Talk:Telescopic sight

over and under
The over and under type of mounting, in which the ironsight are still visible (useful for lineing up with a target more easily, and following a near target) under the scope, ill try to work on it but im short on time --Norton112200 01:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

no title
Telescopic crosshairs can be any figure, so they often are in shapes that are supposedly superior to the usual simple opaque rectangle of iron sights. The lines of telescopic crosshairs are thinner, making the target more visible "around" the crosshair. This particular advantage can only be copied with iron sights through the both eyes open shooting skill, and then without magnification. Telescopic crosshairs often have features such as angle marking scales for range estimation and "leading" moving targets. Telescopic crosshairs often have figures to help find the part of the crosshair corresponding to the aimpoint.(needs checking) FET 03:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I edited the first and last pictures, I think they look better-- hope you agree :) If not, feel free to revert the change! Jellocube27 21:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Other Weapons
If scopes are also used for airguns and crossbows, should the intro sound more like:

(modified from the iron sights article)

A telescopic sight, commonly referred to as a scope, is a device used to give an accurate point of aim for weapons such as firearms, airguns, and crossbows. Other sighting systems are iron sights, red dot sights, and laser sights.

This article will concentrate on firearms sights; the principles described are equally applicable to any device which needs aiming. For the sake of brevity, the term gun will be used to indicate any device aimed by a telescopic sight, the term shooter will be used for the operator of said device, and the term target will be the object at which the device is being aimed. raptor 06:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll change it for now. raptor 09:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture of (not through) a scope
In my opinion this article would benefit from the addition of a picture of a scope that isn't through the optics. I've uploaded a picture of one of my scopes at Image:Swift687M.jpg but I'm having trouble adding it to the article in a way that doesn't mess up the formatting. Any ideas? -- Captaindan 00:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Feel free to edit the caption with more info, like power range, objective lens size, and tube diameter, if you have them handy, or I can look them up on Swift's website (assuming it's a current model) later.  scot 03:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Type/Mil-Dot repeated content
I'm too tired at the moment, but if someone would like to tidy up the repetitions between the "Type" and "Mil-Dot" sections (e.g. definitions of a milli-radian, formula), that would be cool. --Evanturner 09:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fiber optic cable
Why is'nt it also possible to implement a fiber optic cable in the gun's barrel ? This would eliminate the need of adjusting the scope every time to the distance of the target (as the barrel is directly aimed at it, and any correction would only be necessairy only over very long distance (which most guns/gun operators cannot target at in practice anyhow). Fiber optic cables could be implemented within the barrel, behind the firing mechanism and might also be adapted to allow magnification (via electronic way, ...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.194.160 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The assumptions on which you're basing this are invalid.
 * First, you assume bullet drop is negligable at short ranges, which is not true. A bullet starts to accelerate downwards as soon as it exits the barrel, and therefore drops immediately below the line of sight down the barrel.  Look at the discussion of  maximum point blank range for more information on that; rather than having the sights in line with the barrel, it's actually better in many applications to have them several inches above the barrel.  The only case where it's advantageous from an accuracy perspective to have the sights close to the line of the bore is when you're firing at very close ranges at small targets that vary significantly in range.  Based on the maximum point blank range calculations, for close range work you want the sights exactly 1/2 the target diameter above the bore line, which gives you a max point blank range started at range 0 and going out as far as possible given the external ballistics of the gun.
 * Second, you assume that optical fibers can transmit visual data. This is not correct; fiber optics can transmit light with very little loss over long distances, but they are not capable of transmitting a visual image.  The light is refracted and reflected at random as it passes through the fiber, which would distort any image beyond hope of reconstruction.  Do do what you're wanting, you'd need a rigid lens system.  A reflector telescope would be what you'd want, as they operate just fine even with an object running down the middle of the main reflector.  You'd want an offset secondary reflector, and that would go to the eyepiece.
 * And one last point; if there were a ballistics advantage to mounting the sights as close to the bore centerline as possible, then the simple solution would be to mount them to the side of the bore. That would put them on the same level, allowing you to vertically line the sight up with the bore, and give you a constant horizontal offset.  However, modern applications have been shifting towards higher velocity cartridges and higher lines of sight--see, for example, the M-16 rifle and AK-74, both of which have high sight lines.  There are other issues involved as well, such as controlling recoil (the M-16, for example, recoils straight into the shoulder to control muzzle rise) and ergonomics, but but in general, as long as the bullet is going to curve down, you're better off with sights above the bore line.  scot 20:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Most used scopes
Perhaps some extra examples should be given. Especially the inexepensive russian scopes are not represented. These are the 91/30 PU rifle scope and the Dragunov POSP rifle scope and PILAD rifle scope

Links:
 * PU rifle scope 1
 * PU rifle scope 2


 * POSP and PILAD rifle scope —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.170.76 (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

copyright infringement on image
The S&B P4 reticle image was used without my permission. The original is here http://demigodllc.com/photo/SRM-2006.06/?small=B100_1199_img.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zak Smith (talk • contribs) 04:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

New technology that might be used to make new types of scopes
Perhaps the techology found at This page might be used to make new (and inexpensive?) scopes.

Note that besides the company in singapore, other companies too have developed similar technology. See variable focus liquid lens (perhaps a article might be created in wiki bearing the same name, and placed under "lenses") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.175.167 (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.169.14 (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure how well they'd do under the shock loading they're going to get from recoil. On the other hand, if they could handle the shock, they'd make zoom lens assemblies much more compact.  scot 13:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

History section
Somebody should add one. --Cancun771 (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Colonel Marksman (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Split from header. needs to be expanded considerably.username 1 21:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

New article
How much opposition would there be if i created a parent article for: Telescopic sight, iron sights, reflex sights, and laser sights? username 1 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia already has a Category:Firearm sights, so your plan appears justified. These sights are however also found on other arms, so the subject has to expanded beyond fire arms.--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

American military optics
A reference would be good for the line "American GIs in Iraq and Afghanistan frequently purchase their own combat optics and carry them from home." that is presented in the Military Uses section of the article. I have heard tale of this, but never seen any references outside of anecdotes (typically someone trying to prove a point). As well I have heard that even if this was the case at the beginning of these conflicts it is no longer the case with the ACOG, EOTech, and Aimpoint CompM2 being standard issue for US forces. Either way true or not, the line could stand some reference and verification.--Saul T (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction concerning date of invention
In the history section a date of 1880 is claimed for the invention of a 'practical' telescopic sight, in Austria, yet in the Military section it's claimed scopes were used on rifles in the American Civil War. Other sources that I haven't tracked down apparently describe telescopic sights in the late 1830s and 1840's, albeit as developmental, rare and expensive.

The 1840's scopes being early developments doesn't contradict the first practical scope taking until 1880, but it seems like use in the civil war puts them pretty clearly in the realm of the practical by the 1860's. I see now that the Sniper Rifle article cites confederate sharpshooter use of scoped British Whitworth rifles, for 800 yard shots. Sounds practical to me...

I think I'll have to research the 1880 invention, and figure out how to correctly cover it. It may be that it was the first design leading to commercial success, or with features that have endured, or it may not be particularly significant. Hatchetfish (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Difficulties of use?
In an interview last month on BBC; Frederick Forsyth said "there's never been an /successful/ assassination of a high-profile political figure using a telescopic sight rifle (---) save President Kennedy". Of course, the Jackal uses a telescopic rifle too, but in real life it is (and he's no doubt correct) a very unusual mode of operation. Many people would be surprised, I certainly was. The telescope rifle is the obvious way to be able to get within shooting range in real time but stay hidden, even under heavy security measures. And it increases the range to at least four or five hundred meters, doesn't it? That is, to a distance where heavy police/secret service cordons are impracticable.

There's been lots of discussion about how easy or how difficult the shot from the Texas School Book Depository would have been to a reasonably trained rifleman: was it like shooting at a barn door or an almost impossible feat (disregarding the issues of the bullet trajectories and just looking at the chances of achieving good hits on JFK's head). Considering that the distance was just around 90 m and the car was moving slowly and steadily closer to tha sniper's/Oswald's position (and then slowly turning to the side in full view from the window), it doesn't sound that impossible to me, but in any case, the JFK killing really publicized the possibility to use a telescope sight. If Forsyth is right, why haven't we seen more of this kind of assassination, not even in the third world apparently? The article discusses the disadvantages some people have with it, but are those disadvantages so hard to work off that they would be a crippling block to using the telescopic rifle as a tool for assassinations? I am not professionally interested, just bewildered. ;) Strausszek (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Vintage rifle scopes
In the history section of the article, the older rifle scopes (not refractory) are not well described. Ie how were they built/what are the design differences with the refractory scopes and how did they compare to them (ie were they that much better ?). I also think it is useful to look into the cost comparison/ease of production of the two. Finally, it should be mentioned that the older (non-refractory) scopes can still be bought today, ie on (link removed per WP:LINKSPAM-Source soliciting), (link removed per WP:LINKSPAM-Source soliciting) , (link removed per WP:LINKSPAM-Source soliciting) , (link removed per WP:LINKSPAM-Source soliciting), (link removed per WP:LINKSPAM-Source soliciting) , (link removed per WP:LINKSPAM-Source soliciting) ... This, to fulfill in the needs of Cowboy Action Shooting competitions, and Civil War reenactments, or special shooting competitions.

91.182.176.96 (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Crossbow scopes
Can crossbow scopes be mentioned here ? It also seems that the prices of these are far lower than that of rifle scopes; see (link removed per WP:LINKSPAM-Source soliciting) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.227.206 (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph on "parallax setting"
"It is relatively easy to adjust the parallax setting of most rifle scopes by carefully rotating the objective lens within the scope tube either backwards, to increase the parallax range, or forward to reduce the parallax range. This is done by using a known distance, and obtaining the clearest reticle and sight picture, at the highest magnification."

The above paragraph simply (redundantly) restates whats in the section it was added to in the form of advice. It also contradicts the section above it since it states "It is relatively easy to adjust the parallax setting of most rifle scopes" and two paragraphs above states "Most telescopic sights lack parallax compensation". It also seems to be advice about zoom scopes. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't "restate". What the editor is trying to say, is that for scopes with no dedicated parallax adjustment one can adjust the parallax by the method described. This isn't covered in the paragraph, which only covers two other options. As such I think it worthy of entry, even if it does need a slight tidy up. Stephenjh (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining what it is. Its a very vague observation by (some) editor that this can be done (guess it assumes the objective can be moved by cranking the cell thread and that there is a zoom eyepiece). And that's the problem, its an observation (WP:OR) inserted as advice (WP:NOTGUIDE). Adjustable objective lens "threaded" is already described (although that could be better explained) and this could be added to that bullet point along the lines of "hmm... some people are making there own adjustments via slightly unscrewing the objective on fixed sights". That observation would have to have several reliable, published sources before it would be encyclopedic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No zoom eyepiece is required, this works on scopes of fixed magnification aswell. Unless you mean eyepieces that are adjustable for focus (which most are). It's not just an observation, it's a tried, tested and trusted method used by many (including myself) for adjusting parallax down to shorter ranges (when no parallax adjustment is provided by the manufacturer) and this is what is missing from the paragraph on parallax adjustment. As it stands now, it's simply incorrect... and that is not encyclopeadic either. Stephenjh (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Manipulating the objective lens on a cheap scope might work as a do it yourself method for adjusting parallax. On contemporary high end scopes doing this is not a good idea, since these scopes are generally factory sealed and filled with nitrogen gas to counter fogging of optical elements in cold environments. The sealing on such telescopes also provides rainproofing or sometimes even waterproofing to a certain water depth to make them suitable for use in bad weather and harsh environments.--Francis Flinch (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheap or expensive makes no difference, as long as the lens is accessible, and one doesn't 'break a seal' by turning a lens on a thread. Stephenjh (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding this to the article is a simple matter -> type it in, click the insert reference button, and add some WP:RS. Observing that you see it "used by many" it is not a reference, it is WP:OR. Wikipedia articles are not advice columns, no matter how good (or bad) the advice is. I can see this added as a report on a phenomenon, not as giving advice re: "There are instances of users adjusting the parallax on fixed parallax telescopic sights via unscrewing the front lens cell to change the spacing between the objective and the reticle,[1] although this has been known to compromise the seal on the instrument.[2]" Some hint at reference--> (although not much). Better to have online or print magazine/book refs. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll assume you didn't mean to sound patronising. Can you source any known instances of seals being compromised? Considering the amount a lens need be turned (<1/4 - 1/2 turn in most cases), I find it hard to believe and have not heard of anyone ever having a problem. Stephenjh (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't mean to sound patronizing, just that these debates are a bit pointless because they have a simple answers, "show me the reference" (well... show all of us). If sources seem unclear on this it does not mean we figure it out in talk, it just means it shouldn't be in Wikipedia (says that right at the top of WP:V). We can all google this and see if any RS comes up. I am not opposed to integrating it in the article since I can see some reference to it (but not allot). My own OR as a sometimes optical engineer is optical systems like this use O-rings or, in something cheap, a glue seal, so any amount of un-screwing is going to break the seal, bad idea. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

William Malcolm- wrong link.
The William Malcolm mentioned in the article is said to have done his work in the 1800s, yet the hyperlink attached to his name takes you to a revolutionary war William Malcolm who died in the 1790's. It is either the wrong link or the linked page is incorrect on dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.25.246.105 (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Usage of common term "scope"
you have been reverted twice (1, 2) regarding the common term scope. Without reverting again, would you please explain why you think this common term does not belong. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Its simple, A Telescopic Sight, is not a scope — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sezess (talk • contribs) 21:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources disagree with you so I have reverted you again. You really need to give some other reason besides your own opinion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Scope is a very common term, widely used, and should remain in the lede. --Dmol (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Telescopic sight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101024174728/http://www.snipercountry.com:80/Articles/1860TargetRifle.asp to http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/1860TargetRifle.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101118020825/http://americanfirearms.org/history.php to http://www.americanfirearms.org/history.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141105074740/http://bestriflescope.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/6_24x72_SAM.pdf to http://bestriflescope.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/6_24x72_SAM.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101115073542/http://www.eaw.de:80/eaw/index_uk.php to http://www.eaw.de/eaw/index_uk.php/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718232707/http://www.eaw.de/eaw/webkatalog/EAW_Katalog_2010_HQ.pdf to http://www.eaw.de/eaw/webkatalog/EAW_Katalog_2010_HQ.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

James Lind sight
You reverted an edit on the history of Telescopic sight citing primary ref violation. It appears the James Lind reference could be a secondary ref, or if primary it is an important event warranting exception. This document is certainly relevant to this page based on the heading, although since the text is paywalled I cannot verify (hopefully you have access?). Seems like a relevant document to keep in the historical section. I am not reverting your revert since you're obviously more familiar with telescopes/astronomy than myself, but I'd kindly request you give the reference further consideration. Regards, SloppyTots (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was not basing my edit on my knowledge of telescopes/astronomy but, instead, on Wikipedia policy. An account by Lind about Lind is a primary source, "if primary it is an important event" - that is the problem. We, as editors, can not use a primary source to claim something was an "important event" - Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.. I do not see any secondary sourcing that takes this point of view. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, I don't see any evidence this is a primary source nor is there such thing as a Lind sight. I haven't seen any publications indicating Lind developed a mounted telescope, hence this article seems to be a general review. I meant "important event" in the context of it being a rare 1770s review of scopes hence historically relevant. Unfortunately I do not have access to the paywalled Wellcome Collection database to definitively say either way. Hopefully another editor with access can weigh in. SloppyTots (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually you were correct about the Lind sight and primary ref. page 50. https://books.google.com/books?id=Zu6oCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=James+Lind+telescopic+sight&source=bl&ots=75YchQD8fQ&sig=ACfU3U2kxibVirHVXVVc7181YtwEFggj0g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjS94zdgKj0AhVisDEKHUjGBuIQ6AF6BAgUEAM#v=onepage&q=James%20Lind%20telescopic%20sight&f=false ... thanks for catching this. SloppyTots (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You kind of missed the point there. An edit like this needs to be cited to a secondary source ABOUT telescopic sights that says this is was an an important event. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The closest document I could find is this timeline on page 94, https://books.google.com/books?id=9jEcAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=rifle+telescopic+sights+1776+lind&source=bl&ots=RjWqL6JN9c&sig=ACfU3U2fcEBrUSyzCkp2HebXBkRrbogrVg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjM047j76n0AhUPSTABHcJLDSAQ6AF6BAguEAM#v=onepage&q=rifle%20telescopic%20sights%201776%20lind&f=false ; your call on adding this or not. Regards, SloppyTots (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I noted below, this article is a mess as to any of the claims it makes in the history section, the referencing is sub par. Lind would be a trivial mention at best and definitely not on the level of Rittenhouse but the history section that would put that in perspective has yet to be written. So self reverting myself for now until that day comes. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

History section problems
The history section makes allot of claims but the citations are very poor, user generated, dead sites, and what look like copyright violations. Needs quite a bit of work. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

First documented case
Russian article has earlier documented case of telescopic sight invented by Nartov. Can we use other languages sources for English wiki articles, or should it be translation? 172.242.60.248 (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)