Print Page | Close Window

In Search Of My Ultimate Big Game Hunting Scope

Printed From: OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc.
Category: Scopes
Forum Name: Rifle Scopes
Forum Description: Centerfire long gun scopes
URL: http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=15566
Printed Date: March/19/2024 at 00:02
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: In Search Of My Ultimate Big Game Hunting Scope
Posted By: Idaho Scot
Subject: In Search Of My Ultimate Big Game Hunting Scope
Date Posted: February/20/2009 at 18:58

I am trying to find my concept of the ultimate big game hunting scope.  When I say big game I mean Idaho style elk and mule deer hunting.  Idaho is wide open so shots from 50 yards in thick timber to 600 yards across canyons aren’t uncommon.   I will be dealing with extreme temperature and elevation change, gun in and out of scabbards and 6-10 miles of tough hiking a day.   Scope failure after tough days afield is not an option for me. 

The ideal concept for the style of hunting I do is to have a scope where I can shoot out to a specified distance using simple hold over/under or PBR type shooting, maybe out to 300 yards or so.  I would then like to have a BDC style reticle that provides additional aim points for quick aiming out to 500-600 yards. 

I am still trying to decide on whether I want FFP or SFP reticles so I am leaving that out of the equation for now.

Below is the list of items I want.  Durability and Repeatability are the two top priorities for me. 

·         Around a 40mm objective- to minimize potential damage due to scabbard use etc. and to limit weight as much as possible. 

·         I would like the scope to be as light as possible so most likely no 30mm scopes, although some are just about as light as the 1 inchers. 

·         Ideal power range would be in the 2-12 range.  I am not a big fan of high power on big game scopes so I would rather sacrifice on the upper end.  Probably a 2.5-10 type range would be ideal.  

·         A good BDC type reticle so quick shots out to distance can be easily managed with no manipulation of the scope.  A mid width reticle that can be seen easily toward dusk/dawn but not so large that accuracy is lost if a smaller animal is being shot at or if they are at a long distances. 

·         I want low profile turrets, mostly so I don’t have to worry about the turrets being so tall that they get beat up while walking through brush and being put in and out of a scabbard.  But I do want target turrets of some kind.  Maybe mini or low profile turrets?  Ideally I won’t use them but if I needed to take that extra long shot I want to know I have the option to dial in on a consistent turret.

·         Rainguard type coating would be nice.  But I don’t know how many other Manf. Offer something similar. 

·         No AO on the bell for durability reasons.  Maybe side focus or just a standard fixed distance scope so I don’t have to worry about another thing to go wrong. 

·         Glass quality is probably near the end of my list for a couple reasons.  I think that in the price range that I will be looking at I don’t think it is going to be an issue. Also, I have a lot of Bushnell elite scopes and have compared them to other high end scopes.   My eyes can see differences but they are seldom enough to justify the price based on optical quality alone.  And for me they seldom provide more than a couple minutes of extra shooting time at dusk and dawn. 




Replies:
Posted By: swtucker
Date Posted: February/20/2009 at 19:03
How about a Zeiss Conquest with a rapid z 600 reticle? 


Posted By: cbm
Date Posted: February/20/2009 at 19:10
My idea scope for what you listed would be the new Swarovski Z6 2.5-15X44 with the ballistiv reticule ! But at $2300...........I just couldn't commit to one !
 
So yeh...........I'd say a Conquest 3.5-10x44 z600 or z800 . Elite 6500 2-16x42 md . VX3 4-14X40 BC reticule..........the one's on the sample list are new and a great price !!


Posted By: SamC
Date Posted: February/20/2009 at 19:30
Originally posted by swtucker swtucker wrote:

How about a Zeiss Conquest with a rapid z 600 reticle? 
 
+1


-------------

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill


Posted By: 300S&W
Date Posted: February/20/2009 at 20:15
  Well that didn't take long! Wanta take a look?
    http://www.swfa.com/pc-9778-259-zeiss-35-10x44-conquest-rifle-scope.aspx - http://www.swfa.com/pc-9778-259-zeiss-35-10x44-conquest-rifle-scope.aspx    


Posted By: Idaho Scot
Date Posted: February/20/2009 at 20:34
The Conquest is on my current list of possibles.  Anyone have experience with the turrets?  Are they restable to zero, how many MOA per rev, how are they marked, do the number of rotations show on the turret?  
 
Thanks,
 
Scot E.


Posted By: medic52
Date Posted: February/20/2009 at 21:00
Yippee
Originally posted by SamC SamC wrote:

Originally posted by swtucker swtucker wrote:

How about a Zeiss Conquest with a rapid z 600 reticle? 
 
+1
Yippee Here you go +1

-------------
"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." G.K. Chesterton


Posted By: John Barsness
Date Posted: February/20/2009 at 21:19
I would argue for a 3-10x (or thereabouts) with a 40mm objective and a simple multi-point reticle. Everybody's eyesight varies, but it is always interesting to me when 10x isn't enough to aim at something the size of an elk at 600 yards.  That is essentially like aiming with iron sights at 60 yards.
 
Wny anybody would complicate a serious big game scope with exposed turrets and ANOTHER turret for parallax is beyond my understanding. Especially since 10x doesn't need any parallax correction with a good 3-10x scope.
 
I guess part of this is the general notion that a scope under 14x isn't enough for shooting even a small elk. This isn't true.
 


Posted By: Idaho Scot
Date Posted: February/20/2009 at 21:25
Originally posted by John Barsness John Barsness wrote:

I would argue for a 3-10x (or thereabouts) with a 40mm objective and a simple multi-point reticle. Everybody's eyesight varies, but it is always interesting to me when 10x isn't enough to aim at something the size of an elk at 600 yards.  That is essentially like aiming with iron sights at 60 yards.
 
Wny anybody would complicate a serious big game scope with exposed turrets and ANOTHER turret for parallax is beyond my understanding. Especially since 10x doesn't need any parallax correction with a good 3-10x scope.
 
I guess part of this is the general notion that a scope under 14x isn't enough for shooting even a small elk. This isn't true.
 
 
Agreed!  For shooting I very seldom take my scope off 4-6X.  I do however like a little mag, 10x would be fine, to count points, width, thickness of rack, etc.
 
Any scope suggestions then based off this info?
 
Thanks,
 
Scot E. 


Posted By: John Barsness
Date Posted: February/20/2009 at 21:42
Any of the good multi-coated scopes from the Bushnell 4200 to the Zeiss Conquest should work fine. (Notice I went from B to Z....) They are all very good these days. Sorry to be so general, but if you buy a good scope and figure out how to use the reticle by actual shooting out to whatever range, then you are good to go.


Posted By: Idaho Scot
Date Posted: February/20/2009 at 22:40
Originally posted by John Barsness John Barsness wrote:

Any of the good multi-coated scopes from the Bushnell 4200 to the Zeiss Conquest should work fine. (Notice I went from B to Z....) They are all very good these days. Sorry to be so general, but if you buy a good scope and figure out how to use the reticle by actual shooting out to whatever range, then you are good to go.
 
Do any of the 4200's have special reticles besides mildot?  I really love the 4200's but they have never had great reticle choices.  Do any of their 2.5-10's have mini target type turrets or are they all thumb bar style?
 
What about Sightron.  I have been lresearching their SII and Big Sky and am impressed so far.
 
Thanks!


Posted By: Urimaginaryfrnd
Date Posted: February/20/2009 at 23:24
http://www.swfa.com/pc-9790-259-zeiss-3-9x40-conquest-rifle-scope.aspx - 5214609971 http://www.swfa.com/pc-9790-259-zeiss-3-9x40-conquest-rifle-scope.aspx">Zeiss 3-9x40 Conquest Rifle Scope                                                                                       Zeiss 3-9x40 Conquest Rifle Scope
  • Matte
  • Rapid Z 600
  • 1"
  • Etched Glass
  • 2nd Plane
SWFA: $574.95
http://www.swfa.com/pc-9790-259-zeiss-3-9x40-conquest-rifle-scope.aspx">More Info... http://www.swfa.com/addtocart.aspx?returnurl=showcategory.aspx&productid=9790&variantid=9766">Buy Now
 
http://www.swfa.com/pc-4421-227-trijicon-3-9x40-accu-point-rifle-scope.aspx - TR20 http://www.swfa.com/pc-4421-227-trijicon-3-9x40-accu-point-rifle-scope.aspx">Trijicon 3-9x40 Accu-Point Rifle Scope                                                                                  Trijicon 3-9x40 Accu-Point Rifle Scope
  • Matte
  • Amber Triangle BAC
  • 1"
SWFA: $678.95
http://www.swfa.com/pc-4421-227-trijicon-3-9x40-accu-point-rifle-scope.aspx">More Info... http://www.swfa.com/addtocart.aspx?returnurl=showcategory.aspx&productid=4421&variantid=4398">Buy Now


-------------

"Always do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do".
Bobby Paul Doherty
Texas Ranger


Posted By: timber
Date Posted: February/21/2009 at 00:31
"Scope failure after tough days afield is not an option for me."
What about something like this?  It's built like a tank and weighs 4.2oz more than a 3-9 Conquest.  Get it with a B&C.  VX7 2.5-10x45.





Posted By: Jon A
Date Posted: February/21/2009 at 04:17
Originally posted by John Barsness John Barsness wrote:

Wny anybody would complicate a serious big game scope with exposed turrets and ANOTHER turret for parallax is beyond my understanding.

I guess we should all be thankful we're allowed our own personal preferences, likes and dislikes. 

I know many who say the same thing about putting clutches and those gear lever thingies in cars.  They know they get to the grocery store and back "just fine" in cars without, so they "aren't needed."  Why "complicate" a car with things that might "confuse" or "mess up" a driver when that light turns green....

Thankfully, we're not obligated to follow others' preferences.  Personally, I feel simple multi-point reticles have usually exceeded their usefulness by 600 yds without a lot of work and/or happy coincidences that gives one the perfect reticle, perfectly matched to his load and conditions.... 

I feel at that range a turret is the best tool for the job.  The bullet is dropping really fast at that point, dialing exactly and eliminating all estimations removes added possibility for error due to kentucky holdover.  There are many good low profile turrets on the market these days and there are also scabbards big enough to swallow any scope you can think of that can give you some extra room.

What was your price range?  On the low end, I think a 3.5-10 or 4.5-14 VX-3 with the B&C reticle (for most ranges) and their new low profile turret for the really long shots might be right up your alley for a reasonable price.  If you're looking for the ultimate in toughness, reliability and turret repeatability (at a reasonable size/weight) the NF 2.5-10X32 may be just what you're looking for.  Of course Zeiss can install low profile turrets and their Rapid Z reticles are very nice--enough you may be able to do without a turret if you work things out right.  S&B has nice low turrets available.... 

There are many choices.  They are all full of compromises--size, weight, glass, turrets, price, etc.  For weight, Leupold probably takes it closely followed by the Conquest.  Durability, NF.  Glass and durability, S&B but you pay for it.  Absolute best at everything (except for weight, that is), Premier. 

I know I've left many worthy scopes out, those are just examples off the top of my head, not meant to be a comprehensive list.  The point of all that is there are many scopes that will work and the best for you largely depends upon your own personal preferences.   So, what are they?  When you're practicing at 600 yds, what is it you feel will make you more effective?

If you haven't done a lot of that, doing so is more important than scope choice.  Shawn Carlock puts on a nice school in your neck of the woods and has much experience to offer taking deer and elk in the Idaho mountains at all ranges which may give you a jumpstart if this sort of thing is new to you. 

Whatever scope you choose, what's important is you practice with it and become proficient with it.  Most problems blamed on "complicated scopes" would be more accurately described as "incompetent user errors."  Don't blame the tool....


Posted By: jetwrnch
Date Posted: February/21/2009 at 06:13
Seems like a better solution, and the one I've taken, is to have two scopes with QR rings. A lightweight dot scope for the timber and a higher power scope for the open areas. The advantage is that if and when you do fall or have a scope failure you've got a backup. You've also optimized your optics for the conditions instead of trying to find a do all scope. Get into really tough walking conditions switch to the dot to save weight and protect the expensive one. Works well for airline travel to as you can put your optics in your carry-on bag.


Posted By: John Barsness
Date Posted: February/21/2009 at 08:19
Jon A,
 
Obviously, we all tend to state our preferences, and my personal preferences, likes and dislikes come from some experience, not total ignorance of the things you are talking about.
 
I have killed a lot of varmints out to 900+ yards with a combination of turrets and various reticles, and out to 600 have found that the right reticle will do the job even on prairie dogs--which are a LOT smaller than the vital area on an elk, or even a deer. Have also seen such reticles work far too often on big game at 600 to blithely dismiss them. The "secret" to using them is to actually shoot with them at various ranges. It doesn't matter if they match up "perfectly" with a certain load at 100, 200, 300, etc. yards if the shooter knows which reticle to put where at X range.
 
What I have also seen quite a bit of in hunting and guiding for big game is exposed turrets being fiddled with, or accidentally turned to the wrong setting. Ihave also seen big, long scopes being knocked out of zero or even bent after a day in saddle scabbards. Some of this was operator error (not mine, since I wasn't using the scopes to hunt big game) but some of it was mechanical. With the exception of Nightforce and maybe one or two others, using a really big scope in hard Rocky Mountain hunting risks it being knocked out of zero by normal mishaps. I have seen this too many times to count.
 
Another thing I have seen too many times is somebody so obsessed with the relatively small chance of taking a very long shot that they fail to prepare properly for the much more likely shorter shots. Now, obviously some people are prepared for any likely shot--and in my experience a simpler, smaller scope like a 3-10x with the right reticle is a very good choice for that. This not just my personal preference, but an observation resulting from being around lots of hunters in the field.
 
 


Posted By: trigger29
Date Posted: February/21/2009 at 08:29
Originally posted by Idaho Scot Idaho Scot wrote:

The Conquest is on my current list of possibles.  Anyone have experience with the turrets?  Are they restable to zero, how many MOA per rev, how are they marked, do the number of rotations show on the turret?  
 
Thanks,
 
Scot E.
Scot, the turrets have very nice defined clicks, and are resettable to zero. The low profile hunting knobs just pull up, and turn to reset. They are marked in 1/4 minute increments with a thin line, and a thick line every 1 moa. Unfortunately the marks don't go all the way around the turret. If you were going to possibly have to turn the turret a full revolution, you would want to have the target turrets, or pay very close attention to how many clicks you went up. Personally I've found that the Rapid-Z reticle is enough for shots like this by itself. No knobs to turn, just pick your yardage mark, and shoot. The windage markings are a nice reference point also.


-------------

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Posted By: John Barsness
Date Posted: February/21/2009 at 08:32
Ditto on the Rapid-Z. It's a very well designed reticle for hunting.


Posted By: mike650
Date Posted: February/21/2009 at 16:28
Get Your Popcorn Ready


-------------
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear


Posted By: Idaho Scot
Date Posted: February/21/2009 at 18:37
Thanks to everyone for their comments and suggestions. 
 
I have a couple follow-up questions that I haven’t been able to figure out or just need your opinions on. 
 

1.       The Nightforce 2.5-10x32 is more money than I thought I would have to spend but I must admit it does provide a lot of what I am looking for.   For those of you that have experience with it, how much low light time am I going to loose with the 32 mm objective?  The size of that scope is so compact.  I like it!  Also, the NP-R2 reticle looks attractive as it seems it would do what I want and also give me capability to range with it if I ever had rangefinder issues and had to do it the old fashioned way.  Without seeing one it is hard to tell how heavy the reticle lines are.  Are they going to be tough to see in low light?  Do the NXS reticles have illumination or is that just an option on some models?

2.       Does the 2.5-10x40 4200’s have the finger bar or target turrets?  I know the high mag models have the target turrets but I can’t find any info on the 2.5-10’s.  Anyone doing reticle changes to the 4200’s?

3.       Sightron.  What are the major differences between the SII and SII BigSky?  Do they both have the exactrack system?  Is it true they have target type turrets?

4.       Weaver.  Any info out yet on the new super slams?  I have been a long time Weaver fan, especially of their older stuff, V16, and target models.  They have great tracking and have been rock solid for me.  I know they went through a tough time recently but have heard they are back on track.  Their 2.5-10x42 looks nice.  Any info on these?

Thanks,

 

Scot E.



Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: February/21/2009 at 18:42
The 4200's have the raised bar, meaning no coin slot on the 2.5-10's.


Posted By: jetwrnch
Date Posted: February/21/2009 at 20:16
The only 4200s you can change a reticle in are the ones with an AO. The Big Skys have a hydrophobic coating like Rainguard. There are other advantages of the Big Sky but that's the one I remember. 


Posted By: supertool73
Date Posted: February/21/2009 at 20:26
How about Sightron Scopes.  Slightly better glass than a 4200, great CS and tuff.  They also have resettable to zero low turrets with caps, a mildot reticle for holdovers and good eye relief  http://www.swfa.com/pc-10613-1511-new-sightron-3-12x42-sii-big-sky-riflescope.aspx - http://www.swfa.com/pc-10613-1511-new-sightron-3-12x42-sii-big-sky-riflescope.aspx

-------------
Lifetime warranty and excellent customer service don't mean a thing when your gun fails during a zombie attack.

"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything they don't own."


Posted By: NV Hunter
Date Posted: February/21/2009 at 20:53
I'm looking forward to seening the new Leica riflescopes.  extra long eye relier , easy mounting,  30mm tube, side paralax adjustment, billistic plex style retice and Leica precision...  Can't wait to look at one... NV Hunter


Posted By: timber
Date Posted: February/21/2009 at 21:48
Originally posted by NV Hunter NV Hunter wrote:

I'm looking forward to seening the new Leica riflescopes.  extra long eye relier , easy mounting,  30mm tube, side paralax adjustment, billistic plex style retice and Leica precision...  Can't wait to look at one... NV Hunter


Leica! Me too!

Idaho Scot.  Another idea.  Leupold 2.5-8x36 Mark 4 MR/T.  SWFA has them for $929.00.



Posted By: huff143
Date Posted: February/22/2009 at 09:50

3.       Sightron.  What are the major differences between the SII and SII BigSky?  Do they both have the exactrack system?  Is it true they have target type turrets?

__________________________________________________________________________
  
  
    I have both.  The Big Sky does have better glass, but SII is still good.  Yes, they both have exactrac and it has proven very repeatable.  Yes, styles of each are offered with target turrets.
 
    Good luck with your choice and let us know what you end up with.


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: February/22/2009 at 15:51
Originally posted by Idaho Scot Idaho Scot wrote:


 

1.       The Nightforce 2.5-10x32 is more money than I thought I would have to spend but I must admit it does provide a lot of what I am looking for.   For those of you that have experience with it, how much low light time am I going to loose with the 32 mm objective?  The size of that scope is so compact.  I like it!  Also, the NP-R2 reticle looks attractive as it seems it would do what I want and also give me capability to range with it if I ever had rangefinder issues and had to do it the old fashioned way.  Without seeing one it is hard to tell how heavy the reticle lines are.  Are they going to be tough to see in low light?  Do the NXS reticles have illumination or is that just an option on some models?




To answer your Nightforce questions:
1.  Yes, the tradeoff with this scope is that you will lose some low light time vs. a larger objective, but how much depends on the scope you compare it to and the magnification setting you're using.  If you keep the scope set on 5X and lower, you will not notice a drop off in low light visibility with this scope vs. another scope with 42 or 50mm objective of equivalent optical quality.  Larger objectives transmit more light, but don't provide any noticeable advantage in low light vs. smaller objectives of equivalent quality until you turn up the magnification, where the larger objective still provides a reasonably large exit pupil.  IMO, Nightforce falls in the Conquest / Elite 4200 optical performance class.  If your hunting requires more than 5X or you prefer to use more magnification than that, a larger objective will add a few minutes worth of effective hunting time in the mornings and evenings.  The choice involves deciding whether ultimate low light performance or compactness is more important to you.
2.  The reticle lines of the NP-R2 are VERY thin, as are most of NF's reticles.  This is great for precision shooting, but you may lose the reticle in low light, which is compensated for by illumination. 
3.  All NF scopes have illuminated reticles.  The advantage of the 2.5-10X32 NXS is that you have an externally adjustable illumination rheostat, so you have a broad intensity range to accomodate all light conditions by rotating the knob, unlike higher powered NXS models with side parallax focus.    To adjust illumination intensity on the side focus models, you have to unscrew the battery cap and adjust the rheostat with a small screwdriver, so for all practical purposes, you only have one intensity setting available with the higher powered NXS models.


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: ar15a292f
Date Posted: February/23/2009 at 11:13

I would look at the Burris Signature Select 3X-10X-40mm or the 3X-12X-44mm with the Ballistic Plex Reticle.  These two scopes should meet the requirements that you have listed.



Posted By: Idaho Scot
Date Posted: February/23/2009 at 12:50

 
[/QUOTE]

To answer your Nightforce questions:
1.  Yes, the tradeoff with this scope is that you will lose some low light time vs. a larger objective, but how much depends on the scope you compare it to and the magnification setting you're using.  If you keep the scope set on 5X and lower, you will not notice a drop off in low light visibility with this scope vs. another scope with 42 or 50mm objective of equivalent optical quality.  Larger objectives transmit more light, but don't provide any noticeable advantage in low light vs. smaller objectives of equivalent quality until you turn up the magnification, where the larger objective still provides a reasonably large exit pupil.  IMO, Nightforce falls in the Conquest / Elite 4200 optical performance class.  If your hunting requires more than 5X or you prefer to use more magnification than that, a larger objective will add a few minutes worth of effective hunting time in the mornings and evenings.  The choice involves deciding whether ultimate low light performance or compactness is more important to you.
2.  The reticle lines of the NP-R2 are VERY thin, as are most of NF's reticles.  This is great for precision shooting, but you may lose the reticle in low light, which is compensated for by illumination. 
3.  All NF scopes have illuminated reticles.  The advantage of the 2.5-10X32 NXS is that you have an externally adjustable illumination rheostat, so you have a broad intensity range to accomodate all light conditions by rotating the knob, unlike higher powered NXS models with side parallax focus.    To adjust illumination intensity on the side focus models, you have to unscrew the battery cap and adjust the rheostat with a small screwdriver, so for all practical purposes, you only have one intensity setting available with the higher powered NXS models.
[/QUOTE]
 
Very helpful info.  Thank you.
 
As far as the zero stop turrets.  If I am reading correctly if I get these I loose the option to have turret covers.  For the Tough kind of conditions I will be in I would think covers would be important but I don't know the durability of the  zero stop.  Is it waterproof?  What are your thoughts in this regard?
 
Thanks,
 
Scot E.


Posted By: brodeur272
Date Posted: February/23/2009 at 14:43
Kahles CL Multizero with a 4a reticle.  My 0.02.  The 3-9x42 or the 4-12x52 would be my first choices if you can find them.


Posted By: Rancid Coolaid
Date Posted: February/23/2009 at 15:24
Nightforce scopes are built like tanks, very durable, very precise adjustments.  I highly recommend Nightforce NXS series scopes.

The zero stop is money well spent if you plan to dope long shots (make elevation and windage changes at the turret) as it will not allow you to spin too far - prevents getting lost on the dial.


Conquest is a good scope and you would like it.
The Trijicon is aplesant suprise, I like the 3-9x40 more than I thought I would, good glass for the money.
The Swaro is a great scope and near perfect for what you've outlined, the ballistic reticle is fantastic, the glass is great, and all other needed elements are there - I'd do the Swaro.


-------------
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn.
Equality is something you whine about not being given.


Posted By: John Barsness
Date Posted: February/23/2009 at 17:43
Rancid,
 
Just curious if you have tried a Z6 on a rifle of considerable recoil, say a .300 magnum or bigger?


Posted By: Rancid Coolaid
Date Posted: February/23/2009 at 18:06
I recently helped a friend set up a GAP non-typical hunter with a Z-6.  It is a 300WM and it is a boomer.  Thus far, the scope has been great.

Have you had issues?  Swaro said the Z6 series is fine on heavy-recoil guns but did recommend at least 30mm tubes for heavy recoil guns.  Zeiss said the same thing, Trijicon did not.

I just put a Zeiss Victory on my 300WM non-typical hunter and like it allot.

If these scopes fail, they usually fail early, and no problems yet.

Is there something I ahve not yet considered?


-------------
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn.
Equality is something you whine about not being given.


Posted By: John Barsness
Date Posted: February/23/2009 at 18:55
No, I was just curious, as I am in the fairly early stages of testing a Z6 myself.
 
I can see why Swarovski would suggest 30mm scopes on heavier kickers, as they use different erector springs in their 30mm scopes than in their 1" scopes. I am trying to run down two different stories that are apparently coming from Zeiss about which scopes are best for heavy recoil. I suspect Trijicon uses the same erector system in both the 30mm and 1" scopes.


Posted By: Rancid Coolaid
Date Posted: February/23/2009 at 19:54
Thus far, I am impressed with the Z6.  I've compared it side-by-side with a Victory and a Swaro AH as well as Premier and USO.  The glass is great, the tracking ain't as important but seems to be spot-on.

I like the Z6; however, when recently faced with a new scope purchase for a hard-use hunter, I went with Zeiss Victory, I just liked the scope a little more, can't say why.


-------------
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn.
Equality is something you whine about not being given.


Posted By: Idaho Scot
Date Posted: February/23/2009 at 20:26

What model Swaro do you suggest?  I do like the reticle design.

The scope will be going on a 300wm but I am in the process of a .338 build so I guess if Swaro has durability issues among models I need to know that too?

Thanks,

Scot E.



Posted By: jonoMT
Date Posted: February/24/2009 at 00:36
Scot, for me it came down to the Sightron SIII 3.5.-10x44 MD and the Nightforce Compact NXS 2.5-10x32. Ultimately, I went with the Nightforce. Having just got it and mounted it I haven't shot with it yet, but my objectives were much the same as yours. What I can say is that it looks and feels like a great scope. It's a little heavy (19 oz) but is fairly compact. The scope also comes with (unadvertised) polarized flip-ups standard. As Rifledude mentioned, the reticles are thin but the illumination takes care of that for me. While waiting for the mount, I took this scope out a couple times around dusk and glassed deer and other objects. Yes, the 32mm objective limits exit pupil but I don't plan on taking a shot over 300 yards as it's getting dark (and probably not over 200). In that case, I don't mind dialing down to 5-7X and employing some illumination. I did not get the zero stops, given the extra cost. It's not like I'm going to be engaging multiple targets in a combat environment...just looking to get out beyond MPBR when the occasion warrants it.

I plan to take this scope out Thursday to sight it in. I don't think I'll really get to put it or the rifle through their paces but will at least post a mini range report.


Posted By: Rancid Coolaid
Date Posted: February/24/2009 at 07:44
Originally posted by Idaho Scot Idaho Scot wrote:

What model Swaro do you suggest?  I do like the reticle design.

The scope will be going on a 300wm but I am in the process of a .338 build so I guess if Swaro has durability issues among models I need to know that too?

Thanks,

Scot E.




Scott,

My Swaro recommendation would be this:
http://www.swfa.com/pc-12648-978-new-swarovski-17-10x42-z6-30mm-riflescope.aspx - http://www.swfa.com/pc-12648-978-new-swarovski-17-10x42-z6-30mm-riflescope.aspx

It has great range, 42mm objective, no adjustment for parallax, and hunting turrets.  It also has their ballistic reticle - which I like allot - and is small and has good eye relief.

The Nightforce you are considering is about 3 oz. heavier, has about the same eye relief, has target turrets, a 32mm objective, and illumination - for about the same price.

http://www.nightforceoptics.com/SCOPES_OVERVIEW/COMPACT_NXS_MODELS_/compact2_5-10x32nxs_/compact2_5-10x32nxs_.html - http://www.nightforceoptics.com/SCOPES_OVERVIEW/COMPACT_NXS_MODELS_/compact2_5-10x32nxs_/compact2_5-10x32nxs_.html

For a hard-use hunting rifle, either would be good.  The Nightforce will hang more in a scabbard and has a parallax knob on the left side.  For purity of what you want, I'd get the Z6.  It is a beautigul scope and you will love the glass.



-------------
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn.
Equality is something you whine about not being given.


Posted By: jonoMT
Date Posted: February/24/2009 at 10:14
Originally posted by Rancid Coolaid Rancid Coolaid wrote:

The Nightforce ... has a parallax knob on the left side.


Not in the Compact NXS line.


Posted By: Rancid Coolaid
Date Posted: February/24/2009 at 10:30




And:





I should have been more specific, you are correct.  Nightforce, even the compact, have a turret on the left side, making them less scabbard-friendly.


-------------
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn.
Equality is something you whine about not being given.


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: February/24/2009 at 12:31
That left side turret on the compact NXS models is not parallax adjustment; it is the illumination rheostat knob. 

-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Rancid Coolaid
Date Posted: February/24/2009 at 14:14
Yes, sorry, I mis-stated.



-------------
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn.
Equality is something you whine about not being given.


Posted By: jonoMT
Date Posted: February/24/2009 at 14:33
Rancid, you know one thing I think is probably less of a problem with the compact models is that there seems to be less need to adjust the reticle focus - given the lower magnification. I know you've mentioned how annoying it is that the caps twist with the eyepiece.


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: February/24/2009 at 16:52
Originally posted by jonoMT jonoMT wrote:

Rancid, you know one thing I think is probably less of a problem with the compact models is that there seems to be less need to adjust the reticle focus - given the lower magnification. I know you've mentioned how annoying it is that the caps twist with the eyepiece.
 
The issue Rancid refers to with the higher powered models isn't in adjusting reticle focus, it's that the whole eyepiece rotates when changing power.  The compact NXS eyepieces do not rotate with the power ring.
 
According to NF, the higher powered NXS models are that way because they made these scopes for a US Navy contract.  The Navy requested it be that way so that power changes could be easily and positively made by simply grabbing the eyepiece end of the scope and rotating.


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Idaho Scot
Date Posted: February/24/2009 at 17:35
Originally posted by jonoMT jonoMT wrote:

Scot, for me it came down to the Sightron SIII 3.5.-10x44 MD and the Nightforce Compact NXS 2.5-10x32. Ultimately, I went with the Nightforce. Having just got it and mounted it I haven't shot with it yet, but my objectives were much the same as yours. What I can say is that it looks and feels like a great scope. It's a little heavy (19 oz) but is fairly compact. The scope also comes with (unadvertised) polarized flip-ups standard. As Rifledude mentioned, the reticles are thin but the illumination takes care of that for me. While waiting for the mount, I took this scope out a couple times around dusk and glassed deer and other objects. Yes, the 32mm objective limits exit pupil but I don't plan on taking a shot over 300 yards as it's getting dark (and probably not over 200). In that case, I don't mind dialing down to 5-7X and employing some illumination. I did not get the zero stops, given the extra cost. It's not like I'm going to be engaging multiple targets in a combat environment...just looking to get out beyond MPBR when the occasion warrants it.

I plan to take this scope out Thursday to sight it in. I don't think I'll really get to put it or the rifle through their paces but will at least post a mini range report.
 
Please do give a report.  I look forward to reading it.  And thanks for the info on the scope.
 
 
 


Posted By: Idaho Scot
Date Posted: February/24/2009 at 17:39
Originally posted by John Barsness John Barsness wrote:

No, I was just curious, as I am in the fairly early stages of testing a Z6 myself.
 
I can see why Swarovski would suggest 30mm scopes on heavier kickers, as they use different erector springs in their 30mm scopes than in their 1" scopes. I am trying to run down two different stories that are apparently coming from Zeiss about which scopes are best for heavy recoil. I suspect Trijicon uses the same erector system in both the 30mm and 1" scopes.
 
John,
 
If you find out the answer to which scope is best for heavy recoil please let me know.  Information like that would be very beneficial.
 
Thanks,
 
Scot E.


Posted By: timber
Date Posted: February/24/2009 at 17:41

My Swaro recommendation would be this:
http://www.swfa.com/pc-12648-978-new-swarovski-17-10x42-z6-30mm-riflescope.aspx - http://www.swfa.com/pc-12648-978-new-swarovski-17-10x42-z6-30mm-riflescope.aspx

It has great range, 42mm objective, no adjustment for parallax, and hunting turrets.  It also has their ballistic reticle - which I like allot - and is small and has good eye relief.

Is the thin section of the ballistic reticle easy to see in low light conditions?  I haven't been able to find one to check.  It looks very thin.

According to NF, the higher powered NXS models are that way because they made these scopes for a US Navy contract.  The Navy requested it be that way so that power changes could be easily and positively made by simply grabbing the eyepiece end of the scope and rotating.

I asked NF about this very thing and they told me the same thing.  They also said it was necessary to meet the requirements for water infiltration. 


Posted By: Rancid Coolaid
Date Posted: February/24/2009 at 17:50
It is a bit thin for low light, but the positives far outweigh that negative - in my opinion.


As ballistic reticles go, I really like this one.


-------------
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn.
Equality is something you whine about not being given.


Posted By: Idaho Scot
Date Posted: February/24/2009 at 17:58
Originally posted by Rancid Coolaid Rancid Coolaid wrote:

It is a bit thin for low light, but the positives far outweigh that negative - in my opinion.


As ballistic reticles go, I really like this one.
 
Are you refering to Swaro's ballistic reticle or did you mean to insert another?
 
Thanks,
 
Scot E.


Posted By: timber
Date Posted: February/24/2009 at 18:00
Originally posted by Idaho Scot Idaho Scot wrote:

Originally posted by Rancid Coolaid Rancid Coolaid wrote:

It is a bit thin for low light, but the positives far outweigh that negative - in my opinion.


As ballistic reticles go, I really like this one.
 
Are you refering to Swaro's ballistic reticle or did you mean to insert another?
 
Thanks,
 
Scot E.


The Swaro.


Posted By: jonoMT
Date Posted: February/24/2009 at 20:54
Re Higher mag Nightforce NXS: I see. Yes, the that would be very annoying. Not having spent much time with those I just assumed they were like the Compact NXS models, with the separate focusing ring. Thanks for the clarification.


Posted By: Idaho Scot
Date Posted: February/26/2009 at 08:41

Thanks to everyone for their input and time spent helping me with my search.  Excellent From the info you gave I was able to come up with a darn good short list.  There were a couple good suggestions I received but they didn’t make the list mostly due to price for the features I was getting.    

I was able to get to a couple local stores today and put my hands on most of the scopes on my list.  Not all were in the exact format I wanted but close enough to give me a good feel for what I was looking at.  I am a bit frustrated to be honest because it was pretty easy to find scopes with most of the features I wanted but not everything.  Everything seemed to have a short coming or two.   

Short list is as follows:

Zeiss Conquest- 3-9x40 or 3.5-10x44 with Z600 reticle- Out of all the reticles I looked at I was most impressed with this one.  Across the board I was surprised at how light/thin the reticle lines were in most of the other scopes I looked at.  The Nightforce npr2 was so light I lost the reticle in the store just moving the scope up and down isles of clothes.  I know the illumination would fix this but it raises the question as to whether I want to have to rely on a scope that will require illumination for all lowlight and some shadow conditions.  A Dead battery or illumination malfunction could spell disaster.  The NP-1 does look thicker but there wasn’t one to look at so I don’t know for sure how much more acceptable that reticle would be.  The negative- the turrets were a real disappointment.  There are no MOA numbers around the turret nor do the hash marks go all the way around.  Really disappointed as most other aspects were a great fit.  

Nightforce NXS 2-10x32 with NP-R2 reticle.    Before looking at the scopes in person  this one topped my list for having all of what I wanted.  Now the reticle causes me some concern.  Maybe it would be better in natural light but inside I was very concerned about how thin the reticle lines were.  Another question for anyone with Nightforce experience.  Are the turrets the same size on the compact 24 and 32mm scopes as they are on the larger 50and 56mm’s?  I was able to look at a 3.5-15x50 and the turrets are pretty big, making the footprint larger than I thought it was going to be.  Also any experience with the NP-1 reticle?  It appears darker/ thicker but is it enough so to make a difference.  If I go that route I loose the luxury of the NP-R2’s range finding ability and multiple reticle luxuries!Sad
 

Bushnell 4200- 2.5-10x40- I wasn’t able to look at this scope but it won’t have a BDC reticle and am unsure if the turrets are numbered. 

Bushnell 6500- 2.5-16x42- Nice scope, a little long but definitely doable.  No BDC reticle but nice turrets.  I have yet to have an elite scope fail on me so I have a soft side for these guys!

Sightron Big Sky 3-12x42- HHR reticle- I couldn’t find this scope locally so I am unsure of the turrets.  The HHR reticle is a BDC style but only at its very basic form. 

Leupold VXIII-3.5-10x40- pretty nice scope.  Actually surprised me.  The standard turrets had pull up resettable low profile turrets with numbered MOA lines and hashes.  The B&C reticle was a bit of a disappointment.  It was actually pretty hard to see also and smaller than I thought it would be.  Again natural light might help with this. 

 

Thanks for listening to my ramblings.  Any further thoughts would be appreciated.

 

Scot E.



Posted By: Rancid Coolaid
Date Posted: February/26/2009 at 09:30
The turrets on the Nightforce compact are smaller than on the 50mm versions.

There is quite a price range on your potential choices.  If you have the money, the Nightforce would be my pick of the listed scopes.  WHy did you take the Swaro off the list? 


-------------
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn.
Equality is something you whine about not being given.


Posted By: Rancid Coolaid
Date Posted: February/26/2009 at 09:32
Also, be advised, if the Conquest does not have target turrets, Zeiss will put one on for $50.

And Kenton Industries will make a BDC turret for another $75.  I too dislike the Conquest capped turret, but the target turret upgrade is easy and the Kenton BDC is a great option.


-------------
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn.
Equality is something you whine about not being given.


Posted By: Idaho Scot
Date Posted: February/26/2009 at 10:05
Originally posted by Rancid Coolaid Rancid Coolaid wrote:

Also, be advised, if the Conquest does not have target turrets, Zeiss will put one on for $50.

And Kenton Industries will make a BDC turret for another $75.  I too dislike the Conquest capped turret, but the target turret upgrade is easy and the Kenton BDC is a great option.
 
That is great news.  I didn't realize that addition was an option. Would you suggest the zeiss option or kenton?  Do you have to send the scope in or do they just send the new knobs?
 
My list does have a wide range in price but at the lower end (Elites and Sightron)I have a real comfort level as far as durability, turret repeatablity, and performance goes based on past use.  I guess I have a comfort level there and know that they will perform when needed even if they aren't the cream of the crop per say.
 
I took the swaro off mainly due to price.  I know I would love the scope and I agree that it fits my list very well. But the Nightforce was more than I thought I was going to have to spend and the Swaro is another $600+.  If money were only no object!  Ouch  To be honest I have too many irons in the fire right now as far as projects, spreading me too thin!


Posted By: Idaho Scot
Date Posted: February/26/2009 at 10:24
Originally posted by Rancid Coolaid Rancid Coolaid wrote:

Also, be advised, if the Conquest does not have target turrets, Zeiss will put one on for $50.

And Kenton Industries will make a BDC turret for another $75.  I too dislike the Conquest capped turret, but the target turret upgrade is easy and the Kenton BDC is a great option.
 
Also, how much larger are the Zeiss and kenton turrets?


Posted By: Rancid Coolaid
Date Posted: February/26/2009 at 12:06
First and foremost: a clarification:

If the scope does not have target turrets, you must send the scope back to Zeiss for adding target turrets.  Kenton cannot put target turrets on your Conquest.

Once you have target turrets, Kenton makes a BDC that replaces the standard drum (or turret top) with one having your ballistic data printed on the drum.  This is not an "either/or" option, you MUST have target turrets (which Zeiss will do for $50/turret) AND you must buy a BDC from kenton.

it is a good solution - providing you have accurte ballistic data for your round.

I had a 4.5-14 Conquest on a 300WM and the data was spot-on.

The new Conquest target turrets are probably 25% larger than the capped, hunting turrets, but well worth the slight addition in space. Attached is a pic of the Cnoquest that Zeiss put a target turret on.  I added the Kenton drum which is the same size as the standard turret Zeiss provides (just marked differently.)


Hope it helps.




-------------
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn.
Equality is something you whine about not being given.


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: February/26/2009 at 17:26
Originally posted by Idaho Scot Idaho Scot wrote:

Also any experience with the NP-1 reticle?  It appears darker/ thicker but is it enough so to make a difference.  If I go that route I loose the luxury of the NP-R2’s range finding ability and multiple reticle luxuries!Sad

 
 
The NP-1 plex reticle is indeed more visible due to the thicker outer posts, but the reticle of theirs I like best for general hunting would be the FC-2.  The posts appear bolder on the outside than NP-1, yet taper towards the center so they don't obscure too much of the target, and the circle dot in the center is pretty visible.  The thing I like about this reticle for a hunting scope is the fact that only the center circle & dot are illuminated, not the posts.  Therefore, you're less likely of having the problem of over-illumination flare overpowering your target in low light.


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Idaho Scot
Date Posted: February/26/2009 at 18:00
Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

Originally posted by Idaho Scot Idaho Scot wrote:

Also any experience with the NP-1 reticle?  It appears darker/ thicker but is it enough so to make a difference.  If I go that route I loose the luxury of the NP-R2’s range finding ability and multiple reticle luxuries!Sad

 
 
The NP-1 plex reticle is indeed more visible due to the thicker outer posts, but the reticle of theirs I like best for general hunting would be the FC-2.  The posts appear bolder on the outside than NP-1, yet taper towards the center so they don't obscure too much of the target, and the circle dot in the center is pretty visible.  The thing I like about this reticle for a hunting scope is the fact that only the center circle & dot are illuminated, not the posts.  Therefore, you're less likely of having the problem of over-illumination flare overpowering your target in low light.
 
I do like that one.  I just wish it had additional reticles below the main dot for varying yardages. One to consider though. thank you!


Posted By: 308WIN
Date Posted: March/01/2009 at 05:22
Originally posted by John Barsness John Barsness wrote:

No, I was just curious, as I am in the fairly early stages of testing a Z6 myself.
 
I can see why Swarovski would suggest 30mm scopes on heavier kickers, as they use different erector springs in their 30mm scopes than in their 1" scopes. I am trying to run down two different stories that are apparently coming from Zeiss about which scopes are best for heavy recoil. I suspect Trijicon uses the same erector system in both the 30mm and 1" scopes.


JB

DID YOU EVER GET AN ANSWER FROM ZEISS ON THIS?


Posted By: John Barsness
Date Posted: March/01/2009 at 09:09
Not yet. I am going to try again next week.


Posted By: koshkin
Date Posted: March/02/2009 at 13:10
Here is another option for you:

IOR 2.5-10x42 with HR-5 reticle

A bit on holdover reticles: I much prefer to use mil-based reticles (IOR's HR-5 and MP-8 have one mil and one-half mil hash lines).  The general reasoning being that once you learn how to use a mil-based reticle, you can comfortably use any scope out there that has any one of many mil-based reticles.

ILya


-------------
http://www.darklordofoptics.com - www.darklordofoptics.com
https://rumble.com/c/DLO - Rumble Video Channel


Posted By: koshkin
Date Posted: March/02/2009 at 13:12
Oh, one other thing.  I am not sure whether you mentioned which caliber you are going to be using.  Is this a search for a scope for a particular rifle/caliber combination?

ILya


-------------
http://www.darklordofoptics.com - www.darklordofoptics.com
https://rumble.com/c/DLO - Rumble Video Channel


Posted By: Idaho Scot
Date Posted: March/02/2009 at 13:18
Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

Here is another option for you:

IOR 2.5-10x42 with HR-5 reticle

A bit on holdover reticles: I much prefer to use mil-based reticles (IOR's HR-5 and MP-8 have one mil and one-half mil hash lines).  The general reasoning being that once you learn how to use a mil-based reticle, you can comfortably use any scope out there that has any one of many mil-based reticles.

ILya
 
Thanks for the suggestion.  Why is mil easier than MOA?  If I get used to MOA would you be able to say the same thing about being able to use every MOA reticle?  I just haven't used mil reticles so I don't know why they are easier. 
 
This scope will go on a 300 WM but I have smaller calibers too, 25-06, 30-06, and at some point in the future will be building a .338 long rage hunting gun as well.  So I do need it to handle the big boys even though it may not be on one for a while. 
 
I will check out the IOR you mentioned. 
 
Also, Thanks for the SHOT writeup.  I would have been one of the knuckle heads that still would have read it if it was double the size!
 
Scot E.
 
 


Posted By: koshkin
Date Posted: March/02/2009 at 13:27
Originally posted by Idaho Scot Idaho Scot wrote:

Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

Here is another option for you:

IOR 2.5-10x42 with HR-5 reticle

A bit on holdover reticles: I much prefer to use mil-based reticles (IOR's HR-5 and MP-8 have one mil and one-half mil hash lines).  The general reasoning being that once you learn how to use a mil-based reticle, you can comfortably use any scope out there that has any one of many mil-based reticles.

ILya
 
Thanks for the suggestion.  Why is mil easier than MOA?  If I get used to MOA would you be able to say the same thing about being able to use every MOA reticle?  I just haven't used mil reticles so I don't know why they are easier. 
 
This scope will go on a 300 WM but I have smaller calibers too, 25-06, 30-06, and at some point in the future will be building a .338 long rage hunting gun as well.  So I do need it to handle the big boys even though it may not be on one for a while. 
 
I will check out the IOR you mentioned. 
 
Also, Thanks for the SHOT writeup.  I would have been one of the knuckle heads that still would have read it if it was double the size!
 
Scot E.
 
 


Yes, the same would go fro MOA based reticles if you had reticles where all the hasmarks were spaced at one MOA or other REGULAR interval.  Most dedicated holdover reticles have hashmarks spaced at some irregular itnervals in order to make a particular cartridge spot on at 100, 200, 300 and so on yards.  On different manufacturer's reticles, these hashmarks are located at slightly different intervals, so learning to use one, doe snot necessarily making the use of any other automatic.  If you train yourself to use either a MOA- or MIL-based reticle with refular hasmark spacing, you can comfortably use any other reticle with regualrly spaced MOA or MIl -based hashmarks.  I generally suggest MIL-based reticle because I personally pefer them (the spacing makes sense to me) and because there a lot more of them out in the market place than MOA-based reticles.

ILya


-------------
http://www.darklordofoptics.com - www.darklordofoptics.com
https://rumble.com/c/DLO - Rumble Video Channel


Posted By: Idaho Scot
Date Posted: March/02/2009 at 13:37
Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

 


Yes, the same would go fro MOA based reticles if you had reticles where all the hasmarks were spaced at one MOA or other REGULAR interval.  Most dedicated holdover reticles have hashmarks spaced at some irregular itnervals in order to make a particular cartridge spot on at 100, 200, 300 and so on yards.  On different manufacturer's reticles, these hashmarks are located at slightly different intervals, so learning to use one, doe snot necessarily making the use of any other automatic.  If you train yourself to use either a MOA- or MIL-based reticle with refular hasmark spacing, you can comfortably use any other reticle with regualrly spaced MOA or MIl -based hashmarks.  I generally suggest MIL-based reticle because I personally pefer them (the spacing makes sense to me) and because there a lot more of them out in the market place than MOA-based reticles.

ILya
[/QUOTE]
 
Makes sense.  So for a mil reticle I would want a mil turret to minimize math calculations right?  I assume the IOR has mil turrets?
 
Nightforce is MOA reticle and turret correct?
 
And the Zeiss z600 would be the reticle style you were speaking of that varies the hashmarks to get close to most loads at 200, 300, 400 etc? 
 
I have pretty much narrowed my list to the
Nightforce 2.5-10x32 with the NPR2 reticle.  I am a bit concerned about how thin that reticle is but with illumination I guess I would be fine.  I have never had illumination though so it makes me nervous to rely on something I am not used to.
 
Zeiss Conquest-3-9.40 rz600 with aftermarket zeiss turrets. 
 
Bushnell 6500 2.5-16x42 with DOA reticle.  Don't like the reticle as much as the others but it does provide multiple hashmarks that I could use with any round and a little load workup.
 
I will check out the IOR.
 
Thanks again.
 
Scot E.
 
 
 
 


Posted By: koshkin
Date Posted: March/02/2009 at 13:52
If you plan to use both the reticle and the turrets, then it helps to have both cailbrated int he same units: mil/mil or MOA/MOA.

There are not a whole lot of these on the market.  IOR has two scopes, I think, that are mil/mil.  Both are the FFP versions: 2.5-10x42 and 3-18x42

ILya


-------------
http://www.darklordofoptics.com - www.darklordofoptics.com
https://rumble.com/c/DLO - Rumble Video Channel


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: March/02/2009 at 16:38
Originally posted by Idaho Scot Idaho Scot wrote:

 Nightforce is MOA reticle and turret correct?
 I have pretty much narrowed my list to the
Nightforce 2.5-10x32 with the NPR2 reticle.  I am a bit concerned about how thin that reticle is but with illumination I guess I would be fine.  I have never had illumination though so it makes me nervous to rely on something I am not used to.
 
 
Not necessarily.  It depends on the reticle.  If you are going with the NP-R2, then yes, both reticle and turret adjustments are in MOA.  If you go with the Mil Dot or MLR reticles, the turrets will be in MOA, the reticle in mils.
 
The illumination controls on the 2.5-10X32 are quite good.  Unlike the higher magnification NXS scopes, this model has an externally adjustable rheostat that allows a fairly broad range of intensity settings, from very dim to very bright.  I don't believe you will be disappointed in that aspect of the scope.


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: 308WIN
Date Posted: March/02/2009 at 16:48
i think the ultimate scope is in t he 2.5-10x42 power range


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: March/02/2009 at 18:37
Originally posted by 308WIN 308WIN wrote:

i think the ultimate scope is in t he 2.5-10x42 power range
 
For a general all-purpose big game hunting scope, I'm pretty much of the same mindset, 308win!Thunbs Up


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: jonoMT
Date Posted: March/05/2009 at 15:25
Scot, if it was really reliable to range on an animal using just the reticle, I'd go with MIL/MIL because the calculations are easier. However, the Achille's heel of this method is not knowing for sure the size of the animal, e.g. if you assume a deer is 18" from shoulder to brisket and it is 20" or 16" then your bullet drop at ranges out beyond 400 yards (at least on a .308) will be different enough to either miss or place the shot poorly. At those distances, you either need a rangefinder or a legend like John Nosler to shoot for you.

So, in short, it really doesn't matter if the reticle is in MILS and the turrets are 1/4 MOA. Why even have a graduated reticle? You could almost argue against having one at all for this application. Basically, you need a rangefinder and your own drop tables to shoot out a distances beyond MPBR. Still, it's possible to at least use a graduated reticle for a follow-up shot, rather than adjust the turrets. I definitely agree with Koshkin's assessment that a reticle with regular intervals is the way to go since you will be able to adapt to similar scopes. I just can't see going with a BDC scope unless you like thinking in terms of "If I hold over here that will be good to 473 yards and that one will be good at 529 yards."


Posted By: Idaho Scot
Date Posted: March/05/2009 at 16:56
Originally posted by jonoMT jonoMT wrote:

Scot, if it was really reliable to range on an animal using just the reticle, I'd go with MIL/MIL because the calculations are easier. However, the Achille's heel of this method is not knowing for sure the size of the animal, e.g. if you assume a deer is 18" from shoulder to brisket and it is 20" or 16" then your bullet drop at ranges out beyond 400 yards (at least on a .308) will be different enough to either miss or place the shot poorly. At those distances, you either need a rangefinder or a legend like John Nosler to shoot for you.

So, in short, it really doesn't matter if the reticle is in MILS and the turrets are 1/4 MOA. Why even have a graduated reticle? You could almost argue against having one at all for this application. Basically, you need a rangefinder and your own drop tables to shoot out a distances beyond MPBR. Still, it's possible to at least use a graduated reticle for a follow-up shot, rather than adjust the turrets. I definitely agree with Koshkin's assessment that a reticle with regular intervals is the way to go since you will be able to adapt to similar scopes. I just can't see going with a BDC scope unless you like thinking in terms of "If I hold over here that will be good to 473 yards and that one will be good at 529 yards."
 
I am beginning to head toward that line of thinking as well.  The main reason for my desire for a BDC reticle was only for quick shots that might be needed when there was no time for turret adjustment.  It isn't too difficult to memorize the correct yardages that correspond to 5 or 6 hashmarks and then adjust with holdover/under based off my rangefinder reading.  But that is still an option with regular intervals and does allow for additional benefits like Koshkin discussed. 
 
Thanks for your input, much appreciated!


Posted By: Jon A
Date Posted: March/17/2009 at 05:13
I apologize for the delay.

Originally posted by John Barsness John Barsness wrote:

likes and dislikes come from some experience, not total ignorance of the things you are talking about.


I didn't say you were ignorant.  You do however, in my opinion, all too often hold up as examples of why people shouldn't use "complicated" scopes stories of things you have seen people do with them.  People who certainly were ignorant and incompetent or at the very least inexperienced/unfamiliar with their equipment.

Such anecdotes do not give an accurate evaluation of the equipment--which is usually the question being asked.
 
Quote I have killed a lot of varmints out to 900+ yards with a combination of turrets and various reticles,


That's great, they are small targets, but we need to be really careful how much we take from results of varminting as it applies to equipment for big game.  The big problem is there is no penalty, no consequence for a near miss when varmint shooting. 

So when you nail the P-dog at 900 yds on your second, third or even fourth, fifth or 10th shot, you go home that day patting yourself on the back knowing whatever you were using was obviously "good enough" to make that hit.

For big game all that really matters is where the first shot hit.  "Walking them in" is not acceptable (at least to me) for use on big game.  I appologize if you can really hit a p-dog on your first shot every time with a simple holdover reticle at 900 yds.  I'm assuming that is not the case.  If it is, I want to see it.

Quote Have also seen such reticles work far too often on big game at 600 to blithely dismiss them.


I have used such reticles at longer ranges and do not "blithely dismiss" them.  I simply disagree that:

Quote It doesn't matter if they match up "perfectly" with a certain load at 100, 200, 300, etc. yards if the shooter knows which reticle to put where at X range.


When you're out to 600 yds, it does matter in the field.  While it is not difficult to learn where to hold if the reticle is off on your range where the target is always exactly 600 yds away, the problem comes because in the real world the critter isn't likely to be at exactly 600 yds.

When the critter shows up and it's 582 yds away, or 629 yds away, now you need a hold significantly different than your 600 yd hold.  You need to interpolate between lines that are not correct in the first place.  You need to mentally compensate (precisely!) for two very large sources of error.   At 600 yds, you have enough natural sources of error already--adding to them is not desired.

When the lines of a "simple holdover reticle" are exactly on or at least very close, it isn't difficult to interpolate the correct hold pretty precisely--3/4 of the way between the 500 and 600 yd line, 1/3 of the way between the 600 and 700 yd line, etc.  It's quite natural.  But when those lines are significantly off....

I will never be the person to say it can't be done, or tell somebody who has his mind set to it he can't do it.  With enough desire and practice time, anything can be done.

But I certainly won't recommend such a setup ("simple holdover reticle" with lines that are off) for a beginner and say it's "simple."  Once you're doing mental gymnastics like the above, a turret starts to look much, much simpler.

It most certainly DOES matter if they are on or not.  Not much at 300, 400yds.  600 yds?  Yes.

Those are the reasons, based upon my own experience, I say it will take much work and/or happy coincidence for a "simple holdover reticle" to match up well enough to be easy and accurate to use at such ranges.  Nothing blithe about it.

And after all of that work making things work out perfectly, what happens when you go hunting at 9000 ft elevation instead of your usual 3000 ft?  A reticle is not easy to change out.  A dropchart or BDC turret is.

Note in all the above I'm talking about "simple holdover" reticles.  With a tactical style Mil (preferably with 1/2 mil marks at least) or MOA reticle the above doesn't apply since these are used basically the same way as a turret.  They are not as fast (for me, at least) as simple holdover reticles for close-midrange work but beyond 600 yds I find them much more useful.
 
Quote What I have also seen quite a bit of in hunting and guiding for big game is exposed turrets being fiddled with, or accidentally turned to the wrong setting.


And I have seen quite a bit, my wife not able to get the Camaro out of the driveway without killing the engine or laying rubber.  I guess there's something wrong with the car?  Anecdotes of incompetence....

Quote Ihave also seen big, long scopes being knocked out of zero or even bent after a day in saddle scabbards.

I wonder how many of those were light, inexpensive scopes, with 1" tubes?  When we are preached to that making a scope lighter absolutely makes it more durable, absolutely nothing is gained with larger tubes and expensive scopes aren't any more reliable, some may fail to realize these universal truths apply mainly to small, low powered scopes that some prefer and follow them for the big hubbles they want. 

Doesn't work out too well.  If you want a high powered, big objective,  long scope and you choose one that's "really light" with a skinny tube because people tell you that's what's durable, you shouldn't be surprised when it folds like a pretzal in a saddle scabbard or gets knocked out of zero with a tap of a pencil.  "But it was lighter and that means it's more durable, I don't understand how this could have happened!"

Quote With the exception of Nightforce and maybe one or two others, using a really big scope in hard Rocky Mountain hunting risks it being knocked out of zero by normal mishaps. I have seen this too many times to count.


Nightforce and maybe on or two others?  Really John?  How many S&B PMII's, IOR Tacticals, USO's, Hensoldt or Premiers or even true Leupold MK IV's have you seen "knocked out of zero by normal mishaps?"  How often do you even see such scopes in your hunting camps?
 
Quote Another thing I have seen too many times is somebody so obsessed with the relatively small chance of taking a very long shot that they fail to prepare properly for the much more likely shorter shots.

Again, anecdotes of incompetence.  Of course it happens, but it has little to do with the mechanical merits of any particular scope.

Ease of use is something very important and it's something I have much experience with and huge customer demand is based upon with these "complicated scopes."  They are not all created equal so don't take above as a defense of every big ugly scope under the sun.  Things such as FFP reticles, knobs that match the reticles, large diameter single turn knobs, knobs with BDC infor for quick mid-range work, etc, can really make some scopes very easy to use--many times easier than other flavors.  They are not all equal.

But the point is, when one generalizes them all together and 90% of the argument against them is anecdotes of incompetence, that does nothing to inform the audience about the equipment.  In fact, I believe it does more harm than good--mis-informing people and building up unfounded stereotypes that will scare people away from using equipment that very may well perform the function they require much more easily than the personally prefered item of the writer.<


Posted By: hunter12345
Date Posted: March/17/2009 at 09:55
3-12 x42 Big Sky Sightron HHR is by far a very good set up.Plenty of features that work.


Posted By: tahqua
Date Posted: March/17/2009 at 10:12
Originally posted by Idaho Scot Idaho Scot wrote:

for me. 

·         Around a 40mm objective- to minimize potential damage due to scabbard use etc. and to limit weight as much as possible. 

·         I would like the scope to be as light as possible so most likely no 30mm scopes, although some are just about as light as the 1 inchers. 

·         Ideal power range would be in the 2-12 range.  I am not a big fan of high power on big game scopes so I would rather sacrifice on the upper end.  Probably a 2.5-10 type range would be ideal.  

·         A good BDC type reticle so quick shots out to distance can be easily managed with no manipulation of the scope.  A mid width reticle that can be seen easily toward dusk/dawn but not so large that accuracy is lost if a smaller animal is being shot at or if they are at a long distances. 

·         I want low profile turrets, mostly so I don’t have to worry about the turrets being so tall that they get beat up while walking through brush and being put in and out of a scabbard.  But I do want target turrets of some kind.  Maybe mini or low profile turrets?  Ideally I won’t use them but if I needed to take that extra long shot I want to know I have the option to dial in on a consistent turret.

·         Rainguard type coating would be nice.  But I don’t know how many other Manf. Offer something similar. 

·         No AO on the bell for durability reasons.  Maybe side focus or just a standard fixed distance scope so I don’t have to worry about another thing to go wrong. 

·         Glass quality is probably near the end of my list for a couple reasons.  I think that in the price range that I will be looking at I don’t think it is going to be an issue. Also, I have a lot of Bushnell elite scopes and have compared them to other high end scopes.   My eyes can see differences but they are seldom enough to justify the price based on optical quality alone.  And for me they seldom provide more than a couple minutes of extra shooting time at dusk and dawn. 

 
 
It seems to me the guy asked for the above parameters. If this is what he wants I think it is fine.
If folks like target, AO, milling scopes with large objectives, that is fine. That is not what the O.P. asked.
I agree with him.
To pick apart someone elses support of this does not stand to good reason.
 


Posted By: jonoMT
Date Posted: March/17/2009 at 12:17
Scot, after trying out my new Nightforce 2.5-10X32 I can say with even more confidence that this scope would make you happy. I was so impressed how quickly I was able to get it dialed in and start shooting out to 400 yards so much more reliably than I ever could with my previous scopes. For a .338 you would never have to worry about the effects of recoil. These babies are solid. Low light and the thinner reticles really don't seem to be an issue to me.

 I still really like the specs on the IOR 2-12X but the price is about the same and you'd have to contend with the 35mm tube limits your ring choices. (It comes with free rings but you'd have to have a Picatinny rail).

John Barsness and Jon A, I appreciate both of your opinions and find them thought-provoking. There are valid arguments to be made on either side. Obviously there's no one-size-fits-all approach because everyone's abilities, hunting/shooting style, application and experience vary. I've taken the information from this forum and a few other places and synthesized it into a strategy that fits my goals.


Posted By: jonoMT
Date Posted: March/17/2009 at 12:22
Originally posted by jonoMT jonoMT wrote:

I was so impressed how quickly I was able to get it dialed in and start shooting out to 400 yards so much more reliably than I ever could with my previous scopes.


And just to clarify, my goal is to shoot reliably out to 600 yards. This was just the first time I had the scope out and primarily with plinking ammo. Other scopes I've owned would need to be adjusted a few clicks vertically or horizontally but would often produce unexpected results. I'd adjust the Nightforce and the POIs were where I expected them to be - every time.


Posted By: Jon A
Date Posted: March/17/2009 at 13:43
Originally posted by tahqua tahqua wrote:

To pick apart someone elses support of this does not stand to good reason.

Did you read the thread?  The OP wants turrets.  John said don't "complicate" the scope with turrets.  I don't see how that's "support."  Also note my initial suggestions to the OP "supported" the above parameters quite nicely.


Posted By: Idaho Scot
Date Posted: March/17/2009 at 13:56
Originally posted by jonoMT jonoMT wrote:

Scot, after trying out my new Nightforce 2.5-10X32 I can say with even more confidence that this scope would make you happy. I was so impressed how quickly I was able to get it dialed in and start shooting out to 400 yards so much more reliably than I ever could with my previous scopes. For a .338 you would never have to worry about the effects of recoil. These babies are solid. Low light and the thinner reticles really don't seem to be an issue to me.

 I still really like the specs on the IOR 2-12X but the price is about the same and you'd have to contend with the 35mm tube limits your ring choices. (It comes with free rings but you'd have to have a Picatinny rail).

John Barsness and Jon A, I appreciate both of your opinions and find them thought-provoking. There are valid arguments to be made on either side. Obviously there's no one-size-fits-all approach because everyone's abilities, hunting/shooting style, application and experience vary. I've taken the information from this forum and a few other places and synthesized it into a strategy that fits my goals.
 
What reticle did you get on your 2.5-10x32 nightforce ?
 
Thanks,
 
Scot E.


Posted By: jonoMT
Date Posted: March/17/2009 at 18:10
Originally posted by Idaho Scot Idaho Scot wrote:

What reticle did you get on your 2.5-10x32 nightforce ?


I went with the mil-dot but also seriously considered the NP-R2.


Posted By: 308WIN
Date Posted: March/17/2009 at 19:48
I found "MY" ideal ultimate scope.

diavari 2.5-10x42 with #4


Posted By: John Barsness
Date Posted: March/17/2009 at 20:17

Jon A,

Let me respond to your post point by point.
 
First, my job, fortuately or unfortunately, involves mostly "average" shooters, however we want to define that. Obviously real experts (like you) aren't going to be asking questions, because they already know just about everything.
 
I am well aware of the "spray and pray" technique many use for shooting varmints. This is why I do practice with more scientific techniques (and long-range scopes) when shgooting at longer ranges. For your information, all of my longest-range prairie dog shots would have killed a deer or elk, even when they missed. Yeah, some were made on the 2nd or 3rd or even 5th shot, but most of the time ANY of the preceding shots would have landed solidly in the lungs of a big game animal.
 
I do have quite a range of experience with various multi-point reticles, inclusing the Horus, Darrel Holland's, Nightforce's, as well as all the common types. Some are better than ohers, obviously, especially at longer ranges. It's also just as obvious that any of them take some practice, as does using turrets. I have done a lot of both. In fact I started using turrets in the 1970's.
 
If anybody uses a GOOD multi-point reticle enough out to 600 yards, they can land a bullet in the vitals of a big game animal. One of the things I have been tryng to avoid so far in this discussion is personal judgements, but since you brought it up, I don't like to shoot at big game animals at ranges beyond 500 yards, reserving those distances for varmints and targets. This is because I believe in hunting, not sniping. I get far more of a thrill stalking within what these days might be called "close" range than shooting way out there.
 
Also, I have read too much on the Internet about super long-range shooting of big game to assume that even experts like you always hit them in the right place with the first shot. I have also guided supposed long-range experts who, when their time came in the field, didn't quite follow through. Of course that wouldn't be you, but there it is--and it's part of my experience.
 
There is an awful lot of advice these these days (in magazines, on TV, on the Internet, etc.) about how easy it is to make long-range shots with this or that scope and this or that reticle, turret system, etc. This allows the average shooter to believe it's possible to just twirl a dial or use a certain reticle and kill big game out to XYZ range. The fact is that MOST shooters wwon't practice, and even those who practice won't practice enough. I know this because I have dealt with such shooters personally, while giving instruction at various levels.
 
The other sad fact is that as fewer people get out to hunt enough to learn to hunt, they search for technological fixes. Instead of getting closer, they believe they can buy the right scope and rifle and shoot big game at 600 yards or more.
 
I have personally tried about half the models of scopes you mention as being super-reliable. They are fine instruments, but another sad fact is that most hunters will not (or cannot) buy them. Again, I am writing for the more-or-less average person. And personally, I cannot imagine why somebody would "hunt" with the bigger ones, which sem to be the choice of many "experts." I have also not been impressed with certain individual scopes made by some of those companies, and more than a few of the custom riflemakers and professional guides I know have not experienced the absoluute perfection often touted for such scopes--or the absolute competence of those who bring them on hunts.
 
One other thing I have noticed over the past few years is that the shooters who are really into big scopes, long range, etc. etc. are convinced that anybody who isn't is somehow not with the modern program, or otherwise incompetent. The implication is that "hunting" with any other equipment is simply dumb. Personally (again) I have far more respect for somebody who can sneak up on a deer or elk and kill it at short range with an antique scope or even iron sights. And yes, I do hunt and kill big game animals with iron sights every year.
 
So no, I am not writing for you, or any other expert who already knows about the differences between various $1500+ scopes, or who has never missed hitting exactly where they are aiming at any range out to 1000 yards. You guys already know all about it, and don't think many other people do it right.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: rifle looney
Date Posted: March/17/2009 at 20:17
Do you do this to attract attention? you are one person and to each his own! not everyone uses or needs what you have or use, not every one has the income you have. They are on here asking for tips and advice not a show down or an argument, they don't want to know what you have shot at extreme distances or how good you are ....make it simple make it enjoyable, most of all make it fun! 

-------------




Posted By: jonoMT
Date Posted: March/17/2009 at 22:47
I dunno John, why not be able to do both - stalking or long range shots, that is? The first antelope I took I walked around a mile and a half so I could get up on him at 25 yards. The one I took this year was at 310 yards with 10-15 mph crosswinds. I'm equally proud of both. I've also stalked mule deer in to 60 yards, crawling through cheat grass and cactus with a 10.5 lb M1 Garand. My point is, there are all kinds of ways to enjoy the experience and I find it just as appealing to become adept at taking a long range shot as I do seeing how close I can get.

Regarding distance shooting, I won't exceed my limits. If I feel I can't make a clean kill I won't do it. But it stands to reason that if a person does put in the time and effort with decent (not over-the-top) equipment that if he gets good at 600 yards in nasty conditions then the 300 yard shots become much easier. And really, most of the time I expect to be able to close within that distance. I would agree, however, that for many hunters it would be best if they got a decent 3x9 or fixed 4X scope and learned and practiced enough to become proficient out to 300 yards. Most of the guys I know zero their rifles at 100 yards (or even a couple inches low in one case), rarely practice and get cheapo scopes. I've cringed as I watched hunters break an antelope's hind leg or gut shoot a deer. One of my buddies asked me if he should ever clean his rifle.


Posted By: Jon A
Date Posted: March/18/2009 at 05:49
Originally posted by rifle looney rifle looney wrote:

Do you do this to attract attention?

I do it for love of the sport, in an attempt to help people.  Poor advice is not helpful to anyone.  John was advising he use a simple holdover reticle at ranges of 600 yds, even if it wasn't exactly on rather than "complicate" the scope with a turret.  In my opinion, this was very poor advice for the specific application and I explained exactly why.
Quote not everyone uses or needs what you have or use, not every one has the income you have.

Please refer back to my first reply in this thread and the scopes I suggested (specifically the first couple).  Thank you.
Originally posted by jonoMT jonoMT wrote:

I dunno John, why not be able to do both - stalking or long range shots, that is?

Exactly.  I simply don't understand the need some have to "choose sides" and think one precludes the other.  As if putting a few extra tools in your toolbox which can be pulled out and used if/when required makes somebody a bad person or makes him forget how to use all the other tools. 

I see marksmanship and the competence with your tool of choice (rifle, pistol, bow, whatever) to use them beyond the 1/2 of their capability as simply one of the many skills envolved with hunting--not something to be ashamed of.  Not something inherently "bad."

In the days before filling my tag last year, I was within 25 yds of probably 10-12 different decent bucks, 3-points or better (8-point to you Easterners, 4-point to you fake Montanans).  None of that from stands, but all sneaking through the woods and hills on my own two feet.   One in particular, actually made me just a little afraid for a good 30 seconds or so, as when he discovered me by almost stepping on me as he was following the trail of a hot doe I happened to have sat down on when I saw him sparing with another buck, he didn't run away but instead got angry with me!   I don't think he knew or cared exactly what I was.  For just a moment, I was afraid he was going to use those horns on me like I had just seen him use them on the other buck.  Luckily for him, he didn't follow through with his threat and his horns were a bit too small for me.

It was great hunting, many wonderful experiences and I enjoyed every minute of it even if none of them had wallhanger horns.  That's what it's all about.

Of course that doesn't fit the strawman of me John has decided to construct and knock down.  That's OK, I don't hunt to impress anybody else.  I do it because I enjoy it--in whatever flavor it may come.

So when the very next day, a very different sort of opportunity presented itself, one that required very different skills, I was happy to have those tools in my toolbox and was able to succeed in a situation where frankly the vast majority of hunters would not have.  I refuse to accept that I need to feel guilty for being able to succeed in the situation that was presented.  I do not accept that this success is somehow "less worthy" than if I had pulled the trigger on any one of those close bucks just because the number on the rangefinder may have not been politically correct with some.

John,

I'm sorry you decided to stoop to the ad hominem, labeling and applying stereotypes to me with inuendo while putting words in my mouth instead of continuing the technical discussion of the merits of various optics to most easily accomplish the task for which the OP asked--a discussion from which we all may have learned something.

I am glad to hear how much your long range shooting has improved though.  Just a couple short years ago you were pretty proud of the 9" groups you shot at the Charlie Sisk Rifle Shoot in Texas from only 400 yds with a .308 and 300 Win.  From how you described it, 400 yds sure seemed like a big deal for somebody who has been using turrets since the 70's.

So it's good to hear that these days every single shot you fire, including your first, with varmint rifles presumably, are more accurate even at 900 yds now than they were at 400 yds back then.  You must have practiced much in the meantime and become very, very good.  I commend you for that sir. 


Posted By: John Barsness
Date Posted: March/18/2009 at 09:26

Jon,

Obviously this isn't going anywhere, and hasn't since the first time you posted something about me. 

I can't recall acting proud of the 9-inch groups shot at the Sisk shoot. They were shot with randomly purchased (not by me) factory ammo in ightweight hunting rifles, off an impromptu rest that wasn't the steadiest in the world in a stiff wind, without making any attempt to compensate for the wind.

The groups were shot not to see how small a group could be made but to illustrate some points for the people attending the shoot. I have shot many smaller groups at 400 yards before and after, but that was irrelevant to the Sisk shoot, and the points we were trying to make to the attendees.

By the way, since you have such extensive knowledge of scopes, and questioned my testing for resolution and brightness at 25 yards, can you guess why all the optical engineers I know do it pretty much the same way, sometimes even at closer ranges?


Posted By: Idaho Scot
Date Posted: March/18/2009 at 09:34

Friends,

As the original poster of this thread I have found all posts to be informative and beneficial in some way even if it didn’t specifically mention exactly all, or any, of the criteria I mentioned that I wanted in my new scope.  Any person seeking advice on such topics will be best served when they hear all sides, experiences, and suggestions, which is why, in my original post,  I left the door open for any other suggestions or comments besides what I thought I wanted.  This option then leaves the OP with the job of dissecting all the info gathered, throwing out info that seems questionable or in disagreement with their own experience, and coming to the best decision possible.  Only having one perspective is not only counterproductive but very likely a waste of time and money as it may lead me in the wrong direction.  My point you may ask- wide, varying experiences are often a very good thing in this kind of thread, IMO.

I am new to this forum and very likely am unfamiliar with protocol, acceptable behavior, etc. but it seems prudent at this time to point out that we are all on the same side here.  Each of us is passionate about the shooting sports and in my opinion that makes us a special bunch of folks with enough similarities to justify some tolerance, refusing to accept each disagreement based on personal experience as a lack of true experience or personal attack.  It is fairly obvious that the dissention between the 2 of you has a history, even if both of you weren’t aware of it.  And while I understand that machismo is built into the very fiber of our male beings I also know that most of the time these types of “back and forth’s” lead no where beneficial and leaves all parties looking like jackasses in the end.  And I am quite certain that if I had the privilege of sitting down with either one of you that my opinion of you would be much higher than that!  I have no doubt that anyone is purposely trying to give bad advice here and if that is the case it seems a worthy step to then assume that experiences vary, sometimes greatly, but all forms of honorable and respectable debate regarding such topics will have the greatest chance of leading guys like me to the best piece of glass for my intended use. 

I appreciate both of your input regarding my quest!



Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: March/18/2009 at 10:05
Good post, Idaho Scot!  I think you have approached your quest from the right perspective by asking good, thought provoking questions.  We all have different ideas about which gear is best suited for our purposes, and this can sometimes lead to heated disagreements.

-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: koshkin
Date Posted: March/18/2009 at 10:54
Gentlemen, can't we all just get along?(and agree to disagree if we have to).

ILya


-------------
http://www.darklordofoptics.com - www.darklordofoptics.com
https://rumble.com/c/DLO - Rumble Video Channel


Posted By: Ed Connelly
Date Posted: March/18/2009 at 11:00
" Why, soitenly!!!   Nyuk...nyuk...nyuk.." 
 


-------------
Be sure to visit,

http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_topics.asp?FID=50 - THE ED SHOW

Ju Cucarachas!!!


Posted By: Longhunter
Date Posted: March/18/2009 at 11:03
Jon A:
 
I value having John Barsness on this site. 
 
Personal attacks are out of line, and say more about you than you may want us to know.   If you want to pick a fight, do it somewhere else with somebody else. 


Posted By: cpwomack
Date Posted: March/18/2009 at 12:25
Excellent Longhunter


Posted By: BillyWayne
Date Posted: March/18/2009 at 12:59
Two Guns                    50 Cal

-------------
John 11:35
The're taking the hobbits to Isengard!!


Posted By: SamC
Date Posted: March/18/2009 at 15:20
Originally posted by Longhunter Longhunter wrote:

Jon A:
 
I value having John Barsness on this site. 
 
Personal attacks are out of line, and say more about you than you may want us to know.   If you want to pick a fight, do it somewhere else with somebody else. 
 
+1


-------------

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill


Posted By: Ed Connelly
Date Posted: March/18/2009 at 15:49
Both Jon A and John Barsness bring a whole lot to our site here.  I guess lots of folks think it's one of the niftiest forums around.  We all like to read what Jon A contributes about hunting and long range shooting, and we all like the fact that John Barsness is here to talk with us about his experiences.  It's fun, it's informative, and it's good for SWFA's website. 
 
So let's not bicker or try to split hairs over differing long range philosophies.  There are LOTS of threads that I do not visit right here on this forum because I have absolutely no experience in those types of activities.  Not all of us have to agree on everything!  [  I have NEVER been on Spotting scopes!!!   Laugh   -----only nerds go there!!  Shocked ]     heh heh  
 
Anyway, let's keep our forum the best in America   ( I almost said Texas.....! )  Bucky   
 
 


-------------
Be sure to visit,

http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_topics.asp?FID=50 - THE ED SHOW

Ju Cucarachas!!!


Posted By: swtucker
Date Posted: March/18/2009 at 15:55
Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

Gentlemen, can't we all just get along?(and agree to disagree if we have to).

ILya
 
+1


Posted By: jonoMT
Date Posted: March/18/2009 at 22:33
I can see it now: opticstrashtalk.com


Posted By: Kickboxer
Date Posted: March/19/2009 at 09:31
Originally posted by Ed Connelly Ed Connelly wrote:

Both Jon A and John Barsness bring a whole lot to our site here.  I guess lots of folks think it's one of the niftiest forums around.  We all like to read what Jon A contributes about hunting and long range shooting, and we all like the fact that John Barsness is here to talk with us about his experiences.  It's fun, it's informative, and it's good for SWFA's website. 
 
So let's not bicker or try to split hairs over differing long range philosophies.  There are LOTS of threads that I do not visit right here on this forum because I have absolutely no experience in those types of activities.  Not all of us have to agree on everything!  [  I have NEVER been on Spotting scopes!!!   Laugh   -----only nerds go there!!  Shocked ]     heh heh  
 
Anyway, let's keep our forum the best in America   ( I almost said Texas.....! )  Bucky   
 
 
 
Very well said. 
 
(Was that Ed??)


-------------
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.

There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living


Posted By: BillyWayne
Date Posted: March/19/2009 at 09:47
Yeah.  The current administration wants all of our guns.  If no guns, no need for optics.  No optics, no need for optics talk (pun partially intended).  Unless we all get into bird watching.  So we should be civil to each other in our equipment disagreements.  We are on the same team.

-------------
John 11:35
The're taking the hobbits to Isengard!!


Posted By: jonoMT
Date Posted: March/19/2009 at 11:37
Originally posted by BillyWayne BillyWayne wrote:

Yeah.  The current administration wants all of our guns.


There's no disputing that there are members of Congress and people within the Administration that are anti-gun but do you realize how overblown these kinds of statements are? After a while, it gets to sound like crying wolf and that's the last thing we need. There are members of Congress who realize that there is such a thing as going too far (and that their political future is never as solid as people think it is). Case in point: In just a few days, a decision to mutilate all surplus military brass was rescinded so that it does not include .50 BMG or smaller. That is positive action on the part of many of us who wrote our representatives and is indicative that not all is lost.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net