Wide angle scopes

[trg42wraglefragle]

Ihave a Nikko Stirling gold crown scope my dad brought 20 years ago and its marked as a Wide angle 4x32. When I compare it side by side to all my adjustable magnification scopes set on 4x the WA Nikko has a much much wider field of view.

The is amazing, why are there not many wide angle scopes out there?
If there was I would certainly look at buying them.

 

[10-96]

That's a good question. Redfield or somebody used to have a rectangle shaped objective lense that I guess they marketed for having a wider angle of view. I don't recall them being on the market for the past 20-25 years.

All I can come up with is maybe regular veiw/angle scopes are cheaper, quicker, and/or easier to manufacture. I guess if enough folks spoke up and made a manufacturer think there's a demand, then I guess that in a year or two that would be the rage amongst all scope builders. Maye if instead of a "Wide Angle or Wide View" scope, they called it a "Zombie Special", or "Super Tactical", or "Sniper Operator Spec-Ops Tactical Super Zombie Killer Scope" it would probably get voted best scope of the year by 40 different gun rags... 50 or more if they could squeeze "Turbo Ninja" in there somewhere.

 

[old roper]

Redfield and Weaver made widefield scopes. My brother-in -law had the Redfield on his rifles and I never seen an advantage using them. I think he like them since you could mount them lower use the real low rings.

 

[efield]

Looking at the spec sheets, I see that Vortex seems to have the widest FOV comparatively among the major manufacturers. For the price, I think the Diamondback model has a lot going for it.

 

[dgludwig]

Redfield or somebody used to have a rectangle shaped objective lense that I guess they marketed for having a wider angle of view.

I've had one in 2 3/4x5 power, screwed to a Weaver "Tip-Off" pivot mount on a Savage Model 99 carbine, chambered in .358 Winchester, for the past several decades. This rig makes for a superb whitetail deer/black bear set-up.

I have never seen another brand of scope configured the same way-that is, with a rectangular-shaped objective lens. If others were actually constructed this way, I'm very curious as to which ones they were.

 

[PH/CIB]

I used to hunt with a Redfield Widefield scope years ago and a Leupold 1.5x5 power riflescope, my thinking was to leave the scope on 1.5 power for that close range shot at a coyote or deer or elk and crank the power up to 5 power for the longer range shots.

That old Leupold scope I still have and it has a field of view at 100 yards of 65 feet.

Today I would not buy a 1 to 4 power scope without a field of view at 100 yards of 90 to 100 feet and my Swaroski 1 x6 power scope has a field of view at 100 yards of 127 feet and is on 1 power like looking through a picture window on top of my rifle.

The only other scope that I know of that has a wider field of view is the IOR Pitbull 1 or 4 power rifle scope that has a field of view at 100 yards of 144 feet, I have shot one on one of my Buddies AR rifles.

 

[Metal god]

I understand why you do not see many wide angle scopes . I just can't explain it . I am amateur photographer and I'm sure it has to do with the same type of thing that makes it hard to have a wide angle telephoto lens . It has to do with many things I do not know enough about . Maybe someone here with a very good knowlege of camera lenses can explain it . Here is something to check out and you can see why I'm unable to explain this to you . My guess is a rifle scopes have the same issues

http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/fundamentals.asp

 

[jdillon]

Years ago, I had a 6x Redfield Widefield mounted on Rem 700 BDL in 7mm Mag. but eventually sold the rifle. Still have a 2 3/4 Widefield mounted on a 10/22 and a nice little scope for that rifle.

 

[Big Pard]

I e-mailed Redfield and asked the if they were planning to reintroduce the "widefield" and they said that "they were considering it". I wish they would because I really liked being able to mount the scope really low and the added field of view.

 

[Saskhunter]

The physics of optics are always compromises. One of the issues with scopes that does not exist with camera lenses (which always focus the image on a specific plane at a specific distance behind the lens) is eye relief. Shooters want their eyes a reasonable distance from the eye piece, and different shooters often want slightly different eye relief for various reasons, and shooters like a "range" of distance in which they can get a good full scope image. A wide angle scope will face issues with a shorter, and more specific eye relief distance. Parallax also is more difficult to control with wide angle scopes. In addition, scope preferences are subject to marketing strategies and shooters follow "fads", whether they are logical or not.

All these factors combine with modern scope manufacturing technology to make new scope makers focus (pun intended) on aspects of rifle scope optics that change with time.

 

[Lloyd Smale]

Saskhunter has the right answer. You can have field of view or you can have eye relief. Your choise but a compromise has to be made.

 

[PatientWolf]

We had an old Redfield wide angle when I was growing up, but it dies years ago. If I remember correctly, the depth of field was not as great with the wide angle, but my memory could be faulty... It was a long time ago.

 

[TXAZ]

+1 for Saskhunter. One other factor is the impulse energy experienced by a scope. "IF" everything else were held constant, wider field of view (with the same eye relief distance) means bigger heavier optic components, having to be designed to handle the impulse: It is much easier to mechanically contain / constrain a smaller optic than a large one. But then again, it's only money, weight and / or more sophisticated mountings.