- The AGN App is ready! Search "Airgun Nation" in your App store. To compliment this new tech we've assigned the "Threads" Feed & "Dark" Mode. To revert back click HERE.
Why are better scopes smaller in size?
- Thread starter _Axel_
- Start date
Wouldn’t way there is exactly a correlation size wise, because the pricier tactical scopes are just massive (34mm tube diameter) (tangent theta, kahles, nightforce, minox, etc)
Now for weight wise, more expensive scopes utilize titanium tubes (stronger and lighter).
Now for weight wise, more expensive scopes utilize titanium tubes (stronger and lighter).
Upvote 0
I couldn’t believe how cartoony big the 34mm scopes were. One that stuck out was this one schmidt and bender, thing just dwarfed my 30mm NF NXS
Upvote 0
Smaller scope designs come at the cost of sacrificing something or another. This is always the case with variable power, high magnification scopes. Optical lens technology has definitely improved this past couple of years, but there will always be some tradeoffs (CA, donuting, tiny parallax adjustment ranges, exit pupil, et al).
The only thing "better" is size and weight.
The only thing "better" is size and weight.
Upvote 0
Scopes that are shorter in length have to be engineered differently to perform as well as longer scopes. Focal plane length (distance between the objective and first interior lens) sets the stage for all the other innards. The objective is the largest and costs exponentially more as size increase. A 50 mm lense can cost 2 or 3X times as much as a 40mm lens of the same quality. If you have identical scopes at the same price point - except that one has a 55mm lens and the other has a 42mm lens - you can bet that the 42mm version is higher quality glass. This is one of the reasons why a top tier scope with a 55mm objective costs $3K. Think diamonds. A perfect 2 carat diamond costs more (De Biers price fixing aside) than twice as much as a perfect 1 carat diamond. The cost is a geometric progression, rather than arithmetic.
Short scopes can require a package of two or three expensive lenses instead of a single, expensive lens to address focal length and produce the same quality FOV. Another cost stems from cramming in the erector tube, power adjustment mechanism, side focus extra lens, and mechanical adjustments into limited space and still end up with a product of the same quality as a larger package.
Traditionally, quality scope makers such as Leupold and SWFA have spent their money on a smaller, high quality objective lens (40-42mm) and a long focal plane to make it work. Add in a fixed magnification - way fewer moving parts to screw up - and you have a recipe for a great scope at an everyman price.
All the above is a gross simplification, but you get the idea. Generally, when buying optics from a reputable maker, you get what you pay for.
Short scopes can require a package of two or three expensive lenses instead of a single, expensive lens to address focal length and produce the same quality FOV. Another cost stems from cramming in the erector tube, power adjustment mechanism, side focus extra lens, and mechanical adjustments into limited space and still end up with a product of the same quality as a larger package.
Traditionally, quality scope makers such as Leupold and SWFA have spent their money on a smaller, high quality objective lens (40-42mm) and a long focal plane to make it work. Add in a fixed magnification - way fewer moving parts to screw up - and you have a recipe for a great scope at an everyman price.
All the above is a gross simplification, but you get the idea. Generally, when buying optics from a reputable maker, you get what you pay for.
Upvote 0