I’ve been considering what scope would work well for my longer range AR which is built based on a WOA varmint upper. I’ve never had the money for really high end scopes so have never been able to play with different options to see what works best.

My question is based on heavy bullets and 12” steel at distances of 600 yds plus. What is the minimal magnification you would want, after you had learned the scope, to shoot at those distances using quality glass.


The first scopes that come to mind are the Trijicon Credo 1x8, Nightforce NXS 1x8 and the Nightforce 2x10 scopes. Would these be realistic for the average shooter with average eyesight or would you opt for more? If opting for more, what experience has driven you to you position?

Magnification - just magnifies the problems.

Can't see needin' anything more than 1x/100 yds. for anything larger than varmints.




GR

If your just shooting steel I'd say a 6-24 or more. If you hunting and distances can go from your shoe laces to 600 yards I'd look at one of the 2-12s for me 500 is a stretch and most times I'd pass on a 500 yard coyote and come back later and get.closer..

Any one of those would make me pretty glad.Maybe not quality glad....but pretty glad.

I have 3 rifles built around shooting 600ish yards. One has a 2.5-10 NF NXS, one has a 2-10 Leupold VX-5HD, and one has a 3-15 SuperChicken.

I kinda prefer the top power around 10x, the SWFA didn't have a job and is a reliable scope, so it got picked, and I rarely use 15X. Maybe 12X at the most.

I can make 1X/100 yards work if the scope has fine crosshairs. But I certainly don't think more than 2X/100 is necessary. I've under 1MOA at 600 yards with a fixed 6X SWFA scope before.

For 600 yards something with 9X or 10X on the upper end should be fine.

I appreciate the comments. I had initially gone with a very large and heavy scope. I really liked the magnification but the trade off was that much more weight making an already heavy rifle more difficult to carry and handle.

I’m starting to do the research and consider options. I guess the choice will come down to 8 or 10 power. It seems that training to the magnification is the real issue.

The Nightforce have always been on the radar in x10.

I'd prefer 6x as the minimum, though it could be done at lower. If it was only going to be used for targets (maybe occasional hunting) and you weren't focused on "best" glass, I'd prefer a 10x SWFA if most of the time shooting was going to be at distance. The 10x SWFA is (IMO), the best back for the $ on a recreational target scope.

I use the NX8 1-8 and NXS 2.5-10's on several rifles. The 1-8 can be used at distance, but the reticle isn't designed for pinpoint accuracy there...it's designed for on target hits, but not fine work.

The NXS 2.5-10 will work very well at distance, and the ability to adjust parallax for on target resolution with it is great...but it will need to be used at 10x for reticle references.

Are you talking about the base SWFA or the HD?

I have a base that I use on 22’s. Dialing back and forth on a 22 with that scope is pretty amazing.

I was referring to the base SWFA 6x and 10x. I didn't think about the 10x HD but it would be a glass quality improvement.

I enjoy dialing with 22's using a 6x SWFA. It works great for tree rats as well.

I've killed a number of big critters at 600 with 10x and 12x. I might just be justifying my scope choices (which are mostly driven by trying to keep the rifle light enough) but when you get into higher zoom ranges even at those distances it gets harder to figure out what direction the animal has run after it gets hit.

Everyone has their own preferences, but when I was getting ready to squeeze one off at my bighorn ram 570 yards away at 9x, I distinctly remember wishing for a couple more x's.

Since then, most all my main hunting rifles, big game and varmint, have 3-15x scopes.

I think more is better, but it's more about matching the reticle to the target.
For instance, in HP we shoot a 4.5x scope out to 1,000. The 10 ring is 2 MOA and most reticles have a 1 MOA or smaller dot.

Practice & good young eyes work for almost any range with 4-6x magnification. Sadly my eyes are old & damaged so more magnification is necessary for me to be comfortable at longer ranges.

I love 3-15 & 4-16 for performance past 300 & under 900 yards on a scope I’d hunt with even small critters out to 500. For targets 24 is as much as I’ve used on something not a dedicated bench gun. Those ranges of magnification cover just about everything for my uses.


The 4.5 - 14 works for me too and even 12x makes a substantial difference over 9x for me.but I prefer a reticle system for faster shots at big game even if dialing is available. I’m also ok with plain duplex & holdover on familiar rifles at 500 on deer or pig sized animals past that I’d never use it for an animal that wasn’t wounded.

A 3.5x15 SWFA would fit the bill perfectly for an AR shooting out to 600 yards.

Good quality glass and the optic itself is not overly large.

An example on a 16" gun:

Check out the Hawke WA 1-8x with Camera Land. I think it’s in the $400-$500 range. Mine seems very well put together with some interesting reticle options.

Put some optical horsepower on it.....a 6-24 isn't too much at those distances. You'll be glad to have it. Go to Cameraland.com and look at the Arkens. The EPL4 6-24 is just an excellent scope and even list price is way below how good it is. Plus they're on sale now and at that price it's a no brainer. ** I have several, and compared it to the Zeiss 6-24 which costs 3x as much. My eyes could tell no difference in optical quality, the Arken also has a more forgiving eyebox. I returned the Zeiss.

As would a 4.5-14x42. I was just shooting at 600 the other day with a 4.5-14x42 Burris AR specific scope on an AR on a 10" plate. Hitting it with no issues at all. That's the minimum power I'd want. Using my 5-20x56 Nightforce makes it easier and then the 7-35x56 ATACR, even that much better. But if we are talking absolute minimum power, for my eyes 14x is it. YMMV. I for damn sure wouldn't be using a 1-8 power.

On a target bigger than this one, your 4.5 scope will work.


I believe the op is asking about a good scope for hitting a 12" target at 600 yards. Lets try to help the OP out, not hinder him with a 4.5x scope.

OP's question.
Least magnification for quality glad at distance, (12” steel at distances of 600 yds plus.)

I have a Trijicon 1-6 on an AR. Great glass, I love the scope. However at 600yds plus it would not be my first choice. I also have an Athlon 2-12 Helos BTR Gen 2. Its another good scope. It would work well for your application, But it still would not be my first choice at that distance.

At 600yds plus I would prefer a little more magnification. I have 2 Arken 4-16x44 FFP scopes on AR's. Many people say that 16x is not necessary at 600 plus yards. And they are correct. It may not be necessary, but it sure is nice. I have shot 1000yds with a 3-9 power scope. you can put hits on target. But imo I would rather shoot with a scope at 14, 15, or 16 power. I have several Leupold VX5 3-15 HD's that are on bolt guns that work well at that distance. I also have a Leupold VX
6 HD 3-18 on a 260 Sako that works well at that distance. When you are talking about setting up a gun to shoot 600yds Plus. why limit yourself to a minimum magnification? You can always dial it down if you are shooting at closer distances.

For $550 the Trijicon Credo 3-9 would be a great scope for that application. Great glad, good eye relief, great eye box, reliable, repeatable and outstanding illumination control.

I'd just as soon drive a 6x MQ,rather than fhuqk around. 2 MOA at 600yds,don't even begin to tap it's inherent abilities and it's reticle is easy to hold HARD. Hint.

While I have a couple/few Barkin' ARKEN's and BTR Gen2 2-12x Mil/Mil Lit Bitches,the 6x MQ gives up nothing in the fray in 600yd steel. I want my Barkin' ARKEN's at no more than 16x,though I own them all. The BTR Gen2 is tough to whoop for Killing. Locking turrets,mechanical zero stop and daylight BRIGHT illumination,do not suck. Hint.



Burris has as of yet,to make anything worth a fhuqk. Trijicon struggles mightily with reticles and their tracking is neither warm or fuzzy. NightFarce tries. Hint.

As SWFA goes,I've a herd of 3-15's in both DMR SFP and MQ FFP's. The FFP's are Skookum. On a Krunchenticker,I prefer the 1-6x HD LitBitch MQ. Hint.



Internals mean farrrrrrrrrr more than X's. Hint..................................

What about a Leupold Fixed 4x??

I've never seen/shot one,that tracked,repeated or held zero. Hint............................

More is nearly always better, depending on how the gun is to be held (rest, bipod, hands, etc.). Given a rest, I'd say go with a 50x March!

I'm just trying to temper the discussion with a little reality and point out that the reticle is as important as the magnification.
As another example, a shooter can successfully clean a 6MOA bull with a 2 MOA 10 ring using a 4MOA dot reticle. It's all about matching the reticle to the target. Sometimes I like to put my 1/2 MOA dot inside the 1 MOA (or even 1/2 MOA) X ring. Other times, I like a 10 MOA ring around the bull, ignoring the dot entirely.

[quote=IZH27

12” steel at distances of 600 yds plus. What is the minimal magnification


?[/quote]


If you can see the target and have nothing better, 12 can work, but why screw around. To have fun doing it, 24X is the minimum I would want, and you're saying 600 PLUS......24 at 600 is like 4x at 100. Use 24x at that distance and you won't be wanting to dial it back to 12 or 15. And if you've 32x available, you'd be using that instead. Go to a shooter website with lots of serious match shooters and see what they're using for that sort of thing.

1.5 MOA steel here at 900yds. Hint.








In The REAL World,Magnification makes minimal fhuqks,within reason. Reticles and internals,STEAL The Show. It's never been tough to savvy who shoots and who don't. Hint.

6-24x here. Hint.



4-16x here,which is VASTLY superior,in The REAL World. Hint.



Though admittedly,I'm talking EXCEPTIONAL Rifles,which actually fhuqking exist. Hint.

Fhuqking LAUGHING!....................

I've got a little 1-6 x lpvo mounted on a m4 colt. it's actually surprising what you can do in that power range 400 yd hits on an 8-in gong is very doable
that's really as far as I played with that set up I would say 600 yards is quite doable on a 10 to 12 in Target..

That doesn't support communist China, so it's a no-go.

PaulaBurnedHard,

I've simply shot/got 100's of scopes and am rather at ease in the first hand extrapolations of same,as you Whine aloud...you "lucky" kchunt. Hint. Congratulations?!?

What happened to your "heralded" Avatar? HINT.



Fhuqking LAUGHING!....................

Thanks for all of the comments. A lot to consider.

To clarify I have had a large high mag high end scope on the rifle. It was quite unbalanced due to so much weight above the bore. Above magnification that is the primary issue that I’m trying to resolve.

Second would be to find a combination that is a bit lighter for better carry. That may not be such a big deal since the AR is beefy as built.

Age is showing me: It takes more Xs now than it did then.

Through my twenties I killed tons of schitt with a 2.5-7x32 Weaver V7 on a Win 670 30-06. Ground squirrels out to 300 yds.......not a problem. Deer? Elk? I never wished for more glass.

Today at the range, at 300 yds, I found the resolution on a Leupie VX3i 3.5-10x40 lacking. A Vortex Viper at 16X was barely adequate for the task. But some of that should be blamed on the targets chosen. The target was a bit complex. A plain black bull would have served better.