Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,056 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I was at the gun range the other day and got to shoot an AR with a 2x tube red dot, Truglo, I believe. I was not impressed. The target seemed bigger than with the naked eye, but not by much at all. I could barely make out the target at 100 yards. Doesn't 2x mean the object seems about double the size?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,728 Posts
I was at the gun range the other day and got to shoot an AR with a 2x tube red dot, Truglo, I believe. I was not impressed. The target seemed bigger than with the naked eye, but not by much at all. I could barely make out the target at 100 yards. Doesn't 2x mean the object seems about double the size?
I don't think twice as large so much as twice as close.... I could be wrong.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,251 Posts
1X magnification is a 100% increase in the magnified objects size.
So a 1" object will look 2" magnified
A t 2X magnification the same object will look 3" in size.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
578 Posts
Perhaps you might enlighten us crstrode? - "wrong" doesn't really provide a lot of insight to your knowledge. I'm sure we would appreciate you efforts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,082 Posts
I was at the gun range the other day and got to shoot an AR with a 2x tube red dot, Truglo, I believe. I was not impressed. The target seemed bigger than with the naked eye, but not by much at all. I could barely make out the target at 100 yards. Doesn't 2x mean the object seems about double the size?
A 2x optic will increase the apparent size of a target, but inexpensive glass can impede the benefit of magnification if the image isn't crisp, if it reduces too much light transmission (especially noticeable in low lighting) or if there's a bad parallax offset between the designed focal distance and the target distance.

If you borrowed an AR with an optic, the focus may have been adjusted for their eyes and not yours.

For 100 yards 2x is pretty low magnification. 4x to 8x is generally pretty good for 100 yards, depending on what the target is. For shooting ground squirrels with a 22-250 I enjoyed 16x.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,628 Posts
I was at the gun range the other day and got to shoot an AR with a 2x tube red dot, Truglo, I believe. I was not impressed. The target seemed bigger than with the naked eye, but not by much at all. I could barely make out the target at 100 yards. Doesn't 2x mean the object seems about double the size?
When you looking through Trueglow glass that is about as poor as you can get. Please do not base you decisions on that. There is a reason good glass cost more and a reason better glass cost even more and so on. Unless you are a young man with great eyes something a bit better maybe needed. To much is not good either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,633 Posts
Yes, the image is twice as big...if the magnification is true x2. More expensive scopes will be more true to power. Check my math, if you like trigonometry, but here it is.

A 1m target at 100m will have an apparent angle of 0.573 degrees.
A 1m target at 50m will have an apparent angle of 1.146 degrees.

So when the target appears 1/2 the distance, the angle to the target is twice as big. But when we think about objects doubling in size, we really expect it to double in all dimensions. That would be 4 times larger (your target is 2 dimensional in your scope focal plane).

The answer is yes, x2 power optics are not very powerful. A target at 50m is still pretty small with a red dot aim point. The usefulness of a red dot at distance also depends on the size of the dot. Some people prefer small MOA dots so they can hit farther targets more easily. Some people like larger MOA dots so they an see it more easily, but shoot shorter distances. An experienced rifle shooter can learn to center a large sight on a small target. When I shot 600m (iron sights), the front sight post was about 3 times wider than the bullseye.

Red dots are easy to pick up when changing targets rapidly. They are for close work. If you want to see target detail at 100 yards, start at a x1-4 scope with a reticle designed for your intended use. x6 should be good to 200 yards. Most people like to over magnify.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,955 Posts
If you think of it in percentages it will seem more clear. 1x=1% 2x=2%......
If 2x made it look twice as large that would be 200%

Does that help? DR
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,955 Posts
I have a couple of really old scopes, from 1915 and 1926. they are both 2x scopes. They don't seem to magnify much but they project a clear crosshair on the target. I also have a tube sight, mostly a hollow tube with an aperture on the eye end and a cross hair at the other end. it has no lenses at all. It seems to be hard on my eye. It causes eye strain. I have another tube sight that has peep apertures at both ends. your eye looks through the sights , not at them. It causes less strain, but the 2x scope is far and away the better arrangement for a sight you are going to spend any time behind. DR
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,633 Posts
If you think of it in percentages it will seem more clear. 1x=1% 2x=2%......
If 2x made it look twice as large that would be 200%

Does that help? DR
That is confusing. A x1 power scope should have no magnification. But you are saying it does have magnification? And for a scope to magnify a target to appear two times closer it needs to be x200? This doesn't sound right.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,251 Posts
If you are going to challenge my premise, at least let me know where i am wrong.
I am wrong often, just ask my wife.
But just saying "wrong" helps no one.
It just makes you sound like a guy who can't back up his statements with facts and show us where those facts came from.
I would really like to learn about such things.
Some things that we learn on our time on this planet are incorrect and I like learning.
That is part of the reason I am active on this forum.
Your post helps no one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,955 Posts
That is confusing. A x1 power scope should have no magnification. But you are saying it does have magnification? And for a scope to magnify a target to appear two times closer it needs to be x200? This doesn't sound right.
Think of 1x as 1%, 2x as 2%, But to make an image look twice as large would be 200%. Its not that way mathematically. but just a comparison in a more common term. Most people understand percentages because we use them everyday, But how do you explain depth of angle? Unless you work with it often it's not a common way to think. It just puts it in more familiar terms. If the OP wants to learn more about it he will have to become familiar with the terms and how they work.

Also I don't think 1x has 0 magnification, that would be 0x. if you want to test that theory, look backwards through a 1x scope and see if the image gets smaller. if it is a straight through piece of glass with no magnification it wouldn't matter which end you look through. DR
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,251 Posts
Think of 1x as 1%, 2x as 2%, But to make an image look twice as large would be 200%. Its not that way mathematically. but just a comparison in a more common term. Most people understand percentages because we use them everyday, But how do you explain depth of angle? Unless you work with it often it's not a common way to think. It just puts it in more familiar terms. If the OP wants to learn more about it he will have to become familiar with the terms and how they work.

Also I don't think 1x has 0 magnification, that would be 0x. if you want to test that theory, look backwards through a 1x scope and see if the image gets smaller. if it is a straight through piece of glass with no magnification it wouldn't matter which end you look through. DR
Exactly as I was taught. As I was trying to explain in my previous post, but you explained it much better than I did.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top