The answer to the question is yes, regardless of what Brownells says. I believe much of what they say is just wrong.
There are two types of telescopes (and a rifle scope is a telescope): refracting and reflecting. A rifle scope is a refracting telescope. He was misled by the analogy he drew, and the amount of the light let in by the scope is certainly a function of the diameter of the objective lens. If the tube diameter is small, the degree of convexity of the lens must be more extreme, but that’s the point with an objective lens with a different diameter than the tube.
In fact, in theory it’s possible to capture enough light with a very large objective diameter and highly convex lens that it would blind you regardless of the diameter of the tube.
The diameter of the objective lens affects more than just the field of view. It also affects the amount of light captured.
Here’s the next installment of “where did they get the money to build that gun anyway?”
This time it’s over 2 miles, with a 8 – 9 second wait time for the bullet, and from the comments, “28 MOA at 3850, that’s what..1070 inches, just shy of 90 feet windage??? wow…”
The commenter is rounding for MOA. I get closer to 94 feet for windage holdoff.
Of course I don’t know the future, but here’s a prediction. Feel free to remind me of this post if I turn out to be wrong (I hope I’m wrong).
Any future winner of machine gun contracts with SOCOM will be foreign, not U.S. manufacturing.
One thing the ban on machine guns fabricated after 1968 has done is stop development in open bolt weapon systems in the U.S.
With FN the manufacturer was at least connected to American intellectual abilities with John Moses Browning. Now with the worship of Sig, H&K and others, I suspect the die is cast.
3 years, 9 months ago
