nheiny13 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) I recently bought a Burris MTAC 1.5-6x and enjoy it. I sent it in to have the shorter turrets installed on it and when I got it back the turrets were really difficult to turn and there were a couple specs of dust/dirt inside of it. I sent it back in to have this fix. Well, when it was returned the dust was gone and the turrets turned easily but I noticed a new problem. When I turned the power to around 2.25 and down, the FOV shrunk ALOT. Now I know, when looking through a scope, there will always be a "black ring" around your FOV since the "black ring" is the actual scope itself. When I turned the scope below 2.25x this "black ring" got thicker and the FOV shrunk. And it looks like a diaphragm making things narrower. Now I don't remember noticing this before I sent it in to Burris the second time. I sent it back to them a third time to fix this problem and they told me nothing was wrong with it and this model is designed to have the same FOV from around 2.25x-1.5x This just does not seem right to me. Can all of you owners MTAC 1.5-6x owners verify what your scope does and tell me if my scope is faulty and Burris is wrong (Hoping so because FOV at 1.5x is AWFUL now) First pic is 1.5x. The second pic is around 2.25x. I know the picture quality is bad but in the 1.5x pic you can see the inner darker ring/diaphragm portion. Edited May 31, 2012 by nheiny13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushmeat Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Are you clear on what field of view means? Your aiming point on that poor dog's face is different but you have about the same FOV in both pictures. Count the books and the bricks. Now, as for that "black ring", that does change according to magnification. You mount your scope an optimum distance to lessen the amount of scooching forward or back you need to do for your cheek weld. I shoot both eyes open at 1.5 and don't even notice the "black ring". A shame you changed the turrets out. Those tall target turrets on the MTAC and XTR 1.5-6x scopes give your rifle great flexibility. My buddy got hits on a Larue out to 900 yards (.223 69gr). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nheiny13 Posted May 31, 2012 Author Share Posted May 31, 2012 I changed the tall turrets out because they got in my way with an offset red dot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nheiny13 Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 Bump. Can anyone help me out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RippSpeed Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) Is the MTAC a First Focal Plane or Second Focal Plane ??? Edited June 13, 2012 by RippSpeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael1778 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Second Focal Plane. Particularly at that price point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nheiny13 Posted July 6, 2012 Author Share Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) I just got the scope back from them again, saying that the scope functions properly, which I don't think it is. I know there are MTAC 1.5-6 owners out there, please help me out by looking through your scope and telling me if the size of the picture you are viewing shrinks when lowering the power. Thanks. PS I realized that I am used the wrong terminology earlier when I said the FOV shrunk. The FOV doesn't shrink, it stayed the same. It is the "picture" of what I am viewing that constricts and gets smaller. Edited July 6, 2012 by nheiny13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nheiny13 Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 Ok so another MTAC 1.5-6x owner told me mine looks weird and that his is not like that. I talked with Burris and they told me that they have a brand new scope there that they tested and it is acting exactly like mine and that that is how the scope is designed. Can anyone else help me out with their input? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWFAN Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 In your pictures, it looks like the camera got closer to the scope which throws off my perception. Your finger should be the same size in each, and it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Payne Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 If you look at the the bricks to the right of the dogs head. You see more bricks on 1.5 power than you do in the second picture. This is as it should be. It appears as if you are holding the camera farther from the scope in the first picture than you are in the second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nheiny13 Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 I think my thumb was in a different position because I tried to make sure the camera was the same distance away for the pictures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now