best 1' scope in the wolrd

[AkKill]

hello everyone, in trying to findout whish is the best 1 inch scope in the world, afther a lot of reading in some forums i ended whit a short list:

kahles helia kx
kahles helia cl
Swarovski american

i did not include zeiss conquest due to many people consider this scopes superior, any comment is wellcome and please tell why or yor personal experience.
just one more question whats the optical diferense among kahles cl and kahles c.

 

[NateHaler]

There is NO "best". Not in any product category in the world.

It's all subjective, and the only answer as to which might be better for you is "It Depends". Depends on what? Right. List your criteria, rank them, and find your answer.

There is no "best" car or watch or vacuum cleaner or washing machine or perfume or scope or canned soup or anything else.

Be happy to have several good alternatives. Pick one, and then let us know how it works for you.

 

[Rem06]

i "had" an AV 6x18x50 AO swarovski. the optics were awesome,definately better than my 6.5x20x50 LRT but not by much.there were only a few times in 3 years that i had them side by side and noticed.
the reason i sold it was there were no tgt turrets available.the turrets had big lines,little lines,a triangle and a 30 on the other side for some "stupid reason" unknown to me?

try to "click" in MOA to 600yds using that set-up! needing two revolutions,then find your way back home to zero!

it did track good

 

[hogan]

The "best" 1" scope will generally be trumped resoundingly by even a mediocre 30mm tubed scope.

What d'ya care about which 1" scope for anyway? Leupold 1" with 50mm objective will be "better" in terms of brightness in dim light & shadow than will a 40mm objective. A parallax adjustable scope will give you a better scope picture.

There is NO WAY that a one-inch,24.5mm) tube can transmit as much light as a 30mm tube, and a 34mm tubed scope will trump both of them. The bigger the pipe, the more "flow" capacity.

Some,,I don't know, maybe all) Leupold 30mm scopes use a 1" tube inside a 30mm tube. The goal was to have greater reticle movement latitude, not transmit more light. There are many ways to engineer a scopesight.

If you want to really geek this out, you can use test patterns and see which scope resolves the fine detail of the test at most distances.

A riflescope is NOT a camera lens, though. The best lens qualities and light transmission mean nothing if the reticle and turret system aren't also superb. There are 72mm objective scopes out there, notably Zeiss/Hensoldt, but these are behemoths that require very tall scope rings and weigh close to 4 lbs. If you haul your rifle to the range in a fitted steamer trunk with an ATV or golfcart an extra 4lbs is nothing.

When it comes to cost/weight/performance/warranty; Leupold is a top contender in their mark 4 LR/T line.

The only reason I can consider to favor a 1" scope over 30 or 34mm would be for the greatest weight savings, or to save money. The lightest 1" scope will not be very good unless it is made of some super light titanium alloy. Then, for the same money, you could buy a 30mm quality optic.

Nothing is easy.

 

[Forum Boss]

Because the light entering from the front objective tapers rapidly,in a shrinking cone of light), the diameter of the main tube is much less important in terms of light transmission than the diameter of the objective, all things being equal. Also, different scopes vary in terms of rated light transmission.

The main advantage of the larger diameter tube is that it provides more room for the reticle moving mechanism*, which usually,though not always), means the 30mm tube will deliver significantly more "Up elevation" than a 1" tube, all things being equal. For example, the 1"-tubed Leupold VXIII 6.5-20 EFR model is rated at 50MOA total elevation, while the 30mm VXIII 6.5-20 is rated at 90MOA total elevation.

There are, of course, some 1" scopes that have more elevation adjustments than the average 30mm scopes, so you have to check the specifications.

So, given two scope of equal magnification, equal lens quality, with EQUAL-size objectives, the 30mm scope will not, necessarily, be much brighter. But keep in mind that typical 30mm tubed scopes have larger front objectives than do equivalent 1" tube model. The bigger objective WILL make a difference.

*Larger tubes can also be stiffer than smaller-diameter tubes.

 

[hogan]

Thanks for the additional comments/corrections.

Interesting to note that most critically acclaimed scopesight products are 30mm tube, and moving to 34/40mm tubed. Nightforce NXS, Zeiss dialyt, Schmidt & Bender, USO, IOR, Leupold Mark 4, Nikon, Burris, and others. Almost all these optic mechanisms are variable magnification scopes.

The original Leupold M8 benchrest optics were, still are, highly acclaimed. They are 24 & 36x fixed power optics w/1" tubes with Adj Objective Parallax correction. With a fixed magnification optic, there is no track mechanism, erector to move to effect various magnification results. Perhaps variable scopes in compact tube lengths benefit from a 30mm or 34mm tube, enabling more compact lens groups? Additionally, I can think of no side-focus parallax adj scope in 1" tube diameter, although there may be some.

Interesting that the vari-x II 4-12 scope has/did have the least range of elevation movement in the Leupold line, per their data. Why less than a similar 3 multiplier vari-x II scope the 3-9? I don't know, but compared to the 6.5-20 which is the same multiplier, the 4-12 has a way shorter tube and likely uses a larger diameter lens gang,,compared to the 3x9), thus limiting reticle movement?

Perhaps scope manufacturers no longer see the 1" tube scope as the product line that merits their best developmental efforts? Such does happen in manufacturing driven by capitalism.

Again, aside from an ultralight rifle application, or a preference for 1" rings; why consider only a 1" tubed product?

 

[nhunt003]

'A riflescope is NOT a camera lens, though. The best lens qualities and light transmission mean nothing if the reticle and turret system aren't also superb. There are 72mm objective scopes out there, notably Zeiss/Hensoldt, but these are behemoths that require very tall scope rings and weigh close to 4 lbs. If you haul your rifle to the range in a fitted steamer trunk with an ATV or golfcart an extra 4lbs is nothing.'

My 72mm Hensoldt weighs right at 2 lbs and mounts on a sendero contour with 1.25' rings. The Fluorite lenses save a lot of weight and the mounting height is only 7mm higher than a 56mm scope. The 6-24x72mm is also the standard issue on the German DSR No.1 Sniper Rifle.

 

[ANDY5]

just for everyones information Kahles is Swarovski's lower end scope. Swarovski has owned them for a few years now. Would not have known it without the rep expaining it to me while I was placeing my first order for Kahles.

 

[favload]

Zeiss 20X conquest is great for the money at 1'!! For clarity nothing else comes close. The 24X-30-56 VD is my bet for the best 30mm scope for under 1000yds. If they build optics for nuclear subs, and the best microscope objective lenses in the world Zeiss is a safe bet.
jer
swarvo belongs on a polo field!

 

[gunsmithatwork]

Swarovski: yes they own the majority of the Kahles shares, but there is where it all stops!
Kahles is a different commodity of their own, different factory, different town, different management/owners, different view & organisation alltogether! The oldest scope 'brand' is responsible for most of the worlds technical developments on scope-design wich Swarovski claims very handilly as theirs everytime it suits them and Kahles is most certainly not Swarovski's 'lower-end' scope! To the contrary: altough both are considered close runners, if you ask users wich have owned a nr. of both scopes, they'll tell you the Kahles gets the notch every time when it comes to brightness/clarity/weight & durabillety! You just pay more for the Swarovski Name!!