Jump to content

Two 'not out there yet' Scope designs ?


coolforgot

Recommended Posts

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this the other day! I was thinking about the Swarovski's that have a proprietary rail on the bottom of them and that it's a shame that nothing like that has really taken off. Presumably because of the lack of flexibility it offers. I think your idea of a key on the bottom of the scope is a good idea as existing scope mounts could easily me modified.

 

I still think it'd be a battle getting any acceptance as there are an awful lot of round scopes and mounting options for them already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm. Having tangled with scope rings for 40 years, I think you are missing the issue with most scope mounts. Burris Signature Rings have evolved to address the lack of consistent alignment between the action, barrel, rail and scope rings. All your design is doing is creating new issues.

 

A better way forward would be for Burris or another manufacturer bring the 'offset inserts' approach up to date and cater for 34/35/36/40mm rings,incorporate a level in the scope rings and support a better range of offsets.

 

Have fun.

 

JCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the potentia problemm i can see with mk1 is the crush effect and un equal tension with the rebated area

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have swarovski rails, zeiss rails, but why not picatinny scope (ie a scope fitted with bases/rail mounting system to allow the scope to be fitted directly to the rail.....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The obvious problem, to me at least, is that many bases do not go square to the centreline due to mis-aligned fixing holes and loose tolerances and your scope 'keel' will prevent the scope from being able to be rotated to allow the turrets/crosshair to be correctly vertical, ie pemanantly canted reticles, not what I would want anyway.

 

Richard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are scope levelling gizmos available.

 

Perhaps you are a little cavalier in blaming manufacturing tolerance -it tends to apply quite widely,though can be minimised-at a price.Scope set up ,as is,does potentially sort any such out,reasonably well.

 

When we get rifles and scopes set up 'by hand/eye' that are capable of sub .25 moa,which may be pushing the intrinsic rig's precision, would a machined slot in a scope ring really be 'better'-easier,I grant,but there is still going to be issues there and elsewhere in the system,surely.

 

The square scope is I fear a non starter-if the triangular barrel-which had some engineering advantages soon vanished,I can't see an inefficient scope design catching on-or rather one 'snag' is that it will catch on almost everything...it also adds useless weight too,as the circle is the efficient containing tube for a round lens.

Again,whatever happened to the modest gains that a 'TV' scope picture offered for some field shooting-a bit more horizontal field of view-largely gone too.

 

Innovation is desireable,but needs to be thought through-it isn't the other manufacturer's fault,all the time, and as they always say,invent a better mouse trap.....

....though in shooting,it hasn't always paid off !

 

Good luck with your ideas,though

gbal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

 

Unfortunately, that's the way of the world, mass production and a market that demands low prices leads to sloppy tolerances and unless you're happy to pay 2 grand for a Remington 700 or Savage, you're going to have to live with it. Sure, buy a custom action and hope it's going to be better, but the current designs allow some measure of accurate alignment with what we have to play with. It's not really rocket science to level up a rifle and align the crosshairs as you tighten the ring bolts.

 

The other issue is how much would it cost to produce the fins in the scope tube and is the added cost worth the benefit?

 

No doubt there are innovations out there for scope and mounting systems, it's not that long ago that Burris Signature rings were introduced which were another novel way of overcoming manufacturing deficiencies, although I'm not sure if Burris designed them or simply copied Jewell or Sako designs but with a polymer insert, I think they were the only manufacturer to produce offset inserts though.

 

Good luck with your designs!

 

Richard

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... it's not that long ago that Burris Signature rings were introduced which were another novel way of overcoming manufacturing deficiencies, although I'm not sure if Burris designed them or simply copied Jewell or Sako designs but with a polymer insert, I think they were the only manufacturer to produce offset inserts though.

 

Good luck with your designs!

 

Richard

 

 

 

Richard. The Burris approach is very good, but needs to be updated to take into account different scope tube sizes and different degrees of off set. Regards JCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Richard. The Burris approach is very good, but needs to be updated to take into account different scope tube sizes and different degrees of off set. Regards JCS

Agreed,

 

I have them in 25 and 30mm and find the two size fits all 0 or 10 thou in 30mm a backward step compared to the 0, 5, 10 & 20 of the 25mm rings. Maybe they're waiting to find out the size of the market for larger tubed scopes before introducing but it seems to be a given that's the way things are heading and better to be in near the start than play catch up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't scoffing,but remain skeptical-not at all the same thing-just as 'modular' is not the same as 'angular'. I understand your defensiveness,but you simply repeat a view that different will be popular.Well,not so.

I gave an example-if you look at Remington's triangular barrel,it looks tacti-cool,and probably is cool,in engineering terms (a real advantage) These aesthetics are a bit subjective,agreed- but all of your claims are.Well,it bombed.Triangular ammo is a bit esoteric,but ditto. Once upon a time many many uS hunters said they would like a lever action with modern cf performance (in eg 308),and indeed savage had sold their excellent lever rifle quite steadily.But two new models bombed,when introduced-the trad guys stuck with the weaker 30/30 class,and the others didn't trade in bolt actions. Go figure.

Do you perhaps overlook the tight weight limits on some rifle classes-you mention Bench Rest-well,ounces do matter there-every ounce. It isn't of course the biggest market. Did we see the square scope here first-alas no,a picture might help! I'll concede Lego is a modular success story,but only because the angular modules ("square/right angled") have great functional generality,with some fair design ingenuity in marketing to a very young consumer group.

Modular really just means made up from smaller/interchangeable components-not sure rifles are that,but you could say 'tactical' instead-then it has to work better (fitter for purpose) -does the square scope do that-you just say it would look good-aesthetic,subjective. Coloured skins etc are marginal-the skins have to be functional,like a room-paint the walls as you will,but circular houses are going to be expensive to

carpet,though 'modular'.

OK we could go on;no point if your reply is just a repeat of "I haven't though it through,but it's neat idea-and I'm not going to address any points others raise". So be it,you're prerogative. I'm all for a better scope,rifle,mousetrap....whatever,but mobile phones are popular because they offer an exceptional and new option for lifestyles,not because they are oddball shapes for conventional land line phones.The difference is truly huge. Even Dali concedes his quirky crab design was a flop,commercially-even in color.

Mobile phones are not square,but rounded-easier on pockets-the military walkies were.But that isn't the big issue.Working vastly better was-and doing a whole lot more than just phoning.

 

As I said,good luck -new mouse traps sometimes make it,but they have to catch mice to catch on. :-)

atb

g

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't scoffing,but remain skeptical-not at all the same thing-just as 'modular' is not the same as 'angular'. I understand your defensiveness,but you simply repeat a view that different will be popular.Well,not so.

I gave an example-if you look at Remington's triangular barrel,it looks tacti-cool,and probably is cool,in engineering terms (a real advantage) These aesthetics are a bit subjective,agreed- but all of your claims are.Well,it bombed.Triangular ammo is a bit esoteric,but ditto. Once upon a time many many uS hunters said they would like a lever action with modern cf performance (in eg 308),and indeed savage had sold their excellent lever rifle quite steadily.But two new models bombed,when introduced-the trad guys stuck with the weaker 30/30 class,and the others didn't trade in bolt actions. Go figure.

Do you perhaps overlook the tight weight limits on some rifle classes-you mention Bench Rest-well,ounces do matter there-every ounce. It isn't of course the biggest market. Did we see the square scope here first-alas no,a picture might help! I'll concede Lego is a modular success story,but only because the angular modules ("square/right angled") have great functional generality,with some fair design ingenuity in marketing to a very young consumer group.

Modular really just means made up from smaller/interchangeable components-not sure rifles are that,but you could say 'tactical' instead-then it has to work better (fitter for purpose) -does the square scope do that-you just say it would look good-aesthetic,subjective. Coloured skins etc are marginal-the skins have to be functional,like a room-paint the walls as you will,but circular houses are going to be expensive to

carpet,though 'modular'.

OK we could go on;no point if your reply is just a repeat of "I haven't though it through,but it's neat idea-and I'm not going to address any points others raise". So be it,you're prerogative. I'm all for a better scope,rifle,mousetrap....whatever,but mobile phones are popular because they offer an exceptional and new option for lifestyles,not because they are oddball shapes for conventional land line phones.The difference is truly huge. Even Dali concedes his quirky crab design was a flop,commercially-even in color.

Mobile phones are not square,but rounded-easier on pockets-the military walkies were.But that isn't the big issue.Working vastly better was-and doing a whole lot more than just phoning.

 

As I said,good luck -new mouse traps sometimes make it,but they have to catch mice to catch on. :-)

atb

g

Thanks for your views and interest, I'll just touch on a few points, modular is my loose term for sqared/angular etc,and just look at accuracy international styles..angular,flat edge,'squared

there is a link to the squared design in diagram , as you would get post production,but easily pictured from that.

re: telephone design, I just meant to give an example how quickly design/shape (ignore functionality) can change and evolve with imagination & inspiration,let alone paying a design team for improvements...lol

a basic concept, is there to be adapted/incorperated and evolve and may end up looking much different to it's first appearance, BUT it has to be created to start with.

I liked the Remmy triagular barrel and considered getting one,but the integral muzzle brake put me off ! good luck to the designers and who knows, maybe the military will pick it up and develope it for use, thats what happens once it's out there (maybe they already have ?)

I imagine that when certain forces are rushed into combat zones with their equipment, there may have been a few occasions when they wished their scopes did'nt have to be realigned,and no time to do it.

I have put the designs on a MOD (DCO) site,and talked with people there, who have shown interest in them as a viable proposition, but believe me those wheels turn slowly and and they are used to dealing with huge contracts with highly proffesional companies and suppliers, they are open to the small fish,,but thats a long story

I have also had interest from a South Korean optics firm, but to be honest I dont have much trust in them lol

anyway, i'm not trying to sell you anthing & I respect your personal opinion ,your views and comments, I do not argue with your opinions , I try to protect my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The obvious problem, to me at least, is that many bases do not go square to the centreline due to mis-aligned fixing holes and loose tolerances and your scope 'keel' will prevent the scope from being able to be rotated to allow the turrets/crosshair to be correctly vertical, ie pemanantly canted reticles, not what I would want anyway.

 

Richard.

Good point but my initial thoughts was on the cnc machining of the square body tube especially inside . This may need a new breed of machines and cutters just for the purposes . Indeed the cost would be considerable imho . Much easier to machine round stuff ! But may be wrong .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the objective lens ? Square ? Leupolds shaped lenses type scopes are quite hidiously expensive ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Thanks for your views and interest, I'll just touch on a few points, modular is my loose term for sqared/angular etc,and just look at accuracy international styles..angular,flat edge,'squared

there is a link to the squared design in diagram , as you would get post production,but easily pictured from that.

re: telephone design, I just meant to give an example how quickly design/shape (ignore functionality) can change and evolve with imagination & inspiration,let alone paying a design team for improvements...lol

a basic concept, is there to be adapted/incorperated and evolve and may end up looking much different to it's first appearance, BUT it has to be created to start with.

I liked the Remmy triagular barrel and considered getting one,but the integral muzzle brake put me off ! good luck to the designers and who knows, maybe the military will pick it up and develope it for use, thats what happens once it's out there (maybe they already have ?)

I imagine that when certain forces are rushed into combat zones with their equipment, there may have been a few occasions when they wished their scopes did'nt have to be realigned,and no time to do it.

I have put the designs on a MOD (DCO) site,and talked with people there, who have shown interest in them as a viable proposition, but believe me those wheels turn slowly and and they are used to dealing with huge contracts with highly proffesional companies and suppliers, they are open to the small fish,,but thats a long story

I have also had interest from a South Korean optics firm, but to be honest I dont have much trust in them lol

anyway, i'm not trying to sell you anthing & I respect your personal opinion ,your views and comments, I do not argue with your opinions , I try to protect my own.

 

 

Please - do not put any of your own money into this line of development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy