Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Help scope my new hunting 308

That Nightforce 2.5-10 is a great scope. A friend has it on his AR.


Hey formy!

Just thinking about everything. You constantly preach that Leupold won't track, the click values are wrong, they don't hold zero, and on and on. I haven't seen you post one shred of evidence to that; just hearsay.

You can see how the scopes are tested that I've posted, in a non-biased, scientific manner. If a scope doesn't adjust properly, the reticle values are wrong, or the tracking is phugged, it's right there for the Inspector to see and record on the Scope Evaluation Sheet.

Please tell us how you come to your conclusions.

This set up is similar to how i do mine, rail on an I-beam,My board is much better tho,IMO. never video'd it tho.You might have to view in fullscreen to see the marks...

That's ironic. Ego would seem to be admitting that you're an average hunter repeatedly and then proceeding to argue with dudes who actually do shoot at distance that a 308 slinging 168gr SMK's is a "good" LR load. Ego is not, however, directly addressing a question about scopes or the discussion of same. Despite what our culture wants you to believe, all opinions and experiences are not equal. I'm sorry that it offends to learn that your Bushnell, Leupold, and Conquest hunting scopes aren't that great in comparison to what is now available, nor that there are people with significantly more experience with same.


If I want to know about hunting Muley's in the sage brush, I don't really want to hear what the dude from Florida who's never done it has to say. I'm WAAAY more interested in the dude who's made it his life mission to consistently murder desert mule deer. Feel free if I start pontificating about hunting desert deer, to tell me to STFU and stop giving bad advice.

Everything should be vetted, and it would take about 5 minutes of searching to see what Frank Galli who worked at one of the premier sniper training facilities has to say. Hint- it's nearly identical. What I wrote isn't ego, it's reality.







Leupold M3A and Mark4 fixed 6x40mm, 10x, and 16x have been excellent. The Mark 6x40 M3 would probably be the last scope that I would get rid of. Too bad Leupold refuses to build a variable version. Yep, I suffer from LDS alright.

The Nightforce F1 3.5-15x50mm is the standard on which all other variables are judged on when it comes to just plain working every time. As well the Compacts (1-4x, 2.5-10x) are fantastic. In truth all the NF NXS series when viewed in large numbers is the standard.






Indeed. Wish they would make a variable built the same.








What I've said is that there are better, more reliable options than Leupold Variables for any distance work. I've also repeatedly stated that fixed power Mark 4's are great scopes, suffering only from mismatched reticles/adjustments. For true lightweight rifles the 6x42mm Leupold is a solid choice, again suffering from mismatched reticles/turrets.





Testing wise- we have an adjustable steel block that has piccatinny rail mounted to it. Scopes are mounted and checked on a CATS target generally. This usually only happens if a problem is suspected.

When a new scope is mounted it's bore sighted, a round fired, the correction "read" on the reticle, and the adjustment made. If it's a known rifle it's zeroed in 2 rounds if the scope works. Then a 10 round confirmation group is shot and turrets slipped. Then while aiming at the same target we'll fire 1 round while dialing up every mil for at least 10 mils. Then back down. Then either use the reticle to measure the rounds or usually use a ruler marked out in mils to check. As you stated, tiny variances in click values don't concern me too much.

That usually starts it unless it a scope is specifically being tested or checked. We shoot enough rounds at targets that are within group size that any errors will show up quick.

Zero retention is checked every day while shooting. When we zero, we get a real zero. If I'm shooting a 1moa system, then all 10 rounds will be within a 1 inch dot at 100. All rounds INSIDE the dot. Not somewhere near it. Then every time a group is shot or zero checked it is obvious if something has moved

Interesting. Almost like there's an echo.... Grin

Jeffbird,


The SWFA SS scopes are diffidently on the good to go list as well. Very good scopes.

Well we already went down that road.

Formy mounted a new Leupold on his ultra accurate (2 MOA) carbine.

Formy gave the turrets a twist and the scope tracked perfectly.

Formy did not understand that MOA is not IPHYs and stated said Leupold was defective.

Formy was shown the errors in his test.

I really don't have a problem with Formy and think he really has some good info and interestng ideas to offer but the LDS thing is really distracting.

How did you determine what 5 mils was and mark your board? Is this your video and board?

If the board is marked incorrectly, it tells you nothing about the click accuracy or tracking

No [bleep]? The board has to be marked correctly?

No it is not my video. But do you suppose those dirty buggers that did it put up an incorrectly marked board for the Leupold tests, then made a correctly marked one to test the Nightforce?

LDS has obviously made it to youtube now too,[bleep] spreading faster than ebola!

I wonder if each vertical increment is a tiny bit larger than the previous one as they move away from center. Not that the adjustments of a scope could resolve this for typical angles of course.

I did same test with a Vortex Viper 6.5-20x44 a year or 2 ago. Nothing new. Same method has been around for eons.

The Vortex tracking was a tad off by the way. Not enough for Joe Hunter to notice, but probably 1.5" @ 600 yds, IIRC. I posted results somewhere. If it weren't 4:10 a.m and I didn't have multiple shots of Elijah Craig 12 yr. old in me, I may remember where

Yep, well said!

Formid, if you would have stuck with the "AT DISTANCE" verbage from the get go, nobody would have argued. 95% of big game hunters don't give a ratzazzz about that, hence my point.

The "average hunter" (non knob twister) hasn't had much trouble killing stuff over the past 60 years without knobs, believe it or not.

Yeah, I'm average. Never stated anything contrary. Believe it or not I haven't had much trouble killing stuff either over the past 42 years.

Out of numerous Leupolds, Zeiss, and a couple Pentax, the only scope I've ever had go back to the manufacturer due to mechanical malfunction was a VX-III 2.5-8X36. It was a broken erector spring that failed without much for round count. An example of one doesn't mean much, but I haven't bought a Leupold variable since. Slowly moving towards fixed 6X.

I'd suggest the same to the OP.

When I saw your pic of the rifle in question, I thought to myself, that's not a sniper's rifle, that's a hunter's rifle.

I like it, BTW.

Could you please elaborate on the FX3 6x42? I'm assuming your testing has shown repeatable tracking and zero retention (could you comment on that), but I'm curious as to what you mean by "mismatched reticles/turrets." By "mismatched turrets" do you mean the MOA adjustments are not accurate? I have an FX3 6x42 in the safe with an M1 turret that I'm planning to test for an upcoming hunt.

The background is this. I'm getting ready for a hunt next season that I need a lightweight rifle for, with a dependable scope for possibly long-ish shots that I'll need to dial for. It's a backpack sheep hunt in AK and I'll be paying a guide (not cheap), so it's not something I'll be doing again any time soon.

I have the rifle in-hand, a NULA .260 that shoots half MOA at 300 meters. I've tried two popular Leupold VX3 variables, a 2.5x8 and a 3.5X10, both with turrets. Neither tracks accurately as far as the MOA adjustments required as predicted by a couple of different ballistics programs. Which I could live with by making up my own range cards if they were repeatable and returned to zero but they're not and they don't. Last time I had the 2.5x8 out I zeroed it, shot it at different ranges out to 700, and it was 1 1/2 inches high when I returned to 100. The 3.5x10 seems to be tracking better (not done testing yet) but there's still the problem of the inaccurate MOA adjustments--if I change to a different altitude, my custom range card that works here will be out the window, and I won't be able to plug the new altitude into a program and get new drops.

For all of you Leupold guys, I am not interested in a pissing match and I understand that my scopes represent a sample of one. So this question is not directed to you.

So with that background could you please elaborate on the 6x42 as far as accuracy of adjustments and repeatability, and what the mismatched turrets/reticle will mean in practical terms?

Thanks.

The problems you are having with your data most likely aren't because of any scope issues. Most likely they are input issues with the ballistic program.




What he's talking about is an MOA turret paired with a reticle set up in Mrad which isn't an issue unless you are a moron.

It's not a pissing match.

After what I've accomplished at Long Range with Leupold scopes, I'm not gonna stand by and let someone say they suck for Long Range without a little discussion.

Sorry, but it is a pissing match. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have added the words quoted above.

So now lets have a pissing match over whether it's a pissing match.

You really like to argue

If I hadn't accomplished anything and it was because of Leupold, I'd surely tell you too.

The fact is Leupold doesn't suck and won't hinder anyone from doing their best on a hunt or in a match.

If the shooter sucks, it's easy to blame it on equipment.

Interesting that you can deduce that over the internet. Which variables do you think I'm mistaken on? Because you know, it's possible to do a quick sensitivity analysis and plug in different values for BC, MV, altitude, temperature, sight height etc. and see what effects they have.

The answer so far is, not enough to account for the differences in predicted adjustments vs actuals in the field.