Post by George Garner at SH:

Scope Details

Just prior to shot show 2013 I talked to Tom Fuller and Tim Tanker from Bushnell, they were interested in doing an Optic for long range hunting, not just a tactical scope or target scope to put on a hunting rifle. They wanted a shot at creating the best Xtreme hunting LR optic covering all the bases. So we set up a meeting for the shot show and I told them I would Invite the Guy to talk to. Pat Sinclair!! I don't know too many people that can hunt 365 days a year in every condition there is but I know Pat does, and has for a long time. Anyhow the meeting was a success and the scope was speced out over a couple hour meeting behind closed doors at the shot show.

Parameters set:

3x12 power no more than 15
30 mm tube
Side focus, keep the knob in tight.
42-44 mm Obj
no more than 13" long
weight under 24 oz
Low profile elevation knob, 10 mils of elevation in one turn, great clicks, with a hard zero stop and elevation stop. Meaning that you get 10 mils and cant be a rev off , ever!
Large letters on elevation knob for salty eyes to see.
Capped windadge knob. But allow the knob to be used if the user wants to uncap it. 5 mils of movement. Keep the knob as small as possible capped.
FFP, Fisrt Focal Plane

Reticle was discussed as initially as being new, And being created to be faster to acquire targets and easy to use as a up close optic for dangerous game in close, IE Brown Bears in the Alder bushes of Alaska. Or a B&C animal that presents itself close.

I later had a meeting with Tom and Tim in Kansas city over a few German Beers and we drew the reticle out. Tim later provided drawings that we tweeked till it was right.

Bushnell got it all done. I actually got the scope the first day of the Wyoming 307 Speedgoat hunt. Bushnell shipped it to Scotts house and we mounted it up the evening of day one. The next morning Pat zero'ed it and by 10:00 am it connected with a Doe antelope at 1268 yards on its very first pull of the trigger on fur! Hopefully this is a sign of its success to come!

Should have a few more to get into testers hands soon. And it will debut at the Shot show in January 2014. My guess there will be units available in Jan -Feb time frame but I am just guessing on that timeline.

The initial prototype is getting a couple little minor tweeks to make it a little better yet.

This scope is also probably the best DMR scope platform for a SPR or 308 carbine as well as its intended use as a LRHS.


Ill post a couple pics now but I need to get this thing photographed better this week and I will update it.










[/QUOTE]

Looks like George and Pat have a real winner here.

Hopefully, the price won't require one to sell a kidney or trade a testicle for funding.

If its "Pat approved" it should be a VERY nice scope!!

That looks like THE new LR-capable, general purpose hunting scope. I'll be very tempted if the price is right.

Interesting to see where they price it. Looks good on paper.

i think it looks great. I'm also guessin'$1,500-$2,000.

George said less expensive than a $1899 MSRP.

If they could keep the price under $1000.00 Bushnell wouldn't be able to build them fast enough.

so ... $1799

this will sound somewhat strange but, I don't think you want it to be TOO cheap. features like the zero stop and repeatable clicks cost money to get right.

Being an LR Hunter/shooter gets SPENT$IVE...

Agree, at $1000 they would fly off the shelves. It'd be nice, but I'm afraid thats wishful thinking.

I'm thinking I could use one of those! Meets my needs better than the 'tactical' scope I currently have. A touch lighter and I could see it as a perfect fit for all my hunting rifles.

Reminds me of the G7 Nightforce scopes. If/when G7 makes a NF 2.5-10x42, you'll have basically the same scope as above.

http://www.gseven.com/products/G7-2-5-10X32-LR

Am I reading it right that you only get 10 Mils total elevation travel due to a stop on both ends?

That's how I read it. I think single turn S&B's work similarly.

That'll get you out there a long ways with most cartridges for sure.

Seems like i've seen that scope somewhere before..

http://marchscopes.com/hunting-25-25-x-42-scopes.html

Options are always a good thing, if they can price it right and it proves reliable. But its sounds like it will be approaching the price of the march.I'd have a hard time parting with 1800 for a bushnell, but it does come with all the features most of us are looking for in a hunting scope, where the march leaves a few key features out.

No jabs meant at the men involved in the design of the scope, I think its awesome that bushnell contacted two of the best and listened.

rosco, I noticed Pat had a March on his rifle earlier in the year. I notice the same rifle now wears the old reliable S&B 10x tactical when it came time to get down to business (hunting season). Wonder what the story is behind that.

The name Bushnell has a stigma to it, I think it will be a hard sell at $1800.

I considered a March back when I was looking for a scope for my 6XC Montana. Also looked at other scopes like the Premier Hunter and S&B's hunting scopes. The March was a definite consideration, but the fact there was no US service center scared me off. The others were all lacking something I considered a necessary feature.

The 2.5-10x32 Nightforce was the best option at the time. Now that the 42mm version is out, that would be my choice. I could care less about mils, FFP, or ranging reticles. Here's my reasoning...

-Odds are if you're shooting far enough out that you need to dial anything, adjust for windage, etc, you're probably going to be shooting at max magnification, negating the whole FFP argument. Especially in a max 10-12 power scope.

-Odds are if you're shooting at any really extended range, you're going to have a rangefinder, so who needs a rangefinding reticle.

-For me, I'm a Land Surveyor, I work in degrees-minutes-seconds. I know that stuff. It makes sense to me, so learning mils would be a waste of time.

The one thing I'd do with the reticle is lose all the crap on the vertical plane. You're dialing, so why do you need it. I would add some 1 or 2 MOA hash marks on the horizontal. Windage is voodoo anyway, and holding off for wind is just as workable for me as dialing for it. Not to mention, wind direction can change. Drop is constant.

No Idea, I remember him saying he liked the march..Pretty sure it was a 3-24x42 FFP. I hear rumors from Kelbys that March is coming out with a new hunting scope at SHOT next year. I was going to order one of their hunters but will now wait to see what the new and improved will look like.

Anyone know if bushnell works with Deon at all? THAT would be interesting.

Not a fan of the holdover marks on the vertical wire either. Don't see the point with a good turret. I guess you could obviously just ignore them, but that reticle is pretty busy. I actually like Burris' new "wind reticle" quite a bit.

The reticle looks pretty user friendly for both long and short range target solutions.

I agree it looks like it has been influenced some by the March setup, but at $1800 it would be half the price of a March.

I've shot a few of the high end Bushnells (HDMRs) a few years back and was impressed with the quality. And while I won't be parting with my S&B PMII anytime soon, I could certainly see there being a niche for this type of scope with LR hunters and comp shooters.

You can get a March 2.5x25x42 for $2200.00 MSRP

SWFA makes a 3-15x42 for 699 that meets those parameters exept for an exposed windage turret.
Not sure it is worth the extra grand to eliminate the windage turret.

But, March FFP's are $3400,,And with the hunter being a 25x and RFP is a bit of a drawback. I dont mind RFP but dont want it over 15x on the top end..

I suppose one could simply remember the sub tensions at say 12-15x. I know lots of guys dont like MOA or MIL reticles on hunting rifles but my hunting rifles are kinda dual purpose as LR gong ringers so i like an MOA reticle in mine.

You might want to compare specs again.

No way I'd do a RFP 25x, ever. Agree that 16X would be the max. Half at 8x is easy enough if need be.

Whoops.

I have been watching this as well and I have to confess I am very intrigued. For me it will come down to price and finished weight for me.

From a southern hunter's perspective, I'd like to see the reticle .1 mil for low light timber. But I could get by with .06.

It's tough to beat a VX3 4.5-14 30mm LR CDS with a TMR reticle 40mm objective side focus

About 1/2 the weight. Everything else about it is better too.

I didn't know they had a tactical version...But your right not really apples to apples!

Not a terrible way to go, but i ditched the CDS for a TT, tried an MOA CDS on the 4.5-14 and a 3.5-10. hated them

I would also say that at the ~$1000 mark these will be an awesome seller, but when you approach $1500-1800 I think many guys would sooner go with a NF 2.5-10x42 rather than the Bushnell.

I can see two benefits to the vertical subtension marks on the reticle- the first is that it can come in handy to have some extra holdover when you are limited to a single revolution in the elevation turret, and second for a true hunting scope it can sometimes be quicker to hold 10 mil than to dial it when comes down to a time-sensitive situation.

Yup, they have their place.

10 mil in the turret plus 8 in the reticle will get you WAY out there, and put most rounds into the subsonic range.

For what I do and my scope preferences (I lean heavily towards the LR tactical feature set and build style) this will be a great scope. If the price stays out of the stratosphere I'll give one a try and hopefully more after that.

Agreed

You're probably right, but (Bushnell) will be marketing that scope to a group of shooters who will base their purchase(s) on performance rather than the name stenciled on the side of the scope. Take a look at the scopes used by Formidilosus for instance. I wonder how many folks here would have guessed that he chose Bushnell and SWFA SS scopes for his competition and hunting rifles knowing the kind of shooting he does.

Bushnell is making great scopes. Been tested on the board and jig. A buddy is using one now and doing well

You guys will love this scope!

My prototype will be in my hands and on my rifle soon. It's been a fun project to be involved in.

Great to hear from you Pat!

I can't wait to see it....

Sounds like a great scope.

I'm under the impression that some of the Bushnell Tactical scopes like the DMR 3.5-21x50 are build with more rugged construction than the 4200, regular Elites and other Tacticals.

Is the LR Hunter going to be constructed like the DMR (hard use) or more like the older 4200 and regular Elites (standard duty)?

Jason

Nothing standard duty with this scope as far as I can tell. I have two DMR's and this one is built just as well.

We had this scope and Scott's new NF 2-10X42 side by side and none of us could see any difference glass wise. The eye box was equal as well. I thought the field of view was slightly better with the Bushnell when both scopes were on 10X.

this scope in my view is a huge opportunity lost IMO. a couple years back I sent an email to bushnell and told them my ideas for a long range hunting scope. The scope I said needed to be built would have had a reticle similar to the graybull and huskemaw reticles. The reticle would have been in MOA. Mils is an odd ball unit of measurement, it just is. in my mind it requires a second calculation to make it into a unit of measurement we all relate to every day. I have heard all the people say use it and its better. I for the life of me just can't see how after studying it. both MOA and mils are a unit of angular measurement, there is nothing magic about the mil system and just because the military uses it doesn't mean I should or its better, they also use the metric system. MOA relates very closely to inches, I can look through my reticle at a rock I am shooting at across a canyon, it measures 2 MOA in my MOAR nightforce reticle. distance is 700 yards. I know roughly thats about a 14" rock I am shooting at. mils also don't brake down as well either, most of the finer mil reticles are broken down to half mils, which is pushing close to twice the measurement of MOA, .5 mil is 1.8 ish moa, thats too course of measurement IMO to be as effective as MOA could be when used on a reticle for wind hold offs.

I do like the concept of keeping the turret inside one turn and that turn being 10 mils, 10 mils is a freaking lot of adjustment roughly 36 moa, that would get my 243 ai out to like 1300 yards. I don't think I have ever even attempted a shot that far. but again I would like to see the turret be 36 moa in one turn, a look at possibly using 1/3 moa clicks which would be close to .1 mil.

The next thing is the reticle, this is a tactical reticle, to me its looks like the GAP HDMR reticle in bushnell's tactical scope. I don't see a need for that busy of a reticle get rid for the marks on the verticle or the horus like marks below. if you dial the scope you don't need all this crap. I also can't see how the scope would be that great in low light without illumination. I don't like illumination on a hunting scope because what happens when the battery goes out. I personally love bushnell scopes they are some of my favorites the elite series etc. To me its sad they are listening to much to the tactical crowd over at snipers hide. I have spent some time over there and I can tell you the crowd over there has a very group think pack like mentality. They are very close minded about other ideas and tend to be the type that know what they know and they can't be reasoned with easily. Another thing is the rash of 34 mm tubed scopes, why on earth does 99% of people need a 34mm tube scope??? the 34mm tube means at best 20 moa of elevation extra, that takes my 243 ai from 1700 yards to 1900 big freaking whoop, again this is coming from the tactical crowd. I wish bushnell would listen to real long range hunters.

I'm sure Bushnell will call you next time rather than Pat Sinclair and George Gardner.

Laughing...

ok so don't ever have an original thought let george and pat tell you whats best, you would probably fit in well over at snipers hide.

looked at the specs again noticed the reticle is FFP, again I think this is a mistake in a hunting scope, SFP is the way to go there, FFP as definite disadvantages. as for the rest of the scope I would be happy with an MOA option SFP reticle, MOA turrets etc. this is a a tactical scope I don't really see why other than weight they bothered making this scope over the tactical scopes they already make.

I'll take FFP every single time in a LR hunting scope.

Cumminscowboy is saying its a tactical scope because its FFP and Mils. I don't buy it. With that said, I'd have to agree that the vast majority of long range hunters are on the MOA system. Bushnell should offer a choice and not force us to change if we have no reason to. I don't like the thought of having some scopes MOA and some MIL.

I have some scopes that are Mil reticle and Mil adjustments, some that are MOA adjustments with reticle subtensions in MOA, and some that are MOA adjustments with Mil reticles.

What's the big deal? They're just units of measurement.

Data on the card or PDA tells you what to dial or hold and you do it

I couldn't care less if they had a different name, like "parsecs"

If I have to dial 5.1 parsecs to hit a 760 yard target instead of 5.1 mils, oh well...

I really can't get my head around the MIL/MOA debate.

I will say I like them to be same/same on the one scope.

Bushnell looks cool. I may have missed it but what do they cost?



Travis

Might be too late to right this ship, but I'd like to see a covered elevation turret as well. I have had uncovered turrets walk on me when pulled from a soft case, or from being carried slung over the shoulder. Otherwise, I like to look.

Bushnell should be able to get this scope to marker for same price as the HDMR, $1000-$1,200.

What is the prototype weight?

I've never used mils so can't say I can't adapt. My hesitation is that my brain can't see 30 centimeters but it knows exactly what 12 inches looks like (and yes I realize an inch and MOA isn't the same thing).

My son's rifle is a mil/mil setup. Works the exact same as an MOA setup.

Look at chart. Dial. Shoot. I don't much care how the little calculator thingy comes up with the numbers.



Travis

I realize that its just looking at a chart, but my mind wants to see it, and will see it, before I use it. Just the way I'm wired. When holding off 1.5 mils at 600 I want to know what it looks like.

Stop being difficult...



Travis

rosco,

What did you not like about the CDS?


Travis

I don't really care much about the scope.... but it sure is nice to have Pat back!

The learning curve with mils can be a bit difficult if you're used to thinking in inches and not willing to let that go. But once you figure mils out, they're a good deal. The real issues arise when the reticle is mil based, the adjustments in MOA, because it requires an extra step in conversion, or when the shooter is using a mil system, and the spotter is thinking in MOA or inches. Once everybody and their technology is on the same page, it works pretty slick.

That being said, it would be nice to see an MOA/MOA model of this scope. Also, I'm not totally sold on the CQB center circle deal.

My experience with mils mirrors Travis's. Look at the chart, dial it, pull the trigger.

Tanner

You don't "think" in Mils, MOA or anything else for that matter. I don't understand this thinking. Do you range a target, look at the data for hold over or hold off and try to figure out what 67.3" of drop "looks" like and 23" of wind drift "looks" like in relation to the target?

The turrets are marked.

If the data says the correction is 14.25, you dial the turret to 14.25.

If the data says the correction is 7.7, you dial the turret to 7.7

If the data says to hold off 2 "units" to the right for wind, it's pretty straight forward.


You don't do any conversions or calculations before your shot either with a mil reticle and MOA adjustments. Your drop data is in MOA and wind data is in mil

If you want to just use the reticle for hold over (drop data in mil) it's simple if your data is printed or on Ballistic AE to just look at it and do it.

I agree.

I can hand my 12 year old son his mil/mil setup. He'll look at the chart and dial. Give him my MOA setup, he'll look at the chart and dial.

Makes zero difference. And to further prove it doesn't matter, he and I don't even know WTF a MIL or MOA is....


Travis

What happens when you fire and your spotter says that you hit 6 inches low at 600 yards?

If you're on an MOA system, you simply dial up one MOA (basically, I realize it's a bit off). If you're doing everything in Mils, you gotta do math and convert....so you dial .278 MILS.

System standardization across the board is a big help.

When systems become convoluted, it makes for confusion. If you and your spotter are both on the same system, it makes life a lot easier. Now your spotter can say "You hit .3 Mil low." You dial .3 mils and shoot.

Same thing with having a Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA scope. If I'm spotting for myself, I say "I hit .3 Mils low." Dial it, shoot again. No conversion = less time involved, so I take advantage of similar conditions, and less chance of effing up the math (because there really isn't any).

It has nothing to do with the drop chart....it's past that point. The issue has to deal with what you're seeing in the real world, and making those observations into a measurable number you can use to determine corrections.

Prairie goat, not a problem, they never miss.

How does he know it's 6"? He's guessing.

If you have a spotter that's using a spotting scope with a mil or MOA reticle and he actually measures the miss with it, OK

A lot of the above comments is proof that a company really has to be careful who they listen to when designing products. In this case everybody believes that they know what they are talking about, and that thier experience and opinion, no matter how little they actually have, holds the same weight as those who have a lifetime of skill and knowledge.

Tom and Bushnell chose experienced, knowledgeable and skilled shooters to help design this scope. Probably two of the best choices that they could have made.


Not trying to belittle anyone or be rude- however, the scope is called the LRHS- Long Range Hunting Scope. Not- "10oz hunting scope that I'm going to get turrets added, mount on a 6lb Kimber and pretend that it's a long range rifle" scope. If you don't "get" mils because your brain "thinks" in MOA and inches, than you don't understand what you are trying to talk about. Guess what? Bushnell went to people that actually have experience with normal hunting, LR tactical shooting, and LR hunting and that are successful at all three. There is a reason that the community that specializes in long range field shooting has moved to scopes the are FFP with mil adjustments, mil reticles, locking turrets, and zero stops.


Mils vs MOA:

MOA, and Mils are angular measurements. In practical use they are just a number. A tape measure for you to read and adjust the scope correctly. As was stated above: you don't think in clicks, MOA, or mils. You read the number of your drop chart and spin the turret until it lines up.


Matching reticle and turrets:

Mil reticles and mil turrets (or MOA/MOA) when paired together do really good things for the shooter. When you miss, and you will miss, there is no thinking involved. You read the reticle and adjust for the next shot. No trying to figure out whether you were 12 inches low or 18 inches low, and then if you can determine how much off you were, doing math to come up with the adjustment to use to correct for the next shot. That's the reason those who shoot at long range use scopes with reticles that have marks on the vertical and horizontal axis. With a mil based reticle and mil adjustment I see that my shot went 1.2mils low and .3 mils right. Instantly I know the correction is to dial (or hold)- UP 1.2 and left .3. That's it. No guessing, no math, no bs. The reticle is a ruler and I dial what it says.


FFP:

Front focal plane with a reticle designed correctly is absolutely the way to go. It allows you to do the above AT ANY POWER. That's why it works. If you shoot targets under time constraints from muzzle distance to where you need to start checking if the round is still supersonic, FFP is money.




Turrets:

Covered turrets are unnecessary if the turret locks. In order to adjust this scope you pull up on the turret to unlock it, adjust as needed, and then push down to lock it into place. When combined with a zero stop= virtually full proof.



Reticles:

Who cares. Really the only thing that matters is that the reticle is functional. Those who do not buy scopes because of how a completely functional reticle looks, care more about perception and less about reality. As long as something in the reticle is bold enough to draw my eye to the center at low power in low light, thin enough to not obscure the target at all on higher powers and long range, matches the scopes adjustments and is marked at least every mil (preferably every .5 minimum), than it doesn't matter. I will hit and kill with it. I personally do not care for the "CQB circle" around the cross hairs, however that will not stop me from using it.


Weight:

Lighter is better. Scopes that work are best. Make the scope how it needs to be to hold zero and track on EVERY shot and deal with the weight.






Again, I'm not trying to be rude, but if someone doesn't understand why they built the scope this way than they do not understand long range field shooting. If you are someone that thinks the Burris B-plex, Rapid Z800, or any other BDC reticle is the way to go, or someone who thinks that the Leupold CDS and a duplex are the greatest invention yet for your hunting, than you probably do not understand scopes like this.

For hunters and shooters that have the skill and need/want a scope to work from 800/900/1,000, etc yards while still being totally usable inside the woods than this is a great choice.



Pat and George, good job.

Good lord. Do you feel better about yourself after that long ass rant?

And to clarify, I like Pat and George (at least what I know about them from the internet as I've never met either of them), and I agree, Bushnell picked the right two guys to piece this thing together.

With that said, it doesn't mean that my opinion in what I like is any less valuable. It might be less valuable to Bushnell (obviously), but I know what I like. The fact that you're getting all worked up about that is humorous...

Formid is not ranting, just trying to educate some that may not have the experience or understand what is important in Long Range Shooting. His post is on the money.


Everyone has an opinion on lots of things in life like cars, food, wine and even rifles.

A guy who doesn't understand his post or why Pat and George designed the scope that way probably drives a Yugo, eats at McDonald's, drinks White Zinfandel, and shoots a Savage.

George has my love and always has...and Competition in the market place,is THE best thing for the Consumer.

The premise is largely sound and I savvy the intent.

Mil/MOA,MOA/Mil,Mil/Mil,MOA/MOA is all MOOT/MOOT. Same goes Yds or Meters on parallax adjustment,or in a LRF or BRF. What matters is consistent adjustments,lineal in nature,that repeat,the rest is [bleep] semantics,no matter how much a Mall Ninja wishes otherwise.

The reticle is far too cluttered for me,the circle needs to go and it'd be nice if the horizontal stadia hashmarks were lesser in their sizing(retaining their spacing). Would be nice to see the vertical stadia clutter above the crosshair intersection,go away too. Noone is ever going to use it to holdunder(if they are,they've badly [bleep] up their initial zero range,for the cartridge/boolit) and subtending Critters for range determinations is a folly,unless you are playing Haybale & Crockett in a Golf Course. The Real World don't allow such things.

Turrets are far more precise than substension,so if given a choice,I'll take SFP. It is an inordinate circumstance(say 22LR at 400yds+,with it's very modest impact splash) ,that I'm not 100% catching trace/impact feedback as I shoot,so doping a correction on any scale or reticle(at any power) is a [bleep] breeze. That because I don't enter into an equation,less known dope and I'm not fending comeups,but rather wind. Comeups remain 100% Physics,Wind remains 100% VooDoo. Even at 400yds+ with a 22LR,if a Spotter says "a foot right",I can either slide whatever reticle is in the glass or adjust the turret,no matter it's scale. I prefer MOA,because it's my first language,but can happily squirt Mil's.

The fast focus eyepiece is a heart breaker,due to BC orientation and such designs tend to leak. Both are bitter pills.

I quizzed George on the turret's zero function,but he never got back to me and prolly missed the query. From afar,it appears that to zero,one must loosen the fastener atop the turret,remove the whole thing and re-index on the spline. Assumption all,but that is how it appears to my eye,from the wideangle pics.

Have yet to see mention of it's Waterprooftitude and that's a huge concern.

Get a new spotter.



Travis

Damn dude... I was already sold. Now I really want one...



Travis

I knew he could explain it correctly. FFP is the only way to go in a variable scope with a ranging reticle. Otherwise, the reticle can only (accurately) be used at specified power determined by the manufacturer, not the shooter.

I guess I was so animated about this because I actually LOVE the elite series of scopes. when I get behind one its like an old catchers mit. The scopes are easy to get behind without too much eye relief, like what leupold and zeiss have in many cases. the problem with bushnells in the past they lack the features I want in a scope.

I hear all the arguments about just look at what the chart and the data says. have you guys actually done much shooting outside of the gun range??? what if I want my data to be easier to understand in my head. what if I have to get off a shot faster than digging out a bunch of data. animals don't wait around forever. what is 3.5 mils at 700 yards equal in size, ok what is 3.5 MOA at 700 yards. the MOA units gives me a rough size doing simple math in my head. I think many of the experienced shooters love the mil system because the only equipment available to them in the past was all mil based. they are used to it and they know it because thats essentially all there used to be available.

I don't get the requirement for FFP reticle. I would also like to see how usable that reticle is at low power. If a FFP reticle is unusable at lower power why even have the reticle be FFP in the first place. While I haven't seen it, I really have a tuff time imagining all those horus like marks at the lower part of the scope being useable at all at low power. if the scope is SFP then you can figure out what the differences are at low power. my scopes are either on low or high power, its really rare I use the in between power setting. I suspect others are the same way. and if you have a scope set up to dial why have a funky reticle going on in the bottom of the scope?? hopefully those that are helping work on this project will see some of the comments and ponder them. otherwise I am happy with my nighforce and its MOAR reticle

Every single one of your questions have been answered on this thread. Literally.


Travis

Simple answer is with the reticle located in the first (or front) focal plane, the image and reticle remain the same in relationship to each other with regards to distance measurements on the reticle (Mils/MOA).

dude, did you read what I said, where in there do you see a question??? in fact I haven't really asked any questions for the large part in any of my posts on this subject. rather I just stated my opinions. why is it people get put down for having an opinion that differs from theirs or the pack mentality. Why do you even bother coming here and reading anything if every one gets in a circle and decides thats how something should be. for that matter why did anyone even post about this scope?? I assume they were looking for comments on it. I am one of the very few that have taken the proposed features of this scope and argued on their merits. I would say for the most part I actually like the features of the scope and if other options were available while keeping the basic design of the scope I am interested. noone one seems interested in talking about what potential problems there are, but rather are fixated on how great and knowledgeable the people working on the scope are and how they must know everything. again why have an original thought.

Yes I did.



Travis

LOL

Questions in what you said:



Which is really very laughable if you're familiar with Pat's work at all. I don't know him but from what he's posted on various places. Dude's laid more meat on the ground than John Holmes.

Question:



Question:



You admit you've never even seen it- yet have the opinion that it doesn't work.

Question:



Because when you're out of Ele in the turret, you can still get more via the cross lines in the FOV.

All questions you claim you never asked and all were essentially answered in the thread. I count 4 in that one post.

Not looking to bust your balls but it's laid out there.

I used to tease guys here who put $100+ turrets on $300 Leupold's saying it was akin to putting Pirelli P-Zero's on a Ford Pinto.

Watch it, [bleep]...



Travis

Bro, on the new scope being discussed here, it is a pop up, spin and lock down. As far as "Waterprooftittude" these high end Elite Tactical scopes are the real deal. Won't see um in a blister pack at Wally World. Before NF started assembling some scopes stateside, the previous NF were all built in the same factory as these high end Elite Tactical scopes. Those slanty eyed bastards can built a scope rest assured. Just remember, they are an OEM ( Light Optical Works, jp) and they will build anything according to what is spec'd by the stateside contractor, which is all Bushnell and Nightforce are.

So, which line of Bushnell's scopes are the good ones for LR? the Elite Tacticals?



Travis

There are two grades, the Elite Tactical 6500 and the top of the line Elite HDMR which cost hundreds more. The 3.5-21x50 is the one folks are talking about here. The Elite 6500 Tactical is basically a 6500 with tactical turrets. The HDMR is a different animal.


http://swfa.com/Bushnell-25-16x42-Elite-Tactical-30mm-Rifle-Scope-P48270.aspx Weight= 21 ounces


http://swfa.com/Bushnell-35-21x50-Elite-Tactical-34mm-Rifle-Scope-P51676.aspx Weight 30+ ounces
http://swfa.com/Bushnell-35-21x50-Elite-Tactical-34mm-Rifle-Scope-P61358.aspx
http://swfa.com/Bushnell-1-85x24-Elite-Tactical-34mm-Rifle-Scope-P61357.aspx

Thanks.


Travis

ok I think if you look at the jest of what I am saying is those are statements and opinions rather than questions although technically phrased as questions. I have read many of pat's posts I was not referring to him when I made the statement of outside the range shooting but to some others here who seem caught up in group think.

Look bottom line I come here to learn new things. I like to challenge conventional thinking. I actually would rather see people pick apart my opinions and points and prove me wrong. instead of getting mad at them I will thank them for the learning experience. If the mil system is better say why it is, not just learn it and you will see, as an example. Further this scope is being marketed as a hunting scope right?? (yes I am asking a question) how many hunters do you know understand the mil system or even know what a freaking mil radian is?? I can't think of one of the half of dozen guys I hunt with that could tell me what a mil is. I would like to see a dedicated long range high quality scope go mainstream in the market place, much like what nightforce is doing. leupold has burnt its bridge with me.

The problem I see is one from a business stand point. The players involved in the design of this scope, well at least one of them have deep connections to the tactical community. I see them selling scopes to these people primarily which will mean the scopes will be limited production and not sold on a widespread basis, just like bushnell's other high end tactical scopes. most people don't even know they make them. what this will mean and I predict is this scope will be at least as much as a nightforce. bushnell does not have the name to compete at this price point, just like when tasco tried to market the euroclass models. lastly there are 3 companies I know of that are built around long range hunting scopes, their models are specific to long range hunting and marketed as such. I think a company would be smart to look at what these guys have done instead of looking at the tactical community for advice. I think there are good points that the tactical community has and good points the hunting arena has. take a product like the g7 rangefinder, IMO this unit would make an awesome tactical rangefinder. yes it has limitations, yes its not a vectronix. but for 99% of what most guys out there shoot it would be a much better unit for them in most cases than using the new fancy kestrel that just came out. lets leave out 338 lapua shooters and 50 bmg here. The tactical community for the most part isn't aware of the g7 RF and its capabilities.

I think that's a separate issue. The spotter should be speaking in MOA or Mils, making the shooter's life easier, not harder.

yes, they are quite a piece of equipment. If I was going to spend that kind of $$ on a scope, I think it'd be hard to beat.

You said it better than I did.

Yup, agreed.

And spotting is the reason that it's important that the reticle/turrets match, not the shooting. As you say, it's easy to read data, either dial or hold, whether ele or wind, and whether mil or MOA, and fire the shot. But it makes things tidy to be able to spot using either MOA or mil, and dial the same units into the turrets.

Which is exactly what I was trying to get at, though it probably didn't come through very clear.

Use one system, whatever it is. Hard to speak in Mils when your spotter has a duplex reticle in his scope (or no reticle, like a lot of spotting scopes).

When all the shooter has to adjust by is the spotter saying, "half a prairie dog low", or "you hit the lower third of the target, about dead center", it doesn't really lend itself to great precision. If a spotter and shooter spend enough time together, and figure each other out, they can be quite deadly like this.....but it's much easier and quicker to just plop your spotter behind the same reticle type, and start calling shots in a precise manner.

Less BS to contend with = better shooting, especially when stress and fatigue is involved.

Jordan,

Really enjoyed your company at the Icebreaker last spring. Hopefully you can bring along a few of your own rifles next spring(damn border crossing rules).

FWIW guys, Jordan shoots in both mils and moa and makes calls either way depending on who he is spottimg for and what their system is. To be well versed in any longrange shooting/hunting, I think it's important know the in's and out of both systems.

Guys, keep an open mind and keep contributing thoughts and ideas......all of it will be passed on.

I shoot a Mil-Dot in a MOA scope.... never caused me any issues... but then again, I do wear velcro shoes and a helmet... daily.

I get the duribility/repeatability thing.... it's paramount... but it don't take 30oz to make a tough scope. I bounced my .260 all over the cab for pert'near 500 miles of dirt roads in the last couple of days... stuffed it in the pack for another dozen or two... and dropped it once trying to put it back in the pack. Pulled it out this morning, dialed the 13 MOA of ele required (123 amax @3050), gave a little wind... and pounded a volleyball size rock three times at 703... with a 3-9 Leupold Mark AR, status quo... just like it has been for years... just like the other 4 I own. I like 13ish oz, Mil-Dot, and 1/2MOA clicks.... but I'm not trying to put goat twat in the dirt at 1300 yards either. Nice shot by the way George....

Anyone that has any business buying a LONG RANGE hunting scope and using said scope to its capabilities had better know what a mRad is or be willing to learn. Guys dropping over a grr on a scope make sure they know. Those that don't get what's coming to them.

I can't think if 6 guys off the street that knows what an "ECM re-flash" is but you bet your arse every mechanic knows what one is. Same here. The guys who shoot long or are willing to actually learn to shoot long know what a mRad is. This isn't for the "blister pack scope on a Savage Axis" crowd.

At this price point and with this pedigree - it's not for people who don't really know what they're doing or aren't on their way to learning - SERIOUS shooting at serious ranges by serious shooters.



Can you tell me what would be a great long range HUNTING scope that ISN'T a "tactical" scope? What "tactical scope" doesn't work at all for hunting?

Bushnell isn't looking to compete with guys trying to decide what to put on granddad's old 7mm Mauser for deer this fall. They're entering a niche market that's populated by people who believe in testing over brochures and AREN'T tied to perceived name recognition. People who can use such a scope and have the skill to do so aren't going to let the name on the box deter them, they want results. And if the results are good - the name isn't going to stop them from using it. See "Super Sniper" scopes. Stupid name and it's not S&B, Nightforce, March, or even Leupold but people buy and use the models that work.

You're essentially saying Ferrari can't make money on cars because too many people buy Corollas. It's not about those that buy Corollas but those that are in the market for Ferraris (or a Lotus or whatever)

Lotsa schit,is supposed to do lotsa schit and an intent is often far separate from that which transpires in actuality. I prolly don't have as big of an inherent hard on for Bushy as most folks,because I gun an open mind and couldn't zook a B&L 2.5-10x on my beloved 378Wby. I've seen me dabble a smidge.

The Mall Ninja Crowd is always trying to reinvent the wheel with JipJap bullschit that bears no fruit. Weren't long ago,one could 'em make 'em cry by laughing at their beer tab turret locks and the like. They is a very [bleep] tender lot and the only thing most of 'em shoot,is their mouths. I savvy it all and take it for what it's worth,which is oblivious hilarity.

I hear tell,that Zipperheads can build fair to middlin' camera lenses too. They gots leetle fingers and can build intricate schit,if you bump wages to $.37 an hour.(grin) I get it,got it,use it,in many avenues and joyfully. Many slight the sanctity of Chinktitude,but I've always looked at it akin to Yankee Ingenuity and fret results,not semantics. You couldn't begin to fathom how little of a schit I give,in who made it...nor the flipside in how heavily I weigh how it actually performs.

There's a plethora of wares that others can get by with in their AO,that I simply cannot and if all else were equal(which it ain't),inclement weather would greatly tip the scales alone. Folks who don't fret Waterprooftitude from the first pitch,cain't savvy,because they are clueless in it's ability to reliably puke schit. I'd like to see the glass flailed about,some intel regarding it's ability to retain a zero during the melee and most importatly,see how she swims underwater. If only because less that,all things is Fluff.

I like to order my own pizzas and stocks too.(grin)

Good post Andrew

I think the gist of this is that statements, opinions and questions can all be in jest.

...and Boxer.

Deadwood was one of my favorites

I think you are ignoring where bushnell's past forays into the high end tactical scope market have went. these scopes were heavily influenced by the people at snipers hide. 34mm tubes and all, which very very few people need a big honkin scope tube like that. are they selling alot of these scopes?? I could be wrong but I doubt it. G7's nightforce scope is a scope specifically marketed as a long range scope and its not a tactical model, neither are the graybull or huskemaw scopes. so actually none of the scopes marketed for long range hunting are tactical or have a tactical pedigree. NOW could they be used as such, emphatically yes quite well I think. if a company does not get their product in stores it will never be a huge success. make a scope that is simple and easy to explain to the average joe. keep in mind the average joe is who is making the buying decisions at these stores. Nightforce gets their product in front of the consumer despite having some very technical features. I just see this project as being no different than the other bushnell tactical models. that I personally have never been able to actually get in my hands despite.

here is what I would change specifically about this prototype because there are actually many features I really like. have a MOA based model, 36 moa in one turn, and have the turret only operate in that one turn, 1/3 moa clicks. simple reticle with 1 moa hold offs on the horizontal, maybe one mark above or below horizontal line on the vertical post, for a short and or long range zero, lastly SFP reticle. price the scope at or slightly above $1k and I will be one of the first to buy one. there thats it and actually not all that much different than what they have already done.

Throwing a bunch of needless clutter on the windshield,doesn't "enhance" the parcel. Clutter is clutter,whether you wanna measure the clutter in Mils,MOA or I/PHY or whatever unit of measure/designator floats your boat.

There are those who would swoon a "Tactical Spoon" or a "Long Range" fork. It's a feeble MARKETING attempt,that trips triggers in many,which apparently do bolster sales a smidge. I could really give a schit what label is attached to something,as Mootitude ain't my focus,nor has it ever been.

In fairness,I'd state that the SWFA SS Mil-Quad reticle is gonna do more favors for a Killing Glass. It funnels the eye faster to center,due stadia transition and MUCH clutter is thoughtfully left out. I my book,them are very positive things,but there are those who groove on dirty windshields far more than I.

A windshield splattered with bugs,don't get "better" if labeled "Tactical" or "LR".(grin) Pass the Windex and hold the Fluff.

I sincerely hope the scope do,what the boys think it'll do and causes other Manufacturers to mebbe pay a leetle attention if only by default.

I'd wager Al prolly had boots on the ground and a keen understanding,that he downplayed on the sly...so as to eek max results.

Thinkin' a Tactical or LR scarf woulda been a hard sell on him,for lotsa reasons,none of which was jingle or experience related.(grin)

Did anybody come up with a ballpark price on what these will retail for?

looking at that reticle they already have some more, keep the big circle I say in the MOA version and keep the style of the marks on the horizontal the same with long and short ones, I like that actually it would make it easier to pick up the number of marks your over, with my MOAR reticle it takes me longer to count over and think is that the 3 or 4 minute mark I am looking at. clean up the bottom of the reticle, done and even I am happy. actually not all that much different.

Golf Courses is forgivin' on reticles and clutter.

Less is just sooooooo very much more.

Cummins - just what is the difference between "long range hunting" and "tactical" in your opinion?

At what point does a "tactical" scope become miss applied for hunting uses? Just what is the difference betwix the two that is so vast that a scope can't simply do both jobs?

Seriously - you seem hung up more on labels than the wares.

Exactly my point - WGAF if it's a "long range hunting" or a "tactical" scope. The issue is - can you kill [bleep] with it and will it track so you can keep playing "whack a dink" at multiple ranges. Does the windshield work for you?

That's all it comes down to. Doubting Bushnell is worried too much that someone thinks the box is mislabeled.

Wise man once said "good [bleep] sells itself"

Turrets that track/repeat and crosshairs intersecting POA/POI...will reliably bear fruit and arranging same is a literal breeze.

I hope they sell like hotcakes.

ok you might be right, looking at the reticle and what they already have, my tune is changing. while its not my first choice with all those marks in the lower part of the reticle. if with an MOA version they thought it would help them sell more scopes I could learn to live with it. if a MOA version of what they already have was available I would buy it still. change the circle to 5 or 6 moa instead of 2 mils change the marks to moa done, oh to do this the reticle would have to be SFP to work with MOA

Pat, my comments have went all over the place, quite simple in summary just please talk them into doing a MOA version, the basic product is definitely on the right track. also I need a long range hunting scope for one of my rifles, a MOA version of this scope would be top of the list.

Got word today that the scope Indicated Retail for $1479, That's Retail, should not change from this.

Im guessing that they will sell in the neighborhood of $1250-1350 being that nobody gets retail.


Its a Great Scope and will be out for order for SHOT SHOW. Prototypes like the one I have will b in a few people's hands prior to to give worthy feedback. The Great part is Bushnell listened to Real Hunters/Shooters on this, Pat and I got to 100% spec this scope. Both having used it Im telling you they hit a Homer. Never mind a Grand Slam!!

George

Nice, thanks George. I'm liking the 1250-1350 price tag. There's a lot of kick azz features there for a non-exorbitant price.

About the reticle...

I'm with Boxer. Simple is betterer....

Tough to beat a TMR. I understand a reticle for quick shots at longer ranges with hold over and wind compensation, but usually a longer range shot means game that hasn't seen you and is unaware.

Plenty of time to dial and hold off for wind

I had some VX3's with the VHR. Every long range shot I made with them was dialed and held off. Sent them back for a TMR reticle change.

At the TAC matches when a stage calls for using the reticle for hold over, it's not too difficult to hold off for wind too with the TMR

That's pretty reasonable all things considered....I would have guessed several hundred more.

May have to start working OT again!

Congrats to Pat & George

Hey Pat,

The transport permit is already in hand for this coming April *grin*

I had a lot of fun, and it was really a pleasure to meet you and spend some time getting to know you. Really glad to see you back posting on the campfire again. It's a better place for having you around here. I'll give you a jingle one of these days soon to see how things are going.

One thing I know about Pat, is that while some guys have 5 years of serious shooting experience spread out over 20 years, Pat has 100 years of LR shooting/killing experience packed into less than half that time. I also met George at the Icebreaker, and Bushnell couldn't have chosen any nicer or more qualified guys than Pat and George for this project. I'm super excited to see the new scope!

Pat/George,
Can you tell us what the scope weighs?

Thanks!

The parameters they set were for it to be under 24oz (first post) and all subsequent posts state they met the parameters. Sooo...I'd say 24oz or less.

I set myself up for that one, didn't I?

Yes. It's all good. Wonder how goofy one would look on Kimber 300 WSM?

Prolly Nightfarce-esque.

That a 3.5-15x50?

Here's my 2.5-10x32 on a Montana 6XC...



Need to get some pics after Eddie purtied 'er up.

Pard's 5.5-22x.

A two pound scope in windage adjustable bases on a light rifle that probably has some recoil given the notch in pard's head. Now there's a combination made in heaven.

Everyone learns a hard lesson or two.

It were an 8mm Whizzum at the time and became a 7 Whizzum soon after. I bet you couldn't find a windage adjustable system in his herd anymore and I'm thinking most his Killing Glass is far more svelte and forgiving.

I'd prolly go so far as to say,it were a "Toldjaso" moment.(grin)

Flipside,from this year.

1st Gen Ti,rebarreled 1-8" 22-250AI and a 75A-Max at 540yds,from a 3450fps launch. Almost looks like a 6x42 with Duplex and M1 turrets...the horror.(grin)

Reading your comments here gives the image of the kid stomping his feet screaming the he didn't want the new blue bike, he wanted the red one.

First off the Bushnell HDMR is one of the most popular scopes in LR tactical shooting. The last "sniper match" that I shot is one of the biggest and in the "super squad" over 75% where using HDMR's. In comparison to sales of the G7 scopes..... There is none. There are A LOT of Bushnell HDMR's out there relatively speaking. The fact that you haven't seen one means that you need to get out more. Try out some LR field matches and you might just realize that those guys know some things shooting and hitting at long range.


It is obvious from your posts that your brain is stuck in the 500 to 600 yard range. This isn't for that. 5-600 yards is within the realm of normal hunting rifles and a good scope. It does not require much in the way of special equipment. For normal hunting rifles I prefer simpler reticles, solid turrets, and lighter weight. The NF 2.5-10x32mm with mildot reticle and 1/0th mil adjustments and the 3-9x42mm SWFA SS with mil quad reticle are what I choose to use because they hold zero and track correctly.







However,I also like fixed 6x Leupolds-




And even use some regular variable power Leupolds with M1's and a duplex-







But guns and scopes built for true long range shooting require something else.

That's where "those big honking turrets" and "big 34mm tubes" come in.





[img]http://i744.photobucket.com/albums/xx87/Vereor1/243WSSM.jpg[/img]


And where reticles like this are useful- [img]http://i744.photobucket.com/albums/xx87/Vereor1/IMG_20120922_171445_zps697f1d24.jpg[/img]

And while visually I can't stand all the "noise" with them, when there are multiple targets at different ranges they make second shot corrections and and wind holds a snap. If I'm going hunting with the knowledge that my shots are going to be over the 500 yard range I take one of those. Hitting at 900 yards is hitting at 900 yards and those setups do it better than anything else.



However, we are at the point now with guns, bullets and optics to where 800 plus yard shooting is possible with lighter weight rifles with anything that resembles consistency. What you are seeing with Pat and George's rifles and some others being built is a blending of lightweight hunting rifles and competition guns. Lighter guns and bullets are capable of long range hunting, but I don't really want to mount a 30oz scope with a Horus reticle and try to kill a deer in the woods at 60 yards with it. There hasn't been really any scope that has blended the two until this new Bushnell. Scopes like the LRHS are just as capable inside the woods as they are at 900 yards.

When shooting a goat at 1,100 yards you need/want the capability of the competition guns. You just want it lighter.

What does MOA get you? I get it. Emotionally you are latched on to MOA because you thinks it's "American" and it kind of lines up with inches. When/if you learn to how to shoot and stop thinking in "inches" and "clicks" than it doesn't matter whether it is MOA or mils. The reason for Mils is because mil based scopes are the standard for long range shooting in the world. The mil dot reticle is here to stay. Adjustments should match the reticle. Hence mils. Either one works, but I can tell you that shooters new to long range pick up using mils faster than MOA (probably because people are constantly trying to correlate MOA to inches).


As for the hashes every 1 MOA- do you have any idea how hard that would be to see at 12x?


Wanting to get rid of the marks on the vertical lines? Do you think that you only miss at long range left and right? That coupled with the fact that you think a mark above and below for a "short and long range zero" is a good idea, hints to me that you don't know as much about long range shooting as you think you do.



I love me some Leupold fixed 6 power scopes with M1's for true lightweight rifles, but this new Bushnell nicely blends the features and capabilities of LR sniper/tactical scopes with the size, weight and reticle usable for hunting at all ranges.

Formidilous,


What spotters would you recommend that come equipped with a mil reticle?

Is the Leupold version worth a schit?


Travis

Good stuff Formidilosus,
Thanks for posting!

At what Imagined distance,do bugs in the windshield become an "advantage"? Looking forward to that Pretend.

The farther I get downrange,the closer to center of the glass,is where I wish to be. That to aid in catching trace/impact,as well as pasting movers.

I getta kick outta the Mall Ninja Crowd and their 2-man reticles...screaming "get some",from the middle of the Golf Course.

This schit is [bleep] funny!

I hope the eye box is a little better than a 4.5-14 LR....

your post seemed kinda snobbish, yeah I am foot stomping like a little kid that didn't get what I want. I admit that. I think what they ended up with is a tactical scope and I will point out why I personally don't like that approach. I will try to take each point you made and tell my perspective. in context my passion is long range coyote hunting, I do this in utah, idaho, nevada, wyoming, colorado in a variety of conditions in a given year. and no I don't think in terms of 5-600 yards. I want to shoot out to as far as I can get a range on them, which is usually around 1000 yards give or take. The only advantage of the mil systems as I see it is it breaks down nicely in to 10th's, but MOA breaks down into quarters.

your point about the mildot reticle and being here to stay, ok IMO that is 1970's technology, none of the cutting edge scopes use that anymore most are marked with half mil marks instead of "dots" and yes I have owned both dot type and the newer TMR style scopes. with MOA being only about 5% off from inches, inches works.

next you tout how you need a 34 mm tube scope on your guns because they need to shoot so much further. ok well looking at your cases I don't see any that are 338 lapua, or 50 bmg laying on the ground. so what in the world is a 34mm tube getting you?? so are you shooting that what looks like a short mag of some sort or wssm ar past a mile?!?!?! if not the 34mm is a waste to you.

ok so your next point is about the clutter in the reticle and how that helps you spot misses and correct for them. I did ask a question in another post about guys getting out and shooting away from a sanitary gun range environment. it appears most of your shooting is done at the gun range. Most of my shooting is done in the field at coyotes or rocks. my spotting consists of my 11 year old looking through binoculars and saying dead coyote, wounded coyote or missed coyote. I don't get a second shot typically at a known distance to correct. This is the fundamental thing I am talking about a tactical shoot is different than hunting. sometimes I do get a second shot at coyotes at extended ranges but its never the same shot I just shot over again. a tactical shoot is much different and with distinct differences in shots than live targets, this is where I shoot, I don't get sighters or a spotter telling me to correct 3 10ths of a mil or 1 moa low. I don't even get help with a spotter to make wind calls, its my 11 year old or one of my buddies saying hit or no hit. a cluttered reticle does nothing to me, for one the scope comes off target under recoil so I don't spot my hits through the scope and have it come right back on target. lastly you ask how you see 1 moa marks at 12 power, have you looked at a nightforce MOAR reticle before?? they work just fine but they must be a SFP reticle or the markes will washout at low power. and lastly since I am trying to hit a very very small target such as a coyote I think the finer MOA system works better for making hits, .5 mil is approaching 2 MOA in size, what if your kill zone is half a MOA?? mil is bigger and will not work as well IMO.

Hey cc,
I appreciate your hanging in here.

If you shoot some easy (lol) club shoots or just look at a simple club shoot stages description, you'll begin to understand. The shoots are designed to test the rifleman just about every way. Lots of unsteady positions and lots of varying distances under time where you have to use your reticle for holdover.

If you can't spot your own shots, you lose.

Same goes in real life. If you rely on your son , you lose too

Nail down your drops, learn to read the wind and have a good rangefinder. A scope that works is a must with reticle you can live with.

Guys here saying they miss with elevation haven't done the work necessary to compete in a match OR kill game at Long Range. Missing elevation IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. Your load sucks or you can't use your rangefinder worth a damn.

If you have even the first smidgins of a [bleep] clue, your foundation is laid and it's all about the wind from there.

A good reticle helps with simple holdover.

Not snobbish at all. Not meant to be personal.

It is quite easy to make an inference on someone's knowledge and experience from what the write and say. Your complaints and desires show that you do not have a broad understanding of long range shooting. And that's ok.



Mil dots= mil based reticle. Guess I shouldn't have assumed that would be understood.

Don't think I ever said that I need 34mm tubes. I said true long range shooting is where 34mm tubes come in. The only 338L and 50's I shoot are issued, though I'm not sure that you are aware that it doesn't take a Lapua to run out of elevation on a scope? Personally I don't care whether it's a 1in, 30mm, 34mm or 35mm tube as long as it works and has enough travel. I just don't get my panties in a wad over how big the tube is. Ironic that you're upset over this, as the scope in question has a 30mm tube.


Your belief based on what I've written that my shooting is at sanitary gun ranges only solidifies my statements that you do not know as much as you think you do. You complain about snipershide, why don't you go shoot a decent LR tactical match on one of those sanitary gun ranges and then get back to us. Am thinking you'll come away with a bit better understanding and maybe just a bit humbled.

As for the cluttered reticle- maybe reread what I wrote. I stated that I do not like the visual noise that they create, however they help in environments that have multiple targets, at widely different ranges, with varying winds when speed matters. Could be a match, could be coyotes, could be war. Didn't say that they are good in general hunting scopes. Point in fact I said that I prefer simple mil based reticles, designed properly. If it is a dedicated long range scope I do prefer the H59 reticle above as it is broken down into .2 mil increments. The why's of the Horus and what it is for, is for another discussion, but reticles like that have their place.



You can't spot your own trace and impacts because your technique is wrong. With proper technique (even while hunting) you can, and should, spot your own shots. I watched the mule deer in the first picture crumple through the scope while siting using a pack as a rest even though it's an unbraked 300WinMag. Generally the only time I don't spot my own shots are offhand shots. It is a requirement for me and those I work with.



I am quite familiar with the MOAR. Hash marks that close either have to be overly thick so that they are visable on lower powers (10-12x), or they will wash out in dawn, dusk, and failing light. Again, the reason that I do not use Horus reticles for most hunting.

But let's say that you do get your 1 MOA hash marks and second focal plane so by you own admission they don't wash out at low powers; how does using the reticle when it doesn't subtend correctly on low powers work out for you? Tried it much?

Interesting.

I, and the rest of the long range world must be all jacked up what with mountainous terrain creating updrafts, downdrafts, thermals, eddys, etc. Pretty sure those will cause high and low impacts. As I stated above, some environments do not afford you the time to dial for every shot. As well in just about about every match I have shot there is at least one stage, if not the entire match, where rangefinders are not allowed. So yes, there are plenty of times where you can miss due to elevation even if you know the range precisely.

formido, The point is not to say what I do or don't know or what you don't know or do know, the point is I come here to learn new things. I do agree with you on your last post about having just as much trouble with elevation as wind, There are lots of variables. you seem well versed in them so I will not go into that.

in regards to a SFP reticle. I honestly don't use the between powers on my main squeeze rifle, which is topped with a NF 3.5-15 MOAR. I use the low power setting when I am calling coyotes off shooting sticks, I crank to high when I need to dial, shoot at the range, or make a long range shot. I don't need the markings of the scope if I am only shooting 300 ish yards. I suspect most other people run their scopes in similar fashion. I have not had any issue with the MOAR reticle in fact a couple weeks ago I was setting up on a coyote that was yipping at us. distance 650, light was horrible and fading fast. I could barely see and make out the range in the geovids. I went prone and found the coyote in my scope, never thinking to switch on the illumination. lets just say the MOAR reticle is good enough to exceed the light gathering of my RF binoculars without being illuminated. thickness has also never been an issue either. me personally I have a little trouble picking up and quickly counting over to the 3 or 4 minute marks on the reticle, which has the floating cross, then it goes right to 2 minutes at the next mark. I like the GAP reticle how the lines are different sizes with every other one being mostly below the line. I think the basic design could make a great SFP MOA reticle

I shoot monthly in a match held in mountainous terrain for the last 4 years as well as a couple of the toughest Practical Field Matches in the country.

In the monthly known range match, I would estimate that 99% of misses are due to wind calls left and right. Elevation errors are due to a poor load that has too much vertical, atmospheric changes as the day progresses, human dialing error, and mostly shooters who haven't done their homework.

In the field matches where you must find and range your own target, I believe the vast majority of elevation errors are due to mis-ranging the target. It's difficult to get readings sometimes on the plate or an object near it.

When you start shooting beyond 1000 yards, the quality of your load becomes apparent elevation-wise

Are there up drafts and down drafts causing elevation errors? Sure, but I say they are the exception and not the rule.

Given the current "Tactical" mood in the Marketplace,theMil/Mil arrangement is smart business,when weighed objectively. FFP will swoon some more and I savvy it from all angles,both in Theory and Application.

I can gun most any reticle,that isn't so proud as to cover the victim up and I'm always gonna be Dealing Death from crosshair intersection. That until I'm outta erector travel and then,you's simply gotta do whatcha' gotta do.

Shooting,hitting,killing,is easy. I'd like some firsthand intel,on how said glass takes a lick and weathers literal storms. Beat the [bleep] outta one and submerge it and you've my attention,as suppositions never have swooned me,though results have my full attention.

Wandering zero "retention",unreliable erectors and mechanically failed glass...cause farrrrrrrrrrrr more Real World issues,than where bugs are splattered on the windshield.

Hint.