After using my new March 2 1/2-25X52 at the shooting range 3 different days, I decided I prefer it over my Bushnell 4 1/2 - 30X50. I can hardly believe I am posting this.

But then, it cost about three times as much.

Hmmm. Let me see. Bushnell against March? That's a hard one to figure out... That's like comparing my favorite Burris rifle scopes against any of my Nightforce rifle scopes.

I can think of several more appropriate words than Blasphemy

Not sure why it's a blasphemy. The March 2.5-25X42/52 is an awesome little scope. It has ED glass and solid as a rock. I found the specs for the Bushnell LRS TAC 4.5-30X50 on Amazon. Bushnell doesn't list it.

Post up 8 or 10 target pics even if they don't have anything to do with ringman's post..........

The Bushnell Elite 6500 4 1/2-30X50 beat four Swarovski z5 5-25X52. It was about as good as my Leupold 4-24X52. The VX6 edged them out when it came to natural colors.

The return to zero is perfect so far. But it is a mill turret. I guessed at how far to turn the reticle when sighting in. I was way off.

I was firing Hammer Hunter 131 grainers at 3700 from the 26" barrel. I settled on 96 grains of Retumbo. Lord willing I'll try different primers to discover its favorite. I'm hoping for 1" three shot groups at 300yards.

Well if your turning the reticle, your gonna play helll getting things zeroed.

That said, the reticle doesn't match the turrets?

The reticle does match the turrets. He has a MIL model and I think he's more familiar with MOA. I'm not sure what cartridge he's using but that's a lot of Retumbo. Must be something like the .375 Louderboomer, or the 6mm Earensplitter. Either way the March will have no issues with that rifle.

I excell at ignorance and lazy. The reticle is a cross hair. The turret, I discovered is about .36" per click instead of .25". I tried shooting at 590 yards. I couldn't see any dust so have no idea if it was low or high.

A mil equates to a decimeter, or 10 centimeters. Those clicks are 1/10th mil, so one centimeter. At 100 yds that is. Hope that helps.

A MIL is 3.43 MOA and the knobs are 0.1MIL per click. The neat thing with MIL is that you can zero at 100 yards then set the knob at 0 for that distance. Next, go on JBM or whatever you use and work up a come-up chart in MIL. Now, you just dial the number on the elevation knob that corresponds to the distance and fire away. Disl back to 0 to get back to 100 yards.

I'm an MOA guy, but sometimes I pull out my PRS rifle with the MIL scope and go play. In one complete revolution, I can go from 0 to 900 yards, just clicking to the number I need for the distance. It makes it easy for this old guy.

What?

I'll be back in the morning.

Sir, just looking through each Willy nilly or has there been some sort of in depth side by side testing and comparison?

Ringman,
IIRC, you have Presbyopia or other visual impairment, is that correct?

That would be at 100 meters, not yards. To clarify, a milliradian is ~3.438 MOA, or approximately 0.1 m/10 cm/3.937” at 100 meters and 0.1 yard/9.144 cm/3.6” at 100 yards. So a click value of 0.36” at 100 yards is about 0.1 MRAD.

Using the bullet weight and description, and the velocity mentioned, I went to JBM and prepared a quick 100-1000 yard come-up series. We're talking about a 6.5mm (.264) 131gr HH with a claimed G7 BC of .255 and an MV of 3700. At sea level, 59F, 0%humidity and 29.92 hg pressure, with a sight height of 1.5 inch we have as follows:

100 - 0 MIL
200 - 0.1
300 - 0.4
400 - 0.9
500 - 1.3
600 - 1.9
700 - 2.4
800 - 3.1
900 - 3.8
1000 - 4.6

So, what I would do is zero the rifle at 100 yards. Once there, I would reset the elevation dial cap to have the 0 located at 6 o'clock. I would dial in the 0-set to that point. Now, when I want to shoot at 500 yards, I dial the elevation to 1.3 MIL. If I want 900 yards, I dial to 3.8 MIL. If I want to go back to 200, I dial back to 0.1 MIL. From 0 to 1000 yards, if I have the load right and the ballistics proper, these distances can be all covered by less than 1 half turn of the elevation dial. This could not be simpler. Forget about centimeter and inches and conversions., just think MIL number.

If we were doing this in MOA, it would go from 0 to 15.75 MOA for the same distance.

Seafire, I have a military chart at 127 yd on the pump house and a 12 or 13" deer antler at a 131 yd which is in the woods. The scopes I've mentioned were compared side-by-side on various magnifications and in low light to see which one would last after sunset and for how long.

My avatar is a photo of the chart. It's about a foot square.

Yes, meters. Technically, you are absolutely correct. I was trying to dumb it down as much as possible.

Ringman you have yourself a lazer beam.......

Ballistic coefficient G7 of 211. 300 yard zero with mid-range of 3" and only 4" down at 350 yards.

Ringman
Specs on what ever that rifle is please?

dave

So, .211 G7 BC. That's the 7mm bullet, not the .264 that I talked about earlier. I ran the numbers through JBM.

They go to 5.5 MIL at 1000 yards. So just a tad over a half twist of the MIL elevation turret on the March to go from 0 to 1000 yards. Easy peasy.

I’d rethink that 300 yard zero. With scopes that dial and good holdover reticles these days, there’s no reason. You are just working potential problems into your system. No human can shoot as well at 300 as you can at 100. Zero at 100, where you can see the very center of the X ring and aim precisely. And where environmentals will have much less of an impact. Then cut your dope off that 100 yd zero and just dial up to 300 (if that’s what you’d otherwise want your zero to be) and leave it there while you are out in the field hunting. Or 200. Or whatever. In any case, zero at 100 for precisions sake.

You have a very capable long range scope. Zeroing at 300 is an old way of thinking from back when we wanted to maximize our point blank range.

Just my thoughts.

Interest, never seen that before. What does the chart denote?

I don't understand the question. It has smaller and smaller groups of lines so one can easily discover one optic set on the same magnification as another is or is not better.

Okay, you made a sale. The reticle is pretty much a cross-hair. There is a thick post below the center and thick sides out from the center. I will check their distance on 10X or 12X.

The other day I fired at a gong about 590 yards away. A range friend was watching to see if I hit. There was no dust ANYWHERE around. How many clicks should I have moved the turret to go up approximately 30"?

I will post some info on "wildcats". It will be 7-.338RUM.

I thought perhaps the lines had significance. From your description it’s just a focal point to compare and contrast two optics against. Sounds a little subjective.

Well, first stop thinking in inches and train yourself to think in moa, since you have an moa scope.

To answer your question though, somewhere around 5 moa or 20 ish clicks. Of course there are a lot of unknown variables. A ballistics app downloaded on your phone will prove useful.

Now next question, why not a higher BC heavier bullet? Gain some advantage to all that powder. The days of “flat shooting” are also outdated, imo. Wh ycare about flat shooting and extending your mpbr when we have rangefinders, ballistics aps and scopes that dial?

SDHNTR,

The scope is in mills. I normally think in MOA. This mill thing will be OK once I get a handle on it.

When one has two optics side-by-side it's becomes quite obvious if one is better than the other.

Oh, sorry I misread.

👍

I know you know. Just wanted to make sure it was clear for others.

Damn, can't hardly believe if you spend 3X you wind up with a better optic.

...Color me shocked that anything could knock the ol' 6500 outta the top spot though. Proud of your growth Ringmam!

Rich,

just to let you know.. who ever this SEEfire person is... its NOT me... SEAfire

great I now have a wannabe troll....

Thanks for the heads up. I just noticed the change in spelling. I think I'll put him on ignore and then I won't be confused since I'm old and simple minded now.