56mm objective..Less Eye Strain?

[BigDave]

I really wanted my Falcon Menace 5.5-25 scope in 56mm. The price is the same as the 50mm objective. Weight is only 2.5 more ounces. It must be mounted slightly higher. No problem there.

It was back ordered from the UK) so I decided to get the 50mm which was in stock.

The dealer, SWFA, told me:
1) A 56mm objective would give me no difference at all as far as eye strain. My eyes are old and get tired fast behind a scope.

2) A 56mm is LESS forgiving as far as getting a good picture (ie no scope shadow)

I have read in several places that both statements are wrong and the total opposite is true. SWFA is supposed to know things like this.
So, what is the real truth?

I was really hoping the 56mm would give me a bit of less eye strain vs a 50mm.
I was hoping for an easier to attain sight picture (no shadow) with a 56mm objective.

I dont suppose it matters much. Even if both of the above are false, I still had no idea how many weeks it would take to get the 56mm in stock. But if I am not thrilled with the 50mm, I may sell it and get the 56mm taking a bit of a loss, but getting what I want. Or not?

I could use some help. Thanks

[Robinhood]

The objective has nothing to do with eye strain the way I understand optics. It is more of a design and lens quality issue. One of the big factors that I recognize as causing eye strain is a small exit pupil. This is usually worse on higher magnification and includes small field of view.

[Robinhood]

You asked for help and I really did not offer you any so I will give you my opinion. The larger objective is normally considered to increase the amount of light gathered by the lens. This helps when increasing magnification. A small objective with high power can get dark on you if the glass and the coatings are cheap. The larger diameter of the scope tube aides in the ability to have more elevation and windage adjustments.

There is only so much you can do with a small investment and in the power game it begins to have diminishing returns. If you notice that very small movements of your head take you out of the site picture you have a small exit pupil, ramsden circle or eyepoint. I thnk they all mean the same. This will cause your eye to tire because it is like trying to view the world through a 1/4 inch tube. Look for better glass at lower magnification and you will be happy. You really don't need much over 20X unless you are shooting long range. Real long range.

[yobuck]

Other than gathering slightly more light the larger objective would serve no purpose. The diameter of the exit pupil divided by the objective size will determine the power.
Not sure if that holds completly true on varieable powered scopes. Eye strain would be more apt to be an issue with binnoculars or even a spotting scope than it would in a rifle scope due to the time factor when using them. Even then with good quality properly adjusted binnoculars eye strain isnt an issue.

[D.ID]

I get eye strain with inferior glass quite easily regardless of magnification even a 3-9 can stress me in no time at all.
With good glass it is not an issue even at very high magnification and long durations, hours in some cases.
I expect it's fair to say that everyones eyes react differently but for me magnification is only relevant if I do not have enough for the target at hand.

How much magnification you need depends on your target more than the distance alone. A 16" steel plate or an elk can be engaged a long ways out (1K+) with a 4x scope but the head of a ground squirrel peeking over a dirt berm out at 300 yards requires 20x or more quite often.
If the 50mm doesn't work for you the 56mm likely will not either.

[LongRange]

robbinhood hit the nail.... bigger tube will help with i strain...a 30mm tube is hard to get in the eye box comfortably a 34mm tube is much more forgiving at higher powers.

[BigDave]

robbinhood hit the nail.... bigger tube will help with i strain...a 30mm tube is hard to get in the eye box comfortably a 34mm tube is much more forgiving at higher powers.

Ahhh! Thank you all for the replies. I am usually good at finding my own answers. For some reason this whole concept escaped me.

Unfortunately the very best optics I can currently afford are Japan coated glass of good (not excellent quality) Chinese one piece 30mm tube and internals of good quality and U.K. assembly of good quality. The price point is right. SWFA simply replaces the scope for any warranty issues. Its a little known company here in the USA, but popular in Europe. Falcon.

I could have bought a Millet with a 35mm tube but I hear they still have a lot of QC issues. One scope will be fine and the next will be a paper weight...tracking issues, etc. Supposedly Falcon has better glass and QC. SWFA seemed to agree with my choice and didnt try to sway me one bit. So, we shall see...

I bought this scope and reticle today:

http://swfa.com/images/FALM25B-rt.jpg (http://swfa.com/images/FALM25B-rt_popup.jpg) Falcon Menace 5.5-25x50 Tactical 30mm Riflescope (http://swfa.com/Falcon-Menace-55-25x50-Tactical-30mm-Riflescope-P57242.aspx)
Stock # - FALM2550B


Matte
First Focal Plane B20 Reticle
30mm
Side Focus
1/10 MIL Target Knobs
Comes with Sunshade and Flip Up Covers



$449.95 + shipping from TX to FL was expensive..around $16, I think. Ground. I wont see it this week I think. I cant order rings until I measure it up on my rifle. I want it as low as humanly possible.

Even though its a 25 power scope, i figured it would be usable at 20 power and below. It needs to do double duty as a spotting scope for now too. Some day I will sell it and get a Bushnell HDMR G2 reticle scope. This one:

It has a 34mm TUBE :D
Bushnell Elite Tactical G2 FFP Reticle Riflescope, 3.5-21x50mm



by Bushnell (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=bl_sr_sporting-goods?ie=UTF8&field-brandtextbin=Bushnell&node=3375251)

12 customer reviews (http://www.amazon.com/Bushnell-Tactical-Reticle-Riflescope-3-5-21x50mm/dp/B006UJ03H0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1426557373&sr=8-2&keywords=bushnell+hdmr#customerReviews)

| 12 answered questions (http://www.amazon.com/Bushnell-Tactical-Reticle-Riflescope-3-5-21x50mm/dp/B006UJ03H0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1426557373&sr=8-2&keywords=bushnell+hdmr#Ask)



List Price:
$2,119.95


Price:
$1,219.99 & FREE Shipping



http://www.amazon.com/Bushnell-Tactical-Reticle-Riflescope-3-5-21x50mm/dp/B006UJ03H0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1426557373&sr=8-2&keywords=bushnell+hdmr

[LongRange]

Ahhh! Thank you all for the replies. I am usually good at finding my own answers. For some reason this whole concept escaped me.

Unfortunately the very best optics I can currently afford are Japan coated glass of good (not excellent quality) Chinese one piece 30mm tube and internals of good quality and U.K. assembly of good quality. The price point is right. SWFA simply replaces the scope for any warranty issues. Its a little known company here in the USA, but popular in Europe. Falcon.

I could have bought a Millet with a 35mm tube but I hear they still have a lot of QC issues. One scope will be fine and the next will be a paper weight...tracking issues, etc. Supposedly Falcon has better glass and QC. SWFA seemed to agree with my choice and didnt try to sway me one bit. So, we shall see...

I bought this scope and reticle today:

http://swfa.com/images/FALM25B-rt.jpg (http://swfa.com/images/FALM25B-rt_popup.jpg) Falcon Menace 5.5-25x50 Tactical 30mm Riflescope (http://swfa.com/Falcon-Menace-55-25x50-Tactical-30mm-Riflescope-P57242.aspx)
Stock # - FALM2550B


Matte
First Focal Plane B20 Reticle
30mm
Side Focus
1/10 MIL Target Knobs
Comes with Sunshade and Flip Up Covers



$449.95 + shipping from TX to FL was expensive..around $16, I think. Ground. I wont see it this week I think. I cant order rings until I measure it up on my rifle. I want it as low as humanly possible.

Even though its a 25 power scope, i figured it would be usable at 20 power and below. It needs to do double duty as a spotting scope for now too. Some day I will sell it and get a Bushnell HDMR G2 reticle scope. This one:

It has a 34mm TUBE :D
Bushnell Elite Tactical G2 FFP Reticle Riflescope, 3.5-21x50mm



by Bushnell (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=bl_sr_sporting-goods?ie=UTF8&field-brandtextbin=Bushnell&node=3375251)

12 customer reviews (http://www.amazon.com/Bushnell-Tactical-Reticle-Riflescope-3-5-21x50mm/dp/B006UJ03H0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1426557373&sr=8-2&keywords=bushnell+hdmr#customerReviews)

| 12 answered questions (http://www.amazon.com/Bushnell-Tactical-Reticle-Riflescope-3-5-21x50mm/dp/B006UJ03H0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1426557373&sr=8-2&keywords=bushnell+hdmr#Ask)



List Price:
$2,119.95


Price:
$1,219.99 & FREE Shipping



http://www.amazon.com/Bushnell-Tactical-Reticle-Riflescope-3-5-21x50mm/dp/B006UJ03H0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1426557373&sr=8-2&keywords=bushnell+hdmr

let us know how you like it...and if your going to lay down that kinda money on a scope some day id suggest you spend a few more bucks and get a nightforce or a vortex over a bushnell...just MHO.

[Jamie]

With current high quality scopes, tube diameter has to do with adjustment ranges and nothing with lens quality or "light gathering". Yobuck is correct, divide objective diameter by magnification and you get exit pupil size. Average eye can dial ate to about 7mm, some people can get 9mm. The closer to 7mm the exit pupil the less strain on your eye. This is true when comparing apples to apples.


A few years back tube diameter came into play because only the top of the line scopes with the best lens and coatings had 30 mm tubes so naturally they seemed brighter and better. Now a days tube diameter is a marketing scheme and can be had with absolutely horrible glass.

To answer the original question, on low power you won't notice it and on high power I think lens/coating quality will limit you more than exit pupil.

[J.Baker]

I really wanted my Falcon Menace 5.5-25 scope in 56mm. The price is the same as the 50mm objective. Weight is only 2.5 more ounces. It must be mounted slightly higher. No problem there.

It was back ordered from the UK) so I decided to get the 50mm which was in stock.

The dealer, SWFA, told me:
1) A 56mm objective would give me no difference at all as far as eye strain. My eyes are old and get tired fast behind a scope.

2) A 56mm is LESS forgiving as far as getting a good picture (ie no scope shadow)

I have read in several places that both statements are wrong and the total opposite is true. SWFA is supposed to know things like this.
So, what is the real truth?

I was really hoping the 56mm would give me a bit of less eye strain vs a 50mm.
I was hoping for an easier to attain sight picture (no shadow) with a 56mm objective.

I dont suppose it matters much. Even if both of the above are false, I still had no idea how many weeks it would take to get the 56mm in stock. But if I am not thrilled with the 50mm, I may sell it and get the 56mm taking a bit of a loss, but getting what I want. Or not?

I could use some help. Thanks

I didn't read through any of the other replies so this might be repetitive, but ...

Properties will vary from scope to scope as the internals (how they're arranged and spaced apart) will dictate performance more than any exterior feature (tube dia, obj. dia, etc.), so a blanket statement that this or that feature is better for this or that on ALL optics is rarely ever true. This is why some scopes from a given brand/model line are great and others from the same brand/model line aren't.

The only thing a larger objective lens will get you is better light gathering capability in low-light situations and a slightly larger exit pupil. Under "normal" shooting conditions the human eye won't be able to tell any discernible difference between a 50mm and 56mm.

Eye strain is more a factor of lens clarity, resolution and contrast, and assuming both the 50 and 56mm use the same quality of lenses SWFA is correct in stating that one will be no better than the other in that regard.

As far as being less forgiving, the scope shadow you speak of is typically caused by poor eye alignment (to high/low, left or right, or to close/far from the eye piece). Given the 56mm would need to be mounted higher, and as such would affect one's ability to get a proper and consistent cheek weld on a stock with a non-adjustable comb, I would tend to agree with SWFA's claim that it would be less forgiving.

[sharpshooter]

Eye strain is all about resolution. Makes no difference about tube or lense size. All I can say is that you get what you pay for.

[D.ID]

let us know how you like it...and if your going to lay down that kinda money on a scope some day id suggest you spend a few more bucks and get a nightforce or a vortex over a bushnell...just MHO.

Bushnell elite over any vortex other than the razors, No contest IMHO.
Have both. Won't sell the bushys but am not emotionally attached to the vortex because of eye strain.....coincidentally.

[LongRange]

Bushnell elite over any vortex other than the razors, No contest IMHO.
Have both. Won't sell the bushys but am not emotionally attached to the vortex because of eye strain.....coincidentally.

i agree on the lower end vortex(and should of been a little clearer) but the OP is talking about dropping $1220 bucks on a scope...if it was me i would spend the extra $800 or so and by a nightforce over ANY of the scopes mentioned and the razor would be my second choice but if i only had the $1200 i would buy the bushy.

[BigDave]

i agree on the lower end vortex(and should of been a little clearer) but the OP is talking about dropping $1220 bucks on a scope...if it was me i would spend the extra $800 or so and by a nightforce over ANY of the scopes mentioned and the razor would be my second choice but if i only had the $1200 i would buy the bushy.

LOL. Nothing like a scope discussion to get a lot of posts! People are more passionate about scopes than the rifles or any other accessory. Rightfully so. I know how much I need to eventually spend. I always have known. I am doing what I can for now.

Thanks for all replies from everyone. BTW, your exit pupil shrinks with age and poor vision. Little known fact.

Yes, I will give a full report on the Falcon. There is a FEW reviews kicking around, but they are for the 56mm objective version. I really could not find anything negative (well.. weight and size, but that's par for the course) like you can find for Millet.

Why does Nightforce make so few scopes in FFP? I intend on eventually taking a few long range precision/tactical classes. I see that some classes INSIST that you have a FFP Mil/Mil scope for hold offs and ranging practice. The problem with Nightforce is that to get 20+ power, Mil/Mil AND FFP you are looking at THE BEAST for 3K. I'll settle for a Bushy HDMR or a Razor. If I was younger or if I get lasix I might try to get by with a 15 power. But I really like the 20-25 power option. You can see your bullet holes/steel strikes and misses at some distances.

[BigDave]

i agree on the lower end vortex(and should of been a little clearer) but the OP is talking about dropping $1220 bucks on a scope...if it was me i would spend the extra $800 or so and by a nightforce over ANY of the scopes mentioned and the razor would be my second choice but if i only had the $1200 i would buy the bushy.

LOL, $1200 vs what I can afford now(450) IS my extra $800usd. That's already gone in a future buy. Getting to a Nightforce FFP Mil/mil of at least 20 power brings me only to THE BEAST at 3k. Cant do it.

[LongRange]

LOL, $1200 vs what I can afford now(450) IS my extra $800usd. That's already gone in a future buy. Getting to a Nightforce FFP Mil/mil of at least 20 power brings me only to THE BEAST at 3k. Cant do it.

Have used or looked through a FFP scope? I don't care for them myself.

[BigDave]

Quote from my last post:
"I intend on eventually taking a few long range precision/tactical classes. I see that some classes INSIST that you have a FFP Mil/Mil scope for hold offs and ranging practice"

So, i suppose I should elaborate, then:

Yes. I dont mind SFP at all. They are cheaper and lighter. But using the mil reticle for ranging/hold overs and more is integral to most if not all of the courses I have looked at taking. I learn more in couple days from top notch instructors than I do reading about it or fumbling at the range. I do as much self teaching as possible. Go out and shoot a ton of ammo, get familiar with my gear, then take a good course for what ever. I have done a few tactical pistol and one intensive Tactical Carbine (AR 15). I go every other Thursday night and do drills (run and gun under two instructors. I have been shooting for decades and still am open to learning.
I go out and apply what I learned and then eventually find an advanced course.

What I am saying is that a FFP mil/mil scope is necessary for me taking most long range classes. If the classes dont demand having one, they highly discourage SFP scopes. I dont mind a FFP. They ARE heavier and cost more $$. That is usually the case. Oh, well...

[Robinhood]

I just purchased an older Pentax LightSeeker AO in 30 8-32X 50 for $375. It is clear very clear to above 24X about half the way to the 32x. Little to no eyestrain. Picked it up for my wife's rig. It is a lot of scope for the money. If you have 450 look for one of those. I have seen several nice NF rigs for 900 on one of the forums recently.

[LongRange]

Quote from my last post:
"I intend on eventually taking a few long range precision/tactical classes. I see that some classes INSIST that you have a FFP Mil/Mil scope for hold offs and ranging practice"

So, i suppose I should elaborate, then:

Yes. I dont mind SFP at all. They are cheaper and lighter. But using the mil reticle for ranging/hold overs and more is integral to most if not all of the courses I have looked at taking. I learn more in couple days from top notch instructors than I do reading about it or fumbling at the range. I do as much self teaching as possible. Go out and shoot a ton of ammo, get familiar with my gear, then take a good course for what ever. I have done a few tactical pistol and one intensive Tactical Carbine (AR 15). I go every other Thursday night and do drills (run and gun under two instructors. I have been shooting for decades and still am open to learning.
I go out and apply what I learned and then eventually find an advanced course.

What I am saying is that a FFP mil/mil scope is necessary for me taking most long range classes. If the classes dont demand having one, they highly discourage SFP scopes. I dont mind a FFP. They ARE heavier and cost more $$. That is usually the case. Oh, well...


Gotcha....what ever scope you choose try to make it a 34mm tube as it will be much easier to get in the eye box at higher powers than a 30mm tube.

[LongRange]

I just purchased an older Pentax LightSeeker AO in 30 8-32X 50 for $375. It is clear very clear to above 24X about half the way to the 32x. Little to no eyestrain. Picked it up for my wife's rig. It is a lot of scope for the money. If you have 450 look for one of those. I have seen several nice NF rigs for 900 on one of the forums recently.


Thats a smokin deal.