I seriously think that there were parallax issues, and given that the model was pulled back and redesigned I haven't really lingered on the issue.Originally Posted by bp7178
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Industry Professional/Moderator
I seriously think that there were parallax issues, and given that the model was pulled back and redesigned I haven't really lingered on the issue.
Senior Member
Im not an optical engineer but I did express interest in them turning their 1.5-6X42 into a tactical scope with external adjustments, and maybe working that 1.5X down to 1.1X or 1.25 somehow.
The 6X top end with 42MM objective should be somewhere around 7MM exit pupil which is twice as large as the 1-8X. Personally I don't really care how large the front end is as long as I can mount it in a 1.5" tall mount. Im not sure why all these optics have to be whats basically a straight wall design. The CQBSS has a light bevel to the front but I still consider it straight wall.
Seems like it would make a huge difference especially with eye box and night time light. Im not going to pay 3500 for a scope with a tiny eye box and poor low light transmission no matter who's name is on the side. Doesn't even matter what coatings the lenses have or how clear the glass is if the glass is not a sufficient size to take in light, and put it into your eye. 8X with 24MM objective would be 3MM max exit pupil. At night the human eye needs 6-7MM.
Senior Member
There was a very informative post on the SWFA forums about exit pupil. It was a copy and paste the author had received to a question he had wrote to a manufacturer.
The short version is the math between the objective and magnification will get you entrance pupil. After the light passes through more lenses, and the erector assembly, it wouldn't be the exact same as doing the math on it.
I think there is a weight concern to just slapping a larger lens on there. Glass lenses are very heavy when compared to poly-carbonate and high index plastic lenses.
The one scope which has really caught my attention was the Swaro 1.7-10x. It uses a larger objective lens, similar to the new(er) Nightforce 2.5-10x.
One of these days I want to try a 1.7-10x Swaro with a RDS in an offset for a precision rig.
Last edited by bp7178; 02-08-12 at 11:47.
Member
Belmont, you do realize that those DO actually exist, right? Granted they are somewhat rare and dated. Most of them have BDC turrets for .308. I also know that Frank Galli (Snipershide) had some special made with Gen I Short Dot turrets and he has alluded to the fact that it was just as capable as the 1-8x Short Dot if not more so due to the relatively low price.
Senior Member
Doubletap
Last edited by WS6; 07-05-12 at 07:04.
Senior Member
I am now more confused than ever.
I read this thread, and found that people say the new Zenith short-dot is shorter--yet S&B's site lists it as longer.
That the 24mm objective has a wider FOV---yet S&B lists it as the same.
Then there is the issue of FFP or SFP---I think FFP is nice because it removes all the "clutter" on 1X. Is there a downside to FFP?
Why is FFP on their "flagship scope"...but not on their "newest" Shortdot?
If I want the best/quickest optic for up close, should I buy the Zenith based Shortdot (24mm), or the PM II, (20mm)? Is FFP really an advantage? I would think it is, but...
Is the CQB reticle better than the #7? Again, I like the removal of clutter from the FOV at 1X that I see in pictures of the CQB FFP reticle. However, is S&B's website correct that I give up NO FOV, or are people here like Molon correct?
Very confusing. I see a lot of 24mm obj. S&B's for sale. Not so many 20mm. Maybe this says something? (maybe not).
Basically, I am trying to compare: http://www.midwayusa.com/product/362...-reticle-matte
to: http://www.midwayusa.com/product/242...-reticle-matte
Midway lists the Zenith SD model as the same length as the PM II, but the FOV is indeed listed as 4M larger at 100M using 1.1X. Is this "enough to matter" shooting both-eyes open? Is one eye-box more forgiving of head position than the other? Does one gather light better than the other that anyone can actually perceive (obviously based on raw data...).
I like the features (I think...) of the SD PMII due to the "disappearing reticle" on 1.1X afforded by the FFP, but on paper, the Zenith PM2 "wins" a little in a few areas. Then there is talk of "blue lenses", but I think that is only on the NON-SD Zenith line, no?
Are both optics currently in production, or was one or the other (or both, now?) phased out?
Last edited by WS6; 07-05-12 at 07:05.
Senior Member
I would only take specs as accurate from S&B's German website. All others are dated or incorrect.
http://www.schmidtundbender.de/en/pr...ortdot-le.html
There is more to FOV and exit pupil than just objective size.
FFP reticles in such a low power scope really make the reticle worthless at anything less than 4x. You will have a hard time even seeing it at less than 4x, never mind ranging or trying to hold with it.
I had one of the new(er) generation Short Dot LEs. There was NO blue tint.
Mine had a P3 reticle and was of course SFP. I would hardly call it cluttered at 1x.
The battery life on any of the vari scopes is incredibly short. I would rather a SFP so it could be used w/o the battery on 1x.
FWIW, I thought the eye box was better on my Trijicon TR24 and the Short Dot LE. Wasn't huge, but it was slightly better.
Senior Member
Thank-you. This is the kind of input I am after. I did more reading, and see that with the reticle illuminated on the FFP, it's worthless at 200 yards or so unless I'm shooting at a barn or cow or something, whereas with the SFP, I can indeed make use of it.
I have read 100 hours. Is this accurate? Still, that's a TON of actual "run-time".
How sensitive is eye-relief on the "close end" (I don't know how to word that). Do you need the extended mount, or is a regular mount fine?
http://www.bobroengineering.com/view/product/7/
vs.
http://www.bobroengineering.com/view/product/8/\
ETA: I was on the .de site. Their data is incorrect, if people in this thread are to be believed. I tend to think the site is wrong and will go with what people who have them in-hand say vs. what it says.
Last edited by WS6; 07-05-12 at 08:58.
Senior Member
The de site matched my Short Dot LE perfectly, and was the only source that correctly listed the specs, reticle choices aside. Specs change and you need to look at when the posts were made. If you have questions, I would call S&B's US office to confirm. They had sent me a PDF spec sheet which reflected exactly what the German site listed, but the measurements were changed from metric.
On scope mounts you can always slide the scope forward in the mount. It more or less comes down to where you want the turrets in relation to the rings. The occular lens will more or less be placed just forward of the charging handle.
Keep in mind with that 100 hours of battery life shit happens. You forget to turn the scope off etc. 100 hours also reflects one of the mid settings, not the nuclear bright highest one. There is a spare battery in the windage cap, but it isn't very easy to take out.
Senior Member
Does it have the auto-off feature after 6 or 8 hours, as advertised?
Ironically, it is the 20mm objective model which ORIGINALLY surfaced with the "blue tint"...hmmm...
http://www.tucsonguns.com/Scopes-001_Schmidt_Bender.php
Last edited by WS6; 07-05-12 at 09:37.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks