I'm listening to Rifles Only Accuracy Podcast, Season 3 Episode 4 Buck is Back.
https://www.podbean.com/ea/pb-qdubx-13a3a94
Jacob's guest works for Leupold (not sure I caught in exactly what capacity). I think he's the same guy who was talking a few months ago on the Backcountry Hunting podcast about Leupold's durability and how light scopes were better for durability. Also I think he was on Beyond the Kill with similar points.
Anyway, he was talking about optical design and saying that eye relief and FOV were essentially on a sliding scale where improvement to one must come at the expense of the other. Obviously they can both be bad with poor optical design, but they cannot both be amazing no matter how much money/design you throw at it.
Thoughts? It seems to me like he tends to consistently present arguments that are designed to put critics on the defensive.
"Actually, the light weight helps with durability!"
"Actually, it's good that the reticle is off at 100 yards, if it was collimated at 100 it would be way off out where it matters!" -this one seems plausible, but I don't know enough to say. I just have some automatic skepticism with the other stuff he's said and the way he frames his arguments.
"Actually, the VX3 is one of the brightest, most durable scopes on the market since it has fewer elements and lenses than most wide mag range scopes!"
https://www.podbean.com/ea/pb-qdubx-13a3a94
Jacob's guest works for Leupold (not sure I caught in exactly what capacity). I think he's the same guy who was talking a few months ago on the Backcountry Hunting podcast about Leupold's durability and how light scopes were better for durability. Also I think he was on Beyond the Kill with similar points.
Anyway, he was talking about optical design and saying that eye relief and FOV were essentially on a sliding scale where improvement to one must come at the expense of the other. Obviously they can both be bad with poor optical design, but they cannot both be amazing no matter how much money/design you throw at it.
Thoughts? It seems to me like he tends to consistently present arguments that are designed to put critics on the defensive.
"Actually, the light weight helps with durability!"
"Actually, it's good that the reticle is off at 100 yards, if it was collimated at 100 it would be way off out where it matters!" -this one seems plausible, but I don't know enough to say. I just have some automatic skepticism with the other stuff he's said and the way he frames his arguments.
"Actually, the VX3 is one of the brightest, most durable scopes on the market since it has fewer elements and lenses than most wide mag range scopes!"