Generous eye relief?

[Keithg]

In many scope reviews I always hear or read, "generous eye relief." Specifically, I'm talking about the low power variable scopes of 1-6x or 1-8x. It looks like the average eye relief is 3.5" for these low power variables. To the question, what does generous eye relief mean? Is there such thing as un-generous eye relief?

[Mobuck]

"Is there such thing as un-generous eye relief?"
Some of the older scopes were sort of "un-generous" at 2-2.5".

I'd call 3.5" common. 4-6" used to be called intermediate and more than 6" was long or "scout length".

[jimbob86]

...... un-generous eye relief thanks a good sight picture with a cut to the eyebrow, if your form is lacking? maybe unforgiving is a better word.

[NoSecondBest]

I never got "scoped" until I was 63 years old, and I shoot a LOT. It was with a very light TC In-line muzzle loader and it had a scope on it with around 3.25" of eye relief. With a 50 cal. 250g bullet it came back and bit me....pretty good I might add. I ended up replacing that scope with a Leupold variable that had 3.75-4.25" of eye relief along with a good field of view. I'd call anything close to 4" generous. Chances are you'll never get "scoped" with 3.75" and up. When you're at 3", you're in dangerous territory with large calibers or heavy recoiling rifles. Very light guns add to this because they don't absorb as much energy at the shot.

[jmr40]

To me generous starts at 4". I won't buy a scope with less than 3.5" of eye relief at the max magnification and like 4" much better.

MOST scopes will have more eye relief at lower magnifications, but some are the same. Be careful, many will advertise 3.5", but that is on the lowest magnification. Change to the higher magnification and you'll have 3" or less.

This is generally the 1st thing I consider when looking at scopes and a big reason I've liked Leupold. Most of them will be near 4" at the higher magnification and near 5" at the least. Zeiss and many others are 3.75-4" at all magnifications.

Scout type and handgun scopes are a different animal altogether. You can have too much eye relief and there are some serious drawbacks to using the scout scopes. Unless there is simply no other way to mount a scope on a particular rifle they should be avoided.

I'm not at all concerned about getting hit with a scope. Generous eye relief simply makes the scope much easier to get behind. When shooting off a bench under ideal conditions eye relief is really a non factor. In fact many target scopes have very little eye relief.

But on a hunting rifle it can make a big difference. You often have to shoot from unconventional positions where it is hard to get the rifle mounted perfectly. One of the hardest shots to make is for an animal to appear over the right shoulder of a right handed shooter. Unless they are far enough away to not see you turn your whole body it is tough, even tougher with a shorter eye relief scope.

Heavy jackets and winter clothing move the scope farther from your eye and make it much harder to get lined up on a scope. The more eye relief you have the easier it is.

[T. O'Heir]

Most scopes, not so very long ago, had 3" eye relief. Never seen one with less than that. So 3.5" is generous.
'Generous eye relief', like the word 'tactical', is a marketing term.

[jimbob86]

In 2012, my nephew broke his nose and cut his eye with a 3"eye relief scope ..... Inexperienced shooter, snap shot from a bad position .... In the middle of nowhere.... A mile from a vehicle, 2 miles from a road, and 40 miles from the ER...... That will ruin a guy's hunt .....
He did drop the deer, tho .....

[jimbob86]

Scout type and handgun scopes are a different animal altogether. You can have too much eye relief and there are some serious drawbacks to using the scout scopes. Unless there is simply no other way to mount a scope on a particular rifle they should be avoided.

Sounds like someone who refused to diligently work at using one or getting it set up right ...... and is so set in his ways that there are only two paths ...his way and the hi-way ....

They do have drawbacks..... and advantages.... I've tried them .... they are fast .... if a bit less precise than a high magnification scope .... but a good enough shot in time beats a perfect shot not made at all.....

[ilmonster]

Generous eye relief to me means a scope that won't kiss me when mounted on my Marlin 1895 in 45-70. I use a Vortex 2-8 with 4" of eye relief. Wouldn't use less than 4" on that rifle.

[Dranrab]

I would highly recommend avoiding using manufacturers numbers as the gospel. You simply have to get behind the scope and see how it does for you.

[3Crows]

I think the definition of "generous" eye relief might depend upon the cartridge being loaded into the breach. On my Marlin 17HMR an inch is generous, on my Marlin 45-70 that would hardly do, more like four inches and I still wear eye shields if it is loaded up above cowboy level.

[reinert]

All my Leupolds have great eye relief (4 and maybe a bit more inches). Thankfully, I've never been scope cut, but I've had a few "touch" my brow through the years. I can only imagine that a serious scope cut incident could have a bad (and newly acquired) flinch potential to overcome.

[fourbore]

Nikon used to make the Omega blackpowder scope in a 1-4x version that provided some good service in my hard kicking rifles. I think the eye relief was around 5 inch and not at all critical.

A true scout scope is going to provide too much eye relief for conventional mounting. I used a scout a savage striker pistol with a less conventional up close hold.

[bamaranger]

Eye relief refers to the distance of ones eyball to the face of the rear lens, in which a full sight picture can be maintained while looking through the scope. By sight picture I mean full use of the field of view, with no blacked out edges or diminishing of the "window". As a rule a lot of older scopes were a bit less forgiving, newer scopes better. I have a K12 that has a very limited eye relief range. I can tell a difference between my Burris Fullfields (USA) and most of my Leupold of equal value, the Leuy's being more forgiving. I've only been smacked by a scope once, a full length 4x Tasco on a 3"-12 ga mag, for a turkey gun experiment. That convinced me that combo was a no-no, but a Leupold 2.5x compact worked well on my gun and a pals. Those little Leupolds are advertised as generous, and they are indeed.

BTW, scout scopes are typically "intermediate" eye relief. Pistol scopes are "long" . Some pistol scopes will work when mounted in the intermediate "scout" position forward of the action. But a IER scope will usually NOT work on a handgun.

[Pahoo]

bamaranger

Eye relief refers to the distance of ones eyball to the face of the rear lens, in which a full sight picture can be maintained while looking through the scope. By sight picture I mean full use of the field of view, with no blacked out edges or diminishing of the "window". As a rule a lot of older scopes were a bit less forgiving, newer scopes better.

Well stated and spot-on. There are too many shooters that have been injured by the scope bell. About six months ago, I ran into an M/L shooting buddy and he had a crescent shaped fresh scar, on his cheek. Did not have to ask how it got there. When you see scopes listed for Shotgun or M/l's, they will have longer eye reliefs that most rifle scopes. Eye relief can be measure quite easily by yourself, if in question.

Be Safe !!!

[THE]

Doesn't magnification have an impact on eye relief ?

[Pahoo]

Doesn't magnification have an impact on eye relief ?

Not really or at least, not as I understand it. Eye relief is a "set" property regardless of magnification. Yes, your field may change but the relief is still the same, if properly set. ......

Be Safe !!!

[Don Fischer]

To this day I have never knew what the eye relief on any scope I've had was. When I have the scope set to the proper length for looking through, I simply call it good. Scoped myself only in my life. Crawled up on the stock of a 7mm mag a bit to much.

[jimbob86]

To this day I have never knew what the eye relief on any scope I've had was. When I have the scope set to the proper length for looking through, I simply call it good. Scoped myself only in my life. Crawled up on the stock of a 7mm mag a bit to much.

I got very interested in the subject in November 2012 ..... maybe I'm inordinately concerned with stuff like that not happening again to me and mine ...... stuff like that happens ..... don't let it happen to you and yours.

[Scorch]

Long time ago, a friend told me that the Bushnell scope he wanted was "just as good" as the Leupold I had put on my rifle. Eye relief on that scope was 2-3/4" per the information in the box. In one day, he scoped himself 3 times (first one was just a painful swollen bump, second time it bled for a couple of minutes, 3rd time was the end of the hunt). Next time we went out, his rifle had a brand new Leupold scope on it.

The issue is not always just eye relief, but how critical the eye relief is. The Bushnell previously mentioned had 2-3/4" eye relief, no more or less. Leupold information used to describe an "eye relief box" that went from about 3" to 4" so you could set the scope up and still be able to move your head forward or backward a bit to allow for different shooting angles and not get "scoped".

[NoSecondBest]

In one day, he scoped himself 3 times (first one was just a painful swollen bump, second time it bled for a couple of minutes, 3rd time was the end of the hunt)

I can sympathize with the guys who have the crescent scar....I now have one myself. However, I have a little less for the guys who have the dreaded "X"....guess they didn't learn the first time. What can you say about the guy who gets it three times....in one day? Time for an intervention?

[JJ45]

That's why I like Leupolds....to me, eye relief and eye box (allowable error in eye positioning) dimensions are more important than slightly better brightness, clarity, definition, etc

I am basically a hunter and could care less about how repeatable, within reason, the adjustments are either, since unless I change loads I dial in and it stays.

Where I hunt it's usually necessary to put on some heavier cloths and length of pull and cheek weld are somewhat different than when shooting at paper in Summer time with a T-shirt on.

3" eye relief is NOT enough for me, although it works fine for others.

IMO, "generous eye relief is at least 4"

[Pahoo]

One mistake that "some" shooters make, is not to follow the safe firearm rule of ; Keep your finger off on the trigger, till your crosshairs are on the target. One hunter in our group, saw a buck and in his excitement, he shouldered his firearm and before it was anchored and had a good check-weld, The firearm went off. In the process of stopping the bleeding, he knew what he did wrong. ......
I would add that I too carry one of these scars on my cheek. ...

Be Safe !!!

[JJ45]

if you've shot enough, you probably got nicked by a scope at least once...another thing is COMB HEIGHT. A scope should be mounted low but more modern rifles seem to have a high comb and mounting a scope in low rings will cause you to tilt your face in an uncomfortable angle to get your eye down to see through the scope.

Everyone is built different but for me this is worse than having to "crawl" the stock because of a short eye relief scope....also, most of my rifles have had the length of pull shortened because I find factory stocks too long, and I'm not a small guy.

Rifles like the Marlin 336 or Savage 99 or older bolt guns can have scopes mounted in low rings without this problem but in rifles with higher combs a medium ring height usually works for me.

Couple this with adequate eye relief/eye box dimensions and the rifle then comes up quickly and naturally on target with head more upright and no need for unnatural gyrations to achieve a good sight picture.

[jimbob86]

One mistake that "some" shooters make, is not to follow the safe firearm rule of ; Keep your finger off on the trigger, till your crosshairs are on the target. One hunter in our group, saw a buck and in his excitement, he shouldered his firearm and before it was anchored and had a good check-weld, The firearm went off. In the process of stopping the bleeding, he knew what he did wrong. ......
I would add that I too carry one of these scars on my cheek. ...

if you've shot enough, you probably got nicked by a scope at least once...another thing is COMB HEIGHT. A scope should be mounted low but more modern rifles seem to have a high comb and mounting a scope in low rings will cause you to tilt your face in an uncomfortable angle to get your eye down to see through the scope.

Everyone is built different but for me this is worse than having to "crawl" the stock because of a short eye relief scope....also, most of my rifles have had the length of pull shortened because I find factory stocks too long, and I'm not a small guy.

Rifles like the Marlin 336 or Savage 99 or older bolt guns can have scopes mounted in low rings without this problem but in rifles with higher combs a medium ring height usually works for me.

It is (or so it seems to me to be) a trademark of "gun culture 2.0" ....having learned to shoot on low recoiling "platforms" .... they are not acquainted with good shooting form that lends itself to recoil management .... they did not grow up understanding that as sure as stoves were hot that a gun would knock the snot out of you if you did not hold onto it firmly .... good form, to include the buttstock firmly in the pocket of the shoulder and cheek "welded" to the stock, a natural point of aim, and sighting height set up to match comb height ..... just is not a habit for them , nor is forming that habit a concern .... they just write off learning that stuff in favor of trying to buy things that will solve the perceived problem of "too much recoil" .... ever lighter calibers and muzzle brakes and recoil pads and earmuffs combined with plugs .... not that these things can't help matters, but it seems to me that they are dumping huge amounts of money into a house that has a dirt foundation.....