Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics my dream long range riflescope

I've got a buddy who does alot of tactical competition. They get 40 secs to make three hits on a silhouette target any where from 300-800 yds. Standing start with backs to the target.
He's used both the Leupold M1, with 1/4 MOA clicks, and the M3 with 1 MOA elevation and 1/2 MOA windage adjustments.
He says nobody can shoot any closer than the M3 can adjust.
That's because the adjustments are actuall closer to half of that. Half either way.
The US Army snipers seem pretty happy with the M3 adjustments as well. E

there in lies the difference, for a man sized or big game targets a larger adjustment factor is fine, if your trying to hit a coyote at those ranges I will take the finer adjustments.

It's just another of many small ways to tighten up your groups. True, if you don't have a pretty accurate rifle you won't notice much difference, but that is a whole 'nuther problem. With an accurate gun, and .5 MOA is no longer mythical, these small differences can add up to the difference between a hit and a miss on small varmints on the far side of 500 yards.

The idea that one can't hit his target because .1 mil clicks are too coarse is one of the more laughable things I've read on the Internet lately. So lemme get this straight...... The difference in one click of an MOA scope and a MIL scope at 1000 yards is less than 1.1 inches of correction. If you're telling me you can call wind and shoot that well (not to mention load ammo so consistently every time) with your hunting rifle that you must have sub-1" adjustment resolution at 1000 yards, you are one bad SOB and I'd love to take some lessons.

I've printed sub-half MOA (with witnesses) at 1000yards (actually, the laser said it was 996y to be honest) just in the last week. The scope??? It had 0.2 MIL TURRETS! How can it be???


We all need to get out and shoot more in the real world.....

Friend, you obviously have way more experience than I. I ran some numbers at 1K to find the differences in 1/4 MOA and .01 MIL adjustments. No, it's not a lot of difference, but still, the MOA adjustments are finer. Perhaps of greater difference is the reticle subtensions I found available in MOA and MIL scopes. In general I was able to find scopes geared to varmint sized targets in MOA reticles, more so than in MIL. I'll take every advantage I can see in my efforts to connect with small varmints at long ranges.
It's not only your level of accuracy I plan to achieve, but I want the group to be centered on the kill zone of the rock chuck, not two inches south.

For pure varmint hunting, I'm with you. Nothing wrong with finer reticles and adjustments (to a point) in that specific role.

Nope.

6X zoom ratio will screw the reticle up and cause way more problems than it solves.

If the reticle is in the first focal plane then it will be a disaster as an up close quick shooting reticle with the scope at 3X. If it is fine enough to work well at 15X (where you will take most of your longer range shots due to mirage and light conditions) then it will be distractingly heavy at 19X.

If you mount the reticle in the Second focal plane and set the subtentions for 19X then when you dial it down because of mirage or low light the subtensions will be wrong.

Personally I don�t want any more than 15X on the top end.



While I don�t speak for Scenarshooter I have shot his #1 go to coyote killing rifle and it had a 4X16 S&B on it at that time and it was a Mil/Mil setup.


There are no inches in Minutes of Angle until you are rangefinding and then MOA simply blows Mils out of the water for speed and ease of use.


It is actually not so simple. I use a 1/3 MOA click scope and it can actually be closer to the perfect drop compensation than a � MOA depending on what is the actual firing solution.

In other word if a hypothetical shot would require 10.333 MOA of compensation then a 1/3 MOA adjustment will give a theoretically better firing solution than 10.250 from a � MOA adjustment.

The furthest off you can be from the perfect compensation with a 1/3 MOA adjustment is .1666 MOA, or � of the click value if the perfect theoretical adjustments is halfway between your clicks.

The furthest off you can with a � MOA adjustment would be .125 MOA, an advantage of .041 MOA or less than � of an inch at 1000yds in a highly unlikely theoretical situation.

Of course all of the above is just my silly opinion and what the heck do I know?

First time shooting a 1 Mile. This was in 1988.


1017 yd coyote.


1102 yd Bull Elk.

Using the metric system means seamless trajectory corrections, and I'm sure that's why your friend uses metric. For 100 meters, 0.1 mil is 1 centimeter. If your rangefinder will provide output in meters and your drop and windage chart is in meters and centimeters, everything is nice and easy on a base 10 (decimal) system. No need to worry about odd fractions. It wouldn't take much practice to think in metric, and unit/distance conversions are VERY simple in the metric system.

JB impressive vertical spreads on the 1 mile groups!!!! so if I get what your saying is you think 18 or 19x is too much power for a SFP reticle to work in all conditions if the reticle is subtending its useful amount at max power. I had not thought of that, but the problem is the same for other scopes of higher power than even I am calling for. maybe you just double the subtensions at half the power and shoot at half power if the mirage is bad. another thing is typically shots at animals are before and after the heavy mirage sets in.

I don't see whats wrong with 6:1 erector, the fact is the 4.5-14 model leupold (which I currently also use) does suck for FOV on the low end even in comparison to scopes in its class.

mils are easier to use once ya learn it.i for the life of me cant figure out why anyone wood build a scope with both mil and moa.just dumb as hell.

CC,

Yes in my opinion 18X or 19X is too much magnification for a hunting scope.

As far as using the scope on � power that gets to be too complicated for simple minded fellows like me to use in a pressure situation.

So for me a 15X top end magnification is just right.

On the low end I want at least 4X.

When shooting against the timer I am faster to the first hit at ranges beyond 20yds using the 4.5X than I am using a 2.5X. Inside 20yds to contact distance it is a wash according to the timer.

I have never felt handicapped with the FOV of the 4.5X.

Just my 2 cents for what it is worth.

its nice hearing your opinion JB, we need it on the new swaro Rf bins next, LOL. of course your product is going to be the best. but I like lower power for coyotes and finding them very fast and FOV really helps with that. the reason I would like higher power is because I would not feel the need to change out the scope when I do my load development at 500 yards. currently I throw on a 6.5-20 sightron. it always shoots noticeably smaller groups than the 4.5-14 mark 4 does. with 6:1+ power ranges now, it appears we can have the best of both worlds. a scope with some serious FOV on the low end and target power on the top. it would be nice to only use one scope on my gun for all needs. from load development at distance and able to pick up a running coyote through the sage. March has a 10:1 setup. the 2.5-25x42 seems like a very interesting product. its too bad the only company that sells them is back east.

I thought that about FFP reticles too until I tried some of the better ones. The March MTR as well as some of the others. They are sufficiently fine in the very middle as the "clutter" is not noticed at low powers and at high powers the illuminated fine part of the reticle is pretty nice.

Having shot long range with scopes of quite a few different magnification ranges, I prefer the ability to turn my scope up to at least 20X and 25X is better sometimes. I use an 8-32X scope on my dedicated prairie dog rifle and I use 32X a LOT.

I have a 4-30 Bushnell on my current long range hunting rifle. I have NOT taken a field shot at an animal at 30X yet but I have used it a lot to shoot targets at 1000 yds and beyond. It is NOT a handicap.

Not sure what you mean by the 6X zoom causing problems, especially on a 2nd focal plane reticle.


I don't use my scope to range, that's what rangefinders are for. I also don't use the holdover dots in any of my scope beyond 450 yds. I feel that once you hit 500 yards, you are better off twisting turrets and holding on. Those little spots can only be calibrated so close and environmental conditions are pretty dynamic.

March now makes a FFP scope that has an 8 or 9x zoom range. With the reticles they have, it works very well.

With the right scope, having a top range of 25 or 30 is not a handicap. If it is too much then turn it down.

Well we all have opinions and mine is that much over 15X is more of a hindrance than a help in a big game optic.

A good quality optic with 15X will allow aiming resolution inside of � MOA. More magnification will not offer any more useful aiming resolution in a hunting situation.

If we accept that the higher mag scopes really don�t offer any real advantage then the next question is �What are the disadvantages?�.

Here are a few more:

When we increase the magnification we get a smaller field of view and a smaller exit pupil.

This makes it much more difficult to spot your own hit and keep your situational awareness during the shot. With a 15X optic I can usually see the bullet land at ranges beyond 500yds when shooting the .264 Win Mag.

I personally would never shoot at a big game animal with 25X or more because you are so limited in your ability to fix a problem if you need a second shot or to watch a mortally hit animal make a 50yds dash before crashing in the brush.

This whitetail was a perfect example of what I am talking about. From a less than perfect shooting position I was able to recover from recoil and see the deer get hit and then follow it into the brush. I can�t do that with high mag scopes.

JohnBurns

"With a 15X optic I can usually see the bullet land at ranges beyond 500yds when shooting the .264 Win Mag."

I use 20X for the very same reason you use 15X. The field of view is wide enough and the magnification is enough for me to see what's happening.

With 25X you can take a good look prior to the shot and decide if you really want to take that shot and then back down to a lesser magnification for the shot.

By the way, the shot on the whitetail was beautiful.

I hope that one day when the VX 6 finally comes out, at this rate 5 years from now, they will offer a 3-18 model, or a 3.5-21 with the graybull reticle available. I can agree that over 15x probably isn't the best for shooting animals, however with 6-1 or greater power ranges, one can have the best of both worlds, lots more FOV on the low end for calling coyotes quick shots and high power for long range load development. I simply just shoot tighter at long ranges with a higher power scope and it would be nice to not have to change my scope out when doing accuracy testing.

I am not a high scope power is everything guy, but if you can have it there without sacrificing FOV on the low end why not. in the past that was the trade off if you want high power. too much power and crappy fov on the low end. its modern times (except at leupold) It is surprising leupold is totally behind the curve here with their crappy 4:1 zoom rate, while other have 6:1 and march a tiny optics company in japan has 10:1

FYI, the VX6 is available now.

Therein is our disagreement. WE don't accept that. By and large, long range shooters who put together their OWN packages, mostly opt for more magnification. Having shot extensively with my VX3 LR 4.5-14, I can say that the Bushnell 4.5-30 and nightforce 5.5-22 are both worlds better for long range work. I like to shoot coyotes at 800+ yards and I find myself using 20+ a lot on those shots. What I don't like is having too much magnification on the low end when trying to find something.

I spent the week hunting coues whitetail with a 5-50X March scope. This was overkill. We never turned it past 24 and made 1000 yd shots. Even a 375 yard shot was taken at 16 power. I guess this guy wanted the bragging rights to the baddest scope. I doubt he will ever be able to use 50X but it sounds
good!!

The March 2.5-25 has very little working against it other than price.

John,

The optical rule of thumb is that the average human eye (by definition 20/20) can define about 1" at 100 yards.

Thus an average human with a 4x scope can define 1/4" (approximatly but not quite 1/4 MOA), and with a 10x scope can define 1/10th". Etcetera, etc.

With your scope turned up to 15x scope you should be able to aim somewhat closer than 1/4 MOA,

At the low end, I have personally never felt handicapped much with 6x. Last winter I shot a running 250-pound wild boar at 10 yards with a 2.5-10x set on 6x--and center-punched him through both shoulders and spine.

That said, everybody's different.

Did it sink????