Scopes?

T

TrxR

New member
Whats the standard or go to SR benchrest scope? Is it mainly fixed powered scopes? Also do any of you use offset rings ? If so which brand? Ive got harrels offset on my rimfire with a weaver t36.


Thanks
 
I had a March 60X and thought I was in seventh heaven, that was until I saw Leupold booted to 78. But what ever you use will be just great.
 
I've only had my 8-80 out a dozen times, 6 of them at 600yds but only once have I been able to run it up to 80X

When I did I could easily resolve 6mm holes at 600yds in the white

I _think_ a 78X fixed would be trouble some days
 
The

40X leopold image will be a tad brighter than the 45X for sure. As far is it being better optically, there should be no difference but there are exceptions to every rule.
 
Last edited:
Weight is a big factor if you are building a LV or Sporter. 24 ounces is about as heavy as you can go with most stock/action combos.

With one of the high end super light stocks, which can be as light as 20 ounces. Your options are better.

Most of the variables are simply too heavy.

For Heavy Varmint, the choices are abundant.

I use the 48x March High Master on all three of my BR Rifles
 
Last edited:
I haven't shot any benchrest in a while but photography has been one of my principle hobbies for a couple of decades. There are obvious parallels between scopes and camera lenses.


Before you go looking for high levels of magnification, a prime characteristic of your scope optics should be "resolving power". Boosting a scope to look at features near to or exceeding its inherent resolving power just gives you a "muddy" view. Resolving power is determined in optical physics having to do with the lens design and the optical quality of the lenses. Optical reality is that it is inherently easier to achieve any given level of resolving power with a fixed design. This isn't to say that there aren't well designed variable lenses/scopes that out perform a cheaper fixed. But the designer has to work to do it, hence $. Lenses with very high resolving power have two characteristic in common, they are fixed and expensive. If I were a scope designer for a, say, 40X scope, I don't think I would spend the necessary money to design for twice the resolving power needed for a 78X. It's a very competitive market and only a small fraction of the market for a scope would thinking about boosting.

In the camera world, "ultimate" sharpness (aka, resolving power) is found with expensive fixed lenses.


I think it's plain that any fixed scope operating at its designed resolution is going to be optically superior to a scope that has been boosted to reach that same resolution.

Below is a shot I took with one of those lenses. (click to expand)
DSC06078.jpg
 
Last edited:
TomD said:
I haven't shot any benchrest in a while but photography has been one of my principle hobbies for a couple of decades. There are obvious parallels between scopes and camera lenses.


Before you go looking for high levels of magnification, a prime characteristic of your scope optics should be "resolving power". Boosting a scope to look at features near to or exceeding its inherent resolving power just gives you a "muddy" view. Resolving power is determined in optical physics having to do with the lens design and the optical quality of the lenses. Optical reality is that it is inherently easier to achieve any given level of resolving power with a fixed design. This isn't to say that there aren't well designed variable lenses/scopes that out perform a cheaper fixed. But the designer has to work to do it, hence $. Lenses with very high resolving power have two characteristic in common, they are fixed and expensive. If I were a scope designer for a, say, 40X scope, I don't think I would spend the necessary money to design for twice the resolving power needed for a 78X. It's a very competitive market and only a small fraction of the market for a scope would thinking about boosting.

In the camera world, "ultimate" sharpness (aka, resolving power) is found with expensive fixed lenses.


I think it's plain that any fixed scope operating at its designed resolution is going to be optically superior to a scope that has been boosted to reach that same resolution.

Below is a shot I took with one of those lenses. (click to expand)
View attachment 21901
Click to expand...

When I was very young I looked at a spider under a microscope I got as a Christmas present. Never again. Have an irrational fear of spiders to this day.
 
Looks like

adamsgt said:
When I was very young I looked at a spider under a microscope I got as a Christmas present. Never again. Have an irrational fear of spiders to this day.
Click to expand...

some kind of orb weaver perhaps a black and yellow garden spider? Cool.
 
Last edited:
I've had a number of different power scopes

and for me, 40 X is as high as I like. I find anything more than that to be too much. Just sayin.

Pete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top