A special scope designed for US shooters II

Between the EMails, Comments and Posts about our previous entry, it is clear that part of the confusion comes from an oversimplification of the internals of a riflescope.

My good friend Brian Samson has posted that he thinks using this scope at 12X for the UK version of the 'Hunter FT' game would be a "terrible" idea. He cannot conceive how a 56 mm's objective lens with a 12x magnification can have any depth of field.

I have another good friend that says that one small, concrete, solid, real, test is worth 100 "expert" opinions. He usually refers to me when he says that, so I do not know why he is my friend, ROFL! but he is.

And so, without further ado, let's exemplify in pictures what a professional oriented scope can do:

This is the test setup. I had to create a device to affix the scope to a tripod. Not bad, I had been wanting to do that for some time, so this test afforded me the reason to do it. Now I can test the scopes before they get sent to their end users ;-) Targets are set 5 yards apart, starting at 10 and going all the way out to 50. This is 5 yards too far for the UKAHFT game, but this is a test ¿right?

The scope setting in magnification. Perhaps 12X was a little overenthusiastic on my part but, mostly, without a steady holding device, in my shaky FT position (which is banned in UKAHFT, BTW) it was what I had tested previously.

This is the 50 yards target. Setting the parallax of the scope at 36 yards (the stone ledge seen here), you can clearly see the 50 yard boar and its KZ. And, more importantly, you can still MEASURE it. Granted the KZ's in this test are pristine, unshot. But it is also true that the targets are lit in a peculiar way with some shadow play. Even with the uneven light and the treacherous disposition of the string rings, the whole sight picture is not too much out of focus. Another important aspect is that, as per UKAHFT format, ALL targets have to have white or yellow faceplates with black KZ's. This is a huge boon to the shooter as even when lead splattered, you would still be able to see the black reticle against the pale background of the faceplate itself.

This is the 45 yards rabbit. Same comments. A little out of focus, but not enough to make it unreadable.

The 40 yards crow. With some attention you can clearly see the "Remington" logo, the target is perfectly "readable"

The 35 yards "Wabbit", this is the closest target to the selected range set in the scope (the stone ledge 1 yard behind this rabbit). Perfectly readable, as was expected.

Now we have the 30 yards crow. Things start to get slightly blurry, but the whole target, as well as its immediate surroundings are perfectly readable.

The 25 yards boar. Yes the edges are not as defined as they could be, if the scope was perfectly in focus, BUT that is not the name of the game. The name of the game here is to be able to read ALL the targets in the range with a single scope setting. I think that so far, the scope has been performing as it was designed.

Now we have here the 20 yards boar. Sorry to have put two identical animals in consecutive order, but I think that the picture does show that the target, while not in perfect focus, it is measurable with the reticle.

A crow at 15 yards. Note how the camera could not decide to focus on the reticle and has now focused on the target. In real life, our eyes will focus in what we WANT them to focus. My tendency would be to focus on the reticle. JMHO

And now, a 10 yards bunny with the smallest KZ in the Remington set (about 19 mm's). This time the camera decided to focus on the reticle (as our eyes would have in a natural environment)

As you can see from all the pictures above, the scope does a more than creditable job for an entry level priced scope. The "depth of field" can easily be adjusted to span the 15 to 50 yards targets (5 yards MORE than required as per  UKAHFT format. Some SMALL gain could be achieved setting a nearer range, but the objective of this test was only to determine the applicability of this scope to varied shooting conditions and usefulness for a specific purpose.


Now, Brian also comments that a 10X32 would be a better choice to shoot the UKAHFT game. Well, again, let's do a test:

This is a Tac-Vector Gladiator scope. A 2-12X32 FFP scope set at 10X. This is the Boar at 50 yards. Maybe too far for 10X.

The 45 yards bunny. Hmmmmm, not too much to measure, nor to have any real info about at 10X with a standard mrad reticle.

The 40 yards Crow. A hard shot, still.

The 35 yards bunny. Now, we're cooking! Not easy, but doable. Still, a much handicapped shot in relation to using the ADE scope.

The 30 yards crow.

The 25 yards boar.

The 20 yards boar.

The 15 yards crow. Again the camera did not really know where to focus.

The 10 yard bunny.

As you can see, range for range, the 5-25X56 MH FFP scope performs better than the 2-12X32 MD FFP scope.

This begs the question: ¿HOW can this be?

As Brian, we ALL know that larger objective lenses make the system "faster" I.E. it reduces the depth of field. And we are sure that small objectives in a scope HAVE to mean increased depths of field, especially at low magnifications. And yet, here we are, pitting a 56 mm's scope set at ALMOST 12X, vs. a 32 mm's scope set at 10X and still, the depth of field is clearly greater / better in the large scope than in the small scope.

¿How do we reconcile THEORY with REALITY?

Well, truth be told, there is NOTHING to reconcile. If you go to my Blog entry titled "How to Understand Riflescopes" you can read the following:

"In order to provide crispness to the image, scope manufacturers insert a "stop" (a metal plate with a hole) at this point. This reduces the stray light bouncing around the internals of the scope and allows the eye to perceive a "crisp" sight picture. It does not diminish light throughput because the image is already a reduced one and it already includes the reticle." 


Well, ¿what is crispness of image if not another way of describing "in focus"?


The scope designer has not only lenses to play with, but he can also play with "nothingnesses" (if I may invent a word). Judicious use of the stops, either physical or virtual, is what makes this apparent contradiction possible.

The other objection raised is that even if the scope was in relative focus, there would be parallax, and the aiming error introduced through the parallax error is a detrimental thing.
Well, Yes! But that would be true of ANY scope in ANY setting.
Parallax error under these conditions and restrictions needs to be managed by the shooter pro-actively. IMHO, the best way for most shooters to manage parallax error under these conditions is to set the scope as far forwards as the mounts/rail will allow. This creates a "peep within the scope" sight picture that practically eliminates different eye positions. Most shooters will be able to use this technique.

And here I will end up this note saying that there is a HUGE difference between riflescopes made for "sporting" purposes (even if they are $4000 March's and S&B's) and scopes made for "professionals" (meaning those whose lives depend on their tools). When you are designing a scope to be used in a number of different circumstances, conditions and environments, you endeavour to make a versatile scope. As a designer, the use of the stops becomes important precisely when you want to make this versatility COUNT. 


And ¿where would it count more than in the battlefield?


Keep well and shoot straight!












HM