ANY SCOPE MFG CO PLANNING ON SELLING A SCOPE BIGGER THEN A MAC 8-80 X ?

Discussion in 'Scopes, Optics, LRFs, Spotters, BoreScopes' started by NDAR15MAN, Jun 22, 2017.

  1. NDAR15MAN

    NDAR15MAN

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    165
    Does any one know if any scope manufacturing companies have any plans on making a scope that is bigger then then the MACH 8-80x60 POWER SCOPE ? I am surprised that no company has built a 100x power rifle scope. i would buy one. i dont care if it weight a lot or big as a spotting scope. if they can build these big spotting scopes why not supper big rifle scope ? marty
     
  2. Turbulent Turtle

    Turbulent Turtle F-TR competitor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,806
    That's an interesting question. Let me see if I can wade through a few issues.

    By "bigger" I take it you mean higher magnification. The March-X scope to which you refer is the 8-80X56 model. I have the 5-50X56 version of it. The two scopes are very similar in dimension and weight so making a 10-100X scope would not be a bigger or heavier scope on the face of it, but there are other issues to consider, which we'll get to in a bit.

    To my mind, the most important feature that allows these scopes to have such high magnification is the zoom ratio of 10X. The most common ratio is 3X with 4X being almost as popular these days. There are a few that are running 5X and even 6X, but the March is the only one with a 10X zoom, to my knowledge. I'm sure others will chime in to add to my deficient knowledge.

    The way a riflescope works is that the objective lens forms an image in the first focal plane, that has a diameter equivalent to the inner diameter of the main tube. Think of it as a camera lens focusing the picture of the objective on the sensor or film. The focal length of this portion of the riflescope is quite low in comparison to the actual magnification of the riflescope. It's the distance between the objective lens and the first focal plan, the front of the erector cell. If you compare that to a spotting scope, you can see that the spotting scope is longer and so has a longer focal length built into the body, but its first focal plane is much nearer to the eyepiece where it flips the image with its prisms.

    In the riflescope, the inner tube with its erector cell and zoom lenses in front of the eyepiece are really used to inspect a smaller portion of the first focal plane image, that's where all the magnification magic occurs. If you compare the 8-80X56 to the 5-50X56 you will notice that the only difference in dimension is the distance between the adjustment knobs and the zoom ring. The 8-80 is 9mm longer in that sport, from 51mm to 60mm. Everything else is the same. What this indicates is that March increased the base magnification from 5X to 8X by increasing the focal length of the lenses for the eyepiece.

    I have not look through a March-X 8-80X56 so I do not know how dark it is at 80X but I can detect a change in my 5-50X56 which I usually run at 40X, when I go to 50X. The image is fine, but darker.

    The size of the exit pupil is predicated on the size of the objective lens divided by the magnification. At 40X, my 56mm objective form an exit pupil of 1.4mm. It's nice and easy for me to get behind on the rifle and it still projects a good amount of light that I enjoy the picture. At 50X, the exit pupil is 1.12mmm.

    At 80x, the exit pupil is quite small 0.7mm. Getting behind the rifle with that small an exit pupil is exacting.

    At 100x, the exit pupil would be 0.56mm; the criticality of it would be frustrating for most shooters. So we could always increase the size of the objective lens and from 56mm we could go to something like 72mm, like some older European scopes used for hunting at night. That would make the exit pupil size as 0.72mm, the same size as the current 80X setting.

    Of course, when we get into such magnifications, the atmospherics come into play, big time thus negating the benefits of such high magnification a good portion of the time. Plus it accentuates any quirks or tremors from the shooter.

    However, all that aside. I think we are approaching a juncture here with riflescope where the paradigm is going to shift. The front part of the scope, from the objective to the sensor or the erector cell will remain and may evolve to be closer to camera lenses. However, from the sensor back to the eyepiece, we should see a change to digital image processing where that part of the riflescope will be concerned with zooming in a cleaning up the portion of the sensor that we are using to aim the rifle.

    There are some interesting times ahead, but the current riflescope is not going away even if it doesn’t gain any greater magnification.
     
  3. NDAR15MAN

    NDAR15MAN

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    165
    Turbulent Turtle.... I want to thank you for posting your info on large power scopes. I SURE learned a lot. I might pm you some other questions in future on this subject. thanks again. Marty
     
  4. Turbulent Turtle

    Turbulent Turtle F-TR competitor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,806
    NDAR15MAN, you're quite welcome. High magnification optics is a subject I like to explore. You can PM me any time you want, but it's also a good idea to post here so that others can join in and provide their insight.

    The problem with higher magnification is the corresponding requirement for a larger objective to keep up with the magnification. In photography, where light is critical, there are three ways to control the light to get the proper exposure: Shutter speed, aperture and film sensitivity. At higher magnifications and longer distances, and especially in darker places, it becomes impossible to take properly exposed pictures without a flash. When you loaded up your SLR with Kodachrome the film sensitivity was set at ISO 64. You had to contend with shutter speed and aperture to get your pictures. In low light or at higher magnifications you wished for the fastest lens possible, fast being large lenses for more light gathering.

    When we switched over to digital cameras, it became possible to play with the ISO value for each and every shot. What this does is actually boost the sensitivity of the sensor depending on the conditions. Recently I took a walking tour late at night in village in Europe, with my DSLR. I set the ISO to 3200 and got amazing pictures without the use of a flash. With a film camera that would have been impossible to do without genormous lenses and a solid tripod.

    By switching over to digital sensors, we can take advantage of the technology that is now common in cameras and boost the sensitivity of the sensor that first receives the image from the objective lens. From that point forward, we can start doing anything we want to the image from the sensor. Look for auto-ISO, HDR and other such keywords in a future digital riflescope.

    Atmospherics will continue to be a problem however, but perhaps software in the riflescope can deal with that.
     
  5. NDAR15MAN

    NDAR15MAN

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    165
     
  6. NDAR15MAN

    NDAR15MAN

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    165
    thanks again. marty
     
  7. haveme1

    haveme1

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    30
    I'm looking for a suggestion on what scope to put in my new build 6br ackley. I'm 56 and my eyes aren't what they used to be. I shot a friend rifle with a nf 50x at 600yrds. It was ok but I'm thinking I want more. I scored pretty good for not being able to see any of the bullet holes at all. If I could have just got a glimpse of any poi I might have been able to make corrections an got a better score. I'm looking at March 60x. What do you think my best option is ?
     
  8. Turbulent Turtle

    Turbulent Turtle F-TR competitor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,806
    Oh gosh, that's a tough question. I think the first thing you need to do is get a list of the specifications that you must have and why and then see what's available out there. I really try to stay away from suggesting optics because some of it is so subjective.

    A few years back I wrote a post here that explained my situation, my specifications and my selection of optics, followed by a quick report on the results. Your needs are different than mine and let me explain where they differ and why that matters.

    I am 6-some years older than you are and my eyesight acuity has been decreasing also. My needs were all F-TR LR competition related (and still are) when it comes to high-magnification scopes. As such, I have no need (or even hope) of seeing bullet holes on the 1000 yard target. I don't need to, as each shot is scored and marked. The 3 inch spotter is easily visible through my 27X Kowa spotting scope as well as my prior riflescopes and my current one.

    I shoot my March-X 5-50X56 with the magnification set at 40X most of the time. I will increase to 50X when the conditions are near-perfect and I am all over the 10 and X rings. Those conditions are rare, so 40X is it. I never go below 40X. I can assure you that I do NOT see the bullet holes.

    What is important to me is to have the best possible image of the target, including crisp rings at 40X in early winter morning or cloudy days or both. That's why I insisted on a 56mm objective at a minimum, and ED glass. The large objective allows enough light to come into the scope so that at 40X, I get a nice clear sight picture. The ED glass removes the fringing at the rings and gives me a crisp image where I can surgically place the dot of my reticle. I sometimes use the illuminated reticle to see the reticle better on the aiming black of the target.

    I do not believe that you will find a riflescope that will allow you to see the bullet holes at 600yards, but I have no clue what your target looks like. On an F-class target, finding a 6mm hole in the 44 inch aiming black at 600yards is not something I even consider. If your target has a white background that might be possible. I don't know.

    When it comes to very high magnification scopes, the universe is smaller and March is definitely one to consider. If you thought that 50X was working but that you needed more, then by all means go for 60X. The March-X HM 10-60X56 is definitely something to consider and it has super ED glass. I would talk to Shiraz and get his guidance on this; will it allow you to see 6mm bullet holes at 600 yards? I would ask him.
     
    dmoran, IdahoSharpshooter and haveme1 like this.
  9. haveme1

    haveme1

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    30
    Ok, I'm shopping.....bullets.com, opticsplannet .... Do you know where to buy.
    Johnny , haveme1@gmail.com
     
  10. Turbulent Turtle

    Turbulent Turtle F-TR competitor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,806
    haveme1 likes this.
  11. brians356

    brians356 Gold $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,874
    Are you sure both your objective and ocular (eyepiece) are properly adjusted to focus on the reticle plane? It's just possible the scope is adequate for you to see bullet holes at 600, as long as it is focused perfectly for your eye - at both ends.

    Focusing a scope properly requires an approach described in few (if any - I've not read them all) user's guides. To wit:

    http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/wondering-if-i-am-missing-anything.3859051/#post-36485831

    -
     
    haveme1 and JohnKielly like this.
  12. JohnKielly

    JohnKielly Australia, not Austria

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    628
    Beautifully crafted thread among gentlemen. Thanks.
     
  13. Matt P

    Matt P

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2015
    Messages:
    68
    I recently had the chance to trial a 10-60 HM, all I can say is WOW !!!!!!!
    I currently have a standard 10-60 and 5-50 March, at the recent National TR/FC Championships I trialed a 10-60HM over 5 days of competition shot from 300-1000 yrds.
    I used all three scopes over the 5 days on different rifles and the 10-60HM was outstanding. I was able to see bullet holes @1000 yrds, now sighting conditions were very good but it just showed how good the glass is.
    Regards
    Matt P
     
    IdahoSharpshooter likes this.
  14. alcesgigas

    alcesgigas

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5
    In a general response to this entire thread; many, many, thanks to all of you. Reading this has not only been enjoyable, but very informative to say the least. However, this may be academic and even insult some of you. I surely mean not to do that.

    By 2013 I knew something was wrong with me--or at least my eyes--for against the setting sun on the opposite side of the Koyukuk I doubted I could even see a moose let alone shoot one. Bright lights just panicked me while driving and shopping seeing all those colors gave me headaches. Long story short; cataracts in both eyes. In November of that year I had corrective surgery on both. I now have, at 72, better eyesight than I ever did. It's 20/15. I shoot up to 2353 yards with my 338's now. Then I was limited to the 1000 yard steel I have set up at moose camp--and then only in the morning.

    I just thought that sometimes we let the forest prevent us from seeing the trees, well, just a thought.
     
  15. Turbulent Turtle

    Turbulent Turtle F-TR competitor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,806
    I don't see where or how your post can insult anyone. You identified a problem with your eyes and you addressed it; that is excellent. However, that said, unless your name is Steve Austin, what's does getting your eyes fixed have to do with shooting with a riflescope. Are you actually shooting at 2,353 yards with iron sights? If you are and are hitting 1 MOA or better consistently, I want the name of your eye surgeon (or whatever silly name they give themselves.)

    On the other hand, if you are now able to see through a riflescope clearly because the cataracts are gone; BFD, people do that all the time, why did you wait so long?

    I'm 62 and I have my eyes checked every year or so for cataracts and other silly stuff. I don't have cataracts but I do have a floater in my right eye. Most times, it's not an issue.

    Using a riflescope is definitely an aid for slowly degrading eyesight. In a riflescope all your eye needs to do is focus on the reticle and there is even a built-in diopter adjustment that allows you to get the proper focus. You do not have to have eagle eyes or bionic eyes to focus on the target, the scope does that for you and just presents it to you.

    Last year at Lodi, I had the pleasure of shooting on the last relay one day and the range is oriented east to west. The neighborhood star called the Sun was setting in my face as I tried to look through my scope at the target a few degrees south of the Sun. It was impossible. Plus, looking at the Sun decreased the size of my eyes' pupils and when I looked through a 40X scope, I could not see sh*t as my eyes were on overload.

    There was only one thing to do and that was use a towel to cover my head, face, riflescope and spotting scope eyepiece. I looked like a friggin' sniper, albeit with more colorful garbs, peering from underneath my towel with the spotting scope focused on a set of flags and my riflescope focused on what I hoped was my target. If it weren't for optics, I would have had to DNF that relay. I even removed my glasses because they were fogging up like crazy under the covers. But again, the optics do the deed for you, all you need to do is focus on the image they produce.

    I'm very glad for you that your eyes are better, and I will probably have to get mine remedied at some point, but that will not change how I use optics for LR. I doubt I will be able to regain the capability to shoot a service rifle with peep sights and no optics, but I hear they allow optics to 4.5X now in Service Rifle.
     
    dmoran likes this.
  16. nakneker

    nakneker Gold $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,021
    Scope mechanics 101, nice post.
     
  17. scubohuntr

    scubohuntr

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Messages:
    72
    Yup, that's why my XTC rifles are going up for sale soon. As if Service Rifle wasn't an unbridled equipment race already.o_O What's next, 210's in Palma? Why not ADD a class- Service Rifle- Optics?
     
    hpshooter likes this.
  18. NDAR15MAN

    NDAR15MAN

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    165
    Like to bring this topic back up to top again. Has any one looked through the Mach 8-80 power scope ? And what do you think of it? I have had some laser operations done this year on shooting eye and cataract removal. Have not shot a gun since feb 9 because of all surgeries. Just wondering what it is like to look through one. I have sold a bunch of guns this year I don't use and thinking about buying one with my money from other guns I sold . Looking to put on a long barrel 6.5 creedmoor ruger. I would like to try shooting gongs at 1200 yards. I wish some one in Iowa or IL had one I could look through. I would pay them $25.00 just to look through it and see what a target looks like at 1000 yards. Sure wish some one would come out with a 10-100 x 75 rifle scope with just the dot. Maybe I should put a limited partnership together and see if a scope maker would build 100 scopes for us who want one. Who could you contact in Japan for a quote ? Sorry for the wild questions but some one has to ask them. Ha ha ha. Marty
     
  19. brians356

    brians356 Gold $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,874
    If all you want is to shoot gongs or targets at 1200 yards, why would you want or need a variable-power scope? Needlessly complex, expensive, heavy, and less reliable than a fixed-power.
    -
     
  20. NDAR15MAN

    NDAR15MAN

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    165
    You could be right but I would like to have a 8-80 scope or bigger. I might change my mind after I look through one. Like I said I wish some one in IL , IA or WI had one I could look through for 5 minutes at a target. Thanks. Marty
     

Share This Page