Better Optics

[hymnatr]

Hello,

I want to start doing more long range shooting and I currently have a savage 308 with a less then $100 scope on it. I wanted to get some opinions on what I should pick up. The only thing that I have looked at in the nicer catagory is the Nightforce pr2.

 

[MrSpiffy]

I know Nightforce scopes are great, but you don't need to necessarily drop $2k on a scope, especially if you're just getting into long-range shooting. Keep in mind that Nikon's Monarch scopes and Leupold make scopes for longer-range shooting. (Although, Nikon has higher magnification than Leupolds do.) For well under $1k, you can have a good scope and save some cash for practice ammo.

If you really want to go top-end on the scope to start with, then you may want to keep in mind the names of Vortex, Millett, Swarovski, Trijicon, and Zeiss, among others, I'm sure. Oh, I also hear March scopes are pretty nice, too. Just depends on how much you want to spend on your glass.

Saw your other post about getting into LR shooting. Best of luck! I hope to get into it eventually, myself.

 

[helotaxi]

^^^ I'd "X" Millett off the above list for certain.

Swarovski and Zeiss are better choices for hunting scopes rather than long range scopes since neither make scopes with target turrets (excluding the Hensholdt military scopes from Zeiss) though they are both certainly premium scopes.

Bushnell Tactical scopes are certainly worth a look. Weaver's new tactical line is getting very good reviews. These choices are under $1k.

SWFA's SS 5-20x50 tactical is also a quality optic and at $1300, it is still semi-affordable.

 

[hymnatr]

So I took a look at some of the ones you guys recommended and I'm looking at either the vortex viper pst or the bushnell elite 6500. Whats the verdict?

 

[esheato]

I have a friend with two PSTs and a Razor and he likes them a lot.

External target turrets, MOA and mil reticles with matching knobs and decent glass and totally awesome customer service..what's not to like?

 

[steven58]

I have the Vortex Viper PST 4-16 FFP Mil Mil. Mounted on my Savage .308. I really like this scope! I also own Nightforce Trijicon and Burris so I have a decent basis of comparison.

For the money ($ 750.00) you get an unbeatable combination of user friendly etched illuminated reticle, zero stop turret, solid construction and one of the best warranties in the business.

 

[MrSpiffy]

I learned something from helotaxi's post. Guess there are some very handy features when doing LR shooting that some scopes just don't have. Guess I'll have to do more research into this.

 

[hymnatr]

It looks like I'm going with the Vortex Viper PST 6-24x50 mrad. Is 6-24 too much or should I go with a 4-16?

@steve58 Where did you find the scope that cheap?

 

[chaser_2332]

Go with 4-16 its more than enough, and 6 power is too much for low end.

 

[steven58]

I got mine through Liberty Optics a while back. http://www.libertyoptics.com/ At the time I think the normal price was about $850.00 but there was a special discount if you were a member of Sniper's Hide http://www.snipershide.com/ For all I know he might have a THR discount as well. Call them they are very accommodating.

 

[TXdefender]

Nightforce is nice glass but the deal breaker for me is the rotating rear eyepiece, I can't put my flip up Butler Creek covers on it and change magnification. My Tac Ops X-Ray 51 wears a Schmidt & Bender PMII 4-16x50mm. Great scope but pricey. Buy once, cry once. You'll never be sorry to have premium glass.

 

[hymnatr]

Thanks Steve.

Last question, should I go with an ffp or not?

 

[steven58]

The choice of FFP vs SFP is completely up to you.

There have been as many arguments about that as there have been about m rad reticle vs moa reticle or 9 mm vs .45 acp.

I chose FFP. because:
1) The mil values of the reticle are valid at all magnifications, not just one (usually maximum). So I can calculate range to target with the reticle or correct poi using the reticle or turrets at any magnification without having to do any cumbersome calculations in my head (which is the worst place to do any calculations)
2) for close or moving targets I like the fact that the reticle "shrinks down" and takes up less of the field of view.
3) in low light at low magnification the illuminated reticle is easier for me to use because it takes up less of the field of view. Instead of having the entire fov cut into quarters by red lines I have a small cross in the center.

I will leave it to someone who likes SFP reticles to come forth and extol the equally rational reasons to chose them over FFP.

Remember, YMMV.

 

[helotaxi]

I like a SFP in a low mag scope where you'll probably only be using the graduations in the reticule at max magnification which is where they are usually dimensionally correct. In a higher mag scope which is more likely to be used at various ranges from intermediate to long and where the reticule may be needed at various distances and power settings, a FFP reticule is the clear winner. As far as MOA vs. mil. for the reticule, the math is easier for a mil reticule, but it is just a matter of preference. That said having the turrets match the reticule is a HUGE benefit. I didn't think it was that big of a deal until I shot with a mil/mil scope. At that point I was an instant convert. Being able to spot a shot and dial an instant adjustment without even having to come off the rifle to reference a conversion chart is awesome. If the rifle is a consistent shooter, you can zero for a new load or bullet in 2 shots. The first as a sighter, and the second should centerpuch the target without needing a grid on the target or any reference chart.

 

[hymnatr]

@steve what is YMMV?

So based off what you both said, longer range scope (4-16) I should get a ffp, right?

 

[steven58]

YMMV stands for "Your Mileage May Vary". Sort of a tongue in cheek way of saying "just because this worked for me doesn't mean it will work for you"

FFP is popular among long distance shooters and I'm very happy with my scope. However, some people who are used to SFP scopes are not comfortable with the apparent changing of the reticle size in the field of view as you zoom through the power levels.

My advice before you drop that much $$ on a scope is to spend some time lurking on Sniper's Hide. Here's 2 very informative threads on the subject we are discussing.

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=378812#Post378812

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1938091#Post1938091

 

[Ghost Tracker]

hymnatr, you're sure taking a BIG (HUGE) leap from a $100 scope to a Nightforce PR2. We're best at spending OPM (Other People's Money) when we've got an idea of the budget. Do we really have ~$2100 to (imagine we can) spend?

 

[chaser_2332]

If he is looking at a sfp nightforce one can be had for around $1200, that being said I am a ffp shooter all the way. It's alot easier for me to shoot comps not having to worry about what power my scope is on. If your going to punch paper on a square range no need for the extra money in ffp.

 

[lightman]

Don"t forget the used market.I bought a Nightforce for $1100.A scratch and a ding saved $700.Nightforce won't fix your mistakes for free,but Leupold and a few others will. Lightman

 

[Clark]

I have been in a struggle to get better at long range for 5 years, since I started hunting big game over sage brush, instead of in the woods.

I have got to the point that I am just about sure I will hit a broadside animal in the right spot at 500 yards, if there is no wind, and I can get set up on the ground with the bipod.

I really want that to extend to 600 yards. For big game lung shots at 500y, 2X is enough, but if you are into target competition, you may want 60X.

I have a lot of Leupold and IOR scopes with moa based clicks, but this year I hunted with a 2.5x10 Kahles in milirad clicks. It is like Ford vs Chevy or table saw vs radial arm saw.