The objective diameter, lens quality/number and coatings determine how much light gets through. The larger (30mm vice 1") tube is for more adjustment range, that's why the long range scopes come with tubes are large as 34-35mm.grumpyMSG wrote:The other good part of the scope is the 30 MM tube which will allow for more light transmission in early morning and late evening hunting.
Yup, it isn't cheap. For a hunting gun the worst case is the batteries are dead or failing and I can't take a shot. If I were betting my life on it, I'd take the tritium every day of the week. It's a trade off either way.grumpyMSG wrote:One of the sources that the Accupoint uses for illumination is Tritium which slowly looses it's glow over a few years. I know some folks will say "but the fiber optic uses sunlight". In my own experience most deer are taken within an hour and a half of dawn or dusk, not during the middle of the day when the sun is shining brightly. I once did the research on how much renewing the tritium in an ACOG would cost and the magic sum of $400.
If I were betting my life on it, it would be an Aimpoint Comp M4S not an ACOG. 5 to 8 years of illumination and then needing to have a $400 service in a scope, would be $50 to $80 a year. I would have to kill a few extra deer to justify that. I figure a battery powered scope that needed a new battery every year would be far less expensive. Heck, I have Bushnell Holosight (cheaper, less durable precursor to the Eotech) on a shotgun it has the type N batteries, they get replaced once a year and it has been on there for about five years. The cost of the Leupold is close to the cost of getting the tritium replaced, assuming it is similar in cost to service an ACOG. One other minor bit about the tritium is that it is radioactive and the HazMat aspects of shipping it if it has been damaged would be a nightmare. I don't fear the minor bit of radiation they put off, it is that HazMat that bothers me, like the mercury in the flourescent light bulbs.gunderwood wrote: Yup, it isn't cheap. For a hunting gun the worst case is the batteries are dead or failing and I can't take a shot. If I were betting my life on it, I'd take the tritium every day of the week. It's a trade off either way.
Edit: Unless the battery option lasted as long as the Aimpoints do, but they really don't have many competitors there. Lit reticule scopes won't last anywhere near that long, but for hunting do you care? Probably not.
Zeiss is really nice glass, but overall they are just middle of the road. Their military line, Hensoldt, uses their awesome "glass" and provides a better overall package. I like the S&Bs features/reticle options better, but both make a Zeiss look ho-hum.davasmith wrote:Ah hell man, just buy a zeiss scope and forget the rest of the advice! (If you can find one that won't make you get a second mortgage!)
Ps. nice looking gun, it's one of the one's I'm eyeing right now. Congrats!
gunderwood, excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference? Wouldn't you want the most accurate shot either way?gunderwood wrote:...but then again I'm against putting target optics on top of hunting/field rifles unless you are building a "sniper rifle." Even than 1x for ever 100 yards is plenty. YMMV.
bryanrheem wrote:gunderwood, excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference? Wouldn't you want the most accurate shot either way?gunderwood wrote:...but then again I'm against putting target optics on top of hunting/field rifles unless you are building a "sniper rifle." Even than 1x for ever 100 yards is plenty. YMMV.
), but I will try and answer your question.
totes6 wrote:bryanrheem wrote:gunderwood, excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference? Wouldn't you want the most accurate shot either way?gunderwood wrote:...but then again I'm against putting target optics on top of hunting/field rifles unless you are building a "sniper rifle." Even than 1x for ever 100 yards is plenty. YMMV.
Well I am not gunderwood (so this reply will be much shorter than his would have been
