Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
FINALLY!! Burris has listened!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Garycrow" data-source="post: 901577" data-attributes="member: 30743"><p>That's pretty out of line. People are just expressing a wish list, nothing more. If people didn't wish for something better and work to make it happen we'd still throwing rocks at mammoths.</p><p> </p><p>You're also wrong about glass being responsible for the weight, that's part of it but by no means all or even most of it. If it were all due to glass then Swarovski couldn't make a 5-25 that weighs 17.5 oz. These tactical scopes obviously have heavier internals, erectors, etc. than a lightweight hunting scope like the Swarovski. Yea, I know they do more and are likely to be more durable, offer better elevation travel, etc., but the glass itself isn't that different between them so you can't make the argument that the glass is responsible for the weight or can't be designed into a lighter package. Not everybody wants a fixed power, nor does everyone want a heavy scope. When it comes time to buy a scope I look at everything on the market and make a decision as to what best fits my needs, that decision always involves compromises.</p><p> </p><p>Your prediction that it's not gonna change is wrong. 110 years ago people made the prediction that man would never fly, 70 years ago they said we'd never break the sound barrier. Predicting that engineers can't get the same performance out of a scope while halving the weight is short sighted, they'll do it within 10 years I predict. Anybody can design an aircraft wing that'll withstand 9 g's, the art of engineering come in designing one that'll withstand 9 g's and still be light enough to fly. In 1910 a 500 lb. internal combustion engine would get you about 10 HP, today you can get 8000 HP out of a 500 lb. top fuel engine. It's called progress and it applies to scopes as well as anything else. The market is flooded with a bunch of nice scopes with the same feature set as these Burris's, someone is going to look for an edge and the first one that halves the weight while maintaining the performance is going to sell a lot of scopes to hunters that don't want a 32 oz. scope on a rifle they have to pack. The manufacturers of these scopes are fully aware that 95% of their scopes are sold to guys that will never pack them farther than from their truck to the bench at their local shooting range so they're not too concerned with weight right now. The first one that gets the weight under control while maintaining the features the long range hunter wants will sell a bunch of them and there'll be a bunch of used scopes being sold on ebay.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Garycrow, post: 901577, member: 30743"] That's pretty out of line. People are just expressing a wish list, nothing more. If people didn't wish for something better and work to make it happen we'd still throwing rocks at mammoths. You're also wrong about glass being responsible for the weight, that's part of it but by no means all or even most of it. If it were all due to glass then Swarovski couldn't make a 5-25 that weighs 17.5 oz. These tactical scopes obviously have heavier internals, erectors, etc. than a lightweight hunting scope like the Swarovski. Yea, I know they do more and are likely to be more durable, offer better elevation travel, etc., but the glass itself isn't that different between them so you can't make the argument that the glass is responsible for the weight or can't be designed into a lighter package. Not everybody wants a fixed power, nor does everyone want a heavy scope. When it comes time to buy a scope I look at everything on the market and make a decision as to what best fits my needs, that decision always involves compromises. Your prediction that it's not gonna change is wrong. 110 years ago people made the prediction that man would never fly, 70 years ago they said we'd never break the sound barrier. Predicting that engineers can't get the same performance out of a scope while halving the weight is short sighted, they'll do it within 10 years I predict. Anybody can design an aircraft wing that'll withstand 9 g's, the art of engineering come in designing one that'll withstand 9 g's and still be light enough to fly. In 1910 a 500 lb. internal combustion engine would get you about 10 HP, today you can get 8000 HP out of a 500 lb. top fuel engine. It's called progress and it applies to scopes as well as anything else. The market is flooded with a bunch of nice scopes with the same feature set as these Burris's, someone is going to look for an edge and the first one that halves the weight while maintaining the performance is going to sell a lot of scopes to hunters that don't want a 32 oz. scope on a rifle they have to pack. The manufacturers of these scopes are fully aware that 95% of their scopes are sold to guys that will never pack them farther than from their truck to the bench at their local shooting range so they're not too concerned with weight right now. The first one that gets the weight under control while maintaining the features the long range hunter wants will sell a bunch of them and there'll be a bunch of used scopes being sold on ebay. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
FINALLY!! Burris has listened!
Top