Swaro vs Huskemaw

[Barbourcreek]

School guns get used 5 days a week mostly. About 6000 rounds a year per gun.
Trijicon 10 miles. 300 students per year
Still track as they did new 4 years ago. Not to shabby

I have not used a leupold since the army
M3a and mk4
Have not tried the mark 5 so I dont know .

 

[jraulsten]

School guns get used 5 days a week mostly. About 6000 rounds a year per gun.
Trijicon 10 miles. 300 students per year
Still track as they did new 4 years ago. Not to shabby

I have not used a leupold since the army
M3a and mk4
Have not tried the mark 5 so I dont know .

That is some rigorous testing and a testament to the quality of the 10 Mile............

 

[IndianaMatt]

What about a Leica? I have a Leica rangefinder that is nice enough.

 

[Pdvdh]

And those that turn into turds for some, never do for a multitude of others......

I shoot a lot. Just about every day and thousands of rounds a year. I have had Schmidt, Kahles, Night Force, Vortex and multiple Mark 5s. I have yet to have a Mark 5 fail through my abuse but it may very well happen some day. I know several top PRS shooters that use and abuse them and never hear of or see failures at matches. I'm sure it happens but not at the rate one would gather from forum posts.

I have had two Kahles bite the dust. A K624i was replaced by Kahles when the reticle fell apart. Great service and a quick turn around. Actually sent the new scope before I shipped the damaged one back. Elevation adjustment on a K525i crapped out and had to go to Austria for repair, which took many weeks. My point is all scopes can fail regardless of manufacturer. I still to this day think the Kahles K624i with SKMR reticle is the best scope for the money.

Has there been more Mark 5 failures than say ZCO or Kahles? Maybe....But how many Mark 5s are out there in use compared to the others?

Then your preference may be to buy more Mark 5s. Carry on. I've never owned one. And never will after reading Huntnful's experience.

He started out very objectively and ultimately his Mark 5s became bitter disappointments. As I said, I select scopes based on reported scope failures. Not the reported success stories. Everybody loves their pet scopes until they have problems... and then their love affair ends.

 

[jraulsten]

Then your preference may be to buy more Mark 5s. Carry on. I've never owned one. And never will after reading Huntnful's experience.

He started out very objectively and ultimately his Mark 5s became bitter disappointments. As I said, I select scopes based on reported scope failures. Not the reported success stories. Everybody loves they're pet scopes until they have problems... and then their love affair ends.

Guess I'm just lucky

 

[Mike D Texas]

Any Leupolds or Steiners you like in this range?

I have 2 Mark 5s. I haven't had any issues but there are plenty of folks that have.

I'll likely sell these and move to Nightforce.

 

[RichCoyle]

True - guess I go with get the best possible glass you can and never look back. Run the NX8 and at higher power it loses clarity due to Raleighs constant - so anything higher then 24 X or so with a 50mm obj and a 30mm tube is going to do that.

Totally get the budget thing though. A guy can only do what they are comfortable with, just added my 2 cents

Maybe you could translate that into hunter talk.

Rayleigh law

1 language


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the magnetic law. For the stochastic distribution, see Rayleigh distribution. For optical scattering, see Rayleigh scattering. For wireless multipath propagation, see Rayleigh fading.
The Rayleigh law describes the behavior of ferromagnetic materials at low fields.
Ferromagnetic materials consist of magnetic domains. When a small external field �

is applied, domains parallel to the external field start to grow. In this region, domain walls are moving. They are hindered by material defects. Lord Rayleigh investigated this first [1] and quantified the magnetization �

as a linear and quadratic term in the field:
�=�0�+���0�2.

Here �0

is the initial susceptibility, describing the reversible part of magnetisation reversal. The Rayleigh constant ��

describes the irreversible Barkhausen jumps.
The Rayleigh law was derived theoretically by Louis Néel.,[2][3]
The same law describes polarization[4] and direct[5] and converse[6] piezoelectric response of some ferroelectric and ferroelectric-ferroelastic materials. The common feature for ferromagnetic, ferroelectric and ferroelastic materials (i.e., ferroic materials) are domains whose boundaries (domain walls) can be moved by magnetic, electric or mechanical fields.

 

[sp6x6]

I have a mark 4 and 5, that have both spent considerable time, one on a 7 # 338 NM.Still going, vari 3 spent its life on a 8# 340wby.One I switched to march for the low end vis 6x on mark 4.The mark 5 is clearer by a margin than my March,24x vrs 25x I do have NF ALSO

 

[Gamesniper19]

Maybe you could translate that into hunter talk.

Rayleigh law

1 language


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the magnetic law. For the stochastic distribution, see Rayleigh distribution. For optical scattering, see Rayleigh scattering. For wireless multipath propagation, see Rayleigh fading.
The Rayleigh law describes the behavior of ferromagnetic materials at low fields.
Ferromagnetic materials consist of magnetic domains. When a small external field �

is applied, domains parallel to the external field start to grow. In this region, domain walls are moving. They are hindered by material defects. Lord Rayleigh investigated this first [1] and quantified the magnetization �

as a linear and quadratic term in the field:
�=�0�+���0�2.

Here �0

is the initial susceptibility, describing the reversible part of magnetisation reversal. The Rayleigh constant ��

describes the irreversible Barkhausen jumps.
The Rayleigh law was derived theoretically by Louis Néel.,[2][3]
The same law describes polarization[4] and direct[5] and converse[6] piezoelectric response of some ferroelectric and ferroelectric-ferroelastic materials. The common feature for ferromagnetic, ferroelectric and ferroelastic materials (i.e., ferroic materials) are domains whose boundaries (domain walls) can be moved by magnetic, electric or mechanical fields.

Fair....Rayleighs can be used in many physics applications but when we are discussing light, it is specific.

In the Rayleigh criterion equation, CD is the critical dimension, or smallest possible feature size, and λ is the wavelength of light used. (the optics ratio between CD, ocular and the amount of light transferred λ from the objective lens to it and into your eye objective lenses NA) NA is the numerical aperture of the optics, defining how much light they can collect.
Finally, k1 (or the k1 factor) is a coefficient that depends on many factors related to the chip manufacturing process. The physical limit lithography. Smaller critical dimension can be achieved by using a combination of smaller light wavelength and larger numerical aperture (NA), while pushing k1 as close as possible to the physical limit.

This is why when with many scopes, as you turn up the power to max, it gets dark to your eye and sometimes loses clarity (114.3 is diminished in direct ratio = reductions go down as the power to aperture goes up so 114.3 may be reduced to 100 or 96 or 83 etc...)
In English LOL. The human eye can only resolve (see with full clarity and focus) a minute of angle at 100 yards as a constant. This is a measurement of the light required through any optics for the eye to perform at optimal levels (114.3). As the power goes up, the amount of light compressed goes up and compressed light is harder for the eye to see. More compression, less clarity.

Simplified example:
For scopes you divide 114.3 (Rayleigh's constant) by objective to find the highest power that an optic is usable.
So an spotter with an 80mm obj optimal magnification is 42x. It may be useable at 4 pm at 50 or 60 but once the amount of useable light is diminished, the ability for they eye to see is diminished.
114.3/80mm = 1.43 seconds,
then 60 seconds / 1.43 = 42x

Going beyond 42x only amplifies errors, affects clarity, enhances mirage, magnifies heartbeat, wind wiggle, etc...

This is part of why as you move up the ladder in more expensive, brighter, and larger scopes, they are more clear. Of course scope construction, lens material and overall coatings matter - Why sometimes with your Swaro you can see slightly better at low light with the optic than you can with your eye. But even that has its limits. From just a build perspective a 1 inch tube scope with a 40mm objective will not be as bright at 16 power as a 34mm tube and 56mm objective at 16 power.

 

[The Oregonian]

Fair....Rayleighs can be used in many physics applications but when we are discussing light, it is specific.

In the Rayleigh criterion equation, CD is the critical dimension, or smallest possible feature size, and λ is the wavelength of light used. (the optics ratio between CD, ocular and the amount of light transferred λ from the objective lens to it and into your eye objective lenses NA) NA is the numerical aperture of the optics, defining how much light they can collect.
Finally, k1 (or the k1 factor) is a coefficient that depends on many factors related to the chip manufacturing process. The physical limit lithography. Smaller critical dimension can be achieved by using a combination of smaller light wavelength and larger numerical aperture (NA), while pushing k1 as close as possible to the physical limit.

This is why when with many scopes, as you turn up the power to max, it gets dark to your eye and sometimes loses clarity (114.3 is diminished in direct ratio = reductions go down as the power to aperture goes up so 114.3 may be reduced to 100 or 96 or 83 etc...)
In English LOL. The human eye can only resolve (see with full clarity and focus) a minute of angle at 100 yards as a constant. This is a measurement of the light required through any optics for the eye to perform at optimal levels (114.3). As the power goes up, the amount of light compressed goes up and compressed light is harder for the eye to see. More compression, less clarity.

Simplified example:
For scopes you divide 114.3 (Rayleigh's constant) by objective to find the highest power that an optic is usable.
So an spotter with an 80mm obj optimal magnification is 42x. It may be useable at 4 pm at 50 or 60 but once the amount of useable light is diminished, the ability for they eye to see is diminished.
114.3/80mm = 1.43 seconds,
then 60 seconds / 1.43 = 42x

Going beyond 42x only amplifies errors, affects clarity, enhances mirage, magnifies heartbeat, wind wiggle, etc...

This is part of why as you move up the ladder in more expensive, brighter, and larger scopes, they are more clear. Of course scope construction, lens material and overall coatings matter - Why sometimes with your Swaro you can see slightly better at low light with the optic than you can with your eye. But even that has its limits. From just a build perspective a 1 inch tube scope with a 40mm objective will not be as bright at 16 power as a 34mm tube and 56mm objective at 16 power.

 

[Rich Coyle]

Gamesniper19,

At the end you used an example of a 1" tube and a 34mm tube. Are you saying the 34mm tube is better in low light?

 

[Gamesniper19]

Gamesniper19,

At the end you used an example of a 1" tube and a 34mm tube. Are you saying the 34mm tube is better in low light?

Hope my attempt to make an overly simple and plain explanation was not confusing.

The tube size will have a small effect but generally not enough on its own to tilt the scale. However, in my example with all the other factors, science, and specs it will play into the overall constant.

 

[azarcher10x]

Way to deep. It's the amount of light coming through the optic to the eye. Simply put, the human eye will dilate to approximately 5mm. At that, the eye is straining to see. The exit pupil of the optic is number you would want to pay attention to. The math is simple. Divide the size of the objective by the power. Anything over 5 is good for your eye and is good for lower light situations. The human eye functions best when dilated to about 3mm. That's the baseline. I rarely use my spotter very long, maxed out at 75 power, with an exit pupil of 1.13mm, unless I'm looking at Jupiter or something!
A lot has to do with the amount of time you're spending looking through the optic. For glassing in early mornings and late evenings, I love to use my 10x54 Zeiss Victory binos. The exit pupil is 5.4mm. Middle of the day, 15x56 are great.
Rifle scopes were not meant for glassing. You normally won't be spending long times staring through your rifle scope. At 25 power with a 50mm objective, you'll still have an exit pupil of only 2mm. The size of the tube doesn't change this. The tube size will help with how much adjustment is available in the scope. A larger objective lens will help. The help with getting as much usable light to your eye with a 2mm exit pupil, is in the quality of the glass and the coatings. It's referred to as light transmission. I stated previously in this thread, most of the major manufacturers use Schott glass, which is Zeiss. The differences are in the coatings. The high end scopes all have coatings designed to maximize light transmission. The difference between them, is usually in the coatings having to do with color contrast. Some manufacturers use coatings so that colors appear cooler and some use warmer coatings. At this point, it's pretty much personal preference. When choosing a high end scope, or any quality optic, look at the color contrast you prefer.

 

[RichCoyle]

Hope my attempt to make an overly simple and plain explanation was not confusing.

The tube size will have a small effect but generally not enough on its own to tilt the scale. However, in my example with all the other factors, science, and specs it will play into the overall constant.

I am convinced the only difference is the objective diameter as long as the glass and coatings are equal quality. Two of the four Swarovski z5 5-25X52 I bought were good in low light and two weren't.