Tube diamiter?

The way I understand it, the only thing you gain from the 30mm tubes is you have more windage and elevation adjustment than you get with the 1 inch scopes. Other than that you don't gain anything else.

Mac
 
The way I understand it, the only thing you gain from the 30mm tubes is you have more windage and elevation adjustment than you get with the 1 inch scopes. Other than that you don't gain anything else.

Mac
That's the way I also understand. Light gathering is not better with the same objective size.
 
Read recently that the reason is mechanical. A 6X magnification range requires that lenses in the erector tube move further than for a 4X range. The power ring translates lenses via helical slots.

A single rotation of the power ring on a 1" tube cannot move lenses far enough for 6X. The helix angle in the translation mechanism would be too steep, requiring excessive torque. The same rotation of the power ring on a 30 mm tube can, however.
 
The terms 4X and 6X are not really proper, in this context. It would be more proper to state it in terms of power adjustability (zoom) RATIO, as in 4:1 or 6:1.
 
That looks better I guess, being that it does not have the same appearance as magnification level. I'm not any sort of expert in optics or anything. In hindsight, I should have let it ride. What I just realized though, is that the magnification level itself is also a ratio. Only difference is that it is set "over" 1, instead of "to" 1.
 
i have a scope ordered that has a 10x zoom range, it's a 30mm. the 30mm tubes are basically much stronger . most have thicker side walls and the bigger diameter helps too.
 
If all of the above is true, why does vortex use a 34mm tube in the razor and it is a 4X (5x to 20x)? Maybe light transmission??
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top