Eye relief - is there a cost trade off to manufacturers?

[Laniarius]

I understand that with optics, there are various factors that affect cost, in terms of optics quality, durability, repeatability of tracking, etc. Is eye relief simply something that the designer/manufacturer sets based on expected user preference, or is there a cost to making longer eye relief? This occurred to me while researching optics, including quite a few threads on here. It seems that there are not many long eye relief options, e.g., in the 4-5" range. I'm wondering if this is just because most customers don't want it anymore? Or does higher eye relief also cost more, all else being equal, so the manufacturers are giving priority to other features to target a given price?

I have the impression that most scopes these days have between 3 and 4" eye relief, and the models approaching 4" or above tend to be higher end optics (with exceptions; I know of a budget scope with 4" eye relief, and higher end scopes at 3.5" or lower).

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Those scout rifle scopes seem to have a lot more eye relief. In that case, I think it's just to sell a goofey gimmick. That whole scout rifle concept is simply a bunch of hooey. I can shoot a gemsbuck on the run twice through the heart before it can fall over with my +9 lb 24" barrel WWII Springfield outfitted with a 3x9 Nikon scope. I'm not sure Col Jeff Cooper could have done it any better or quicker with his stubby, lightweight, long relief low power scoped, fast cycling scout rifle setup.

 

[Josh P]

I think it's just to sell a goofey gimmick. That whole scout rifle concept is simply a bunch of hooey.

It's not a very effective gimmick then, as it accounts for a comparatively small portion of the market. Just because it isn't your flavor doesn't mean it's hooey. Look at all the various styles of iron sights, and how some work better for others, or some have a more aesthetic appearance, or some mount to different guns easier than other irons, etc. Find what works for you, however it works for you, and enjoy your range and field time.

 

[Red Leg]

Those scout rifle scopes seem to have a lot more eye relief. In that case, I think it's just to sell a goofey gimmick. That whole scout rifle concept is simply a bunch of hooey. I can shoot a gemsbuck on the run twice through the heart before it can fall over with my +9 lb 24" barrel WWII Springfield outfitted with a 3x9 Nikon scope. I'm not sure Col Jeff Cooper could have done it any better or quicker with his stubby, lightweight, long relief low power scoped, fast cycling scout rifle setup.

I own one of the Steyrs. Like you, not really my preferred configuration for a hunting rifle. However, for a quick engagement of a target - biped or quadruped - inside 150 yards, it is a pretty viable concept. It is very similar to the mounting position of red dot sights on military firearms currently and for some of the same reasons.

You might want to think it through before bragging about your prowess with a firearm compared to Cooper. My money, in any denomination, with any firearm would have been on him.

But that is not what the OP is asking. @Laniarius I think most quality scopes will have 3.5 to 4 inches of eye relief. Assuming proper stock fit, that is fine for even the most hard recoiling rifles. Quality of light transmission and extraordinary clarity across the visual spectrum are characteristics of higher end scopes (along with perfect mechanics and durability). Most German made Zeiss scopes advertise 4 inches and Leica will cite 90mm or 3.5 inches. I have both on rifles .375 and above and the eye relief is about perfect.

 

[Josh P]

However, for a quick engagement of a target - biped or quadruped - inside 150 yards, it is a pretty viable concept. It is very similar to the mounting position of red dot sights on military firearms currently and for some of the same reasons.

I don't even claim any prowess as a shooter, but my scout rifle and configuration was surprisingly viable in a fairly dense area chasing pigs. It's also served me well in more open areas to double on deer in the same pass. A lot of the credit goes to the gun/configuration, with a bit more going to not being stuck in a rut about what might be a good time in the field. My only complaint about my scout is that it isn't in .303 British!

To the OP, I did a brief look to see if there were any articles about eye relief as a component in manufacturing costs. Surely there's some more info out there, or industry insider perspective, but it hasn't crossed my screen yet. The popularity of lever actions has had a little bit of an impact on extended eye relief scopes, and that might see more production options in the future, as long as Yellowstone and Jurassic Park can keep people enthralled.

 

[Justbryan]

We usually refer to rifle as having standard eye relief (3-4"), extended eye relief (4-5"), and long eye relief (upto 10", i.e. scout scopes). Most dangerous game hunters will choose 4" to 5" extended eye relief scopes like the Swarovski EER model that have been discontinued.

I don't like scout scopes.

The key is to buy as close to 4" eye relief scope as possible in a quality optic and get a proper LOP (length of pull). The problem is shooting up hill in a prone position or out of place when pulling the trigger. I took a shot at dangerous game animal from an awkward position on a proper fitted rifle and ended up with scratched glasses and a bloody nose.

Best bet is to find a used Swarovski EER. You may have to look for a few months.

 

[Laniarius]

Scout scopes are a potential data point. Looking at Leupold and Vortex, the scout version of a scope costs about 10-15% more than the same magnification range in the same line. This difference could be attributed simply to producing fewer of them. This tends to say that there isn't much, if any, cost from making the eye relief longer.

(I'm also not a fan of the scout scope concept. I agree with the interpretation that Cooper's specs were influenced by the optics of his day. But I know people who love the scout scopes, so I'm happy to just let them enjoy it.)

 

[VertigoBE]

Those scout rifle scopes seem to have a lot more eye relief. In that case, I think it's just to sell a goofey gimmick. That whole scout rifle concept is simply a bunch of hooey. I can shoot a gemsbuck on the run twice through the heart before it can fall over with my +9 lb 24" barrel WWII Springfield outfitted with a 3x9 Nikon scope. I'm not sure Col Jeff Cooper could have done it any better or quicker with his stubby, lightweight, long relief low power scoped, fast cycling scout rifle setup.

Those are some bold statements!

 

[Josh P]

Looking at Leupold... This difference could be attributed simply to producing fewer of them. This tends to say that there isn't much, if any, cost from making the eye relief longer.

This is probably true. Another data point, I have an in stock notification for my Leupold account and every time their scout scopes are restocked, they're OOS within a few minutes.

Either way, more (reasonable) eye relief means more versatility in platforms and functional use. I like not having to rub my eyelashes on glass.

 

[Luvthunt]

To each his/her own!

 

[AimSmall]

 

[ZG47]

I understand that with optics, there are various factors that affect cost, in terms of optics quality, durability, repeatability of tracking, etc. Is eye relief simply something that the designer/manufacturer sets based on expected user preference, or is there a cost to making longer eye relief? This occurred to me while researching optics, including quite a few threads on here. It seems that there are not many long eye relief options, e.g., in the 4-5" range. I'm wondering if this is just because most customers don't want it anymore? Or does higher eye relief also cost more, all else being equal, so the manufacturers are giving priority to other features to target a given price?

I have the impression that most scopes these days have between 3 and 4" eye relief, and the models approaching 4" or above tend to be higher end optics (with exceptions; I know of a budget scope with 4" eye relief, and higher end scopes at 3.5" or lower).

You need to look carefully at the published specifications and then test the accuracy of that info with a physical example of the optic that you wish to purchase. If you are looking at variable power optics, the exit pupil at the lowest magnification can be significantly different to that at the highest magnification. The ‘eye box’ can also become more restrictive at the highest magnification. I do not like the Swarovski straight tube optics with 6x ratio as the ‘eye box’ has been compromised too much — for my use — in a bush hunting situation.
It is also worth noting that — in my experience — the advertised eye relief specifications for Leupold rifle scopes were overstated, for decades. I am talking about anything from the old M4 (3.6x28) up to the VXIII 6.5x20 target/varmint scope. I have not encountered this issue with my Leupold Euro 2-7x33 (30mm tube) scope nor have I encountered it with any of the other newer Leupold scopes BUT it may still be an issue with the bottom end of the Leupold product range.
I suggest that you read the available—new optic—specs, check the accuracy of catalogue info against the optics that you currently possess, make an honest assessment of what you need, check that assessment several times via both dry-firing and live firing; and then decide whether or not you are going to buy another rifle scope.
The more you know, from research and testing, the more relaxed you will be if/when you purchase a new shooting optic.
You will also be making better use of your discretionary dollars than some of us did, whilst learning the above mentioned lessons.

 

[geoff rath]

I don't even claim any prowess as a shooter, but my scout rifle and configuration was surprisingly viable in a fairly dense area chasing pigs. It's also served me well in more open areas to double on deer in the same pass. A lot of the credit goes to the gun/configuration, with a bit more going to not being stuck in a rut about what might be a good time in the field. My only complaint about my scout is that it isn't in .303 British!

To the OP, I did a brief look to see if there were any articles about eye relief as a component in manufacturing costs. Surely there's some more info out there, or industry insider perspective, but it hasn't crossed my screen yet. The popularity of lever actions has had a little bit of an impact on extended eye relief scopes, and that might see more production options in the future, as long as Yellowstone and Jurassic Park can keep people enthralled.

Perhaps an SMLE #5 jungle Carbine??

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

If you need a longer eye relief scope to put on a rifle to accommodate it's design, then you buy the correct thing or you make do. I recently had that very situation fitting a scope to my Ruger No1 and thankfully the folks on AH firstly advised me on the correct item and then helped me find one. The price was never an issue, not that I have infinite funds, but I can just eat less for a while. My point is that special features normally command a higher price, perhaps they actually do cost more to make, maybe not, but the market will bear it. For the life of me I don't understand why Swarovski don't re-introduce the EE range, the market clearly needs it.

 

[Josh P]

Perhaps an SMLE #5 jungle Carbine??

There are numerous Enfield configurations that lend themselves to scout conversions. However, instead of temporary satiation, I've chosen to forgoe new purchases of any Enfields. @Red Leg is correct in his stance on a real Lee Speed, and that's been my end goal in the .303 department for some time.

Mmmm...shotgun safety, ribbed barrel, dust cover, even the plain magazines look better in a Speed...and then the mere thought of the #5 buttstock jolts me back into a renewed fervor of saving for when the right Speed eventually presents itself.

 

[rookhawk]

I understand that with optics, there are various factors that affect cost, in terms of optics quality, durability, repeatability of tracking, etc. Is eye relief simply something that the designer/manufacturer sets based on expected user preference, or is there a cost to making longer eye relief? This occurred to me while researching optics, including quite a few threads on here. It seems that there are not many long eye relief options, e.g., in the 4-5" range. I'm wondering if this is just because most customers don't want it anymore? Or does higher eye relief also cost more, all else being equal, so the manufacturers are giving priority to other features to target a given price?

I have the impression that most scopes these days have between 3 and 4" eye relief, and the models approaching 4" or above tend to be higher end optics (with exceptions; I know of a budget scope with 4" eye relief, and higher end scopes at 3.5" or lower).

All optics cater to the mass-markets, just at different pricepoints.

The market for spot-and-stalk hunting (stalking rifles and their optics) and the market for dangerous game hunting (and their need for long eye relief) is immeasurably small. So small, it does not merit making a product to suit their wishes.

Compound that with the market for premium mounts that allow attachment of optics low to the profile of the barrel, an even small market.

Compound that with the market for custom stocks to English dimensions that allow for instinctive shooting with iron sights, an even smaller market.

Put those three factors together, and there is just not enough demand to make products to suit those interests. Literally, for one person that wants a solution to the above three factors, we're talking about 10,000 to 50,000 people that just want to go into Cabelas, buy a Savage 110 for $299, and a Chinese Vortex scope for an additional $69, plus an aluminum Chinese mount and rings for $8.


That leaves the safari hunt and spot-and-stalk hunter with just a couple of options, all requiring wise fitment.

1.) The no longer made Swarovski Z6 1-6x24mm Extended Eye Relief model

or

2.) Use a set of $700 EAW pivot rings with an offset to get a 4" eye relief optic closer to the eye, selecting a scope like the soon-to-be discontinued Swarovski 3-9x36mm.

or

3.) Use wide spanning mounts that already exist on the rifle, like Claw mounts or low rings, and find a 20 year old Zeiss 1.5-4.5x20mm scope that allows loads of adjustment in mounting location to get perfect eye relief.

or

4.) Use a Griffin & Howe side mount and have it installed for the exact perfect setup of a modern optic, allowing an installation lower and further back than a top mount and rings would permit.

or

5.) Pick any high quality scope and have it measured out to your gun with your length with your eyes, then send it to Germany and have a pivot ring mount made that installs on the exit bell of that particular scope rather than on the tube as normal, thus getting the eye relief correct by moving the scope of choice back a lot farther while eliminating the issue of where the mounts can physically fit.

or

6.) Use $700 EAW pivots with a proprietary rail connector, allowing you to use the Zeiss, S&B, or Swaro rail system that eliminates the worry that the turrets are going to be in the wrong place for a ring, thus allowing flawless setup of the scope for perfect eye relief as low to the bore as possible.


None of this is weird or extraordinary in Europe mind you, except for G&H above, all the solutions hinge on European optics and mounts that they deal with every day, but the average Josef six-pack of central Europe owns 1-2-3 guns and spends 20x what the average American impulse-buyer does. Hence, we do not have premium products in this country to suit the needs of the types of hunting we discuss on this forum. The American gun marketeer realizes they can sell the average consumer 20 guns, all junk, and use lego-like components available at every hardware store to outfit them, rather than have to have highly skilled workers using custom high-end products like Europe.

 

[geoff rath]

Perhaps an SMLE #5 jungle Carbine??

Their reputation for accuracy was somewhat iffy...

 

[rookhawk]

For the life of me I don't understand why Swarovski don't re-introduce the EE range, the market clearly needs it.

What's remarkable is who (as in which market group) usurped the 1-6x24mm. The readers look at that optic and we immediately see its a stalking rifle or dangerous game rifle optic. The broader market data indicates its the #1 optic used on AR-15s for 3-gun competition. Then Zeiss came out with a similar scope and it had ONE reticle, one with subtensions for AR-15 ballistic drops!

As crazy as it sounds to us, the straight tube scopes are being used 50:1 in the tactical world rather than in traditional hunting applications. Because of that, there was no need for extended eye relief since tactical guns are virtually without recoil and their stocks are tiny 13.5" designs.

It might be cringeworthy, but I'm always amazed at the forces of markets and what they decide a given product's primary application should be.

 

[geoff rath]

For Kevin and I, with our beloved Ruger No1s, there are several aftermarket manufacturers producing ribs/rails that extend back over the action, I have one on a rifle already, and ordered another for the Heavy-barreled 17FB that's being finished. Perhaps an ideal Rockchuck or Squirrel walkabout rifle?

 

[rookhawk]

For Kevin and I, with our beloved Ruger No1s, there are several aftermarket manufacturers producing ribs/rails that extend back over the action, I have one on a rifle already, and ordered another for the Heavy-barreled 17FB that's being finished.

I've built a lot of Ruger #1 customs and indeed you're correct, there are aftermarket rings and mounts to solve the eye relief problem. Although if you need a longer length of pull, the problem comes right back into the forefront. For an out of the box Ruger #1, I say go for it, make it work.

My conclusion on custom single shots is there is a better way forward today. If you want an excellent single shot, better than a #1, for less or equal money than a custom #1, get a Dakota Model 10. They use Talley QD rings, have higher grade of wood, better barrels, etc. Good ones start at under $4000 on the used market and go up to $35,000.

So that's the measure I use. If your budget is <$2000, make it work with a Ruger. If your budget is slightly higher, get a Dakota 10 to avoid the optic pitfalls, putting the money into better fit/finish/barrel/accuracy.