Scope power sources. Why no 21st century options?

[MTMilitiaman]

I can remember our family's first desktop computer, a Tandy Sensation. Around the same time period, my dad brought home this cellular phone from Cellular One that fit conveniently in a brief case. Twenty five years later, these technologies have advanced dramatically and now offer increased functionality and intelligence in a smaller size. Likewise, I can remember reading about the AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles that were about to become not available to civilians with the newly passed Assault Weapons Ban. The ban sunsetted over a decade ago and the rifles then share only vague resemblance to the Colt 6960 in my bedroom. It occurs to me as I try to help a friend find an optic for his AR-10 that optics haven't shared the advancement in technology or capabilities that nearly every other field has experienced. While firearms, cell phones, flashlights, and pretty much everything else has fought to stay with the times, optics manufactures have been content to rest on their laurels and charge exuberant amounts of money for a product that has changed and adopted little in nearly 30 years. A modern scope might have slightly better optics coatings and there is more demand for first focal plane scopes today, but that technology still existed decades ago and the fact is that a modern scope can do almost nothing that a 25 year old scope can't do just as well.
A major complaint of mine is power sources. My friend is sort of a prepper and thinks in terms of logistics. He doesn't want to be forced to stockpile a completely new type of battery just for his optic. But while variable power scopes with illuminated reticles are easy enough to find, they all run off of a flat battery that is used in pretty much nothing else. So while the SIG Romeo 7 red dot sight on my Colt AR-15 runs off a commonly available AA battery that is already stockpiled for use in any number of other applications, we are forced to adopt technology that far from being revolutionary, isn't even relevant by today's standards with variable power scopes. We could find only one scope that ran off of batteries he was already stockpiling, a Trijicon VCOG that normally retails for $2500, but which he managed to find on eBay for about half that. Why is there so few 21st century optics out there? Why do we pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for obsolete, inconvenient technology? Why isn't there more telescopic sights with real-world available, practical power sources? AAs work, but imagine if your scope took the same batteries as my rechargeable Fenix EDC light. You could charge your optic with the same cord you charge your cell phone with on the way to your 3-Gun match. Or you could have a small external battery pack like the ones available for your cell phone, on a quick-release mount that could attach to the picitanny rail in front of the optic and charge it while you were shooting your match, or sitting on an OP in Afghanistan. This is proven, accepted technology available everywhere except for the optics industry. Why?

 

[entropy]

they all run off of a flat battery that is used in pretty much nothing else.

They call 2032's CMOS batteries for a reason. They power the CMOS of your computer. And they are reasonably cheap, small, and last for a fair amount of time.

 

[LRDGCO]

Personally, I have very limited interest in powered optics and I imagine there are many in the same boat.

However, the likely answer is that techies aren’t gun guys and the gun guys aren’t techies. The coders in Bangalore and the vision chaps in Buena Vista are not thinking about how to make a better iScope and the product engineers at Leupold didn’t come from Apple.

Cross fertilization would likely produce that which you seek but there is limited push-pull for it.

 

[Citadel99]

Probably more techies into guns than you'd think; however, I think more people are not into illuminated reticles. I like them, because, why not? My Leupolds still work without them but nice to have at certain times. I think its a bigger issue of the battery industry not changing from standards for something a small group of people would like. Can't say I blame them.

Mark

 

[maxxhavoc]

Meh, I like iron sights better for most of my purposes.

Many of mine are powered by radioactive isotopes. Modern enough for me.

If I wanted a modern scope:
https://www.opticsplanet.com/armasi...sion-rifle-scope-3x-core-iit-60-70-lp-mm.html

Uses CR123 batteries. Probably what your Fenix takes.

I just don't see what problem an illuminated reticle solves.

 

[Varminterror]

I would absolutely disagree that optics haven’t advanced significantly in the last 20yrs. Even in the last 5 or so years, the glass quality and feature quality per price point is MUCH better. If you compare equivalently priced (inflation corrected) model lines of these different eras, you’re getting a lot more value today than 5, 10, or 20years ago.

The mechanisms aren’t so technologically complicated such you’d see anything like the shrinking microchip or production viability of LED flashlights, but the evolution of glass quality and coatings refinements, and the reliability of feature enhancements in the market are notable. How many first focal plane reticle optics were on the market 2yrs ago? How many for $200? (Inflation adjusted price of Vortex Diamondback Tactical). How many illuminated reticle optics? How many nightvision scopes? How many thermal/FLIR optics? How many Side focus optics? How many had integrated laser rangefinders? How many red dot sights, prism reflex sights? How about the video recording, Bluetooth live streaming capable, night vision optics out there these days?

Then consider optical quality beyond features - glass and coatings. Top of the line glass a few years ago aren’t as clear, contrasted, and well resolved as top of the line glass today. We saw that being rolled out in multiple companies; Swarovski, nightforce, Leupold, Bushnell, Burris, Nikon... I just picked up an XRS II for the same price I paid for a DMR II a few years ago (lower cost when correcting for inflation), on the same zoom, it’s clearly a better picture with even better contrast. I paid less for both of my VX-3i’s than any of the same 4.5-14x50 VX3’s, and the glass is obviously more clear with better contrast (coating).

A riflescope is always going to look like a riflescope, so we won’t see the equivalent evolution of a 1990’s bag phone into an iPhone. We won’t see the same shrinkage of a D cell maglight into a high output cree LED twice as bright, half the size, and a quarter the weight.

But optics are getting better and better.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

^^^Absolutely^^^
Good glass is a bargain these days.

 

[cdb1]

I just don't see what problem an illuminated reticle solves.

It may not solve any problems, that’s a subjective discussion. But it sure improves shooting in some circumstances, such as shooting at an animal with very dark fur, in low light.

 

[captain awesome]

One thing I havent seen in firearm optics is the technology used in Canons high end DSLR lense optics with the designation D O. The "D O" stands for diffractive optics, and they use Fresnel lenses to make the units weigh much less and are much more compact than their less expensive optically equivalent models. But we are talking double to quadruple the price here for the end product so it might not be a viable option for the average consumer.

 

[taliv]

What about the tracking point?
Scopes with integrated laser range finders?
Barrett’s system that dials your turrets?

 

[Walkalong]

Meh, I like iron sights better for most of my purposes.

So did I when I could still see them.

 

[DannyLandrum]

As-yet uninvented features for gun accessories which require batteries would be in the top (bottom?) ten things I am concerned the least about.

Great strides have been made in every component and scopes are much much better than the old days. I couldn't be more pleased - we are truly living in the golden age. But I like that you are thinking outside the box.

 

[jmorris]

I can remember our family's first desktop computer, a Tandy Sensation. Around the same time period, my dad brought home this cellular phone from Cellular One that fit conveniently in a brief case.

I remember loading programs on a TRS-80 with a rotary/pulse dial hand held phone modem and cassette tapes, 30 min or so for something that is instant these days. Also remember the cellular phones that were a hard wire install in a car “back in the day”.

If “why” is the question, cost is the reason and the answer is that they can’t sell millions or billions of them with planned obsolescence.

Good optics are still good years down the road. Crappy ones don’t get any better.

If you are a ”prepper” stay away from anything that requires power or has a “shelf life”.

 

[CapnMac]

There are two issues here.

One is is the "how" we use glass to better identify targets at range. We have seen huge strides in just how we do that: Reflex; red dot; tube scopes using various focal planes, and so on. A true plethora of options on the how to see.

The other issue is when such systems need power. And we have seen some real strides here, too. Newer emitters are getting thousands of hours of run time out of batteries.

But, the one place where technology has stalled is in batteries themselves. We have seen a wide range of the materials used to make batteries, but, most of those are related to how quickly/consistently the batteries charge, not in how well they store electricity.

The electrical boffins keep telling us that new breakthroughs are "just over the horizon" and if we ever get there, it will change our lives distinctly. But, until we find a better way to embed an anode in a chemical matrix which will reliably maintain a store of surplus electricity, the present technology is what we have, and what limits us.

Which then gets us to the debate about whether we ought to use "commonly available" batteries, or "best form factor" batteries. The disk (aka watch or hearing aid) batteries have incredible form factors; but, are not "readily available." They are almost never rechargeable, either.

The battery is my one gripe with the Holosun 503; ok, it does use a 2032, which is at least a common-enough disk ("coin") battery; but no where near as common as, say AA or AAA bateries (and I never have fewer than 10 of either of those on hand available for use).