precision rifle scope question

[ACP]

So, I got a used, 2011-ish Remington 700 LTR in .308 for a great price -- $740 out the door with tax. It has the stock (non-X-Mark Pro) trigger that pulls 2 lbs. 4 ozs. on my Lyman digital trigger scale. The bore is bright and was apparently broken in well because it cleans up very quickly.

My first-time handloading has produced a five-shot group touching at 75 yards (longest I have shot it for groups). I am using 168-gr. SMK with Lapua brass, Winchester large rifle primers and 42 grains of Varget, set about 2.800 OAL.

My issue is the scope. I have no .308 scope with what I would consider to be a) proper magnification range or b) proper reticle for either dialing dope or holding for wind/drop at long distance (right now the LTR is wearing a Nikon EFR 3-9x40 made for my 22LR rimfire CZ 453).

Caveat: my range is 100 yards, may go to 200 yards in the near future. That's all I will be shooting! MY goal is to regularly hit 6-9" plates (or smaller) off a bipod and offhand at the 200 yard max. (I know this is no problem prone with a bipod.)

I am caught between two options:

1) the expensive option: an illuminated Nightforce 2-10x42 or 3-15x50, with a MOAR or Mil-R reticle, both of which approach $2,000. The 2-10 weight 21 ozs. and the 3-15 about 30 ozs. Buy once, cry once, my friends say. No doubt this would look pretty on the Sako TRG-22 I hope to buy someday. But I am having a hard time justifying spending 3x on glass what I paid for the rifle.

2) the more conservative option: Bushnell Tactical 2.6-16x42 w/mil-dot reticle
($830); Vortex Viper HS-T 4-16x44 w/VMR reticle ($570); Leupold VX-R Patrol 3-9x40 w/illuminated TMR ($600); Leupold Mk AR 3-9x40 w/illuminated TMR reticle ($450 -- but needs custom .308 dials, which cost another $60); or an SWFA 3-15x42 with mild-quad reticle ($700).

The SWFA is a first focal plane reticle, which I typically don't like; the Leupold Mk AR is a 1" tube; all the others are 30mm.

I've handled the VX-R and really like it; I wonder if 9x is enough. If it is, the Mark AR is less expensive and will be customized with the .308 turrets designed to my handload specs. The Leupolds are both 12-15 ozs., which is great, considering I do not want to bulk-up the LTR.

The Vortex and Bushnell seem pretty solid. They are about 21-22 ozs. each, 50% more weight than the Leupolds.

The SWFA has great reviews, but is 24 ozs., and -- again -- I don't care about an FFP.

So... Leupold?

And when I get really good, spring for the TRG with the Nightforce glass?

 

[rcmodel]

Well, 200 yards divided by 9x is 22.2 yards.

I used to be able to throw a rock that far and hit 9" steel plate!

Then, going off hand?

16x will magnify not only the target, but your shakes, wobbles, and heart beat 16 times!!
(As well as heat waves and marage shimmers.)

And that's not good!!

When I was younger, I regularly killed crows at 200-350 and coyotes at 400-500 with a K-6 Weaver fixed power.

No dials to switch, and no mil-dots to cifer!!

You just learn hold elevation & windage and use the Duel-X crosshair as a point of reference by shooting a lot.

IMO: You might be better off spending money on more practice ammo and dance with the scope that Brung'ya!!

rc

 

[dogmush]

I have two SWFA scopes, and they have great glass for the money, at the expense of some other options. (Like light weight). It would do you right, but if you don't like it's features....

I like Vortex better then Leupold these days, but both are good scopes. If you're willing to go to the SWFA's price take a look at the Viper PST 4-16. It's a pretty nice scope.

The VX-R will also do you right. 9x is enough foe 100yds. I wouldn't mess with the Mark-AR. The others have better glass.

 

[jmr40]

(right now the LTR is wearing a Nikon EFR 3-9x40 made for my 22LR rimfire CZ 453).

At 200 yards you don't need a lot of scope and the drop isn't enough to matter. But you need something designed for a centerfire even at 200 yards. If you want to shoot farther something with dots or dials will be a tremendous help.

I'd not spend a ton of money on a high dollar scope until you get more experience. By then, you'll know what you need and won't need to ask for advice.

There are a lot of 3-9X40 hunting scopes in the $200 range that will do everything you want right now. When you get to the point where you can take advantage of a better scope you can always buy one then. You can either move the 1st scope to another rifle, or sell it.

At the $200ish price range a Burris FF-II is my top choice. It can be had with long range hash marks so you can get a feel for using them at longer ranges.

http://swfa.com/Burris-3-9x40-Fullfield-II-Rifle-Scope-P7932.aspx

If you want to start playing around with dials and have a little bigger budget this is a good start.

http://swfa.com/Leupold-3-9x40-Mark-AR-MOD-1-Riflescope-P60892.aspx

As said, you can sell either later if you want better quality. Leupolds in particular are easy to sell used and hold their value quite well.

 

[Doc7]

I think a 3-9x40 Vortex Viper ($300) is more than you need for your goals. For your stated intentions I would think it is not appropriate to spend more than 500 dollars.

 

[bikemutt]

On one hand you say you don't like FFP, on another you don't care about FFP.

I'll take that as room to suggest a Primary Arms 4-14x44 FPP Mil Mil scope. An excellent value at $230. They offer SFP scopes that are similar for less money as well.

I find the glass hard to beat for the money.

 

[P.B.Walsh]

Just get an SWFA SS fixed power in their classic lineup. Their $300 for the rear focus models and have great durability and tracking. Their only real minus is that their a bit heavier than others you have listed.

I am not sure if you can buy a better $300 optic. If fact I ordered the 10x42 and a pair of medium Burris rings at SWFA for $370 with shipping.

 

[ACP]

RC, you kinda nailed it on the offhand/holdover thing.

I have noticed that under 100 yards, 4x is a little too little to hit index cards or post-it notes, 8x shows my shakes, 6x is the sweet spot (for me).

and, yeah -- what is the drop at 200 with a .308? maybe two inches?

I am not really interested in "shooting for groups," so I guess I'll cap the higher end magnification at 10x (or lower) and look for something simple...

BTW, I can put that "saved" scope money into bullets and powder.. and a Forster seating die... and a chrono... and a Dan Wesson 1911... and....

 

[jgh4445]

My eyes are just a few months away from being 65 years old. I own Swarovskis (5) Zeiss Diavaris(3) and Zeiss Conquests (6)' mAlso own a couple of Leupolds and Nikons. It awful hard to tell a $1000-$3500 difference in some of the more expensive scopes and the new Zeiss Conquests. Lots of scope for not a lot of money, relatively speaking.

 

[Driftertank]

Why limit yourself to 100 yards, unless you simply dont have access to a longer range? You try 200, get pretty good at it, then start pushing back....the longer the range, the more rewarding the hit.

I'm a complete Vortex junkie myself. Have 3 PSTs, 2 of them FFP, and recently picked up a base Viper 3-9×40 for $269 shipped to put on my girl's A-bolt 7mm. The EBR-1 reticles on my FFPs make ringing steel out to 400-500yds a piece of cake.

The rifle you have sounds like it would be plenty capable of reaching out a fair bit farther than your current aspirations...I would buy glass on the basis that longer stuff is possible, myself.

 

[HexHead]

For around $500, Zeiss Terra 3-9x 40 or so with the RZ-600 reticle. For just a little more, a Leupold VX-3 3.5-10x40.

 

[Manny]

Personally I would want a bit more than 9-10x top end for a target scope used to 200 yards. I think the sweet spot for all around use top end starts at 12x. Bushnell's 6500 series 2.5-16x gets rave reviews for clarity and overall performance and my brother had a Leupold 4.5-14x that was superb and a wonderful all around scope.

If you were mainly using this as a hunting rifle for deer size game I think the 9-10x top power would make a lot of sense, but for a target rifle I think a bit more magnification would be something you would appreciate greatly.

 

[jlr1962]

Well, 200 yards divided by 9x is 22.2 yards.

I used to be able to throw a rock that far and hit 9" steel plate!

Then, going off hand?

16x will magnify not only the target, but your shakes, wobbles, and heart beat 16 times!!
(As well as heat waves and marage shimmers.)

And that's not good!!

When I was younger, I regularly killed crows at 200-350 and coyotes at 400-500 with a K-6 Weaver fixed power.

No dials to switch, and no mil-dots to cifer!!

You just learn hold elevation & windage and use the Duel-X crosshair as a point of reference by shooting a lot.

IMO: You might be better off spending money on more practice ammo and dance with the scope that Brung'ya!!

rc

rc, you should have played baseball.

OP, 200 yards offhand is quite a goal. Don't beat yourself up too bad if you don't get there any time soon.

 

[MrBorland]

OP, 200 yards offhand is quite a goal. Don't beat yourself up too bad if you don't get there any time soon

Yep - you have to shoot offhand at 200 yards (with iron sights) in High Power Rifle competition, but the black 9-ring is about 12" across and even then it takes a good master level HP shooter to keep them in the black. Consistently hitting 6-9" plate offhand would be exceptionally good (read: world class) shooting.

As far as the scope, I agree with the others who recommend a 10x-ish mag. If it's only for shooting paper at 100 & 200, look into a 10x fixed power scope with a mildot reticle. And forget the FFP.

 

[Walkalong]

I love high magnification for shooting rested with a rifle, but for shooting off hand I prefer less. Still more than some folks though. 6X to 10X is plenty of power for off hand shooting at 100 to 200 yards. Back when I was young and my eyes were good (And they used to be very, very good), I would shoot small objects off hand at 100 yards with open sights. The fine eyesight is long gone. Shooting irons at 100 yards or more is tough these days. I even scoped my .458 Win Mag, but I wish I could still see well enough to shoot it well with the irons, but I can't.

And like rcmodel, I used different parts of a standard reticule like the holdover reticules like they make today. You have the cross, then the point of the heavy part where it changes to the finer line, the halfway spot between the two, etc, etc.

 

[witchhunter]

Ebay usually has 3-9 Leupolds for around 200 bucks. You should be able to use one of those until you feel the need for more scope. Learn the ballistics of your rifle and how to dope it. Then sell the Leupold on Ebay for your money back. Get a 6.5-20 Leupold and you are good to waaay out there.

 

[ACP]

Unbelievable how much time I am spending on optics planet, swfa and other websites scrolling through reticles and magnification ranges, weights and lengths.

I find myself falling back repeatedly to a scope I first saw -- and have looked through twice at Cabela's -- about a month ago: the Leupold VX-R Patrol 3-9x40mm.

Likes:
clear glass
exposed knobs (mils)
second focal plane (I find most FFP reticles almost unusable at lower magnification)
modest and usable magnification
illuminated red dot (on/off)
lightweight (about 15 ozs.)
short (about 12")
affordable ($600)
the 3-9x range matches the 3-9x range on my .22LR bolt gun trainer

Could be better:
the TMR reticle could use more definitive mil hash marks (it's just slightly larger than the half-mil hash mark). It's not a Nightforce MOAR, but it's better than mil dots or a standard duplex.

All in all this may be my best option considering my 200 yard max. constraint and my desire to shoot as much offhand than bipod. The illuminated dot option should shine at quick 25-50-75-100 yard offhand shots.

 

[GooseGestapo]

200yd target shooting? I have an AS ISSUED CMP "special" M1 Garand. Recently, in my first ever high power match, I had all but one shot in the black, a "7", off hand. No shooting jacket or glove, AND NO SCOPE, and my eyes are 59.

I don't think you "need" more scope. You need more ammo, range time. Besides, my guns that wear scopes aren't sighted in for 100yds. Most are + 2" to + 4", for 300-400yd point blank range. Just point and click.
But then, Im like RC, just a crusty old curmudgeon who's only been shooting/hunting for only 55yrs. I killed my first song bird at 5 with a home made bow, and arrow.
Only time I ever shot praraie dogs was with a .257Roberts featherweight with a 2-7x and made consistent hits at 400yds+. It ain't the arrow, or bow, it's the Indian!

Ps; I did practice with my "other" Garand, at 50 yds on my backyard range with reduced loads with cast boolits! Practice, practice, practice!

 

[MtnCreek]

^ Did you shoot at the CMP range in Talladega?

 

[ACP]

Goose, GREAT SHOOTING

I put my last four of the night tonight into .380" at 100 yards with my 3-9x Nikon rimfire scope. Gotta love handloads!

But that's why I'm doing it -- once the up-front investment is made, it's more ammo for less cost = much more practice.

I've gotta get me one of those "special" Garands...

 

[czhen]

Ebay Leopold cheap equals to fake repro, be aware of some counterfeit. We had a thread here not so long ago.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

I think you need to define what you're going to do with the rifle better. Precision rifle says to me: long heavy barrel, bipod, magnification, picking out small targets with a single shot and so forth.

If you will be using the reticle to range things, hold off for windage or elevation, and do these things while possibly on the clock (tactical/precision rifle competition) then I'd say FFP is a must. It just takes one possible cause for a miss entirely out of the picture.

If you find yourself in a precision rifle competition where you may be shooting at small and indistinct targets or having to ID which target to shoot at distance, then you'll want more magnification. Something like 15x or 24x for the max magnification.

OTOH, if you're going for a practical field rifle type use where you will use a max point blank range type zero, then SFP, capped turrets and 3-9x will work better. Heck, go to fixed magnification, something like 4x or 6x. If you'll honestly only be using the rifle on a 200yd range, I'd lean toward this type of rifle. The Nightforce would be massive overkill in this situation.