square body rifle scopes

Status
Not open for further replies.

coylh

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2003
Messages
592
Location
Bothell, WA
I keep reading about how rechecking your rifle scope zero is important before hunting/competition/etc. Why don't manufacturers make the body of the scope squared, instead of round? This would make is easier to securely mount the scope, and would also automatically level reticle to the horizontal.
 
I would be willing to guess that round optics are alot easyer to mass produce. Most good mountingr rings have (or provide) small peices of rubber to put on the inside of the rings which make it almost imposable to twist the scope in the rings. I think (from what I hear) the problems with scopes holding calibration is from crappy rails.
 
Interesting question. It would certainly eliminate the need for a reticle leveler when installing the scope. However, I'd think you'd still want oval lenses. Even if you didn't want oval lenses, the square ones would be at least somewhat harder to produce with great optical quality.

You could have a square body, but still use oval lenses, but that would require more metal and would increase the weight of the scope, and presumably the cost as well.

Still, I could see the advantages of having part of the scope be square. It would take awhile to catch on though, as not many people would be making rings or bases for it.

patent
 
I'm not an optics engineer, but the vast majority of lenses in any system- telescope, camera, imaging, etc, are all round. That naturally suggests having a round scope tube. Using round lenses in a square tube would just be a waste.

I think squared-off integral mounts on the bottom of scopes would be great, though. For example, if the bottom of the tube had a squared off surface with pairs of 10-32 holes every few inches, a slim base could be screwed on from the bottom, and then clamped to the receiver rail. This is one thing I really like about the ACOGs.

Also note that it's not uncommon for scope reticles to be out of square with respect to the turrets and possibly even adjustments.

In the scheme of things, the flexbility you get by having a plain round tube as the mounting surface is probably more than the trouble to level a scope's reticle, which is pretty easy.

-z
 
A round tube is naturally stronger than a square tube of the same wall thickness and the same OD. Round tubing is also dimensionally much more uniform in its thermal expansion/contraction characteristics than square tubing. Round tubing (and round tube mounts) is also generally less expensive to manufacture to a given tolerance level than is square tube and square tube mounts.

But I'm not sure that I understand the premise of the question. Needing to check zero isn't an issue of tube shape - it's an issue of how the reticle is formed and adjusted (moved around) using an inner tube (erector tube) contained within the outer tube. The erector tube's support structure would seem to be the key here - not the shape of the outer tubing.... :confused:
 
Speaking of oval scopes. There is a company that makes them. I think it might have been Targus.
 
I believe Redfield used to have some "extra wide" field of view scopes that had a horizontally wider rear lens. This would have been over 20 years ago.
 
I have recently (well, last 6 months anyway) seen a scope that wide rear objective. Round sides, flat top & bottom.
It was on a rifle at the Kittery Trading Post.

It was in pretty good shape, and didn't look all that old, but I don't remember what brand it was.

It was kind of neat to look through.
 
Reason for round tubes (my take anyway) is the bases could and sometimes are drilled slightly off the centerline, a round tube scope can forgive a small sin, whereas the square tube scope would have the receiver scrapped.

870
 
Redfield used to make a "Widefield" Thing was, it was round glass with the top and bottom covered to make it look oval (actually shaped like a TV screen)

It would be nearly impossible to make square glass that would transmit light without distortion under magnification

The two reasons you re-check zero are to make sure the reticle hasn't moved in relation to the bullet impact and to make sure the scope hasn't gotten whacked off target. I had a Simmons 44 Mag scope that had a "wandering" reticle. Got a Leupold and haven't had to re-zero in 4 years.
 
Tasco makes a "rimfire" scope with a square reticle. Looks like a little TV. The tube is round.

As for mounts that don't require the reticle to be aligned , check out Tapco's T28 scope with the STANAG mount. The scope has machined blocks on th bottom and screws to the mount. There are no rings and no way to turn it.
 
I've seen several of those Redfields in the last few weeks. But I work in a gunshop with several thousand guns, so seeing (on some older hunting rifles) some older scopes like that is nothing unusual. I ran into a rifle with an old Lyman Alaskan and half a dozen Weaver K4's on others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top