Optics Magnification Doubler

[BourbonTrail]

@Red Leg & @rookhawk ,

Thanks for the feedback. The clarification of needed magnification vs expected I think answers my question about if there is a use for this item in this case.

I currently struggle to clearly see a paper target at 200yds with my 2-7x32 scope on my ‘06. It made me have hesitations about using the 416 with a 1-6x for say eland or other random PG at any distance beyond 150yds. This is showing me that it is probably a scope issue not a magnifying power issue. I have never owned optics that cost more than $150, so I have no experience (outside of borrowed binoculars) with quality glass.

I will try the Leupold stuff first and then test my max effective range with the 416.

 

[rookhawk]

@BourbonTrail a $3000 optic at 4x is better than a $300 optic at 7x. I don't think your struggles are due to magnification, I think you are dealing with light transmission, sharpness, coatings, and other quality factors. Those Leupolds at 2-7x32 were really purpose built for the needs of the upper midwest and New England lever gun aficianado that was looking for 30 yard to 120 yard shooting. At 3x, they do their job for as far as the eye can see in the North Woods....about 60 yards in best cases.

Deals come around on very good optics on this forum all the time. I sold a Swaro 1-4x a couple weeks ago for about a grand. I'm listing a 1-4x S&B eventually for just a bit over a grand. At least five Swaro 1-6x24 optics have come and gone on this forum in the past 90 days at half of retail.

 

[Red Leg]

@Red Leg & @rookhawk ,

Thanks for the feedback. The clarification of needed magnification vs expected I think answers my question about if there is a use for this item in this case.

I currently struggle to clearly see a paper target at 200yds with my 2-7x32 scope on my ‘06. It made me have hesitations about using the 416 with a 1-6x for say eland or other random PG at any distance beyond 150yds. This is showing me that it is probably a scope issue not a magnifying power issue. I have never owned optics that cost more than $150, so I have no experience (outside of borrowed binoculars) with quality glass.

I will try the Leupold stuff first and then test my max effective range with the 416.

The better quality Leupolds will serve you well and will be fine for Africa where first and last light opportunities are fairly rare outside a leopard blind. Something like their VXIIIi line would be where I would start. Their 2.5x8 has been used by many here in North America and in Africa.

Other than early and late, the other place best quality optics make a difference is placing a shot on the right animal in a herd or the right dagga boy standing among his three dark buddies in the shade of the thick stuff.

 

[BourbonTrail]

@BourbonTrail a $3000 optic at 4x is better than a $300 optic at 7x. I don't think your struggles are due to magnification, I think you are dealing with light transmission, sharpness, coatings, and other quality factors. Those Leupolds at 2-7x32 were really purpose built for the needs of the upper midwest and New England lever gun aficianado that was looking for 30 yard to 120 yard shooting. At 3x, they do their job for as far as the eye can see in the North Woods....about 60 yards in best cases.

Deals come around on very good optics on this forum all the time. I sold a Swaro 1-4x a couple weeks ago for about a grand. I'm listing a 1-4x S&B eventually for just a bit over a grand. At least five Swaro 1-6x24 optics have come and gone on this forum in the past 90 days at half of retail.

I saw that Swaro, and it took every bit of self control not to buy it (I’m in the middle of home renovation, so all free cash goes there). I will keep an eye out for deals in a couple of months.

Btw…my scope is a Simmons from 1999, and you are correct I bought it for a Mod 94 .30-30 to hunt in Missouri. I moved it to my 03 after I smashed my Bushnell Sportview in a scree field in AZ. I can hear the AH collective cringing from here about my scope selection (I grew up poor ).

 

[IvW]

With a quality 1-6× I just cannot see the need for this attachment/contraption....

 

[USMA84DAB]

I shot all animals but one on my plains game safari on 2.5X with a 1-5x24 VX5HD. Sole exception was the 253yard blesbuck. 5X was plenty. I sent you a chat, Bourbon Trail.

 

[WAB]

Has anyone used the Swaro unit they sell for their bino’s?

 

[Challer]

I believe the idea has merit - my Swaro spotting scope has a 1.8X available. That brand is a gimmick.

 

[BourbonTrail]

I shot all animals but one on my plains game safari on 2.5X with a 1-5x24 VX5HD. Sole exception was the 253yard blesbuck. 5X was plenty. I sent you a chat, Bourbon Trail.

Answered

 

[CBH Australia]

If we go back to the opening question will it increase the versatility of a low power scope.

It's not about what is the highest power requirements for hunting. It's adding versatility to an existing scope.

I would like a 2.4-12x50 Swarovski for versatility.

I own a 2.4-10x50 Ziess, it's exceptionally clear , the best I own. Daytime or low light.

Not saying you need a 12x to hunt. There is a lot of mention of 6x for hunting. The OP talks of versatility. That might might include range work or long range Hunting.

My requirements for versatility might be a pig in close or a Dingo past 300m. Maybe I don't need that variety of magnification range but if I outlay $1800 for a scope it's the one I think I want. Both those are real life scenarios for me and the .280ai I had built was intended to be versatile.

I'm not a long range hunter but it's not the scope I want for my DG rifle either.

 

[R.M.C.]

Maybe I'm in the minority but I commonly shoot animals with my 3.5-10 Leupold with it cranked up to 10. Anything over 100 yards. The field of view at that kinda range is huge so I've never had any problems with the crosshairs moving too much or had an animal start running that I couldn't keep track of it. Just my two cents. I'd steer clear of that weird scope thingy lol

 

[Ray B]

Back in the day before digital cameras I did quite a bit of photography in 35mm (Nikon) and 2 1/4 (Hasselblad). Some of it required a long telephoto. I had 500mm lenses for both but on occasion needed more. So I got a 3x extender. The results were that the f stop was reduced about 3 clicks and the definition lost an equivalent amount. If I was taking prints I could get equal or better quality taking the photo without the extender, then cropping the photo down to the size that it would have been without the extender. The main advantage of the extender was with slides where I was stuck with the film size.

How this translates to using an extender on a rifle scope is: I think the image quality would be reduced so that the increase in image size was offset by loss of definition. Additionally there would be a loss in brightness due to less light making it through the extender. So I suspect i agree with several in that you'd be better off without it. I know the lens extender that I had ended up on the shelf long before I made the transition to digital.

 

[Woodcarver]

@Red Leg & @rookhawk ,

Thanks for the feedback. The clarification of needed magnification vs expected I think answers my question about if there is a use for this item in this case.

I currently struggle to clearly see a paper target at 200yds with my 2-7x32 scope on my ‘06. It made me have hesitations about using the 416 with a 1-6x for say eland or other random PG at any distance beyond 150yds. This is showing me that it is probably a scope issue not a magnifying power issue. I have never owned optics that cost more than $150, so I have no experience (outside of borrowed binoculars) with quality glass.

I will try the Leupold stuff first and then test my max effective range with the 416.

Your comment about having trouble seeing the target at 200yds reminded me of my son's comment several years ago. Turns out I had never explained/shown him how to focus a scope to his eye. As I had set them all up, they were all focused to my eye. Once he focused his scope to his, the difference was like night and day. Even inexpensive scopes can be focused. I know, I have several.
All this to ask, have you focused your scopes to your eye? Even high end scopes that haven't been set to the users eyes will still be (brightly) fuzzy.

 

[Ares]

I've got one of the Gene Davis 3X units on my Weaver T36. Frankly if I had a chance to try it before I bought it I wouldn't have it today. At 500yds on a 6BR that I shoot it's just not that different, yea you appear a little closer, it just doesn't make a difference. It also affected brightness negatively.

 

[noyb72]

IMO...gimmick. Save your money and put it into a quality optic, not an add on to try to make your optic into something it's not.

The day I put something like this on a Swaro, Leica, Zeiss or even a Leupold...you will also find me in the driveway putting hubcaps on a Mercedes-Benz.

There were literally millions of Mercedes Benz sold with hub caps, and beauty rings at one time. Deep, beautiful chrome. (sorry, couldn't resist.)

I spent a career spending HOURS looking out the periscopes of various submarines. The fast boats have doublers on the #2 (Port) scope that is very useful. I am a fixed scope advocate (probbly because of my former mode of employment) and would find something like this useful if it was temporary in order to get to 6x or 8x magnification if I was looking to thread a bullet through a small hole in the foliage.

The comment about the reduced f stop is absolutely correct, but not the statement about loss of clarity, at least today. I'm guessing the extender used wasn't aspheric or had an incompatibility with the telephoto. I couldn't share them with you, but I have taken photographs that the subject would not be happy about that have unbelievable detail through a doubler, but the light has to be right because of the loss in transmission through the extra glass, physics.

 

[BeeMaa]

There were literally millions of Mercedes Benz sold with hub caps, and beauty rings at one time. Deep, beautiful chrome. (sorry, couldn't resist.)

I spent a career spending HOURS looking out the periscopes of various submarines. The fast boats have doublers on the #2 (Port) scope that is very useful. I am a fixed scope advocate (probbly because of my former mode of employment) and would find something like this useful if it was temporary in order to get to 6x or 8x magnification if I was looking to thread a bullet through a small hole in the foliage.

The comment about the reduced f stop is absolutely correct, but not the statement about loss of clarity, at least today. I'm guessing the extender used wasn't aspheric or had an incompatibility with the telephoto. I couldn't share them with you, but I have taken photographs that the subject would not be happy about that have unbelievable detail through a doubler, but the light has to be right because of the loss in transmission through the extra glass, physics.

Just because the US Navy used a doubler doesn’t make this thing a quality piece of kit. It’s junk and your reference will not change that. BTW - I’m a former MM1/SS (nuc) with 11 patrols on the 737, so trying to impress others about your time spent looking through a periscope is lost on me.

Save your money and buy a quality scope that meets your needs from the start.

 

[Red Leg]

There were literally millions of Mercedes Benz sold with hub caps, and beauty rings at one time. Deep, beautiful chrome. (sorry, couldn't resist.)

I spent a career spending HOURS looking out the periscopes of various submarines. The fast boats have doublers on the #2 (Port) scope that is very useful. I am a fixed scope advocate (probbly because of my former mode of employment) and would find something like this useful if it was temporary in order to get to 6x or 8x magnification if I was looking to thread a bullet through a small hole in the foliage.

The comment about the reduced f stop is absolutely correct, but not the statement about loss of clarity, at least today. I'm guessing the extender used wasn't aspheric or had an incompatibility with the telephoto. I couldn't share them with you, but I have taken photographs that the subject would not be happy about that have unbelievable detail through a doubler, but the light has to be right because of the loss in transmission through the extra glass, physics.

Oh good Lord. We are talking about a 250 buck extender, not war reserve quality optics on a submarine. And next time you want to thread a bullet, may I suggest simply cranking up the power on a variable scope? Amazing technology.

I would also suggest it is always smart to know your audience. Lots of folks here with interesting backgrounds.

 

[WAB]

Has anyone used the Swarovski doubler for bino’s? I am wondering if this would be a good piece of kit for Coues hunting when combined with their 15x56 SLC’s.

Not for continuous glassing but to get a better look at a buck once spotted.

 

[Red Leg]

Has anyone used the Swarovski doubler for bino’s? I am wondering if this would be a good piece of kit for Coues hunting when combined with their 15x56 SLC’s.

Not for continuous glassing but to get a better look at a buck once spotted.

Do your 15's have provision for a tripod? I would assume a Swaro doubler is a quality instrument, but 30x puts you in spotting scope stability challenges.

 

[WAB]

Do your 15's have provision for a tripod? I would assume a Swaro doubler is a quality instrument, but 30x puts you in spotting scope stability challenges.

Absolutely. I use a tripod to glass long hours even with 10x bino’s. I am using A Slik tripod with a QD mount that just leaves a small stud with the bino’s when detached. It’s a very good system.