Field of view - How much is too much??

[NevadaMike]

I am looking for glass to put on a Seekins Element 6.5 PRC for SE Alaska. I purchased the rifle mostly for the shorter barrel since it rides around in the truck all day. I am a new hunter and got into the weds with reloading and long range shooting classes. Well so I go out hunting the last two years with my dope card in hand ready to range and dial but in SE Alaska 300 yards would be a huge open area because it is mostly timber. So back to my morning longe range prep, check the weather, input the data etc. I have had success the last two years in a row with my longest shot being about 30 yards. With my Zeiss 4-16 I am wanting more field of view for those close quick shots.

I picked up a Swarovski the other day and really liked the huge eye relief and field of view. I know the Swaro is a princess and not as rugged for my use but it will be a safe queen most of the year and maybe see 50 rounds in the summer for plinking and verifying things and then ride around in the truck and maybe shoot once or twice. It will see some hiking and brush busting too.

So the point of all this rambling is to ask what field of view are you more experienced hunters looking for in these close range scenarios?

 

[Blue72]

For me, the more the better. No such thing as too much ….the only limitations is that some optics tend to have distortion in the outer edges with super wide FOV

I prefer zero magnification (red dots) so it’s less of an issue

 

[SamsonMan22]

The more the better, the only time having a big fov was ever a “problem” was when I had a vx5 2-10 mounted low to the bore and a longer barrel. On 2x the barrel was highly visible in the scope. It was distracting but didn’t really effect anything. I did end up swapping that scope to a shorter barreled rifle before selling it and it wasn’t near as bad especially with a little higher ring setup. Other than that I see no downside to a higher field of view especially in close shooting. I used a 1x6 trijicon for a little bit with a huge fov on 1x and it was great for up close work, if that scope had not messed with the rifle balance so much I would still be using it on something.

 

[Macintosh]

I have a 2.5-10x42 on a 18” barrel 7600 that I use for hunting like that—close and fast, often moving target. The barrel is visible from 2.5 up to about 3x, but since it‘s pretty out of focus I dont find it distracting. I used to have an old weaver 1.5-4.5 on it, and I dont actually think I could see any more barrel. I prefer the bigger scope, I think field of view is just as large, but its better in low light and for those HUUUGE 150 yard long openings...

 

[Nick992]

I agree with the others that you can't have too much FOV, but as with anything there are trade offs. Putting a 1x on your 6.5PRC is kinda defeating the purpose of the cartridge. Obviously do what you want, no gate keeping here.

My advice, keep the 4-16. The 4x isn't a ton of view but it's enough. 3x and 4x fixed scopes are common for a reason.

 

[NevadaMike]

I agree with the others that you can't have too much FOV, but as with anything there are trade offs. Putting a 1x on your 6.5PRC is kinda defeating the purpose of the cartridge. Obviously do what you want, no gate keeping here.

My advice, keep the 4-16. The 4x isn't a ton of view but it's enough. 3x and 4x fixed scopes are common for a reason.

I am looking at the Amplus 6 right now and it is a 2.5-15 with a great field of view. As I continue to overthink this I also like the Swarovski.

 

[Nick992]

I am looking at the Amplus 6 right now and it is a 2.5-15 with a great field of view. As I continue to overthink this I also like the Swarovski.

2.5-15 would definitely get you close to the best of both worlds.

I always hesitate with Swarovski scopes, as you mentioned previously.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

You can't have too much FOV, the better question is how narrow can you live with. The optic on my hunting rifle currently only has a 21' minimum FOV which is my only complaint about the scope, I want more.

If you really like the Swaro, get it. they sell thousands of scopes a year and the only place you hear about them being fragile is here. They're the #1 optic in Africa which is a pretty harsh environment and rifles get beat around in those bush wagons.

 

[NevadaMike]

You can't have too much FOV, the better question is how narrow can you live with. The optic on my hunting rifle currently only has a 21' minimum FOV which is my only complaint about the scope, I want more.

If you really like the Swaro, get it. they sell thousands of scopes a year and the only place you hear about them being fragile is here. They're the #1 optic in Africa which is a pretty harsh environment and rifles get beat around in those bush wagons.

I appreciate that. I understand it's not a Nightforce but no doubt they are durable enough for most situations.

 

[Hatchet Jack]

One thing to keep in mind is, in general, the eye relief is decreased as fov increases. On a braked 6.5prc it shouldn’t be a huge deal.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

One thing to keep in mind is, in general, the eye relief is decreased as fov increases. On a braked 6.5prc it shouldn’t be a huge deal.

Uhhh, what?

 

[Hatchet Jack]

Uhhh, what?

It says One thing to keep in mind is, in general, the eye relief is decreased as fov increases. On a braked 6.5prc it shouldn’t be a huge deal.

In my experience the tradeoff for a wide apparent FOV optic is a shorter eye relief. Probably not an issue unless you're putting it on something with high recoil which doesn't appear to be the case in this situation, but it should be considered.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

It says One thing to keep in mind is, in general, the eye relief is decreased as fov increases. On a braked 6.5prc it shouldn’t be a huge deal.

In my experience the tradeoff for a wide apparent FOV optic is a shorter eye relief. Probably not an issue unless you're putting it on something with high recoil which doesn't appear to be the case in this situation, but it should be considered.

WTF are you talking about? I have LPVO 1-6’s and 1-10’s that have massive FOV at 1x and the same eye relief at 6-10x with a narrower FOV. I have optics that are 22-25x on the top end and have the same eye relief or within .1-.2” of the LPVO’s, and also the same eye relief at their lower mag ranges.

Some scopes like some Leupolds the eye relief changes through the magnification range but the eye relief gets shorter in the higher magnification which is also a narrower FOV.

So I’ve got no clue what it is you’re trying to say but it makes no sense.

 

[dreamingWest]

I prefer not to see the rifle barrel in my scope's FOV.

 

[SDHNTR]

You can't have too much FOV, the better question is how narrow can you live with. The optic on my hunting rifle currently only has a 21' minimum FOV which is my only complaint about the scope, I want more.

If you really like the Swaro, get it. they sell thousands of scopes a year and the only place you hear about them being fragile is here. They're the #1 optic in Africa which is a pretty harsh environment and rifles get beat around in those bush wagons.

Here and every other place imaginable. Hard pass on Swaro.

I like a 2-3x - 15-16x. For versatility sake.

 

[Hatchet Jack]

WTF are you talking about? I have LPVO 1-6’s and 1-10’s that have massive FOV at 1x and the same eye relief at 6-10x with a narrower FOV. I have optics that are 22-25x on the top end and have the same eye relief or within .1-.2” of the LPVO’s, and also the same eye relief at their lower mag ranges.

Some scopes like some Leupolds the eye relief changes through the magnification range but the eye relief gets shorter in the higher magnification which is also a narrower FOV.

So I’ve got no clue what it is you’re trying to say but it makes no sense.

you're comparing the same scope at different power, that's not the point.

Just throwing random numbers, but If you take Scope X that has a FOV of 200' at 6x and Scope Y that has a FOV of 230' at 6x, usually Scope X is going to have a more generous eye relief. It's the same reason NL Pures are bit harder to get into compared to the ELs. Everything in optics is a trade off. So the phrase "the more FOV the better" is not necessarily true depending upon one's needs.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

you're comparing the same scope at different power, that's not the point.

Just throwing random numbers, but If you take Scope X that has a FOV of 200' at 6x and Scope Y that has a FOV of 230' at 6x, usually Scope X is going to have a more generous eye relief. It's the same reason NL Pures are bit harder to get into compared to the ELs. Everything in optics is a trade off. So the phrase "the more FOV the better" is not necessarily true depending upon one's needs.

Again you are so far off base. There are shorter and longer eye relief optics of all magnifications. Most target a 3.5-4” range because that’s ideal for rifles, it makes no difference of the optic.

And WTF are you talking about NL’s vs EL’s? I’m literally sitting outside glassing the mountains with both as I type this. The NL’s are way nicer to use despite being the same objective size but 3.5x more magnification.

 

[Matt Cashell]

As a rule of thumb, Hatchet Jack is correct:

For a given magnification, eye relief generally gets shorter as FOV increases.

There are classic “wide field” binoculars with massive FOVs that had pretty tiny eye relief specs.

Some exceptions to this rule of thumb exist, usually to do with some impressive engineering of the eyepiece. I’m not sure how Swarovski got the eye relief they did with the NL. It certainly bucks the trend.

 

[JakeM51]

I am looking at the Amplus 6 right now and it is a 2.5-15 with a great field of view. As I continue to overthink this I also like the Swarovski.

If you want FOV the leica is definitely a good choice, from 2.5 up to 3 or 4 power I can see the barrel in the scope.