I own both but can anyone tell me any difference in quality/reliability or the one that’s really better than the other??
Ive never had issues with the 1 inch in any situation…
The 30mm will offer more adjustment range in both elevation and windage vs. a 1" tube. That's about the only advantage over a 1" tube.
You will find some 1" tubes superior in every other way over 30 or 33mm tube scopes depending on brand and glass quality. 30mm is not a magic quality in a scope.
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance." Last words of Gen. Sedgwik
Sometimes a bigger tube supports a larger objective from a light gathering perspective.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well.
Both points are correct. If there you have two scopes with the same quality glass, size objective etc., but one has a larger maintube, the larger tube scope will be brighter through day & later into the evening.
The tube diameter has virtually no impact on brightness / light gathering between a 1 inch, 30mm or a 34mm tube, all other things being equal. Larger tubes as already stated allow for greater elevation travel and likely better support for larger diameter and longer objective bells. They can also give a more rigid / stronger tube depending on wall thickness. Light gathering comes from the objective diameter. A 10% larger objective on paper, gives about 20% greater light gathering.
I can't remember when I bought my last 1" tube scope - maybe 15 years ago - but I have a few old Leupold compacts in 1" that I quite like. It seems like the majority of new designs and options are in the 30mm or larger tubes. I am so used to seeing 30mm+ that 1" tube scopes look kind of strange to me now on anything but a compact, classic rifle design.
Yup! It’s true. Ok to be wrong sometimes.Only contributing factors to Brightness are Objective diameter & magnification, equating to Exit Pupil. Even then, an Exit Pupil of around 7mm provides the MAX amount of light the human eye is capable of taking in anyway. Just divide a scopes objective in mm, by the magnification number, and that is the EP size in mm. But besides a greater elevation factor, a larger maintube also can enhance resolution/sharpness over the smaller counterpart. I have used 30mm for a long time. But I know use 34mm and will continue likely in the future.
On a good day they will all look good.
On a poor day the better ones will look a little bit better.
On a bad day none will be any good.
Thats true for all optics regardless of size and cost.
+1.
And there ya have it. Those things which can be said in few words are done in vain with more!
use both.like 30mm for long range,
like all things it is quality that counts.
for long range precision work they are a must.
you have to see and you have to be able to crank out to the distance..repeatable cranking
scopes are built for a purpose, not just to be bigger
ringing large steel is not the same as shooting group and score at long range
Seems like I've read that the interior lenses play a role in how much light gets to the ocular end as well. So a larger tube may be beneficial if larger internal lenses are put in it. But as has been stated, it's not just the tube size itself.
Not the amount of light, but better resolution/clarity with a larger tube, thus larger lenses, yes.
Mounted the leupold with 1 inch tube this past week, the eye relief is closer than the vortex I had on there, not sure I’ll like it but I’m gonna give it some time and see if I’ll eventually like or get used to it..
Found this article that has some pretty good information about the topics being discussed here. Pretty much goes along with what's been said.
https://www.outdoorlife.com/story/hu...isconceptions/
The one key point that cannot be lost is larger tube diameters for a given thickness are stronger. There is some information that says loss of zero after a hard knock is often related to the objective being bent. So, in general, larger is better. IMO, OBJ over 40mm should step up to 30mm from 1”….over 50mm should be >30mm.
With that larger tube, makers have to decide how to fill it. Larger lenses, better mechanicals, electronics….
Wouldnt the quality and thickness of the tube material play a roll in that?Originally Posted by Robinhood
I met a guy while hunting in the late 70s by name of Larry Smith.
He made me aware of a guy by name of Dick thomas, and i later met him at Larrys camp.
Dick was the second generation owner of Premier Reticles, who were the only authorized service facility for Leupold scopes other than Leupold.
Their speciality was custom reticles in Leupold scopes, and since there were no dials on hunting scopes at that time, they did a good business with hunters who were interested in shooting longer distances.
Dick Thomas was very much an inovator, and when the original 6.5x 20 was introduced he cut the objective end off of one and soldered a 50 mm one on in its place and gave it to Larry to use. It no doubt improved the scope when compared to a standard one.
I tend to agree with Stumpy in that the larger tube will allow for more adjustment range and not much else.
Brightness comes about from light entering the optic, and that comes thru objective.
A larger objective also increases power to some degree.
A 15 power eyepiece for example installed in a 50 mm objective spotting scope, will become about 22 power if reinstalled in a 60 mm scope.
And of coarse the opposite is true as well.
On an aside note: Not for nothing, but we’ve already established the Tube size has no bearing on the amount of light seen through the scope; the “brightness” as our minds understand it. It’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing.
You hit the nail on the head with this statement my friend. There is added strength and more ease of fitting components by the manufacturer. Good things to the point one can accept the added weight. Some scopes now coming in at 40oz+!
I'm looking for a scope. It needs to be one inch tube with a 56 mm objective. I like the smaller tube scopes but as an older guy I need brightness too. Can someone help me find a scope like this?
The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well.
Optics Planet let’s you search on features. I find a 1” tube Barska AR6 2.5x15X 56mm. Unfamiliar with the brand but I have had good luck with Optics Planet.
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance." Last words of Gen. Sedgwik
LOL Barska huh? I as hoping for a Swaro, Leupold or maybe Meopta.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well.
Yeah, steer clear of Barska variable. The first scope I purchased as a young man, after the Simmons that came with my first Savage 111, was a 6-24x50 Barska with 1” tube. The one below. Variable objective & all, LOL! Man oh man, it was downright BLURRY at anything above maybe 8x or so. I mean BLURRY! Not useable at 24x even a little bit. I remember using it, then looking through my good friend’s Leopold VX-II 3-9x40. I was blown away. It was my first look through decent glass. I couldn’t afford the Leupold then, but I managed to pick up a Nikon 3.5-14x50. Which was still a huge step up from the Barska.
The same Barska I had. What a pain it was!
Wasn't part of your original RFQ. Brand wasn't but 1" w/56mm Obj was. Afraid then that you may have to go larger than a 1" tube or get cozy with 50mm objectives. Both Leupold & Swarovski take it that far. Don't know about Meopta.
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance." Last words of Gen. Sedgwik
Robin, I am truly curious why you prefer the 1” tube? It offers nothing over, & actually underperforms in some aspects, compared with the larger counterparts. Is it strictly from perspective of looks? Which I can completely understand and relate to. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, after all. And boy oh boy is it ever! Because from perspective of MY minds eye, the 1” main tube/56mm objective scopes out there, honestly look very cartoonish to me.
Take for example the Leupold VX-L 6.5-20x56. With it’s 1” main tube I can’t help but think Blunderbuss when I see it.
Here is the nonsense my mind sees!
And it’s just that..because the VX-L 6.5-20 is really a very good hunting scope. The barrel contour in the bottom of the objective?..Genius design! But we can’t help what we “see” & subsequently envision. No matter how many times we say things like “performance is all that matters.”, or “I don’t care how it looks, only how it performs.” Uhhhh, RIGHT!
Never owned a 30mm that didn’t feel like it was built out of discarded anvils.
My 30mm Leupold VX-5HD 3.5X15x44mm weighs less than 20 oz. But then I don’t need to count the rings of Saturn. ;-)
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance." Last words of Gen. Sedgwik
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks