My optics adventure- Mid-range (Long post)

[JWarren]

Lately, I have seen a quite a number of threads in here relating to optics choices for rifles. It seems that we move in waves. Not long ago it was ARs and AKs.

Some may know that I've been in the process of looking for the best optic within reason to mount on an LR-308. I thought I’d share some of the things that I’ve learned in this pursuit.

For the better part of this year (and beyond), I’ve been perusing several forums dedicated to optics and precision shooting. I am BY FAR not an expert on either topic. However, I do have the good sense to make an effort to learn from the posts of respected and knowledgeable members of those forums. Hopefully, that will help me make a better choice and possibly save me some costly lessons.

What I’ll write here is somewhat of a blend of findings from the following sources:

AR15.com
TheHighRoad.org
SnipersHide.com
SnipersParadise.com
SniperCentral.com
OpticsTalk.com
Various Manufactures’ Websites


First let me interject a few points.


First, I’ve been shooting for most of my life—30 years of 37 years lived. Most of those years have been using optics. However, we’ve never been a family that splurged on optics or kept up with the trends. Most of my years of centerfire shooting used a Redfield 4X fixed on top of a Remington 700 .30-06. But I can’t tell you how many deer I’ve put down with that combination. I was using that 4X Redfield LONG after everyone here had moved on to 3x9’s.

Second, when we finally DID start getting interested in Variable power optics, we liked them. However, we didn’t splurge here either. We always took the view that you were really paying for a bit more light transmission—and how much difference could that REALLY be??? The rest was for bells and whistles that you could probably live without. After all, I did quite well with a 20 year old Redfield 4X fixed!

It took me quite a bit of time to realize better. Sure, you are paying for better light transmission. And I learned that it really DOES make a big difference where we hunt.

But you are also paying for durability and the ability to retain zero.

I can attest to a number of broken Simmons, Tascos, BSAs, a BEC or two, and one particularly crappy Leapers.

I let my father use the Leapers and I can honestly say that it would not maintain zero from one loaded magazine to the next! A man that has never lost a deer before completely missed one this past deer season—and I attribute it to that optic.

Don’t worry. I plan on re-enacting the Carlos Hathcock shot with it later.

However, this is where I became surprised. I put a Nikon Prostaff 3x9x40mm on my Mother’s Remington 700 .243win. prior to this season. My mother was able to sit a full 10 minutes longer than either my father or I using that optic. She could simply see longer at dusk. He was using that craptastic Leapers, and I was using an 8X PSOP.

That Nikon impressed me and really started me to rethinking a lot of things. It impressed my father to the point that he’s decided to go ahead and put a Nikon Buckmaster 3x9x50mm on his Remington 7400 .30-06.

But I am not writing this to sell everyone on a Nikon. What I am doing is trying to tell of my path to seeking the best balance in what you are paying for.

I was told recently that 90% of the cost of an optic is in trying to get that last 10% of performance. I believe that.

Right now, I am not in a position where I want to spend a great deal of money on optics. That will change soon—and I could probably swing it now if I HAD to, but it would require me to reposition a few priorities that I simply do not wish to do at this time.

Considering this election year, I am operating from the assumption that we could face another AWB. I still have a couple more AR’s to build, a SBR project, and a number of standard capacity magazines to buy. No, I don’t think that they will succeed in an AWB, but I also don’t believe that Zombies will rise this year either. Neither belief means that I shouldn’t be prepared for either—or both.

For now, I have been looking for decent optics that meet my requirements at a reasonable price.

Now, let me say this.

Around here, our primary function is hunting. Light transmission at dusk and dawn are very high priorities. In addition, we live in a freaking forest. There are VERY few places where we will make shots at great distance. I think the average deer shot around here is done at a range of between 75-150 yards. Cake.

However, I DO want the optics to be able to bring out the best in a LR-308. I am currently building a 600 yard private range on our land. I wanted 1,000 yards, but I can’t seem to find a place that I could do that without bulldozing a few things that I’d really rather not demolish (cypress and oak trees).


So, if you are still reading this, God bless you.


As my reading has progressed, my desires for an optic have changed. Originally, I was just considering high quality glass—brightness.

But I have kept piling other things onto the list. Every time I find an optic that starts appealing to me, I find something that causes me to disqualify it. However, I can always find another in that optic’s line that meets that criteria—if I am willing to dump a few hundred more dollars into the optic. Suddenly that $400 optic is costing $1,000 plus.

OK… so this is the list that I have begun working with. Some of it is crucial, some are “wants:”

- Retains Zero
- Brightness/Clarity
- Durability
- Clear to the Edges
- Waterproof/Water Resistance
- Field of View
- Variable Power Range
- Finger Adjustable Turrets
- Ranging Recticle (Mil-Dot)
- Range of Internal Adjustment
- FFP (First Focal Plane) – Would be nice, but eliminates many optics
- Warranty
- Cost


Some of these are more important than others for me, and some I would be willing to compromise on—but it gives an idea of how my process has gone.

Now understand, I am omitting optics that extend beyond certain price ranges. We aren’t talking about Schmitt and Bender, Swavorski, US Optics, or European Zeiss. We really aren’t even talking about Leupold Mk 4, IOR Valada, or some in those ranges. Some of the optics that I looked at may seem that they are outside of the range I am suggesting, but understand that I am looking at both New and Dealer-Sample optics. That has a way of blurring things.

The optics that I primarily looked at were:

Zeiss Conquest (US manufacture)
Leupold VX-III
Nikon Monarch
Kahles Helia
Bushnell 4200 and 6500
Burris XTR


According to most of the reading that I’ve done, it seems to be a consensus that Kahles is the brightest optic in this range—followed closely or equally by Zeiss Conquest.

Kahles seemed geared more towards hunting specifically with no ranging recticles, or other features that could be considered on the “tactical” side. While I really like these optics, I found myself not looking at them as hard as I did earlier. Besides, I never found a deal that made it particularly stand out. And then it was competing with the Zeiss Conquest.

I have REALLY been looking at the Zeiss Conquest. No one complains about the quality of the glass or the quality of the manufacture. It has a lot of things going for it.

However, I learned recently that it suffers from a very limited range of internal adjustment. No problem, right? Just put it on a 20 MOA base if you want longer shots. Well guess what? According to my reading, if you put it on a 20 MOA base, you will get out to 1,000—but you will not have enough downward adjustment to zero at 100 yards if you want that.

Now, I really don’t PLAN on 1,000 yard shots, but I may in the future. And I’d like to know that I could attempt it if I so chose (not that 1,000 is some magic number.)


This made me start second guessing the Zeiss Conquest for use on a 24” LR-308. I think it may sell the rifle short.

Leupold is essentially the standard by which forums typically judge optic brightness on. I should point out that I have repeatedly seen statements that Leupold is not the brightest optic that is out there in its class. Durability, Consistency, and Warranty are what sells Leupold. That and the fact that it is a US company.

However, the Leupold VX-III’s I’ve seen and used have always seems pretty damn good to me in terms of brightness. They’ll work in this swamp I hunt in at dusk and dawn.

So I really pay attention to how an optic measures up against a Leupold VX-III on the forums. Because of my familiarity with the optic and my view that it passes muster for my needs for brightness, it becomes a benchmark for me.

I should point out that the VX-III really hasn’t been a choice for me due to it not having a few features that I’d like to see. But if you want to give me one, I won’t complain.

I mentioned earlier that Nikon really impressed me with its lowest line—the Prostaff. I really can’t see a lot of difference between it’s brightness and that of a Leupold VX-III. Because it doesn’t have the features I was looking for, it really hasn’t been a consideration.

But then there’s the Nikon Monarch line. These are top of the Nikon pyramid (and they then have the Monarch Gold and Monarch X)

However, we are now getting into some dollars. The Nikon Monarch X can run more than a Leupold Mk 4.

I didn’t give a great deal of consideration to either the Bushnell 4200 and 6500. For the 4200, it seems that it didn’t have a lot of the features that I was looking for, and I could probably do better in glass quality. For the 6500, we are getting out of the price range that I wanted to look at.

Neither did I look at the Burris XTR too hard—for the same reasons as the 4200 and 6500.


So wow… I am SOL.

Well, not necessarily.

Lately, I have been taking a serious look at the Falcon Menace series. For those that are not familiar, they are Chinese parts, Japanese Glass, and a British company. They seem to be backed well by the company, and the folks on SniperCentral, Snipersparadise, and Snipershide, seem to rave over them.


Here’s the one I have become interested in:

http://www.falconoptics.com/menace4-14x44FFP.php


What got my attention was this…

The one that I am looking at claims a 94% light transmission. According to Nikon’s own website, the Monarch line—which many say has better glass than Leupold—is claiming 93% light transmission.

And then there is the fact that the 30mm tube of the Falcon Menace has 75 MOA of internal adjustment. That is 5 MOA less than the Monarch (that 5 MOA is a deal breaker.)

Basically, the Falcon Menace 4X14X44mm FFP has all the criteria that I’ve been looking for in a package that is WAY lower than I’d expect to pay. It seems to be well built. The primary criticism that I’ve read (aside from the Asian aspect) is that the knob clicks are felt, but do not have a loud “click” sound. That is actually a plus for me as a hunter.

Someone on this forum mentioned this optic to me a bit ago, and it didn’t register with me. After looking into it, this one is holding my attention at the moment.

At any rate, I thought that some may be able to benefit from this post. This is by far not written from the point of an expert—just a guy trying to sort through a myriad of optics and find something that works.

Any input is appreciated. If anyone has experience with the Falcon Menace, I would love to hear from you.


Thanks!


-- John

 

[Zak Smith]

So what is your "mid range" and what capabilities do you want in a "mid range" optic?

 

[JWarren]

Hiya Zak,

I probably could have done a better job of those areas. This was a re-write of a post this morning (lights went out).


Really, the primary criteria of the capabilities is brightness and clarity. However, I do like finger adjustable turrents, and ranging recticle. A decent about of internal adjustment is high on the list as well.


For price? I was trying to remain under $600 on this little adventure.

If I am really unsatisfied with the options, I may just slap a Nikon Buckmaster on it for this deer season, and then relocate it to my 10/22 later in order to put higher end optics on the LR-308. Translation: If nothing meets the goal, I may just delay it for another year in order to make it a primary focus.


Thanks my friend!


-- John

 

[Zak Smith]

As food for thought, I'd break out general-purpose "mid-range" into either:

A. Type II or "degraded" Type II. By "degraded" I mean it needn't have all the go-fast features one might want in a fighting or 3-Gun optic of this type (e.g., very bright illumination, FFP reticle, extreme durability). Examples include the TA11 ACOG, Trijicon TR21, Burris 1-4x, Leupold 1.5-5x M/RT, Meopta Meostar.

B. Type III or "small" Type III. By "small", I mean all the substantial features of the Type III, but with a smaller form factor and/or smaller magnification range. A canonical example of a "small" Type III scope would be the Leupold 3-9 M/RT.

-z

 

[docgary]

Jwarren:

I picked up a Nikon Monarch last year, just as the line was being upgraded.
Got a 6.5 x 20 x 44 AO with a fine line dot for $269. Saved around 50%!

Great glass - very good brightness and clarity, especially at dawn and dusk!
In fact, Nikon promotes the Monarch series as a hunting optic line.

Presently, I have it mounted on my custom AR (Krieger Barrel, 26" .223)
Excellent to 300 yds...crisp at edges, decent FOV and eye relief.

Only drawback is the turrets could be tighter...frequently get a coupla
clicks more than intended and there's no apparent way to tighten this up.
Other than that, its a fine scope.

I will put it on my soon to order, Rem 700 milspec 5R .308.
However, I need a mildot reticle for my intended LR shooting
so it will go back on the AR eventually.
Check around for a new 'old' series Monarch...you may get lucky.

good luck
docgary

 

[Horsemany]

VXIII. I have kicked this topic around for years. I've experimented with many of the ones you've mentioned and I keep coming back to the Leupolds. For serious target work there are only a couple of scopes that are better IMO. Leupold excels at the target type scope. They have a much larger selection of reticles than most other companies. They are one of the few companies that will actually swap out an existing reticle. The tracking is and reliability are excellent. The number of models and options is much better than most other companies.

The benchrest crowd at my range is dominated by high end Leupolds. These are people who would do anything for performance. They can afford any optic they desire and some compete nationally. The fact they use Leupold tells me they have many virtues. The only scope I know of to be superior to Leupold is Nightforce when it comes to long range shooting.

 

[rangerruck]

that last one sounds like you could not get a lifetime warranty to save your life, and there is no u.s. side "store" with which to return it to.
Dont under estimate the Bushnell line.
Don't forget the supersniper scope.
Don't forget like Nikon, the Pentax line; is all Japanese made, with japanese parts, with japanese quality glass, that must pass rigorous govt. inspections, or they don't get sold. Any all Japanese product has to go through this same testing.

 

[Horsemany]

Don't forget like Nikon, the Pentax line; is all Japanese made, with japanese parts, with japanese quality glass,

I don't mean to be contradictory but Nikons haven't been made in Japan for a long time. They moved to Thailand for a while and now most are made in the Phillipines.

The Pentax scopes are assembled by Burris in Greeley Colorado with Burris tubes which are machined in Greeley. I've been to the facility. Both Burris and Pentax are great scopes with good customer service.

I agree totally with rangerruck about the Bushnell Elite. Especially the 4200. The 6 x 24 Elite 4200 is equivalent to scopes costing 50% more. Great tracking, great glass, and the hydrophobic coating is nice too. These are really Bausch & Lomb designs being rebadged as Bushnells. They are made in Japan in one of the premiere optics facilities in the world IMO. I still see a fair number of the older Bausch & Lomb Elites being used in rimfire benchrest and 300 yd benchrest.

 

[JWarren]

Thanks for the input guys... keep it coming...

a couple thoughts/comments:

rangerruck wrote:

that last one sounds like you could not get a lifetime warranty to save your life, and there is no u.s. side "store" with which to return it to.

I'm thinking the same thing. Company support cannot be undervalued.

Don't forget the supersniper scope.

I like them, but anxiously await them to come out with a Variable. Also, I'd like a bit higher brightness than it is suggested that this one has.

Don't forget like Nikon

I REALLY like Nikon, but I just got a PM that scared me regarding warranty work. I am starting to question how well Nikon would support their optic. I wouldn't bat an eye at a lower-priced Nikon and take my chances-- but for a higher cost one, I may have reservations.

Leupold and Zeiss's no-hassle warranty work is starting to show its value.



As of this morning, my criteria may be changing. Or should I say my price constraints. I am working on a deal that will pay off in the next week or so that would inject quite a bit of dollars into my optics budget-- since I wasn't budgeting this deal in to begin with.

I may be able to start looking in the line of the following optics:

-Nightforce
-IOR Valada
-Leupold Mk 4
-Schmitt and Bender
-Zeiss Divani or Victory


But I'll know for sure in a few days.



BTW... I would also appreciate any input that you could provide on 1.1x4 optics suitable for a CQB rifle that has the option of precision. I looked at the Millet DMS-1, but the reviews suggest that the glass could be a LOT brighter. It seems that the best of this breed is the Schmitt and Bender Short Dot, but that is more than I'd like to fork out on a 1.1x4. The IOR Valada or Leupold lines may be appealing.

I even considered an Aimpoint with flip magnifer, but the FOV seems to be horrible from what I've read.


But I am just tossing them around at this time. I'm still in the mode of getting the LR-308 some glasses first.


Thanks!


-- John

 

[TIMC]

I have been through the whole gambit of scopes over the years and I too began to understand the difference in quality scopes over the cheaper versions out there on the market. All of my serious hunting and target rifles today sport Leupold VXIII's. Leupold scopes have to me always been worth the money for any gun I may be shooting over 100 yards in hunting situations.

For my .22's I have Bushnells on them and am happy with how they have performed. I have not really seen a need to upgrade them to a better quality scope since most of the shooting I do is no more than about 50 yards.

One scope manufacturer you have not mentioned for a mid-range scope is Burris. I have a Burris Signature Safari 1.75-5X32mm scope on my Beowulf and like it a lot. The glass is very clear and with the 4" eye relief does a nice job with this heavy recoil rifle. While I would not change my choice of Leupold as #1 on my long range hunting rifles I would consider Burris if I had to cut corners due to money concerns when outfitting a new rifle

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

A most thorough and excellent question post - I am impressed, and you have done your homework (a lot of which is helping me).

But a few various random thoughts (I too am far from an expert):

1. Magnification - go higher: What are you going to be shooting AT with this rifle at said 600 yard range? If it's steel plates or deer, then the 4-14 falcon or similar magnif scope will will suffice. Will deer wander along your range during the season? But I believe you will want the big brother Falcon to the 4-14 at least if going for targets/groups.

2. Light transmission - go lower: You're not going to be hunting with this gun, right? Not during dusk or dawn. Sure you might shoot a deer that wanders across your range, but you're not lugging this gun up into the tree stand realistically, so forget about light transmission - you don't need it - at all. You're going to be shooting during the day. You want optical quality, yes, for *resolution*, but you don't need the highest level of light transmission for this project - so scale back this requirement to free up money for other requirements.

3. You make a good point about the Conquest not being able to get you back to 100 with a 20 MOA base - not enough clicks - you're thinking on the right lines for 1k yards (even though right now you'll only do 600).

4. If I were you, on a fair but not meager budget, in addition to the Falcons, I'd be looking at the Sightron S2 24x42mm or S2 36x42mm, the Weaver T 24x40mm or 36x40mm, and the Super Sniper 20x42mm, and also check out the other Falcons in both the Menace and the T Range series - these may not be first focal plane, but do you really need a FFP scope for your purposes?

5. Do you want target turrets? I would suggest that you must have them, pretty much, to do what you want - they may rule out certain choices; not sure which ones.

 

[JWarren]

Hi PS,

Thanks for your input. I'll answer your questions/comments.

1. Magnification - go higher: What are you going to be shooting AT with this rifle at said 600 yard range? If it's steel plates or deer, then the 4-14 falcon or similar magnif scope will will suffice. Will deer wander along your range during the season? But I believe you will want the big brother Falcon to the 4-14 at least if going for targets/groups

Well, I don't want to go beyond 4-ish power on the lowest setting. So that kinda knocks out some optics. This rifle's goal is to do a LOT of things pretty well, but not everything perfect.

2. Light transmission - go lower: You're not going to be hunting with this gun, right? Not during dusk or dawn. Sure you might shoot a deer that wanders across your range, but you're not lugging this gun up into the tree stand realistically, so forget about light transmission - you don't need it - at all. You're going to be shooting during the day. You want optical quality, yes, for *resolution*, but you don't need the highest level of light transmission for this project - so scale back this requirement to free up money for other requirements.

Actually, I think you missed the point of a lot of my considerations. This rifle's primary purpose WILL BE a hunting rifle. And dawn and dusk are the primary times it will be used. And 100% of the shots that matter with this rifle will be taken from 25 feet up a tree in a stand-- at dawn and dusk.

So you see, that is why brightness must remain one of my highest concerns.

3. You make a good point about the Conquest not being able to get you back to 100 with a 20 MOA base - not enough clicks - you're thinking on the right lines for 1k yards (even though right now you'll only do 600).

Yup. I think this kinda knocks the Conquest out of my considerations.

4. If I were you, on a fair but not meager budget, in addition to the Falcons, I'd be looking at the Sightron S2 24x42mm or S2 36x42mm, the Weaver T 24x40mm or 36x40mm, and the Super Sniper 20x42mm, and also check out the other Falcons in both the Menace and the T Range series - these may not be first focal plane, but do you really need a FFP scope for your purposes?

As to the FFP-- nah, I can live without it. I consider it a "want" but not a "need." I like that it remains consistant for ranging, but realistically, I can "Range" at 10X with any Mildot optic and adjust as I need to.

I haven't really looked into the Super Sniper beyond seeing that it could be brighter. I may look into the Sightron. What manufacturer warranty do they carry?

5. Do you want target turrets? I would suggest that you must have them, pretty much, to do what you want - they may rule out certain choices; not sure which ones.

Target Turrents would be nice, and I would probably want to hold onto that requirement. However, many optics can be retrofit with Target Turrents by the manufacturer. I know that Leupold and Nikon will install them if you send it to them.


Right now-- due to some changes in the price range-- I am looking heavily in the direction of one of the following optics for the LR-308:


http://www.swfa.com/pc-5488-297-leupold-35-10x40-mark-4-lrt-30mm-riflescope.aspx

http://www.swfa.com/pc-3324-297-leupold-45-14x50-mark-4-lrt-30mm-riflescope.aspx


Thanks!


-- John

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

OK, I misunderstood. I thought that the low light hunting was just as a lead-in description, as a history of your dealings with scopes, but that you wanted to purpose-build a specialized long-range rig.

This rifle's goal is to do a LOT of things pretty well, but not everything perfect.

OK, got it - Jack of all trades rifle.

Let us know the ultimate choice - I'll be interested, particularly to find out how that Falcon performs.

I will add this: If you MUST have a low-end of 4x, then that's gonna limit you to the 4-14s & 4-16s. That greatly changes (limits) your options. In that case, I would definitely take a look at this one if you don't run with the Falcon:

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=475826&t=11082005

I have this Sightron S2, and man is it a great value. Lifetime warranty, very clear & bright, adjustable objective lens. Under $350. The one I have actually doesn't have the holdover reticle, but otherwise it's the same.

But there are actually a lot of choices in the 4-14s/4-16s under $600 - Leupolds, Burrises, Nikon, etc. Just realize that the Sightron is every bit as good.

Also, since you want the jack of all trades, since the Bushnell Elite 6500 "featur[es] a 6.5x magnification range, the widest in the industry", they have that 2.5-16x42mm, so if you can swing $700 instead of $600, sounds like that would fit the bill nicely:

http://www.swfa.com/c-2172-bushnell-elite-6500-rifle-scopes.aspx

The 6500 also has the rainguard coating, which does work, and claims 95% light transmission, more than Nikon Monarch or I think anyone else.

Oh, are you saying that the 75 MOA adjustment of the Falcon is good/impressive, or too low?

Now the Leupold is a good $500 past the price range, so now you're changing the requirements on us. My answers would be completely different if you could go to $1,100 - you bet. I think you will absolutely want far more than a 10x upper end magnification, by the way.

Bottom line is that if you stick to your original parameters, the Leupold LR/Mk4 and the 6500 are out (though the 6500 not by much); the Sightron S3 is also above the price range of $600. The finalists would seem to be Nikon Monarch, Falcon Menace, and Sightron S2 for what you want. Maybe a Leupold Vari-X III or Burris Signature Select.

 

[JWarren]

I will. I'll probably be settling on one in the coming week.

While I want ALL of my rifles to be "target capable," I never build anything out of practical application. My basic rule is that if I CAN'T take it hunting, it becomes a waste for me.


Now granted, this is a "stand hunting" set-up. At 12.25 pounds unscoped and unloaded, this one really isn't ideal as a "brush gun." The way we hunt in stands, we are basically able to "bench" the rifle on the wall of the stand. Getting a 14 pound rifle 25 feet up a ladder is a fun task, however. But I cut my teeth on doing that. My first scoped MBR "hunting rifle" was an HK-91 back in 1987. That one was about 13 pounds.

For brush hunting, I have a lighter AR platform rifle with 1:7 twist and M4 ramps to use 77-82 grain bullets. I'll be looking to put a 1.1x4 optic on that one soon, I think.


-- John

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

OK, I see - I just made some edits to my last post above after you posted just now, so you might take a peek at those changes.

 

[cbsbyte]

The main problem with mid-range scopes, and cheaper scope is that they do not have enough internal MOA adjustment. For example the Burris Signature 6-24x only has 22 MOA of windage and elevation adjustment. The scope will run out of adjustment if trying to shoot beyond 500yrds. The Bushnell 4200 is only slightly better at 40 MOA. The Nikon's, Leupold's etc are not much better. Not having enough MOA adjustment will hinder the shooters ability to shoot at distances beyond 500yrds without the need of special bases. Even with special bases the scope still might not have enough adjustment to reach 1000yrds. This is a major problem with 1" scopes, they do not have enough internal MOA adjustment. If you want to shoot long distance you will need to buy a 30mm tube or better scope. Now if you are only going to be using the scope for hunting or shooting short distances then the overall MOA adjustment is not a major concern.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Okay, you seem to have a different view of what constitutes a "mid-range" optic. When I think mid-range, I think about acceptable optics for a DMR--primarily, the Trijicon ACOG in its 3.5 and 4x varieties, and various 1.5-5 and 2.5-8-ish optics like Leupolds MR/T line and certain IORs. These optics provide fast, two-eyes open target acquisition for close range, with moderate magnification capability allowing added precision at longer ranges. I am really fond of the Trijicon ACOG, in particular. They are Marine-proof, with bright, clear optics, and simple, effective features that work to provide an illuminated reticle in any light condition without batteries, and rangefinding/BDC for select loads. If I manage to get this DS Arms Para FAL I am drooling over, I am going to try put a TA11E on it.

For more range or precision, I consider long range optics--those intended to allow accurate target identification and precise shot placement out to 1000 yards or more. These would include many of the optics you've already listed--the Leupold LR/Ts, most of the Nightforces, ect.

You might want to consider a hunting optic with a BDC reticle, like Leupold's Boone and Crockett, or similar offerings by Nikon and Burris. This might eliminate some of the need for adjustable turrets and an extreme range of adjustment. The 7.62x51 is a pretty common cartridge. You should be able to find an optic that fits the trajectory of an acceptable load to you, be it the 168 or 175 gr MatchKing, or a 165 or 180 gr hunting bullet. These optics are usually plenty bright for hunting and can be had for less than $1000. A 4.5-14 should offer all the magnification you need to reach out to 600 yards and beyond.

Beyond that, the tactical style scopes by Leupold and Nightforce are very good. It's hard to go wrong with them for your application, but they do cost considerably more, and I certainly understand being on a budget.

 

[1/4MOA]

i'm sure not too many people are familiar with this but i recently bought a Millet buck gold 6-25x56. I will say its a great scope for the money. $350. Very clear, repeatability, side focus, target turrets, and plenty internal adjustments. They also have a 4-16 X56 that would suit much better if you plan on hunting with it as scopes gather more light on lower powers and i think its around $250 or so. Dont be fooled by the price. Its a really well made scope.

 

[gunnie]

John

almost sounds like you are trying to cover too many bases.

to me target optics are rarely good for hunting, the low end of 4x being too high for close work. the high end of 4x being too low for extended ranges. [1x4-versus 4x16]

perhaps two different scopes would be more practical for this rifle? then you'd be looking for the PERFECT QD scope mount system. sadly i know of none that actually retain true zero when remounted. i've played with quite a few of these systems and close to retention of zero is really quite good. but not nearly good enough for your 1,000yd quest.

with a possible windfall of american inflationary notes looming on the horizon, have you considered two rifles in a close/distant format instead?

admittedly, one may not be real keen on both in a deer stand. but how many deer have you shot >300yds? if none or few is correct, will this be altered by a foreseen change in your hunting practices?

the 308/ 7.62 nato is an excellent cartridge. i personally own too many of them. but is it really a load that excels beyond 1/2 mile down range?

[before the cries of anguish come in, i AM NOT saying it is not capable for 1,000yd use. just that many calibers are better.]

mine don't, and i have some above decent platforms to launch both 147gr ball and FED .308GMM from. you think two rifles in the stand poorly thought out, try a laser ranger, wind meter, ballistic PDA, and spotting scope.

[i know, you didn't say you were planning to hunt at this range, just making a point.]

in spite of my best efforts to wander everywhere but to a coherent point here.....maybe your long term needs would be better suited if you set the 308 up with hunting/MBR optics. then build your long range platform up around a better suited caliber?

when you laze in your 600yd range @homeplace.com, try some rounds of 168gr sierra matchkings at the LITTLE target hiding behind the others. a butterfly sneezing between the bore and the paper could produce a target wounding shot, instead of the clean kill we all strive for.

just a different spin/view.

gunnie

 

[JWarren]

Sorry I haven't responded. I've been unable to get on here for the last few days like I'd like.

I did want to mention a couple things.


MTMilitiaman wrote:

Okay, you seem to have a different view of what constitutes a "mid-range" optic.

Actually, it was a VERY poor description as I started this thread. When I wrote "Mid-Range," I was thinking mid PRICE-RANGE, but I didn't say that properly.

The usage range is basically anywhere between 100- 800 for most usages.

Sorry for that confusion.


I think your thinking and mine are on the same track.



gunnie wrote:

almost sounds like you are trying to cover too many bases.

to me target optics are rarely good for hunting, the low end of 4x being too high for close work. the high end of 4x being too low for extended ranges. [1x4-versus 4x16]

Well, yes and no...

It really become a case for preference. I've spent most of my life with 4X, and the later part with 3x9. If I think about the hunting that I use a rifle like this for, I think about my past usages.

I almost ALWAYS have the 3x9's somewhere in the 5-7 range for taking the shot. I may run it up to 9 to get a better picture of what I am shooting at-- you don't want to miscount horns around here. But then I usually back it down for the shot. As it gets darker, I may go down lower to get more light.

Even so, I have found numerous times that I'd really like to have more magnification on the high side for target recognition. But I do not want to have 6X as a low end. That is just as limiting.

So, really, I don't see this as trying to do too much with this rifle. A 4 or 4,5x14 looks to be optimal.

with a possible windfall of american inflationary notes looming on the horizon, have you considered two rifles in a close/distant format instead?

Yep... I briefly mentioned earlier that I'll be looking to scope another rifle with a 1.1x4 after I am done with this one.

admittedly, one may not be real keen on both in a deer stand. but how many deer have you shot >300yds? if none or few is correct, will this be altered by a foreseen change in your hunting practices?

Exactly. I have one that I am setting up as a "Stand" rifle, and one for a "Trail" rifle. To answer the question, the max shot have done for a kill as 298 yards. However, as I mentioned, I want this one to be capable of more-- even if my typical use is less.

the 308/ 7.62 nato is an excellent cartridge. i personally own too many of them. but is it really a load that excels beyond 1/2 mile down range?

[before the cries of anguish come in, i AM NOT saying it is not capable for 1,000yd use. just that many calibers are better.]

True enough. Its a balancing act. For my PRACTICAL use, the 308 is fine. If I find that long range becomes a hobby obsession, I may well look at other cartridges. I like what I've read about 6.5 Creedmore, and 260 Remington.

However, at this time, I am sticking with 308.

[i know, you didn't say you were planning to hunt at this range, just making a point.]

Actually, I was speaking of the extremes of capability. Realistically, my hunting range will be 500 yards and below.

I really don't see me taking a shot at beyond 600 yards for a kill.

in spite of my best efforts to wander everywhere but to a coherent point here.....maybe your long term needs would be better suited if you set the 308 up with hunting/MBR optics. then build your long range platform up around a better suited caliber?

You may well be correct in that. For now, I am going to have to take the steps as they are feasible for me.

gunnie, I REALLY appreciate your post. I may have to draw upon your experience again as this project grinds on.




-- John

 

[gunnie]

yet more choices

john,

perhaps just get the _x_ variable that suits your needs, and send it to T. K. Lee @:

scopedot.com

he will give you trajectory at range specific dots in most any flavor of glass. he is a certified repair station for many scope mfgrs, so waranty void is not a problem. you will need to chrono your pet load for this. he lists the scopes he will work on at a link.

personally i have had good results with the (out-of-production) springfield armory scopes calibrated for .308 with 168 gr sierra match king. they have range estimation/finding bars that subtend 3, 6, 12, 18 and 36" at the stadia designated range. the stadia come in 100 yd increments to 1,000 yds. and with a first focal plane reticle, the BDC is true at any magnification. better still (to myself) the whole grid nearly disapears at lowest X, leaving just the three heavy duplex bars, in what would be best described as an inverted german three post reticle.

not the brightest, and older technology on lens coatings. not the toughest scope ever made. but VERY sweet for standard velocity (FED GMM, blackhills) 308 at distance.

they were offered in 3x9x56 and 4x14x56. later models had an illuminated reticle. if you like the idea, and can find one for sale, make sure it is calibrated for 308, as a 223 version was also offered.

gunnie

 

[rangerruck]

horsemany; that is good info on the nikon and the pentax, however, I am wondering where their glass is made. I am thinking it is still made to the quality specs in Japan, and then shipped to the factories. True or no?