Convince me I need a 30mm rifle scope

Knight said:

I've had it in this configuration for over 33 years and it hasn't failed me. I've hunted in Canada Colorado. High Sierra's in CA. N.C. PENN, FL and many other states no problem . Not all of us treat our firearms as you do.

Click to expand...

That's great. Back in the day my Leupold 1" served me very well, however when I began shooting further distance where "dialing" was a necessity then those fixed scopes did not serve my new purpose. In the end, whatever works for that person is what is important.

jrkotz said:

This was a marketing point from years ago that from my understanding, has been proven wrong. Light tranmission is basically unaffected by main tube diameter, and it's mainly to make room the the electors for more adjustment.

Click to expand...

So you got me doing a bunch of reading last night and now I've come to a bit of a light bulb moment...

Yes... you are correct with regard to light. It is very very minimal at best. I thought there was some slight image improvement. Basically it comes down to lenses used in that particular scope.

With regard to erector adjustment you are incorrect there only because some brands use the same erector assemblies in their 30 mm tubes as their 1" tubes. Also, some 1" tubes have more adjustment then 30 mm tubes.

With regard to 30 mm tubes being more durable than a 1" tube, that was proven to be a marketing scam as well. Most of the time a 1" tube fails it's because it's "old" construction versus new construction.

And... generally 1" tubes are supposed to be lighter, but that's not necessarily true.

So after doing a ton of reading... it's kind of funny... I always thought that a 30 mm was for image... I was wrong. I knew they weren't stronger because the tube wall thicknesses are basically the same.

So now... I have to agree with what another gentleman said.... look at what you desire in a scope.

Does it have to be ultra lightweight?

Do you need max adjustment for long range shooting?

Do you need a large objective to try and get as much light as possible for for first and last second of the day shooting?

Image clarity. Although that one is more a case of you pay for what you get.

Do you want a short scope for mounting on short action rifle?

Then lastly... what does your pocket book say it can afford? And don't ask the wife!!!!

06 SB said:

30mm tubes do not transmit more light. They generally have more vertical and horizontal dialing range. Weight is both a curse and a blessing. We have to carry it around but a heavier scope usually means less plastic parts and is more robust. I have both 1" and 30mm scopes on my hunting rigs. The 1" tubes are all set it and forget it scopes. There is enough room to sight in and then it will stay there. My long range rigs have 30mm tubes. They are only slightly heavier and I really do not notice a difference in carrying them. My 34mm scope is a brick but that rig is just for targets and never gets carried very far.

Realize too that FFP scopes are generally quite a bit heavier than a comparable SFP scope. Everything is a trade off so you must decide, how heavy, how much ($) and how will it be used.

Click to expand...

Winner^^^^^^

I thought they stopped making 1" tubes in 1908? Could be wrong....might have been 09?

Main reason to buy a 30mm over a 1" nowadays is the 1" tube scopes are going by the wayside. Not a lot of HIGH QUALITY 1" scopes are being made any longer.

One clear advantage of the 30mm tube is greater field of view. At least comparing my 1" tubes to my 30mms.

Once you get used to sitting behind 30mm glass, when you get behind a 1" scope it feels a bit like looking down a straw.

I have some of both but my serious hunting rifles have 30mm tunes.

Knight said:

I've had it in this configuration for over 33 years and it hasn't failed me. I've hunted in Canada Colorado. High Sierra's in CA. N.C. PENN, FL and many other states no problem . Not all of us treat our firearms as you do.

Click to expand...

I don't do any of that stuff to my rifles, all but 2 are 1"and mostly Leupold and not had any issues with them, except for that one time i did drop it and bent the ocular lens section. They replaced it. It was a tongue in cheek post because I'm sure some guys do treat their stuff that way and expect it to hold up.

Just to end a lot of the misinformation and old school beliefs handed down by coffee shop hunters. I think everyone should watch this video. It's long but better than a life time of not understanding.

BrentM said:

Just to end a lot of the misinformation and old school beliefs handed down by coffee shop hunters. I think everyone should watch this video. It's long but better than a life time of not understanding.

Click to expand...

Very cool video.

Ironically, just learnt through this video that I have a Leupold scope that's probably buggered because I have it dialed way to one side on a 6.5 RM. I had another scope on there and it basically required no adjustment (meaning it was aligned with the barrel, etc etc) and when I put the old leupold on it, I had to dial way off. So I need to check it when I get home.

So as he said at the end... a 30 mm tube ONLY gives you more room for adjustments and nothing else!!!

Playtimefun said:

So as he said at the end... a 30 mm tube ONLY gives you more room for adjustments and nothing else!!!

Click to expand...

It does give you a larger field of view. So for example, a 30mm tube at 10x mag shows a larger field of view vs a 1" tube at 10x.

On my go-to predator rifle I went from a 1" 3.5-10x to a 30mm 2-10x and the combination of reduction in low-end magnification range and the larger tube diameter gave me double the field of view at the lowest magnification. Great for predators that are on the move and close range.

Dentite said:

It does give you a larger field of view. So for example, a 30mm tube at 10x mag shows a larger field of view vs a 1" tube at 10x.

On my go-to predator rifle I went from a 1" 3.5-10x to a 30mm 2-10x and the combination of reduction in low-end magnification range and the larger tube diameter gave me double the field of view at the lowest magnification. Great for predators that are on the move and close range.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, can you show proof of that? I've never seen any documents or testing that show tube size has anything to do with fov. Would like to see it to help with the education. I've just not been able to find it. Your example shows the difference of 2x vs 3.5x for sure. Right there is almost 2x the fov based on range.

txaggie1 said:

It's not hard to find a good or even new vx5 for under a grand these days - IMO the optics quality and price should match the rifle. You put a 2500 scope on a 900 rifle seems as foolish as putting a 900 scope on a 3500 rifle. Plenty of good options in every package and budget. just my 2cents;

Click to expand...

This makes no sense. I had a fantastic Savage rebarreled to .257 Weatherby. Since I really like good glass, it carried a Swarovski z5 5-25X52.

Do all your scopes have the same size oculars?

BrentM said:

Just to be clear, can you show proof of that? I've never seen any documents or testing that show tube size has anything to do with fov. Would like to see it to help with the education. I've just not been able to find it. Your example shows the difference of 2x vs 3.5x for sure. Right there is almost 2x the fov based on range.

Click to expand...

Well I guess I should have done a bit more research before posting.

In the example I shared, I did gain more FOV than just the change in magnification, but now that I look at all the details, I went from a 40mm objective to a 42mm objective and that may have helped.

I just compared two VX-3 scopes, both with a 40mm objective, one with a 1" tube, and one with a 30mm tube. And guess what...you are right! There is no difference in the advertised FOV.

I should have considered that some of my increase in FOV came from a larger objective lense vs the larger main tube.

Thanks for the kind correction.