DTOM,
I cut and pasted your response, so I could reply and ask a couple questions. My stuff is in red.
"Some Russian scopes are pure junk, others are highly underrated and of great quality. There are so many knock-offs and fakes out there. The real ones have very good glass that will match a VX-II."
A VX-II is the Leupold I was considering. Thanks for the information and I do want the good stuff. Do you know of an outfit that sells the better Russian glass?
"What is so attractive is the true military reticles. I love the range-finder because it is so simple, so easy and so fast. The mil hash marks, the chevrons ...what a great reticle. And it also comes with the ideal mount."
By ideal mount do you mean an AK style mount or?
"The cons are that you have to be sure to find the real deal, not some knock-off or really old surplus, and there won't be any warranty or quality service. Except whatever the importer's policy is, which won't be very good for a number of reasons I won't get into now."
Can you recommend a good importer? I really don't want to mess around much.
"I bought an IOR 4x. Made in Romania, uses Schott glass, has the dragunov reticle. The works. Not surplus, not a knock-off. Optical quality is superior to scopes running $800. Good clicks and tracking. Very nice. They run around $400. IOR's service has gotten better as their importer has established themselves now."
Who is their dealer? Or do they sell direct?
If you do not care about a military style ranging reticle, then I would say go Leupold. It will have great optical quality and you can rest assured they will back up that product for a lifetime. That's worth something.
I have interest in the ranging reticle, but after years of shooting high power, range and wind come second nature to me. I live in NE Georgia where long range beyond 500 yards just doesn't happen often. Additionally, the rifle's barrel is a 1 in 12 twist, so it's ideal range is likely to be no more than 500 yards, as 1 in 12 doesn't lend itself to heavy bullets.
"It might not look military or tactical, might look out of place on military style rifles, but it will gather the same light, be just as clear, just as water-proof, probably as shock-proof (who knows, maybe better?) and if something goes wrong you'll be covered. Especially on a rifle with a little recoil."
I don't care about tacticool. I want pure raw performance, both in low light for hunting and anything else I might want to do. Lighted reticle would be nice, but not necessary.
"On a .308, you could do a simple battle zero out to whatever practical distance you have in mind. For most purposes, that will be plenty fine."
That's pretty much what I planned on doing. My thoughts are that with the twist limiting me to 500 yards, I'd just battle zero, then use holdover where necessary.
"Now, if you want to do longer range shooting, the dragunov style Russian scopes or the IOR have an advantage due to the elevation adjustments. The Russians have turrets, the IOR has a BDC turret calibrated for .308."
The rifle's twist probably can't take full advantage of this.
"Then again, all depends on how accurate this rifle is and what you plan on doing with it. I've used Russian POSP as well as the IOR I own."
I'll be doing a trigger job as well as putting an 11 degree target crown. Current internet lore on the rifle is saying the stock rifle with no mods typically gets 1.5 minutes of angle with handloads using a good brand of bullets mated to the proper twist. With the mods, I should be able to get close to 1 minute of angle on a three round group with handloads from the bench, while typical 5 and 10 round groups will likely open up to 1-2 inches. Plenty good enough for my purposes.
Essex,
I'll take a look at the Weaver if I get a chance at the next local gunshow, since I'll be working it.
Thank both of you for your help,
Dave
Thank you for your help,
