I can finally talk about a new riflescope that will shortly be announced by March. This is the March-X 8-80X56 HM WA. It features a 10X zoom, all the way to 80X, Super ED glass, and a wide-angle eyepiece.
It was tested this past week at the 2022 US Nationals F-Class Championships by the winner of F-Open. You can read about it here:
Tim says he was running it at 75X to 80X all weeks, even in heavy mirage.
The engineers were able to further enhance the shimmer protection inherent in riflescopes that use Super ED glass, and this makes the IQ in this riflescope very usable at 80X in heavy mirage in Phoenix, 2 days after a huge rainstorm.
The wide-angle 25-degree eyepiece provides a magnified image that's 156% larger than the image coming from a conventional 20-degree eyepiece. Looking through it, the image is very immersive, and you get a sense of the conditions around the target rather than just looking through a tunnel. I had the opportunity to look through the riflescope on the line during a match.
This introduces a whole new dimension to long range precision rifle competition.
I'm sure the price will be breathtaking also.
I'll have more info to share on the riflescope soon.
Thanks for the news.
Although I cannot, unfortunately, imagine ever having a use for such a sight, advancements are always welcome.
It's quite the specialized optics, that's for sure. It will be highly sought after by the top F-class and BR shooters and eschewed by most other shooters.
Everyone who has looked through it steps away from it with this look on their face and they don't make any comments. It's as if they have just experienced an epiphany, which in fact, they have.This message has been edited. Last edited by: NikonUser,
|Retired, laying back |
and enjoying life
Oh now you got me drooling for one to try on the prairie dogs in South Dakota.
Freedom comes from the will of man. In America it is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment
It should be announced in January and be orderable by March, 2023. There are many people (F-class shooters who were at the Nationals) already clamoring to get one ASAP.
I have the prototype back in my hands and it will be going on my F-TR match rifle shortly, in time for the next 1000-yard match in early December.
It was announced today.
I just looked at the announcement, and need to reread it, but a question that again occurs to me does the wide field of view affect (restrict) the eye box of the scope?
The eye box characteristics of rifle scopes is evidently not something that can be subjected to technical specification like field of view or exit pupil size. It is, however, something that I’ve found to be more important to me than things like glass clarity or freedom from CA. When getting into the prone or other difficult positions my stiff old body appreciates not having to be in exactly the right place to pick up the image. Because it’s not something that can be compared by looking at spec sheets, it’s necessary to try to find mention in reviews, and they are subjective and often very vague: “It’s easy to get behind it,” was one reason I settled on an SAI 6 for a LPVO, and I’m happy with mine, but something more definitive would be nice.
Anyway, is that something you can comment on?
I'm happy to comment. Let me just say right away that this riflescope is about as different from an LPVO and two riflescopes can be. The intended purposes are also radically different.
I will just talk about the Majesta and how it would be used. The Majesta is a big heavy riflescope. It's 16+ inches long and it weighs 40+ounces. The minimum power exceeds the maximum power of most LPVOs, and it is not intended to be used at that low power. As was demonstrated at the recent F-Class nationals Long Range (1000 yards), the Majesta is perfectly happy to be shot at 80X all the time. In order to hit the intended target using 80X, you need to have perfect form behind the rifle and as such you should mount the scope so as to match your preferred position.
If you are not comfortable in prone behind the rifle and can hold that position for 20-30 minutes without fatigue, you're not doing it right. To help me achieve that, I mount my riflescope very high so that I can hold my eye to the eyepiece without any contortion or straining. I can fall asleep in position because it is so comfortable. It has to be or else you will not get the best possible results. At high magnification, you must have perfect repeatable form; the eyebox will folllow. When you reduce the magnification the eyebox becomes much me forgiving.
The wide-angle eyepiece provides a large vista to your eye. It's 56% larger view than a regular eyepiece and it's all magnified. This view diminishes or even removes the tunnel vision effect the other scopes give you.
Thanks for all that.
I do of course understand the differences, most anyway, between the Majesta and the SAI 6. I cited it just as an example of one scope that I chose because of a vague reference to better than average eye box.
I could cite another example of why I switched to a Nightforce from a different high quality scope partially because of the eye box issue. I chose the latter originally because of its reputation, but even though it’s probably a higher quality instrument overall, it wasn’t as suitable for me as the NF turned out to be. I have actually attempted to condition my body to make it easier to assume different firing positions. I have made some progress, but it is also obvious that it is highly unlikely I will ever achieve the capabilities of even 20 years ago.
But as I indicated, questions about the eye box of different scopes aren’t easy find answers to. I also understand that dealing with a restricted eye box can simply boil down to “Do it the right way, and you won’t have any problem.” That’s the gist of much advice offered here, and I’m getting the impression that like many of my questions there probably isn’t an answer or I would have found it on my own. Thanks again. I always appreciate your insights.
I realize you knew all the differences, but I was not quite sure what you were getting at.
Comparing what is the currently the most powerful and arguably the most advanced optical riflescope on the planet to an LPVO is a little wonky, as you surmised.
I completely agree with you that you should select the riflescope that suits you best, brand name aside.
The Majesta is not a riflescope that I would consider for anything mut a long range, high precision rifle that is fired from prone or a bench. If you need this level of optical performance, there is no other scope like it, and you really need to adjust the riflescope to suit your position on the line/ground/bench.
My question is whether the wide angle view of a scope affects (restricts) the eye box of a scope. I made a mistake, though, by posting the question here because it led to the obvious assumption that the question was about the Majesta and its characteristics.
I should have just started a new thread and asked, “Does a wide angle view feature in a scope affect its eye box?” And if not, what does? And if yes, it does, what else affects the eye box, if anything? Does the “optical triangle” come into the question and its answer?
Mention of the wide angle view of the Majesta just reminded me that I have a scope with a wide angle view and its eye box is rather restricted as compared with other scopes I own. That was the genesis of my question, but not really about the Majesta because as amazing as it seems to be, it’s not something I anticipate ever having any need for.
Again, though, thanks for your explanations.
|fugitive from reality|
Ok, serious question here. I know March is some of the best glass on the planet, so building an optic with a 10x magnification range isn't an issue. But, if the optic was never designed to be used at the bottom end of the magnification range, why did they build it as a 10X zoom?
'I'm pretty fly for a white guy'.
SgtGold, that is a great question.
Here is my understanding of how things work in a riflescope. The magnification of a riflescope is determined by taking the focal length of the objective and dividing it by the focal length of the eyepiece, then you add in the zoom factor. In this case, the base magnification is 8X, which represents he FL of the objective / FL of the eyepiece and then you have the 10X zoom so 8X to 80X.
DEON already knows how to build 10X erector sets, so nothing new to invent here; use well-known, proven assemblies. I do not know much about how they expanded the FOV, but I suspect it's a combination of objective tweaking and eyepiece tweaking. At the very least, the eyepiece is wider than usual, 46mm VS 41mm.
You must never forget that a riflescope is a combination of optical devices unlike a telephoto camera lens. The objective lens group is the only place where the riflescope is similar to the telephoto camera lens. Once that image is delivered to the FFP, the remainder of the riflescope only magnifies that image to a greater or lesser extent.
Ok. Now I understand where you're coming from. You are correct in that I got caught up comparing the Makesta to your LPVO when you really just wanted to know about wide-angle eyepieces. March does have other riflescopes with wide-angle eyepieces. The 4.5-28X52 HM is one of them and I have used it a few times. I have not experienced any issues getting behind it.
However, that said, I have heard of people having issues with wide-angle eyepieces. I believe it just has to do with familiarity and what one is used to. There is no denying that a wide-angle eyepiece is different.
Thanks: Appreciate all that as usual.
|Retired, laying back |
and enjoying life
I have a March 4.5-28x52 HM and have noticed no difference from the Nightforce scopes I use. I do all my shooting from a bench so consistency is easier to maintain.
Freedom comes from the will of man. In America it is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment
I installed the prototype of the March-X 8-80X56 HM WA riflescope on my F-TR match rifle last week and took it out to a competition yesterday.
I know have a working hypothesis as to why some people have issues with a wide-angle eyepiece. Let me set the scene.
As a long time competition shooter, I associate with other competition shooters, a lot. I rarely go to non-competition venues and when I do, I don't spend much time talking with other shooters as we are on very different wavelengths. I see a lot of hunters and target shooters at these ranges and they use optics very differently from me; the vast majority if shooters will use optics as aiming devices, exclusively. F-class shooters, will use their optics for observation as well as for aiming but observation will be primary, especially in tricky situations.
I also believe PRS shooters spend a lot of time looking around and especially try to detect their impacts. I know of hunters that use spotting scopes or binoculars a lot, looking for game.
There are a lot of people who use optics quite a bit to observe they environment, looking for game, conditions, impact, and so on, and these people are used to optics and using ALL of the topics, not just focusing exclusively at one tiny portion in the middle.
So, this weekend, I invited anyone who wanted to look through the prototype to have a go. There were about a dozen or so who took the opportunity to do so and none of them reported any problem with the die angle. In fact, they all praised the wide view and found it very easy to get behind it.
The only time I had someone mention an issue with a wide-angle eyepiece was a hunter with the 4.5-28X52 on another forum dedicated to hunting. I didn't pay much attention to that at the time, but I did remember.
So my glib answer of a week ago was actually on the right track. If one is not used to observing with riflescope or optics in general, a wide-angle view can present a problem at first. Yes, a wide-angle eyepiece is different in how it presents that image to the eye but for someone who is used to optics and has been using them for observation, identification and so on, this is not an issue; it's just a bigger picture, giving you a lot more information. Some people who are used to only look at the target and nothing else may get a little overwhelmed with the bigger picture but that will disappear very quickly. the human mind is extremely adaptable.
Going back to a regular eyepiece feels like you have developed tunnel vision.
Again, thanks for your further discussion that (as always) provides additional insights into the question. I’m about to run out the door for the morning, but will reread it later.
(Being a stickied, or “featured topic” thread, I sometimes don’t notice the newest postings here.)
This business of wide-angle viewing has taken on a life of its own, at least for me.
I wanted to do some comparisons between various riflescopes, at least on paper and see if where the data would lead. The first item of business was to come up with a method to compare the riflescopes using the data provided by the various manufacturers' websites. I also wanted to come up with a simple number that would be useful to me in extrapolating the actual FOV at various distances and magnifications.
The lowest common denominator between the various websites is the FOV at minimum and maximum at 100 yards, or 100meters, usually both. I evolved a formula whereby given the FOV at maximum and the min & max magnification, a number pops out called the real angle of view. This number ranges from a low of 17 to a high of 26, so far, in the various riflescopes I have analyzed. When I take this value (it's the same for metric or imperial) and divide it by the desired magnification, then multiply by the constant 5.235 (60*1.047/12), I get the FOV at 100 yards in feet. So, let's say your preferred riflescope has an real angle of view of 20; at 100 yards, at 25X, the FOV would be 4.2 feet. Then you can multiply by the result of (distance/100) to get the FOV at whatever distance you want. For example, at 300 yards, the FOV would be 4.2 feet * (300/100) = 12.6 feet. Easy peasy.
The trick is to get that real angle of view and for that we go back to trigonometry class.
RAOV= 2 * arctan((MFOV/2)/100) where MFOV is the published FOV at the maximum power of the riflescope in meters. If you use imperial units, make sure to set the 100 to feet or inches, to match whatever you use for MFOV.
I sure hope I didn't make a mistake transcribing my Excel formula to text above.
Here are some examples of numbers for some riflescopes that I see on the line.
March-X 10-60X56 HM: 20
Nightforce Competition: 19
NF NX8 8-32X56: 18
NF NXS 12-42X56: 19
Kahles K1050: 17 (Gasp)
The new March prototype: 25
Sightron SVIII 5-40X56: 21
Let's do some FFP riflescopes.
March-FX 5-40X56 Gen 2: 20
March-FX 5-42X56 HM: 26
March-FX 4.5-28X52 HM: 25
Tangent Theta 5-25X56 Pro: 23
Tangent Theta 3-15X50 Pro: 24
Tangent Theta 3-15X50 Marksman: 24
ZCO ZC 420: 23
ZCO ZC 527: 23
ZCO ZC 840: 23
It seems like the high-end FFP models have a RAOV of about 23 compared to around 20 for high magnification SFP riflescopes. I do note the low value for the Kahles (17) and the very high value (25) for the new March. That wide angle eyepiece is something else.
More to come, I'm sure.
ETA: Updated the formulaThis message has been edited. Last edited by: NikonUser,
Another fascinating post (and once again one I didn't notice immediately). Thank you for all that.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 ... 8 9 10 11|