Dustyattic
Member
Today I looked through a Tasco scope mounted on a seldom used .22 rifle of mine. In my mind, I noticed it seemed to make a nice full image in my eye. It's a 4X32 Pronghorn. Just for comparison, I looked through the scope on a Burris Fullfield II and the image seemed smaller, even on a setting of 3X.
I understand this larger or smaller image in the eye is related to exit pupil diameter of the scope and the field of view, and is affected by magnification. So I couldn't figure as to why this cheapie scope gave a larger image than the Burris on a lower setting.
So, I got to shopping on SWFA for scopes. Check it out for yourself if you want, compare FOV of the high end scopes to the cheap Tascos. What's the deal?
Have a look:
First a $55 tasco 3-9X40 FOV: 41-15
http://swfa.com/Tasco-3-9x40-World-Class-Riflescope-P4523.aspx
Next a $190 Burris 3-9X40 FOV: 33 - 4.7
http://swfa.com/Burris-3-9x40-Fullfield-II-Rifle-Scope-P186.aspx
Or an $825 Zeiss 3.5-10X44 FOV: 35.1 - 11.61
http://swfa.com/Zeiss-35-10x44-Conquest-Rifle-Scope-P8669.aspx
Finally this $750 Swarovski 3-9X36 FOV: 39 - 13.5
http://swfa.com/Swarovski-3-9x36-American-Riflescope-P460.aspx
Actually, the only scopes I could find which outdid the Tasco in the FOV specs were some of the 2 grand ballpark models of Swarovski and the like.
I know the better scopes have better glass, durability (hold zero), accuracy, light transmission and all that. I am just wondering what is the deal with Tasco and the wide field of view. Remember, I even noticed this with my own eye before doing any research.
I'll also mention that field of view, or in other words how it fills up my eye, is very near the top on the list of things I appreciate in a scope. Right up there with brightness and clarity. In fact, I would choose a dimmer scope with a nice full image over a really bright view peeking through a keyhole.
I understand this larger or smaller image in the eye is related to exit pupil diameter of the scope and the field of view, and is affected by magnification. So I couldn't figure as to why this cheapie scope gave a larger image than the Burris on a lower setting.
So, I got to shopping on SWFA for scopes. Check it out for yourself if you want, compare FOV of the high end scopes to the cheap Tascos. What's the deal?
Have a look:
First a $55 tasco 3-9X40 FOV: 41-15
http://swfa.com/Tasco-3-9x40-World-Class-Riflescope-P4523.aspx
Next a $190 Burris 3-9X40 FOV: 33 - 4.7
http://swfa.com/Burris-3-9x40-Fullfield-II-Rifle-Scope-P186.aspx
Or an $825 Zeiss 3.5-10X44 FOV: 35.1 - 11.61
http://swfa.com/Zeiss-35-10x44-Conquest-Rifle-Scope-P8669.aspx
Finally this $750 Swarovski 3-9X36 FOV: 39 - 13.5
http://swfa.com/Swarovski-3-9x36-American-Riflescope-P460.aspx
Actually, the only scopes I could find which outdid the Tasco in the FOV specs were some of the 2 grand ballpark models of Swarovski and the like.
I know the better scopes have better glass, durability (hold zero), accuracy, light transmission and all that. I am just wondering what is the deal with Tasco and the wide field of view. Remember, I even noticed this with my own eye before doing any research.
I'll also mention that field of view, or in other words how it fills up my eye, is very near the top on the list of things I appreciate in a scope. Right up there with brightness and clarity. In fact, I would choose a dimmer scope with a nice full image over a really bright view peeking through a keyhole.
Last edited:
