Searching for Long Range Scope for my DPMS LR-308.. PLEASE HELP

[4Freedom]

Thanks again for all the good advice. Some say don't buy the good optics, some say DO buy the good optics. Well, I would love to save money, but I feel if I get a nice optic it would serve me well for many years.

You have a rifle that isn't considered to be a long distance shooter (aka more then 500 yards).

I think you are mistaken about the type of gun I have. The DPMS LR-308 can easily shoot out to 1000 yards as I am told. It is a 24" Heavy SS Bull Barrel in .308 caliber, it is not an AR-15. I said my other guns are AR-15s and on those I have closer range optics. I am going to use my LR-308 as my long range gun and I hear it has been claimed to be as or more accurate than many bolt guns at 1000 yards.

taliv speaks very wisely. I say, go ahead and get the best you can afford - but you need to ask yourself - since you cannot get something for nothing - there's always a tradeoff - do you REALLY want to spend $1,600, or some lesser amount? Tell us the amount you actually realistically are willing to part with, in light of the facts that yes you do get DIMINISHING returns with every hundred spent, but you DO GET returns!

I do like Taliv's advice and I am trying my best to follow it although I hear some opposing views. I don't see what is so great about buying a $500 scope that has a crappy warranty and one I cannot sell back. $500 is a lot of money and if I am going to fork out that much money, I might as well get one for a little more that is better and has better warranty. Personally, I like the idea of having a scope that is a better shooter than me. Why use crappy equipment that has the potential to make me shoot even worse. As one poster said, I cannot blame the equipment if I am shooting crappy. I don't care if people laugh at me and I am not planning on shoointg Long-Range competitions before I learn the basics. But I like to learn with a good scope.


As far as what I can afford. Well, I did write that many times now. I said I would spend $1600 for a scope that would really would blow awawy others in the $1000 range. However, I much rather not spend $1600 and pay $800-$1300. But, if someone can prove to me the great added benefits of a specific type of reticle or scope and that scope is above $1300 but below $1600, well perhaps I would buy it. I can finance the thing really goood and that is why I am even buying a scope. Had it not been for the 0% APR I would have waited a year to buy it anyway. These promotional APRs are stable, I never4 had CC company screw me on promotional APRs and I have maxed out my cards in past. Anyhow, contrary to what people think, I will not be in horrible debt and if the scope has a transferable lifetime warranty, it can easily be sold for most of what I paid, its not like I am stuck with it.

Well, I know I am new, but having a good reliable scope is something I think is important. Most of my money has been on things that may be banned. I suppose scopes and training won't be banned any time soon. I can wait a few years. However, I don't think I need a $4000 training course to learn how to use a scope, which I can learn on my gun in the mean time.

Right now, I am thinking about getting a Leupold Mark IV or Zeiss Conquest. People say Mark IV has better turrets and adjustments. Perhaps it would be a better long-range fighting/tactical scope vs. Zeiss, which produces a better image. I am also debating if I should go with 6-25 mag type of scope or 4-14 mag type of scope. Before I buy I will try to learn about each of the reticle . The Z1000 reticle of Zeiss looks very interesting, it seems Zeiss has more reticle options than Leupold Mark 4. I am not sure how practical or better they are than the Leupold's TMR or Mil-Dots. OF course, I was reading people sayign Zeiss is not a Tactical scope and should only be used for Benchrest shooting.


I am still not sure what to do, but thinking.

 

[MCMXI]

4Freedom,
Here's the TMR manual from Leupold which you may find useful. If you decide to buy a Mark 4 with the TMR reticle, and you decide to buy the SFP version where you'd need to be at the max magnification to use holdovers, you might want to use some ballistic software to calculate bullet drop, come ups in MOA and holdovers in Mils. For example, a 208gr A-MAX with a muzzle velocity of 2850 and a 100 yard zero will require a 4.4 mil holdover at 700 yards and a 5.4 mil holdover at 800 yards which means that you won't be able to use holdovers in excess of 750 yards. For a 200 yard zero, a 4.9 mil holdover is required for 800 yards so that'd be the maximum holdover range. .308 rounds will need higher holdover values so your effective range in which you can use holdovers will be reduced even further.

As far as I can tell, you won't have this "problem" with the NP-R1 reticle in the Nightforce since the stadia have a larger mil range (10 mils). The TMR reticle is superior to the NP-R1 reticle in ranging options and ranging accuracy but it looks like the NP-R1 has superior long-range holdover options. Just one more thing to consider.

 

[4Freedom]

1858, Do you have any comments baout the type of reticles that Zeiss scopes use? Like the Z1000 or crosshair type reticles. I am not really familiar with all this and I know I need to do some more studying. I think I can kinda understand the constant of the TMR reticle. It seems you really have to study a bit about your bullet ballistics to you is most effectively. I suppose a Mil-Dot reticle would be the simplest, yet the least accurate compared to a TMR used properly.

Also, I see Nightforces are the most expensive and I hear they have the worst customer service and a non-transferable warranty. This makes me a bit nervous of purchasing a Nightforce as my first scope. What is your take on Nightforce's warranty?

If I wanted a 6-24x scope it seems Leupold Mark 4, Zeiss Conquest, Swarovski, Bushnell Elite are the ones within my price range. I wonder if I would better getting a scope in lower mag range and going with a higher end model with a better reticle or a scope with a higher mag range and lower end model and not as good of a reticle.

 

[MCMXI]

4Freedom, I don't know anything about Zeiss scopes and if you plan on keeping the scope the Nightforce warranty should be sufficient but bear in mind, none of their scopes are FFP models (as far as I can tell). Also, the brightness adjustment for their illuminated reticles looks kind of crappy compared to the Leupold. Leupold does have FFP models but as I mentioned before, they won't have the illuminated reticle option. The fact that Leupold's warranty is lifetime AND transferable says something about their confidence in their product ... or they know something that we don't. Both the Mark 4 line and Nightforce have indexed matched lenses and brass innards along with other exotic features.

I would DEFINITELY choose a TMR reticle over a MilDot reticle ... no question. The TMR isn't hard to use and you'll soon get the hang of it. As for ballistics, long-range shooting is all about ballistics so regardless of which scope you buy, you'll have to learn about BC, velocity, bullet drop, come ups, holdovers, wind drift, mirage, MOA, Mils, range estimation, etc. Pulling the trigger is the easy part.

Anyway, I still stand by my original recommendation ... "the Mark 4 8.5-25x50mm ER/T M1 Front Focal" .... assuming that you won't miss the illuminated reticle.

taliv, you have a US Optics scope if I remember correctly. Is your scope the FFP type?

 

[taliv]

yes, it's an SN3 TPAL. afaik they are all FFP

btw, regarding warranty... i've never been a huge fan of warranties, mainly because i get SCREWED most times I try to make a claim. So I mostly try to buy from companies that have made a reputation on taking care of customers (e.g. Dillon) no matter what their actual warranty states.

but in cases where I can't, or don't know if the company is really that good or not, I list stuff on my extra property firearms rider to my home insurance. for example, my US Optics and Nightforce and Leupold and swarovski glass are all listed there. So if they are damaged or just break, I can get some compensation. since i have USAA's no BS insurance, that works well for me. (although, it adds a good bit to my premiums) I don't know if other insurance companies have the same deal or not.

 

[4Freedom]

But, don't Zeiss and Leupold stand behind their warranties? I always heard Leupold's customer service and warranties are best there is and they always honor it.

This is slightly off the subject, but can I put my guns and ammo on my Renter's Insurance policy? Never thought about that.

 

[MCMXI]

taliv, I'm surprised to see that none of the Nightforce scopes are FFP versions. I'm going to check out US Optics for sure.

4Freedom, as for warranty service ... Leupold is outstanding in that regard and their warranty really is worth the extra cost. I've had to send a Mark 4 back .... TWICE ... for the same problem. A piece of crap appeared on the reticle so I sent it back and after the next range session another piece appeared so back it went again. Both times the turnaround was about two weeks. The scope has been perfect since then. I believe in telling it like it is so it may be useful for some to hear that I might be sending my 8.5-25x back since I'm convinced that the reticle isn't aligned with the turrets. It's close, but once I installed a US Optics anti-cant level which I aligned with the outside bottom flat beneath the elevation turret, I realized that the reticle is slightly rotated. I installed another US Optics anti-cant level on my 6.5-20x the same way and it's perfect so I know something's up with the other one. The rotation will be a big problem at long range so I want to get it fixed while I'm working up loads for the .308.

 

[4Freedom]

So are you saying you think your Mark IV is no good? I never quite got the advantage of FFP. I suppose it scales the reticle to the size of your magnification? I think I need to reread about FFP vs SFP or can someone explain it to me in simple laymen's terms. Also, do you believe that other scopes have better reticles than the Mark IV? I mean, I know there is several types of scopes and reticles out there. Which scope would have the best reticle system which is not in the Leupold Mark IV price range? Anyone know the deal with the Zeiss reticles compared to Leupolds?

Because of all this confusion, maybe I will just get the Illuminated TMR Mark IV and just go with God. But, I am open to other suggestions.

There is no way I can afford a US Optics scope, unless you know someone who will sell me a used one. I hope it has a transferable warranty. LOL.

 

[MCMXI]

So are you saying you think your Mark IV is no good?

Definitely not! I think that the Mark 4 scopes are excellent and once I get this one back from Leupold I'm sure it'll be fine like the rest of my Mark 4s. Any scope can have a problem so the important thing is can it be corrected, how long will it take and how much will it cost. A reticle that is 1 or 2 degrees off will still work fine for many situations but I'm picky.

I never quite got the advantage of FFP. I suppose it scales the reticle to the size of your magnification? I think I need to reread about FFP vs SFP or can someone explain it to me in simple laymen's terms.

It's simple and here's something you can try sitting at the computer that will help you to understand the difference between front or first focal plane (FFP) reticles and second focal plane (SFP) reticles.

Front focal plane reticle

Grab an object in your left hand and hold it away from you at arms length. Now place your index finger (pointing towards the ceiling) about one inch in front of the object and close your weak eye. Look over the top of your index finger at the object in your left hand and note the size of your finger compared to the object. Now move the both the object and your finger slowly towards you (increasing magnification) keeping the object and your finger about an inch apart. You'll notice that the relative size of the object and your finger haven't changed but the object is closer to you and appears to be larger. In this example, your finger is the reticle.

Second focal plane reticle

Now place your right index finger (pointing towards the ceiling) 8 to 10 inches from your face, close your weak eye and hold the object in your left hand at arms length. Look over the top of your finger at the object and note the relative size of the object compared to your finger. Now move the object towards your finger (which isn't moving) slowly until it's an inch or two behind your finger (increasing magnification). You'll notice that the object now appears larger realative to your finger and that your finger hasn't appeared to change in size. In this example, your finger is also the reticle.

The important difference between the two is that for the FFP reticle, regardless of the magnification, the relative size difference between the reticle and the object of interest doesn't change which means that the stadia in the field of view represent absolute values rather than relative ones.

I hope this makes sense.

 

[GregGry]

$500 is a lot of money and if I am going to fork out that much money, I might as well get one for a little more that is better and has better warranty. Personally, I like the idea of having a scope that is a better shooter than me. Why use crappy equipment that has the potential to make me shoot even worse. As one poster said, I cannot blame the equipment if I am shooting crappy.

Show me a 400 to 600$ scope that is crap and wont be way above your abilities. At 400 to 600$ you are not dealing with was a airsoft scope, thats some serious cash for a scope, and you get a pretty nice scope at that. It really seems your trying to buy on cost and not on capabilities. I bet the resale of a nice 4 to 500 scope will be very good, and you will actually sell it. In todays market a 1,600$ scope is going to take a significant hit to what its worth, for the simple fact that people can buy a 400 to 700$ scope that is going to give very similar results (Even more so when your talking no training). Even then your scope is only worth what someone will pay. There isn't exactly a long list of people willing to buy a 1,600$ scope.

However, I don't think I need a $4000 training course to learn how to use a scope, which I can learn on my gun in the mean time.

Your right you don't. Sign up for a basic marksmanship training program. Doing it now will allow your pratice on your own to do more good then if you just plink away all day with bad habits. It wont cost you 4K either.


I absolutely stand firm that you should not invest anymore then 600$ on the scope, and spend the difference in what you are willing to go in debt for on ammo and training. There is no way a 1,000$ or 1,600$ scope is going to make you a better shot then a 600$ scope. Only shooting ammo will make you a better shot. Remember too after you become a much better shot your going to have to start using premium ammo to get the bast accuracy at longer ranges. Wolf isn't going to cut it at 600 yards.

 

[H2O MAN]

Their are many, many confusing options available to everyone considering optics and prices are all over the place.
I waited about 7 years to get my first "real scope". I purchased it used for hundreds less than the lowest advertised
price and it was well worth the wait. I'm now looking at a NightForce scope for my MK14 SEI Mod 0.

My advise is to take your time and shop for the pre-owned Leupold that you want

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

I will 2nd or 3rd the idea that since warranty is important to you (and it should be), that Leupold's warranty on ANY of their scopes cannot be beat by any other manufacturer, period. Maybe matched, but not beat. Therefore, it might be worth it to spend the same amount for a Loopy with slightly lesser optical quality than a Euro glass, at the same price, due to the warranty issue. Particularly if it's going on a big boomer / light rifle with a large recoil impulse.

But illuminating thread; I will see if I can figure out (in my opinion) what is the best VALUE in the $1,000-$1,600 price range, among those with a "bullet-proof" Leupold-style warranty....

P.S. Right now is a great time to buy certain Leupolds, because Leupold is completely re-vamping their glass type used in their scopes to some improved type, as I understand things, and so they are clearing out the existing stock, at much lower prices. Look around for this....got the info from a Leupold dealer.

 

[MCMXI]

4Freedom, check out poor_fish on Ebay ... I bought my Mark 4 spotting scope from him NIB for $475 ... must have been his first since every one after that went for around $900!! I also bought my Mark 4 6.5-20x from him at a great price. All of his Leupolds are factory original NIB and his prices are hard to beat. He's a really good seller in that he responds quickly to email, ships immediately and makes a profit by volume rather than markup.

There is no way a 1,000$ or 1,600$ scope is going to make you a better shot then a 600$ scope. Only shooting ammo will make you a better shot.

Folks that go on about how there $500 scope is every bit as good as a $1500 scope have one thing in common ... they've NEVER used a $1500 scope. Those of us that own high-end optics such as the Mark 4s, Nightforce, US Optics etc also have one thing in common ... we KNOW better since many, if not most of us, have used both over the years and have made an educated decision to upgrade what we soon realized wasn't working for us.

There are so many aspects to optics that aren't obvious. It's easy to compare the main features such as magnification, reticles, illumination, size, weight, objective lens diameter, index matched lenses, FFP, SFP, warranty, etc. but unless you've used a scope on YOUR rifle under different conditions such as low light, bright sun, looking through it for hours on end, changing the elevation, changing the windage, adjusting parallax, ranging objects, etc you really have no point of reference. Does your $500 scope always return to the same POI after you've dialed in 18 MOA of elevation and 7 MOA of windage a few hundred times ... I doubt it. Does your $500 scope keep zero after 500 rounds of .300 Win Mag ... I doubt it. When you adjust the elevation and windage on your properly aligned scope, does the reticle move along the X and Y axis ONLY ... I doubt it. Just calculate how much error 1 degree of rotation adds to a shot at 800 yards ... you'd be amazed.

For those of you who want to keep telling yourselves that your low-end scope is just as good as a high-end scope, and optics don't make a good shooter, just take a look and see what folks are using in long-range competitions be it benchrest or practical. Look at what the winners and the runner ups are using. Take a look at what folks buy when their LIVES depend on their optics, when they're out in the field for days or weeks on end with no option to send it back for repair.

You'll be surprised how quickly you can outgrow your equipment.

 

[hak]

another vote for NF

nightforce 3.5-15x56 with zerostop in NPR1 MOA reticle.

here with front shade on...

 

[4Freedom]

I am convinced Nightforce is just too expensive for me and out of my price range. It may be nice, but I also heard that their warranty is not the best, which really disturbs me for such an expensive scope. Seeing that I may want to carry the gun around with me and not just use it at a shooting match, there is a slight chance the scope could break. Also, I like the fact I can have a transferable warranty if I decide to sell the scope.

Well, the ER/T looks real nice and I assume an FFP is better reticle as it will give you more precision and easier ability to estimate distance of target. I need to read more about this and don't know the nuts and bolts of these differenet reticle types, but I suppose I can see there is an advantage of a reticle that will change size along with the target. Would this take the guess work out of figuring out the distances between mildots of a second focal plane?

Anyhow, on the downside, I cannot afford the ER/T . It seems these retail starting around $1600 and up and I really think I want to keep no more than $1200. Do you think the Leupold Mark 4 LR/T 8-25 Illuminated TMR would be a sufficient scope for mid-long range shooting with my LR-308? I am not sure if I would be better off with 6-20 or the 8-25. I am thinking I would like a longer range scope, since I don't really want to use my scope as a CQB scope. I already am getting an ACOG and will be getting an AIMPoint for these situations. If I buy a 8-25, would it be very hard to hit shots at 200 yards? I thought an 8x magnificaiton was not all that powerful. Of course with this gun I would try to shoot out farther than 200 yards, like to 600 yards and beyond; althought it would be nice for it to hit closer targets as well.

Do most people here think the Zeiss Victory is a better scope than the Leupold Mark IV? I am reading from many sources that the Zeiss Conquest and Leupold Mark IV are equal to one another. Zeiss Conquest is the cheaper line of Zeiss scopes compared to the Victory's. However, like ER/Ts, the Zeiss Conquests are probably beyond my price range. I guess I am thinking I will make life easier and go with the Mark IV LR/T. What are people's thoughts on this?

 

[GregGry]

Folks that go on about how there $500 scope is every bit as good as a $1500 scope have one thing in common ... they've NEVER used a $1500 scope. Those of us that own high-end optics such as the Mark 4s, Nightforce, US Optics etc also have one thing in common ... we KNOW better since many, if not most of us, have used both over the years and have made an educated decision to upgrade what we soon realized wasn't working for us.

Explain to me how a new shooter would benefit more by spending 900 to 1000$ more on an already great 500$ to 600$ scope then by buying ammo and taking some classes. If he is going to use a credit card, that tells me he doesn't have the money/doesn't feel comfortable to buy the scope outright. 1000$ worth of ammo and training will make him a better shot.

For those of you who want to keep telling yourselves that your low-end scope is just as good as a high-end scope, and optics don't make a good shooter, just take a look and see what folks are using in long-range competitions be it benchrest or practical. Look at what the winners and the runner ups are using. Take a look at what folks buy when their LIVES depend on their optics, when they're out in the field for days or weeks on end with no option to send it back for repair

A 500$ scope is not a low end scope first off. I realize that high end scopes are much better in many aspects then mid range scopes. However in this case we are dealing with a new shooter that is not using a machine rested rifle. Being so new its unlikely he will be close to MOA on a consistent basis for a while. So what exactly is the benefit to spending more then 600$ on a scope? A year or two from now he could easily sell a 4 to 500$ leupold scope for a fair amount of money, and go with a 1,600$ scope. Spending a year with a 1,600$ scope, no training, and 1 range visit a month is not going to make him as good of a shot past 300 yards as buying a 600$ scope, going to the range more often, and taking training classes.

I know people that have 2 to 4K in their rifle/scopes that never took training classes and don't practice often (they constantly complain about ammo prices too) that I can group better at 300 yards then they can at 200 yards. Wanting to shoot a non machine rested 308 ar type weapon accurately at 500+ yards has more to do with practice and the ability of the shooter then the difference between a 600$ and a 1,600$ scope.

 

[4Freedom]

Wanting to shoot a non machine rested 308 ar type weapon accurately at 500+ yards has more to do with practice and the ability of the shooter then the difference between a 600$ and a 1,600$ scope.

I'm all about saving money.. Nonetheless, I really like the Mark IV's, because I was reading that the type of turrets they have are easier to use and you can more quickly adjust your magnification. Also, if I can pay $600, why not pay $1200 and get a Leupold Mark IV LR/T 6-20x or 8.5-25 ? I mean I can also sell my Leupold back for a fair amount of money and I have no problem financing the scope. I would like to have a good scope for my training, not an inferior one. I am sure the $600 scope will be great, but I like the scope and gun to be much better than I am. Also, the Mark IV's seem to have lot of conveniences and reticles that help enhance accuracy a bit, like TMR. I was interested in trying to learn how to use the military reticles. My 24" bull barrel DPMS LR-308, weighing almost 15lbs loaded, will also be used for benchrest shooting, as well as shooting while standing.

 

[GregGry]

When it comes down to it even a 1,600 dollar scope is inferior to some other even higher end scope. If you really want to be a great shot you have to realize that experience matters more then the cost of equipment. I just don't want to see you spend all that money and not be able to put such high end equipment to good use. The clarity and accuracy of a 500 to 600$ scope is already above your ability to shoot. Do you really want to spend that much more for something that isn't going to benefit you for a long time? Do you really need to be able to change magnifications fast, when your going to be shooting at non moving targets at known distances? Really think about what a 1,600 scope is going to give you over a 600$ scope, and how thats going to benefit you. I realize your new and your willing to pay for the most expensive equipment, however don't let your lack or experience, internet hype, and manufactures hype fool you into blowing a large chunk of change.

You kind of remind me of a kid in a candy shop, got to have the biggest, best (often most expensive) stuff. Thats completely ok, but if you forget about the other things involved in getting to your goals of being a great shot (and shooting that rifle at 600+ yards accurately requires skill) your never going to get to your goals. Even cheap millsurp ammo will get expensive if you shoot a lot. When I wanted to get much better at handgun shooting I spent 300$ a month on range and 9mm ammo fees for 4 months (this at ammo prices years ago). I could have had a 2K dollar 1911 and it wouldn't have done me any good prior to shooting lots of lead. Now I am ready for a high dollar pistol with a good trigger. By time you can really justify the 1,600$ scope you might decide you rather have it on a different rifle, or that long distance shooting isn't for you.

 

[GregGry]

Also, it seems like you already have your mind made up. At the money your looking to spend you should just go out and the leupold and be done. Any minute your not putting lead down the barrel barrel of that rifle you are not becoming a better shot. Shoot at 50 to 100 yards atleast once a week for a month, get atleast 50 rounds in each time. Then do a mix of 100 and 200 yard shooting. Get some training classes, and after 4 to 5 months start focusing on 300+ yards. In 7 to 8 months you will be a pretty good shot provided you practice.

 

[H2O MAN]

GregGry I just don't want to see you spend all that money and not be able to put such high end equipment to good use.

Do you also discourage people from buying a new Corvette, Porsche or Ferrari?



4Freedom may be a natural crack shot with high end equipment...

 

[GregGry]

Do you also discourage people from buying a new Corvette, Porsche or Ferrari?

If they have never driven a car before yes

I am saying get a nice scope in the 500$ range and spend the rest on ammo and training. After reading his posts he seems to feel he has to spend a lot of money to get a "good" scope. That worries me because it makes me wonder who has been telling him what. If he had more shooting/training under his belt why not go with the 1,600$ scope. Being a complete newcomer to the long range rifle club 1,000$ extra spent on a scope isn't a substitute for practice and training.

I am surprised more people aren't in agreement with me. Sure the ideal world you would have a top of the line scope on any rifle you own. If money is no object why not. However considering his goals of 600+ yard shooting (accurately) his abilities as a shooter matter more then the difference between a 600$ and a 1,600$ scope. Especially at this point in his experience. I saw no mention of hunting or shooting at moving reactive targets, (or shooting from a machine rest for the ultimate accuracy) so how much is the 1,000$ really going to get him?

If money is no object and he can afford all the range time and ammo, why not get the 1,600$ scope. However I would think he would much rather have a AI AW rifle to go with that scope in that case.

I think he is just in a bit over his head with all of the hoopla/hype that manufactures post on their websites. Anytime someone says something like

Anyhow, on the downside, I cannot afford the ER/T . It seems these retail starting around $1600 and up and I really think I want to keep no more than $1200.

Either they have one hell of a rifle and are a very gifted marksman to think its unfortunate they have to settle for "only" a 1,200$ scope, or they are just buying to much into internet hype and are are in way over their head.


Then to ask a question like this

Do you think the Leupold Mark 4 LR/T 8-25 Illuminated TMR would be a sufficient scope for mid-long range shooting with my LR-308

If a mark 4 scope isn't sufficient enough for mid-long range shooting, people must not be able to hit past 50 yards with iron sights. With all the posting he does on here and presumably all of the reading he does online (because he surely seems to know a fair bit about different scopes) I would think he would have a better understanding about what he is asking about then he presents.

I have spent my time not trying to talk him out of blowing a large amount of money as much as trying to see how grounded he is in reality when it comes to getting what he needs. When I read things like "I don't want a crap scope" when I mention a 500$ scope budget, is a 1,200$ scope enough for my rifle?, and other things that suggest either A) someone has been pouring honey in his ear and whispering "anything less then 1K and your pissing in the wind or B) He is in over his head with hype and is afraid to buy anything less then the most he can afford. Just because you have a budget of 1,600$ doesn't mean you have to spend 100% of it. Especially if spending that much money isn't going to do a whole lot. If we were talking about spending 1,600 vs 500$ on a rifle, by all means spend the extra money.

 

[H2O MAN]

GregGry


I am surprised more people aren't in agreement with me.

with proper training & practice just about any novice can become
proficient with a nice rifle and expensive scope as their very first rifle.

You need to factor in natural ability, dedication and determination...

 

[GregGry]

I completely agree. However, which would be better in his case, a 500-600$ scope, 500$ in ammo and 4 to 600$ in training, or a 1,600$ scope? If the only way he can afford to spend big money on a high end scope is at the cost of training/practice/ammo then I say don't do it. Really though, how much do you think the mark 4 is going to give him over a 600$ leupold scope? If he outgrows it he can put it on one of his other rifles or sell it.

 

[JWarren]

GregGry,

All I can say is that I wish I had all the money I threw away on lesser quality and unsupported optics prior to getting my Mark 4.

I disagree with the notion of "starter" optics.

I advocate with ANY platform build the following:

1. Determining the use that you will have for the firearm and optic.

2. Determining what the needs of that use will be.

3. Researching what optics meet that criteria.


For instance:

I don't shoot 1,000 yards. My shots are usually around 600 max.

HOWEVER, I would like one of my rifles to have capability to reach beyond 800 yards. I researched what it would require to do so, and am constructing a rifle with that goal in mind.

While I consider high light transmission an essential quality, I rejected the Ziess Conquest as an optic for this build due to it lack of internal adjustment range. I like its light transmission, and I will use it on other platforms. But it was not appropriate for this build.

I see nothing wrong with making informed decisions and getting the equipment you need at the on-set of a project. I DO see something wrong with poor planning.



I've been shooting for 30 years, and been using optics since I had an old Redfield 4X fixed on a 30-06. Optics don't replace training/practice but really that wasn't an issue in this thread, was it? (I may have missed if the OP mentioned training/practice in his posts.)

We are quick to point out that extra money should be spend on practice/training as if it is an "either-or" in the equation-- or should I say that we assume that the practice isn't going to happen otherwise.

EXACTLY how much "practice" do you need? Sure, you need to get proficient, and you obviously are building the set-up to actually shoot. However, I have rifles that I ONLY shoot when I am sighting in and then using for hunting.

I know MANY people that ONLY take thier rifles out for hunting season.

They can all shoot.

I've gone years at a time where I've only been able to fire 20-30 shots due to living away from home. I've come home, sighted in, and they went out hunting. I've never had a shot on a deer that wasn't immediately lethal from 50 yards to 400 yards.

If you want to shoot 2K rounds a year and that is what you enjoy doing, that is great. But you have LONG passed the point of diminishing returns. I know too many people that will shoot 20 rounds in a year that are as proficient shooters as those that shoot the rifling out of the barrel.




-- John

 

[H2O MAN]

JWarren

All I can say is that I wish I had all the money I threw away on lesser quality and unsupported optics prior to getting my Mark 4.

Yep, I also wasted a little money on lesser quality optics. Not much, just enough to learn a quick lesson.

Lesson learned: Go with quality right up front or go without until you can afford quality.




4Freedom, the Leupold Mark 4 2.5-8x36mm MR/T with Illuminated TMR Reticle is another optic to consider.