BluRidgDav
New member
Everyone (including me) likes the Burris MTAC in the lower 1-4x24mm configuration. Nice reticle and a true 1X for CQB.
But, I was looking at the next model up in the MTAC line, the 1.5-6x42mm, in order to get more long range precision for hunting, while keeping the same illuminated reticle, and hopefully only giving up a "little" at CQB distances. Then I looked at the Field-of-View specs: WOW! What happened?
The 1-4x24mm model has a FOV of 100-32 feet thru it's magnification range, while the 1.5-6x42mm model has only 33-13 feet.
How can the FOV on the larger scope at it's lowest (widest) setting (1.5X), be only barely equal to the smaller scope at it's highest (narrowest) setting (4X)???
For comparison, I have a Leupold 1.75-6x32mm, that has a fairly generous FOV of 51-19 feet, given it's magnification range. So, the Burris 1.5-6x is also much narrower than other scopes in the same magnification range. Strange?
But, I was looking at the next model up in the MTAC line, the 1.5-6x42mm, in order to get more long range precision for hunting, while keeping the same illuminated reticle, and hopefully only giving up a "little" at CQB distances. Then I looked at the Field-of-View specs: WOW! What happened?
The 1-4x24mm model has a FOV of 100-32 feet thru it's magnification range, while the 1.5-6x42mm model has only 33-13 feet.
How can the FOV on the larger scope at it's lowest (widest) setting (1.5X), be only barely equal to the smaller scope at it's highest (narrowest) setting (4X)???
For comparison, I have a Leupold 1.75-6x32mm, that has a fairly generous FOV of 51-19 feet, given it's magnification range. So, the Burris 1.5-6x is also much narrower than other scopes in the same magnification range. Strange?
Last edited: