Been working on some video lately and it just struck me that the 4.5-14x50MM with the Greybull reticle/turret combo is the most versatile optic in the world.
What other optic works from 5 yards to over a mile??
John Burns
I have all the sources. They can't stop the signal.
John, you're such a wallflower... I worry about you around here. You have to be willing to have an opinion and stick with it, my man!
Most versatile in the WORLD, eh. I'd have to go with one of them newfangled high-zoom-ratio jobbies from Swaro, with a turret. That's ass-u-ming that they actually are good at all the powers.
Couldn't articulate why, or maybe I'm just not up to the abuse... grins... but those 4.5-14's hit my eye funny. Not my favorite Leup and not something I'd peg as "ideal" for close-in work. YMMV, etc.
I shot with John's 264 and that scope,and if you're gonna run to 1200 yards,that scope does the trick.....
Such shooting is not my bag for lack of practice so I claim no expertise, but right after I shot John's rifle I did a zero check on my 270 with a 2.5-8 Leupold......I felt like I was shooting a handful of rocks looking through a milk bottle....
IMO, the 4.5x14 is the most worthless scope Leupold has ever produced, but it's your dime.
If you're referring to the 4.5-14x40 on the 1" tube then I agree with you; not my favorite Leupold either. The 4.5-14x50 on the 30mm tube is another animal entirely.
I have compared two Swarovski z5 5-25X52's with my other stuff. They have a wider field of view than my scope which starts at 4 1/2X dispite the Swaro starting at 5X. Neither of the z5's had any fuzzyness or bluryness or whatever the term might be at any magnification settings. One of them will be on my .250SLR when it gets finished. In fact I will put one on my Savage .257 Weatherby when it comes back from the fun smith.
The 3 1/2 ounces lighter z5 3 1/2-18X (14 ounces) is either a 42mm or 44mm, I don't remember, is not so much lighter to me that I would choose it over the z5 5-25X52 (17 1/2 ounces). I have not even looked through one to be tempted. Why limit myself to 18X when I can get an extremely clear 25X?!
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
RD: No...but I have not used a scope for which I would trade my Summit...
That said, it is different from John's scope,and not intended for the same purposes.I watched John's scope work with 4 people,at ranges from 800-1200 yards. Three of us had never shot that far.The scope worked like a charm.
If I had a rifle set up like John's I would not hesitate to buy one.
IMO, the 4.5x14 is the most worthless scope Leupold has ever produced, but it's your dime.
You also said I was a douche. Where does that leave us?? Could you be wrong on both accounts??
Originally Posted by smokepole
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
the 4.5-14x50MM with the Greybull reticle/turret combo is the most versatile optic in the world.
Maybe we could pair you up with swampy and the most accurate rifle "in the world,!!" then we'd have something.
We were in negotiations but then found out all Rem 700s are "the most accurate".
Originally Posted by BobinNH
Jeff don't be so uncharitable
I shot with John's 264 and that scope,and if you're gonna run to 1200 yards,that scope does the trick.....
Such shooting is not my bag for lack of practice so I claim no expertise, but right after I shot John's rifle I did a zero check on my 270 with a 2.5-8 Leupold......I felt like I was shooting a handful of rocks looking through a milk bottle....
Wish I could shoot rocks through a milk bottle into a sub MOA group, dead on zero, from a bad rest. Sandbagger.
Magnumdood,
I had 10 MOA dialed into the scope and added 2 MOA with the reticle and hit 1 MOA to the right.
13 MOA total would be right at 14 MPH at the shot including spin drift (1.2 MOA).
Jeff,
All joking aside, for me, I don't want any more magnification than 15X ,even at one mile, and I simply cannot run an unbreaked AR-15 any faster at 5 yards than 10 shots in 2.3 or so seconds and still get the hits.
That is a first round hit in under 0.7 seconds. I used to use the 2.5x8 ( Reticle and turret of course) on the ARs but with this latest shooting my times have stayed the same on really close 5 -20 yd drills and I gained maybe 25% increase in speed (using the timer) at 50 -200yds on first round hits.
I think the reason for the speed advantage (Mid range) is my slow brain can determine sight alignment faster at 4.5x than 2.5x.
Shooting with a timer always is fun and it will sometimes make you question things that you were sure were true.
In defense of the 2.5x8 it is the only other scope we will put the reticle in and build a dial. Wayne vanZwoll has one on his pet .338 Marlin and he can sure make you think "bolt gun performance" when he shoots it (600yd lever gun).
Last edited by JohnBurns; 06/17/11.
John Burns
I have all the sources. They can't stop the signal.
May I make a parathetical statement about timers? Good.
When I discovered that there are no bench rests in the woods, I started shooting off hand. Then I decided to add a count down alarm to the mix. Eventually I got it down to 1.5 seconds to flip off the safety as I raised the rifle and hit the target under the 1.5 second buzzer. Very much fun and great practice.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
May I make a parathetical statement about timers? Good.
When I discovered that there are no bench rests in the woods, I started shooting off hand. Then I decided to add a count down alarm to the mix. Eventually I got it down to 1.5 seconds to flip off the safety as I raised the rifle and hit the target under the 1.5 second buzzer. Very much fun and great practice.
Timers add so much to the fun level in practice. Best $100 or so spent.
Anyone who can hit in under 1.5 seconds has a feeling of confidence in close that is hard to underestimate.
John Burns
I have all the sources. They can't stop the signal.
Well, here's my two cents. I wasn't terribly impressed with the short range stuff. You took all the time you needed to get ready. In the real world, you have no such opportunity. Being able to shoot and hit faster is worth very little. It's not the same as being completely unprepared and getting a hit in a short time. Fast draw looks great and is lots of fun. As stated, the usual 4.5-14X is not a favorite. One reason is because it harder to use in a hurry due to it's lack of eye box. The other drawbacks to such scopes is that they are very heavy, 17-22 ozs., and they have a track record of losing their zero when knocked around much. That's one of the major reasons why the 4X Leupold is so popular. It holds it's zero even after being impacted. I was very impressed with the long range shot. Don't know anybody that can make a wind call under those conditions and make that hit. I got to also add however that it is well beyond me to do anything like that. Yes, I've made several kills over 400 yds. and, no, I have not lost any of them. But I've seen enough poor hits and out right misses to make me very reluctant to attempt such shots. So, apparently that's the answer to you and it meets your needs. It is along way from mine. E
The 4.5x14 and the 3.5x10 share the same tube so there is no reason to accept the diminished LR capability of the 3.5x10.
The 2.5x8 offers a much reduced footprint and the 8x is really just as capable at LR as a 10x.
Eremicus,
I am a little confused by your post. One thing we find with guys who struggle to use the 4.5x14 is they have never learned to correctly focus the optic.
This is more important than most understand and is much more critical on the more powerful optics than the straight 4x you seem to prefer.
You might revisit the 4.5x14 and learn how to use the adjustable ocular to properly focus the scope. You will find it helps you with quick target acquisition.
Good Luck
Last edited by JohnBurns; 06/19/11.
John Burns
I have all the sources. They can't stop the signal.
