ZeroTech TRACE ADV 3-18×44 FFP Shoot2Hunt

[JCMCUBIC]

I'm not sure what part of what I posted you are responding to, here. I understand 2-12 and 3-18 have a 6x zoom ratio.

But that's precisely my point/question. If the zoom ratio, turrets, erectors, illumination setup, objective size, main tube size are all the same, where does it lose 25% of its weight? And why is 2 on the low end better than 3? What do you gain?

Smaller objective is likely. 2-12 is fine with me, but 1.5-9x36 is what I thought might be the route to go. It would be more compact going from 44 to 36 on the objective, keeping the 6x erector, and still maintaining a 4mm exit pupil at the highest power.

I'm fine with dropping to a 5x zoom ration at 2-10, 4x at 2-8, or keeping the 6x at 1.5-9. Whatever works best to get the reticle in a reliable, lightweight (<=20 oz), compact FFP scope.

 

[dårlig jeger]

Smaller objective is likely. 2-12 is fine with me, but 1.5-9x36 is what I thought might be the route to go. It would be more compact going from 44 to 36 on the objective, keeping the 6x erector, and still maintaining a 4mm exit pupil at the highest power.

I'm fine with dropping to a 5x zoom ration at 2-10, 4x at 2-8, or keeping the 6x at 1.5-9. Whatever works best to get the reticle in a reliable, lightweight (<=20 oz), compact FFP scope.

Dropping to a 1.5-9x36 makes sense if you're trying to get under 20 ounces.

I was just trying to make sense of the clamoring for a 2-12x. Even if you dropped to a 40mm objective and shed a few ounces, I don't think it makes sense. The point i was trying to make is that it's effectively the same scope as the 3-18.

 

[ChrisAU]

Smaller objective is likely. 2-12 is fine with me, but 1.5-9x36 is what I thought might be the route to go. It would be more compact going from 44 to 36 on the objective, keeping the 6x erector, and still maintaining a 4mm exit pupil at the highest power.

I'm fine with dropping to a 5x zoom ration at 2-10, 4x at 2-8, or keeping the 6x at 1.5-9. Whatever works best to get the reticle in a reliable, lightweight (<=20 oz), compact FFP scope.

Careful, you’ve found one of the biggest draw backs for high magnification erectors. The exit pupil on the 3-18 is only 6mm at 3x and 2.4mm at 18x.

Looking at it for the 20th time, I really hope that spec is wrong for the exit pupil at 3x and is a typo? I know it’s not 14.67, but surely not 6mm? @Formidilosus @Ryan Avery

 

[dårlig jeger]

Careful, you’ve found one of the biggest draw backs for high magnification erectors. The exit pupil on the 3-18 is only 6mm at 3x and 2.4mm at 18x.

Looking at it for the 20th time, I really hope that spec is wrong for the exit pupil at 3x and is a typo? I know it’s not 14.67, but surely not 6mm? @Formidilosus @Ryan Avery

Isn't exit pupil just objective size/magnification power? So 44/3=14.67. It doesn't drop below 6mm EP until 8x. A 2-12×40 goes below 6mm at 7x.

 

[ChrisAU]

Isn't exit pupil just objective size/magnification power? So 44/3=14.67. It doesn't drop below 6mm EP until 8x. A 2-12×40 goes below 6mm at 7x.

No, that formula does not work for 4x+ erectors. Other optical compromises restrict it much further. Go look at the specs for any scope out there. NF NX8 2.5-20 is 7.1/2.6 low/high for example.

 

[dårlig jeger]

No, that formula does not work for 4x+ erectors. Other optical compromises restrict it much further. Go look at the specs for any scope out there. NF NX8 2.5-20 is 7.1/2.6 low/high for example.

That makes more sense, thank you.

 

[omicron1792]

But if the erector is the same, and the turrets are the same, where does the 6 ounces come from?

Also, I still don't understand the functional difference between a 3 on the low end and a 2, but you give up 6x on top.

I guess I still don't understand the draw to a 2-12, other than making it lighter, but why not make the 3-18 lighter if all else is equal? Do you drop to a 40mm objective with the lower zoom range?

You can’t make the 6x much lighter than they did and it still be durable.

A 20oz 2-12 that matched the 3-18 reticle and setup would be perfect for my 223

 

[omicron1792]

I'm not sure what part of what I posted you are responding to, here. I understand 2-12 and 3-18 have a 6x zoom ratio.

But that's precisely my point/question. If the zoom ratio, turrets, erectors, illumination setup, objective size, main tube size are all the same, where does it lose 25% of its weight? And why is 2 on the low end better than 3? What do you gain?

You gain (lose) 4-6 oz and overall scope size.

 

[eltorro]

@Ryan Avery : is there a chance that LOW still makes 4x erectors? There are some tests with Swaro that found 3x and 4x erectors to allow more light to pass, than 6x erectors. Maybe the 3x are also lighter weight?