My passion is varmints. I understand that game with a fair amount of precision. I am a little foggy on the advantages and priorities of big game scopes.

If you get a fixed 6x scope for simplicity's sake; do you need parallax adjustments for uses out to 400 yards or so or is it that lower power fixed scopes the real world parallax problems are nill?

On a 3x9 same question.

I understand mildot hold offs and cranking in the windage MOA but for big game out to 400 yards if you get a simple scope without good cranky knobs what are most folks doing for windage corrections? You either have to crank in the windage or hold off with a reticle. What am I missing?

I am trying to resist the temptation of putting a varmint scope on my new 280 go-to big game rifle. Perhaps I am looking for an in between scope???

Need some advice. I think I read somewhere long ago that Steve Timm uses a loopie 2.5x10 on his big game 280AI

Most scopes of 10x or under don't have enough parallax to worry about when big game hunting. In fact most of 'em work fine for varmint shooting.

But you should always test a new scope for parallax anyway. the most I've found in a 6x is about 2" at 400, which means a possible inch of aiming error--if you don't have your eye directly behind the center of the scope. But I have found considerably more in some 3-9x or 3-10x scopes, and they should all be tested.

With a 6x I generally hold off for windage, but do know some people who crank it in.

Thanks very much for the reply.

What do you do to test them? Set up a calibrated grid pattern at 100 yds and move your head slightly side to side???

Leupold had that bicker with Premier Reticles and I kinda got sour on Leupold for a while; but in all reality from what little I know about optics it does seem that they have thought through a lot of hunting applications that other scope makers have not- like generous eye-box.

What is your favorite scope for a go-to big-game rig out to 400 yards or less? I might just get that 6x42 everybody here touts.

I see some long range systems using a turret for elevation and reticle for windage.

DF

Tomothy_Murphy,

No, I look through the scope at something 400 yards away, it's impossible to test for parallax at 400 yards by testing at 100.

Most big game scopes without parallax adjustment are set at the factory at 100-200 yards, but that will vary slightly when different people adjust the focus for themselves. Also, parallax isn't contant at any range, since it also varies slightly with atmospheric conditions. In effect, the air acts as another lens--the reason you might have to tweak the focus or parallax adjustment slightly on different days.

My favorite all-around scope for hunting out to 400 yards (or even farther) is the 6x36 Leupold, either the older M8 model or one of the new FX-2's. (In fact, I have them on most of my big game rifles in .25 to .30 caliber.) The 6x42's are also great scopes, and I have some, but the 6x36 only 10 ounces and is more than adequately bright, even the M8's. I realized that many years ago, when a new 6x36 proved much brighter than a Zeiss 6x32. (Theoretically this shouldn't have been true, because the Leupold was only single-coated, but another important factor in scope brightness is the reduction of reflection inside the scope, and Leupold is good at that.)

I've found it relatively easy to hold off for windage without hashmarks, using my knowledge of the subtension of the Duplex reticle.

I run a 6X42 on my GFY twins. The 7-08 (yellow) has the LR reticle and is primarily set up for deer hunting. My 22-250 has M1's on both elevation and windage. The 22-250 is a true "do all" setup. Fun shooting steel, gophers, prairie dogs, coyotes, deer hunting etc. Only disadvantage to the M1 setup is the windage knob hits my wrist a lot when carrying, and it tends to beat up the center console of my vehicle.



Hits to 400yds are no trick with either rig. They both work great.

If you go turrets for both, take a gander at the CDS. Little more low profile.


I am not a gunwriter, but the Bruins did lose.


Travis

I like the low profile CDS. I've read some reports of it moving with handling the gun. I've not experienced that. Maybe I handle my guns with more finesse, not sure why some are reporting that problem. I guess blue tape over the CDS would work for those guys and would look good in Fire photos. Gotta have blue tape over the muzzle and some wrapped around the end of the barrel to complete the photogenic "blue tape" experience...

DF

I just got a scope back after having the CDS installed. Rifle should be here soon and I'm gonna give it a go.


Travis

CDS kinda small, not much room for a GFY sticker...

Don't forget the blue tape...

DF

Actually, on the new FX-3, 6X42's their finger tip knobs work perfectly fo about 15 MOA. CDS is fine for the guy that only shoots one load. E

There is a "generic" CDS dial too.

Calibrated turrets are for chicks.

MOA all 'da way.


Travis

Does that include all of the "chicks" who get a SOCOM paycheck and shoot people in the face for a living?

E,

You can do the CDS in MOA's. You don't have to do the yardage thing with dedicated load. That's just an option.

DF

Aren't those men limited w.r.t. ammunition selection? That would narrow things down a bit.

Even so, is the actual trajectory vs. dedicated turret marking a close match under all temperature/altitude/whatever conditions the operator encounters? Or is he often putting in something like "6 plus three clicks" or whatever the really used language is?

That is exactly how it is done. They have these things called sniper schools where environmental factors are taught, and how to compensate for them.

Anything that reduces complexity for guys who have to stay up all night to observe, and remember what dope changes have to be made when the UNS and the can come off of the gun at BMNT, is an aid. It appears to be working just fine.

Really?

I love "shooting" chicks in the face, but I'm not sure what your question means exactly. We're talking about big game rifles and scopes.


Travis

Trav/Math et al. Be advised that when you accuse rifle shooters who employ load-specific range-engraved elevation turrets of being morons/unmanly/dupes etc, that you are talking about every US Army sniper for the last 25yr. USMC snipers I'm not sure how far back but quite awhile.

If you swear by MOA clicks then just drive on. Different strokes for different folks.

And Trav, I'm sure the Moms of all the "ladies" you've "shot" hold you in high esteem.

Golly gee TAK. So sorry for my blatant lack of patriotism.



Travis

You need to back off. I didn't accuse anyone of being anything. I referred to that group of shooters as men, not fairies or dunces or such.

I asked about how in the particular case of using one type of ammunition the use of load specific dials may be appropriate, and yet could still require "not regular scale" corrections often enough that calling dope in straight MOA or mils relative to one baseline zero would amount to nearly the same thing.

In your case Mathman, I apologize. You merely asked a reasonable question and did not cast aspersions.

Like I said, the turret is zeroed with issued ammo at a known elevation/temp and that data recorded, along with zero changes for other gear like the UNS and a suppressor. For a potential engagement at a variety of distances, this is a no-brainer. A smart guy doesn't have to ponder this very long to see the wisdom of it.

Also bear in mind that the guy behind that scope may have been in overwatch for an assault element that has not arrived for a day or more, after having made a night parachute jump with little sleep for days prior to that. The system works.

Can I ask a question back on topic?

If one was going with a Leupold 6x42 with a CDS or M1, that order would have to come from the Custom Shop, or the scope would need to be sent back for CDS/M1 retrofit.

Would it be prudent to have the Custom Shop set the parallex at 300 yds. Parallex at lesser ranges wouldn't be that far off and you'd have a good scope for 300 yds, maybe not that bad at 400+. Or, if they set it for 400 yds., how much movement would you have at 100 or 200?

DF

Things have changed across the board in the last ten years but I thought the standard issue Army sniper set up was a Remington varmint contour 308 in an HS precision scoped with a fixed 10 power Leupold using 1/4moa cranks and baseball mildots, flinging 175smk's...

Did they go to range calibrated dials?

I have never done so and I have had no problems.


Travis

The 24in barrel on an M24 is quite a bit heavier than varmint contour (but doesn't shoot any better than the best varmint barrels, IMO). The Leupold M3Ultra 10X, later re-badged the MKIV, always had an elevation turret that was graduated in hundreds of meters for the issued 308 load.

"The Leupold M3Ultra 10X, later re-badged the MKIV, always had an elevation turret that was graduated in hundreds of meters for the issued 308 load."

No kidding.... I larned something today. That is quite interesting. I don't know why I thought it was 1/4 MOA.

The Navy SPR with the 18" barrell, 1/7 twist shooting 77smk's had/has a 3.5x10 Leupold does it not?? What dials/reticle does it have?

I understand things have been changing here lately though...

I retired in 03 before the M110 and the variable optics hit the scene. The SPR's as I understand had a variety of COT/S (com off-the-shelf) optics and I never got my hands on them, so I can't advise on that.

Some of the commercial versions were so equipped, so that may be something you have seen. In fact, some units who had larger caliber rifles had MKIV's with M1's on them.

You need to call the custom shop and talk to them. I am of the opinion you can have anything you want, if they do it at all, from the custom shop. They will make up a custom reticle for you, for instance.
The last I heard, you get either 50 yds, 200 yds or 400 yds. for a custom parallax setting for any Leupold scope. However, on the 6X42's I have, and that's two M8's and one FX3, I can reduce what parallax is there to almost nothing at either 100 yds. or 300 yds. That's due to the long depth of focus of the 6X42. I use the ocular for this. My groups go from 4.5-5 inches on one rifle to 2.5 inches by simply reducing the parallax with the ocular. That's at 300 yds. BTW.
I just remounted an FX 2, 4X on my .308. Had it in for still another reticle change. Good, easy folks to do bussiness with. Great for those of us that like to nit pick and tweak our rifles. E

E,

Seems to me that there would be less parallax at 200 with a scope set at 400, then paralax at 400 with a scope set at 200.

To me, that's intuitive. How close am I, or am I all wet?

DF

FYI.... All new sniper weapon system optics in the Army are mil/mil. They may or may not have a secondary BDC line reference, but they are being taught using mil based adjustments.

The MK12 (SPR) was initially fielded with the Leupold 2.5-8x36mm. The Navy generally switched to the 2.5-10x Nightforce.


BDC's- let's keep in mind targets orientation and institutional knowledge. Humans are tall and narrow. Range errors are not as big as a deal compared to deer, which are wide but short top to bottom. The military did not understand. MOA and mils in 1986 when the M24 happened. We do now. Mil adjustments and mil reticles. Makes sense.

To the OP-

A fixed 6x is adequate for for big game. You do not need to worry about parallax with a good scope below 10x or so. Dial for range, hold for wind. This becomes exceedingly easier if your scope adjustment matches your your reticle- ie. mil reticle/ 1/10th mil adjustments.

BIG bullschit flag. The M24 was MSG Rick Boucher's "baby". Rick "understands". He designed the mildot master.

Ok. I'm quite familiar with who Rick is. Pretty sure I didn't say that Rick and the SOTIC committee didn't know MOA and mils, but that the military community as a whole didn't shoot, think, or train like we do now. The Leupold Ultra was selected mainly because it was the only scope that tracked, and that was mostly due to the 1moa adjustments.



The use of BDC turrets as a first line compensation method kind of went out with log books. Not sure what the sore spot and all the offense is in regards to BDC's, patriotism, etc.

We

It's been over a decade of constant war. Some things are done different now than was done 25 years ago.

TAK has done a lot to answer the question regarding 6X42's for big game hunting...



Travis

and almost to a man, they have the hormone levels and sense of humor to laugh this bullshit off. certain exceptions noted.

Does that idiotic statement include the moms also?

That coming from the veritable navigator of thread drift.

I'm always on topic.



Travis

"The use of BDC turrets as a first line compensation method kind of went out with log books."

No data books no mo????

Well.... it is a different oldsmobile these days...

Yup, and no morse code/HF radios, and nobody knows how to patrol dismounted. The chinese are going to stomp the dogschit out of us one day.

I went through when they still taught log books religiously. I didnt keep one, much to the chargin of the cadre, and I set the course record. It seemed retarded then, and I still think it is. Log books are for Highpower shooters that shoot the same ranges every year. There is nothing in a log book from Ft. Bragg, Benning, or 29 Palms that will help me 10k feet up a snow covered mountainside half a world away. And even if it did, am I going to carry 8 different log books on every mission and then in the middle of a TIC search through them page by page for conditions that might be similar...?

IME log books for snipers are emotional woobie. In time sensitive unknown conditions I'll use my PDA or IPHONE to get real time information, or I'll pull the data from the drop card taped to the gun.


Btw- I use HF weekly, and dismount patrol quite a bit. Not sure why old school guys think they were so much better. We can't train on everything, so we train on the stuff that we slaughter the enemy with. Our troops today would embarrass troops from 20-30 years ago. I believe fully in the basics and worse case scenarios, but the fact is we are worlds ahead in capability of what we were then.

I have thought about the use and value of log books over the years. I use it to learn my rifle but I only use the detailed log book at the range. In the real world I take cheat sheets with distilled proven data.

I assume that gadgets will get broken and lost, stomped or drowned- but of course folks could say the same for log books and cheat sheets.

I am ALWAYS looking for elegant simplicity and a better way of doing it.

I always stayed away from Load Specific cranky knobs because things change.

I wish there were more MOA reticles and Knobs instead of Mil/Mil but hey... there you go, military is a meter/metric kind of world. What is it??? The tangent of one miliradian is .001 or something making the math simpler.

What, young dudes who haven't slept, loose stuff? Ya don't say! I suppose stuff could get broken on a night parachute jump too, ya think? You musta been an azzhole Tm Sergeant But WTF do I know.

PACE-Primary, Alternate, Contingency, Emergency.

Traditionally the military has used mil reticles and MOA turrets. I used MOA reticle and turrets when I started out but have since switched to mil/mil either one works but I have found that I like mil/mil better

Nah, those aren't 1/10th-mil clicks. They're 1/3-minute clicks and 3 1/3-minute dots/hashes.

I run 6x42's to 500 and it ain't no thang. Only hiccup with CDS is they spin a little light. If you have a rifle strapped to your pack, it's possible that it'll turn a bit. BTDT

Let's not get sloppy now.

I haven't convinced myself that I can measure what I've measured well enough to tell: Do you know whether 1/10th-mil clicks in typical consumer riflescopes are 1/10 of a milliradian, or 1/64,000 of a circle? Perhaps that depends upon whether we're talking about Russian consumers, American consumers, European consumers, etc?

But we can't just leave a 0.0104413438 moa difference per click floating around out there, can we?

Just trying to be un-sloppy. :p