New Jersey Hunters banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

BowhunterNJ

· Registered
Joined
·
10,130 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
So I was scouting out a new scope for a new ML and came across Nikon's "muzzleloading" scope, the Omega, which has a 5" eye relief. I'm trying to figure out why you need that extra ~1.5" of eye relief that the Omega offers when shooting an ML vs a shotgun or centerfire rifle.

Any reason why that much eye relief is needed?
I'm shooting an older Burris Fullfield on my current ML, but it's only No.11 caps and BP...going to 209s and BH209.

I'm leaning towards the more inexpensive Nikon Prostaff, but the Omega and it's 5" eye relief caught my attention and begged the question...why?
 
Snap shooting it comes in handy too, you can pick up a full field of view alot quicker.
 
I'm trying to figure out why you need that extra ~1.5" of eye relief that the Omega offers when shooting an ML vs a shotgun or centerfire rifle.

Any reason why that much eye relief is needed?
Why do you need 5"?...You don't!

Why does it have 5" then?...Marketing Hype targeted at the "more the better crowd".

JC
 
I like long eye relief scopes on my ML's not because of recoil but due the amount of clothes I wear during cold days on stand during ML season. The generous eye relief allows you to get a good sight picture without creeping up the stock. I don't think it is necessary but it helps.
 
Discussion starter · #10 ·
I'm actually thinking about stepping down to the Prostaff in 3-9x40. I've never shot any scope with 5" eye relief, so I don't think I need it.

I also have a Burris Fullfield 3-9x40 on my current ML, but plan on moving it over to my dad's ML replacing an older scope that is currently on there. The Burris is quite nice for the price, used it for many years with much success.

I have Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40s on my 30-06 and my H&R, but it's overkill for the H&R...maybe :D

I'd like a camo scope to match the gun...do I need it nah, but I want it. Burris makes one, Nikon makes several...just narrowing down on which one in the 3-9x40 and sub $400 range. I also like standard duplex or heavy-duplex reticles over the BDC...albeit I've never shot a BDC but getting the ballistics to match the reticle seems like it might be problematic if you wanted to shoot a certain bullet and powder charge (i.e. the most accurate load may not align with the reticle's adjustments?)

One thing I read was a recommendation on a one piece (larger) base since you may need some adjustability given the eye relief on the Omega.
 
Discussion starter · #12 ·
xpert, I'm not sure I disagree.

If you need 5" for an ML in cold weather hunting, then that would say...you'd also need it while shotgun/rifle hunting, no? Yet most riflescopes are in the 3.5-4.0 (some 4.5) range (assuming ~3-10x).

I can see using it if you had some major recoil factor, but I don't think ML's have more than certain rifles/shotguns, no? And even then, the recoil (distance traveled) is relative assuming good form and proper scope positioning (in the rings/base)

It's also interesting how most scopes are ranged eye relief wise (I'm assuming depending on power selected), i.e. 3.8-4.2" of eye relief for a 3-9x40mm...yet the Omega (and even the Prostaff) is a fixed 5" (3.6" for the Prostaff) of eye relief regardless of power selected. Curious to know how that works.

Regardless, the Omega definitely seems to have some good reviews, but then again many of the Nikons do.
 
who cares if u need it or not, id rather have my eye 5 inches away from a huge chunk of metal with glass in it then the normal 2.5-3 inches away!! especially when i have 150 gr. of gunpowder under that scope ready to fly back at me...need it no....nice to have yes...
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts