Scope question.... low and high end models

[NickEllis]

If I were going to purchase two scopes, designated for tactical/hunting use, shooting from the extreme range of the spectrum (200-1000 meters), with one being on the low end (c. $300), and other other being on an unlimited budget, what would you suggest?

a) c. $300 - I've thought the 10x Super Sniper would be a good low-end, high quality scope, and also the Zeiss Conquest would be there too.

b) with a TRUELY unlimited budget, I would guess the top-end Swarovski, US-Optics, Nightforce, Zeiss in the running, and then Leopold and IOR. But feel free to correct me.

Essencially, I'm budgeting two major scope purchases within the next five years: a low-end I can buy immediately, and use as a shooting/hunting scope, and then saving like crazy for the best of the best, for use on a 6.5 Grendel AR platform, and then if I can ever afford it a Cheytac .408. Thoughts?

Nick

 

[RecoilRob]

Whoo Boy! Are you going to get a bunch of 'Nightforce or Nothing' responses! (just a guess).

I have a SS 10X on a Busy Varminter and am pleased with it. Seems well built and very worth the cost. Good glass for the money.

Of course, if you spend a LOT of money on a scope, you will probably see the difference...but the challenge is to determing how 'good is good enough'?

I'd recommend getting the SS to get shooting and, if you save and later decide to upgrade because you feel the need to, you should. If, later on, you are happy with the SS and what it is doing for you....you can spend your savings on something else!

 

[50 Shooter]

The low end, Tasco SS would be good.

High end would be a toss up between U.S. Optics and S&B PMII then Nightforce, Swarovski, Leupold, Ziess, IOR.

 

[NickEllis]

Across a variety of board, I've been hearing that the SS is a great scope for the price. The only other option being thrown my way for the "lowend" so to speak is the Zeiss Conquest, but thats another 200-250 bucks I could put toward the highend. Don't want to steal from Peter to feed Paul.

The point is to get a high-quality, durable (I'll be throwing this on an M1a), "training" scope for the big boys. I think $400 is my extreme upper limit, since there are good options below that.

On the Schmitt and Bender, I've not read much about them, please excuse my ignorance. Any thoughts on what makes them superior? I was in Stuttgart last summer, and went to the Zeiss store to look at their scopes. Ignoring the Euro prices, I admit I was quite impressed when the store owner simply handed me a Victory Diavari, and turned out the lights. Just the ambient light from the Exit sign was enough to provide simply crystal vision throughout the store, though I couldn't see hardly anything without the scope. Perhaps it was a tinhorn trick that could be easily replicated, but I was impressed. I was interested to know that for the E$29 hop up to Norway, the scope prices were a fraction of what they were in Germany, due to the greater shooter base who are unwilling to pay 3000 euros for a scope when they have perfectly good scopes there. So, according to the shop owner, of course Zeiss dropped their prices through the floor to gain access to the Norwegan market. Makes me want to take a trip to Norway. Plus, the fishing would be great.

I wish I knew, once you get into that elite class, what the differences are between the manufact.. I think the thing that impresses me with the American market is the tremendous ruggedness I've seen, for example in the Nightforce and the USOptics. I have seen personally few testimonials on the toughness of Zeiss, Swarovski, etc. Doesn't mean those aren't out there, of course.


Also, this is quickly going to boil into a "Euro class" vs. "USA Class" kinda thing (Swarovski, Zeiss, SB, etc contra USOptics, Nightforce, etc). Just one question: given that the glass is going to be of excellent quality, the controls stable, etc., isn't it mainly a question about preference between second plane and first plane reticles? Not to drift my own thread, but are there positives either way? I'm not really sure why the North American system allows the reticle to magnify, when they move to a second plane reticle. Why do you guys like the reticle change in variable power north american scopes? Are there benefits I'm not seeing?

Lots of stuff in this thread, I'll try to keep it from getting too broad, and open another thread if it starts to drift too far. Thanks.

Nick

 

[Jim Watson]

My application for big scopes is limited to NRA F-class known range shooting.
There I see mostly Leupold and Nightforce, with a few Others. "Other" includes Super Snipers and assorted varmint rifle scopes pressed into target shooting. Not zero, but very few European scopes.

Without reading the catalogs for you, I don't know how many Euro scopes are available with big convenient target turrets. You don't want to be squinting at a streamlined little dial trying to add elevation as the range increases.

The older, and still common in Europe, first focal plane reticle is magnified but only to the same extent as the target. A minute of angle on the graticule of a rangefinding aid is the same no matter what the power setting on a variable.

I think the US second focal plane "non-magnifying" reticle appeals on the basis that as you increase power, you are probably increasing range and/or precision and want to be able to take a "finer bead" on the target. As witness fine crosshairs and teeny dots on dedicated target scopes. But the graduations on a Mil-dot or other ranging setup are good at only one power setting, usually marked in red on the dial. Might call for switching powers frequently in a "tactical" shoot, maybe Zak Smith's discussion on scopes covers that.

Then you have the range of adjustment thing to consider, too.
The Super Sniper claims over 100 MOA of adjustment range; few higher priced scopes can match that. Look at the trajectory of your pet cartridge and see what it takes. Most conventional Long Range shooters use tapered bases to get to 1000 yards without running out of adjustment or just getting so high as to cause the curvature of the tube to limit the usable windage adjustment. But that can leave them with a scope that cannot go down to a 100 yard zero. I don't care, I can chronograph and group test ammo on my 600 yard setting, it doesn't matter that POI is 13" high at the nearby 100 yard range.

 

[NickEllis]

Thanks Jim, let me think about that for a bit. And thats for pointing me towards Zak Smith's writeup, I hadn't seen that previously. Although it appears as though for practical shooting he suggests only first focal plane scopes, due to the ranging issues.

Nick

 

[Jim Watson]

Zak on scopes is at
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=154213

He doesn't give much guidance on cheap scopes, though.
If you want a scope on an M1A, best do some planning on the mount, that is not a trivial choice or expense item.

 

[NickEllis]

Correct, Jim. M1a's certainly can be a real pain as far as mounting scopes.

I'm looking at the ARMS 18 mount, it seems to have been given great reviews. I like the three-point system, though I'm not sure if there will be spec differences between the M14 and the M1a Springfield that might interfere with its use. Fingers crossed...

And at $174.00, it ain't cheap. Whew.

Nick

 

[Plink]

On the low end, the Russian scopes are really rugged and have great glass and internals. They'd definately be my preference. Check out Kalinka and see if they have something that fits your needs.

 

[okiebuckout]

For the lowend and hunting purposes my Bushnell 4200 4-16 power works good. Thats all the input i can give. haven't done any REAL target shooting, so I can't give ya any input there. I will do some Long Range shooting in the future though.

 

[.41Dave]

You really might want to consider 2 different scopes, one for hunting and one for "tactical" use. High magnification ranges, Mil-dot reticles, target turrets, and parallax adjustments are very useful for long range 500+ meter shooting. Those same things suck for hunting, unless you are hunting varmints.