# 1X scopes are NOT 1x?



## rogerw

In a thread down below which polled the question of whether more magnification should be allowed in the ND season or not, I was intrigued by the claim that 1x scopes are actually something like x/2 or worse.

NDt, or someone, could you name for me some 1x scopes that suffer from this indignity, brand and model? I would like to investigate why this should be so.

YHS,
rogerw

PS - btw, full disclosure, I live in Texas and not in North Dakota, and I killed my last umpteen deer with patched roundballs usually from a flintlock, excepting my .30-06 scoped suppository gun used once. ....you NDakotans have a fine website here!


----------



## NDTerminator

Howdy Roger,
I know from your posts on the muzzlehead blog you are rabidly pro-trad/anti-scope & modern and clearly know how to navigate the internet, so being I can't imagine you are truly interested in impartial research and that you would need any of us to supply you with easily obtained info on 1X scopes.

With all due respect, this appears to me to be a somewhat disingenuous attempt to draw folks here into a stink.

As I said over on muzzlehead, if you're looking to stir up a debate you're barking up the wrong tree, at least with me. I recognize your right to choose the ML system of your choice, how about according guys who choose a modern and want to use a scope the same respect?

By & large many locals posting here are fed up with all the squabbling...


----------



## Plainsman

NDT, I think your right, we have someone looking for a scrap and not information. Perhaps a good judge of guns, but evidence says a very poor judge of people.

From another thread:


> But I can shoot iron sights because I want to, and don't bellyache about it....I just do it. I have a feeling that many simply don't want to, and that is the only real problem they have......that and being Baby Boomers.


Now we have someone who can judge your eyes as if he was looking through them himself. I have trifocals, and I'll tell you what, I can see some through a peep sight, but open sights the back sight is nearly gone. Trying to see where the front sight lines up in the rear is tough when you don't see a notch in the rear sight.

My optometrist can't get everything in focus for me anymore even with trifocals. I can see my rear sight with the bottom focal in my glasses, but then I can't see the front good, and the target is completely gone. I can see the front sight with the middle focal, but not the back or the target, and I can see the front fair (not clear until I get five feet out), and the target good with the upper focal, but not the rear sight. My big problem is they don't make quad focals and I don't have good focus through any focal point on an area from three to five feet. Handgun is getting real tough also, but I use the middle focal.

Just as a fun exercise so you young guys can see where you will be in 30 years, (If you wear glasses) try getting your neck twisted into position to see your sights through the bottom of your glasses. Now add recoil to the goofy position. It makes my chiropractor laugh.

I can see good enough to get a shot off, but I don't want to wound an animal. Is that bad?

huntin1 mentioned elitist attitudes in another post, and I hope that's not what we are looking at again. Roger, I hope you didn't follow NDTerminator here just because you have a beef you can't let go of. I ask because you come on very strong for the new boy on the block. Your judgment is severely flawed, or blind people would be able to see because they want to.


----------



## rogerw

Howdy NDT and Plainsman, and anyone else reading;

Sorry if I blew your skirt up. Allow me to introduce myself and defend your charges against me:

It is true that my eyesight is not as good as it used to be (short-vision, bifocals, nearsighted/farsighted and astigmatic in both) and it is true that I believe that the personal force of will power plays a large role and often a determining role in "deciding" what we can and cannot do. In other sports this is commonly accepted and most often heard from coaches trying to coax a participant onward. We decide we cannot do something and therefore we cannot. Physics of course plays an ultimate limiting role as well, but one whose depths are often not plumbed. This is an opinion I hold and a generalization and not a comment on any particular person; it obviously does not apply to one who is physically blind though I AM waiting with bated breath to see how we will accomodate their "right" to hunt even though handicapped thusly (logical extension of arguments that have been made...).

I did not follow anyone here. What did happen over the Xmas holidays is that by researching Randy Wakeman's claims of Spanish barrels being unsafe (because I have one) I found several forums I had not been previously aware of, including this one. I also subscribed to two muzzleloading magazines in that time frame.

I am an engineer by trade, though semi-retired. I deal in physics and measureable quantities, or informed opinion based on underlying physics when a more definite answer is not within my grasp. When I don't know something I try to find others who do. I have impulsively bought textbooks, etc, even recently in order to answer questions about mechanics of ballistics (interior/exterior/terminal) and about gun history, among other interests. I pursue answers when I don't know the answer. I see a lot of pseudoscience in our hobby that a knowlege of the underlying physics would dispel even by reknown writers. Alas, there are fewer persons today in our Nation with a science education than before, and I fear that trend continues. I also avidly study history of a number of things including guns of all kinds and I own guns of all kinds, including many modern cartridge guns, some scoped. However, I do nearly all my hunting with muzzleloaders for the hunting challenge. I do not wear buckskins in the woods and never have.....

NDT pointed out to me on another site in strong terms that he resents others telling him what weapons he can or cannot use in a hunting season. I pointed out that by logical extension that meant he resented being limited to a bow in the bow season, or words to that effect. This disturbed him mightily......I will simply say that I never said anything offensive to him that I am aware of, and the rhetorical device of taking someone's claims and logically extending them to show how untenable they may be in another context is a time-honored logical device. It is called "reductio ad absurdem" in Latin and can be looked up if you doubt me. Of course, my belief is that he would not face the music when he had a chance. If he believes otherwise, that is fine. I do not believe I gave NDT any reason to be angry or short.....but he did not wish to answer the question and quit the discussion. Se la vie.

My father hunts with a variable scoped modern centerfire inline. I have given him advice about his use of it. He prefers a scope and his State allows the use of it. At 80yrs of age however, it is PREFERENCE for a scope and not inability to see the iron sights that guides his choice. I just confirmed that this Xmas with him, using my iron sighted gun. I have also given such advice to friends who shoot modern inlines and whom I hunt with sometimes on their properties. Me, I prefer a flintlock and I believe that is the original spirit of muzzleloading seasons, albeit not the letter. In my own State this is a moot point, mainly owing to the fact that we have very little public land and most hunting is private land, ergo who is hunting with what weapon is entirely controllable IMHO. I own a sizeable property on which I hunt and control, and I will allow friends to hunt inlines there too. Our rules are set by the State on a per county basis: only 23 out of 254 counties in Texas had a muzzleloading season this year. By far and away most muzzleloading, if done at all, is done during the regular gun season. So, it is pretty pointless here...there is not much muzzleloading season, per se.

So, back to my question....I am intrigued by the claims of 1x scopes that are not really 1x. I have never used a 1x scope and do not have one. I am left wondering how that can be, and as I have said before, such questions I pursue and answer based on quantifiable measureable and verifiable physics.

If anyone still feels challenged by me, I am sorry.

Are you guys the gatekeepers here?

YHS,
rogerw

PS - may get to go to Cabelas south of Austin today....will check out any 1x scopes they may have.....


----------



## Csquared

Reductio ad absurdem ????????

We're just a bunch of ******** here with varying degrees of education, but I would bet most would just translate the Latin phrase above to it's American form....... smartass.

We've been down this road before. You use a bow during bow season and a muzzleloader during muzzleloader season, and no one understands that better than NDTerminator, so I would be disappointed in him if he was NOT upset with your comment. It probably should be legal for him to knock your pocket protector out for saying it! 

I know I can speak for others here in welcoming you to the site. We will always welcome people with your knowledge to add to the experience. But I hope none of us will sit back and allow a newby to disrespect one of us who has already proven to be quite the opposite here.

So hopefully your start will not discourage others from allowing you to participate.

Good luck!


----------



## barebackjack

Let me be the first to welcome you to the site without any negativity.


----------



## Csquared

You're 4 minutes too late! :lol:


----------



## barebackjack

Csquared said:


> You're 4 minutes too late! :lol:


Story of my life. :-?


----------



## rogerw

Howdy Csquare, and others;

"smartass"

Maybe so. This pejoritive is, however, often used as a dodge to avoid any pressure to actually consider the argument being made. It is dismissive f thought in this sense, not deliberative of thought.

"We've been down this road before."

I did not take you down "this road;" I clearly indicated this was on another website, and I only went into this detail to explain to the best of my ability the incident NDT brought up first, and why he took pre-emptive hostile action against me here.

"*******"

You cannot out-******* me, boy; I am from Alabama, the Heart of Dixie!
The fact that I value knowledge based on science does not keep me from being a dumb *******. Neither does the fact that I have pursued several degrees keep me from being a dumb *******....the ability to think and apply knowlege correctly is what really diffferentiates a dumb ******* from what I suppose you would call a smartassed ******* (who has so much knowledge that it overflows his breech?) If so, I will thank you for the complement, but I confess that I will fall short in many instances.

Think of me as a high-tech *******, if you wish. I don't mind.

Thank you for your rousing welcome, CSquare, NDT, et al (thats Latin again....it means all the rest of you ******** in NoDak land!)

Your Humble Servant,
rogerw

PS - CSquare, I hope you "get" my humor above. I am sincerely grateful for your welcome, as I am to all others.


----------



## NDTerminator

rogerw said:


> Howdy NDT and Plainsman, and anyone else reading;
> 
> Sorry if I blew your skirt up. Allow me to introduce myself and defend your charges against me:
> 
> It is true that my eyesight is not as good as it used to be (short-vision, bifocals, nearsighted/farsighted and astigmatic in both) and it is true that I believe that the personal force of will power plays a large role and often a determining role in "deciding" what we can and cannot do. In other sports this is commonly accepted and most often heard from coaches trying to coax a participant onward. We decide we cannot do something and therefore we cannot. Physics of course plays an ultimate limiting role as well, but one whose depths are often not plumbed. This is an opinion I hold and a generalization and not a comment on any particular person; it obviously does not apply to one who is physically blind though I AM waiting with bated breath to see how we will accomodate their "right" to hunt even though handicapped thusly (logical extension of arguments that have been made...).
> 
> I did not follow anyone here. What did happen over the Xmas holidays is that by researching Randy Wakeman's claims of Spanish barrels being unsafe (because I have one) I found several forums I had not been previously aware of, including this one. I also subscribed to two muzzleloading magazines in that time frame.
> 
> I am an engineer by trade, though semi-retired. I deal in physics and measureable quantities, or informed opinion based on underlying physics when a more definite answer is not within my grasp. When I don't know something I try to find others who do. I have impulsively bought textbooks, etc, even recently in order to answer questions about mechanics of ballistics (interior/exterior/terminal) and about gun history, among other interests. I pursue answers when I don't know the answer. I see a lot of pseudoscience in our hobby that a knowlege of the underlying physics would dispel even by reknown writers. Alas, there are fewer persons today in our Nation with a science education than before, and I fear that trend continues. I also avidly study history of a number of things including guns of all kinds and I own guns of all kinds, including many modern cartridge guns, some scoped. However, I do nearly all my hunting with muzzleloaders for the hunting challenge. I do not wear buckskins in the woods and never have.....
> 
> NDT pointed out to me on another site in strong terms that he resents others telling him what weapons he can or cannot use in a hunting season. I pointed out that by logical extension that meant he resented being limited to a bow in the bow season, or words to that effect. This disturbed him mightily......I will simply say that I never said anything offensive to him that I am aware of, and the rhetorical device of taking someone's claims and logically extending them to show how untenable they may be in another context is a time-honored logical device. It is called "reductio ad absurdem" in Latin and can be looked up if you doubt me. Of course, my belief is that he would not face the music when he had a chance. If he believes otherwise, that is fine. I do not believe I gave NDT any reason to be angry or short.....but he did not wish to answer the question and quit the discussion. Se la vie.
> 
> My father hunts with a variable scoped modern centerfire inline. I have given him advice about his use of it. He prefers a scope and his State allows the use of it. At 80yrs of age however, it is PREFERENCE for a scope and not inability to see the iron sights that guides his choice. I just confirmed that this Xmas with him, using my iron sighted gun. I have also given such advice to friends who shoot modern inlines and whom I hunt with sometimes on their properties. Me, I prefer a flintlock and I believe that is the original spirit of muzzleloading seasons, albeit not the letter. In my own State this is a moot point, mainly owing to the fact that we have very little public land and most hunting is private land, ergo who is hunting with what weapon is entirely controllable IMHO. I own a sizeable property on which I hunt and control, and I will allow friends to hunt inlines there too. Our rules are set by the State on a per county basis: only 23 out of 254 counties in Texas had a muzzleloading season this year. By far and away most muzzleloading, if done at all, is done during the regular gun season. So, it is pretty pointless here...there is not much muzzleloading season, per se.
> 
> So, back to my question....I am intrigued by the claims of 1x scopes that are not really 1x. I have never used a 1x scope and do not have one. I am left wondering how that can be, and as I have said before, such questions I pursue and answer based on quantifiable measureable and verifiable physics.
> 
> If anyone still feels challenged by me, I am sorry.
> 
> Are you guys the gatekeepers here?
> 
> YHS,
> rogerw
> 
> PS - may get to go to Cabelas south of Austin today....will check out any 1x scopes they may have.....


 *HUH????*
Well, you aren't afraid of words, I'll give you that 

You didn't disturb me mightily, just annoyed me slightly. I meant exactly what I said, period, full stop. Up in this neck of the woods folks pretty much say what they mean and mean what they say. Vacilation, inuendo, and inference are not much practiced in ND, particularly by the folks who hang out here on Nodak...

Forgive me sir, but based on your postings on the Muzzlehead Blog, it still looks like the opening salvo of a troll attempt to me...


----------



## rogerw

Thank you kindly, BareBackJack.

All,

I am leaving now going to Cabelas shortly to get the information which is not forthcoming here from persons who apparently would know the answer but are too piqued (that is another highdollar word, I am afeered...maybe French, huh? for ******?......watch those trousers son, we don't do no cleanin 'round here till next month.)

OK, ok, I confess I might have been gonna go anyway......!  
I just said that to stay in character...! 

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## rogerw

NDT,

OK, I forgive you.

But, plse forgive me, I am still goiing to Cabelas....

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Csquared

Roger, I can't respond to all of your post because I don't have a dictionary handy, but I don't think we'll be corresponding long enough for that to be necessary.

You see, I rarely get upset, and have few feelings left to be hurt...but you almost succeeded at both by inserting the word "dumb" in front of *******. And then you went on to infer that what separates you from me as a dumb ******* is your ability to think and apply knowledge correctly. Well that almost pizzed me off! 

Ya see, I can think reel gud, and wut I think is now's 'bout the time I'd drag yer arss b'hind that ther barn and apply some knowledge rite quik like....and ******* the hell right outaya!

You can refer to yourself as a hightech ******* if you wish, but I think I'll probably think of you more as a highly educated pain in the butt.

But hey, I could be wrong. Afterall I am just a dumb ******* with no ability to process knowledge correctly, so I guess I can't be held accountable anyway! :lol:

So unless we're going behind the barn (might as well tell us how good you are at that, too...what level of blackbelt in Brazilian Judo are you?) I have no business fighting with you. It appears Plainsman and NDT were right and I'm just giving you what you were looking for anyway, so I'm out!

PS....Hope you got my humor above also.....

you know, the part about me needing a dictionary :toofunny:


----------



## rogerw

CSquared,

Actually I was referrning to myself as possibly a dumb *******, trying to raise myself thru my own efforts. I was not referring to you, nor to anyone else, and I apologize for any appearance otherwise.

To everyone else and to CSquared,

I went to Cabelas in Buda, Texas this afternoon. I checked every 1x scope they had in stock, which amounted to exactly zero scopes. Maybe you guys have them all in N.D. I dunno.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Plainsman

One power scopes are hard to find. Mine is a Thompson Center. I don't know what the real power is, but if I keep both eyes open and look through it I would estimate that what I see through the scope is about 80% of the size of what I see with the unaided eye.

Huntin1 has a Nikon, and if he sees this post perhaps he will have something to add about that brand.

If your seriously looking for information and a site to enjoy with everyone else then welcome. Nothing I would like better. I also don't mind being wrong, so I hope you turn out to be a valuable contributor, and not just a hater of those who don't do it like you.

Nope, I am not a gatekeeper, I am a moderator of all forms, and the Political form in particular.


----------



## hagfan72

Csquared said:


> Roger, I can't respond to all of your post because I don't have a dictionary handy...
> 
> PS....Hope you got my humor above also.....
> 
> you know, the part about me needing a dictionary :toofunny:


I LOVE THIS GUY!!!

Another BS'er called out. What is that, C2, four in a row now? :beer:


----------



## rogerw

Plainsman, thank you. I am sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I have no agenda that I did not try to state clearly upfront (as NDT would prefer), that I am interested mainly in hunting with primitive guns, and in the technology of all guns. I particularly think that the oft-disparaged roundball is a consistent killer inside an appropriate range, but I often hear gun writers proclaiming otherwise......honest discussion of such things would be part of my agenda. No one has to agree with me, and I often learn something in the process, and I would hope that I could contribute to others as well.

Hagfan, I agree with you that CSquare showed great skill in reply, even though he is mistaken as to my meaning: I refer to myself as a dumb *******, no one else. And I further say that nothing I have ever done keeps me from being just a dumb ******* except continuing to think and learn. Seems to me that is something we all can do. Perhaps togehter, perhaps not.

Anyone, I just got thru a while ago googling "1x Scope" and thru the 4th page I found no one complaining about magnification being less than unity. I did find a Randy Wakeman article where he expresses surprise at being able to shoot 1 1/2" at 100yds with a 1x scope.....seems if he thought it was x/2 he would have said so....another guy expressed frustration at being able to see things at 100yds as compared to higher mag, but not mention of x/2 problem.

Maybe there are others on this forum since 1x must be common in ND who have experienced x/2? If so, could you tell me how you measured or decided it?

YHS,
rogerw

PS- the "hightech *******" term came from a country song about ten years ago....I have been rightly accused of applying too much (in other's view) science to the art of shooting. I was given that label while I was CTO of a hightech startup company when friends were goodnaturedly making fun of my humble upbringing. I thought that was another way of making fun of myself......but I can see I misfired with you boys. My bad.


----------



## Plainsman

> I particularly think that the oft-disparaged roundball is a consistent killer inside an appropriate range, but I often hear gun writers proclaiming otherwise......honest discussion of such things would be part of my agenda.


Well I have to respond to that, because I agree with you. You can get no worse ballistic coefficient than a sphere. The energy isn't much, and it sheds it rapidly. However, it's diameter and I also think the malleability of the soft lead make it a killer far beyond what statistics tell you. I think most writers are pushing what's new on the market because they have sponsors.

I have killed deer at 125 yards with a 50 cal roundball and 70 gr of Pistol Pyrodex in my Thompson Center Hawken. A farm lady I know has killed several deer with the old Thompson Center Senaca in 45 caliber, with round ball, and 50 gr of black powder. That's an anemic load, and the deer that I looked at she shot at 70 yards and the ball passed through the heart and was captured in the opposite lung.

My judgment of scope power is subjective. I don't know what equipment you would need to get actual readings of scope power. I can shoot good with mine, I would just like to see better what it is I am shooting at. When aiming at a deer you need to be able to judge where the behind the shoulder shot would be because I can not really distinguish shoulder and where it ends. It works, but I think it could be better and be one power. I think I need to put mine and my friends side by side and compare them. One question I have is: With my right eye which is worse I get a double image of the crosshair. I must turn the eye piece out a very long ways to get an image of a single crosshair. I wonder if this lowers the size of the image in my scope alone and not everyone would see this?


----------



## huntin1

IIRC, it does not appear that the Nikon does any better. It does seem to make things a bit smaller than when viewed with the naked eye. May just be an optical illusion, not sure.

huntin1


----------



## rogerw

Plainsman, good points, I agree.

I said this elsewhere in the PowerBelt thread, but a technically ideal bullet has a large base for a given breech pressure to push on; and a very small caliber in order to have great BC; and then a large diameter to shed it energy in target media while still achieving adequate penetration.

Going thru the air biggie-sized sheds energy in the air (bad) for the very same reason that biggie-sized sheds energy fast in target media (good). Even the FBI agreed strongly with this point (see other thread for quote). If a roundball is so bad in the air (and it is) then it cannot be all bad on the target.....and of course it is NOT bad at all on the target.....

Even the internal ballistics in the barrel is the very same problem except in this case it is transfer of energy from hot gasses to the projectile.....Big, then small, then big again is ideal The Patched Roundball and the fullbore Conical is BIg, Big, Big and that is a compromise.

A sabot round is big in barrel, then small in the air, then big within the target and ideal, IF and only IF it expands correctly and penetrates correctly. A lot of wounded deer have experienced failures however, as this forum and other pages will demonstrate.

By the way, Lt. Forsyth in 1864 published a book on "The Sporting Rifle and its Projectiles" in which he explored much of this topic.

I have always had passthru with .50cal PRB out to 90yds, my longest shot/kill. I am still learning my 3yr old .58cal.....I had one ball expand to .9" diameter in a whitetail! More on that some other time, I got to go.

YHS,
rogerw

PS - what is more, a modern expanding bullet uses some of its energy budget to expand. this means that less is left to do the work of mortal wounding. That means that saying a minimum of 800fpe is required to kill a whitetail cleanly, if it is true with a modern bullet, cannot be generalized to the patched round ball......less energy is required to create a similar wound channel since it "arrives ready to do work!"


----------



## rogerw

Huntin1, that is a very interesting reply. As I drove to Cabelas this afternoon I was kinda wondering how I was going to judge the magnification too....I kept running it over in my mind, but was not sure.

When they had none in stock (in Texas store) I just kinda wasted some time looking around; in the reduced price section I picked up a red dot sight that had been returned and was out of the wrapper...I put it to my eye and sighted across the room at various objects....I finally realized that there was a long and wide sign on the opposite wall of the store (probably 40yds away....BIG floorplan!) and if I sighted it thru the red dot with my right eye and kept my left eye open and also sighting it, I could detect a continuously-sized sign-height dimension across the boundary between eyes.....if it had been smaller or bigger it would have been obvious.

My point is not about the red dot; it has been said already that they do not have the x/2 problem, so that part is not a revelation. My point is simply that this seems a good way to test a 1x scope for the x/2 problem. You merely need a vertically-wide and horizonatally defined surface at some reasonable distance to sight at ( the side of the barn?) simultaneously both with the unaided eye on one side and the 1x scoped eye on the other.

If you have a chance to do so, and wish to, try it. You may decide that the "smallness" is an illusion of expectations. At least, this will convince you either way I suppose.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## NDTerminator

rogerw said:


> NDT,
> 
> OK, I forgive you.
> 
> But, plse forgive me, I am still goiing to Cabelas....
> 
> YHS,
> rogerw


Not a problem Roger. When all is said & done, we are all muzzleloaders and are all on the same team, albeit with different types of rifles.

If I figured there was any percentage in it, I would sit down and debate this with you then shake your hand and buy you a cold one at the end of the day. But the reality is that you have your beliefs, I have mine, and neither is going to change the other's mind. So when you go to Cabelas I suspect you will find exactly what you are looking for, so long as it supports what you all ready believe...

BTW, I put a red dot optic on my T/C several days ago. For what it's worth, it is far superior to my or any 1X scope I've ever seen or used. It doesn't affect my natural FOV/depth perception at all, a true zero mag/1X.
The dot and target are on the same focal plane, so I can see both clearly.
The only fly in the ointment is that during late season up here, relying on a battery powered sighting device is an invitation for Mr. Murphy to join you on stand...

Until we can use magnifying scopes in ND (and I feel this is inevitable) this is the sight system I'm going to use...


----------



## rogerw

NDTerminator said:


> If I figured there was any percentage in it....
> 
> So when you go to Cabelas I suspect you will find exactly what you are looking for, so long as it supports what you all ready believe.....


Sorry, but these are good examples of allowing preconcieved notions to rule one's thoughts and judgement before the fact. Having made peace, there is no need for your continued negativity.

[That is straight up and unambiguous, as you said you prefer it. You also said you say what you mean and do what you say, or words to that effect, and you would not engage me on this question, but now you have again in a negative way. Imagine my confusion...... or perhaps it is not only my character that is on display.]

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## NDTerminator

These are simply my observations based on the opinions and statements that you yourself have posted up over on muzzlehead and now here on Nodak. I meant them as neither purposely positive or negative.

Based on your writings I believe that you are not really interested in an objective look at the other side of the coin. Were this so, it seems to me that a man of your stated education would simply research the subject of 1X scopes and not waste time & effort posting up easily answered questions on an internet forum.

You are clearly pro trad/anti-modern, where I'm just as clearly "pro choice", if you will. We aren't going to change each other's minds. Unless the goal is to engage in yet another counter-productive internet urinating match, further debate *is *pointless.

Enough of this for me. NDT out on this bit...


----------



## rogerw

NDTerminator said:


> Based on your writings I believe that you are not really interested in an objective look at the other side of the coin.


I don't believe either one of us is incapable of an objective look at facts, unless we overtly choose not to.

If you read the thread above, you know that I went to Cabelas in order to see firsthand how a 1x might look. Unfortunately, to my surprise, they did not even have one in the Buda, Texas store.

I also went online and searched as a last resort, as I clearly noted above, but unfortunately that will not provide me the firsthand information I desire. Also, I could find no secondhand references to this issue at all, except of course by you since this forum is public.

You seem to think I should do more that I have done, and therefore my personal credibility is brought into question by you (but you say that is not negative, just your opinion..... Really? that is rich fertilizer you got there.).....and perhaps I would if I knew what I could do, because of my original interest is intact and the fact that I do pursue real-fact answers, not being satisfied with mere opinion expressed where facts are non-quantifiable or nonexistent.

But hey, if you don't want to talk to me that is probably best, IMHO. If you "do as you say" this time, all will be quite well for both of us I hope.

vaya con dios, amigo.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Savage260

> I do pursue real-fact answers, not being satisfied with mere opinion expressed where facts are non-quantifiable or nonexistent


rogerw, how is it that 3 people who have many, many years of experience, can tell you their scopes make the image smaller than what is seen with the naked eye, and you say it is opinion??? 1 of these guys I know is, and 1 I am pretty sure is sniper trained, (plainsman, are you also?). They all have been looking through scopes for many years. I think I can take it as fact that the image really is smaller, and not a figment of the imagination, or optical illusion. My feeble mind probably can not comprehend why and I don't ask. If I tell you my left foot is smaller than my right foot do you still have to come to my house to measure, or can you take my word as fact? If you can find out why it works that way, please do explain, but be sure to use small words, I hate looking them up all the time.


----------



## rogerw

Hello Laite,

Fair question. My answer is:

1) Like others who commented elsewhere, I could not understand how a Mfg could sell a scope that was x/2 and call it 1x. I never said it did not happen. I thought it would be easy to demonstrate.

2) When I said "opinion" above I suppose I was speaking generically about problem solving, not specifically about this problem. (edit: or maybe "opinion" was a poor choice of words.) I have been put on the defensive so many times in this thread that it is shot thru with rabbit trails that are irrelevant to my original question. But on this point that you raise, it was Hunter1 above who said "May just be an optical illusion, not sure." That would seem to be the first mention that maybe it is not the scope producing the effect. I assume he is one of your three experts? Maybe by the time I said "opinion" above I was influenced by Hunter1's comment. the reason for verifiable measurement is that you don't HAVE to accept anyone's opinion.....that is science.

3) I heard no repeatable measurement procedure for something that seemed it should be easy to actually measure in a way that could be verified by others, non-experts like me. That is what I meant by unquantified. One of my questions, somewhere, was how did you measure or determine it (I asked because I was having trouble myself understanding how to do that - But I now think it is relatively easy and if I had a 1x, I could accurately estimate the magnification or lack thereof).

4) A similar question has come up for me in other ways with other optical equipment, like cameras.

Maybe another fair question would be "Who the heck still cares?" Indeed. After all this unpleasant trouble, it would be a tenacious and patient person to still care....

I am still perplexed. That would be because I have taken seriously the expert testimony you mention. Given it is true, there should be a way to demonstrate to anyone, not just an expert. I NOW know how, but I do not have a 1x scope.

Isn't that reasonable?

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Savage260

Aside from putting words or actually a word, in my mouth,(I never said any thing about "expert")just very well trained and experienced, I do understand what you are getting at. (I consider almost every person with more experience than I have an expert because I can learn from them)

you stated that you now know how to demonstrate this to any one. Give it a shot. I want to know, no it really doesn't matter if I do know, but if you can tell me I would be willing to hear it. Do you need a 1x scope to explain it though?

As far as hunter1's quote, point granted, I must have missed that.


----------



## Plainsman

> 1 of these guys I know is, and 1 I am pretty sure is sniper trained, (plainsman, are you also?).


Nope, but about three guys are. I just enjoy shooting, and my curious mind has to know the why of everything. I have had a few college classes in physics and enjoy applying that. For a college physics lab project I worked on trajectory. The college had a spring powered gun that shot a one inch steel ball bearing that had a hole through the middle. The gun was a solid rod with trigger and you would add a spring to the rod push the ball on top and down far enough to engage the trigger. By adding a spring you got more range. I set up a table and marked it off in inches, then in the center I put an upright with paper attached that I would shoot through to look at maximum/minimum vertical to reach eight feet with ten and 20 lb thrust.

It sounds like people are getting serious about the 1X thing, so it deserves complete divulgence of what we know.

I am suspect of manufacturers. I can look through one scope on nine power, and a second scope on nine power, and they do not always look the same. I have gone so far as to take a six by six inch piece of plywood and add a 1 inch pine board at each end. Then drill two holes through each board slightly narrower than your eyes. Cut down to the outside edges of each of these holes, and enlarge the area slightly with a rasp so that you can add felt lining and still push a one inch scope into it. Once this is done split the contraption lengthwise on a table saw. Lay a second six by six piece of cardboard below this and drill four 3/8 inch holes, two in front, and two in back. The upper two serve as a guide for you as you route them into slots. Now you can move front and back independently. Put two scopes in and slide them until they match the width of your eyes. Now you can drop in any two scopes and look through them like binoculars. When set on the same power some appear to magnify more than others.

One thing that may be goofing up my view in a one power scope is this: I don't know what is wrong with my right eye, but I pick up most people's scopes and see double crosshairs. I have to move the adjustment bell way out. I don't see a difference in the size of the object as I do this, but I am wondering if there is some change in magnification. However, when you perform this same action with many optical mechanisms the image grows larger. For example a zoom camera lens. You don't see that movement with a variable power scope, but that is because that mechanical function is done within the tube.

I think there is differences between manufacturers and they get away with it because not many people are so anal about inspection of their equipment. I am flattered that people respect my opinions, but don't worry about me, I am a skeptic myself and some things I just have to see for myself. Sometimes I must prove it to myself two or three times. Sometimes more. Sometimes I still don't believe it. Stubborn????? Ya probably.

I don't mind questions. I look at them this way. You know how religious people get angry when people talk about evolution as fact when in reality it is theory? They get angry because this attacks religion. I get angry for two reasons. One these people attack my religion, but the theory may not. Two they do a great disservice to science because they think they have the answer. If you think you have the answer you stop looking for any further answers. So science along that line remains stagnant. They think they are sophisticated, but they have fallen into the same trap as those who preached the earth is flat.

Always keep searching. I look through a 1X scope and see less, but I am still looking and asking why. My guess is manufacturers are putting the required curvatures to lenses that their computer systems tell them will produce 1X and that is what they produce. Independent thinking is becoming more rare all the time.


----------



## rogerw

Plainsman said:


> I just enjoy shooting, and my curious mind has to know the why of everything.
Click to expand...

Very reasoned reply Plainsman. Your sentence above captures everything I tried to say.

I merely asked a question, that is all. The rest of this thread became a lot of hooey, but your reply brings reason to the table. thank you.

btw, I especially like your description of the plywood box to compare scope images. That is essentially the same conclusion I came to, except with a 1x the other "scope" can be just the naked eye. And that constitutes a description of a measure system.

x/2 is a -50%% error from a stated 1x magnification. Did you ever see that magnitude of difference?

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Plainsman

When looking through 1X scopes the image I see varies by manufacturer. I think the range is about 75% actuall size to nearly 100% actual size. I was thinking my TC 1X Hawken Hunter was about 80%, but I have not shot it for two years, so I just now went to my safe retrieved my rifle and went outdoors. It's pretty darn good, and I would estimate 90%+ with that scope. Actually, it's better than I thought I remembered. I see only slightly larger with my left eye when sighting both eyes open at a rail fence 50 yards and a cottontail at 100 yards.

I can live with this scope. Even though the size looks a little smaller there is no doubt in my mind I could drill that cottontail every shot. I guess more power wouldn't be any advantage for a muzzleloader at all, it would just make me feel like I had a better chance. If it looks bigger I have a better chance of hitting it right? 

In that light I guess what's the difference what power scope you shoot? I can kill anything I want to within the limit of the rifle I have. What it really gets down to is if you want to keep guys with poor eyes from hunting. Evidently it has nothing to do with sport. Please understand I have nothing to gain because I will not change scopes. The only thing I have to gain is having some compassion for fellow hunters who are loosing some eye function. May they all be in the field with us for years to come. Take this for what it's worth from a guy who wants a flintlock. Anybody want to make a trade for a 99%+ condition TC Cherokee, with serial numer just over 1000? Anybody have one for $500?


----------



## rogerw

Plainsman,

good feedback on the question, with physical explanations of how you measured/decided; I thank you Sir for your reply(s).

I do disagree with one statement you make about whether it makes any difference; it would make me unhappy if I thought a 1x scope I had was much less than 1x. EVen a little bit on a fixed scope.

I just attended a funeral this morning, got back home and eating dinner of blackeyed peas and cornbread leftover from supper last night (the venison was thoroughly devoured!)....a staple out in the country where I am from....somber thoughts, thinking of back home, life is too short for too much argument.

I would like to let this thread rest in peace.

Will leave for San Saba tomorrow, hunt the extended spike/doe season there. Not planned to return until week following. We don't have any ML seasons there, just regular gun seasons, but I always use my flintlock(s) anyway.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## jimbob357

I am near sighted, and have corrective lenses.

I've had a TC 1x20 scope for 3 years or so, AND YES the image through the scope is smaller then it is with the naked eye. Easy to verify by looking at a target or something at 50 yards or 100 yards with the rifle on your shoulder and then lowering the rifle and looking with the naked eye. it appears to be about .8 or .9 power to me.

This summer, I bought a Traditions 1x32 scope for a different rifle, and looking through it, I can say it is as close to the same image I see with the naked eye as I can verify.

Not very scientific, but it works for me..:lol:

On another forum awhile ago, a guy gave me this information:


> I remember reading one time that some optic companies make their 1x scopes a little over 1x (1.2 seems to be the magic number), since they discovered the same thing you described - people think the image looks smaller through the scope. Maybe yours is truly 1x...
> Also, if you're nearsighted, images will look a little smaller:
> 
> Power: Approximate Change in Image Size:
> -3.00 diopter 5% smaller
> -6.00 diopter 10% smaller
> -10.00 diopter 15% smaller


I guess I don't understand what all this means. I've also had MANY people with non corrected vision look through my TC scope say that the TC 1x20 makes the image look smaller then with the naked eye.

I wonder if it doesn't have something to do with the 20 mm tube?

The TC is a good clear scope. But the more I use the Traditions ($50) 1x32 the more I like it.

just my 2 cents.


----------



## rogerw

laite319 said:


> Aside from putting words or actually a word, in my mouth,(I never said any thing about "expert")just very well trained and experienced, I do understand what you are getting at. (I consider almost every person with more experience than I have an expert because I can learn from them)
> 
> you stated that you now know how to demonstrate this to any one. Give it a shot. I want to know, no it really doesn't matter if I do know, but if you can tell me I would be willing to hear it. Do you need a 1x scope to explain it though?
> 
> As far as hunter1's quote, point granted, I must have missed that.


Laite,

Sorry I overlooked replying to you before. It was inadvertent on my part. It has been pretty hard to pick the valid trail in this thread, so crisscrossed with rabbit trails.....

Being not terribly experienced with scopes, though having used them on centerfire guns and airguns, I was trying to imagine how best one could prove a 1x. It was very simple in fact, as good ideas always are in retrospect. Inside Cabelas with a 1x red dot in hand I sighted at a large sign that was probably 10ft tall and 20yds wide and 40yds away. With the red dot on my right eye and my left eye open, the image the brain saw was a continuous sign across the boundary seen between the eyes. If the red dot had been any other than 1x, there would have been a step change at the "boundary." By comparing the two sizes at the boundary it would be easy to accurately estimate the error.

If the same shape actually had graduated marks or stripes on it, say every foot for 10 feet, it would increase the accuracy beyond our need to know.

Plainsman had this worked out way more sophisticated, as he described above.

I know what you mean about learning from others.....everything I was ever fortunate to learn came from somebody else who knew something I did not. I always feel indebted to those willing to take time to share with me.

Thank you for your note.

YHS,
rogerw


----------

