Full view - Eye relief question

[grvj]

I wear glasses and on various scopes have different ease of seeing a full 'picture' without some vignetting around the circular view and would like opinions from other glass wearers/ scope users.

What occurs is if I snap my rifle to position and my eye is not the exact critical center point there is a not full sharp circular view. There is some fore and aft latitude (critical eye relief - about 1.5" either direction) that makes no difference, it definitly my eye's centered position. This is not a bench rest concern because I have the time to stare at the target and aquire a full view. It is more of a field problem

If my eye is not centererd to whatever this precise scope central point is, I see some blackening of about a 1/6 outer perimeter of the view-sides, top or bottom -  not enough to block a shot but enough to a distraction and has caused me to pause in the shot while I center my eye. I have missed a hog on the first shot and then had to bang away to drop it.

Now this is not with every scope so here are some examples:

Swarovski 1.5x6 30mm tube - this is about a 15 year old scope (got it used) but is the easiest to look through 99% of the time. It has a German 4A reticle and when viewed through has a thick black border around the outside of the picture. The black border seems to make this scope easy to look through - like a tunnel.

Zeiss 3x9 German made -  Diavari reticle - this scope is the most problematic - I need to center my eye to a precise point in the scope. It is advertised with a 3.5" critical eye relief though this does not seem to be the issue. It may be more of a combination with my glasses and scope formula combination. It is better at 3x than 9x.

Zeiss 1.24x4.25 Diavari - German made even though a lower magnification than the 3x9 - it displays some of the same critical eye centering like the 3x9

Leupold 4x rimfire - fairly easy to sight through as is another Leupold 4x for a standard rifle. I am beginning to think a simple 4x works better for me than a zoom. A older Bushnell 4x Trophy also is very easy to use and seems particularly bright. This Bushnell was advertised as having a wide field of view.

Anyone else have the same scope issues?

[diggler1833]

In my latter years, I've come to grips with the fact that I've needed glasses.  I do shoot occasionally with them, but now usually limit that to open sights since I too have the problem keeping my eye centered in the scope with glasses.

If you do not have a clear picture to the edge of the glass, and you get that shading, it will affect the outcome of the shot placement.

Best bet is to get some contacts, or some of those wickedly sexy huge-lens glasses (I have a pair that I have used for shooting a scoped rifle when the occasion arises).  Do not shoot with glasses where you can not see the entire area of the inside of the scope as you are hindering your ability to put a shot exactly where you want it.

[charles p]

To correct your problem, start with a good scope.  That may correct your problem.  If you have a good scope and it is a variable, turn the power to the highest setting and move the scope foward and backward in the rings until you can see a full picture with your head in a comfortable position.  Practice mounting your rifle with your eyes closed and then opening them.  If you can see a full picture, then you have the eye relief set properly.  On lower powers the scope will be more forgiving thus if you can see the picture at the high mag setting, you have it mastered.  If nothing works, go back to my first sentence (start with a good scope)?

Many shooters tend to creep up on their scopes rather than anchor their cheeks on their stocks at the natural position.  A scope is different from binoculars.  Put your cheek in the proper position on the stock, then adjust your scope to achieve the correct visual picture. 

Once again, pay attention to sentence #1 if you want desirable results. 

[Dave in WV]

Two things I have done to help with using my scopes are:
1: having glasses made with no close distance correction. ( I wear bifocals)
2: I focus my scopes at the distance the parallax is set for.

A suggestion was made for setting the eye relief at the highest setting on your scopes. This will work but maybe a better solution would be setting your scopes on the magnification you use most and then do a small correction of your head position to compensate. My son sets up his scopes in this manner. Another thing to keep in mind is how much clothes you will have on when hunting. I put my hunting coat on when I set my eye relief on my deer rifles.

[diggler1833]

I would venture to say that Zeiss scopes are probably good enough to start with.  I do understand though about some scopes being more forgiving than others.  Eye relief is generally more critical as magnification increases.

Solid advice by Dave.

OP, just remember that setting a scope's eye relief to your eye on the bench will not guarantee that you are going to bring up the rifle to a natural, clear view.  Your position of your body while shooting will have an affect on where your stockweld is on the rifle.  This might not have an adverse effect if you only shoot from a blind, where you could sight your rifle in sitting behind a bench knowing that you will not change position.  For the rest of us though, it just becomes a bit more of a natural thing to have to take that split second to adjust our head.

If you are able to identify edge to edge clarity in a scope while you are shooting at a moving target then IMO you aren't taking a snap shot, you are taking a well-aimed shot at a moving target.

If the glasses are really causing you an issue, then the best bet would be contacts IMO as it would have the least affect on eye releif.

[spruce]

I might be wrong, but it sounds like the problem you're experiencing is more of a "fit" problem than anything to do with your scopes or the fact you wear glasses.

I've worn glasses since I was 15 (a long, long time!) and for the last 10 years they included bifocals and never had a problem seeing the whole view thru my scopes.

You might try some kind of pad on the comb (top and/or side) so that when you bring the rifle up to your cheek your eye is directly in line with your scope.  For example on one of my rifles where I had to mount the scope slightly higher than I like I put on a slip-on neoprene shell carrier on the buttstock and it was just enough thickness so I get a good, solid cheek weld and my eye is aligned with the scope.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the smaller the size of the exit pupil of your scope, the more critical eye alignment becomes.  Exit pupil size is determined by dividing the size of the objective lens by the magnification.  For example a 3-9x40 set at 3x would have an exit pupil size of 13.3mm, the same scope set at 9x would have a 4.4mm exit pupil size.  Visualize a cylinder extending out from the rear of the scope.
The larger this "cylinder" the less critical eye alignment becomes.
As someone said oftentimes cheap scopes will cause problems regardless of the exit pupil size, but I don't think this is the problem in your case - I don't remember seeing any cheap Zeiss scopes!!

[grvj]

Thank you for your responses. I have fussed with scope position (at least fore and aft) and understand what these scopes sweet spots seem to be. I agree that cheek weld/position may be an issue. I have adjusted so when standing the are very close and I tighten cheek position slightly forward when snap mounting.

The Swarovski 1.5x6 is on a Steyr Professional Mk3 which is a fancy name for a plastic stocked 30.06 with a shape sort of like a Weatherby-high comb, flat wide forearm but with a tighter wrist shape. It is a full size stock, 14.25 lop

This rifle seems to be the easiest to shoot though the most interesting thing is that everyone else who has shot this rig comments how easy it is to shoot and virtually all comment how neat the scope picture is. The same comments are not received from the Steyr 6mm Rem with the Zeiss 3x9 or the Steyr 7x57 with the low power Zeiss.

These Steyrs are slightly different stock shapes especially in the cheek piece area and are lighter though overall length and lop are the same. The exit pupil may be a good point- had not thought of that.

I got these scopes for their ability to breakout a brown hog at the base of a brown tree in the shade at dusk and all have great contrast for dark colors. I wonder how a straight 6x like Leupolds would work.

[Dave in WV]

The 14.25" LOP may be your problem. It is quite long for most folks. You may not be able to get your scope far enough back to compensate. My M 70 30-06 has a LOP of 13.25" and is great for me. I'm 5'10"/230 lbs.

[grvj]

Dave...thanks for the response. I have long arms. 6' and even with a shotgun find a long lop comfortable. Now that said, I know there are other factors that affect where a cheek sits, general hold and so on. I try to aquire my target by raising the crosshairs under target and pulling trigger just as the aim point is centered.

I am still at a loss understanding why the old Swarovski just seems to work better though it just may be simple enough that the gun dimensions, scope position, moon and stars all line up for the right fit.

After thinking about all the rifles I've owned and sold, it seems the ones with slim dimensions, shortish and narrow forearms went first. Included are a Winchester feather weight M70 7x57, a BLR .243, Ruger #1 7X57, Brno .270 with a reshaped stock. All were scoped.

Recalling ones that sold but I still recalled felt/shot neat - one was an old Winchester M54 in 30.06 and a steel buttplate. That dug into my shoulder if not held just right but the weight and balance were wonderful. It had a 2.5 Leupold Alaskan 7/8 tube.

The Ruger #1 was strange because the short action required the scope to be mounted far back and a cartridge needed to be fed under the scope to chamber. It was a neat rifle because it was so compact and I took my first hog with it.

Looking back at all my hunts with first shot hits, I had time to aquire my target and shoot without a lot of drama. Some of the others were snap shots when the guide pointed to a opening in brush that hogs were traveling across that had to be quick.

 It's that type of shooting I am practicing for and wish to improve thus the scope picture question.

[Dave in WV]

grvj, you are using 30mm tube scopes and IIRC the rings available to mount them are higher than 1" tube scopes. Maybe switching to 1" tube scopes and using lower rings will help?

You asked about a fixed magnification scope. IOR makes a fixed 4x with a 1" tube. My son has a Leupold 6x42 with the heavy duplex and it is a really nice scope but I don't know how well it will work for you.

[grvj]

Dave - for you, how easy is the 6x42 Leupold to look through and aquire a view? Spruce pointed out that exit pupil size is directly related to ojective size which may require a more precise eye alignment especially as power is cranked up

The 3x9 is a 36mm objective, the lower magnification Zeiss is a 24mm objective. The Swarovski is a 42mm. The simple answer is that I may need to pick scopes with the biggest exit pupil size for power I want.

[diggler1833]

Bear in mind that the human eye has only a pupil size of roughly 7mm or so (give or take a mm or two either way) for a younger adult.  Anything more than that is technically not going to help.  The human eye's pupil will also decreases with age.  Spruce hit the nail in the head on exit pupil being determined by just dividing the objective diameter by the magnification.

[Ron/Pa.]

 I have a cheap, S1, 3x9x40, Sightron on my Tikka. The eye relief is outstanding. A lot better than my Pro-Staff.

[Dave in WV]

The Leupold 6x42 is pretty forgiving. A schmidt & Bender, IOR, or Meopta fixed magnification may be more to your liking but they probably are not as forgiving for eye alignment. The Euro scopes tend to have a short eye relief. It helps with the "brightness" thing. One thing to keep in mind is what looks good to me may or may not be acceptable to you. I'm 56 so my eyes can't do as well as a younger person's. For "brightness" a 6mm exit pupil is about as good as it gets BUT a larger exit pupil is not wasted. The larger the exit pupil, the less critical your alignment to the optics will be. A fixed magnification has an advantage over a variable due to less lens to look through so less light is lost. No optics have 100% light transmission. Every lens or prism the light has to go through lessens the amount of light to your eyes. Quality of glass, coatings, workmanship, and engineering come into the mix. That said a really good optic with an exit pupil of less than 4mm can't compete with a good optic with over a 4mm exit pupil. Once you go under a 4mm exit pupil the eye needs to be lined up just about perfectly with the optic's bore axis to get a good view.

Maybe you can get some input from ,Zachary, the optics moderator. He hunts hogs so he has some experience with what works for him.

[grvj]

Dave, Ron, Diggler ...thanks for the response.

I've looked through all three again from minimum to max power, both Zeiss scopes have more critical eye positioning needed. The old Swarovski is easier to look through but I can detect a little critical eye centering at 6x but is easier than either Zeiss at 4x or higher.

I have looked through Schmidt & Bender scopes, they are superior glass. I can't help but be attracted by excellance in construction. With a past in photography and Zeiss lens in particular, I have always appreciated Zeiss lens formula for design purpose. In the photo area, Zeiss lens formula is strong on contrast in combination with color correction. Years past they were not only the standard but seemed to be 10-15% better than Nikon or anyone else.

Now lens formulas are as easy as look 'em up and pour the glass. The difference is in scope construction and durability but as shooters looking for scopes can see, there are a lot of choices. I feel Leupold probably has the best combinations of scope levels for price combined with great support.

Now I find that practical use of riflescopes and specifically ease of target aquisition more a priority for accurate shooting. Contrast and ability to breakout color in shadow or dim light I'll select according to price. Pay more-get more.

I've been with shooters with base level scopes who could not make out their target from 4x to 9x in dim light at 100 yards. I looked through the Zeiss at 4.5x and walked them to their targets

Hope this is not too anal of a post, I typically focus on a topic, resolve than leave alone for 10 years!

[diggler1833]

No it isn't anal at all.  Good glass can only be appreciated once someone has had the opportunity to use it.  The downside is that it will cost an arm and a leg to get to the level of optical performance that the top tier optics manufacturers produce.  S&B scopes are one of the absolute best out there for optical clarity, low light level performance and repeatability.  Heck, our beloved USMC started issuing S&B scopes out about 5-6 years ago with pretty good results so far. 

The hardest part for you is finding where you can go and play with each scope before buying.  Not too many stores keep stocks of S&B, Swaro, Zeiss, PH, USO and so on.  You might try going to a match some day (F-Class, practical, tactical) and ask to have a few look-throughs.  Good luck.

[smokey262]

I have read that the design of any optical system involves compromises, i.e. to achieve excellent results in one area requires giving something up in another area.  I do not recall what the compromise was for this particular concern, but it may have been depth of field or field width.  Regardless, your existing scopes are clearly superior optical instruments but may in fact not be providing what you desire.

If I were in your shoes I would visit a store that has a vast array of scopes on hand and spend an hour or two looking through some that meet your criteria in regards to construction quality, optical quality, zoom range, etc. and select the one that provides the sight picture you want.

If you could live with a lesser quality scope I suggest a a low magnification range Leupold VX-II or better, or even a fixed FX-II or better.  Why do I say this?  I recently purchased a Leupold 2-7x33 VX-II and was simply shocked at how easy it was to position the scope in front of my eye and get a perfect sight picture.  No vignetting, no "tunnel vision", amazing fore and aft as well as lateral range of suitable eye postion, etc.  I have scopes that have better optical qualities, and that cost more money, but none that provide such a pleasing ability to give me the sight picture I desire for a hunting rig.