A few weeks ago Rich Emmons of the Precision Rifle Series posted some data about what the top 50 competitors brought with them to the most recent series finale match. It was a really good set of data, so I asked Rich if I could analyze the data and try to see if I could find trends and also try to present it visually. This is one of my favorite forums, so I wanted to share some of the highlights of what I found here. I thought you guys might find it as interesting as I did.

First, if you're like me ... you might not be real sure what the PRS is. Let me try to give you the elevator speech about it so you'll better understand what the charts below are based on.



Long-Range Precision Rifle Scopes: What The Pro's Use







These are the highlights of what I found related to optics. I wrote a post that includes a few other charts, along with links to the most popular scope models, and a list of every reticle with images for easy side-by-side comparison. To view the full post related to optics, visit: http://precisionrifleblog.com/2013/09/12/best-long-range-scopes-what-the-pros-use/

I also did another post on calibers & cartridges if you're interested. It's at http://precisionrifleblog.com/2013/09/07/rifle-cartridges-what-the-pros-use/. Hope you guys find this as helpful as I did.

I wonder if this really means anything. Matthews Archery dominated 3D shooting for a long time. Reason? They gave every serious competitor that wanted one a new bow, and a LOT of sponsorships. Think NY Yankees.

My only experience with [bleep] & Bendover scopes (that's what a Marine Gunny sniper legend I met called them) was the ones issued to the USMC. Most of them wouldn't track for [bleep].

Great point ... you could be certainly right. But keep in mind not all of these guys are sponsored. At least some of them are just normal Joe's that had to pull out their wallet to buy their equipment. I don't know what percent of the competitors that is. Regardless of whether they had to pay retail or not, they were able to compete at the highest level with this equipment ... so there still is something to it. The NY Yankees wouldn't use crappy gloves even if a manufacturer offered them a great marketing deal. Serious competitors are usually very stubborn when it comes to performance.

My Schmidt Bender PMII has tracked with complete precision out to a mile this year. The optics are superior to anything else I have looked through.
That mile was an attempt to shoot a marmot. At top magnification of 16X I did not expect to be able to see them at a mile, much less see them well enough for accurate shooting.
Alas, my longest whistle pig of the year was 1402 yards.

I would have expected a better showing from Nightforce though.

I'd like to see the military sniper choices also rather than the casual shooter/hunter survey.

Marines bought S&B. SEALS bought Night Force. Army is still buying Leupold but some SOCOM units have bought other scopes, I'm told.

I would too.

PrecisionRifleBlog,



This is a good argument. So far I have not been able to play with a S&B to compare with my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 for brightness and resolving ability. No scope at the range has been better than this one; except my Nightforce 12-42X56. I could not check tracking with someone else's toy without shooting or taking the scope off and installing it in Bob's fixture; so I will have to take your word for it. And I don't doubt you here.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/7900183/1


dave

The T/C Encore appears to dominate the 'professional' hunters. Nothing like a T/C one shot smackdown.

Yep - when I'm looking to put the hurt and or crush on a big freak nasty, I grab my Bone Collector TC Encore because it's the only one that does what I need it to do.

Yet there's no consensus on which seed to plant....

I only care about what I use.



Travis

I have a number of nice scopes on my rifles (Benders and Swarovskis and by far the best are my March scopes. They are expensive (close to 3k) but a fantastic scope. I presently have two 10x60x52s http://marchscopes.com/

my life will only be complete when I see a hunter carrying a suppressed H&R Handi Rifle in 300 Blackout, sporting a $4000 Schmidt and Bender.

Yep, that will be the day ! E

I have a hard time understanding the MIL vs MOA discussions. I've been using both lately and I don't see what the big [bleep]' deal is? They both work fine.



Travis

Both work fine even tho most don't have any idea how they are supposed to work. They are designed for Human Targets anyway . Just shoot them at different distant and see how they corresponded to your rifle and load and then go hunting

I not entirely sure I am tracking, but the PRS is far, far from a "casual shooter/hunter" demographic. The PRS is pretty much the Olympic level of precision "tactical" style shooting.

Further, I would put more stock in what those who have a choice choose than a list of what is issued.

Mils vs MOA has nothing to do with "human targets," They are units of measure, nothing else. They are not ballistic reticles, as you infer.

Not really. To be competitive a scope must posses certain features- Front focal plane, a good Mil reticle, 1/10th Mil adjustments, an upper power range of at least 20x, good clarity/resolution, solid tracking and be durable. The only Nightforce scope that was FFP was the F1 and it is a 3.5-15x50mm. That's why you don't see them in matches. With the release of the BEAST they will probably start showing up.



As for military issued optics-

Marines issue the S&B 3-12x on the M40, the 2.5-8x Mark 4 on the Mk12, and the Leupold 3.5-10x Mark 4 that comes on the M110. The Army issues the same Leupold 3.5-10x Mark 4 on the M110, the 34mm tubed M5 6.5-20x on the M2010 and the 4.5-14x Leupold Mark 4 M1 on the M107. SOCOM issues Nightforce, S&B and the new Leupold Mark 6 3-18x just won a contract.


What's important to understand is that the only scopes that have won a straight up large open competition are Nightforce and S&B. All of the Leupolds (excepting the Mark 6) that are issued are there because that is what the manufacturer of the weapon submitted. Not because they were tested and beat any other scope.

What ? The US Army doesn't test scopes ? They only test whatever comes with the rifles they order ?
I seem to recall that back in the mid 80's Leupold had to work with the US Army for a few years to give them just what they wanted. No other scope maker would do that. They still use that scope, the 10X, M3, Mk.4.
A few months back, the American Rifleman reported that the US military issued a requirement for a scope with some fancy characteristics for their sniper backup people, etc. I understand there were a number of makers submitted a design. But Leupold's Mk.8, the 1.1-8X model, was the only one that really worked. BTW, Leupold says the US Marines use it as well. E

No. By and large the optics on SWS haven't been tested as separate contracts.


The Leupold 10x Mk4 M3 is a legacy scope and only seen because it is still in the system and hasn't been replaced everywhere. It was a very good optic for its time.

The Leupold 1-8x Mark 8 was bought in very limited numbers by a certain organization. Not really fair to say it's "issued".

The Marine Corp bought some as well.... For Mk19 grenade launchers. Not to be mounted on rifles. Though of course some have.

So, you are telling us there is no competitive bidding or testing for rifle scopes in the military ? I recall the US Marines issuing a specification for a new day scope some time back. Since nobody made one in 30mm, the only other scope that met their specifications just happend to be the current S&B which is a 34mm scope. Hmm.
I recall the Navy seriously considering a hand built 10X Tasco at one time. Almost got the contract.
Then there have been a pretty much yearly contract for up to 50 Nightforce scopes up until the Gulf wars. Purchased for "extended testing."
So all of this isn't accurate ? E