High End Scope Frustration

[FourT6and2]

Not all of us that shoot longer distances, shoot precision matches. Cheek risers are impractical in some circumstances, necessitating a simpler approach.

I can see an adjustable stock MAYBE getting in the way while hunting (snagging on trees/branches). But I don't think anybody hunts with a 5-25x56 scope. And I don't think anybody hunts at 1,000+ yards. So, if one has a 50mm+ scope, what would one be doing shooting at long ranges if not for precision, or if not for a match of some sort? Shooting milk jugs at 1,000 yards just for funsies? If so, there's no such thing as "impractical." It's just for fun. Maybe if someone were a soldier? If so, they probably wouldn't be having this conversation on this forum right now. Soldiers shoot whatever they're issued. Adjustable stocks... hmmm what are the circumstances you're talking about where they are "impractical"? I'm trying to think of what application would require a large objective scope like your typical 5-25, yet also necessitate the use of a non-adjustable stock to be "practical."

If you're shooting long range, but not at a match, not for hunting, not for fun, and not for soldiering/LEO/duty... then what is that application?

[ElvenSoul]

Nobody is hunting with a 5-25x56 scope. And nobody is hunting at 1,000+ yards. If you have a 56mm scope, what are you doing shooting at long ranges if not for precision, or if not for a match of some sort? Shooting milk jugs at 1,000 yards? Are you a soldier? If so, you probably wouldn't be having this conversation on this forum right now. You shoot whatever you're issued. Non-adjustable stocks... hmmm what are the circumstances you're talking about where they are "impractical"?

[EastCoaster]

I can see an adjustable stock MAYBE getting in the way while hunting (snagging on trees/branches). But I don't think anybody hunts with a 5-25x56 scope. And I don't think anybody hunts at 1,000+ yards. So, if one has a 50mm+ scope, what would one be doing shooting at long ranges if not for precision, or if not for a match of some sort? Shooting milk jugs at 1,000 yards just for funsies? If so, there's no such thing as "impractical." It's just for fun. Maybe if someone were a soldier? If so, they probably wouldn't be having this conversation on this forum right now. Soldiers shoot whatever they're issued. Adjustable stocks... hmmm what are the circumstances you're talking about where they are "impractical"? I'm trying to think of what application would require a large objective scope like your typical 5-25, yet also necessitate the use of a non-adjustable stock to be "practical."

If you're shooting long range, but not at a match, not for hunting, not for fun, and not for soldiering/LEO/duty... then what is that application?

There are any number of special needs that a hunter requires. I know that in Maine, a special program for visually impaired vets to hunt exists, requiring specialized accommodations.

Each geographical environment also holds different needs. What is a standard need for the back woods of Montana, doesn't necessarily hold true for the tundra in Alaska.

Furthermore, many service members are virtually forced to purchase their own gear. Here is one recent example, but I personally know guys in infantry units that are forced to do the same.
Lawmaker questions why some Navy SEALs buy their own gear

[FourT6and2]

There are any number of special needs that a hunter requires. I know that in Maine, a special program for visually impaired vets to hunt exists, requiring specialized accommodations.

Each geographical environment also holds different needs. What is a standard need for the back woods of Montana, doesn't necessarily hold true for the tundra in Alaska.

Furthermore, many service members are virtually forced to purchase their own gear. Here is one recent example, but I personally know guys in infantry units that are forced to do the same.
Lawmaker questions why some Navy SEALs buy their own gear

So the clarification to your statement that adjustable cheekpieces on stocks are "impractical" is that some shooters are "special needs"? I just want to make sure I understand your position here.

As far as hunting goes... do you hunt at 1,000+ yards? Or are you implying that a "special needs" hunter requires a 25-power scope due to sight issues? How does one hunt at say... 300 yards with a scope set to 25 power? Again, I just want to understand what you're actually trying to say here. I have a hard enough time finding a static target during dynamic steel match with my scope set to 12x, let alone a moving animal in the wild with a scope set to 25x. I'm thinking most would get lost in their scope in a situation like that. Going further, I'm still not sure what you mean by special needs. But if it's something to do with eyesight (given the implication to needing a scope with a large objective, which usually means high magnification), how would a cheek piece get in the way of that? Wouldn't it make it easier to get a perfect sight picture? Unless "special needs" refers to something else...

As far as soldiers go, are you saying having a cheekpiece that you can set to your own tailored height is impractical in the theater of war? For the third time, I really want to understand what you're actually saying here.

An adjustable cheekpiece is "impractical"? Impractical in what way? Impractical because of cost? Because of it sticking up? Because of what? Don't take this as me arguing or being a dick. These are valid questions, I think. Because I've never heard anybody mention that having an adjustable cheekpiece is impractical or somehow gets in the way. If anything, they make shooting easier—especially with the scopes this thread talks about. But I'm open to new information. Please elaborate

[EastCoaster]

So the clarification to your statement that adjustable cheekpieces on stocks are "impractical" is that some shooters are "special needs"? I just want to make sure I understand your position here.

As far as hunting goes... do you hunt at 1,000+ yards? Or are you implying that a "special needs" hunter requires a 25-power scope due to sight issues? How does one hunt at say... 300 yards with a scope set to 25 power? Again, I just want to understand what you're actually trying to say here. I have a hard enough time finding a static target during dynamic steel match with my scope set to 12x, let alone a moving animal in the wild with a scope set to 25x. I'm thinking most would get lost in their scope in a situation like that. Going further, I'm still not sure what you mean by special needs. But if it's something to do with eyesight (given the implication to needing a scope with a large objective, which usually means high magnification), how would a cheek piece get in the way of that? Wouldn't it make it easier to get a perfect sight picture? Unless "special needs" refers to something else...

As far as soldiers go, are you saying having a cheekpiece that you can set to your own tailored height is impractical in the theater of war? For the third time, I really want to understand what you're actually saying here.

An adjustable cheekpiece is "impractical"? Impractical in what way? Impractical because of cost? Because of it sticking up? Because of what? Don't take this as me arguing or being a dick. These are valid questions, I think. Because I've never heard anybody mention that having an adjustable cheekpiece is impractical or somehow gets in the way. If anything, they make shooting easier—especially with the scopes this thread talks about. But I'm open to new information. Please elaborate

You're mischaracterizing my responses to specific statements you've made. Instead of recognizing them for what they are, you've decided to act like an obtuse Democrat with non sequitur arguments . So lets look at a couple of them now.

You: Maybe if someone were a soldier? If so, they probably wouldn't be having this conversation on this forum right now. Soldiers shoot whatever they're issued.

Me: Furthermore, many service members are virtually forced to purchase their own gear. Here is one recent example, but I personally know guys in infantry units that are forced to do the same.
Lawmaker questions why some Navy SEALs buy their own gear

Does this statement sound like I'm questioning the use of a cheek riser in a combat theater? Or could it be that I am providing an on point dispute to your claim?

You: But I don't think anybody hunts with a 5-25x56 scope.

Me: There are any number of special needs that a hunter requires. I know that in Maine, a special program for visually impaired vets to hunt exists, requiring specialized accommodations.

What do you know of visually impairments that makes you an expert upon not requiring the use of a 56mm objective?

While I personally don't use a 25x on a scope to target a shoot, I certainly use it to get a closer look at specific things in the field. Its a lot easier than lugging around a pair of binoculars.

And now lastly, why are another's needs for anything so foreign to you? Did you ever have a thought that an injury, birth defect, or another body problem could negate the use of something that you apparently find so indispensable for your own needs? Or how about an environment that it would be better to minimize the use of excessive mechanical devices, such as being 200 miles from the closest store or even a mailbox?

There are more things I could state, but don't feel the need to waste anymore time or bandwidth with such ridiculousness.

[thegiff]

Exit pupil isn't the most important thing for most people or scope designs, just one of many factors that affect the overall usability. For a scope with an exit pupil larger than that of the user's pupil, some of the objective size is "wasted," and this will always occur at low magnifications. However, the flip side of that is the image is as bright as it will ever be, wasted light or not.

As we age, our pupils won't dilate as far anyway.

As the diameter of the objective lens gets larger, chromatic aberration goes up dramatically. So now you have a giant, bright, purple image. To fix that, you need fluorite or some other exotic glass, now the cost goes up and no one can afford the optic. Not to mention a giant piece of glass getting hit with 500g acceleration without breaking.

Seems like what OP wants is a leica spotting scope with a crosshair and tough enough to mount on a rifle.

[goodlookin1]

I guess what I'm questioning is the reason for going so high in magnification when the practical objective size is limited? I know going up higher in objective size alters sight over bore, and cheek weld.

Maybe it's just me and that I am very sensitive to scope dimming, but I would rather have a scope with less magnification and no dimming. Maybe that's why I love my TR22? Sure, there's some waste factor as far as the exit pupil is concerned, but that also makes for a more forgiving head position/cheek weld...and there is zero scope dimming.

Assuming equal high quality scopes, I'd take a 3-18x56 over a 6-24x50 for long range every day of the week and twice on Sunday for the simple fact that anything beyond 17x on that 50mm obj is going to severely diminish the light coming through that scope. 24x through a 50mm obj turns a bright and sunny day into an seemingly overcast, hazy mess.

Is it just me???

[HK Dave]

You should take a look at a gen2 Kahles k624i. I have to wear sunglasses to use it. :P