30mm scopes. What am I missing?

[Newtosavage]

Only you know what need after determining that through your own experience(s).

What you are missing out on/lacking/foregoing/compromising (your original question) between 1" tubes and 30" tubes is those adjectives in my first post.

I have an older 1500 Ram. When I ask what I am missing out on with a 2023 diesel would be answered with a bunch of things to include better gas mileage, working ac/heat, lots of torque, and higher payments. That doesn't necessarily mean I need those things.

I guess my question to you is, what are those things helping you do that makes you willing to tote the extra weight around?

 

[sndmn11]

I guess my question to you is, what are those things helping you do that makes you willing to tote the extra weight around?

FFP/functionality
I prefer knowing that regardless of magnification, my reticle is the same measuring tape. The last handful of animals I have shot have been around half power in my variable scope. One of them I shot holding UNDER the needed amount of mils. I had dialed for the distance he had originally showed up, but he kept walking towards me and cut the distance to 1/3rd of where he had started. The same applies to holding for wind if needed.
I like having the ability to dial the scope to a certain distance and having the reticle match always.


Durability/reliability
I believe in the zero retention testing that has been described here in Rokslide, and I have done several myself. I would like the weakest link in all of my hunting to be me. I also think that "we" are still looking for that 13oz scope that will pass the evaluation, but right now it is probably only an aimpoint. Knowing that a scope can lose zero on demand, without any damage whatsoever, and then knowing which ones don't, is a no-brainer to me. I believe that 2nd/3rd shots, unrecovered animals, misses, etc., would be reduced if hunters had more awareness of this.
I also greatly enjoy clicking my turrets and knowing that the adjustments took place and were true.

 

[Newtosavage]

FFP/functionality
I prefer knowing that regardless of magnification, my reticle is the same measuring tape. The last handful of animals I have shot have been around half power in my variable scope. One of them I shot holding UNDER the needed amount of mils. I had dialed for the distance he had originally showed up, but he kept walking towards me and cut the distance to 1/3rd of where he had started. The same applies to holding for wind if needed.
I like having the ability to dial the scope to a certain distance and having the reticle match always.


Durability/reliability
I believe in the zero retention testing that has been described here in Rokslide, and I have done several myself. I would like the weakest link in all of my hunting to be me. I also think that "we" are still looking for that 13oz scope that will pass the evaluation, but right now it is probably only an aimpoint. Knowing that a scope can lose zero on demand, without any damage whatsoever, and then knowing which ones don't, is a no-brainer to me. I believe that 2nd/3rd shots, unrecovered animals, misses, etc., would be reduced if hunters had more awareness of this.
I also greatly enjoy clicking my turrets and knowing that the adjustments took place and were true.

Thank you for that.

I know this is another topic for another thread, but in the heat of the moment, do you feel dialing is more intuitive than holdovers? Or is it a matter of what a person is "used to" (muscle memory, so to speak)?

 

[5MilesBack]

I guess my question to you is, what are those things helping you do that makes you willing to tote the extra weight around?

I started mountain rifle hunting big game in 1980, and the actual weight of my rifles and scopes has NEVER even entered my mind.......even to this day. I couldn't tell you what they weigh, other than they're a lot heavier than my bows.

Heck, my Iphone is 6.2oz heavier than my old flip phone. That should be a deal-breaker too.

 

[Macintosh]

Here Macintosh, maybe this will help you.

Thats a great graphic, and all of those ideals seemed to be sorely lacking in the discussion (in both directions in several cases), which was the whole reason for posting a meme. My actual contribution to the discussion was earlier when I said a larger tube is more rigid and stronger, and provides more surface area for rings to hold without slipping, and the difference between a 25-ish millimeter tube and a 30 mm tube are incremental. Without judgement.
You asked what you were missing, and got defensive when you didnt like the answer. Physics is physics, several advantages were spelled out, as well as some of the cost of getting there. You dismissed the cost as a dealbreaker, therefore there’s nothing more to be said. The fact that you’ve had good luck with something that many other people have had very poor luck with, doesn’t negate the experiences of any of those people— if you feel the durability difference is overblown, and you’re having good luck with what you’re using, keep using it! You got your answer within two or three posts. That also doesn’t mean that the odds are stacked in your favor of repeating your good luck next time, which is ultimately my takeaway from what other people are saying. The rest is just bruised egos and bickering. Not much to add at that point except sit back with a bucket of popcorn and watch.

 

[philos]

If we keep the insults off these threads there would be far fewer posts to go through. Lets stop the childish stuff please.

 

[sndmn11]

Thank you for that.

I know this is another topic for another thread, but in the heat of the moment, do you feel dialing is more intuitive than holdovers? Or is it a matter of what a person is "used to" (muscle memory, so to speak)?

I think dialing is drastically easier for most people because then you are at least shooting in the horizontal cross hair.

If you hold over and factor in a fair wind, then you might be out in space trying to imagine a bisecting line off both horizontal and vertical. It can surely be done and the answer to "intuitive" or not probably lies in how that shooter's brain works.

If there isn't wind to hold for, I still think dialing is more precise because you are behind the cross hair intersection. Hypothetically, if your reticle has half and whole value hash marks (i.e. .5mil and 1mil) and your correction is say 1.3, then you are having to approximate where .3 lies in between 1 and 1.5. It might not matter due to distance or target size, or it might really matter.

I do think the biggest struggle someone has when using the type of scope I've described as my preference, is trying to equate mils to inches or something else. I think the easiest way is to just see them as a value and not much more. Adjusting 1.3 is easier to hear and do, in my opinion, rather than adjusting 1.3mils because then someone wants to say "what's a mil?". It's just a number on the reticle, on the turret, and on the ballistics card/app to us.

 

[Newtosavage]

Thats a great graphic, and all of those ideals seemed to be sorely lacking in the discussion (in both directions in several cases), which was the whole reason for posting a meme. My actual contribution to the discussion was earlier when I said a larger tube is more rigid and stronger, and provides more surface area for rings to hold without slipping, and the difference between a 25-ish millimeter tube and a 30 mm tube are incremental. Without judgement.
You asked what you were missing, and got defensive when you didnt like the answer. Physics is physics, several advantages were spelled out, as well as some of the cost of getting there. You dismissed the cost as a dealbreaker, therefore there’s nothing more to be said. The fact that you’ve had good luck with something that many other people have had very poor luck with, doesn’t negate the experiences of any of those people— if you feel the durability difference is overblown, and you’re having good luck with what you’re using, keep using it! You got your answer within two or three posts. That also doesn’t mean that the odds are stacked in your favor of repeating your good luck next time, which is ultimately my takeaway from what other people are saying. The rest is just bruised egos and bickering. Not much to add at that point except sit back with a bucket of popcorn and watch.

Stating I've had good luck with something is entirely different than getting defensive. But if you're looking for an argument or someone to argue with, I guess it could appear that way? I'm just trying to learn by asking questions and sharing my experiences. If you think I start threads like these to argue, you either don't know me very well or you're projecting or both.

As philos said, please stick to the topic and leave the insults to the children.

A larger diameter tube is stronger than a smaller diameter tube of the same thickness. Yes, that is true. If it is not thicker, it is also easier to dent than a smaller diameter thicker tube. So it's bending vs. denting vs. overall weight that we are trying to decide between. I like to keep the weight down and if 30mm scopes weren't all so heavy, I would probably have owned one by now just to see if I like it better than my 1" scopes.

If by "cost" you mean weight, then yes, for now, for what I do, I'm not willing to tote a 1 lb. + scope around. Maybe after some bad experiences with lightweight 1" scopes (that I can definitely blame on the scope), I might change my mind. The fact that it hasn't happened yet is simply a fact and not me "getting defensive." I could drop my rifle tomorrow and wish I had a beefier scope. Who knows.

I suppose more light gathering could also change my mind but I read mixed reviews about whether that's even true of the larger scope.

 

[Newtosavage]

I think dialing is drastically easier for most people because then you are at least shooting in the horizontal cross hair.

If you hold over and factor in a fair wind, then you might be out in space trying to imagine a bisecting line off both horizontal and vertical. It can surely be done and the answer to "intuitive" or not probably lies in how that shooter's brain works.

If there isn't wind to hold for, I still think dialing is more precise because you are behind the cross hair intersection. Hypothetically, if your reticle has half and whole value hash marks (i.e. .5mil and 1mil) and your correction is say 1.3, then you are having to approximate where .3 lies in between 1 and 1.5. It might not matter due to distance or target size, or it might really matter.

I do think the biggest struggle someone has when using the type of scope I've described as my preference, is trying to equate mils to inches or something else. I think the easiest way is to just see them as a value and not much more. Adjusting 1.3 is easier to hear and do, in my opinion, rather than adjusting 1.3mils because then someone wants to say "what's a mil?". It's just a number on the reticle, on the turret, and on the ballistics card/app to us.

Again, thank you for that explanation.

At what practical hunting distances do you think those things really start to matter?

 

[TaperPin]

I’m not going to lie, this thread had me searching through the Leupold catalog (if you hadn’t heard of them, Leupold is an old vintage brand all us traditional old geezers bought) and these new fangled thick scopes are pretty cool - like that smart/funny platonic female friend that likes to fish and hunt.

I‘m not much of a dial up dial down guy for big game, but I‘ve had a go at chickens, pigs, turkeys and rams, and can see the attraction of ranging, computing, dialing, etc in the field and a rifle that really reaches out. It’s no different from handgun hunting vs heavier normal rifle stuff, just a step farther requiring a still heavier setup. There is no perfect one way only to hunt.

What would add a lot of information for all of us is some testing of just how much force it takes to tweak a scope. I’d feel silly for sticking to a 10oz 6x scope if it was more easily damaged than a slightly heavier model with bigger tube.

There is a debate even older than the size of tube or how tall your turrets are…let alone two dudes whipping out and comparing their MOA’s or Rad’s! … as a junior high school kid reading Elmer Keith and Jack O Connor I loved the debate between fixed and the new fangled variable scopes. My young brain was forever altered by a Farrah Fawcett poster and fixed scopes (if you hadn’t seen one, the fixed scope is like a buddy pulling a prank and electrical taping your power selector and turrets in place)

 

[Macintosh]

NTS, That is exactly how it came off. If that wasnt your intent then its my misread and I apologize if you took offense— I had thought you had been at the center of at least one other of these very similar conversations in the recent past, so apologies if that was someone else.

The fact that you have had good luck with a scope that has failed on many other people (including me) does not mean that your experience is invalid, but nor does it mean that mine or theirs is, either. Unfortunately a lot of people get pretty dismissive of the experienced of those who dont share the same perspective, and thats where this topic always goes south. I was perfectly genuine above when I said if the cost (yes, weight is what Inwas referring to) isn’t worth it to you for some incremental gain that you dont see as necessary, then you aren’t missing anything. I’ve had a different experience with that exact scope and others from the same company, and the few ounces extra weight doesn’t bother me, so I’ve made a different set of decisions around my priorities. I really do think it’s as simple as that.

For what it’s worth, I’ve used holdovers quite a bit practicing for matches, as well as hunting, in both second and first focal plane scopes. I actually bought a scope specifically for holdovers a bit over a year ago because I did not want to have a dial turret on that gun. What I found was that past 300 yards I could not be as precise as I wanted, and I moved to a dial scope. A different reticle would allow more precision at longer range using a holdover, but in order to have a reticle I could use at low magnification in the field, I wasn’t able to make it work for me. If I didn’t think I would ever want to shoot anything past 300 yards, I would not own a dial. At the same time, if I was planning to use holdovers on a hunting scope, I would definitely want either a first focal plane scope, or for the scope to be 10x or less, because I’m personally not able to keep the subtensions straight in a hunting situation unless they are constant throughout the magnification range. This scope I’m referring to here was purchased specifically because of problems I’ve had in the past, so I had priorities around durability first and foremost, and also glass quality, reticle, magnification, etc. Weight was a concern, but it was last on the list for me. I ended up with a 30mm, 20 or 22 ounce scope, don’t recall exactly, but if it had been 8 ounces more, I would’ve happily put that on my rifle too. I did not choose the scope based on tube diameter, if I had found another scope with similar attributes in 1 inch, I might have been able to place weight further up my priority list.

 

[nobody]

At what practical hunting distances do you think those things really start to matter?

I'm not @sndmn11 but the word "practical" in your response is subjective and it's meaning fluctuates depending on the person, their weapon system, where they are hunting, conditions, etc.

For a guy who live his entire life hunting big country out west chasing mountain mule deer and elk, "practical hunting distances" could be as far as 500 yards. That doesn't make that person ethical at those distances, but if they're hunting an area where those shots could be commonly be taken, then I would argue 500 yards as a practical hunting distance for that person in those situations and they should have the equipment to do so and be practiced up with that equipment and know how to use it should the opportunity/need arise. But for a guy down south shooting slug guns with red dots, their "practical hunting distance" is probably about 10% of the 500 I mentioned above. So "practical hunting distances" are all over the board and vary person to person, state to state, season to season, etc.

To answer the root of the question asked, holdovers/hold-unders start to take effect and matter anywhere beyond MPBR distances (let's say 275 on most modern bottle-neck cartridges). So beyond the point of "hold fur and pull the trigger," assuming all other fundamentals are in place, a guy could really start to see the benefit of all the "bells and whistles" in actual use. In stiff winds, those items such as graduated reticles and such may start to take effect beyond about 150 yards and cause a wound or miss instead of a kill, depending on the cartridge and the conditions.

I would argue those items come into play anytime or anywhere or at any distance where you have to start to do some form of mental gymnastics in order to hit where you want to hit. My muzzleloader drops like a rock beyond 100 yards, so an optic with those features (assuming they all function cohesively and completely) comes into place much earlier than it does with my 6.5 Creed. But the rule of thumb I have in bold applies, that point just fluctuates depending on all the aforementioned factors.

 

[Rob5589]

30 is the new 25.4, everyone knows that.

 

[DangerRanger]

There’s not a scope in the market I’m interested that’s 1”

But it’s not because they are 1”

It’s because the feature set I’m wanting isn’t offered in that size.

If the feature set you want is, go for it. Who cares?

 

[venado mula]

5 oz. more would be a deal breaker for me. If 30mm scopes came in 3-9x40's that weighed 13 oz. then heck yea I'd consider them.

Leupold VX3 HD 3.5-10x40mm, 30mm tube,14.5 oz and you can get a Duplex or a Red Dot reticle. I've never had an issue with them and I beat them up pretty good in the backcountry. Hope this helps.

 

[sndmn11]

Again, thank you for that explanation.

At what practical hunting distances do you think those things really start to matter?

I think @nobody summed it up in his first sentence, I might parse it down to "depends".

Those things could matter never, always, sometimes...

My little app says .1mil is a little over an inch at 300 yards, 1.8" at 500yds. Some people might care a lot about that, and others might not. I have a friend who is having a sad sad time because a new rifle is shooting 1.25" groups instead of .8" groups at 100yds. I stop "load development" at 2". If my goal was to "bang steel" or "punch paper" in impressive ways at all distances, "those things" would always matter. My goal is to kill an animal so the context changes to the impressive thing being a dead something on the first try.

 

[Newtosavage]

NTS, That is exactly how it came off. If that wasnt your intent then its my misread and I apologize if you took offense— I had thought you had been at the center of at least one other of these very similar conversations in the recent past, so apologies if that was someone else.

The fact that you have had good luck with a scope that has failed on many other people (including me) does not mean that your experience is invalid, but nor does it mean that mine or theirs is, either. Unfortunately a lot of people get pretty dismissive of the experienced of those who dont share the same perspective, and thats where this topic always goes south. I was perfectly genuine above when I said if the cost (yes, weight is what Inwas referring to) isn’t worth it to you for some incremental gain that you dont see as necessary, then you aren’t missing anything. I’ve had a different experience with that exact scope and others from the same company, and the few ounces extra weight doesn’t bother me, so I’ve made a different set of decisions around my priorities. I really do think it’s as simple as that.

For what it’s worth, I’ve used holdovers quite a bit practicing for matches, as well as hunting, in both second and first focal plane scopes. I actually bought a scope specifically for holdovers a bit over a year ago because I did not want to have a dial turret on that gun. What I found was that past 300 yards I could not be as precise as I wanted, and I moved to a dial scope. A different reticle would allow more precision at longer range using a holdover, but in order to have a reticle I could use at low magnification in the field, I wasn’t able to make it work for me. If I didn’t think I would ever want to shoot anything past 300 yards, I would not own a dial. At the same time, if I was planning to use holdovers on a hunting scope, I would definitely want either a first focal plane scope, or for the scope to be 10x or less, because I’m personally not able to keep the subtensions straight in a hunting situation unless they are constant throughout the magnification range. This scope I’m referring to here was purchased specifically because of problems I’ve had in the past, so I had priorities around durability first and foremost, and also glass quality, reticle, magnification, etc. Weight was a concern, but it was last on the list for me. I ended up with a 30mm, 20 or 22 ounce scope, don’t recall exactly, but if it had been 8 ounces more, I would’ve happily put that on my rifle too. I did not choose the scope based on tube diameter, if I had found another scope with similar attributes in 1 inch, I might have been able to place weight further up my priority list.

That make sense. And thank you.

I can easily see where holdover start to fall apart beyond 300. That's the farthest distance (so far) I've considered taking a shot at a muley, and in my then fixed 6x scope, that buck sure looked itty bitty in the fading light. I made the decision to pass, but if I had 9x and a dial, there's a good chance I would have taken that shot. I've only shot at the range at 400+ yards but can recall my holdover hashmark mostly covering the target face at 400, which didn't help my confidence much.

 

[Newtosavage]

Leupold VX3 HD 3.5-10x40mm, 30mm tube,14.5 oz and you can get a Duplex or a Red Dot reticle. I've never had an issue with them and I beat them up pretty good in the backcountry. Hope this helps.

Certainly does help. Thank you!

 

[ChrisAU]

Getting proficient at shooting long distances makes you very proficient in shooting short distances. My want to shoot longer in competition and somewhat longer in hunting led me to requiring scopes with more features and durability (return to zero) than I had in my early equipment.

You mention the 300 yard limitation - 300 yards used to be super scary to me. I never needed to shoot a whitetail over 100-150 yards at most, with the bulk being under 50 yards. Now 300 is as easy to me as 25. So is 400. The main want to expand my range came from getting into Western hunting. I didn't want to plan all year, buy a $700 tag, and drive 24 hours one way just to come home empty handed because I wasn't comfortable shooting at 400-500 yards.

I still own a few 1" scopes. Mainly rimfire and a couple dedicated whitetail woods rifles. But my main rifles all have 30mm+ scopes on them because I shoot them the most and that is what I am comfortable with.

 

[sndmn11]

@Newtosavage I am waiting for client to show up to a meeting, so I might have time for a story from two weeks ago.

I show up to the range at our private club and there is a very irate man. So angry that he told me several times he would kick my ass.

After a few minutes of discussion I learned he was upset that his new Seekins 300prc setup was shooting poorly to the tune of it would have been a good thing for to wager I could outshoot him with my pistol.

He had shot close to three boxes of factory ammo and didn't want to share the range because he was "troubleshooting".

I suggested we switch the scope to one of the few I had in my gear box. I also suggested he shoot off bags instead of the lead sled he had ratchet strapped to the bench. (he said he brought that out after the first half of shots sucked, and then strapped it to the bench for the last handful...)

On went my vetted scope and he shot a small group then went home.



For me, the reliability part is paramount. When it is known that many 25+oz scopes cannot be reliable, my logic tells me that a 13oz scope from similar brands that is value priced won't be either. Oodles and oodles of folks would love to see that $450 13oz scope that is as reliable as sunrise come about. I don't have anything against 1" scopes at all, but just like @DangerRanger said above, there doesn't seem to be one that does what I value. If a company made a 6x Mil reticle 1" scope at 13oz, even with capped turrets, and it worked every time, I would buy one. For now, the closest thing is 7oz heavier.