Discussion in 'Hunter (HFT) & Field Target (FT)' started by RobF, May 6, 2010.
How do you find the Kahles in comparison to the Leupold's?
Leupold Competition x40 with no.27 Premier reticle...and it's superb.
They use Big Ones . no don't thank me ??? HOLLY
Optically the Leups (which are superb) compare very similar to the Kahles but the Kahles has a narrower field of view. Range finding wise I find the Kahles is more distinct (similar to the Sightrons & Nikko's). I also find the use of the range finding wheel being on top is no hassle in the sitting position and is much easier to use on the standers and kneelers.
I am using a Mtc Viper Pro 5-30 x50 Scope with 6" sidewheel
Nikko Diamond 10-50x60 Mk3 Mildot
Nightforce fixed 36 mag
Parallaxes down to 8yds
Front focus but snaps in and out
Nick Jenkins premier boosted 20-50 leupold. 1/4" Mil dot ret spaced 4" @ 100yrds
Hawke Sidewinder 30, 6-24X56, 20X 1/2 mildot reticle, sidewheel,
Falcon MT50 10-50x60 Field Target
ib use the s&b ft2 its lovely glass but at a cost
Leupold 14 to 35 by 40 . premier ret . with 50 foot adapter .
Talking of FT scopes . i had my first look through a 80 mag march today . i was shocked to find what i thought would be super bright image on 40 mag . was actually about the same as a sightron . ??? HOLLY
Either a faulty March or more likely faulty eyes. You can’t compare March to Sightron glass.
This was a brand new March 80 . silver . illum ret . on 40 mag on a gloomy ish target . defenition and image were world class . brightness was not . bazza tried it after me and he said the same ( Sightron user ) Paul ( really nice chap ) said that yes he does have problems on really dark targets . he also said that the 5=50 by 56 . 34 mil tube march he has , was a better , brighter scope Darron . Let's face it Darron , you bought the wrong one you old Tart . you will just have to suck it up . ain't life a bitch .
Signed a confirmed 20=50 user . who is not selling his . Yehawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww HOLLY
The Sightron should be brighter on 40x than a March 8-80 set to 40x because the Sightron has a 60mm objective and the March a 56mm. That's the reason the 8-80 is brighter than a 10-60x52 because the 52 has a 52mm objective.
60mm area is 28.27 cm2
13.7% difference in area between that and this one below
56mm area is 24.63 cm2
14.7% difference in area between that and this one below
52mm area is 21.24 cm2
There's 29.39% difference between the 60mm's area and the 52mm's area.
That's the only thing that makes a difference to light gathering (assuming the lenses are roughly equal in amount and quality)... the tube size makes no difference whatsoever, it's there just to provide more dialing range. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that some tubes are thicker than others despite the outside being the same.
OK Rob , then how do you account for my lupe being brighter than a 56 mil lens . being only 50 mil ? on the same mag . to be fair the lupe is not as snappy as either of those two scopes . ? HOLLY
PS But then of course , when was i ever fair .
There's several reasons.
First, did you measure it, or do you just think it is?
Secondly, magnification isn't always what is written on the side of a scope. I've got two Hakko's here, both same model, both 40x, one has definitely got a larger image and a narrower field of view than the other.
Thirdly, magnification is a number that is derived from other aspects of the lenses. And they can affect how wide the field of view is, and the depth of focus. And that will affect light gather. I use mag as a simple laymans term because it's easy for most to follow, rather than focal length which is very rarely published and some manufacturers refuse to do so. You can get an inkling though by looking at the eye relief distance. Longer ones will be darker, less FOV, and snap better, as compared to the same size objective of shorter ones which will be brighter, have wider FOV and snap not so well. As ever it's possible to buck the trend, but it's doubtful your 50mm leup, if it is 50x will be brighter than a 60mm on 50x. One can always measure it with a light meter though and prove it one way or another.
I'd agree the 8x80 isn't the brightest, but the quality of the image makes it so easy to range, and it snaps so clearly, I shot the same course as holly at the weekend, never questioned the ranging ability, never struggled with the conditions.
It even ranges spot on at bisley in the eve with the floods on..
It's been a pleasure to use since I've had it tbh.
Hi Up Rob . yes John harris is always banging on about 20=50 mag not being 50 . i accept that some may not be . but i cannot see how all of em can be less . i don't know how they work this out . i have always found that the 20=50 was one of the brightest scopes . only one i had that was brighter was the first S&B FT . but as we know that did not turn out well . HOLLY
hi T36 old glass version £900 new version £500