The death of 1-4's?

[assaulter]

If you are zeroed at 6x, how much would you be off if you dialed down to 4x for say, a 200 yard target array?

[dchang0]

If you are zeroed at 6x, how much would you be off if you dialed down to 4x for say, a 200 yard target array?

A well-designed and well-built scope would have almost-exactly-zero POI shift between zoom settings...

[MarkCO]

Zero will not change! BDC ladders (or dots) will be off enough that you will need to figure the holds for the power setting or you will be off.

[assaulter]

My question is more intended for the holdovers, but I guess at that range it would still be negligible. Now that I think about it, you would probably keep it on 6x beyond 250 yards anyway.

[assaulter]

Zero will not change! BDC ladders (or dots) will be off enough that you will need to figure the holds for the power setting or you will be off.

That's exactly what I meant.

[Alaskapopo]

There is more to this debate than just magnification and cost. Size/weight, glass quality and eye box/exit pupil size are also influential. Personally I'd give up a little magnification for a good glass and bigger eye box/exit pupil every time. The Swaro has good glass, but has eye box/exit pupil limitations IMHO.

Those limitations have not stopped the best shooters from prefering it and winning with it. I think the eye box exit pupil topic is a paper argument not a practical one.

Pat

It's a paper argument if those things don't affect you, but for someone like me who does find the Swaro's eye box limiting in practice (thanks to slight astigmatism), it is very much a practical argument. The best shooters are (obviously) not representative of all shooters and all shooters' eyes.

I ended up buying a Meopta 1-4X in spite of the fact I much prefer the Z6i's reticle--primarily because of the optical limitations of the Z6i.

---

To the OP: the introduction of newer technologies doesn't mean the old ones are dead. Three outstanding three gunners I know still run ancient ACOGs (two are in Open, one in Tactical). One just won 2nd in the recent X3 monthly match. The same goes for vinyl records in this age of MP3s, or irons in this age of optics, etc.

That is strange because I have a slight astigmatism as well and have no issues at all with the Swaro. I ran it at a match me and some friends hosted this last weekend and of 32 shooters the top 4 shooters 3 were using the Swaro. I took 2nd in open with it and 2nd overall. I tied for first on a hoser stage going against shooters with Eotechs and assorted red dots that should have had the edge at those distances.

Pat

[dchang0]

That is strange because I have a slight astigmatism as well and have no issues at all with the Swaro. I ran it at a match me and some friends hosted this last weekend and of 32 shooters the top 4 shooters 3 were using the Swaro. I took 2nd in open with it and 2nd overall. I tied for first on a hoser stage going against shooters with Eotechs and assorted red dots that should have had the edge at those distances.

Pat

Believe me, I wish I didn't have these problems with the Swaro. I would love to buy one and might buy one anyway, just because of its awesome reticle design and true daylight brightness.

Your astigmatism may be lighter than mine. Let's put it this way, I see two separate, complete reticles when using any Eotech. Each one is perfectly sharp and equally bright, but they are separated diagonally by as much as 5MOA. I cannot tell which is the true reticle of which I only see one with my other, good, non-dominant eye. The reticles merge into one depending on where and at what angle I place my eye behind the scope. So I am basically fighting parallax and the eyebox to minimize the reticle-splitting while still getting my hits. Some scopes are more forgiving than others. I have noticed that the Trijicon fiber optic-based illumination and scopes with etched reticles do not result in any noticeable reticle splitting but that any scope or sight that relies on reflecting a diode or hologram off of glass is subject to the double-reticle. Red and green dot reflex sights turn into "comets" which are really two dots split slightly apart. My Vortex (etched reticle) works great (but is nowhere near daylight bright), while my new Meopta has reticle TRIPLING (it must use some sort of reflex illumination) with my eye placed in certain positions.

So I am pretty much bound to the lower-power etched-reticle scopes because it seems that the higher the power goes, the more distortion occurs when the eye moves off-axis, and moving off axis is what I need to mitigate my astigmatism and merge the double-reticles into one.

Look, I'm not saying that there aren't advantages conferred by 1-6X scopes over 1-4X ones. There are definitely advantages. It's just that not all of us can handle the associated cost, which is that 1-6X scopes seem to be pushing the limits of the optical/physical properties of glass to the point where even a slight movement off-axis results in large distortion or POI shifts.

Edited July 19, 2012 by dchang0

[Alaskapopo]

Look, I'm not saying that there aren't advantages conferred by 1-6X scopes over 1-4X ones. There are definitely advantages. It's just that not all of us can handle the associated cost, which is that 1-6X scopes seem to be pushing the limits of the optical/physical properties of glass to the point where even a slight movement off-axis results in large distortion or POI shifts.

It sucks its not working well for you. However I don't think we are anywhere near the limits of optical/physical properties of the glass at 6x. They have 1-8 and 1-10 scopes now. I am assuming you played with the focus adjustments fully on the Swaro you tried.

Pat

[blu46and2]

I think a 1-4 will die as hard as the 5" limited gun did in the shadow of the 6" fat free style gun.

The 6" is better, ? how much better? I think it depends on how hard you play. I get some joy out of the few shots that the 6" works good on.

I think a good 1-6 will be better, than the 1-4. Keep in mind that I don't have the new Razor 1-6 Yet. I am not unhappy with my 1-4 FFP using a good optic and seeing the hits early gives me joy in investment I put in to the game to play.

I understand my self good enough to know the desire for the -New Razor 1-6- is mostly EGO driven. I have seen Egos bad twin Delusional and that not what drives me for better equipment.

I want better equipment because it more fun to play with and I have been having more fun than ever before.

+1 on what AlamoShooter says. Someone asked me last weekend at a 3-gun match why I would shoot a $4K SV Infinity pistol for 3-gun...I thought about it for a while and it came to me. I explained that while I love my Glocks, and I still enjoy shooting them, I began to get somewhat "burned out" shooting with my old equipment. Using the Z6i and the SV pistol brought fun back into the game, for me personally anyway, I enjoy shooting those items. Do they make me a better shooter? They may have a very small impact on that but what Pat and some of the other guys say is absolutely on the mark, practice and you will improve, regardless of your equipment (just make sure it's reliable).

[Sleepswithdogs]

+1 on what AlamoShooter says. Someone asked me last weekend at a 3-gun match why I would shoot a $4K SV Infinity pistol for 3-gun...I thought about it for a while and it came to me. I explained that while I love my Glocks, and I still enjoy shooting them, I began to get somewhat "burned out" shooting with my old equipment. Using the Z6i and the SV pistol brought fun back into the game, for me personally anyway, I enjoy shooting those items. Do they make me a better shooter? They may have a very small impact on that but what Pat and some of the other guys say is absolutely on the mark, practice and you will improve, regardless of your equipment (just make sure it's reliable).

...And you like it... I thought you were making this point, which I think is a very, very good one. You seemed to lead right up to it then turned away to "practice and you will improve." Which is not the be all, end all from the way I see it. If you have poor technique you can practice till the cows come home and you will not end up on top. Perfect practice makes perfect, not just any old practice.

IMO it is too easy to say get a Epiconder678 and you will shoot better. Or practice, practice, practice. I think a very strong elements is, do you like your equipment, is it fun for you, do you believe in it. No matter who makes it, no matter how cool or advanced or how old school, if you don't like it, if it's not fun for you, it's not the best for you and you won't in the long run, shoot your best.

That's how I see it anyway, "prices may vary in your area".

Tar

[Sgtsvi]

I like to show up with the best equipment I can afford so I can never blame my gear. I just ordered the Leupold MK6 1-6 on a LE program and can't wait to get my hands on it. I have 2 JP rifles with one being .223 and the other .308 so both rifles have the same controls and will not require any changes if I switch back and forth. My Salient M2 has been an amazing shotgun and I see they are back in business which makes me happy since I will receive customer support. I tried the Glock experiment and found it difficult to transition from shooting my SV at a pistol match and shooting a Glock the next day so I now use a SV 9mm sightracker for 3 gun and couldn't be happier. Bottom line is buy the best you can and learn how to use it and you will be competitive in the sport.

[Sleepswithdogs]

I like to show up with the best equipment I can afford so I can never blame my gear. I just ordered the Leupold MK6 1-6 on a LE program and can't wait to get my hands on it. I have 2 JP rifles with one being .223 and the other .308 so both rifles have the same controls and will not require any changes if I switch back and forth. My Salient M2 has been an amazing shotgun and I see they are back in business which makes me happy since I will receive customer support. I tried the Glock experiment and found it difficult to transition from shooting my SV at a pistol match and shooting a Glock the next day so I now use a SV 9mm sightracker for 3 gun and couldn't be happier. Bottom line is buy the best you can and learn how to use it and you will be competitive in the sport.

+1, sage advice.

[carbon9]

That is strange because I have a slight astigmatism as well and have no issues at all with the Swaro. I ran it at a match me and some friends hosted this last weekend and of 32 shooters the top 4 shooters 3 were using the Swaro. I took 2nd in open with it and 2nd overall. I tied for first on a hoser stage going against shooters with Eotechs and assorted red dots that should have had the edge at those distances.

Pat

Believe me, I wish I didn't have these problems with the Swaro. I would love to buy one and might buy one anyway, just because of its awesome reticle design and true daylight brightness.

Your astigmatism may be lighter than mine. Let's put it this way, I see two separate, complete reticles when using any Eotech. Each one is perfectly sharp and equally bright, but they are separated diagonally by as much as 5MOA. I cannot tell which is the true reticle of which I only see one with my other, good, non-dominant eye. The reticles merge into one depending on where and at what angle I place my eye behind the scope. So I am basically fighting parallax and the eyebox to minimize the reticle-splitting while still getting my hits. Some scopes are more forgiving than others. I have noticed that the Trijicon fiber optic-based illumination and scopes with etched reticles do not result in any noticeable reticle splitting but that any scope or sight that relies on reflecting a diode or hologram off of glass is subject to the double-reticle. Red and green dot reflex sights turn into "comets" which are really two dots split slightly apart. My Vortex (etched reticle) works great (but is nowhere near daylight bright), while my new Meopta has reticle TRIPLING (it must use some sort of reflex illumination) with my eye placed in certain positions.

So I am pretty much bound to the lower-power etched-reticle scopes because it seems that the higher the power goes, the more distortion occurs when the eye moves off-axis, and moving off axis is what I need to mitigate my astigmatism and merge the double-reticles into one.

Look, I'm not saying that there aren't advantages conferred by 1-6X scopes over 1-4X ones. There are definitely advantages. It's just that not all of us can handle the associated cost, which is that 1-6X scopes seem to be pushing the limits of the optical/physical properties of glass to the point where even a slight movement off-axis results in large distortion or POI shifts.

My astigmatism does the same thing. Hopefully Trijicon will come out with a decent reticle or maybe more companies will offer a better range of etched reticles.

[dchang0]

However I don't think we are anywhere near the limits of optical/physical properties of the glass at 6x. They have 1-8 and 1-10 scopes now.

I disagree on this point. Glass does have a physical limit in the index of refraction. It's taking all the genius of the lensmakers to work with material engineering, coatings, and grinding to stretch the lenses from true 1X at the bottom up towards higher and higher magnifications at the top end. I think we're in the end of the curve approaching the point of diminishing returns, so I predict we'll see scope prices increase almost exponentially for each smaller and smaller gain in 1-##X power.

For instance: the Short Dot 1-8X is a whopping $3699. http://www.amazon.com/Schmidt-Bender-1-8x24-Marksman-Riflescope/dp/B0065OH2GA?SubscriptionId=AKIAJERRVUDFKXISMU3A&tag=rivofgun-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B0065OH2GA

Compared to the Short Dot 1.1-4X at $2549 (also on Amazon), that's $1150 in price difference for an increase in 4X power.

That's evidence enough that the lensmakers are struggling with the limitations of glass.

Edited July 20, 2012 by dchang0

[Sleepswithdogs]

I disagree on this point. Glass does have a physical limit in the index of refraction. It's taking all the genius of the lensmakers to work with material engineering, coatings, and grinding to stretch the lenses from true 1X at the bottom up towards higher and higher magnifications at the top end. I think we're in the end of the curve approaching the point of diminishing returns, so I predict we'll see scope prices increase almost exponentially for each smaller and smaller gain in 1-##X power.

For instance: the Short Dot 1-8X is a whopping $3699. http://www.amazon.com/Schmidt-Bender-1-8x24-Marksman-Riflescope/dp/B0065OH2GA?SubscriptionId=AKIAJERRVUDFKXISMU3A&tag=rivofgun-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B0065OH2GA

Compared to the Short Dot 1.1-4X at $2549 (also on Amazon), that's $1150 in price difference for an increase in 4X power.

That's evidence enough that the lens makers are struggling with the limitations of glass.

Could also be evidence scope company's know we'll pay dear for the latest bling.

Tar

Edited July 20, 2012 by Sleepswithdogs

[Alaskapopo]

However I don't think we are anywhere near the limits of optical/physical properties of the glass at 6x. They have 1-8 and 1-10 scopes now.

I disagree on this point. Glass does have a physical limit in the index of refraction. It's taking all the genius of the lensmakers to work with material engineering, coatings, and grinding to stretch the lenses from true 1X at the bottom up towards higher and higher magnifications at the top end. I think we're in the end of the curve approaching the point of diminishing returns, so I predict we'll see scope prices increase almost exponentially for each smaller and smaller gain in 1-##X power.

For instance: the Short Dot 1-8X is a whopping $3699. http://www.amazon.com/Schmidt-Bender-1-8x24-Marksman-Riflescope/dp/B0065OH2GA?SubscriptionId=AKIAJERRVUDFKXISMU3A&tag=rivofgun-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B0065OH2GA

Compared to the Short Dot 1.1-4X at $2549 (also on Amazon), that's $1150 in price difference for an increase in 4X power.

That's evidence enough that the lensmakers are struggling with the limitations of glass.

New products always cost a premium until the R&D costs are paid for. It does not mean we are as far as we will ever go.

As for the Short Dot example your getting double the magnificaiton for half again the cost. Not too bad a deal.

[Stlhead]

This entire thread makes me even happier to shoot limited and heavy metal. Rebel against the high cost and complexity of overpriced fancy pants optics. Shoot irons or a red dot and be happy. We should not be shooting at targets that are not visible to the naked eye anyway. Stick it to the man, loose the scope and bring the fun back into shooting. It is that much sweeter when you beat your open buddy with irons! Viva La 1x!!!!

[RiggerJJ]

This entire thread makes me even happier to shoot limited and heavy metal. Rebel against the high cost and complexity of overpriced fancy pants optics. Shoot irons or a red dot and be happy. We should not be shooting at targets that are not visible to the naked eye anyway. Stick it to the man, loose the scope and bring the fun back into shooting. It is that much sweeter when you beat your open buddy with irons! Viva La 1x!!!!

Hear Hear!!!

[dchang0]

New products always cost a premium until the R&D costs are paid for. It does not mean we are as far as we will ever go.

As for the Short Dot example your getting double the magnificaiton for half again the cost. Not too bad a deal.

Well, that's kind of my point. R&D--the cost of developing the higher and higher magnifications--is obviously increasing based on the pricing schedule. You would normally be correct about the time-factor in capitalizing/amortizing R&D costs, except that with S&B, their scopes don't go down in price over time. In fact, the Short Dot 1.1-4X has gone up by nearly $500 MSRP between 2011 and 2012! Thus, they are not hitting only the earliest buyers with the R&D costs; OR, other costs--most likely labor or grinding/mixing the glass--are going up.

"Double the magnification" discounts the cost of a 0X Short Dot (that is to say, the base cost of non-glass components, such as the tube, the electronics, the labor, marketing, packaging, shipping, fixed costs, etc.). It also discounts the (hypothetical) value of the powers in between, such as a hypothetical 1X scope, hypothetical 1-2X scope, and hypothetical 1-3X scope, and so on.

Graphing out the incremental increase in power versus the incremental increase in price, we'd see an increasing cost for each additional 1X in power. Yes, we're talking (dy/dx) kind of stuff (calculus). Based on this kind of curve (aka, the law of diminishing returns), at some point, it just would not be viable to produce, say, a 1-20X scope. That might turn out to be economically impossible because there would be no market for it. Beyond that, it would prove physically impossible to make, say, a 1-300X scope. Glass simply can't be made to do that.

Edited July 21, 2012 by dchang0

[Alaskapopo]

New products always cost a premium until the R&D costs are paid for. It does not mean we are as far as we will ever go.

As for the Short Dot example your getting double the magnificaiton for half again the cost. Not too bad a deal.

Well, that's kind of my point. R&D--the cost of developing the higher and higher magnifications--is obviously increasing based on the pricing schedule. You would normally be correct about the time-factor in capitalizing/amortizing R&D costs, except that with S&B, their scopes don't go down in price over time. In fact, the Short Dot 1.1-4X has gone up by nearly $500 MSRP between 2011 and 2012! Thus, they are not hitting only the earliest buyers with the R&D costs; OR, other costs--most likely labor or grinding/mixing the glass--are going up.

"Double the magnification" discounts the cost of a 0X Short Dot (that is to say, the base cost of non-glass components, such as the tube, the electronics, the labor, marketing, packaging, shipping, fixed costs, etc.). It also discounts the (hypothetical) value of the powers in between, such as a hypothetical 1X scope, hypothetical 1-2X scope, and hypothetical 1-3X scope, and so on.

Graphing out the incremental increase in power versus the incremental increase in price, we'd see an increasing cost for each additional 1X in power. Yes, we're talking (dy/dx) kind of stuff (calculus). Based on this kind of curve (aka, the law of diminishing returns), at some point, it just would not be viable to produce, say, a 1-20X scope. That might turn out to be economically impossible because there would be no market for it. Beyond that, it would prove physically impossible to make, say, a 1-300X scope. Glass simply can't be made to do that.

A lot of S&B's price hike is the weak dollar.

pat

[Sleepswithdogs]

New products always cost a premium until the R&D costs are paid for. It does not mean we are as far as we will ever go.

As for the Short Dot example your getting double the magnificaiton for half again the cost. Not too bad a deal.

Well, that's kind of my point. R&D--the cost of developing the higher and higher magnifications--is obviously increasing based on the pricing schedule. You would normally be correct about the time-factor in capitalizing/amortizing R&D costs, except that with S&B, their scopes don't go down in price over time. In fact, the Short Dot 1.1-4X has gone up by nearly $500 MSRP between 2011 and 2012! Thus, they are not hitting only the earliest buyers with the R&D costs; OR, other costs--most likely labor or grinding/mixing the glass--are going up.

"Double the magnification" discounts the cost of a 0X Short Dot (that is to say, the base cost of non-glass components, such as the tube, the electronics, the labor, marketing, packaging, shipping, fixed costs, etc.). It also discounts the (hypothetical) value of the powers in between, such as a hypothetical 1X scope, hypothetical 1-2X scope, and hypothetical 1-3X scope, and so on.

Graphing out the incremental increase in power versus the incremental increase in price, we'd see an increasing cost for each additional 1X in power. Yes, we're talking (dy/dx) kind of stuff (calculus). Based on this kind of curve (aka, the law of diminishing returns), at some point, it just would not be viable to produce, say, a 1-20X scope. That might turn out to be economically impossible because there would be no market for it. Beyond that, it would prove physically impossible to make, say, a 1-300X scope. Glass simply can't be made to do that.

And eventually some new process will be found to make it possible, but the new, improved scopes will be dear until the early in people with the big bucks will have been satisfied they have the newest, biggest, best and have paid a price for it that leaves them satisfied. If it were cheap, they wouldn't feel they had gotten the best.

Perhaps the next gen will be image projected scopes that are lite, can be seen clearly in the day, and have a 1-20 power. That will make glass scopes old school because of their computer coupled auto range finding and auto reticule adjusting for wind, pressure and temperature properties make hold over or under obsolete.

True, production costs are part of the equation, R&D, etc, but the driver of price is supply and demand.

Tar

Edited July 21, 2012 by Sleepswithdogs

[Alaskapopo]

And eventually some new process will be found to make it possible, but the new, improved scopes will be dear until the early in people with the big bucks will have been satisfied they have the newest, biggest, best and have paid a price for it that leaves them satisfied. If it were cheap, they wouldn't feel they had gotten the best.

Perhaps the next gen will be image projected scopes that are lite, can be seen clearly in the day, and have a 1-20 power. That will make glass scopes old school because of their computer coupled auto range finding and auto reticule adjusting for wind, pressure and temperature properties make hold over or under obsolete.

True, production costs are part of the equation, R&D, etc, but the driver of price is supply and demand.

Tar

I disagree somewhat. There is an old adage yo get what you pay for. People don't simply jack up the prices because people will pay it. (Sometimes that is the case) But rather because that is what it cost to make the product and make a profit and yes it is that good. Once R&D costs have been paid for and the technology is no longer new the prices will go down because everyone is making them. Then we will be using out 1-6,8's and arguing about the new 1-12 power scopes being too costly etc. Its called progress.

Pat

Edited July 21, 2012 by Alaskapopo

[Sleepswithdogs]

I disagree somewhat. There is an old adage yo get what you pay for. People don't simply jack up the prices because people will pay it. (Sometimes that is the case) But rather because that is what it cost to make the product and make a profit and yes it is that good. Once R&D costs have been paid for and the technology is no longer new the prices will go down because everyone is making them. Then we will be using out 1-6,8's and arguing about the new 1-12 power scopes being too costly etc. Its called progress.

Pat

Pat, I thought, "you get what you pay for" meant you got it cheap, it was junk and it broke, don't complain.

As far as prices not being set on what people will pay for a given item, it is the very heart of capitalism. It is at the core decision of whether a product will be built or not. "We won't be able to make a profit against what it will cost us to build it." Or, "we can make it, and make a nice profit too... Build it!" But I do admire your optimism.

Tar

Edited July 22, 2012 by Sleepswithdogs

[Alaskapopo]

I disagree somewhat. There is an old adage yo get what you pay for. People don't simply jack up the prices because people will pay it. (Sometimes that is the case) But rather because that is what it cost to make the product and make a profit and yes it is that good. Once R&D costs have been paid for and the technology is no longer new the prices will go down because everyone is making them. Then we will be using out 1-6,8's and arguing about the new 1-12 power scopes being too costly etc. Its called progress.

Pat

Pat, I thought, "you get what you pay for" meant you got it cheap and it broke, don't complain.

That is one way to look at it. I look at it as meaning if you want something that is good and built to last you are going to pay more for it than the cheap thing that broke.

[Sleepswithdogs]

That is one way to look at it. I look at it as meaning if you want something that is good and built to last you are going to pay more for it than the cheap thing that broke.

I call that, "The quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten." Something I usually believe in, as experience has showed me if I buy a cheap tool, I usually have to replace it several times, or break down and buy the good one after the cheap one brakes and so I have wasted even more money than if I would have just bought the good one to start with.

Tar