PDA

View Full Version : 1 inch vs. 30mm?


Rekrab
08-04-2010, 12:15 PM
So, a while back I picked up a 1" carry handle mount on a whim because the price was right. I still don't have an optic for it.

But now that I'm looking more seriously at an optic I'm trying to figure out if that was a good move or not. What are the inherent differences between the two? Is one better for certain applications than the other? I'm just curious and google didn't net much for me.

RobG
08-04-2010, 12:20 PM
About 5mm:D

Generally the 30mm gives more elevation adjustment.

sniper4usmc
08-04-2010, 12:28 PM
http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=13463
http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=3828
read this

Stringer
08-04-2010, 12:29 PM
About 5mm:D

True.

Generally the 30mm gives more elevation adjustment

True. Also generally true for windage.

and bit more light transmission.

False.

j1133s
08-04-2010, 5:48 PM
True.



True. Also generally true for windage.



False.

Not entirely false on the 3rd point as some manufacturers use bigger lenses in the 30mm tubes, so you do get some improved quality. I can't remmeber the makers right now though. (I think I read it somewhere, but can't be sure since I can seem to find anything.)

shooting4life
08-05-2010, 9:15 AM
The front objective lens size determine the amount if light transmission not the size of the tube. The quality of all the internal lenses will also determine the light transmission but not the size. Even some 1 inch tubes can have lots of elevation if the magnification does not get to high. Such as this vortex viper 2-7 witha 1 inch tube and and 110moa elevation. Also it is on clearance for 175 at cameraland (great deal btw, just ordered one)
http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vortex-viper-2-7x32-riflescope-dead-hold-bdc-reticle/reticle

j1133s
08-05-2010, 11:58 AM
Found something. Not what I read before, so maybe not reliable. But I read something similar before.

http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?tid=284&pn=3&fid=2&pr=0

I still can't remember th emanufacturers that used bigger lenses. It was years ago. So maybe now everybody (ok, decent ones) maximizes 30mm usage if they make 30mm tubes.

Stringer
08-05-2010, 12:40 PM
By "lenses" you are referring to the objective lens?

What about 30mm scopes with 24mm objectives vs. 1" scopes with 56mm objectives? Do you think that more light travels through the 30mm tube in this comparison?

shooting4life
08-05-2010, 12:47 PM
No. A scope with a 1 inch tube and 50mm objective will transfer the same amount of light as a scope with a 30mm tube and a 50mm objective as long as everything else is equal.

Stringer
08-05-2010, 2:34 PM
Shooting4Life, evidently you possess full understanding of this concept. I wasn't posing those questions to you--I should have specified that in my post. I find the Optic, Mounts, Rails and Sights section full of FUD and misinformation. Therefore it's a fantastic place to find users to add to my ignore list. I was fishing for misinformation, and then you gave the answer away. Thanks a lot, my ignore list didn't get any bigger LOL. :p

shooting4life
08-05-2010, 2:54 PM
Sure sounds like a great way to make calguns a better place.

j1133s
08-05-2010, 3:20 PM
By "lenses" you are referring to the objective lens?

What about 30mm scopes with 24mm objectives vs. 1" scopes with 56mm objectives? Do you think that more light travels through the 30mm tube in this comparison?

That depends on the quality of lenses and coatings.

Scopes have internal lenses and they are limited by the tube size.

Let's put it this way so things can be compared: equal objectives, 1" and 30mm tubes, equal quality lenses, w/ 1" using 1" internal lenses and 30mm using 30mm internal lenses (ignoring adjustments). which do you think would provide a better picture?

Stringer
08-05-2010, 3:24 PM
Sure sounds like a great way to make calguns a better place.

It's better than posting BS for others to take seriously.

FUD and BS is what's turning calguns into arfcom.

Stringer
08-05-2010, 3:35 PM
That depends on the quality of lenses and coatings.

Scopes have internal lenses and they are limited by the tube size.

Let's put it this way so things can be compared: equal objectives, 1" and 30mm tubes, equal quality lenses, w/ 1" using 1" internal lenses and 30mm using 30mm internal lenses (ignoring adjustments). which do you think would provide a better picture?

That's an interesting question, I haven't thought about it in those terms. Thanks for the food for thought! :) The light transmission would still be equal, assuming in both scopes that all the light transmitted through the objective is projected onto the erector (internal lens). The size of the erector is not related to light transmission. (hehe...I said the size of the erector :D) The 30mm is superior in that the erector assembly has more room to move for adjustments.

j1133s
08-05-2010, 4:05 PM
That's an interesting question, I haven't thought about it in those terms. Thanks for the food for thought! :) The light transmission would still be equal, assuming in both scopes that all the light transmitted through the objective is projected onto the erector (internal lens). The size of the erector is not related to light transmission. (hehe...I said the size of the erector :D) The 30mm is superior in that the erector assembly has more room to move for adjustments.

A bigger lens will let thru more light than a smaller lens of equal quality. It's a basic fact.

Years ago, Leupold made 30mm scopes by just increasing thei 1" tube size. I.e. fake 30mms. It was talked about a lot. But maybe today's high-end manufacturers are taking better advantage of the 30 mm tubes. Increased adjustments doesn't relate to optical quality.

uscbigdawg
08-05-2010, 4:11 PM
It's better than posting BS for others to take seriously.

FUD and BS is what's turning calguns into arfcom.

Now that's funny right there.

I've always subscribed to 30mm scopes let in more light than the 1" scopes. Just a thought with no basis in reality or research done. Just seems to make sense.

Rich

j1133s
08-05-2010, 4:14 PM
Now that's funny right there.

I've always subscribed to 30mm scopes let in more light than the 1" scopes. Just a thought with no basis in reality or research done. Just seems to make sense.

Rich

A lot of manufacturers don't put bigger lenses inside their 30mm tubes... hence you get more adjustments :) So, optical quality may not be better.

Light doesn't pass thru the 30mm or 1" tube, it passes thru lenses inside those tubes. So depending on lens size and quality... which you can't tell by looking at the outside tubes.

uscbigdawg
08-05-2010, 4:46 PM
All things being equal then....(and the one Leupy Mk4 LR/T 4.5-14x from their Custom Shop is the cheapest scope I own).

Rich

Packy14
08-05-2010, 8:01 PM
It's better than posting BS for others to take seriously.

FUD and BS is what's turning calguns into arfcom.

actually its people like you who are turning it into arfcom...why don't you go back there and leave calguns :)

Stringer
08-05-2010, 9:39 PM
Guess I was asking for that. :D Yeah I was being a dick. My apologies to all :p

RobG
08-06-2010, 11:34 AM
I stand corrected:o

Rekrab
08-06-2010, 12:43 PM
http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=13463
http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=3828
read this

Thanks, those covered it pretty well for me.:D