I have recently had health problems and can no longer handle heavy recoil. I traded a 30-06 rifle in and settled on a Savage 10FCP in 6.5 Creedmoor. I realize that many competition shooters use this caliber but I will not be doing any competition shooting. It will only be used for deer and recreational target shooting out to 500 - 600 yards max, mostly under 400. The target shooting will be new for me. In the past I have used 4x or 6x scopes to hunt. After studying scopes I think I may get a Nikon Prostaff 5 3.5-14x40. I will be more than likely be getting a bdc reticle because of the range. I don't think I would benefit from mil dot. I do not know if I should shell out $50 more dollars for FFP. I'm thinking it may not matter because if I zero at 100 yards, I would probably always keep the magnification high beyond 100. This is all new to me. If I am missing something or are there other scopes at comparable prices that are better? I would greatly appreciate the information. I figure if I fall in love with distance shooting I can get a much better scope later. I have a good 500 yards I can safely shoot on on my property and for now this will probably be about as far as I shoot.
Scope help for new rifle.
- Thread starter KYamateur
- Start date
- Status
Im an unabashed Nikon fan, i have a half dozen and they have all been good. I just got a bushnell legend ultra hd 4.5-14x44 with mildot for my new build and so far ive really liked that one. I havent shot it at range yet, as ive only finished the build last week, but ive done some research, looking, and playing with the mil dot reticle and i find i like it as well as the bdc reticles. Its fairly simple to use a balistics program to calculate the necessary mil hold over and then use the reticle to adjust. I need to do some shooting to action build a drop table for my gun and loads.
I use a Bushnell Elite 6-24X with AO on my .204 for long distance prairie dogs. Bought mine at a local Bushnell Outlet where they give a great discount for my Kansas State Rifle Asso. membership. So I paid about $350 for a scope with a MSRP of $550. It's a good scope, but not as good as my Leupolds.
But, if you are OK with less magnification you might try what I have on my .270. I have a Burris FullField E1 4.5-14X. It has a graduated cross hair that could be used for longer distances. I shot a coyote at 400 yards once with it. Great scope. You can get them for under $300, a great buy for the money. It's better than my Bushnells in my opinion and I have 3 Bushnell scopes that I'm happy with. Let us know what you get.
But, if you are OK with less magnification you might try what I have on my .270. I have a Burris FullField E1 4.5-14X. It has a graduated cross hair that could be used for longer distances. I shot a coyote at 400 yards once with it. Great scope. You can get them for under $300, a great buy for the money. It's better than my Bushnells in my opinion and I have 3 Bushnell scopes that I'm happy with. Let us know what you get.
cdb1
Member
I've always admired LoonWulf until now. Just kidding. I don't see as well through Nikon as I do some other brands. Which allows a smooth segway to my point. If you have the opportunity to look through several brands of scopes and don't, you will be doing yourself a disservice. The reason being that everyone's eyes are different. LoonWulf sees great through Nikon. Take a Burris that's comparably priced to his favorite Nikon and I'll see better through it. Another person will see better through a Bushnell. I had a customer a couple of years buy a Weatherby Mark V and a scope. After he picked out his rifle we looked at scopes. He had always used Nikon and liked them but wanted to try a Leupold because of how nice they were. He'd been reading that all his life. So I had him look through Leupold, Nikon and Zeiss. He saw better through the Nikon than the other two. And the Nikon was a lower priced model than the other two by a good bit. He was still leaning towards a Leupold until I said, Get the Nikon. The Nikon didn't look good to my eyes at all.
If you can go to a store with a good selection and look through several brands. Adjust the ocular and look through them at the same magnification setting. Pick the one that you see best through. If there is a tie, toss a coin or pick the one that costs less.
If you can go to a store with a good selection and look through several brands. Adjust the ocular and look through them at the same magnification setting. Pick the one that you see best through. If there is a tie, toss a coin or pick the one that costs less.
A note of caution:
Unless the BDC in a scope is calibrated to actual measured bullet BC and velocity with the rifle, plus the altitude and temperatures to be used in, a 3 to 4 MOA or more error will happen at longer ranges.
When checking scopes for optical clarity in a store, focus them for the subject distance, after you adjust the eyepiece (ocular lens) for reticle sharpness against a plain background, not the down range thing you adjust focus for. If the sales rep won't let you do that, go to a store that will.
Unless the BDC in a scope is calibrated to actual measured bullet BC and velocity with the rifle, plus the altitude and temperatures to be used in, a 3 to 4 MOA or more error will happen at longer ranges.
When checking scopes for optical clarity in a store, focus them for the subject distance, after you adjust the eyepiece (ocular lens) for reticle sharpness against a plain background, not the down range thing you adjust focus for. If the sales rep won't let you do that, go to a store that will.
Last edited:
IMO, Nikons are good glass for the money. Their Spot On software helps getting a leg up on BDC for distance shooting and will accommodate variables.
Leupolds are great, but they're a tier up in cost IIRC. Similarly Tract, although not as established as Leupold (yet?).
I use to like Burris, until I sent one back to have a Mil dot reticle installed and they sent it back with 5moa between the footballs instead of 3.38.
Leupolds are great, but they're a tier up in cost IIRC. Similarly Tract, although not as established as Leupold (yet?).
I use to like Burris, until I sent one back to have a Mil dot reticle installed and they sent it back with 5moa between the footballs instead of 3.38.
Locally I have access to looking at Nikon, Bushnell, Leupold, a few Burris and Weaver models, some lower end Zeiss, and about every model Vortex you can imagine. There are many more but they are all very low end scopes and brands. The clearest scopes I have seen are the high end Bushnell Elites and higher end Leupolds but they are more than I care to spend at this time. Just from looking the best ones for my eyes seemed to be Nikon Prostaff 5, Vortex Viper and the mid grade Leupolds. They all seemed very close to each other. The Zeiss Terra 3x didn't look as good to me as those I listed. Again, I'm limited to few or no models from many of the other manufacturers if I want to look at them locally. Vortex seems to be the big thing going in this area. I haven't personally seen a Bushnell Ultra HD scope but I use the Ultra HD binoculars and they are amazing for the price.
Also, I understand how the bdc reticle works and the websites for Vortex and Nikon offer pretty easy computer applications to understand the approximate ranges for all of the circles or dots. What I do not understand is if it is worth getting the FFP scope. From my understanding the marks in the reticle only correspond to distances if the scope is set to its max magnification unless you get a FFP scope. I don't know if that would be an issue or not. I have also read quite a bit about the mil dot reticle but do not know if it would be worth mastering if I am only going to do some occasional shooting. Most of my shooting is done with 22lr rifles or various caliber pistols, and I may not dedicate the time needed to master the mil dot.
Thanks for all of the replies.
Also, I understand how the bdc reticle works and the websites for Vortex and Nikon offer pretty easy computer applications to understand the approximate ranges for all of the circles or dots. What I do not understand is if it is worth getting the FFP scope. From my understanding the marks in the reticle only correspond to distances if the scope is set to its max magnification unless you get a FFP scope. I don't know if that would be an issue or not. I have also read quite a bit about the mil dot reticle but do not know if it would be worth mastering if I am only going to do some occasional shooting. Most of my shooting is done with 22lr rifles or various caliber pistols, and I may not dedicate the time needed to master the mil dot.
Thanks for all of the replies.
I just dropped exorbitant coin on a Vortec, after convincing myself that FFP and mil was important in BDC and knobs. I'm hoping the guilt/buyer's remorse subsides when I get it mounted and shoot it.
cdb1
Member
If I were shooting out to 600 yards I think I'd probably want FFP. Since I shoot around half that distance and in I prefer SFP.
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
For your intended use I think that Nikon will work fine. I don't have any FFP scopes but for $50 I think I would get it.
The MIL dot does not take long to master, and once you do, it will be much more reliable than the bdc, I have two bdc scopes, one Nikon and one pentax, the Nikon bubbles piss me off alot, there's a LOT of room for error beyond 250 yds with those lil buggers, if you want bdc, find hashes instead. A MIL dot is .2 MIL so within each hold over there is still a margin of error but that's only 3.6" at 500 yds, so it's plenty doable. As far as ffp vs sfp, I would prefer the ffp, for any kind of distance, you'll want to zero at a higher power, but what happens when the target of opportunity presents itself at 55 yds and 14x is way too much? That is why ffp is nice, also if you're leisurely plinking, the targets will be hit from 10 yds at 4x to 500 yds at 14x without the headaches. Ffp isn't just for long range, it's for zooming in and out, do you need it? Nope, but it's sure nice to have! Only you can say it's worth the $50, but I'd do it.
cdb1
Member
I agree that mil dot dot is better than BDC. Those Nikon bubbles give me the fantods too and I don't even use scopes with a BDC. I've looked through tons of Nikons with BDC reticles due to the fact I sold scopes for two years. The logic behind them eludes me. A hash mark or dot has to be more precise than a bubble.
The marketing is that they dont obscure your target, also i guess your supposed to center stuff in the hole easier? I dunno honestly, I use them to give me a decent idea of where my bullet will land, but not a precise point. When hunting If the circle covers more than just a shoulder its probably farther than I should be shooting at it, or needing to shoot at it usually. When plinking i do like it as i can go low, high, center, and left, right, or a combo there (inside of the circle, the line, or outside touching) of to walk rounds onto target at longer range. I honestly think a hash system would be easier to use for alot of shooting especially if you wanted to be more precise.
Ive also never owned a FFP scope, I probably should just to see if i like them better. My reasoning is its unlikely ill use drop compensation at anything less than max power, at least when max powers 14x or less. My other uses for SFP scopes is ill zoom in and out to make my drop compensation marks match my impacts. Ive found this most usefull when im shooting rifles and rounds where i can call my own shots.
as Cdb1 and Horsey said, mil dots are pretty easy to understand, and im beginning to like them (In theory at least as i havent gotten to put it into practice) more than bdc circles or hashes, as jumping from rifle and cartridge is as simple as knowing the different drops in mils, rather than trying to remeber WHICH hash works with what distance on this particular rifle.
Ive also never owned a FFP scope, I probably should just to see if i like them better. My reasoning is its unlikely ill use drop compensation at anything less than max power, at least when max powers 14x or less. My other uses for SFP scopes is ill zoom in and out to make my drop compensation marks match my impacts. Ive found this most usefull when im shooting rifles and rounds where i can call my own shots.
as Cdb1 and Horsey said, mil dots are pretty easy to understand, and im beginning to like them (In theory at least as i havent gotten to put it into practice) more than bdc circles or hashes, as jumping from rifle and cartridge is as simple as knowing the different drops in mils, rather than trying to remeber WHICH hash works with what distance on this particular rifle.
And for most popular hunting loads with a 200yd zero, first dot is close to 300, second is 350 and first holdUNDER works for 50-100 yds nicely, can't make it easier than that
windage is WAY WAY WAY easier too! ETA I really like my us army style MIL dot, but my favorite love is the half mil with hashes and dots. Don't really care for the rgrids, they're way to busy for my use.
Last edited:
I ended up going with a Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 4.5-14x44. After reading LoonWulf's post I had it in the back of my mind when I went scope shopping. After going to a couple of big box stores I got a chance to peak through a bunch of scopes and it seemed really nice for the price. I went home and searched online and found nothing but positive reviews and found one on sale so cheap at Sportsman's Outdoor Superstore I decided to purchase one. To my eyes it was one of the best in category and actually looked better than the Prostaff 5 I had been contemplating. It has the Mildot reticle so I guess I will have to spend a little time figuring that out, but once I learn it I won't have to worry about other scope manufacturers' proprietary BDC reticles. I did run across a brand that I found very interesting but couldn't find anything about. It was a Styrka. It looked high end, but I just couldn't find any reviews on them. I am going to keep my eyes open though because that just might be my next scope.
Yes.
See if it will bore sight at 100 yards installed on that rail. Most scopes do that easily.
Most scopes have at least 20 MOA adjustment down from optical zero to compensate for 20 MOA rails raising the bore axis up. There is usually twice or more up from optical zero.
Mechanical zero at the mid point between mechanical windage and elevation stops is not the optical zero on the main tube and fixed lenses' centerline at each end.
See if it will bore sight at 100 yards installed on that rail. Most scopes do that easily.
Most scopes have at least 20 MOA adjustment down from optical zero to compensate for 20 MOA rails raising the bore axis up. There is usually twice or more up from optical zero.
Mechanical zero at the mid point between mechanical windage and elevation stops is not the optical zero on the main tube and fixed lenses' centerline at each end.
Last edited:
Jim Watson
Member
I didn't know that.
Why, then, do you suppose scope specifications not show Up and Down elevation ranges? (At least Nightforce and S&B don't.)
Why, then, do you suppose scope specifications not show Up and Down elevation ranges? (At least Nightforce and S&B don't.)
They may think most customers won't understand. And don't want to be bothered by thousands of customers believing optical center is mid point mechanically calling them to explain why the scope specs differ from their beliefs. They usually spec just the range between limits but not mentioning the spring opposite the knobs limit the erector tube's movement as those knobs can't screw into the scope as far as they can unscrew out.
Same reason most folks think that knob on the left side adjusts parallax like they think twisting the objective barrel does. The fact that it focuses the scope for range was/is not well understood by so many. Works just like a camera lens but instead of film/sensor, it focuses the target image on a reticle. Reversed on FFP scopes's reticle, normal on RFP scope reticles.
Jim Watson
Member
Strange, the side knobs on my Leupolds affect both parallax and focus at the same time in the opposite direction.
It is very difficult to get a good sight picture and I want no more to do with the design.
It is very difficult to get a good sight picture and I want no more to do with the design.
Jim, that happens when the eyepiece lens is not focused exactly on the reticle for your aiming eye and the objective lens isn't focusing the target image exactly on the reticle.
When both lenses are not focused correctly on the reticle, adjusting the objective lens moved its focus point back and forth across the point the eyepiece lens is focused. Target and reticle won't be in sharp focus at the same time.
The solution is to focus the eyepiece exactly on the reticle. I'll explain how soon.
When both lenses are not focused correctly on the reticle, adjusting the objective lens moved its focus point back and forth across the point the eyepiece lens is focused. Target and reticle won't be in sharp focus at the same time.
The solution is to focus the eyepiece exactly on the reticle. I'll explain how soon.
Last edited:
Jim Watson
Member
I hope so. I have wound those eyepieces up like a two dollar watch with little result.
I have an inexpensive Simmons and a friend has a nice Nightforce with binocular type ocular focus that works very well. I don't know why so many scopes leave you to screw the whole eyepiece in and out on very fine threads. Your eye is fatigued before you can tell a change in focus.
I have an inexpensive Simmons and a friend has a nice Nightforce with binocular type ocular focus that works very well. I don't know why so many scopes leave you to screw the whole eyepiece in and out on very fine threads. Your eye is fatigued before you can tell a change in focus.
Precise Rifle Scope Eyepiece Focusing
Note: Please read through these instructions first, before you actually do them, so you’ll be familiar with the mechanics and have an easier time actually doing them.
Our eyes automatically adjust their focus if what we’re looking at through a lens isn’t quite sharp. The objective in this writing is to minimize the eye’s auto focusing so we see clear and perfectly focused stuff in our rifle scopes; both target and reticle. We’re dealing with a few thousandths inch position variables of where the target image is focused near the reticle and where the eyepiece focuses on the reticle so it appears sharp in our aiming eye.
1. Get a 6X to 8X monocular or binocular, then focus it at some distant target. Do this by looking through the right side only a few seconds noting image clarity and sharpness. Then look away. If needed, adjust its eyepiece to refocus. Repeat this until the distant image is as sharp as possible the instant you look at it through the optic. You’ll hold the 'nocular in one hand and adjust the scope eyepiece with the other in this procedure.
2. Remove the scope from your rifle. Anchor it someplace where it is pointing towards a clear sky or wall, then put the 'nocular used up against its eyepiece so the reticle’s seen. The reticle wire diameter will appear 8 times thicker with an 8 power 'nocular. And it’s easy to see its focus change from one wire to the other twisting the eyepiece only 1/4th turn moving it only .010" back or forward. Don’t look at that magnified reticle more than about 10 seconds while doing one of these options depending on the situation.
* If the reticle is blurry, the rifle scope eyepiece is not focused perfectly for you aiming eye. The scope eyepiece needs to be moved back or forward a few thousandths of an inch; hence the fine threads so that’s easy to do. 25 threads per inch is about what it’s got. Twisting the eyepiece one full turn moves it .040".
* If one wire is sharp and the other is blurry, then the eyepiece is focused on the sharp wire; its center is about .002" away from the other wire; the eyepiece needs to move about .002" to focus between both wires so both appear equally sharp.
3. After the scope eyepiece is set for best reticle focus and sharp appearance, tighten the scope long ring to the eyepiece.
You’re done. Questions?
You can use your bi/mo-nocular on the scope to check for parallax, too.
1. Hard mount the scope aimed on something easy to see some known distance.
2. Get your 'nocular focused at a far distant target, then put it up to the scope eyepiece. The target the scope’s on will appear larger in the ‘nocular than it does through the scope.
3. Move the ‘nocular around to see if the target image moves about the reticle.
* If it does, the scope’s focused at some range different than your down range test target it. Adjust the scope focus for the its objective lens so the target image stays in place relative to the reticle as you move the ‘nocular around looking into the scope.
* If it doesn’t, you did all the right stuff to begin with.
4. Note any focus setting on the scope and that’s what’s needed for the target range used.
That’s all, folks.
Note: Please read through these instructions first, before you actually do them, so you’ll be familiar with the mechanics and have an easier time actually doing them.
Our eyes automatically adjust their focus if what we’re looking at through a lens isn’t quite sharp. The objective in this writing is to minimize the eye’s auto focusing so we see clear and perfectly focused stuff in our rifle scopes; both target and reticle. We’re dealing with a few thousandths inch position variables of where the target image is focused near the reticle and where the eyepiece focuses on the reticle so it appears sharp in our aiming eye.
1. Get a 6X to 8X monocular or binocular, then focus it at some distant target. Do this by looking through the right side only a few seconds noting image clarity and sharpness. Then look away. If needed, adjust its eyepiece to refocus. Repeat this until the distant image is as sharp as possible the instant you look at it through the optic. You’ll hold the 'nocular in one hand and adjust the scope eyepiece with the other in this procedure.
2. Remove the scope from your rifle. Anchor it someplace where it is pointing towards a clear sky or wall, then put the 'nocular used up against its eyepiece so the reticle’s seen. The reticle wire diameter will appear 8 times thicker with an 8 power 'nocular. And it’s easy to see its focus change from one wire to the other twisting the eyepiece only 1/4th turn moving it only .010" back or forward. Don’t look at that magnified reticle more than about 10 seconds while doing one of these options depending on the situation.
* If the reticle is blurry, the rifle scope eyepiece is not focused perfectly for you aiming eye. The scope eyepiece needs to be moved back or forward a few thousandths of an inch; hence the fine threads so that’s easy to do. 25 threads per inch is about what it’s got. Twisting the eyepiece one full turn moves it .040".
* If one wire is sharp and the other is blurry, then the eyepiece is focused on the sharp wire; its center is about .002" away from the other wire; the eyepiece needs to move about .002" to focus between both wires so both appear equally sharp.
3. After the scope eyepiece is set for best reticle focus and sharp appearance, tighten the scope long ring to the eyepiece.
You’re done. Questions?
You can use your bi/mo-nocular on the scope to check for parallax, too.
1. Hard mount the scope aimed on something easy to see some known distance.
2. Get your 'nocular focused at a far distant target, then put it up to the scope eyepiece. The target the scope’s on will appear larger in the ‘nocular than it does through the scope.
3. Move the ‘nocular around to see if the target image moves about the reticle.
* If it does, the scope’s focused at some range different than your down range test target it. Adjust the scope focus for the its objective lens so the target image stays in place relative to the reticle as you move the ‘nocular around looking into the scope.
* If it doesn’t, you did all the right stuff to begin with.
4. Note any focus setting on the scope and that’s what’s needed for the target range used.
That’s all, folks.
Jim Watson
Member
Thanks. Dean Grennell did that with a SLR camera, too.
- Status
Similar threads
