New Remington 700 SPS Tactical .223

[Rollis R. Karvellis]

The reason I prefer the 4x12 is some days it is nice to squeze that little bit of extra magnufication when you need it, or can use it, and you can also drop back too the lower setting's for field use, if a hunting opertunity come's up.

 

[stsimons]

Check this out...

http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=21176

 

[stonecutter2]

Check this out...

http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=21176

Well, that seems like a nice, honest comparison between the scopes I've been considering. I'm going with a Vortex Diamondback 4-12x40

 

[minutemen1776]

I just went through a similar process scoping my new SPS Tactical in .308. I went with a Bushnell Elite 3200 4-12x40 AO and Warne Maxima rings and bases. The total package was about $330. I like it, but I know that's a little beyond your stated budget. To stay closer to $200, I'd recommend finding a Bushnell Legend scope, which have recently been discontinued but are still out there with some sellers. They have glass that's similar to the Elite 3200 line, but they lack the Rain Guard coating and have a few other differences. Here's a 3-9x40 model on Amazon for just under $130.

http://www.amazon.com/Bushnell-Lege...7?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1271712907&sr=8-7

Here's another model, the 4-12x40, for just under $165.

http://www.amazon.com/Bushnell-7541...9?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1271712986&sr=8-9

So you know, I first tried the new Burris Extreme Picatinny mounts, and I was unhappy with them. Although they are advertised as fitting Weaver rings, I thought the fit with my Warne Maxima rings was too loose. Maybe it wouldn't have made a difference, but I want a firm lockup between my rings and bases. The bases themselves would be OK for for true Picatinny rings, but they seem to be far more expensive than good Weaver rings. Anyway, I highly recommend the Warne Maxima setup.

 

[Offfhand]

"Optics solution"? Does that mean the same as "best choice"? Is it like saying -"dial one for English or dial two for tacticool."

 

[stonecutter2]

"Optics solution"? Does that mean the same as "best choice"? Is it like saying -"dial one for English or dial two for tacticool."

It meant that I wanted help figuring out what scope to put on my rifle. It's like saying that I wanted suggestions for a scope, or a rifle scope, or glass, or optics, but I guess in a rather moronic way on my part. Call me tacticool if you like, but I mean...the rifle has "Tactical" in the name of it. I bought what I bought because at $0.47 per round for .223 FMJ retail (don't have plans to reload at this point) I want those rounds to hit what I'm aiming at (cans, targets, what have you) with minimal waste. The SPS Tactical has a pretty solid reputation for accuracy right out of the box, moreso if you upgrade/replace various components.

The "solution" part of "optics solution" came into play because I'm not just asking about scopes, but also about mounts and rings, as I'm completely and utterly ignorant about such things (a little less so now), and I know that there are some good folks around here that can help.

I am getting married in 2 months. My gem of a fiancee, amidst piling bills for wedding expenses, told me to get myself a new rifle to shoot with the boys at my "bachelor party" which will be a low-key day or two long range session at my fiancee's Grandfather's farmland, with camping involved. My priority on this was to get the rifle, and then try to get the most amount of scope performance with minimal cost for right now. I have an S&W Model 19-4, Walther TPH .22LR, SA GI Model .45, and a Ruger 10/22 totally stock with a Simmons 3-9x40 scope that I bought without knowing anything about it, but it's nice enough for my 10/22 needs. The Rem 700 is my first bolt action.

So, anyways, thanks to those people who've contributed to this thread productively, your suggestions and information have helped me immensely, and are really and truly appreciated.