. D wrote:

Koshkin You're the man!     Excellent

Thank you for helping me better understand the concepts of light transmission.

 

 At the risk of aggravating you a little I am going to push the issue alittle bit further.

This really is over simplified because (Lets face it, That’s were I am). We take a piece of one inch inside dia. pipe 8 ins. long and lay it on the table. Now in a average lit room if you observe, OH! the inside is blackened, looking in the tube you might notice faint shadows falling from the top outer edges toward the center and intersecting. But over all there is reasonable light throughout the tube. If you use longer tubes 10, 12, 14 ins. The shadows eventually do not intersect and cover the center area of the tube. Now if you jump to a 30mm tube in each length above and could measure the actual shadow lines except for the 8 in. tube you would gain just alittle more light to the center. But if you jump from the 1 in. to the 35mm (just under 1 7/8 inch) the light to the center of all tubes would be noticeably improved. especially in the longer ones. Now to complicate things about half way of the tube we place the inner workings of an adjustable reticle that to some extent will block some illumination at that point . But with equally larger reticle assemblies to match the tube you have also increased illumination. Now let me really get you going. On my receiving end I am going to place a recoil boot so the only light available will come from the objective end.                                                                 Whacko

Do you see now why I and so many other hunters flock to these larger tube scopes. In our common since simple lives, unless someone intervenes we spend money secretly so our wives don't poison us at dinner. To further shift the odds in our favor to spend even more money on trophies that they also don't want in the house. And what steams my shrimp is there is so much opinion and hype about scopes. When it should be clear and concise concerning lens quality and effective measurable illumination of any scopes abilities. Which validates my other comment about deceit. If the water stays muddy then most of the low end companies can stay open. Because they can build on a 30mm just like the big boys but with cheap glass and 1 in. parts.

 

I actually am very grateful for the list you provided. I will be searching each one later to sort out the one for me.

But please expand on the VX 7, I value your opinion, but I also need facts.

 

Thanks!!

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2008 at 13:23
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10977
Oh and another reminder, search engine is your friend.  There were a lot of discussion here that covered most of this stuff in some detail.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2008 at 13:31
supertool73 View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar
Superstool

Joined: January/03/2008
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Points: 9531
The lenses are curved which will cause the light to focus to a smaller point.  Much like when you use a magnifying glass to burn ants, scope lenses are going to work the same way.  Here is a pic of the internals of a scope.


Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/23/2008 at 13:35
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10977
Keep in mind, also, that his drawing is a fairly simple scope with few lenses.  Some of the higher end and/or higher magnification devices can have a much more complicated construction with twice the number of lenses.

ILya
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "IOR Valdada"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
IOR VALDADA SCOPE RICK WILKINSON Rifle Scopes 2 3/17/2004 12:08:49 PM
IOR Valdada Binoculars. koshkin Binoculars 6 7/1/2004 9:56:54 AM
ior valdada 3x25 tactical landlocked Tactical Scopes 1 10/26/2004 7:33:44 PM
IOR Valdada 4-14x50 Tactical? Inukshuk Tactical Scopes 3 12/22/2004 5:34:19 PM
IOR Valdada 6-24x50 Tactical reticle plan expeditionx Tactical Scopes 3 8/2/2004 12:37:41 PM
IOR Valdada & Horus Vision paulosantos Tactical Scopes 0 9/21/2005 7:48:48 PM
IOR valdada 2.5-10x42 hunting/tactical vs nortac Rifle Scopes 15 2/13/2006 5:41:43 PM
I.O.R. Valdada Reticle Question... Black Squirrel Tactical Scopes 12 8/4/2006 11:47:38 AM
IOR Valdada 3-18x42 35mm TwoGun Tactical Scopes 6 1/18/2006 5:14:27 PM
IOR Valdada 4-14x50 Butler Creek Sizes dvajda Tactical Scopes 1 3/24/2007 12:39:18 PM


This page was generated in 0.500 seconds.