IN THE WORLD OF OPTICAL SIGHTS

Today optical sights are being improved so fast as never before. Observing this trend one can ask a question: does a hunter really need it all and is there any limit in technologies race? It is hard to believe that formerly optical sights were not used with the hunting rifles. I don’t know about you, but I started hunting in the 1960s, when these devices had already obtained wide recognition. That time it was difficult to find competent information about most of models available at the market, and we chose our equipment according to the pieces of advice of leading gunsmith-writers of those days. And what did our gurus advise us? For a long period of time they had trusted to traditional iron sights only.

Much time had passed before the first really reliable compact optics, which could gain these veterans’ confidence, appeared. It is not worth to mention that these were sights with constant magnification. In fact, distrust to sights with variable zoom was reasonable: their early models were not distinguished by mechanical solidity and moreover had unpleasant feature – to change point of impact when changing magnification. With time more and more new models were entering the market and they were free from these “childish sicknesses”, however most of old school writers couldn’t get rid of their distrust to these sights, convincing their audience of this position. The first hunting rifle in my life was Winchester M-70, bought in 1964, and, of course, I mounted the sight UnertI with constant 4x magnification on it. And I had been using it for a long time until I first thought about necessity in any other magnification.

Only by the end of the 1960s I had added the first sight with variable zoom to my arsenal. It was Redfield 1-4x, which was mounted on one of my rifles of .375 caliber. And in 1976 I became a happy owner of my first, as I remember, sight with significant magnification range – one more Redfield, this time 3-9x, which became a permanent companion of my Ruger M-77 of .30-06 caliber. By that time sights with variable zoom had ceased being amazing, becoming increasingly popular among hunters. They not only became more reliable, but, what is more important, atmosphere of distrust, surrounded them, disappeared. New opportunities, which were suddenly opened up to us, took our breath away. Just imagine, that you had hunted for many long years with 4x sight under any conditions, and suddenly you’ve got a chance to use 9x magnification at large distances!

Recently I have read a statement in the article of one of my colleagues, that if gurus from times of our youth had lived now, without any doubts they would have chosen the sights with variable zoom. How great everything has changed since then… Nowadays one can find the sights with variable zoom within wide range – from 1.5-4x to 4.5-14x, and optics with constant magnification have practically yielded to them in market position. Today there are some sights of 3-9x and 3.5-10x type, a couple of 4.5-14x and one 2.5-8x, mounted on my rifles. As a rule, I prefer mounting the optics with less magnification on weapon of large caliber, for example 1.5-5x and 1.5-6x. Among few sights with constant magnification I have there are 2x one, mounted on a shotgun, 4x – on a rifle of .22 caliber, and 3x, being stored just in case.

However, in fact, after acceptance of the sights with variable zoom by market the world of optics faced one more revolution, which, frankly speaking, passed being unnoticed. Some years ago most of manufacturers would have pointed on the sights of 3-9x type, answering the question what model of offered ones is the most demanded by customers. And though these sights are well-sold and today, it is obvious that preferences of shooters have considerably changed. Now they prefer really LARGE sights. Saying “Large” I mean not just sights with the largest magnification: hunters look for optics with large lenses, large body diameter, larger length, weight… and higher price! I think that each of these factors deserves to be considered separately from others and try to understand how important they are in the view of real needs of a hunter.


Magical Letter “X”

To be honest, the sights with large magnification are not something amazing nowadays. There was always type of sights with magnification larger than needed for hunting for big animals, intended for varmint hunting and target hitting, at the market. Formerly these sights had constant magnification, such as 10x, 12x and so on. It was the time, when 3-9x was considered to be universal sight which allows aimed shooting at stationary targets at the largest distances as well as hunting for big animals with convenience. Today 3-9x is considered just “normal” sight for hunting for wild animals, and title of double-purpose sights passed on to the optics with larger maximum magnification, such as 6-18x, 6.5-20x, 6-24x and even larger. As a rule, such sights are mounted on the rifles, which are planned to be used either for hunting for animals at large distance or as a specialized target weapon. And although in a number of cases possibility to make an accurate shot at the extreme distance can seem attractive, most of hunters for big animals may not have an opportunity to use 20x and larger magnification ever. It is more reasonable to use in such conditions universal sights of new generation, by which I mean optics of the type from 3.5-10x to 5-15x, including 4-12x and 4.5-14x which are getting more and more popular.

In fact, there is a quite little difference between traditional 3-9x and modern 3.5-10x optics. When the maximum magnification is set, they both are rather powerful for hunting even at the open territory. And though they are not very appropriate sights for safari weapon, they provide needed speed of aiming at short distances with minimal magnification, that can be useful when you suddenly meet a wounded animal. More powerful sights, like 4-12x, 4.5-14x, etc., take their own niche and can be quite efficient when varmint hunting at great distances, i.e. in those situations when magnifications 3-9x/3.5-10x can be not enough. Although I don’t argue with the fact that groundhog is seen better through the sight with 20x or 24x magnification than through that one with 12x or 14x, nevertheless usage of so large magnification is hampered with mirage and thermal waves. As to me, when varmint hunting at large distances with the most powerful optics, I rarely set it more than 16x or 18x. To put a whole thing in a nutshell, if you really need double-purpose optical sight I recommend you to choose optics with variable zoom, maximum magnification more than 10x, but less than 18x. Today this type is represented by a range of excellent sights which are much better than the good old 3-9x one.

For most hunts in forest lands such sights can turn unreasonable luxury. Actually, if threading your way through the bush in search of a deer, you could see it only through 9x optics (that is unlikely itself), it means that you are just far from it. Though if it is necessary to shoot at the target over the field or situated at the opposite side of the ravine, the sight can be set on 14x magnification, but I think that there is no real need in it. Practically, any shot at a big animal in such conditions can be taken with fixed 4x, standard 3-9x or even iron sight, of course if you have necessary skills. Irrespective of how large the target looks at your sight, you must know exact distance to it, bullet flight trajectory and take into account such factors as strength of wind. Although powerful optics really facilitates shooting at large distances and sometimes gives confidence to shooter, it can’t save us from need of shooting skills.

As for me, I don’t hurry to replace my 3-9x and 3.5-10x with the sights with larger magnification, nevertheless I have a couple of 4.5-14x, being used when hunting at the open territory. However, it is important to remember that there is a possibility of sudden situation, which require quick shot at the short distance, even at the open territory. Hunting in such conditions, I usually set 6x magnification at the sight, decreasing it to the minimum when entering zone of dense vegetation. In general, for animal hunting minimum magnification of the sight is not less important than maximum one. Personally I prefer sights with minimum magnification not more than 5x for such hunts, and most part of time my sights are set on this magnification.

Is the size important? Recently most of American optical sights have had entrance pupils within the range from 36 to 40 mm, depending on their magnification. Meanwhile, European manufacturers have produced objectives with larger diameter like 50 mm or 56 mm. Only about 10 years ago such optics began entering the US market as imported one from the Old World as well as the models, specially designed for American hunters.

Increasing of entrance pupil allows enlarging light quantity, which penetrates into the sight. This is especially actual for Europe where hunters don’t use term “time fit for shooting”. Until natural illumination, including moonlight, allows to distinguish something, European hunters for red deer, roe deer or hog, seldom leave the forest.

Nowadays optics with objective lenses of large diameter is sold in the USA in significant volumes. Probably, it can be explained that among hunters larger diameter of objective lens is associated with its larger aperture ratio. In fact, this dependency is not so simple as it could seem at first sight. Moreover, we don’t need super high-aperture sights, allowing to count processes at deer’s antlers under moonlight, in America. Hunting in the USA must be finished by definite hour, as a rule, not later than 30 minutes after sunset, and resumed not earlier than 30 minutes before sunrise. For such conditions any qualitative optics with “normal” objective lens of diameter 36-40 mm fits.

Of course, if you hunt under cover of thick wood, you may need more high-aperture sight than that one enough for hunting at open territory. But diameter of objective lens itself can’t solve this problem. Actually, other things being equal the sight with objective lens of larger diameter will collect more light and, consequently, give more illuminated image. However in fact, notorious “other equal things” are seldom equal. With relation to aperture ratio quality of lenses and their coating have more important meaning than their diameter. Besides, there is a limit of light amount which can be efficiently utilized by sight with body of definite diameter. In other words, very large objective lenses on the sights with body of diameter of 1 inch, as well as the same objective lenses on relatively cheap sights, are caused by marketing efforts rather than real need to increase aperture ratio.

In addition to the fact that increasing of objective lens diameter leads to growth of weight and dimensions of the sight, too large objective lens also make us change our shooting habits. As a rule, mounting of the sight with objective lens of 50 mm diameter requires the bracket higher than usual one, and objective lens of 56 mm diameter complicates the situation even more. Usually most of American hunters are used to shoot in the position when a cheek is clasped to the butt. And if the butt of the rifle doesn’t have high cheek (sorry for pun), such position becomes inappropriate for you when using optics with increased objective lens diameter. It is less important for European shooters, because they are taught to shoot with a head fully raised. But in my honest opinion, to take this stand is a torture, that’s why I avoid using those sights which force me to suffer. If you don’t think so, thank goodness, but if your preferences are similar to mine, there is no better choice of optics, than a qualitative sight with 30 mm body and usual objective lens diameter.


Diameter of the Sight Body

Increasing of diameter of the sight body has the same meaning as increasing of its objective lens, allowing more light to reach shooter’s eye.


For many years the sights with body of one-inch diameter (26 mm) were regarded as standard in America, while for Europe the standard diameter was 30 mm. Neither figure has any magical meaning. There are sights with bodies of diameter 0.75 and 0.875 inches in America, and wider distribution of the sights with one-inch body is connected with only fact that they collect relatively more light. Moreover, their diameter is excellent for measurement accepted in the USA. 30 mm body is wider and consequently collects more light. There are optics with body of larger diameter in Europe, and as you could guess, it is more high-aperture. European sights were always available at American market in certain amounts, but till the last years they were not widespread enough.

So, how important is diameter of the sight in practice? In this case you can follow the same rules as were considered regarding diameter of objective lenses. Other things being equal the sight with larger body diameter collects more light. And also the full equality of all other parameters is found extremely rarely in practice, and in fact, body diameter influences on aperture ratio less than quality of lenses, their coating or sight’s design. In some cases 30 mm body is used just to attract the buyer to the sight, inside of which an usual one-inch system can be found. It is natural, that such optics doesn’t have any advantages of aperture ratio over “normal” sight. At the same time such a sight, like an usual one with 30 mm body, has certain advantage with relation to choice of possible elevation and windage adjustments.

Not so long ago I felt rage when any manufacturer offered me to test the sight with 30 mm body. My hate wasn’t connected with magic of figures: it is just because of the fact that at the time it was almost impossible to find rings of such diameter in America. Today this problem is not actual any more – there are plenty of rings for most of existing bracket systems. Although I didn’t decide to change all my sights with one-inch bodies for new ones, I must admit, that 30 mm body provides higher aperture ratio of the sight than one-inch one, both having the same quality of optics.


Heavy-Weight Sights

Larger magnification, diameter of the objective lens and body – these all design improvements make the sight longer, or heavier, or more cumbersome… or it is all together. Not long ago compact sights were prevailing at the market, but nowadays we can see more often clear signs of mania for giants. You should understand me right, because I appreciate very high the optics which gives me a clear bright image, however I don’t like to mount telescope “Hubble” on my rifle at all. Why? If for no other reason than I have to carry this wonder of engineering by myself. On the one hand, it is normal when the rifle is long-range intended for target shooting or varmint hunting. But it is otherwise when you get light compact rifle with a huge sight for mobile hunting. Not only that the sight itself shouldn’t weigh more than one third of the weapon’s weight, too heavy and large-size optics spoils appearance of the rifle, not to mention its balance. And as I told before, shooting with such a sight is an occupation for fanciers. If I have to change my customary stand just because my new sight requires it from me, it means that we have different ways with such a sight.

Too large (and accordingly, too heavy) optics has and other problems. The heavier the sight is, the more solid its design and design of its bracket should be in order to stand the recoil. And the stronger recoil is, the more serious this problem becomes. What’s more, large-size sights are just inconvenient to use. To make sure of it, it is enough to walk with the rifle, equipped with such optics, in the thick forest.

Unfortunately, larger magnification and aperture ratio inevitably leads to appearance of new centimeters and grammes, so in any case you should make a compromise. Large aperture ratio can be achieved due to less magnification and on the contrary, without significant increase of weight and dimensions. If you need both of them necessarily, you will have to pay for the fulfillment of wish not only by cash, but also by your back.

Nowadays we can see the trend towards relatively large and heavy sights, and significant part of new developments now goes in this direction. For example, Leupold LPS sights are referred, undoubtedly, to the best creatures of the modern industry, however they are quite large and heavy by default. Fortunately, this trend isn’t widespread yet, and the companies like Swarowski and Zeiss have recently presented new models of their excellent compact sights with one-inch bodies.


How Much?

Walking through the memory is always interesting, especially taking into consideration that it is natural for man to remember only pleasant moments. Thus, I still remember the times when a sight of rather acceptable quality cost about one third of the price of average rifle. And though now we can find sights in any price range, nowadays proper sight costs as much as a good factory-assembled rifle minimum (or else twice more expensive). The most interesting thing is that expensive optics is sold, and sold quite well, judging by the plenty of new models (I make a reservation that for me the border, beyond which the sight is “expensive”, is $500). But do these sights cost the money they are asked for? Without doubt.

Another question is how much do you need such a sight and can you afford it. In fact, as to modern optics, when you buy them you get what you pay for. I think that this rule works in relation to the sights even more unconditionally than to the rifles. So, today good American magazine rifle of plant manufacture with longitudinally sliding shutter assembly costs about these $500. At the same time, rifle, which is crafted by famous master on demand, costs between $3500 and $20000. And as it happens with any other piece of art, price of weapon will depend on the name of a master, who crafted it. I realize it and do not suffer when seeing rifle of handicraft. Of course, first-rate rifle, crafted on demand, can have better accuracy of hits, work more smoothly and in a number of cases even more reliably than serially produced weapon. It's quite another matter if to speak about optics. You can spend $50 as well as $1000 for a sight. I do not deny the fact that you can see the target through a cheap sight. Nevertheless, as a rule, such models are hard to adjust and they do not fit for use on a weapon with significant recoil. From the other hand, differences between the image in the field of view of a cheap sight and a sight, which costs 10 or 20 times higher, are seen by a naked eye. It is easily to evaluate different capabilities of adjustment systems: for a good sight any click of adjusting mechanism means shift of impact point by the same value. With time you will be able to ensure that there are differences in mechanical solidity of the sights and their protection level against internal sweat. The only thing you can not determine by a naked eye is quality of lenses processing and their coating. All this was said not to persuade you to buy optics at the “astronomical” price only. Clearness and brightness of an image of any usual sight without frills from rather well-known manufacturer will be more than enough for most of hunting situations. It is possible that its adjusting mechanism will not be quite ideal: sometimes handwheel will shift the point of impact by double value or, opposite, won’t shift it at all. However, in any case this optics must be quite firm and reliable to serve you many long years.


What is the summary?

Purchase of optics, indeed, differs a little from purchase of a rifle. You should clearly formulate your requirements regarding its capacity and quality, and have a notion of what price range is acceptable for you. Sometimes you will have to compromise. When it happens, I would recommend you to think about sacrifice of the sight’s magnification, in the first place. Actually, do you really need a sight with maximum magnification 14x or 15x? The same money, which are asked for a medium-quality sight 4-12x or 4.5-14x, you will pay for an excellent 3-9x sight. However, it is necessary to remember that overall quality can’t play the key role. If you choose a sight for the rifle with significant recoil, first of all, you should pay your attention to large eye relief. Most of European sights have insufficient eye relief, may be because of the fact, that the Europeans shoot with a head fully raised, when eye relief can be less than in the case when cheek of a shooter is pressed tight to the rifle butt and a head is bent forward. From the other hand, as we have already said, the most part of modern high-quality optics from the main manufacturers have considerable weight and dimensions. If you look for the sight for a light-weight rifle, intended for use at the running hunts in the cross-country, it will be more correct for you to draw your attention to the light weight and compact dimensions rather than to famous brand.

Nowadays solidity and reliability are essential features of any optical sight, which is positioned, at the least, on the lower border of average price range. It doesn’t mean that all optics is equally perfect. I could see operation of the worst and the best sights in the world. Both of them can make mistakes. It's quite another matter, that probability of the mistake for really good optics is very little. As for me, I am convinced that you should try to buy, where possible, the best sight you can find and afford. Actually, if you are strictly limited by your budget, it would be better to save a part of money by buying less expensive rifle and invest saved money in better optics. However, in any case, you should clearly know what you want from the sight and what it must be to let you hunt without any problems. The last developments in the field of optics are just excellent, but they lead to the situation when more and more American hunters choose the sights, capacity of which exceed abilities and practical requirements of the shooter himself and even of his rifle. It is not bad at all, but it is important to understand if it is worth spending more money and making your life more complicated, when you purchase too loaded with options sight, the real advantages of which, probably, you wouldn’t evaluate in practice.

Перейти к списку статей