Burris MTAC 1.6-6x42, what happened to the FOV?

BluRidgDav · August 3, 2014, 11:21 AM

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?

Unlicensed Dremel · August 3, 2014, 12:10 PM

Well, it's weird - and true. There's something about building a scope that FOV obtainable is much higher for some reason with a smaller objective lens than with a larger, all things being roughly equal. You see this a LOT with various makers - so many with the 20mm, 24mm, and 28mm objectives have tremendously good FOVs, but the larger 32s, 36s, and 40s do not. Too bad. I'm also a big fan of the MTAC 1.5-6x40. But I guess it's just one of those tradeoffs that there's no end run around.

FOV correlates *mostly* to magnific. (the less the magnif, the bigger/better the FOV). But there are other smaller factors affecting FOV too when the magnif. is the same. Apparently, one of them is objective lens size, near as I can tell.

BluRidgDav · November 3, 2018, 11:59 AM

4 years later update:

Found an MTAC 1.5-6x42mm version with the Ballistic AR reticle for a price that I couldn’t resist. It turns out that some of the specs listed for this scope on the Burris website are way off! (Both good and bad.)

The FOV with my 1.5-6x42mm MTAC is at least as wide as my 1-4x24mm MTAC, except of course when you crank it up to 5-6X. I think that the 1.5-6x42mm FOV specs may actually be listed in meters instead of feet? So, FOV is good.

The Ballistic AR reticle is much better for precision shooting at longer ranges, while the Ballistic CQ reticle is better for faster shooting at shorter distances. Each style has a purpose.

The 1.5-6x42mm version is much heavier! The Burris website lists it as 15.5 oz, but, mine weighs over 20 oz. The 1-4x24mm weight spec is accurate at 14.5 oz.

Overall, I’m pleased with both scopes for different reasons. Interestingly, the 1.5-6x42mm versions are often sold at a deeper discount. Maybe the incorrect FOV specs are scaring buyers away?

August 3, 2014, 11:21 AM	#1
BluRidgDav Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 2001 Posts: 314	Burris MTAC 1.6-6x42, what happened to the FOV? 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? __________________ Watch your top-knot. Last edited by BluRidgDav; August 3, 2014 at 12:05 PM.

November 3, 2018, 11:59 AM	#3
BluRidgDav Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 2001 Posts: 314	4 years later update: Found an MTAC 1.5-6x42mm version with the Ballistic AR reticle for a price that I couldn’t resist. It turns out that some of the specs listed for this scope on the Burris website are way off! (Both good and bad.) The FOV with my 1.5-6x42mm MTAC is at least as wide as my 1-4x24mm MTAC, except of course when you crank it up to 5-6X. I think that the 1.5-6x42mm FOV specs may actually be listed in meters instead of feet? So, FOV is good. The Ballistic AR reticle is much better for precision shooting at longer ranges, while the Ballistic CQ reticle is better for faster shooting at shorter distances. Each style has a purpose. The 1.5-6x42mm version is much heavier! The Burris website lists it as 15.5 oz, but, mine weighs over 20 oz. The 1-4x24mm weight spec is accurate at 14.5 oz. Overall, I’m pleased with both scopes for different reasons. Interestingly, the 1.5-6x42mm versions are often sold at a deeper discount. Maybe the incorrect FOV specs are scaring buyers away? __________________ Watch your top-knot.

August 3, 2014, 12:10 PM	#2
Unlicensed Dremel Junior member Join Date: February 13, 2014 Location: Flathead Valley, MT Posts: 2,187	Well, it's weird - and true. There's something about building a scope that FOV obtainable is much higher for some reason with a smaller objective lens than with a larger, all things being roughly equal. You see this a LOT with various makers - so many with the 20mm, 24mm, and 28mm objectives have tremendously good FOVs, but the larger 32s, 36s, and 40s do not. Too bad. I'm also a big fan of the MTAC 1.5-6x40. But I guess it's just one of those tradeoffs that there's no end run around. FOV correlates mostly to magnific. (the less the magnif, the bigger/better the FOV). But there are other smaller factors affecting FOV too when the magnif. is the same. Apparently, one of them is objective lens size, near as I can tell.